01-17-90 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, L990, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY EALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ADMINSTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DI SCUSSION
.t^k
CAI,L TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
l. Preliminary !1at to subdivide 3.9 acres into one singlefamily 1ot of I.49 and an outlot ot 2.42 acres on pr5pertyzoned RSF antl located at 2150 crestview r,ane, Thoaris ind ieanShively.
2. Preliminary pLat to subdivide 20.9 acres into trro singlefamily Lots of I0.l and 10.2 acres on property zoned i.R andlocated off of Dogwood, east of rake uinnEw."irti, jr"-l northof Crimson Bay, peter and Deanna Brandt.
3. *ITEM TiIITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT*Mike Sorenson, cold storage warehouse facility located onHruy. 2I2 just northeast of Hwy. 169:
a. conditional use pernit Amendment for the expansion of thefacility.b. Site Plan Review for the Expansion of the site.
4- zoning ordinance Amendment to modify the recreational beach-1ot ordinance to clarify 1ot depth iequirements.
5- zoning ordinance Amendment to amend the city code for nodifi-cations to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinince for the RSFDistrict standarils dealing with lot irontage and access byprivate driveways.
5. *ITEM DELETED BY STAFF*
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article If, Sections20-56 through 20-70 pertaining to procedures for the issuanceof variances.
NEW BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
EHINH[SSEN
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE:Jan. 17,'I9gE:
C.C. DATE: Feb. 12, 1990
CASE NO: 89-16 SUB
Prepared by: Al-Jaff/v
Fz
o
=(LL
f
E
UJF
@
L
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 4 Acres into a1.5 Acre Parcel anal a 2.5 Acre Outlot
PROPOSAL :
LOCATION:215 0 Crestview Lane
Tom and Jean Shively
215 0 Crestview Lane
Chanhassen, Ir{N 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE :
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
RSF; Residential Single Family
4 Acres
RSF, single family residence
RR, single family residence
RSF, single family residence
OI , llinnetonka Jr. High
N-
s-
E-
w-
T{ATER AND SEVIER:l{ater is not available to
serrer is availalbe to the
the site only.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: tow Density Residential
The northeasterly quarter of the site contains
an existing house. The site slopes down from
the northeasterly corner to the southwesterly
corner. the site contains scattered maturetrees. Access to the site is available through
Crestview Lane which in turn connects with aprivate driveway which leads to the existing
house on the site.
the site, while
eidterly' half of
APPLICANT s
PEYSICAI CEARAC. :
\
3N Dtra
GI
8n
ooN(.4
oo
I
ooa
o
888a
I
ooI8e
I
oo!
I
o
LtU HH
iLe
t.u tt sot
I
I
a,r.lc
LAKE ANII
z
c,
E
in
LA
oi
sr
?t
,1
+o
6
E
*c
c
CLE)thc
tl(E
c
L
%",
LA6€_ACf
-] RD.
t!
U
/
.RD
R
I
D
Shively
January
Page 2
Subdivis ion
I7, I990
BACKGROUND
There are no actions of recortl concerning this site.
PEqPOSAL,/SUMMARY
fhe applicants ale lequesting approval to subdivideparcel into one lot and one outlot. The 1.49 acreoccupied by an existing home. The 2.42 acre outlotreserved in an undeveloped status.
a 3.91 acrelot would be
would be
The site is located at the western terminus ofcul-de-sac. Crestvierd Lane provides access tostreet is not developeil to current standards.
the Crestview Lane
cR 1I7. The
The subdivision request itself is a relatively simple actionthat is supported by staff, however, it raisei a nimber of issuesthat r.rarrant consideration. Access is the most important andpotentially the most controversial issue. In revilwing pfiiproposal , it is normal practice to attempt to gain an - '
undelstanding of future. subdivision pote-ntia1.- ttaving done so,modification to the plat are consideied that are inteiaea io pro-vide reasonable access so that a comprehensi"., -s.ie-.ra-r,iit
quality street system can be developld in the iuture.
Upon review of the plat, staff concluded that there is con_siderable development potential on outlot A and r imi ted -fotentiar
on Lot 1. we also believe that access to parcels locatei to thesouth should be considered. This area is Lurrentry outside theMUSA line and no development requests have been reieived but thepotentiar remains. The property to ttre south is incluiled in theexpansion of IiUSA line as piopoied by the draft, Comp plan imend-ment.
Based upon our analysis, we ate recommending that a ROw easementbe taken over L,ot L and Outlot A that is deiigned to serve teopurposes (refer to Exhibit A). The first goal is to allotr for areasonable extension of Crestview to serve future subdivision ofthe site. The second is an extension that could provide anoption for serving property to the south. As proposed neitherroad would be built until development is proposed.
Staff acknowledges that the road extensions, particularly the oneto the south, is 1ikely to be controversial and that the proposedalignnent may ultimately prove not to be optional.Unfortunately, the only opportunity the city has to obtain ROwfor future streets is during the subdivision process and we canonly make our recommendations based upon currently availableinformation. Failure to obtain ROW in a tirnely manner couldpreclude having a reasonable development pattern in the future.
The second and somewhat related issue concerns variances for lot
width that result on both lots as currently proposecl. Staff can
Shivel
Januar
Page 3
ubdivision7, 1990
ySyI
find no hardship to support the variances. However, dedication of
the roatl ROw as proposed by staff will eliminate the variances.
The third issue is the Park and Recreation Commissionis request
to obtain a 10 foot wide easement for a trail. The trail is
located along the north property line and will be used to provide
access to Minnetonka Jr. High. This recommendation has been
included as a condition of approval .
There are no other
city utilities antl
subdivided.
significant issues at this time. Lot I has
Outlot A will not equire them until it is
Based upon the foregoingl staff
approved without variances and
Streets
is recommending that the PIat be
subject to appropriate conditions.
The subject property is located at the end of Crestview Lane an'l
nii ioo-f""t'of'public street frontage' The applicants are.
oiooosinq to subdivide the proPerty into one 1ot an'l one outlot'
ii.-pi"p6"". subclivision woirld- result in Lot I anil OutLot A not
tr""l'rg Lhe requiretl 90 feet of public street frontage'
As part of any subdivision, staff reviews acquisition of street
rig'ht-of -way Lo serve the subject site. and,/or a'ljacent proper-
liEi. -si.t.. r,,ot f and outlot A have the Potential for future
subdivision and are lacking public street frontage, statt 1s
;;;;rt;;ei;s that risht-of:wiv be extended from crestview Lane
ii*t,lUii al. ln a6dition ro iervicing future subdivision of the
;;j;;a p;"perty, the extension of crestview Lane Row wirl also
pioiia" iot'r ana outlot A rrith the required street frontage''st.ff
"1"o reviewed the existing lantt use surrountling the pro-
p"ii' i. determine whether to pieserve lOW for access to atljacent
irop|rties. The subject site is abutted to the north by Pleasant
ititi suudivision which is completely developeil. The Propertydirectly to the west of the subject site is the Minnetonka Jr'
ttigh Sc-hool. The proPerty to the south of the subject site is a
laige parcel occupied by a single faurily home. This 1ot is
tocitea outside oi the current tltUSA line which follows the siters
southern property 1ine. The parcel is accessed by a long private
driveway that reaches CR 117 by crossing over another parcel .
The city wiII be reviewing the Comp Plan amendment this year that
would be proposing to include this property within the ltlUSA line.
Since there is potentiaL for subdivision of this property in the
future, staff felt that an access to the ProPerty should be pre-
servedl as part of the Shively subdivision (Exhibit B). If Outlot
A is never subdivided, as stateal by the applicant, ancl the prop-
erty to the south is subdivided the city wilL have lost an oppor-tunity to preselve access if it is not recommended at this tine.
Therefore, staff has a responsibility to recommend that such
access be provided at this time.
Shively
January
Page 4
Subdivision17, L990
Staff has met with the appticant and has discussed our proposed
lecommendations . The applicant does not agree with provicling the
ROw to the property to the south. After much discussion, theapplicant has agreed to proviile extension of Crestview Lane ROw(Exhibit B), but will not agree to provide lhe 50 foot easementto the south. Staff stated that we would word the recommen_dations in such a way that the planning Commission and Councilcould require both eitension of crestview Lane and the 50 footROW to the south or only the extension of Crestview Lane. ifonly the extension of Crestvieh, Lane is provided, ttre tacf ofadequate street frontage will still be rlsolved and no varianceswould be required.
The proposed subdivision will locate the driveray servicingexisting residence on Lot l over a portion of Ouilot a.Therefore, staff is recommending thit a cross easement fordriveway servicing Lot l be proiiaea ""ro"" Outlot A.
the
the
Utilities
Park Dedication
The Park Commission reviewed the plat on January 9, 1990. TheCommission recommended that a 10 foot easement ior the purpose ofpeilestrian cross access be provided along the northerly- lot lineof the subject site (Attachurent *7).
The site is serviced by sewer but is not yet serviced with srater.The. subject site and surrounding propeiti6s on cresivier-"nii west65th street were recently inclu6e& ,iitrin the MUSA line as oartof an amendment to rhe comp plan due t; i.iii";-!"pii.-=i!ti.".
The area was included in the MUSA line with a condition that itappJ.ied only to exisring properries and that "aaiai;;;i ;;;;.r_ties could not be hookei-up Lo the sanitary sewer until thesurrounding area !{ere also included in the MUSA rine iati".r,*.ntl:). rhe proposed subdivision wilt be utitizing-ir," i"r"i-"rathe outlot witl not be able to be developed until it i; -- -
replatted.
The Fire fnspector has reviewed the subdivision and has recom_mended that rdhen the property is further developed and hai waterservice that an additional fire hydrant shall UL require-(Attachment *6).
Lot
Area
7 I ,258
15,000
COUPLIANCE TABLE
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FA!{ILY DISTRICT
Lot I
Outlot A
outlot B
15,000 90
55,000 250 * 260
S etbacks
30'front20t rearL0' side
47.8'front55/L00'sitle *r
120 i rear
N,/A
N/A
Subdivision
1989, subject to
providetl extension of
-of-way for future access
own in Exhibit A. The
o designate Outlot A asIot B being the separatethe 50 foot right-of-way
Lot
wiilrh
Lot
Depth
I25
N/A
N/A
N/n *
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Ptanning Commission reconrmends approval of
*39-16 as shown on the plat tlated December 11,
the following conilitions:
la. The final plat sha1l be amended to provide right-of-way for
the extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B.
b. The final plat shall be amend
crestview Lane and a 50 foot eal toright
as sh
ded t! Out
on of
to
f in
Out
out
to
the
aI
1otlot
the
propelty to the southplat sha1l also be amen
A and Outlot B (etithou
createal by the extensi
south).
z A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the
northerly border of Lot l, Block 1 and outlot A.
Shively Subdivis ion
January 77, L990
Page 5
* Lot 1, Block t has an 80 foot frontage which requires a Iot
frontage variance. With the 15 foot wide street ROw
tleclicaf.ion proposeil by staff, the 1ot will have ailequate
f rontage .
r*ThehomeonLotl,Blocklwoulilmaintaina35footsetback
after the tledication of the 15 foot wide street ROW'
ShiveI
Januar
Page 6
ubclivision7, 1990
ysy1
I
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
3. Outlot A (and Outlot B) shal1 not be replatted or developeduntil the surrounding area is included in the l{etropolitanUrban Service Area as conditioned by the recent inciusion ofthis property into the UUSA 1ine.
4. Future subdivision of the property and extension of thewatermain to the ploperty witl relutt in the requirenent ofan additional fire hydrant as reconmended by tfrr:' fiie- -
Inspector.
5' A cross easement-sha1l be granted over outl0t A (o! outl.t B)to Lot 1, Block I.'
ATTACHMENTS
. lrl,lPlt A showing easenent over Lot 1 and Outlot A.. Exhibit B showing easement over Lot I and Outlot A.. Overall area -. Engineering memo dated Jnauary 10, 1990.. II{USA amendment.. lirg Inspector rnemo dated January 4, 1990.. Park and Recreation memo dated Jinuary 9, 1990.. Preliminary plat dated December 11, 19g9.
N
I
il.lca+\
ci\
N
,.LO T.t{-
o
.-u a\8\t\q.\
\JS.\\TJ
;\
'(IN
,'\ !'-< o\
\.';\
l's
:
t
Cr--\tt|
!\
c\
\D\
c ,P
.Se
z3
1066
I
II
*-ff,
I
oo
sI
>
O)
\
q
s
vJ
!
-jlssFis
-$
'oo-
c
o
_- 3?
/b'!
I Dr,,€<.-ouT L O'o^
"o
:J
o
\
'1,
\4
I
a7/ Lrw.r'
Jarnet t
ose
-3r{ ccr ot S
sec. 3- 1tt.
.4?. o {,Se.c/b,, 3, r.//1.8,2,Co4r,r,)- lnOnl/rrea I
4/a.90
I \.9./t
se<- . 3
,/,r.ze of. rtz) .z 4
ExHiEtr A' .,2-zz- Bz ;7-.po a.s
r;
I
J
b
r'
5
\\\\
\
4?7
ztr-ta//r.-,.," a)A.
-?.oo ',40
IEL
lNC
SHIVE LY ADDIT IO,
I
t
t
I
I
i
I
I
I
t
qs
s\
N
A
I
\
a
fujttltLt-
't lrug
-- 3i: -
I
'os
3r
lr
I
PRELIMINARY PLAT
N
\---_Ot
n\\
\r,
,/o /c*L
I
I
\
ei\
N
0
t1
)t
..i q\rc\q. .r, \'
S*'
T\
!\;
;i
IN
,lR !'
i$\
;\
l=
s
s\l\
Nt,!)r{ro66
.i.
I
oo
t
b
I 11,
--
8tn
>'
sr a)
Rls(C\
dlYi
r-- Silq--.
'eo-9
r
T
-I
I.
/b
c
Ii,t
-\
I
C<esrvteu)
1-l-* t e
-ouTLO'
o^
"6.
A
,,),',)-.))',z.t(,r{s: \
'\"i
I
/OSe
o/
4,'6.9ol-5* ccr o1 sej c/ ,<,'w !seF' 3. 7//a, 2 2,
q ,t a{..gaalioa 3, f /t6, Ez7a 7arrl)'monUmca.
/. ,2-zz- 8? Tapo 6enP7+>/
*l* o-." oa -. ,.u, ,, z- zaf z z3 a
I
a7/ r<,.'w'4
EXHIBIT B
3
6,89
IIEL
9. tNC.
477
zt91
r h.rrbv ..{& !..r rnn n l
u. !orn\ia'!.t ol !h..!or. @Er'!.(rr..ld ed 5r rh.rc.non ot.lr Eund,nar.
'l .nr, rlr.r@, .na ,t ''!t ..6_oad|.6r. 'l -y. ho6 or o^ .!d r..d
,"Q
- 7ro o
, //h ,,,
PLAT
SHIVE LY ADDIT IOI
I
tt-,n'
I
/i
o
36\ c71_
I'Dnv
€.,+..1t
a\\\\\ ..\
I
I
\1
\
I
-. 3?! -
''\, Janes 8;
^
PRE LlMINARY
/,,,40
'1
(
f
ro.
afiv
I
t
Eo
"PEo
F
T.t *
tr:aiis
I
l
I
I
1
I
6
r{o
k
z
t,
I
0s
$a(r
tz
El
E
(-
i-
ir,
,rro,
tllz9*T
9t
:rti
tttE
g
,s
u
a
aoot?o'
o
-t-'o
GHlJtlllr
:.r
!
9a,a
--t-
co.
I
1
!
,_
{t
I
I
5i
I
II
G
t
ti
-l '
,rQ_tI
.L
B
t9
:I
ri
ITi
-tr.'-
:!'t:9
??,
l'
I
I
BN'
?o
Eoi
f
3t
i
I
I
I
I
i
&o
,ti.
IE
:I
ri
-o
a
i
l
UEITTORANDUU
TOs Sharmin Al-Jaff, planner I
FROM! Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician lW
DAIE: January 10, 1990
SUBJ: Preliminary plat Review of Shively AdditionFile No. 90-1 Land Use Review
690 COULTER DRIVE. PO, BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937_5739
CITY OF
CHfiNH[SEEN
The ploperty is currently served with City sanitary sewerihowever, gravity service will only serve the easterly half of thep1at. City water is not currently available. The nearest Citywalermain is in Crestview Lane approxinately 500 feet to the eastof the plat. The watermain was not extended to the site withsanitary sewer because the residents had new wells and thereforefelt no benefit of it being extended at that t,ine.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
This subdivision tloes not propose any grading.
Upon review o! lhe preliminary plat for Shively Ad<iition datedDecember 1l-, 1989, prepared by DeI"Iars Gabriel Land Surveyors,1nc., I offer the following comments and recommendat ionsi
STREETS
crestview Lane is an existing cul-de-sac consisting of a 20-footwide bituminous mat irith bituninous berm curbs. ffre existingroadway has been deeded to tbe City. At this time, no furtherextension of Crestviel, Lane is proposed; however, when Outlot ais platted, Crestview Lane could be extended wesierly a;dpossibly southerly. rt would be aclvantageous from a traffic flowstandpoint to have a street connection to the parcel lying southof this plat for future looping of the street iystem. -Th6refore,
at this time it is desirable to have dedicated on the plat thesouth 15 feet of tot 1, Block l for future right-of-way purposeswith the thought when Outlot A develops the remaining iS- felt ofright-of-way would then be dedicated. This wilt provide for theextension of Crestview Lane and allow for lots in- Outlot A tomeet ninimum size and depth reguirenents.
UTILITIES
F+
The existing gravel driveway to the current residence will be
encroaching upon outlot A. A cross easement should be obtained
for driveway purposes across Outlot A.
Sharmin A1-Jaff
January 10, 199 0
P age 2
ItlI SCELLANEOUS
RECOI{IIIENDED CONDITIONS
Gary warren, City Engineer
1. The applicant shall dedicate the south 15 feet of Lot 1,
Bl.ock 1 for right-of-way purposes.
DITE:
TO:
FNOM:
SI'BJECT:
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AHENDI.{E IIT
Hetropolltan ColElcll of the Twln Cltles Area
300 Uetro Sguare Bu1ldln8 r ?th and nobert gtrectsSt. Paul, Ulnnesota 55101 TeI. 612 Z?|-O3S1/TDD 291-0904
IUTHORITI TO NEVIEII
The UetroPolltan Land PlanDlDg -lct ot 19?6 r.gult^c! thet aDeDdDents to locaLccEprehenslve pIrys be prepared and auboltted to thr lletropolltan counclr forrevler and adoptloD 1n the e.?e laDner a! thc or.ltlDal plairs (Xfuo;;o;-Statutes l1!.q91, Subd.2, l!f,). CurOe,nis aiipt"d p*",,.nt to t{lnnegotastatutes 423.864 for revierlag proposcd ;;dili" p"i"ro" ro"-i 'gi_iii-."rr*
perl.d for aDeD&ents potentlally affectlDg on€ or Done of the Drtrcpolltana]'=te's, and a 60-c!ay revlcr pcriod ror aolraucnt! that do D"t d;;-;-;tent1allEpact on Detropolltan systeoa.
Chanhassen sutEltted lts proposed eleDdleDt oD Dcc@bcr A4, 19g6. On January9t 1987, the chalr oeterotned that tbe -;e;; had Do potentlal hpact uponany of the Detropolltan syste' plans ana ras ;mlscent utth oii"" o["ii"r" orthe lretroDolltan DevelorEent Guiae. rne aenaent taE praced on tue Jinuary?1 1??7, CoEent Llst, but raa rltharam Uy ,"iu""t of CouDcll DcoberJosephlne Nr.&n.
Thls plaD alen(hcnt proposes to ldd a 6.? ecrc arcacxtenslon of lerer servlce to 16 lot! (!6e attachcdcontlguous to thc Gxlstlng MUSA boundary. ErlstlDgbecause of a htgb satcr table, cpGatlDg a potcntlsl
IIiIALISIs
to the HUSA for eoergencyE!p). Thc area 1con-llte lylteos havc fellcdbeelth bazerd.
The Lake lnn- lgrccoent cntered lato bctreen the councll lnd thc cltles of EdeaPralrle aDd cha-DhalsGD provldGd that thele altlGs altablllh r Mrsa l1neconllstcnt rltb aa agrccd-to luppLy of vacant :.&d for Grcb c1ty. llo lcrrereddeveloreDt 1s to teke precc outllde tbat rtD.. rlthough thlo hcn&entprovldes lcreF rerrlce outEldc the lgrGed-to 11t!G, lt dOCc aot ooDtradlct thclntcDt of the rgreaent bccausc tbc rr6a to bc lDcludcrt !,r alncady -
lubstantla.:.ry deyelopcd. Flftc.a of tbe rlrt.ea 1ot! dready hevl bouscs. rnfact r thls aree lbourd bave bcea lDcluded rben thc lrusl re! drarra, !1Dc. 1t lErn cxlstlag developed area ooatlguous rltb tbG arlltr,Dg UUSI.
Horeover, there ls e potentlar health hezard that need! to b€ comectcd. slxof tttc on-slte serage dlsposal ElBteos have failed due to a hlgh rratcrtsble. The !o11 condltlons eDd high set€r tablG, together thc agc of thelyrt€Es (four to elght yea$), ladlcltc thet rdatittonsl fallurcs-are posslb1c.
-P-rD
,
January 26, 1987
l{etropoutan anat C@unlty Drvelo[Eent Co,,,ilttcc
Long-Raage Ptanahg Dept. (irlo Schoettler)
Ctanhassen C@prcheDslve plarl AlaDdocDt, Encrgeucy Ad(Utlon tol{UsA, Metropotltan Counclt Dhtrlct t Ir'councii}if e I tsglt-g- -
1
Mound systeus t oul,d be the Dost approprlate on-a1te solut1on. Hor.ever, theclty deteElned that the $5-101000 cost per unlt rras roughly coEparable totanltary sexer. Furthetlore, satrltary serrerg would be a pemanent Eolutlon tothe probleo. Adequate serer capaclty ls avallable through the exlstlng cltysyst€o. llo addltlonal hookupB beyond the clxteen LotE x111 be allorpd.
EINDINCS AND CONCLUSION
?he erea ls sDall 1n !1ze (5.7 acres) and contalns 15 cdBtlng hoEes rlth
one vacant lot. Because the area 1s 'already developed, Do eddltlonal
deveLopable land t,111 be rdded to the mrsl as a result of thls plan
een&ent.
2. The area prelents a potenthl he8l th hazard. At l.e!t !1r on-sltG ceptic
systeDs have falled. lddltloDal fall.ures are Ilkcly.
3. The cost of sr'ir tar.y !€rer ls roughly egul\rafent to Der on-!1te oJrsteEs,
but sanltary lerer has the advaltage of provldlag a petlanelt sol,utloD.
No addltloDal trookups beyond the slxteen lots 1111 be DeEltted.
NECOMMENDATION
lrs4386
That the l,retropolltan Councll approve thlr eendDcDt as an e:c€ptlon to but
not ln confllct rrlth the lntent of the Lake Ann agrc€aent. The Een&ent ls
conslsteDt Hlth Eetropolltan sy3 tet! plans, the Hetropollten Develofent 8nd
IBvestDent Fra8euork aDd other chapter! of the Uetr.opolltan Develoloent Culde.
\
CITY F
CH[NH[ESEII
690 COULTER ORIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
l.IE!IORANDU}t
TOt Jo Ann Olron, Seoi or plrnner
FROl.t t l,lar k Litt f in, Flro tnspector
DATEr Janu.ry 4r - LggO
SUBJ: 89-tE Sub (Shively)
Rcc ornnendat i on fron Fire prevent i on
The di3tance from the hqme at thrclo3e3t fire hydrant ir in exceB,ihould br given for an additlonelfor future buildings on outl.t A.
At thls point it ir not a requestbut just to be ,nake you .!rart.
and of Cregtvieu Drive to theot 5OO feet. Conri der at i onfire hydrent in anticipation
to edd .n additional hydrant
kb
CITY OF
EHANH[SSEN
PRC DATE: 1-9-90 ''
C.C. DATB! 2-L2-90
cAsE No: 89-16 suB 1
Prepared by: Sietsema:k
STAFF REPORT ?BC
Fz
c)
=(LL
E
LdF
U,
PROPOSAI:
215 0 crestview LaneLOCATION:
APPLICANT:
To subtlivide 3.9 acres int
acres and an outlot of 2.4
ne lot of 1.49
cres
oo2a
Thomas anil Jean ShivelY
2I5 0 Crestview Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
v-7
N- RSF
S- RR
B. PUD.R
f- OI, Office and Institutlonal
Although no City parks exist, the
I{innetonka Intelmediate Scho61 servesthis area. The Courprehensive TrailPlan calls for a trail connection fronwest 65th Street to Uinnetonka Internediate
School .
ADJACENT ZONING
AIID LATD USE:
EXISTING PARXS:
t1
PRESEN! ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
ACREAGE: 3.9 acres
Shively
Janua ry
Page 2
Subdivis ion
9, 1990
This proposal involves the subdivision of 3.9 acres into anoutlot anil a 1ot. The Cornprehensive plan shows this as an areaserved by the l.tinnetonka Intermediate School . Although no Citypark exists in this area, this srnall development does not repre-sent a suitable park acquisition possibiliti.
The conprehensive Trail pran calls for a trail connection betweenwest 65th street and the uinnetonka rntermediate school. pieaserefer to the attached memorandun dated Decenber l{, t9g9 roi ttrebackground on this isue.
As stated in the attached memo, this development presents theopportunity for the city to obtain the traii connlci ion -needea.
A 20r x 4I7' trail section is roughly .I9 acres with i vai"e otapproximately $2,000.
RECOUII{ENDATION
rt is the recommenclation of this office to accept park and traildecication fees in lieu of parkland and trail c-onsiruction, -and
to require the dedication of a 20 ft. wide trail segment aiongthe north property line. Staff would also reconmend that th"City compensate the landowner for this dedication at ttre fiirmarket value.
BACKGROUND
PARK AND RECREATI ON COUII{ISSION ACTION ( 1-9-90 )
The Park and Recreation comrnission discussed this issue at rengcwith the people that are proposing to purchase the Shively prop-erty, Michael and Kathy Schultz. The Schultz rs are not ii iavorof the pedestrian trail along this north property line. Theystated that they were not gpposeil to children walking throughthere, but dliil not want a formal trailway. A1though the -
Conmission was synpathetic to their concirns, they felt that aconnection to the llinnetonka Intermediate School ihould be pre-
served for future generations. The Comnission indicatedt thitthey would not like1y want to pave the trail any tine soon,.horever, if traffic levels mandatedl it, 6uch could occur a€ somepoint in the future.
h
The Park an
condlition t
cross accesIhe motion
ilR
hat
s.
car
ecreation CoDnission reconnended approval rith thea 10 ft. easement for the purpoae of i pedestrian
They asked that the City Attorney reyiew such.ried unaninously.
)
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
IIEIi{ORANDUU
EO: Don Ashworth, CitY Hanager
FROII: L,ori Sietsema, Park anal Recreation CoordlinatortlA
DATE: December 14, 1989 /
SUBJ: trailway from west 65th Street to llinnetonka
Internediate School
The saga cotion of a p
ui nne tonkacity's desi
residents a
time the Os
required a1
developer nsold. Sine
been provid
along Irturra
st!anded.
staff has researched a number of altelnatives. The wolf Pro-perty, just south of the ostrum Development, includes a narrow
strip of land to the Minnetonka Intermedliate School . The wolfrs
have agreed to sell the property to tbe City. Eoitever, upon sur-
veying the plopertyr rye have found tbat it varies frour 4.15 - 8.15
CITY OF
EH[[IH[EEEI{
in widtb, to narrow for a trailway. 'Irpon further investiga-Staff has found that the adjacent Shively property is -,
posed to be subtlividedl proviiling the City the opportunity toire the adlditional lantl needed. ',
ntinues as the City continues to Pursue the acquisi-
edestrian walkway from l{est 5Sth Street to the
Intermeiliate School . AE you will reca1l, it was the
re to provicle a pedestrian access to the school for
long tlurray HiII Road antl west 65th Street. At the
trum Development was approved, an easement was
ong the east and south boundlary. Unfoltunately, the
eglecteil to record the easement anal the lots were
e that time a trail through the t ater tower Property has
ed. Although this provides access for the residentsy Hill Road, the people along west 65th street remain
feet
t ion
Pros
acqu
ITIEMO to Don Ashworth
Page 2
The nissing link in the chain sould then be to acquire an ease_nent along the west side of the Ke11y property fro-n West 65ifrStreet or along the east side of Lot 5 of-pleisant Eills. --
At- this point re have entereil into a purchase agreement with theWolfrs and it is anticipated that the dedicatioi of fina ioitrail purposes will be iequired of the striv-ry-Juuai"i"ioi]- rnthe neantime, Staff wiIl work with the Kelly'-s and/ot it.--o*rr.r"of Lot 5 to obtain the ruissing 1ink. unresi otherwiie-dir..t.aby you, Council or the park aid Recreation Corurission, i-riifproceed as outlined above.
," \p"o
I
2?
e)
t5^lr,t4
I Gblo
3 $s
2
3
010 2oao
b340
(Ef
=
2t
80
oq,
s'\\LOT
ot
^r
tt'HLLL--- I..
D
T
2(,
ro o J,ofi
,&'b {
?
)s-$f
2
bL!44
o
oG
Ji
e$rr\.
q4
r*iioor.,tg bqb ,t
3
p9
I
--a
-r
IT !l-!IE EI
I
l
{
t,
t
(Of r
I SUIER MASS
I r.r r. p aori
orsTRlcf NO. 276
6r nE-
aa*a.a
,i.,"J}:E
Gt, F. na:r
E J At tlic
l, .r.' tl!
qtt)QlO jt
Aogx
ir.L-.65TH
ztl
t+o eoec
ST
t,5
?t] a
vSOTilM
F 6o
=
==:)I
co
4,
as\b
\
3l rt r:'l
!
ELODY
3r
HIUL
g\
,
r*r
S
I a,o
2
19,
t
scHooL
B(75,P1
rewl
aogl
s.:idPt.r!. ., w. !
::5
!ivtc
a6
EI a0dooo pr.go-e4 +".i t t aa.aa.t
L,
II- T--T-t
I
RE rt<fli r Nr'^r
{
6
I
I
.;:;epo
IHOMAS T SHIVE.Y
ooc trlot
I
^6\b"
I
$"d
a
A;r''.
br.' /
A
2roN
?
JIi
$r)'
,*oJ,ote't
r.l.1
)
B.
.'l
I
oo
o-.:E
ROLLING s'
'nfo
WALOf
t.
I
a-
SECONDMinngbooKo.
s.hoo\
,,.! isleicL
6 4
?
Y\vv 65TH1sa
p9 4 3.t
lD
t/s r. a,.
I--
I l, ,. r l,'r,..,i,
ITION:?"(-D.l -rra,u aGeIY')
l. '.1 t lll rr
L,^KE
't..'.i
--;r-r itr;,
P
.i t. r..r.r r' !... ?i i +t h. I ,': i.,li L
t-t;;=::-
c 13-!-r:!l,-:.u,rlA
,,!al3 ltr-lt
{
a
3\R
K
E.
s. Noi
|(D,Rt$
^l
s;cttt$
I I
;i
J{
LoE t
Blocr-1-
OqL LoE
llt.')vi.
A oull.o b
B
oL9
A+sh,,E'*3 F
ST
I
I
. 4. l.lrt..
''!l
I I t' I I
I
I
,'. :,t.. vf Y
CITY OF
west of TH 4L,
Dogwood Road
P.C. DAIE: .fan. 3,'t3gd r
C.C. DATE: ,fan.22, 1990'
CASE NO: 89-11 SUB
Prepared by: Olsen,/v
EHINHISSEN
STAFF REPORT
Prelininary plat Request to Create Two SingleFanily LotsFz
oJ(LL
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
south of Tanadoona Drive and east of
Xurt Laughinghouse
281 Norman Ridge DriveBloomington, UN 55437
B. & D. Brandt
5200 Beacon Hill RoadUinnetonka, MN 553{5
s
e
(
E
lrJh
@
PRESENT ZONING:
ACRE,AGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
I|ATER AND SETYER !
PEYSICAL CEARAC.:
N-
s-
E-
w-
RR, Rural Residential.
20 Acres
One unit per 10 acres
RR; single fanily
RR, llinnesota ArboretuE. & Crimson Bay
RR; vacant agricultural
RSF; single fanily
Municipal serviceE not available
Densely woodeil in the uest and south portiof the site with 6ome steep topography tosouth.
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Lor Density Residential
Z'e G L
v
J
NII!HEUASHTA
RD
-PUD-R
)
.l
Irrl.a troattmrl
l-
t-
L
T
I
A2
L
II
t
I
t
l
(
\
,xt
\
#*
VIfiMJ
a?ro tftt rr
s
Y OF CHANHASSEN
T I
r-
:
I
I
E
---
cl
T
B
J
Brandt Subilivi s ion
January 3, 1989
Page 2
2.
Attachment 11
Attachnent 12
Attachnent t3
In
th
Th
pr
th
fo
1987, this site pas the subject of a prelininat was almost identical to the plan currentlye najor issue that surfaced during the previouovsion of road access to the proposed lots. Oe_City Council approved the pieliminary subdivllowing conditions:
ary plat approvalbeing offered.s review was then July 6, L987 ,ision with the
I The app].icant shal1 be required to install a cuL-de-sac intoLoE 3, at the end of Dogwood; however, the applicant mav bealloweil to put in a driveway as approved by dity Statt.'
No development sha1l occur on either 5 acre lots untilconpletion of a feasibility study and the plans for that roadare determined.
A feasibility study shal1 be initiated to evaluate thealterantives to improving Dogrood Road and Tanadoona Drive,as well as evaluating the connection to the Worm property iothe south.
The developer be reguired to enter into a developnentagreement guaranteeing the installation of the inprovementsand provide financial sureties as required
Dedication of a 20 foot trail easenent along the south andeast property lines.
3
4
5
Consistent rith th
Tanacloona Drive an
Bazard-Stall ings ,four dtifferent roa
ranging from $255,
ec
dD
fncda
000
ity Council action, a feasibility Etudly for
ognood Avenue was prepared by VanDoren-. in June of 1988. The report identifieit
ccess alternates with improvenent coststo $302,t100. Preliminary assessment rollsuere identifietl depicting the allocation of costs to benefitingproperties.
On Uay 12, 1988, City Staff anil personnel from VanDoren-EazardStallings met with interesteal residents from surrounding neighborhood area. At the neeting, the alternative alignurents eerereviewedand public coEments were noted. At the conclusion of the
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Roger Uachmeier
City Engineer
Public Safety
BACXGROUND
Blandt Subdivision
January 3, 1990
Page 3
neetingr city staff requested that the resialents arrange a sub-
sequent meeting to discuss their petition to the City requesting
road maintenance and their further thoughts on the roail issue.
On September 15, 1988, the City received a letter from David D.
Getsch, a representative of the Dogwood Homeoeners stating,
'after review of the proposals antl options presented by variousparties ove! the past six months, a proposal was srade to withdraw
our reguest for road rnaintenance. That proposal was voted on and
passed unanimously. Please accept this letter as the official
sithdrawl of our reguest for road maintenance.'
On June 21, 1989, the Planning Cournission reviewed a preliminary
plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots andl one
outlot. The proposeal lots includeil one 10 acre 1ot, two five
acre lots and the outlot rrith 80 acres. The primary issue of
cliscussion during the Planning Commission review was the Location
of the trail easement anil the extent of improvements to the
existing roacl. The Planning Courmission recommenileil tabling the
item unail staff could further review the issue and reach a
conclusion on irhether a full 50 foot right-of-say shoultl be pro-
videtl, if certain improvements should be made to the site anil to
a1Iow the Park antl Rec Commission to reconsider the trail
easement Iocation ( Attachnent *4).
Since the Planning Commission last revier,{eil the subdivision
application, the 1OO acres was split into an 80 acre anil a 20
acre parcel . Since the parcels were 20 acres or nore and met all
of thL requirements as requireil by state statute, the spJ'it of
the 100 acre site was apProveil and recordeil at Carver County
without it having to receive Planning Conmission and City Council
approval . The 80 acre parcel is being developed .into one home
sile and the 20 acre parcel is being proposedl to be subdivided
into two I0 acre lots.
ANALYS I S
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acreparcels. As with previous review of this ProPerty, the proposecl
plat meets all of the requirements of the zoning orilinance and all
issues have been addressed, except the provision of road access
and location of a trail easenent. The current application isprovitling an atlditional rl0 foot wide ROtl adjacent to an existing
20 foot ROw to proviile the rural standard of 60 feet. The issueat hand is whether the 60 foot ROw should be inproveil beyond what
currently exists and what ailditional roadway easenents should be
provided to accoEmodate any future development that may occu!.
Access
The applicant is proposing to service Lots l and 2 by a drivewayexteniling from Dogwood along the power line easement (Attachment
l5). Since the current proposal deals only with the 20 acre parcel
Brandt Subtlivision
January 3, 1990
Page il
locatetl at the end of Dogt ooil, the city only has control overrequiling improvements to that portion of road ailjacent to the 2lots. The renaining length of Tanailoona Drive ancl Dogwood is notpar! theof the subdivision anal cannot be required to be improved.
Ihe Planning Conmission and City Council have several accessoptions to consider as part of the proposed subdlivision.
Ia. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line ofLots l and 2 to be conbined with the existing 20 feet of ROWfor the full 60r rural street ROW, but not require improve-nent of the ROW to typical rural city standard, ori
This option only adds to the problen of. having residences on
a- long uninproved deadend. Safe accessfiloes not exiat analshould be provided rhenever possibte.
b. Reguire deilication of the 40 feet and require the ROW adja-cent to Lots I anil 2 to be improved to rural city standaril.
This option would provide tso residences with street frontage
rDeeting city stantlards. Although these lots are at the endof a eubstandard street, the city should take advantage ofthe opportunity to inprove the eituation rather than exacer-bate it.
2. Provide ROW easenent for future street improvements over the
power easement, rrhere vegetation has already been rernoved andgrailing of the property has occurred (Attachment l6). fhis
reould result in the applicant deilicating a 100 foot easementrather than 40 feet.
This would result in leEs cost for irnprovi
rrould not further renove vegetation which
screen for nes anal existing residences.
n9
ls
the street anala protective
3 Provide atlditional roadway easement for future subdivision
and seconilary access to the site.
The property has potential for Eubdivision and seconalary
access must be Providedl.
In the pas
reviewed t
applicantnot improvexisting r
provides tto the two
mendi n3 Llr
upgratled tprivate dlr
oadwa
he ci
newl
a E bi'l
o cit
ives,
t, wh
he pr
s houl
e the
en the Planning Cou[rission and City Council have
oposedl suMivision it haal been stateil that the
d only be requiretl to provide right-of-rray and tostreet to full city standarals at this time. They contlitions are very poor and lhis Eubdivisionty with the opporEunity to reguire improved accessy created 1ots. Therefore, staff is again recom-
e right-of-way adjacent to Lots I anil 2 bey sLa,ralards rather than servicinE the lots *ith
as proposed by the applicant. one way to reduce
The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
and therefore, the lots have to provide trro approved septicsites. The applicant has provided soil borings which have beenreviewed by Roger Hachmier and .rim Anderson and have been
Easemen ts
The Park and Rec Commission reviewed this application on December
L2, 1989, and reguested that the applicant provide a 20 foottrail easement along the east boundary of Lots l and 2 antl alongthe south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast cornerof Lot 2 (Attachment 15). Park and trail fees shall be requireilin lieu of park dedication and trail construction.
The applicant is providling 40 feet of additional street right-of-
way along the westerly edge of Lots l and 2 and is providing a 30foot roaclway easenent along the northerly lot line of Lot 1.
The applicant is providing the typical utility easenents of 5 and10 feet on Lots I andl 2.
Utilities
Brandt Subdivis ion
.ranuary 3, 1990
Page 5
the cost of improvenents is to locate the street where the pro-
perty has already been alteretl by the powe! line easement (see
Engineering memo). Should the Planning Conmission and City
Council not agree rith inproving the street, staff is recom-
nentling that at the very least, an inproved turnaround and the 40
foot road easement be provided for future road imProvements.
Staff would also then recommend that tots I antl 2 shall raive
their right to contest future assessrnents as part of the improve-
ments to Dogwooal.
Staff has reviewed several alternatives for future road access
providing secondary access to the property. The alternatives
ieviewed includetl continuing right-of-way to the south of the
property shere the road connects to Crimson Bay antl then exit
onto awy. S. Staff also reviened several options for looping the
street back to lhe east where it would then join existing
Tanadoona Drive or connect with Hwy. 41. In the long term this
couldl offer an alternative means of access into the area. Staff
believes that if the UUSA line is altered in this area it coulil
support the tlevelopnent of a substantial number of homes. After
review of topography ancl existing vegetation, staff is recom-
nending that the applicant provide a 30 foot nide easement along
the noitherly line of Lot I which would providle location for a
future street looping back to Tanadoona Drive or connecting with
Hwy. {1. Staff is recommentling the provision of only a 30 foot
eaiement rather than the fu11 60 foot easement. Ihe remaining 30
foot easenent eould have to be acquireil from property to the
north when the property is further subdivided and,/or rhen a
public street is required.
Lot 2, Block 1 contains aIinnewashta. The wetland
Part of the crimson Bay swhich should be protected from alteration. LoL 2have to receive a wetlanil alteration permit priornents along the lakeshore incluiling instaLling airay. In the past, the City has not allowed a doca t etland and has instead required boardwalks bethe i{etland vegetation. The proposed home sitesdrives servicing Lot 1 anal Lot 2 rrilI not inpactacljacent to Lake Uinnerrashta.
Ordinance
Req.rirgrEnts
Iot
Area
2. 5 ac.
1 unit /10 ac
None
@MPLIAI{CE TABLE
100 feet(350i total
widlttr)
200 feet 200 feet
1000 ft.(aprox.)
1 will
improve-
al s tai r-
through
above
vate
land
There is a Class A
Etlarrl ad jacrert
to Iake l{innewashta
Class A wetland adjacent to Lakeis part of the same iretland which wasubdivision. It is a CLass A retland
, Blockto any
dock anktogo
l oeated
and pri
the wet
Il00 ft.
(alpro,(. )
N,/AIot I
L.t 2
Variances Regu ired:
RECOMMENDATION
10.2 acres 550 feet
10.1 acres
Planning staff recoEunends the Planning Connission aalopt the
following motion:
'The Planning Commission recot nenils approval of Subdivision
189-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989, with the
following conditions:
I. The 60 foot ROW (take Drive) proposeil rith this subdivision
sha11 be built to city standards for a rural street. Plans
Branalt Subdivision
January 3, 1990
Page 6
approved. The septic sites are shown on the seconal sheet of theplans and staff is reguesting that these be staked and protecteclfron any alteration during construction.
Graalinq and Drainaqe
See Engineering Department memo.
tletland
Iot
Frontaqe
Lot
Depth Wetland
Brandt Subilivision
January 3, 1990
Page 7
Letter from Roger Uachmeie
I{emo from Sr. Engineering
Irtemo f rom Publ ic saf ety da
Planning Conmission minute
ated June 14, 1987.
hnician dated ilanuary I0, 1990.
June 5, 1987.
ated June 21, 1989.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
rd
Tec
tealsd
Plans showing proposedl drive.
Palk anal Recreation repolt dated Uay 13, 1989.
Plans shorring proposed {0r right-of-way anil power line easement.Feasibility study dated June 2I, I988.Prelininary plat datedl Novenber 13, 1989.
antl specifications for the street construction shall be sub-
nitted to City Engineer for review and approval.
2. The developer shall enter into a development contract ancl
provicle the necessary financial securities to guarantee the
proper installation of the public improvenents.
3. The developer sha1l receive and comply with any necessary
permits from the tilatershed District.
4. The applicant shafl provide a 20 foot trail easernent along
the elst boundary of Lots I and 2, Block 1, z itnmerman Farm
andl along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block l, zimnerman
Farm froi the southeast corner of crimson Bay Roail, Crimson
Bay subdivision.
5. The two approveil septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
zinnernan Farrn sha11 be staked antl preserved.
6. Any access to Lake llinnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 sha11
require a IretLand alteration pernit.'
r troIB: Should the Planning Commission and city Council not
recomrnend the street to be built to city stanilards, then the
following conalition shoulal be addetl:
1. Lots 1 ana 2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future
assessnents as part of the improvements to Dogwood.
ATTACHUENTS
RESUUBCE ENGINEEhiNG
Rrger E. Machmeier. P.E.
29665 Neal Avenuc
Lind$rom- MN 55045
(6t2) 257-20t9
JuDe 1l , 19 87
James L. Andcr:ion. C.PS.S.
3541 Ensign Artnue. Nonh
Nc*, Hope. MN 554I/
(612) 593-533E
Re3 Planning Case 87-Il Subdivlalon Zlmeruan
Dear JoAnn:
JolDn Olsen, As6i6tant Clty planner
City of ChanhassenP. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Hinne8ota 5531?
that the proposed altes are locatfron rhere the bouse is likely to
Sincerel Yt r.h ,)^d*
Roger .!t
RESOURCE E
REH/JJu
Enclosure
for the above propdsed
ProbleD to locate a numberhe lnstlllation of aeragenches on each of theata raa collected in thes presumably the reaaon
edt r conslderable dlatance
be.
Enclosed is our evaluatlon repoltsubdivleion. Thele shouLd be noof aites rhich are auitable for ttreatment nounds and possibly tre
Proposed lots. The Eoil boring dopen field to the east and this i
We aasune that our evaluation repolt is lelf-erplanatory.If you have any questions, borever, do Dot besi-tate to '
coDtact us.
^achmeler, P. E.
NGINEERI}'G
frl
SPECIALISTS IN ONSTTE SEWAGE TREATMENT ,@We@W-
(
This proposetl gubdivision in the City of Cbanhaesen h.E been
reviered rith respect to soil suitability, topography, drainage,
slope linitations, anat area available on each lot for thelnstallation of tro onsite Eeuage treatment systeEs. The
infornation usedl for thie review ioclutledl the nap of the proposed
subilivision subnittedl by the developer, soil boring data Eubnlttedl
by the developer, and the Carver County Soil Survey.
Tbe soil.s antt eite lnfotnation upon rhicb the evaluation of
the 1ot6 in
been col.lect
deve lope r .the soil intine that th
evaluation o
the topograpis accurate
rhen the pla
data on each Lot are evaluated and it ls deternined tbat the
Eubnitted data uill lllos the location of tso sites for onsite
aewage treatnent aystelos, those sites absolutely nust reroain lnthe condition tbat they rere rhen the soils data sere collected
and the fleld evaluation of tbe gubdivision ras rnade. lny
Danipulation o! Dovenent of the goil fron lts natural condlition as
evaluatedl for the prelininary plat 1111 require addltional
detail.ed aoils lnforuation andl a re-evaluation of the gubdiviaionprior to final approval.
it6 D.tural condition as it erlBted on the Bite at the
the proposedl subdivision is based ls that rhich has
edt anil preaented to tbe City of Chanhaesen by theIt is asauaed that the data has been bollected fron
e soil boring ras nade aDd at the tine the fieldf the subdivision uas uade. It iB a18o aasunedl thathic nap rhich presents coDtour and slope infornation
andl indicates the actual contours rbich ri11 e:istt receives final approval. Iltren tbe 6ite andt soils
Each lot of the proposed rubdlivieion has been evaluated
independently aB to tbe availability of tro sites for tbelnatallation of onslte soil abaorptioD systena. It yas agsunedttbat the honee rbich rill be buil.t rlll be Type f, l-bedroou rhichaccording to llinnesota Rules 7O8O, have !n e8tlDltedt average
aeuage flor of 6O0 gallone per day. Since Dottled soils at deptheof 2l to 35 inchea prettoninate lD the area, eacb lot ras evaluitedto deternine lf tuo siteg rere avallable for the lustallatlon ofSerage treatnent DouDatE.
The rock layer ln a nound rhlcb rould treat 600 gallona oflesage per day rould be 1O feet ride andl SO feet long. ?tte .rearequired for the Dound rould bave dineneiong of 60 faet by gOf-eet. .The long dinension of tbe Dound Dust be located paiallel tothe eristing ground contour linee. The nound DuEt be l6cated onDatural soile and on :lopes not erceeding 12t. Absol.utely Dograding to uodify tbe natural sl.ope can te done prior to iound
REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 8?-11
SUBDMSION (ZIltllBRuAN)
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEIISfor the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
by
noger E. Hachueier, p.E.
JaDeB L. Anderson, C. p. S. S.June, 1987
-t-
construction. A mound can be locatedl on a aoil having as llttreas 1 foot of unsaturatedt soil. This soir. rould requii., uor"rr..,a_2-foot depth of clean sand aa opposett to the norial :.-toot aepihof sand. whire trenches can be locatett rn a rooaea-it""-i!i"."nthe-trees, an open area ie required for a nound. Thus, the treeErould all need to be renovett fron an area at reast go iy-ioo teetfor construction purposes.
llso, even tbough the evaluation of the preliniinary plat oftbe aub(livision has-aasuned tbe use of aerage treahent uounds, aDore detailed eite rnvestigation uhrch i-a a6ces8aiv ioi liE"aesignof the aevage treat ent on each 10t at tre- tine-oi'aeilrifr.nt ,"ylocate aone soils which are suitiuie-ioi the instarration-oidralnfield treDcbes.
Lot 1: This lot ia-reported to be S.o acres ls eize. thereet portion of the lot i8 iooded and the east portion of the lotls open-rand pre'ently.srowrn!-cori;- il. ;;ii ;;;i;;" ii.'ir,. troproposed Bites for one ite. serige - treatment syateDs sere nade tntbe open area. t{ottled goit "oiaiiioniinai.iiing-";;;;.;ii;aaturated conditions rere repolted in the u"iiri"lii!-Il-ilitl" or20 to 33 inches- rhe rand riop" in-ir,"--"r"" rh6re [.he uoiiig"rere yaade_ls approxlnalgll,.{ pErcent. fUe proloaed-;;.;;-;;.suitable for the rnstarlation-ot aerige treitnlnt rouna"l -it.
contour tines indicate that the land ilope tn ah;;;;;'.r!" onthe yest portion of tbe r.ot i5 resi ttrin 12 perceDt. rf the aoille auitabre and the rot osne*i"t e" -[o-'renove so,e treea, othersites for the rocatron of the aer"j" iieatnent nounas-Jie':.ireryavailable on this lot.
Lot 2: The aame comenta ae nade for lot I apply to thlslot. Hottled eoil ls reported in the uortng rog"-ii-i"iiti"ot :oto 38 lnches. rhere.aboutd be no proble, f5"iiing-it-i:;il i""Blte' on this Lot nhich are suitauie-ioi-ttre tnstiriition-ot'3erage treatDeDt Dounda.
Lot 3: lhis 1ot ia 1O acres ln aize. The ee8teln portion ofthe lot ls rooded and has Bone alopeB ai".pe, tban 12 percent.
-rbe-aoll_boringa rere oade rn tbe ipen ri"ia-to-tt.-i"5i-Ii"irr"yl9:i: rrre bort-ng log^e ahored depths to Dottllng of 2t to lztDcDes. There shourdt_be ao problen rocatlng at ieaat tuo aiiee onthir lot vhich are eutrable ior ..the ioataiialio;-;;-";;;;-'treatEent DouDda.
6umrary
lhe tbree lote ublcb ue cvaluated on tbls propoledrubdlvlaion each have !t reaat tso rrtea vulcu iri-iullaule forthe lnstallatlon of 3er!9e treatDent uounds. e aetiireo-irteinveatlgatlon on each rol vtrl be aeceaaary to colrect ioiii-anosite data for tbe dealgn of tbe .errge treitoeot ayiieo.--Sitealay be found to be surtable for the -erage treatleit ryetena rhlch.te cloaer to tbe tocatlon of tbe house 5a tbe lot.
\
UEI{ORANDUI"I
TO:
FRO}I:
DAIE:
SUBJ !
690 COULTER ORIVE . P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
Jo ilnn O1sen, Senior Planner
CITY OF
EH[}IH[EEEN
MDave Eenpel, Sr. Engineering Technician
January 10, 1990
Preliminary Plat Revievr for zimnerman Fa rrn
File No. 90-2 Land Use Review
Upon revie!,, of the preliminary Plat fo! zinunerman Farm dated
october 18, 1989, revisedl January 10, 1990, subnittetl by James R.
8i11, Inc., I offer the following conments and recomnendations .
BACKGROUND
If you will recatl, back in August, 1987, the city Council con-
siclered a three-Iot subdivision in this same a!ea. The three
lots irere to be created at the enil of the existing Dogwooil right-
of-nay as is proposetl with this two-Iot subdivision. frro issues
were discussed during that preliminary plat review, one being
whether or not to extend Dogrood out to Trunk tsighway 5 through
crinson Bay Roail. Because of the hazarclous intelsection at Trunk
Highway 5, this alterDative was droppetl.
The second issue that was discussed was to make an internaL con-
nection through the proposed plat back to Tanadoona Drive.
Because of the high cost to irnprove this segment of roadway, this
was concluiled to be not economically feasible until sewer antl
water became available to the area so more lots could be sub-
divided and 6hare the cost burdeD. A Eotioo ra8 adopted,
however, that a 'back door" access through the remaining outlotto either Tanailoona Drive or rrunk Eighway 41 be Bketched out.
It appears this proposed prelininary plat will give the City onepiece of the puzzle in completing a 'back door" access route
eveDtually out to Tanadoona Drive.
STREE?S
The existing street, Dogrrood Avenue (or as the plat refl-ects,
'Iake Drive'), consists of a narrow l0 to l4-foot wide gravelroatlway. The City does not maintain this segrment of roadway
because it is not built in accordance with City Etanclards. The
#z
Jo Ann Olsen
January 10, 1990
Page 2
plat proposes dedicating 40 feet of right-of-ray adjacent to theexisting 2o-foot right-of-way fo! Dogarood Avenue together with50-foot wide right-of-way for extension of the 60-foot cul-de-sacat the_end of Dogirood Avenue. The developer does not proposeupgrading the extension of Dogwood.
Consideration should be given to improving this eegrment ofO9gw99d Avenue. T1zpica1ly, when a parcel of land is subdivided,the City requires the_developer to provide the necessary right-of-tray anil pay for aII improvements- involved in plattin| th6 par-ceI, i.e. atreets anal utilities. In this case, the seiment ofroad abuts some existing lots in the Sunrise niil on r,a[eIttinnewashta plat. The developer is reluctant to builil thissegment of Dogwood Avenue up to City standards without having theexisting lots assessed for the improvement. There is somequestion at this time as to how much benefit these existing lotson Dogwood Avenue would receive from inproving this segmen[. ofDogwood Avenue since the existing lots do have their oin accessalready; therefore, they do not receive direct benefit from thenew road and, in tu!n, may not be assessed.
Based on costs from the previous feasibility report, the esti-mated cost to improve Dogwood Avenue fron Tlnadoona Drive to theend would be approxinately 950 per lineal foot of the street,Using this cost factor, the estimated cost of building theq!q-!oot Dogrrood extension to City standards is 933,060 or$16,500 per lot.
An alternative to reduce costs of building timpact to the surrounding trees woutd be !opoyrer Line in which trees have already beenground somehrhat levelled. fhis is the aameloper proposes to extend the private drivewa
In addition to the 40 feet of right-of-way fthe developer is providling right-of-way alonfeet of Lot I, Block 1. This will provide a
Secondary or 'back door" access route out to Tanadoona Drive (seeExhibit rAi). Based on data and drawings aupplied by Janes R.Ei1I, Inc., this loute appears to be feaslble fron an engineeringBtandpoint (see Exhibits 'B' and 'C').
he road and lessenfollow the existing
cleared anal theroute that the deve-ys.
or Dogwood Avenue ,g the northerly 30portion of a future
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
The plan proposes construction of teo driveways. Both are out-side the proposeal right-of-way for Dogrood Avenue. The drivewayswill basically folIow the power line, uhich has been cleared andleve11ed out some time ago. The plan does not indicate proposedgrading contours. A plan inilicating proposed grades should besubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Jo Ann Olsen
January 10, 1990
Page 3
The plan inalicates erosion controL along the back siile of the
house pad on Lot 2, Block 1. The type of erosion control spe-cified is basically silt fence. Due to the nature of the area,
Type II erosion control , as a mininum, should be useil.
RECOUUENDED CONDITIONS
1.
2
3.
4
Erosion control shal1 be lYpe II.
The segneDt of Dogwood Avenue (Lake Drive) proposed with this
plat shall be built to City standards for a rural road design
(exnibit 'o"). The street alignurent sha11 follow the
existing power line alignnent through Lots I and 2, Block 1.
Plans ancl- speci fi cations for street construction sha11 be
submitted to the City Bngineer for review and approval-
The developer shall enter into a development contract and
provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee the
proper installation of the public inprovements.
The cleveloper shal1 receive and comply with any necessary
permits from the watershed District.
Attachnents: Exhibits 'A", "8", "C' and "Dn.
F
-ao
Ix
IIJ
a!s
l'r
d
+'?!t
lr
@"
ta
(xo scALE
TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE.'
?@
cauP T^iraooolla
taila€APou8 cqiacr. of Gft9
,'o
rro
JOH}{ P.
EAVAFY'IPOTE TIAL
FUTUNE
tcc0xoaaY
AGCEtt I
Lor a
lt I I I lt I I tttrl
;I
.i
[,
,t' >- .. rl
Bff l'
'I
z
'Tr
v?
!Za
i.
:\
QO
\:
:\
\Io:t
s.
!4
lll
b
9#,,A: ft
.-1aa-*.;.Qa.i
4c.?-:6lA/y':/.,
'('
\
t:'rl '
6,:s::fI
Nk
*::.ty'i..,..:.
Ia
t
\
I
I
iJ
:9
.l:
:l
A : ri.:. i. i. :. t. n il.i..6:Ola
l'
p
!0,,OD:*
o7fi
C
=z
70
aIvo
mI
o7
v(o
.l
Noo
?-{5<POo-lofr.'<
.ogo'9n,g3J
-c nio.D
+Itl
UI
EXHIBIT BE?-lfr"-l
\
\::
'\'ttr
\i{oo)
I
:::::
t'N..*. 5S:;-I,i
:::::
:,1 ,:'.t'.'.:
1: :
:!i
Itf
,
:::
)t
I
is:
:F
:..
ts:\ois
I
ij:..r
:,42:'.'.'.'.'.i:" ".|?b
,+K6 D,?/
?.(6; ?.5..:.e.y':,/.. i..: :
toy'?-,:Z*:Alllt
:/.P..)..A:).A:6.:
EI.AO .-2.----.E ..
t a7
::
?,{:
l1
9.1
yta.c
t
9t
t.nt
a::i
t
I
3
tIlt ic
r;.r
;!D
ii::3i
I
T
3
Il
,
I
II
C.
=mU'
fio
t,
r
!r:
::ri
:€
::::::3:::::: rl
.t'...,
f't::::I
-
g)
-l
-)Joana
=
Iia
ITI
-
ar- a
-t)oa
rl'
:\r\
6
n$
\D
I.il.
.6
*
I
I
"$.&I,iAt/r:
Rg'
is.
:;,,'
t
Tr
zzm7(tt
mzIzmm
,a
U)CT
m
oIa
\
:trt
:.,\
5
h-
i::
a
E?
8
=6{o?
=7
ItI
G'
a
o
Ittg
B
I
I
t
l
I?.
$
x:ts)t
;;.
:L:
:'l.i
:ai
::i
\::
s
f,.$
\,(\I
I:
.l
I
,:
I
4L.,.t..-.,...-.:
::'/
N
i{:':':':':'l\
I
: : i/:-*:
,
?.fasrtQ!
.:.:.s
:::::i::
: EXHIBIT C
:1
N
m7
': "'....-
l4l .'.:'. :'.'.'.::12
'i': :':': N :': :': :'i':
u| ...
t::o
:o\
::::::
.......:..
V.A:a :#,:2:S
nZ
zI
oo
z'oo
ula
-o
ot.
at
a-oo
xrt
at
o
lt,o<trJq'G<
--- a! EE .t3
;o
ul:q;f:
-- tl
:C,7r<Joc
=OtB=
;;
=o!l -r-o
ul
o
?
tlnooEdiBxa<=
HEBilErid
Ht.i x.ll\=<azl.E: -
c)
so
(r
(E
Eot!
EXHIBIT D
a
!-rHTge6:
BFE<t-@6
38fi
5Ei
Esi.86
{oo
;1iRE'
t", tE tq
aG-o()
2c
l!].
9o
==fF
E
cl' lrlIr
l-
33co
c-5
.\lF
-t
s,h:i,
lD
a
T
d
CHANHASST}I
crtY oF TYPICAL STHEET.
RURAL
s CALE r"DATE 5-89 PLATE tIO.
)
l
l
1
I
-
L
i
a
-tol
FIol
uJl
@l
-rl<lolLIrl
-.{,2
5202
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER OFIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
}TEUORANDUM
fOr
PROrl:
DATE:
SUBJ:
lhese plans were reviered by the Fire Chief, Art f,erber I FireInspector, Steve lr{adden; and nyself. Ihe following reconnin-dations are made:
ilo Ann Olsen, Assl8tant City planner
ilin Chaffee, Public Safety Dlrector
ilune 5, 1987
Otto - Tinbersoodl (85-22 SUB)I,ake Susan Ei11s glest (87-3 pUD)
Z innrernan,/Penton Company (87-11 SUB)
- Lake Susan Ei1ls West:Minimum 100 ft. aetback fromWilllanrs Pipeline
- Zimmerman ,/Pemtom:Dogrooil cul-de-sac ahould have atl5 f t. radius
Public Safety has no iDput at this tine for the Otto eubdivieionDoteal lbove
If you have any questions, please let oe knos.
X
77fuzaatD*3
P
Planning Connission eeting
June 2I, 1989 - Page 11
PT'BLIC HEARING:
PRELII{INARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE lgg ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA
DRIVE, I|EST OF HWY {1 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE.
Name Address
David Getsch
Jobn Getscht{r. and }trs. ll.C. Getsch
Craig and Barbara freeman
llartin Jones
Thomas Kordonowy
Linda oberaan
DogYood
Dogrrood
Dogrrood
Dognooil
Dog0ood
Apple Roail
Hazeltine BIvd.
7st0
75SS
7s3S
74 31
732L
6tss
7 459
Conrad! Just a point of clarification addressed to
reacted to this application before anal so has the Ci
applicant has not carried it out I assume so therefoback. There's no timefrane for when the apPlicant cprelirninary plat? Just for our information.
JOty
re
an
Ann. lIe have
Council but the
the applicant is
come back with a new
I
Conrad: So the applicant decided it didnrt like ehat the alternatives uere
based on the Council 's. . .
Olsen: At that point it uas determined by the public that they didnit santto have Dogwood inproved.
Warren: I think the applicant withdre, and the neigbborhood algo did notrant to puraue the atreet ownership transfer.
llark Xoegler presented the staff report on this iten. Chalrnan Conradcalled tbe public bearing to order.
Xurt Laughinghouae: I'n Xurt Laughinghouae and f aD repreaenting the
ornera of, there are nor, 3 different orner8 of the property. lrarkXoegler'B introduction ie eractly right. Ihe developnent of thiE plat andrhat 16 turned in as a plat lnd subEitted to the City bas grosn over thelast roonth in fact. Initially our intention saE Just to cone ln rith tbe
29 acres that cotoprised the three lots that you aee thele and then ue
decidled to hold the entire 100 acree. Just yesterday I le.rneit that, antlthink I can better explain this, Just yesterday I learned thrt ue need to
nove what shows up there as lgal ter Zimeroan, re lntend to nove that 5acres in fact to the eaEt 10, feet. So re uant to add that to the gl!t.Plat that property. Clear up all these descriptions. I{e actually have athird appllcation. ne don't have that third applicant in uriting ubo onns
*+
Public Present:
Olsen: He never rent through the nhole Process. It got as far as the
Council and then they had that 6treet.
Planning Comnission Ueeting
June 2I, 1989 - Page 12
that Property so therefore I just uanted to introduce these two changes toyou. this evening. !,taybe make sone- points. The public had arready 5..n--notified and r know that some of the neighbors .rl trire who nay tri're---"cment and then r would ask that you continue this until July 5th. so ifr Day-use this overhead. The pl.at that you received In tne ,iii "na ,r.."-studying, the differences here are armosi indtetectable to you but there aretwo. one is that this rarge parcer to the center of ttre pioperty rhich is80 acres uas marked outrot: it rs no, uarked rot 4. iheo secondry, rehave added this Lot 5 and that is yet another appticani. ruis pioiirli ,""not included in the- apprication shich r turned ii., . ,onit o, eo'ago. -to"--
thoae are the two. changes. Tbey.re substantia r -.noogh'-ot .or.=e-[t"t [i.strfr 6hourdr react on ihen and i rouldn,t .;i-io;-;;'i"i"t ,iir,ori;;"i;;sone tine for staff input- one of the najor "i"ng.",-iie of the Dajoreffects is that any plln to put a road tbiough iii!-riaai" of this routd notnork and tbat was one of tbe recotnmendat i on6 r u"iiE".-"r the stafi.wanted a road throush.the rniddie oi-tr,i" i;;9;;;;;iiy-"o rhatrs soins tobe sonettring werre going to have to work on.-
Conrad: Why would it not $ork, just out of curiousity?
xurt Lrughinghouse: The owner of this property is u!. Tom Kordonowy who ishere this evening and he intends to put a housE in this vicinity;;a;i;"-;barn and rive on the entire Bg acres so it is, rn.ii."t is;;a'g;i;g-ii-u!developed. rtrs going to be one honestead as will be the caee with theI other three lots. Of course thi6 lot is in effeci iir".ay in pface. ---io
""Hark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is-[tr;-;o;;:--i guess r shourdtalk about that. currentry, thlre are three issue" it"t'rrd like tointroduce and answer questions on and then you can ao 'trat you choose. Thecity-currently owns a- 20 foot right-of-ray it"t irn"-"iong, that isTanadoona Drive and. tben-is Dogwood Lane -arr the ray aor-to this point anitthen. therers a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this lzth'roi tre.e $;t i;-;;;-b-y the.city. Now.thts is a ptat from-39 or-le.yeiis-iio. perhaps ,.il;;:Nevertheless, tbat is the ghysicar and legal siiuationl 'rhis pripoi.i----Buggests, ue propoae to dedicate an additional lg feet or rrgtri-oi-*ii anacul-de-sac here in this area so the city uould trave -itr" -ippr5pr ia te o'g ieetof right-of-ray in_ this area. Now, thai's tt. a"ii."-[ion. Ilre arao h.ve aspecial Eituation here. you notice, itr8 not clear to ylu pernaps uutthere is a dotted line that runs this ray. Noe uhen thia property, thezimernan buirdings rrere aepar.ted fron ihe whote lircei-stveiat |iare agoand ia nou . aeparate parcer. the ctty did not tale a deatlcated iigni-oi-uay here. The city took an option to purchase this ls feet lnd tna[rs utrytbat'8 outlined like that. 8o ue left that renart there to remind us se,ieso!^ tg dear with that always. Then secondly, re put an outrot bere, re.llcall it outlot A and thatis the ,09 feet ln liont 6r the lroperty heie atthis point. Thatts to remindt uE eerve got to deal rlth ioa3 riitrt-;i-;;ydedication or eomething..t that point. -we would like not to dealcate an!nore -right-of-way. _ -Thatrs certainly going to be ttre point of contention'.In effect se are adding 3 nore anel:,tng unita to the 3nd of this TanadtoonaDogsood road and tl?ar-as is euggeated, as stated lo the engineerrs report,is-easentiarry a nire rong cur-d6-sac and peopre rivins-at the end ofcul-de-sacs have all the problens of potenliai seaker iiie protection,reaker porice protection. They under-tand that. lhe peopr- uho hrvepurchased this lot, contingent of courre, this lot andl'thic lot undeistand
Planning Connission Meeting
June 2I, 1989 - Page 13
that situation and tbatrs agreeable to them. They are not expecting a
paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Norr, the
second issue, not the same as dedication, is paving. About a year ago, let
De stop nyseJ.f and say this. This llne depicts a poeer line that cones upfron TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and thatrctually goes out here to the farB bulldings. Last suuoer ltinnesota valley
Electric Coop catne in and cleared a 59 foot or greater 6uath along the
entire poner line. Going right through the Eature EaPIes and oaks and
everything. They sere reacting to the fact that there had been atorn
danage to trees that had cut the Power 8o they reacted 8tron91y. you all
nay visit that and see if I'D overEtating that. I'n understating it quite
a bit. Nevertheless, shortly after they finisbed that uork there ras
another storrn and another power failure because they didnit get all the
trees. t{aybe that Proves they Ehould have taken nore. Neverthelesg, here
is our dilEmma. we have here a 50 foot Esath right through the trees with
a power line into the house. If re pave in here, in the right-of-uay,,wewill have to cut another lg ot 3g or greater 6rath of trees out. we siDPIy
ask your authority not to do that. If ne have to Pave anything, we can
perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of tbe City
and pave those if thatrs aPProPriate. If we need a cul-de-sac or an area
big enough to turn fire trucks around anil oil delivery trucks and Daytonrs
furniture trucks, shich I would guess have gotten dorrn there anyway and
gotten out but we do need that kind of a space ue can also do that here in
lhe vicinity of the power lines or not. vle can also pave lt. tfe ask not
to pave it. so roads in one issue number one. Pavlng is lssue number tuo.
And the third issue is trail easement. we thoroughly agree ,ith the City's
plan to have a trail netrrork around the city anil around lakes. The City
owns, when crimson Bay iras Platted down here, a 2g foot easerDent $as
brought up to this property llne. To our south ProPerty line. The staff
report calls for a 2g foot easenent around the entire PEoPerty to get back
here to Tanadoona. We request that se cut that eaaenent back to a 2g fool
easenent around the back of these properties to get back to Dogirood here.
Nou I donit know what the plans for the entire city are ln terms of trails
but it Eeens to me ultimately you eant to get frotB here to here and go
around the lake. I don't know that ao thatt6 certainly dieputable but if
that I
fani Ito th
enti r
ProPethls
stya
eCePrty
old
he goal , this is a shorter route. Furtherr U!. Kordonowy and his
re going to put a brrn up here and run horaea. His question to us,ity I guess, if re have to have a 2g foot easement aroundl theroperty, that anounts by the uay to alDoat eractly ,l acres of. where does he put his fence for hls horges? Does he put it on
fence because they city is not going to develop this eagenent for
Dany, Dany years or does he put it 29 teet lnside th.t line? Thatra the
dilemra thatrs created by putting a trail eaBeEent here that in effect is
not going to be u8ed for a long tine. Not going to be developedl for a longtine. tle think that the purpoaes of the City can be eerved by putting that
eaaeBent arounal the back of these 1ot3. 1g years fr@ nos, 30 years fron
nou, as uas indicated in the other...that sas up here, thie ls all open
farnland now. Itrs got corn growlng on it. 30-49 yeals, uhenever aeser
and uater arrives at thi8 aite, Bonething else Day happen to theseproperties. Roaals are going to be dlfferent. Park trail,6 are going to bedifferent. I think itrs preDrture and that'a part of my argument, to plat
all those things right now. 8o thrtrs Dy presentatlon brlefly and Irdcertainly be happy to answer guestions but xe nlght alao Dight slnt to ree
Planning Comnission Ueeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 1{
rhat ttle people have to aay.
f,oegler: ur. chairDan, just two other items. Kind of rearly remindersfron uhat happened a coupre-years ago. t{r. Laughinghouse reierencedcrimson Bay to-the Eouth-and there i.s a revitr'ia iil-tine-ot niiing .atreet connection to the aouth to Cri6son Bay and it ras jusi deternineathat literally. topography precluded it. It ias given reaily r goodthoughtfur look and rai delernined totally to be-lnfeasiuiel The otherthing is the di fference -betseen the pr;a-;ow rnd then is the prat tbatygy-r! Ulve been approved back in I9B? did show dedicated publicrrgnt-ot-uay {g feet arl the ray around the rest and oorti aides of thatproperty. so had that preceeded and had the road lssue trive'ueen iesoi"ea,that eould be right-of-rray tod.y. .Now theyrre proposing not to includethat as right-of-way so there-aie Just gonE subile- a i rf6rinces between thetro plans fron 2 years ago and the one current.
Conrad: 9le have a choice. We could table the item for futureconsiderations and to take a r.ook at ehat Hr. LlughingtrouJe -tr" s presentedor re courd risten to input. from anybody. who rras ."r.'t.i.-tonigiri.--i---guess my preference is to listenr.nlybe- instructive for any-itaff review orour direction to staff. so if thai,e icceptiuie-i.'.""ivuIji,-, ar,ink ,,alirre to conduct the oubric hearing ana u3 can continue the public hearingalso until the next ti'e. woura
-[ueie iJ .ny comnent. rerated to thepresentation tonight? Hr. Laughinghouse or inytrrinl-tnit-tiJ'staft ha6talked to us about. lny publii coiments?
h: -IrD John Getsch, 75go Dogwood. ...the road easenents and thes along tbose develo[r'ent plans, still presents a problem on what? b9 il," lons tern ptan foi rhe road an8 the """..Ent-iii jnvt of the road. The uay it stands right now, shatra pr-"-ni"6,
9.19ns tern plan for-any ioprovementi of the road ani ih;a;;-"Risht now it,s a 2a foo-t uiie, arnoii ifngr" ia;; ;ii tii"-riy fnreaents a problen...
conrad: Let rne interrupt and see what kind of reaction r can get from lrarkor Jo Ann oo that. what are the cityrs reaponsibiltties ai itria pornt inl1i:.?ir:n.that the property 1s, the-applicints ao-noi-.."iti want toqeverop rul.Iy. They rant to put a few bouaes tbere. what,i the cltyrsre8ponsibility in this case in-regulring an upgr.de to i'uia-roaaz I{ervetreatedl it in- the paat rs itrs tha- onry tiDe i6 can ."qori--th.t rtrenthere's sonething happening. so shat ire our optiJns - i-guesi. Futureoptions. ltark, do you uant to tackle that?
xoegler: res, r'11 address that lnd perhaps Gary uill rant to Joln in thechorua on this one. Just very brlefly, ttrl feariUlfity iiuay that rag donea- ye^ar or ao ago 100ked at a serieE of alternatives. itrie ris option A,rhich r berieve if r remenber riglrt ras the loreai co"i opti"n. rt ras theone tbat eas reconmended at the iine. r tttink prinarily io"-to the costfactor. what it resulted in is a street that d'oes noi-i".t-.rrrent cityatandards in terna of ridth. The reaaon for thlt piiraiiii ieing the n6undrtreatnent systen that sits right there. The poattionrn! oi [n"t relativeto the lot across the.street. just really Eake lt r.possiuie to get .nythingrider than t tbink it'|a about ! 18 fooi'roaa cecti;i-ltioogt-it,.t
John Getsc
discussionis going t
inprovemen
tbere is n
concern.
and that p
Planning Conmission Heeting
June 21,, 1989 - Page 15
Par t i cul.ar area so the
and that uas the ray t
current standarils. Th
variation that brought
turned anal nent across
head cul-de-sac arrang
constriction here regaat. Qtion C ras sini
cooing back however.
road on tbe interior a
youid tern as kindl of
time for infornational
actually showett a pote
reflecting that 75 acrinitially 19 acre Parcre still had the 18 foreally difficult to an
Conrnission and Counci I
to the question that Yatreet on this. Itrs
1a6t 2 years since thi
improverDents for all r
where is the thresholdto an existing bad sit
that any of us have a
consensus though is th
time when the subd iv i sis evident in terros ofarea. tihether itrs a
right-of-way or rtratev
Conrad: AII the alternatives rere real erPensive.
xoegler: They really $ere not trenendously difference in cost. They uere
to sone of the individual parties. They ranged, as I lndicated, from about
S23g.g0s.9S to S3gg,ggg.90 and that sas about a year ago so tho6e numbers
are still reasonably accuEate but the actual assessroent to some of the
various parties did vary quite a bit under that achene depending on rhere
the roaat alignnent went. The lssesaBent6 that didn't vary trenendously
probably rere to eome of the exlgting hoEes that are on Lake l{lnnel,ashta
.nd I think as a ballpark those ran fr@ Irll say OL,''S.SS t-o O1 ,ggg.gS
depending on lot frontage.
tsarren: I night add Hr. Chairnan, lrark has sumari zed it t think PrettyvelL. It's a difficult lssue no matter bos re look at lt here. SoEeproperties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the
City not being able to provide adequate utilities. Adequate roldray6 rnd
sone of ttris nature. I think that at goroetine haa to be addreesed. That
naybe theyrre a little bit ahead of tbeir era ao to speak. Thig is in the
Dext area for the move of the UUSA line and re all I think are veryfaniliar uith rhether th.t'6 the 1999'8 and ltrg hard to believe that 199Sis aluost here or rhether itrs a 2ggg line or aomeplace in the niildtle so
I really think an eye has to be kept to thlt becauae eetre not that far
re is a constriction here that had to be dealt uitbhat rras done by building a road that did not neete aeconil alternative that eas looked at ras athe roatl in past the Ziunerman parcel and then
and then it came back up serving kind of a hamner
ement off of either side. Agaln, you had therdless. That uas another alternative that uas looketllar... Once again you etl11 have the constriction ofFinally, Alternate D that sas looked at brought the
lignnent and this ras partially due to shat I guess
a ghoat plat that ,aa done by the developer at that
purposes only anal it ras indicated as aucb. Then it
ntial for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this
es ultimately being developed into I think it uas
els. It was again, I think it goes xithout saying,
ot roadway right there. You ask a guestion that i6
srver because the proceedings of the Planningultinately on this item sill Probably be the ansrer
ou pose in terms of shere do you go with providing
my understanding that the Cityra practice over the
s originally surfacedl Has to require a nininuo road
ural subdivisions. You in your own nindl can 6ay? I{eire adding t house, 2 houses, 3 houses, I houses
uation. Where do you draw the line? I don't know
definitive answer for that but the general ataff
being able to accoBplish aoDe inprovement of thatfuII ingroveEent or [hether itts aecurlng the
er that's defineil as.
at, as you indicateil t[r. Cbairnan i8 that now is the
ion is being approved that PerhaPs the nost leverage
Pl.nning Connission llee t i ng
June 21, 1989 - Page 15
aray fron this area being further eligibre to subdivide and it,s theability to further subdivide lots thai r,oul.d make the distribution of thecost for a roadway of tbis nature nore palatable. Hore lots able to besubdivided. r look at it alnost aa therers sonewhat of a eetf-inposedhardship here in that this totar property r believe rould eustain 10building units and in the appricaiion weive geen prior io ttris one,-it wastbe developer's cholce,onry to_plat 3 units baslcilry. rf ihey ,eie io-'--cme in .ntl take all. 19 units f6r eranple, then therS,s 1g uniis io-t"ipdefray the cost of the roadway. . so thire is sort ot a aeir-t.p;";d i;;;"tbere that i6, take it for whit it,s rorth. tfhen re have iookia at thesein the past as far as rural eubdivisions, it his ueen i irrinr a "eiy-siioneline uith the cityis -part to upgrade roails to full. ruril aiinaaras andt setto bave a rurar standard versui-an urban Etandard to .."ognir. that sedonit need curb and gutter necessarily and that .rp.n".-ii -sonre of theseroadrays. In addition in this issue,-we rrave exiiiing-"..."" that r thinkeven the eristing residents would chine in, as r.s reitioned earller here,that is a less tban desireable access. rn generar r think everybody roulilike to iroprove if ue courd get sot'e reasonibleness to the dorrars here.Tbe section that was proposed for the existing. roadwiy, -to anear by the 2srcmunity. system out there, r think aid recogiiz. ir,ii'r.-ri.. trying to-b"6!,npathetic to local conditions in a certain-regard ina ,ei" rirrin!'to- --
accept an 18 to 2g foot road section instead of the clty standard ruraraection-. r guess I throi{ those comnents out for gone o? itr. thiogs thitrearry bave gone through our minds here on rh9t.s rilni-toi-trre pi"p"iivlnd the property orrners to have to put up rith.
Conrad:. _Itn going to.throi, it back to you aort of later in terma of, Idonrt think itis our job to force a dever.oper to develop ind require ttreroto Put in oaybe $3sg.sss.Og or S2gg.ggg.gg rorth of roai introvenentsforces then to deverop so it'6 a difficult aituation. it ii-. publichearing. t eanted to re6pond, you aaked a guestion anit r ris tiying to get80De corEnents back from the 6taff on that. co ahead yith ottrer [ueitioni.
John cetsch: rhat is the isEue on the road. The other thing is uhat Kurthas_brought up and that uas shere the porer lines cone throuitr. Thatreally.created, up untir there ras eolid roods for probabry-i tt rra of tbeploperty that uent along parallel to the rake. tbal nor his been 5g foot,69 foot uide swath is cut rlght through there ana cteinea -out
"o thererstiad of a naturar area that. i-s no lonler vooded. rtrai,i-aonething thatneeds to be addregsed. rurt brought it up rnd t thlnk tt'"-noitcEa-ui-everybody that has. gone ln that road during the rast year. it l"s chinged8lgnlficantly and that needs to be recognlzed rs soDe- ray to prererve tf,eforest or shatever you sant to calr it and thlt neeats to-bi ricognized.
coDrait: rt is eBbarrasslng -rb!t the poeer conplny i,ld there. r Juat can.tbet ieve th.t they could go in and tlke down rhat they ttia.
John cetsclr: ^rhey sprayed agaln in the la8t couple ueeks to lctrr anythingtbat ras growing back.
Conrad: Iea, that.a Just aroazing.
roegler: xind of a forlor-up to that. The fearlbllity studly that ras
Planning Comoission Heeting
June 2I, 1989 - Page 17
published in June of last year eas prior to the tine the guy showed up withchainsaws so that'6 a nei, piece of infornatlon that nas never conside;ed as! part of these al.ignnents anal thatrs certainly sonething that should be
Iooked at as a part of this. The feasibility Btudy ehen lt laid the
aligru0entE in there, took great care to try to nininize tree renoval. That
uas one of the najor issues of naklog alignnent through there Bo ltrs kindof eDbarrassing to sit here. year later and find out thereia a corridor
tbrough tbere nou. Ihat needs to be taken lnto account.
Barbara Freenan: Barbara Freenan, 7{31 Dogsood. Could you give us sone
idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that chanhassen has
through that area?
Conrad: Jo Ann?
Olsen: That uas part of tbe Park and Rec CotDniasionta reconmendations and
l{ark night be able to address that a little bit better.
Xoegler: The Cityts Conprehensive Plan is ehown as a Eeries of trails
basically going around anil connecting najor points t ithin a conmunity anil
tbe llinnerrashta Regional Park sould be one of those. ftrs not specific to
say exactly hou you wouldl get from Polnt A to Point B other than to
inclicate that itr6 a desire to make the connection. For example the trail
perhaps in sonre areas tDay run along TH {1 anal then Day go back into thepark or it may run through the property and 90 blck into the park. Thatrs
not been deterrnined yet but agaln, back to 2 years ago rrhen this sas
.pproved, the easenent that Kurt Laughinghouse described ras a part of the
approval at that time around the periEeter of this site to rccotamodlate that
DoverBent. The City has gone out with 2 referendturos over the last few years
rnil Irm sure yourre anare it has not been approved and certainly that has
bad a najor inpact on the feasibility to bulld those trai16 aorerl.i6tically, as I think Kurt eludedl to again, those trlila are quite a
rays off in the future but the right-of-ray generally is trying to be
secured now for those to bank that if you rilL for future develolnent. Sothe alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factor8that uiII be looked at over the nert couple of reeka prior to the tine this
cones back to Eee if that has any validity compared to the origlnal
inprovement that occurred on the south rnd eaat aidea.
CoDrad ! Other coment6?
Lioda Oberuan: Linda OberDan, 7150 Hazeltlne. We oun the land adjacent tothe outlanat area, the 80 acres. Can you ehor you on that Dap, I didnrt getyour narle, ll!. Kordonowy? Is ttrat right? What land dld you purcb.se anduhat are you planning to do rlth ttrat, farEiDg? mrlt areas?
Ton Xordonony: l{y naBe ia Ton Kordonorry and I.n acquiring this propertyfor single fanily hone. The 89 rcrea Irn acguirlng 18 everything other
tban this 5 acre aection here, the old Zimernan honestead rnd the6e threelots are being divided for !tr. Foster and I guesa aoEeone elge ao Iill beorning the bllance of the property. Tanritoona to Dogrood r back up andback. The house lrn proposlng to put ln rill be located here right rheretbia uunber is in front of tbe tree line. The reaaon for the adtdenitum or
change to tbe plat, the lgg foot seghent serve askeil , the Bergenra hoEe is5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to servlce ny single
honestead is, this atarts to get quite lor. The topography is rising
through this Iittl.e eet area Eubstantially to the trighest point in the areavhich is here so I plan to come in rith about a 9 9 in topography rhich isthe aame as rhatra here. That encroaches on yhat la now the Bergen
honestead so eerre siurply swapping a 1gO foot parcel for this piece fortbis piece llke that. Thatrs the purpose of iL. tt benefits ir. Bergenbecause the farm shere he.s actually farning 16 very, very close to hisIiving rooD right not. Itrs to his adtvantage to acEually-Dove that rayover. This loser area is a little rest of us eo these opttons, andl Ihavenrt-seen these optlons, our bousehold trere uilr be pre-enptlng rrn sureany roadray going through trere. l{e have no ioterest in that. l,d be happyto_answer any guestions you nay have and I appreclate your direction at -
this point so several weeks from now rhen ne tome forwird t e may resolvethie. _r'a noving.roy fanily into a condoninium which rrD not veiy anxiousto do for the period of tine it trkes to buildl this house so the-guickerI'n able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my hone, the -happier
rerll be so any input at all frorn the conmission rould be nost gratiiying.
Conrad: Tbanks for your coments.
Linda OberDan: ... farning that?
Planning Couunission t{ee t i ng
June 2I, 1989 - Page 18
ToE Kordonowy: It is now a farm and itthat goes through there.is reall,y appalling thi6 tree 6wath
Xildernuth: If the road eere to folloe that utility c.aenent, thattbat-ras cut througb there, hoi, uould that inp.ct you and your plansbuild your bone?
fm trordonordy: It uould go through shat ls going to be ny house.
;urt Laughinghouse: therers a two part ansre!. One ia, .1ong here thatyould be desirable nore or l^ess but then the porer line goes 6traightthrough here and this is approxinately rhere ther the porer llne doesn,t3hor up on the other nay but this is epproxlnately uheie the Kordono$yr3bme rill be. Then the wooded area runa out lround here alao. Iou haatrnother question and I alidn.t qulte get it. Is your hone one of these teobones right bere?
Llada Obernan: Right. I sas Just ronderlag lf he ras goiDg to farn thatlard or. ..
l@ trordonony ! f persoDally rlll...
LlDat! OberDan: tlould you be open to eelllng 5 to 19 acres of that?
conrlal: other comenta?
Dlve Getscbs lly n.tse is Dave Get3ch, 7519 Doguood. Certainly theaeighbor's preference and I spe.k for the neigtrborhood. At the lastEeeting I ras voted to be a repreaentative to spe.k to the Council and
st ath
to
Planning Courisslon tfeeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 19
Planning comission on this. our preferences obviously are to keepproperty as close as possible to rrhat it presently is in itr8 presentstrte. certainly ne're very nuch in favor of soneday ranting lo use g0
acrea for basical.ly the same purpo6ea as itra presenlly been-ueed for indalgo as nuch preservation of uhat 6tays there ind uhat-la r gorgeous,gorgeoua area. lib rant to rork at arr posslble to Daintain rhatra there.certainly to try to inprove the road aoroeubat but not rose sone of theunlgueoess of uhatrs there. tfe certalnly rant to turn it into a thorough-fare. Ihat.a just our preferences.
Conrad: Other coments? Okay, rerll close the public hearing for tonight.
Erbart: IrIl aove to close the public hearing.
fuings: Hell continue it to the next meeting so they can react.
Erhart: Ok.y, Irfl Eove to contlnue the public bearing.
Conrad: Tbat's a better Eotion.
fuings: Second.
Erhart noved, hmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the
Dext EeetiDg. Al,I voted in favor and the Eotion carried.
Conrad: I think rrhat Ird like to do right now, let us go around thecomission briefry but kind of give sotoe direction to staff ao that when itcones back to us, tre may have a clearer idea than I currently have of rhatre uant to do here. Again, I dontt know that ue sant to belabor ittonight. r tbink ee want to Dore than belaboring issues is give staff aonedirection to explore alternatives for us before it cones bac[ bere. Tin,coDBents on rhat we've seen tonight and directions.
Erhart: I guess the say to look at ttris is if the road!of the Fays to look at this is lf the road didn.t existdeveloper eas attenpting to subdivide 3lots off on theproperty fron uhere his acceag is and in that ca6e rhatreguirenents? Private driveuay or doea it reguire a 60get in 3 Dee lots?
Olsen: Iou could have a private drive but re uould DoEtthe 6g foot right-of-uay.
didn I t exiet. Oneat all .nd the
extrene end of theare ourfoot easenent to
likely be requi r ing
Erhart: Right, ao norDally re eourd requlre the ea6eDent in that caae Eo rguess again, uithout.havlng fulr discusslon, ny irmeduate reaction i6 to goback, I think rhich is etrat ue previously, didnrt you Bt.te llark thatrarhat ue enaled up the last time was just requiring -asements to get lnthere. I tend to think that_ ras probably shere ie rere going t5 end uprith this againl but not to inprove it aE this tine.
hmlngs: Building on rrhat rin said, can you have a private drive rith thisoany bouses oD it? r thought there raa an upper linit on the nuDber of
Planning Corurn iss ion Heeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 2g
bouses that can be served by a prlvate drive.
Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have.
neaidents What sas the ansser?
Einings: The ansHer is no. tlhat i6 the nax lnum?
standards lt
5or{?
that you can have
Is it
statesOleen: Itrs 3 anal then in the rural
2 ao there's sone discrepancy there.
tuings: Looking !t the Code, on the subdivision code under section 18-39it says that in order to approve a prelininary plat and a final plat, theCity Council has to find that the proposeil subdivision i8 not pretoature.
One of the things that eakes it prenature is if there'6 a lack of adequaterords. If I remenber, I rras here a couple yeara ago when re looked at thisthing at tbat tirne and everybody agreeil that the roadls in there rere
inadequate. At least thatrs my recollection of rhat happened back then. Ithink there should be a 60 foot eaaement golng all tbe ray in. I can aeethat naybe sorne allowance is going to have to be nadle for that apot where
the Eound system is. I think things l.ike that can be taken into accountfor something like this but the easement re should have. How nuch
construction of the roadway should be done, I think ls se can talk aboutbut Ird probablyr if this is the best opportunity serre going to have for
cleaning up whatrs a bad situation. Itra r very long cul-de-sac. We don,tlike that. As a natter of policy, se donrt like the long cul-de-sacs.
tlhether people agree to subnit to the extra }lck of flre services or thepotential for not being able to get any emergency servlces oE not, that'a
Dot sonething thatrs just in the hands of the landosner8 but itr8 a concernof the City too and I donrt think re can...
llartin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there non.
fuings: I know.
ltra. Getsch: An 18 nheeler ras in there laat reek.
Besident: ItrE stl1l there.
tuings: I'n telling you rttat I think.
I.C. Getsch: I knor but re can tell you rh.t lctually brPPeDs...
Emiags: Reality doesnrt interest ne. Thle la theoretical .
ltartin Jonea: I've driven tlre fire truck dorn tbe rold Dany tiDes ao
I knor it goes dom and it cones back out.
fuings: nhat i8 the reaaon that re have roadtg like re do andl the reason
that re donit like long cul-de-sacs?
Olsen: I t's public rafety.
I
Planning Cormrission Ueeting
June 21r 1989 - Page 21
Ifarren:
Emings:
EIlson:
roadway ithe trail
Secondary access.
,batrs all I have.
I think that we should.probably do aone sort of minimum atandardDprovenents- at- this point. t arso think that the reservation ofeasenent should be left as ras reconnendted. Thatrs lt.
Batzli: r guess taking Hhat t consider to naybe the easrer issue first. Ithiok the trail eaaenent, I think park and. nei.tf they did;,t consider whythey-yere going around the back end. rf they :uit-ttr6ughI se did it thiss.ay Last tine, letrs do_it again, r guess r,a itte to sie then reconsidernhetber they realry need it iround tf,e entire parcet-oi-if it rourd nakeDore Bense to jog it back to Dogwood there_and not knoring ttreir iea-oningfor rrhat -they proposed, r donrt have a good basis on shicfr io judge trrit itall- r don't berieve r was here to coniider this rasi iine-arouna but asfar as the roadway improve'ents but r kind .gree wiit -r,aaa, o. his earrier:or9:lt aDyway. Maybe. het s not really in agreenent. l,laybe he,s playingdevilrs advocate but the question as -to whefher re inouii-iorce ttredeveroper to develop the ioad at this time. r don,t know that itt3 theinadequacy of the roadt is going to be further er"""iu"i"J ty tt" addition
:I-3-I?!:,"hen it appears that the reason that itrs i"a-equite ia due totDe exrstiDg lots currently in there. But on the other hind, r do thinkdue to public Eafety conceins, there shourd be sone sort of upgrade or atleast.planning for the future and it rooks Like the ;;it riy r. can do that:! tltis tine is to get some sort of easenent and perhap-s ni'ninariybracktopping- it or something else. rt aeems to there ras aome sort ofolacussr.on about whether you go in and build a 69 foot road or just kind ofblac*top it now and upgrade it later. I don,t knorr.
llilderrnuth: r guess ury tlrinking is, rith the addition of 3r rl lots orparcels there. one being the gg acre parcer. werre not lo;king at thatnuch greater load on the existing roadway anil the upgiaae-ii this pointprobably ought to be up to the ptopre rh6 Live on t'h; ioia.- But r thinktbe easetrents should real.ry get-so;e cons iaerit i ""
-Irri
"
-tiie around.
Heaalla: As far as the trair goes, r eourd a'autoe that the plrk and Recuantedt t9 9o fron point A to ioint g. rf r undeira;dt il; piopoear, thet:ail nill go fro' A to A-. rt Dever even geta to B+ 30 r sure rourd rantthe Park and Rec to look at that. Look !t it .roi.iy.--e" Ii. aa the roadinprovenent, if they all agree, they don;t uant to i;p.o;; fi, tney,ve gotthe probten and a rot of.peogre-baclr there uave leen--n;il;;;. Dany yearsEo I guess Irn ioclined to siy let it be.
conrail: Iiry cot@enta - r agree uith gettrng the furr eaaeeent' at thigpoint ln ti.e. r think ue realry don,t knou ehatra gornt-to-n.ppen but uebave to get the easenents so if Ehatte the 69 root eisenioi-tn"t re need,that re have_ to get thar. r don't ,.nr to rorce-i a;;;i;;;. ro deverop a
iiiflii.i"i:i!:,fi;'iitliiii.rl :i;;..*I..",oinili",j;.F;"ii,;::J;i";,.
il?!il!"9l.lerve,9ot ro took at thai pouer line i" irr.i,r. cie.rea tt ourDecause 1t'5 a bio ner, giece of infonnation and r thin-k thai plays a role,rt least in ho, d5 ue get acce.s to thoae laili.iril-i-"i;:;. rhe tr.ir, r
Planning Conuoission Heeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 22
think that should go back to the park antl Rec for their coNnents. I guess
Dy only other concern right now iE, if there future potential to continueto split off? When the ttUSA line goes out there. Back up. Iincmfortable allowing the eubdivision as ue aee this yet lin atillunconfortabl,e at shat point we can 6ay no, you can.t add one nore house tothis. Based on the zoning right nowr-can they adil additional, hor nanyadditional. could they add?
Olsen: Youive got I00 acres and you can have l0 units.
Conrads 1 per 10 so they could literally ? nore?
warrens They courd add 5 nore. Hers pratting zimernan as a lot.
olaen: Right, and thatrs something that ee have to deternine if ne wouldhave to deternine if re yould consider that one of the buildingeligibilities. Since theyire including another one.
conrad: so they could put 5 nore there. okay. rt gets kind of difficultto know rhat to say. Those rre ny comments but r think that re need theeasenents. Itrs a difficult situation but I think lf re get thoaeeaEements, at reast we have our options open but r person;rly donrt thinkre need to,-the neighbors are saying donrt develop. wel1, Iin not surerhat the neighbors have said. They're basicalty saying io ne we don.trant lny assessments. I,n not sure shat they think of develop,nent orimprovement of the roads but ny impression il tbey,re happy tivlng itr" ,"ythey have lived there aDd I donrt think 3 more unite or l-is gofni todisturb the barance out there so r donrt feel that we need to-for6e anyhind of road development in at the current tlme other ttran naking Bure thatre have our options open for the future and that probably neans to necovering our optiona anil getting ae nuch property for eaienent as posslble.laysay, those are ny comnents.
lon Kordonowy3 rf the comrriasion were to acguire an eaaement around theentire property, if they aaw that to be .ppropriatel uouldn.t it be,insofar !s rrn taking this 89 acre portlon-roi a aingle fanlly house,rouldnrt it be approprlate. . . on the rest side of oogiood to tlke the entireright-of-way or eaaeDent out of thia parcer. Horevtr, thie parcer la ootbeing developed, it rourdn't be a fali .rrangenent to take hirf of rtratrould be the required right-of-ray frm here rhourd thle develop lnd taketbe otber balf on the other side. rf at a later date, r !3 an orner lrererere goiog to develop this, then I yould think it uould be appropriate fortbe City-to. say you.ve got to dediclte addltion.l rtght-of-riy... I.d beconcerned that the city nor has the eaaeEent or righi-of-ray lnd thcy 3ayre're putting in a blacktop road lnd youtre the benefittlng party, y-ou,rEgaylng this portion of it. fhat roul.d be a burden
r.c. Getsch: r donrt think canp TanadooBa ia golng to hotd stlrr for that.
ToD Kordono$y: They wouldn.t be taklng the ea8enent frm thcD !t thigtine. fheyrd only be taking half an eiaenent.
Planning Commission Heeting
June 2l , 1989 - Page 23
w.C. Getsch: Irn talking about any .ssessDent orin bad enough shape as it ls.anything else. They t re
Conrad: Right. No, ee understand that. There uas a 10
be just said. Is there anything that sould contrailict t
to
hat
f logic in whatlogic Jo ADn?
Olsen: I'11 let Gary ansrer that.
lfarren: thank you Jo Ann. the connent lbout Camp Tanadoona I think is arerlity as far as if at 6ome tine in the future, if thatrE the say your regoing to took at this, if yourre going to rant to build tbat road and wantto build it to city Etandards, the City uould have to go through
considerable expense to probably condeDn, if you uill7 the portion of theright-of-ray tbat ve sould be deficient. Noi, whether thatrs from the
Campfire property and actually my recollection, the topography out thereis, you talk about trees andl you talk about aor0e tough topography. Thefurther to the north froD that roadirayr you get into some real difficult
topog raphy .
Conrrd: So the situation sould be, if re only reguired half the dedicationof the easetDent on the property thatrs nou being looked at and platted,
basically shat, if se only required half of it, then shat rerre Eaying to
the current residents is we probably canrt. If nothing else happens onthat property, rrerre probably not going to upgrade th.t roaal for a longtine. Thatrs basically shat eerre saying. If re only require the half of
the easenent for rural road or rrhatever that terd like to have, the optionsof iurproving that road for the current residents are neglible until tbe bigparcel develops.
tfarren: They're certainly restricted as to ehat you can do and guite
honestly nhat I prefer about Alternate D, putting cost aside for the
aoment, is the fact that to Pursue the alignurent along the current roadrray
as uerre all aware, shen you get down to the northwest corner there, the
bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable
alignnent and in the alternates that se shored andl the feasibility study ue
ehored cutting rcro8s that neadoe land area uhich actually is a beautiful
neatlon land area. you still have to deal. sith the bottleneck at the
connunity nound EysteE uhereas if tbe road ia brought ln ttrrough theproperty, ue caD deal rith reasonable geonetrics to put in the proper
.ccess andl then you onLy have a conpronlaed roadt aection for the piece that
goes to the Dorth, the hamer as H.rk calls it, and the other threequarters of the roadray is a fuIl clty standard roadray. Th.tra rhat Iguess ls lttractive from an engineerlng etandpoint about lf yourre going totake easeroents, if yourre going to fol.lor the eristing al,lgnnentr thenyourre locking youraelf into the future probably about tEylng to upgradeuith that existing alignnent. llhereaa if you trke aoother eaaement, naybeif youire going to restrict it to not using lt for a shlle, I donrt knol,rhat kind of restrictiona re could put on but at lea8t get the eaaenenta
uhere you ultitoately night rant to bulld the full city section.
Conrad: I liked tbe D llignDent. In Ey nind that eas the right yay to ftyyet that Day not sork rlth the ounerra p1ans. Hera got a houae thatr8prob.bly be'a situating and thlt probably doesnr t rork but conceptually
Planning Conunission Heeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 2{
you're r ight .
xurt Laughinghouse: r-think uhat_you Just said argues against taking anyiDterest for roadts as forl.ors. rf theiers one perion oriinf this 8s-ac;!s.Dal it is platted as lot, the onty uay it can bi further su6divided-i;-a;-cme back to the Plannlng Coruriss-ion ind Councll and then irre utrole gau,e-ieopen again for roads.. so if this plat is approved aa re pi-pose itr-ana --
tbere is dedication here ao there.S a furr -oil feet avallaBie' on the frontof these rots, but there is no dedication around the rest of the p.op"i[iin effect unless re dear with thle in here. rn that aituation, the cityeontrols.. rf anybody eants one nore lot, then the city-siii okay then nowre need the roadl here or se need a road here. we need' son3irring'.i -.. -'--
And, and if rater and seser cone this far, to this edge oi-it" rake, canpTanadroona ci11 not be abre to resiEt the anount oe noiiy-itrit rirl beoffered for that properrv...and that wirl probabit;;-;;";iJpea too and acaupfire- camp wilr be buirt 3g niles further west in another'Dore secrudedsooded place. Then this. Eexer- systen is no longer ne.Jii.--lr and Bhentherers any redevelopment, eithei because of th6 ,"tei-ini serrer or becausethis lot, ouner of r.ol 4 in this case decides tt.y aon;t-r"nl'to have thehorse farm an],more, the city controls. If the ii ty -ii..a"-"i".r.nt" , tt.ytake easenents where tbey naed tbem ao really _ rhat'r";i.-aJing , a].ttroughrerre going.through a plitting proce.s which'ti in tiiuan !ii"""", re'r.really dearing with 5 and 1g icie 1ots. Thig is a iuiii Eituation forcedinto au urban process. I think se ought to...
9gnt"^9 ! ltr. Laughinghouse' yourre right yet it takes the power anay fronthe city and the power .way irom the ieigiuorhooa rilni -noi-it,"t
"..culrently living there under your direction. Norr.s fhe tine inauMivisions that the city can nake inprovSlen:s and nhat yoo'r. auggestingi: a:ni! do anvthing righl now and basicallv rhe por.i ,iri-ie left rithtbe individuar who orrns the large parcel th3re, *i."-it.i-r.it to developand the city is locked out of iurpr6ving road accesi tJ ii. .or.entneishbors. yet r have heard the curreit netgrruoit-aii ilii"-iting" tr'"t ".yD.ybe they donrt nind that.
Dlve cetsch: we.night uant the road coming dorrn the hill before thebamerlread, re night uant th.t sidened a tittte uii. w.-c.iiainry eant tobave easenents ao ue can do aonething llke ttrat.
Coarld: But youtre cmfortable the ray thlngs lre today .renrt !rou?
Dave Getsch: res but re donrt necessarrly, there are trnea rhen rtrs resstbaa desireable trying_ to get in. For lnatance uhen the froat goeB out inthe spring_and you pait yo[r car on rop of ttre triii--anii-.iii-rn. rhatr.less tlr.n dealreabre. lfte!.! gooa gully rarber tr riis iban oearreautebut. rhat r'm saying lB that lt hae a-cer-taln cuarn to-ri...r. ..rt.inryraDt the easeDenta.
lfarrcn;- The City can always vacate Graenent6. trd rather Eet the bird inthe banal and give lt auay ln the future if re aon.i ";:it.'-coDrad:. . t think you've heard a lot of conDenta. 16 there a motion totabre thia iteu until, rhat do re table lt for to Anni -ior-giart reviee of
Planning Comnission l,teeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 25
the Der iofornation?
Olsen: Tbat uould be best.
Batzll Doved, e-rnings aeconded to table acition on the Preli.lnary plat toguMivide 1gg acres into three eingle fanlly lots and one outlot for Kurt
LaughiDghouse until Btaff has reviesed the neu lnforrnation. All voted in
favor and the notion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
I.AND OSE PLAN AHENDT,TENT TO CHANGE THE }IUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE I{' ACRES
INTO THE }IETROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680
IRBOREIU}T BOULEVARD, HICHAEL GORRA.
Public Present:
Nane Aildress
llark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairnan Conrail calledl the public
bearing to order.
lli ke Gorra
Leanal er Kerber
Bernie Schneider
Bernie Schneider:
ChaDtrassen Leg ion.
you on that.
AppI icant
1520 Arboretum BIvd.P.o. Box 103, Chanhassen
llr. ChairDan, Irn Bernie Echneider. I repreaent theIrn not quite clear rhat thi6...I didnrt guite follow
xoegler: The City is in the process of updating itrs Conpreheneive Plan at
the present tine rbich a revlew of the I,IUSA line la a part of that effort.
fhat effort has been underway for sone tine and we feel that sithin 60 to
99 days the p).anning aspect of that rill coDe to a close and a lot of the
docurentation that vill be needed to Eupport thi6 application uith
Hetropolit.n Council Blght be available at that tiDe. For example re'11
Beeal to provide theD with bone inforoation on hor the property ultinatelyis goiag to develop. nhat the aerage flos6 uill be ao they can considerrhat inpact that ha6 on tbe regional treatnent systems. So rtrat I guessrerre aaying is itts a very coopler issue and the docuDentation that uill
Dake tbat issue perhap8 a little nore clearly discernable ls going to be
available in 2 to 3 Donths. ltr6 Dot avallable .s re sit bere tonlght.
Conrads Bernie, it's t0y gueas thlt rith the infornation that the Etaff
coropiles, you've got a Duch better caae than going in there rlght noruithout it. Ottrer comnents froo the public? Anything el.8e?
Xoegler3 I sant to emphasize I gues6 on the record that the kind of
comenta that I just Elde lBaune that the plrn to a certain degree uill
3upport this application and se do!r't actually knor that tonight. I guess
ti
!-I
a,-e'tie,
1
I
I
II
I
,
I
Irl.
I
I
JI as
aI
I
h lt
t
B
!!
.1,:!!
tt
I
i
I
,l
ii
5
II
Ii
Irrl
ih
iiErl
at
I
I
iiii
!ii
ti:
iit
Irt
iiii!ii!ilii
i!t!filtll!lllil
lll
llllll
lll {[ill
ttrlll!!lilnl
iiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiitiiii
i!!
lii
ilrl
ii
ti
T
llrt
I
a
Ii
I
!
I
I
I
I I *e
oa\lEll^tr,
I
a
,l
F.IIXEfil / ET6r{EER! / STRVEIOTI'
JamesRHilf inc
I'O$OI gt* i,r I
tottattltutiallt cuqro tE
ltrotil o.
ZI MER ATI FAB,I
iI
i IHIE
I
I
r "f*
1
I
I li
I
CITY OF May 13, .19i9
#
PRC DATE:
C.C. DATE:
CASE NO:5
Prepared by: Sietserna: k
STAFF REPORT \va.a,o{Y
P1t,
PR0POSAL ! subdivision of 20.3 acres into 2 single fanily lots
LOCATION:Tanadoona Drive, rest of Eighway 4I and i nilenorth of Eighway
(
Fz
L)J(L
(L
L
L
i
(
E
lrJha
PRESENI ZONING:
ACREAGE:
ADi'ACENT ZONING
AND LAND DSE:
EXISTING PAR.XS:
COI{P. IRAIIT PLIII:
COI{PREEENSIVE PI,IN!
RR, Rural Residential
20.3 acres
N- RR, Canp lanailoonaS- RR, Single parnily ResidentialE- RR Single Faarily ResidentiallI- RR, Single Family Residential
?here are no neighborhood parks in thisarea. Canp Tanadoona le locatbd to thenorth andt ltinnewashta Regional park ana theLandscape Arboretun are ilso in. thls area.
The. CotDprehengive 8rall plan calls for atrail along the entire rest.Blrle of itredevelopnent from Crlnson Bay.Rdl. to tinarloona Dr
The Conprehensive plan does not call forgarkland in this park deficient area inthe near future, however, when an urbandevelopnent la proposed, a nelghborhoodpark will be needed.
EHINH[SSEN
')a
APPLICAMT: Iiurothy Foster
7200 lltetro BIvd.
Edina, UN 55435
I
Park and Recreation Commission
Decenber L2, L989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Park anil Recreation Commission revieweil a plan for this site
in June of 1989, which did not get final approval . This ProPosalrevises that plan from 100 acres to 20, and includes only two
Iots.
The Park anil Recreation Commission recommended at that time to
accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and
trail construction and that a trail easenent along the south and
east property Lines from Criroson Bay Road to Eery. 41. (See
attachetl report and ninutes. )
As this plan no longer includes the large 80 acre parcel, a con-
nection cannot be naile from Crimson Bay Road to Hwy. 4l at thistime. Eowever, a section of that trail alignment can be pre-
served with this developrnent. Planning anil Engineering are
exploring two street options on this site. The first would con-
nect Crimson Bay Ro
increase the amount
Hwy. 5, which is nostreet betireen thellent to the east an
t desir
acl to L
of tra
two lotil north
ake Drive. However, this wouldffic through these neighborhoods toable. The second option uoulal put as that would connect to future develop-of this sight.
Recommenda t i on
Staff feels that the trail connection should be uade along t.hestreet as nuch as possible. If the first Ecenario is opteil for,
then the trail should run through Lot 2 along the street, and
along the east boundary of Lot 1. If the street goes bet$een the
trro lots, then the previous recommendation regarding the trail
should standi along the south bounclary from Crimson Bay Road to
the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east bounclary of lotsI ancl 2.
Park and Recreation co mmission UDdate ( I2-12-89 )
The Park and Recreation Conmission reviewed the site plan for the
Zimmernan proposal at their December 12th meeting. Their primary
concern is to provide another link in the trail system that con-
nects the Landscape Arboretum antl the uinnewashta Regional Park.
Currently there is an easement along Crimson Bay Roaal.
The Park anal Recreation Commission haE recommendedl approval of
the Zimmerman proposal with the condlition that a 20 ft. trail
easement be requiretl along the south and east boundaries of the
property, and that park antl trail dedication fees be reguired in
lieu of park dedication and trail construction.
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COUITISSION
REGULAR I.IEETING
DECE}TBER 12, 1989
Chairr.ran Hadlt called the r,eeting to order at 7:30 p.nr..
!{EI{BERS PRESENT: Sue Bo}rt, Jan Lash, Jir, Iad:7, andl Larry Schroers
I{EUBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek, Darrre Erhart and Curt Robinson
STaFF PRESENT: f,ori Sietaer,a, paxk and Rec Cooriunator and Todd Hoffitan,Recreation Srrper v i sor
APPROVAL OP HINUTES: Schroers nroved, Bovtof the Park and Recreatlon Cor,r,tssion rrrelti
seconded to approve tbe Hinutesng dated NoveFrber ltlr 1989 aspresented. All voteal in favor and the rrotion carr led.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, Z IT,IHERUAN ADDITION.
sietsenra: This itenr rras brorrght before the park and Recreation Cor,r,issionpreviousry onl:' it sas 100 acre site and 3lots. 3 0r { lots. The}'
leyisgd the plan taking out the g0 acre outlot and it,a iusi-a lot ip).it soitrg 2g acres into 2 r.ots. At the tinre that ue tarked aioiri tti";?;;;,-- _the recotrnrendat i on froFr the Park and Recreation Cororission was to con,e inrith . trair easerrent- along this border and then aro"g-itre eistern borderto.get up. rt would have gone through the other outl6t up to TanadoonaDrlve and eventually over. io TH {l a;d up to the neglonat'niix. since that -!119 Iive talkeal to plannlng and they,re talking aU5ut i coupfe ofdifferent options for a road in connlcting crlmion Bay throuih here orcoF,lng in nith a toad that rortld cone ln iere and eveirtrra I ly- connect to the -east- xow the latest ls a, roadt along the north-boundary. it,s unrtteilr----that the option of connectlng Crirtson pa!, Road ls going-to !o through. Ifthat doesntt go through, lt doesnrt rtake a rot of iens; to fut a trall inthere and cut off, divide that lot trp. so staff rrourd recoi,r,end that eejust contlnue with the previous recorrc,endlti on. cotng iiong the Borrth andeast border of the Propert]r.
t{ady: Ilerll have the opportunit:, at a later date to do aorrething else....develops this rhole thln9.
Boyt3 Ate !,ou aaying the road rourd go .rong the northern edge then?
Slctcenra: Right but it doesnrt rrrake senae for u8 to cone ln along theaouth and east and then go back dorn over. our goar is to get up here. rfyou're looking at, this le routh andt the teglonai park ls 95rng to ue uphere ao our goal_ is to zig-zag-our ra:i through rndt at tle Eine re rhake thatthe nert connectlon nourd be when the-gg .crea coftes through and that againls one of the sites tbat uae rdentrfred aa potentrai "oo*oiity p"rrProperty. when thlt changes ls apt to be rong range ,trln -th"t
".r", "o0,."up for developrrent.
!:"h-t. Are :rou saylng that our recolrr',endatron is based on... youtve gottbe l{lnutes attachedi
I
I
Park anil Rec CoF'rrrission Meetlng
Decen,ber 12, 1989 - Page 2
Sletsen,a: Yes.
Boyt! You think it changedl?
Lash: I don.t rerrerrber but I knou lt rasnitIt has kindl of a connection ritb Dogsood?
Lash: Iir' prett:r sure it ras
ones?
'Sietsen,a: What the connection pas ls that the next piece,overall p1an.
thlg east thlng rnd it went.
f sish I had an
the saFre thing. Have ue done tuo different
Lash: okay, because this caFre back to us and we changeil this. Rer,,errber iteent_ to Plannlng and then t{ark Koegler cane back to ui at our next neetingand he eaid our reconorendatlon real.I!, didnrt rrake aense ulth the Con,p-pi"iand the]r car,e back and re discugaed Ehe rhore thlng again and lt had'BoF,ethlng to do rith Dogwood? I distinctl]' rett,en,b;r f,hat. I rer,eFrber thenlght Mark sas here.
sietsen,a: what we had done was- going arl the ray arong thre whole entrre,lncluding the outlot and then shootiig up this ,iy.--
Lash: And that was our fir6t recoDa,endation right?
Sietserrra: Right.
Lash: Okay. I know that thiE carre back to us a second tine.
schroers: r ren,enber sonethlng rbout that Jan. one of the thlngs thatllark brought up rras pe eere tarking at the aaFre tlne about the popuratlonproJection for the next 25 years oi rhatever the projectea fopoi"iion "oorareach 35,000 in the Cit:, and he fel.t that, lf f rin,eiUei-coirictf1,, it wa;-the oplnlon at that tlr,a that thls addlti6nat parrrina-i.iiiy uoui6n,t ui-necessar!' that far oyt 1! the- Cit:' until the c6n,r,,rrn|ty reach3d tnii tirletpopulatlon or cLose to it. rhat iae sorrethlng tlrat ui gJ.iJ'constaer riy,-ln the future.
Lashl Yourre talking about r park. rferre talklng lbout the trails.lhatra uhat we.re talking rbout r19ht,
.,Sletaerna: Trall , rlght. staf f r a rccorrrrrcndtation raa to go along Dogsoodrnd 90 through, stralgbt tlrough th.t lot conncctlng to 6rtnaon aay. trhatraa ataffra flret recolrr,endatlon. t don.t Lnor lf iark uas in the-audiencethcn or not but lt rae changed then. lfhat the park anit nccriatronCornn,lsslon had reconnrended then raa to go along ttre ioutrr-aiit cagt boundaryof the entlre citc being agaln-the outlot tncliaed ro rhat rin euggeetlng '
bere nor, instead of bringing lt way up here, rtrtctr re conra ao at !or.etlne in the future, chang- that lf itral conei tn,-!r"-.;;iig go along thecaat here. rf this tu-rna out to develop lnto house3, re-cai let thr5ugh.long the streeta or rhatever. tthatevei thla rtreei-connictr6n i; ;;i;;to. rf they put In a Btreet here, rhatever tbat atreet connectron is, iecrn tle lnto that.
Park antl Rec Cold',isslon lleeting
DeceF,ber 12, 1989 - Page 3
Bo:rt: It rrorrld be the !rost...to the park.
Sietserra: Yeah, if lt becorrres a park, rlght. And lf it becones horres,then ne can go along the Etreets to rrake the connectr.on that ue want toBake. Irll have to look. I donrt recall that.
Lash: Because I knoc I voted against lt uhen it came back tbe BeconilI absolutel:, rerrrerrber that. And on thle one ue all voted ln favor and
trrotion carrled. I know lt cap,e back to us. It rent to Plannlng like
next reet and there rere a bunch of probleFrs rlth lt and l{ark cane and
erplained to us their reasoning and then re changed lt. I knor, lt
soFething to do slth Dogeood.
Siet8et"a: AJ.right IIll look but I donrt know...
l.la Do we needl to act on it tonight?
Sietsen,a: Yeah. Unless liou sant to wait until lrou get that other
inforrr,ation but it is going to the Planning Corrrr,lssion at their next
rheeting.
Lash: If lrou're basing that we neeil to change it, basedl on our first
recoFa.endation.
t irr,e . _the
the
dy:
Bo:rt: I donrt thlnk it sas. I think lt vas a probleh golng along Dognood. -
I think thatrE what re santed to do lnltially becauae thatra the one that
rrakes the troat aense uhen you firat glance at lt but lt seens llke thereras so!"ething rrong sith that. ...couldln't get lt over on thig elde...
Schroers: llell there ie deflnltel!, topograph!, over there.
Sietser'a: Ieah, ltia ver:i, eEPeclally uhen liou get doun'to Dogeoodt, lt
gets even rrore erratlc. Severe. Iou have a couPle options. If !'ou eantto revier it, rhat happenedt before, I can go back and dlg out, Bee uhere se
dl8cus8ed thet. I donrt thlnk lt raa on the agenda though because I looked -
back on all the agendas. :Ihat lt Just cane up andt lrll'have to look .nd
sce rhat ttlat ras. Otherrlse, tbe oLd plan ls no longer valid becanae tbatdid not get aPProval so you can baae :7our reco&F.endlatlons strlctl!, on shat
se have in front of us toita:r.
uadlr: lltrinklng it througt!, the old plan reall!, has eorrre old basis on lt.I rtriJor portlon of lt or 8rl of lt doesntt corte ln front of us. It'6 Just
Sietsen,a: I tr, Just givlng !,ou that for background lnforrration. you can
disregardl that whole, because that is no Longer a valld Plan and JuBt go
baseal on this plan.
Sue Boyt'6 cotlrn'ents couldn' t be beard on the tape .
Sletsen,a: If you nant to rait andl I cln go baek and look that up.
Lash: ...the reco&trrendat lon ras to go on Dogwood here, then...
I
Park and Rec Cot''n,isslon t{eeting
DeceFber 12, 1989 - Page 4
this 20 rcres. Ultirnately we're going to have an opportunit:, and it 1,ay be
20 years frorr nou, to r.ake tbat connectlon gmre other way but golng alongthat section Line there, prob.bl!, .t thls polnt rtrakes the ftost 8ense. Justgolng along the edge6 there. t{e donrt have any other way of dolng it.
Schroers: That 8, acres that. . . cornfleld?
Slet3er.a: What lt ls le, two dlfferent geople orn the8e prop€rties and Ibelieve that the gu!, rith the erraller plece, rhat you.re looking at todalr,rgnte9 to dlvide, get rr'ore lots out of lt and lre needed r,ore acieage to dothat because itts a 1 unit per 19 lcres 80 lf you thres the 39 acres in itras 109 and he could get 3lot8 out of h{s and rr,ake tbe other plece anoutlot but lt didntt rork out that Da:, 80 het6 conring bact rltl Juat 2lots.
Schroers: I eould think ue could rrake a recoFrrrendat lon on this.
llatly: Go ahead.
schroers: oka:', rrll rtrove to accept park and trall dedication fees in lleuof parklandl and trail con3truction and to requlre a trall easenent straightnorth frorrr crirrson Bay Roail to Tanadoona Drlve and algo recor,r.end toconsider !t the tinre of further developnrent, nelghborhood park needs.
ltady: Is there a secondl?
Bo!'t: I thought that was the place where tbere ras a problerr puttlng atrail in and going along Crirraon Ba:r Roadl. I6nrt that rhere this pr6blen,rith the trail.. .
Sletserra: Along CrlFrson Ba:'?
Bol't3 Ieah. If thatrs the ltotion.
Sletgerr,a: your tr,otion Has to connect Cr ir,son Bay to Dogrood or to LakeStreet?
Schroers: North.. .
Sletse&as Ieah.
iSchroers: No, I rla folloring etaffrc recortlnendatlon to rcqulre trallclaethenta stralght north frok Crlnson B!!' Rold to tanldoona Drlve.
Sletgerra: Okalr, thrtrs ttre old rccot$rendatlon. Go back to the second pageof your rcport.
L!3h: Whlle lrourre gettlng your tboughts together L!rr!r, can t nrakc one
coftlrlent?
Scbroers: Sure. j
Prirk and Rec Coro,ission eeting
Dece!,ber 12, 1989 - Page 5
Lash: I donrt eant to appear to be real nIou gu:rs rl11 discover that I have a vervspecifically rerrenrber rv,aking a correctlo;done. Irr. sondering, uhen re rtrake correctcorlect it or...
it
go
on
1o
plcky but I have a question.
od rren orgr for details
these rninutes anil 1tnB lf that then is go
and
Pas
bac
I
notk and
Eletser,a: Usual1]r I do.
Lash: Becarrse this endts up becoFrlng the pernanent record correct?
Sietser',a: night. lfhere.s the correctlon?
L,ash: tt uas on page- 15.- I'm Just aaying that thls ls :eally nlt plcklzbut r rerrenrber that this happened because r was the one t,ho uls queltioiing.bout this budget that r9e had started for Lake Minnerashta and r eas askinithese questions about lt and Nann had gotten Darrne and I, I suppose becarrs5 -ye uer-e neu at that tinrer our volces nrixed up so ghe has down that oawneras rraking the coFdrrents. Asking the questlons and I uas asking thequestions and correcting that and it uasnrt done.
a
o
enrt correctedl is because when the Hinutesand label. then, for the files. I got theseout of the Ulnrltes so rben I go back to ar regarding one Lssrre, lnsteading of paginganil trl,ing to find lt, I can flnd all iheate and pulllng lt out andl cop!,ing lt anillnto the...
S i etserra : The reason these
cortre in, ! go througb theFrl{inutes out of the fiIes, nfile thatr s regarding trailg6lettgh a huge book of l,linu
Pages I need b], finding tha
those Hin[tes go in rigbt a
rIaIt
60
testd
Hay
Lash: Before corrections?
sietser"a: Before corrections
sben I get theF,, I put then, lngo ln there.
usually. SoFretir,es. Not alrrlrs but usuall.ltthere because thelrrre needed. They need to
Lash: But the correctlons are needed.
Sletsenra: feah, for the officlal record the), lre rnade.
lladly: Reaal!, to 9o?
Schroers: }{o, aa a Fratter of fact. r kanaged aomehor or anoth€r toget...and I rr' still 6or.erha t confuaed ao t.m not Eeady to toake arecorrfiiendation.
Sietaenra: -r! r9u rant-to 9o- vith the_ optlon of golng fro& crinson Ba!,noad, rhicb ie here, rlong the touth boundary up, thit uoul,d be the rlcondtrcenario. rf the street goes through betreen the tro 10ts or arong thenorth slde, then the previoue recomrrrendtatlon regardlng the trair rf,ourdstand golng arong the south boundary fror', criF,s6n Bay Road to the Boutheastcorner of Lot 2 and along the eaat boundary of Lots I uit 2.
Eo]rt: leab, that ua5 ouf lagt recorwrendatlon.
Park andl Rec Corrrr'l ss i on l{eetlng
Decer,ber 12, 1989 - Page 6
Sietsen,a: Except that instead of going up here, it sent ua:, out. That uas
oh€ r€cortFr€hda t i on.
Schroers: Whatrs klnd of confu6ing n.e nou ls llke if the street goes here.Ihat kind of leads me to belleve that ue donrt know exactl:' uhat ueiredoing, at least thatrs uhat I felt.
Sletsena: Ihat rhat?
Bolit: llerre trying to project into the future ehatr a goLng to trappen.
Sletser,,a: tlhat Planning has told &e ig that the:' sant a street down intbis area 6oF,ehot, to get these people out of here. That uouldl connect, so
that .not everybody ls feeding onto rhatrs labeled here aa Lake Drive..Okay? so if they prrt it in andor if they put lt lnbetween the
other piece develops, the:t conti
north 6ide, those are the 3 optl
the north side just cane up toda
Bo:tt : lnd r
Crlheon Baynorth and th
connect Lake Drlve over to Crinson Ba!, Roadtro lots and at a frrture tlr,e that the
nue lt out or lf the:, put lt up along theons. Therera only 2 in your packet becausey. So if they go thrortgh, put lt through
Crlrrrson Ba:7 Road, Crimson Bay Road to Lake Drlve, then lt rould r.ake Ben3efor the trail to 90 a1on9 there but itt6 not like1y that that'a going tob.ppen. what :'ou would do ls Just make that 'recotwendatlon. tf that
happens, then yorr want the trail here. If lt goes betreen the tso lots or
along the north side, then yourd want the trall along here because what uerant to do is connect Crirr,son Ba:, Road over to Lake llinnet,a8hta Park.
Lash: Is there a orrre xa]' that ue can Just ualt untll we have confirr,ation
on this so we know uhatis happenlng?
tl!il:i: Basicalt:, rrhat ee sant to do ls run lt elong uhatever road they
decide to put in. I donrt knor anlrthing elae...
Sletger,a: Basically. we c.n look rt lt after Planning but t:rpicrll:, ue
nake our recolfrendation before Plannlng looks at lt because uerre on the
aaFe scheilule !s the City Councll and that rould hold-the develoPer uP
al.rr,ost a !,onth lf re have to look at lt after ther,.
Itad3r: the llkellhood ie that tbe:irre only golng to put nore road ln?
Sietset'ra : Ieah .
y rhat the tuo optlons are, ll.nce ye rant to connect froFr
he Eouttrwest corner, the tro optlonE are to go ltraight
robabl:, lan't an opt i on.
Slctsenas Rlght. If they donrt Put ttre rold ln2 then tbat llnrt probably
rhrt ue uant to do.
Bolrt: So our onl!' other real optlon 13 to go the touthern boundary lndt the
eaatern boundary andl lt doeanrt natter then rhere elEe tbe!, put the road
because our goal lB to get frorr the 8outbuest corner to the north.
JIrdlr: So trrovedt .
eal.IintatP
I
llady r,oveil, Bolrt seconded that the Park and Recreation corrrrrission recorr,rr,en(t _to accept-park andl trall deilication fees ln lleu of parkland and trailconstruction and that trail easements run arong the iouth anit eastboundlary- - All voted ln favor ercept Lash rho 5pposed and the motioncarried nith a vote of 3 to 1.
Park and Rec Corrrr,ission t{eeting
Decerr,ber 12, 1989 - Page 7
Bo:tt : Seconat .
CURRT FARXS
CHANHASSEN HILLS
LaKE SUSAN HILLS WEST (4 SITES)
SOUTH PARK SITE (BANDIHERE FART,I)
Bolrt: Hos
and a lot oto aolEe of
L3h:- Do lrou hrve a suggestlon?
:Boyt: Io. I thlnk therera a tlst of atreet n!!le8.
If8!s ok!!,, but...triora ls one. Do you tblnk thererd be a problen rlththat.
A
B
c
D
ut Chanha3aen. . . and there rere a lot of lndians in this areahe roads have the Frontler inttian. derivatlon, tf re 9o Uici-t. Sorrre of roots. . .
aboft
tha
Boyt: ...that's eonfuslng becauEe therera 3 of then ln'torn but re need,but that-rill- 91ve us aorrre indlan uorde. l{e donit rant ont ltke xtowa iirktnd people wlrl never find that. Theyrll knoe there.B ltke 3 or I f,lowas!round .
IIla are but
norttr
l,astr: Or arc - they set up, I trrean f . rrr not even aure uhere theae ale lt eet up in a wa3' thlt there.a a dlrectlon.i-itfri-rf,.i.-on"
SELECTION OF PARK NAUES FOR SITES LOCATED AT:
Lash: Shorrld we do sorrething real novel. Iike Curr:, I.ar&s park?
Chanhassen Hills park? Bandtinrere park and then...
siet8eEa: rt [ould r,ake a Lot of senae to go with the subdivialon nar,e inr.oat casea. I rould thlnk that Curr:r Farr.s-and Chanhassen HilIe are
Hoffnran: Are ver:z pleasant nahes.
tladl:r: }l!, thoughts on thls were basicall:, what Janra are. Use thesubdivislon naFre ehenever possibre andl ii you have a situatlon rheretherets r,ore than one park, you can bet aLnost every sltuatlon r canrert errrber in the 3 or 4 yeara t rve been here_, thereri alnalrs been one r.,ai orpark and then therers been bits and pleces here and therel use thedevelopn'rent narrre for those anat the rlttle bitt), plece parks rr,aybe lftbere's nothlng else that rearly strlkes us, ni ian jui[ use- tne streetnaFle that the:7ire on.
4dex*tst
buqtVt$cst<r<
m
I' ;'l
!i
iiu
iit
ilI
1
ffiffiffiffi
I
I
I
I
Irl.a
.,iot
rl
s
I
a'i\',
il
a r t ?. . tt i
fiifi lflfi
tlliilillt
llll ltll
ll
I
lll
\,\
J,
p"
B
II
rl
I
It,#
i
ltr!!t!!!iut:
tiiiiiiiliiiii
iiiiiiiiii:iii
rtlll'lll:1,!lr !,1 t !rlr'
6
I
II
I
II
I
I
iii
il
t'
JamesRH
Er,! EnS / EircNEERll / S,nVEloRS
inc
t'oltreln i^Il .roarI'taalr,irll e lolL lm
?trotrt o.
Zll{lilEnXA FAF]II
I
ii;l a
!
6
I
i ffif[i
I
aI
tI
I
I
I
I__-/ l I
-.,.=.t- l.rr:l-5gL=
II EEll r:lrr rH!
.t.::!l-l r
tli!l
I
I
I
I
;
i
I
i
I
I
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings
.rchitccts . cnginccrs. planncrs
topeka . wichita . minneapolis . kansas cltg
T
t
t
l
t'
t
T
T
t
t
I
t
t
t
t
t
L
L
L
0m 0r cmflilAssEil
tsIEBIEI]MECI
JUN c 1 1988
EIIGIflETRIIIG DEPI.
IEISIBILITT SII,I,Y RN
SITEB IIIRCIIA| ItrS
EN
ITI'IIM{T MI\IB - ETi@ AVE{Ecfrt e cBlNHtssan, f,rlslEsrA
JIrNts, 1988
I hereby certlfy thlt these plrns
ard apccif ica tions ere prepared by
De or under my direct aupeL.rrlllon
and that f am a duly RcglstcEed
Profegs lqral Eplneer n&r
of thc State of ltlrnesda.
ttp las
L
stra
Dte
VATT DREN{AZART}.5AIIII}GS, ItT'
3030 Bartor Lne tbrth, Sulte l0{
llirurapollal titrmesota 55417
(612) 553-1950
L
L
t
t
t
t
t
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
l_
t_
t
L
June 17, 19883030 Harlor Ln t.lodr
Bbg. n, Suib lO4
l,linnepolis. IN f,54it7.2r 75
61265$1950
Dear llr. lrarren:
The enclosed information constitutes the feasibility study forthe improvement of Tanadoona Drive and Oogrooo i ri'n r e-.-
- ' r n i ,material has been as,sembred .in respon-se to- u ..sioini ietitionll9 h^as be.e-n prepared under the guider ines estJoiiitrio'iy tr,.City Counci l.
This report exanines four arternatives, ali of |rh i ch are feas i br efron an e-ng.inee.ring..perspective. In ail of the atternaiir.i, tneuse of 'standard" roa_d.way sections is noI fe;iti;'O-r,. toexisting cgnditions- The -proposed sections a.i ateqriie toensure public safety and all aie appropriate for - aJc-e-piince uy!lr: ctty of Chanhaisen fo.r -ongoi'rig 'r,ainie;;-r.;-;i;;o'r.r.
Alternate 'A" is recoramended for - i m p r
-e
me n t a t i o n sr,orti -t
h'e- citydecide to initiate-.an improverlent project. -Aic[grounO
information and specific reasons for thii seiection irJ'oiiiir.oin the report.
I'l e appreciate this opportun!ty to provide continued plannino andengine€ring services to thd cit'y of cr,iri,isiJnl'-"ii"ryo*convenience, xe are available to firrthe. oisCrii-ir,. o.tuir, orthis study. rith s ta ff, the city counci i- ano interested residentslnd property orner s.
tlery truly yours,
llayor and City Counci t
9{o ttr. Eary tarren, City EngineerCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter 0rive
Chanhassen, iinnesota S5317
VAI{ O()REN-HAZARI)-STALLINGS,
by:
Darrel I D
President
0DH: sd
a mond , P.E
:
t
t
t
t
t
t
I
I
Tanadoona Drive - Dogrood Avernre is a dead-nl atreet, approxim tely one mile
long, that currently serves the Camp Tanadoona Campflre Girls camp, the
resldents of sunset Hill on Lake llinnenshta sri:division an one farmstead.
lhe resi&nts of sunset Hill reqEsted that th€ city take over oaintenance of
the portion of the street nou privately naintained. Addi tional.lyl in
conjunction wi th the subnission of a prerimlnary plat for the developnent of
the original zimmerman farm, the city reviercd options to eliminaee the
cxisting Dogrcod Avenr.e dead enl.
This Etudy has been prepared to 16k at alternates for upgradirq the existing
street to current city standards ard proridirg acceEs for future development
in the Zinnrerman Fam Addition.I
t.
t
t
I
t
I To upgrade the streets to an acceptable ninlmum design Btandard
allowing the City to assurE respors ibi li ty for onqoing ma intenance.
2. 11, forride safer, Dre direct access for energenqr vehicleE.
3 To prov ide rccess for future develoFrEnt of urdeveloped lanl in the
area .t_
L
L
t
1
BACKGROUI{D
rbe purrose of the prqosed Errlic imgovenent roject for upgrrading x.nadoona
Drive - Dogrcod A\renue is:
I
t
t
t
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t_
t_
t
t
L
L
FI
!I
)
F
c$',
)
EXHIBIT NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
2
r d t Ia
-d I I Ie),afi
I
I
!t-JlTTFEI
/,
2-.-ui
sr Jof
P OJECT
o
E
OCATION
LAKE
a
uldfiEUasHft
l a2ro l'rtaar
s
(NO SCALE)
l_-
I
I @
rTfi
d
----1r,
L /X'
/
_t
_t
_t
_t
_t
t
EICSTING @I{DITIOiIS
the easterly 1000' of lanadoona Drive frsn Hlghny 41 to the entrance of Camp
Tanadoona has a 20r gravel surface anl is currendy mintained b1t th€ City.
Beyond the camp entrance, the rordEy narroE to 14,+ in ridth and is
essentially a one-Ey sereet. This portion of the madEy also has gravel
surfacing ard is prirately naintalned. The narrow ridth, steep qrades (ln
excess of 9t), and lack of a turn-around mke this section of the road
dtffictlt for emrgency rrchicles to access. tta ior dlanges in this portion of
the road are required to rEet current City stardards.
The land adjacent to Tanadoona and Dogrood on the south and east, the
Zinmerman farm, ms recently Eold and is belng developed as a rural
subdlvision. the plat tha t has been subrdtted calls for tlEee neu lots to be
crea ted *ith the rema inder of the prel as an qltlot. Itr&r qlrre{rt aning
strn&rds, . total of 10 lots are pesible ln thls develqnent.
J
J
_t
J
I
t
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
3
Although separately named, lbnadoona Drive anl bgr{cod Averue are essent,ialry
one street. Ianadona Drive begins at State Bighmy ill and runs resterly
approximately 31250 feet. The traveled portim of Dogrood Avenue begins at
this point anl goeE south another 1,250 feet ending at lot 12 of the Sunset
Hill Subdivisim rri tirut a turn-around or culde-sac.
I
t
ai
6+s'
c
+&
r
I
I
i
t-
I
T
I
5
I
i
I
t- t- L- t_ Lf2rr^
(NO SCATE)
EXHIBIT NO. 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
I
o
r€t
,o
JOXX p,
CAMP TAtitAOOOt{A
t TNIEAPO|-|S COUNCT! OF onLS
?
0 o
o
/
o
Z MENMAiI FARMS
rr1 DP -lOG.^'1OD E. r'^tstB" ''rY S 'PY I
IE
t
t
the three ner lots are in the southeast corner or trl parcet and acress to
thsn rill be fron Dogrood Avenue. Tr€ of the lots are beyond the current
linits of Dog mod Avenue, therefore, the street silr have to be extended.
sirre the edsting rlght-of-Ey for llanadoona Drive ard Dogrsd lvenue ls only
20r rlde, the developer agreed to donate the additional Land needed to
establlsh a 60 Ecot yide right-of-Ey area.
Near the interseclion of Dogrcod A\rerue and Ianadosra Drive is a 1or mrstry
area that is l&ntified as Class B retlan:!. This area ss revlened by Dr.
Leach of the u.s. Fish & wildlife service. speciftc @mments on etLand
impcts are ad&essed in the disossion of eacil alterna te.
_t
_t
T
t
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
L
L
L
L
L
5
TLIERNATES
Four alternates Ere selected for detailed stuCy and cost estlmates.
Alterrnate "A" looks at upgrading the Fresent alignmnt to current standards.
Alternate 'B' establishes a ner alignnent for a portion of Ianadoona Drive and
ttEn establishes a 'T" sitEtidl tdth cul-&-acs to both the north and eouth
a long Dog rcod Avenue. Alternate 'C' also follos the existing aligmEnt,
except in the area of tlE sanitary seEr flanrd slEtem. Alternate 'D' ;rori&s
raximm actess for future developnent of the Ziroennan farms plat.
TtE bse &ta for developlng the alternates and cGt estimtes Es taken fron
existing pla|.s. L/2 section maps, USGS maps ard aerial ptDtos. Before any
final &siO is Ln&rtaken, a ccmplete topographic ard planinetric survey r*iIl
be needed. Deta iled soils information i3 unava ilable. Ihe caEver @unty
soils map indicates the predominate soils are tiayden and Glencoe toams. TtEse
types of soils normally do not pose any najor problems for street
@nstnrctim. A disqrssion of each alterna te follos.
6
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
I
t
t
II.IERNAIE A - EOTIBTf 'O. 3
The alignment for this alterna!e follo*s the existlng ranadoma Drive and
DoqEod Avenue. DoglDod Avenue, r*rlch currently ends at lot 12, muld be
extended to the south end of the Sunset ttlll ptat. A qrl{e-sac rctrld be
built at the erd of Dogrcod Avenr.e and a E&st reallgnrEnt is proposed at the
intersection of Tanadoru Drive and DogEod Arrenre.
ftc gqosed roadsy for this rlternate Erld be a rural type ditch section
using a 2il! bi tunincus $rface rd th 5t gravel atoul&rs oo T.nad€n Drive and
r 20r bituninous gurface wlth 2r gravel shoulders on Dog rood Avenue (see
Exhibit No. 7.) On Doqrood Averue aCjac.ent to the sailt ry rlDund systsn, the
dltdr Elld be eliminated and special deslgn rEasure!, sill be ernployed to
mininize impact. to the qFt€li.
Due to the proxinity of the gErage on the Est side of the road ard the lift
station m the east slde, constnrction of an upgraded bg pod lvenue may not
be possible without some nodification to th€ rDund rnd lift statim. (See
Exhibit tlo. 8.) By shiftlng the roadEy to the Est and using the curb
aection, the lift station rnd lve rna nhole rcutd be raised 2r. Another
optian tsuld be to not shlft tha roadEy but reloc.te the llft station rnd
rnrnhole approxirutely 25r to the e.st. Ihe estlmted Gt for the reloca tion
ls approxina tely S10,000.
t
L
L
L
L
7
t_
L
*9
I
i
l-
I
I
r
I
5
I
i
t-
f-
t-
:
5
I
t
t-
rrt$
ItI
t
r
I
lt
(NO SCALE)
EXHIBIT NO. 3
ALTERNATE A
onLl
GAMP IA|| DOOi|I
lllr{r{E^Pot-t3 COt itct of
,o
I|MMEAM I{ F FMS
E
o
trI€i
I lTAl...Joc,...lon. -bc.,-bo ^,E. r-^bler-,. Y s,-J v ",1
JOI{N P,
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
The terrain is generally ro11ir4 wlth sonre slopes up to Bt - l0t. koposeal
gnra&s up to 8t eill be used to lessen lmpact on existirE stn ctu.es, sorr€ of
*rlc*r are uithin I0r of the rlght-of-By. As previarsly mntiqted, there is a
retlard aRea near the intersecticr of tranadona Drive and Dog rcod Avenue. A
field review of this area Es nEde by Dr. James Leach of the U.S. Fish &
wildlife Senrice an ln a Eitten Respnse to the City he determined that no
a&rerse furpact to the etlard rDuld o@r frcn this allgnmnt.
Itn existirq drainag structrres along Xanad@na ard Dogr.od are generalJ.y in
poor condition and undersized. All existing drainage structures $ill be
replaced. An additional 0.8 acres of right-of-ey rculd be acguired to
provide for the real igrnnent at the intersection of Tanadoon anC bgrood and
acrGs the sa\,,aryn Froperty.
The total cost of Alterna te A is 9255,000 rhich rculd be assessed on a frdrt
foot bsis. this cGt for Alternate A is $25.35lfront foot.
I
I
I
I
t
L
L
1L
t
1
I
I
I
L
ALIERNIIE B - ENIBTT T.Io. I
The alignment for this alteErate follors Tanadoona Drive to the Est side of
the l{alter ZfurrlterrBn parcel, ttren santh along the Est edge of the Zimmerman
parcel approximately 400r, then turns est to rcet exlstlng Dogrood Avenue.
DogEod Avenrc rculd be extended south to the erd of the Sunset Hi.lI plat and
a connection muld be made from tlE neu alignmene bck to Dogrood At enue to
sene the tms qt lots I - 5 of Sunset Eill. ltere rculd be culte-sacs on
both ends of Dog lDod Avenue. with this alternate, existing rianadsra Drive
Est of the Zlmernan parcel cotrld be rDca ted.
The proposed roadey section for this alignment is the sanre as Nternate iA"
ui t}! the e!(ceptid! of the tie-in to Dogrcod Avenue. The tie-in anC Dogrcod
Averrue *rich rculd senre lots I - 5 rculd be an l8t bitumino.rs surface si th 2,
gnavel shanlders. ln 18r roadny rilt adeqr.ra tely serve the flve homes and
have less impact q1 the npund system.
the terrain, tree @\rer anJ slqes are sirnilar to Alternate A. ftris aligrnment
rculd regui re sdrE addltional tree removal buL nould not reguire the laEge
dra inage structures rt the outlet of the etland or changes to the lift
strtlon.
This alternate rculd require the acguisition of approxima tery 3.3 acres of
rigfrt-of-my. The alignment rourd provide limited additional access for
future &veloprEnt of the zlllrlErman Eams Additim.
the cct of Alternate B is 52811500 and is to be assessed on a front foot
basis. Ihis cGt for tlternate B is S25.80/frart foot.
10
I I I I I 1 I
I
i
i
I
r
t-
5
I
i
r
r
I
t-
r
5
I
I
i
2IUMEFMAI{ iAFM9
(NO SCALE)
EXHIBIT NO.4
ALTERNATE B
__ i=O
B,o
c^tf t^it^ooot{A
yrxrlEAPoUS COUI{ct oF c olFla
--t
,o
Joltit ,
TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY rr
..i$
i'ttf
o
ALTRT{AIE C - EfiIBTT IS. 5
ftre alignrnent for this alterna te is essentially the same as Nterna te A except
for a porticr of DogFod Avene *ricfi has been noved to the east of the nound
systen. t tie-in to existing Dogtood will prorl<te lccess to lots 1 - 5 anal
ttcre srld be cul*-acs at either erd of Dogrod A\rentE.
T?re goposed oduy section for the tie-in srld be an l8r bltumimus surface
as ln Alterna te 'B'. The exiEting terrain, proposed graCes and dralnage
etructures also wlll be similar to those discussed for Altern te A. ltee
renorral for this alignnEnt sill be gre. ter than for Alternate A due to tnavily
tidered l.rd to the elst rnd north of the npund qfstsn.
I?ris alterna te rcu1d not reguire m]>r rodi fica tiorE to the mound system but
also does not provide access for future &velopnent of the zinmrman Frrttts
addlrim.
The cost for Alternate C ls $281,700 to b assess€d qr a front foot bsls.
Assessed costs torld nn $25.65 per frdrt foot..
12
Addltional right-of-yay to be acguired for this alternate lould be
lppro:(inE tely 2.8 a*eE.
of
o
tsJg
U'
IJJlr
UJ
ooo
=ooot.
tro
zooo
z
u)o
cjpzz
1-Z6a
= llJ
X -.ruJ<
UJJ
,o
oz
0
zoPrx9
-.u13
2I
I
"a*o
"\,lr,
:iq:
I
o
o
P
ai1
:
..
I
!!
tl
,!
...
"r
ol
T
- - r_ !_. L_ L_ LI I tE !_ L_ L_ t_ lI I E L_ L !
tE
z:ttE.I
ALTERI{AIE D - EMIETT iD. 6
The proposed typical sections rDuld be the same as the other alternates,
erc€pt Ebgrood AvenLE Euld be 20r eide up to lot 4 and l8r ride past the
ll)und systen to lot 1.
The cla t for f,lternate D is 5302,400 to b rssessed on the front foot bsis.
Ihe front foot cGt for Alternate D ls $25.50.
14
ThiB alternate improves lnternal access for the futlEe developlEnt of the
Zirnrrmn Fams Additiq! along dth the existing hones in Sunset EiLl. ?he
alignmnt is simil.ar to Altern te B excrept TandoqE Drlve rculd tr.Er south on
the east si& of the Zlfltermn Parcel and seirq farther Bouth be fore meeting
DogFod Avenue. Existing Tanadoona Drive could be vacated Est of the
entrirnce to callp lanadocna.
The existirq terra in ard slopes, prqosed grades ard dra lnage dll be efunilar
to ttpse discussed in Alternate B. Tree removal rill also tre slmilar to
Alternates B and C. Additional right-of-my requlred for this .lterrr.te
totals approxim tely 5.4 actes.
I
I
+9
:
I
I
I
rt
I
i
I
5
I
't
I
rtt
.t'tI
o ftl
(NO SCA|-E)
EXHIBIT NO.6
ALTERNATE D
?o
clraP TALAoooxA
MftNEAPOUII COUNCL Of CAMPF otBf I
o,. (,.
"o
JOri P.
TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILIT Y STUDY tc
lttttttttttrttttttl
o hE
+,
a'a'6'
GT
0
f .eto nt.err rup lrunrar! uEre cqrtsE
o' c1.ass 5 ei^vc! lpor ct gcDr
G'cL 33 5 ciryEl gou.rnt (tor cit gGDt
9r I
TYPICAL SECTION FOR TANADOONA DRIVE
C
2'i!'t 20'
l_
EXHIBIT NO. 7
y' . arr atrrr ruED utunrorr! uEln cqJtlc
D' C! 33 5 eiAVE! lDOr CirIIDl
a' ctlti r eiavEL roq.ra3 ltorc rtfor
%
ffiffil
tr'i.i$:;-,-:irlll}{{',..;i^(r'f i!.'
16
I
TYPICAL SECTION FOR DOGWOOD ROAD
I
-,/4
2-@
4
l1 lrt I I lt I I tt ft
I
REU'C.
c
!
I /,_-----
i
(E rsr.l
DiIYE A? JOI€! PNOPENTV
PROE
Gxrst,
1
a
I
,l
i
t-
t-
I
5
I
't
fid_0
GttY 0f
CHAl'IHASSEl{
FOCX 6EO AREA
Prr
Lrft 3TAflO
t
tECrloI SEIrEEX OAiAOE A O lorrxo
iEu)G.
RELOC
1.,
r--T +-tZtt
t
)ov€t
I
RAISE I(P t
)a
--l
I
(NO SCATE)gxrst LtFt sTArtoit
EXH]BIT NO. 8
I{I
t_
tEc?toN At tFT a?A?(,t{
IE
tiE
A.
PLAN
TANADOONA DR..DOGWOOD AVE. FEASTBILIT Y STUDY '7
t I
I
I
I
I
I
GT TAEUIATTOT{S
fable I shorE a compara ttve cGt breakdom for all of the alternrtlves. All
lnpvenents are to be flnanced by the City of Chanhassen. lhe cct of these
inpronements will be assesseC to the benefitting fe€rties m a frqrt foot
basls. Tables 2-5 groriib a colpari son of the lsseEsments for .ach of the
altemates.
III/AIIIAGES & DISADI'A}TTIGES
Alternate A
ldvantages
1.
2.
3.
IoEst constnction an frmt foot cGt.
Ilarld require the letst addi tional right-of-Ey.
8as tlP least tre€ rstoval.
Disad\rantaqes
l. ltay require ttDdi f ica tion of the lift st tion.
2. Does not provide access for development of Ehe zimmerman Farm
ldditidr.
Altern te B
ldt ant qes
1. Iitould not regulre largc dralnage rtructures .t qttlet of Ethrd
trea.
2. ErId rEt reguln Ddi f lcrtiqr to Gnd qlstgl.
3. Provldes lintteal accesg for Zlmman Earms.
t8
t
-t
{
J
J
J
J
J
J
I
J
J
_t
I
Dlsadvantaqes
_t
1.
2.
3.
1 Requl res sdrstantial addi tlonal rl ght-of -ey.
Requires the rDst tree rsnoval.2.
Alterfla te C
A6yantaqes
Disadvanta ges
l. 9buld not Foride lc€ess for future &velop Ent.
2. no.rld require substantlal addl tional rightif-Ey.
Alterna te D
kotrldes maximum acoess for future developoEnt .
ko.rides nDre opportunlties to &velop a secodi .ccess.
fbuld not require n dificatlo to rcund systsl.
Disadva ntaoes
t. Bighest ct.
2. ttuld require sdrst ntlal ddltloal rlght-of-Ey.
1S
ldt antages
l. nculd not regulre rodl fica tlon to rctnd syBtarr.
I
TABLE 1
PR()JECT COST ALTERNATE A
ITE}1
PROJECT C()ST ATTERI{ATE B
I TE I't COST
CLEARIl{G & GRUBBING
GRAD I NG
PAV I N6
DRAINAGE
RAISE LIFT STATION
C()TISTRUCTION COST
RI GHT.OF.I.IAY
At)IlI N ISTRAT I ON, LEGAL
AND E]IGINEERING
CLEARIilG & 6RUBBING
6RADING
PAV I NG
DRAIT{AGE
RAISE LIFT STATI()N
CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT-OF-}IAY
ADI.I I N I STRAT I OIi, LE6AL
AND ENGINEERING
$12
$41
it?2tl3
$5
,000.00
,000 .00
,500.00
,000 .00
,000 .00
t1s,600.00
$47,300.00
$135,900.00
111,000.00
$r93
i2
ls8
,500.00
,600.00
,900.00
TOTAL TOTAL
l,l0TE:6RADING INCLUDES EARTHtI0RK,
EROSION C()NTR()L & RESTORATI()N
PR()JE CT COST ALTE RNATE C
COST
$281 ,500.00
N0TE : GRADING It{CLUDES EARTH}l0RK,
EROSION CONTR()L & REST()RATION
PR()JECT COST ALTERNATE D
I TE I,I COST
CLEARII,I6 & GRUBBING
GRADIN6
PAV I NG
l)RAINAGE
RAISE LIFT STATI()I{
C()NSTRUCTION C()ST
RI6HT.OF.TAY
AD}II I{ I STRAT I ()N, LE GAL
AI{D EN6INEERING
CLEARING & GRUBBIN6
GRADING
PAV I I{G
DRAIilAGE
RAISE LIFT STATI()I{
c0r{sTRucTI0il c0sT
RIGHT-OF-TIAY
ADI{I N ISTRATI ()N TLEGAL
AilD EI{GITIEERIIIG
$221 ,900 .00
llo,700.00
$69 ,800.00
$13,700.00
150,500.00
3r 48 ,000 .00
t9,7o0.o()
$211
$5
s65
,000.00
,700.00
,200.00
T(}TAL t28l ,900.00 T OTAL
t{OTE:6RADING INCLUDES EARTHU0RK,
ER()SI()N CONTR()L T RESTORATI()I{
N0TE:GRADING It{CLUDES EARTHU0RK,
ER(]SI()N CONTR()L I REST()RAII()N
20
c0sT
t209 ,800.00
s6,700.00
$65,000.00
t255,000.00
I TE |il
$14,600.00
$45,700.00
$137,000.00
$13,700.00
t302 ,100 .00
t l--..-, L--, t- t-. 1..-, l- L tq I-I
-t
TAilADOOTIA . DOGI{O()l) FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELITIITIARY ASSESSIIEI{T ROLL
ALTERNATE A
IEt I
PARCEL
t{u }rBE R
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTION - ()I{I{ER FROTIT
FOOTAGE ASSESS}IEI{T
I
2
4
3
5
6I
8
9
l0It
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6tl
l8
l9
20
2L
22
23
24
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
ILL
3460
810
486
?813
108
163
149
t26
102
137
67
t02
t02
64
64
100
97
95
95
100ll5
2t0
215
100
IIITII{EAP()LIS COU}ICIL ()F CAITPFIRE GIRLS
GE TSC
GETSC
GETSC
GETSC
GETSC
GEISC
GETSC
T I IIOT
T I IIOT
TI tIOT
RP.
RP.
RP.
RP.
RP.
RP.
RP.. FOSTER. FOSTER. FOSTER
$87,7ll
534
320
831
738
132
177
194
586
413
698
586
586
622
622
535
459
408
408
535
915
845
971
535
Z IIIIIERT{AI{ FARI,IS-OUTLOT A
suilsE
SUNSE
suilsE
SUN SE
suilsE
suilsE
SUN SE
suilsE
SUI{SE
suilsE
suilsE
SUTISE
SUNSE
suilsE
SUNSE
sul{sE
SUI{SE
IIINEUASHIA.L()T I
JOHN P. SAYRYI,I
IIALTER ZIIItIERI{AI{
TI}IOTHY D. FOSTER
RODGER OAS
RONALD GESLIIIL. }IART I N J()NE S
JAI{ET QUIST
RICHARD LUNDELL
J()YCE F()LEY
BARBARA FREEIIAN
EAREARA FREEI,IAtI
BARBARA FREE}IAN
BAREARA FREEI.IAN
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
THIH
TH
THIH
TH
TH
TH
ILL
ILL
I LL
ILL
ILL
ILL
OI{ LAKE
OII LAKE()I{ LAKE
Oil LAKE
ON LAI(Eoil LArE()t{ LAXE
ON LAXE(I1I LAXE()t{ LAKEoil IAKE()tI LAKE
OTI LAKE
OI{ LA(E
ON LA(E
ON LA(E
ON LAKE
2
3
4
5
6
7I
9
l0ll
t?
l3
l4
l5
l6
l7
it
lt
t{
il
t{
il
it
H
ilr
il
]tII
t{I
il
I
2
3
IIINET'ASI{TA-LOT
I NNE}'ASHTA-LOT
I IINETIASHTA. LOT
I1{NEI{ASHTA-L()T
I I{'IET'ASHIA. L()T
I TINEIJASHTA-L()T
I TIIIEIIASHTA. L()I
ItII{EI{ASHTA-LOT
I I{NETASHTA- L()T
I]It{EI{ASHTA-LOT
I}ITIEUASHTA.L()T
IIIIIE}'ASHTA-LOT
INI{EI{ASHTA.L()T
IililEt{ASt{TA-L0T
INI{EI{ASHTA-LOT
III'{El.lASHTA-LOT
120 ,il2,
172,
12,
S4 '$3,
i3 '12,l3,
$l '12 '$2 '$l 'll '12,
$2 '12,
12,
12r
12,t6,
$6'l?,
I I }IIIERIIAII FAR'IS- LOT
z I lil{ERtrAt{ FARtts- L0T
I I'{IIE RIIAII FARIIS- LOT
HC0
HC0Ic0lt c0
HC0
HC0
HC0
HY O
HY D
HY O
D
I
I
I
IIIIIII
l- l- t- l- ,5 r-t ,Lr Eq H q rt .rl dl
TANADOONA . DOG},OOO FEASIBILITY STUOY
TABLE 3 PRELIlIINARY ASSESSI{EI{T ROLL
ALTERNATE B
DESCRIPTION. OTINER
FRONT
F()OTAGE ASSESSI{EiIT
I
2
4
3
5
6
1
8
9
l0ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
2q
SUNSE
SUilSE
SUNSE
SUI{SE
SUNSE
suf{sE
SUNSE
sut{sE
SUNSE
sut{sE
SUl{SE
suilsE
SUNSE
SUNSE
I t r{[E
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AX
AK
AK
AK
LO
II{NEUASHTA-LOT
INI'IE}IASHTA.LOT
INNEI.IASHTA-LOT
INNEI.'ASHTA.LOT
I NI{EIJASHTA- LOT
I NNEUASHTA-LOT
I NNEUASHTA- LOT
INNEI{ASHTA-LOT
INNEIIASHTA.LOT
I}ITIEUASHTA.LOT
I1{NEUASHTA.LOT
INI{EI{ASHTA-LOT
INI{E}IASHTA.L()T
INNEUAS}ITA-LOT
INIIEIIASHTA-LOT
INNEI'ASHTA-LOT
CA]IPFIRE GIRLS
J()HN P. SAVRYN
IIALTER II}tI{ERIIAI{
TI}tOTHY O. FOSTER
R()DGER OAS
R()NALD GESLITIL. t{ARTIN JONES
JA}IET QUIST
RICHARO LUIIDELL
JOYCE FOLEY
BARBARA FREEIIAI{
BARBARA FREEIIAN
BARBARA FREEITAN
BARBARA FREEIIAN
6E TSCH CORP .
GETSCH CORP.
GETSCH CORP.
GETSCH CORP.
GETSCII CORP.
GETSCH CORP.
GETSCH C()RP.
I I
'IOTHY
O. FOSTER
TIIIOTHY D. F()STER
TI}I()THY I). FOSTER
?245
810
820
4595
108
163
149
t26
102
137
67
102
102
64
64
100
97
95
95
100ll5
?70
275
100
921
898
t56
551
786
205
844
251
632
535
729
63?
632
651
651
580
s03
451
451
580
967
966
095
s80
TIIIilERTAil FARIIS-()UTLOT A
I{INNEAPOLIS COUTICIL OF
INNETIASHTA-L()T I
$57,
$20,
$21 ,
$118,
12.
,4 't3,
t3 '12,t3'll 't?,
12,
sl 'll,
12,
12,
12,
12,
12.t?,
$6 'f 7 '$2,
2
3
4
5
6
7I
9
l0
1l
t2
l3
l4
l5
l6
t7
EllEilEilEllEllEilEll
EHEltEilEilEllEltEt{EllEltEilTIT?T3
SUIISET I{ILL ()N LAK
SUI{SET H I LL OI{ LAK
SUNSET HILL ()N LAK
T
T
T
T
HILL ON L
HILL ON L
HILL ()N L
HILL Oil L
L()I{LL()NLL()I{L
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
ILL ON LILL ON L
ILL ON LILL (]N L
T HILL ON L
RlrAl{ FARilS-
ILL ()i{ L
ILL ON L
IL
IL
IL
I I ttIIERI{AN FARIIS.L()
I I },I}IERI{AN FARI{S. LO
Nl\)
PARCEL
1{UlrBER
I I
I
I
I
I
IIII I --I 1-".-.- l__. L_, t_. L, l_ L_ L.. h -r
TANADOONA - DOGUOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELI}IINARY ASSESS}IEI{I R()LL
ALTERNATE C
I I
PARCE L
I{UI,IBER
TABLE 4
DESCRIPTI()II . ()I{NER FR()TII
F()()TAGE ASSESSI{ENT
I
2
4
3
5
6
II
9
l0lt
t2
l3
l4
l5
l5
l7
l8
l9
IIII{NEAPOLIS C()UilCIL OF CA}IPFIRE GIRLS
R I CHARD
J()YCE F
BAREARA
BARBARA
BAREARA
BAREARA
GETSCH
6ETSCH
GEISCH
6ETSCt{
GETSCI{
GETSCH
GETSCI{
TIIIOT}IY
T I IIOTI{ Y
TI}IOTHY
EE}IA1{
EE 1,IAil
EETIAI{
E E IIAN
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
FOSTER
F()STER
F()STER
3l l0
810
486
4ls3
108
163
149
t?6
102
137
67
102
102
64
64
100
97
95
95
100ll5
270
275
100
,772
,17 7
,466
,52 4
,17 0
,l8l
,822
,232
,616
,51 4
,7l g
,616
,616
,64?
,64?
,565
,488
,437
,437
,565
,9s0
.926
,054
,565
II'IIIERIIAT{ FAR!IS.OUTL()T A
SUTISET HILL ()1{ LAKE }III{1,IEI{ASI{TA.LOT I
!ur{sET HILL 0il LAKE ilrr{l{E},ASHTA-[oi iSUI'ISET HILL ()N LAKE }II}IilE}'ASHTA-'Oi Jl!l!!!lI HrLL 0r{ rA(E ilrr{r{El{AsHTA-L0i 4!uilsEr t{rLL 0N LAt(E,trNt{EUAsHTA_idi 5sUl{sET HrLL 0il LAKE ilrililErAsHTi_a0i;
l!.lillqI HrLL 0il LAt(E HTililETASHTA_a0r,
!ull!ET urLL 0r{ LAKE }tr1{NEUlSrrl_[oi i!ulr!ET HrLL 0r{ LAt(E ilrINETJASHTA_L6i i!uil!ET HrLL 0il LAxE ltrNNEUlsurn-[oi io!uil!ET ltrLL 0il LAt(E l{rililEr,ASHTA-i0i ii
!uilsET HrLL 0t{ LAKE ilrr{ilEUASHTA_[0i ii!uil!ET HrLL olt LAKE
'{rr{r{EUASHTA_adi i3!q!!qI HrLL 0il LArE ilrltilEr{AsHTi_[0i i4!ultsEr HILL 0t{ LAKE ilrr{il8}tASHTA-i0T is
!!lltgFT HrLL 0il LAKE ilrr{ilEtJAsHTA_I0i i;!qilsEr HrLL 0r{ LAKE }tTNNEUASHTA_L0i iiIIililERilAil FARilS-L0T I -- -'
Z IiIIIER'IAII FARIIS.LOT 2zIil,{ERilAt{ FARIS-L()T 3
J()III{ P. SAVRYN
I.'ALTER Z ItII{ERIIAI
TIIIOTHY O. FOSTER
RODGER OAS
ROI{ALD GE SL I1{L. I{ARTIN JOl{ES
JATIET OU I ST
LUNOELL
OLEY
$79
l?0
$12
$lo6
l2
t4
l3
$3
l2
$3
$l
t?
l2llll
l2
l2
l2
t?
l2
l2
l6
l7
t?
FR
FR
FR
FR
c0R
c0R
c0R
c0R
c0R
c0R
c0R
0.
D.
0.
20
2t
22
23
24
Not
II I
I
TANADOONA . DOG}IOOO FEASIBILITY STUOY
TABLE 5 PRELI}IINARY ASSESST{EIIT ROLL
ALTERNATE O
I
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
9
l0II
l2
l3
l4
l5
l6tt
t8
l9
20
?l
22
23
24
CA}IPFIRE GIRLS
,r0l{}l P. SAvRYN
},ALTER II}tIIER}IAN
TITI()THY D. FOSTER
R()DGER OAS
RONALO GE SL I NL. I{ART I II J ()I{E S
JANET QUI ST
RICHARD LUNDELL
.,()YCE F()LEY
BARBARA FREE}tAII
BARBARA FREEIIAN
BARBARA FREE}IAI{
BARBARA FREEI.|At{
suilsE
SUNSE
SU}ISE
sur{sE
sultsE
SUIISE
sut{sE
sut{sE
SUNSE
sur{sE
s ut{ sE
suilsE
SUNSE
suilsE
SUNSE
sul{sE
sut{sE
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
Ar(
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
L()
INNEI{ASHTA-LOT
It{1{EUASHTA.LOT
INIIEUASHTA-L()T
I NNEUASHTA.LOT
INt{EI{ASHTA-LOT
I NNEI{ASHTA- L()T
INNEUASHTA.LOT
INNEI.IASHTA-LOT
II{NEIIASHTA-L()T
IilNETIASHTA-LOT
II,IIIEI{ASHTA.LOT
IN1{EUASHTA-LOT
INIIEI{ASHTA-L()T
INl'IEUASHTA-L()T
I IINET'ASHTA-LOT
INNEUASHTA.LOT
INNEl{ASHTA-LOT
GETSCH
GETSCH
GETSCH
GETSCH
GETSCH
GE T SCH
GETSCH
T I }I()TH
T I }IOTH
TIIIOTH
CORP.
C()RP.
CORP.
CORP.
CORP.
CORP.
CORP.
}IINNEAP()LIS COUNCIL ()F
F()STER
FOSTER
F()STER
1580
810
452
657 7
108
163
149
126
102
137
6t
102
102
64
64
100
97
95
95
100ll5
?70
275
100
I I ililERl{At'l ARIIS-OUTLOT AF
L
L
L
L
L
Lt
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
F
F
F
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0ll
12
l3
l4
l5
l6
l7
EltEl{EilEilEltETElrEllEltEil
EHEt{EllEilEllEilEltTII2T3
oilL
ONLoilL
ONLoil L
ONLoilL
ONL
0t{ LoilL
01{ L
01t L
0r{ L()NL
()NL
ott L
ONL
ARI{S-
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
Tt{
Tt{
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
Z I}IIIERIIAN
2 t ililERttAt{
I I iilrE Rt{At{
AR'IS-LO
ARilS-10
Y D.
Y D.
Y D.
N5
PARCET FRO]IINU}IBER OESCRIPTIO}I . ()}IIIER F[)()TAGE ASSESSIIETIT
140,290
$20,65s$ll,s26
$167,714
12,754
$4,157
s3,800
$3,213
l2 ,601
s3,494
$l,709l2,6ot
$2 ,601
$l,632ll,632
l2,550
$2 ,47 4
12 ,423
12 ,423
l2,550
$2,933
l6,885
$7,ol3
$2,550
I I
T
_f
_t
RE@}IMEIIDATION
this report has examined four alternatives for improvlrg ranadona Drive -
Dog.od Avenue. Atl of the alternatives examrned are feasrble from an
engineering perspective. selection of one favored alternrtlvc lnvorves
consi&ratlon of englneering lss*g ae ell ag cct cqrslderatlons, property
and natural enviro nent rnpacts, co'r[Ents s.lr.ltect !t r rEeting of area
Foperty owrers and other fretor8. &rst&rlrg all lsslEsr it is recommnded
that the clty of chrnhrssen pursue the lnplementa tlon of llternrte rAr to
provlde !n acceptabre level of public atreets aerving the eristing
neigtborhood an:t the srrromdlng Eropertles.
Alterna te 'A" has been recqnnended drn prtnrily to cost consrderatrons and
the fact tha t it is the least diruptrve optlqr sinco rt srtstrntralry forlors
tlE existirE sEeet alrgnnEntE. rhe rftrEry qrern tn tryren:nting llterna te
"A' is the r',.nd treatment q.ten anr the acconpanying exrstrrg lift station.
As sbwr on Exhiblt g, cleararres ln ttls arca abe extremly tight betr€en the
existing system and existing property lines. Although detalled aurvey
lnformtidt of thls area ls mamllable at the Fesent tine, lt appears thlt
thls solution is prkrble. Detr fled s,rney informa tion rn thia arsa drl be
needd as a Frt of the reFratl* 0f desig plans to determine rtrat. rctuar
lnpacts may be and *rat, rf art7, ari trgatrqr efforts d.ll b. neesa.ry.
J
_t
_t
-I
J
q
I
r
a
a
a
I
I
I
25
I
I
?IrI
ai.
'-Die
/
Irt.Ett
,,
7
E
1
I
t
II
I
,.
I
Lti*t
\i\
.ll llltit l!!'
!i!iil!i!lr;i
iiiiiiiiiilii
iiiiiiiiliii'iltltri'11
iliiiil
iiii!ii
'i'iii!
!!
riiiiiiiiliiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
t'T€
--a
,rir
liir
li;i
!;
il
E
i.
$
r
n
I
t,
1E
I
I
I
I
!i
Irrl
ilr
iiErlIt
I
iiii
i!i
iil
I
iiiiiiiirii
iitiiiiiii
trlNEns / Er.Gr€EEs' gnvEtlFsJamesRHil[inclra-aaxll r
lrturl rr arorr uo aorror conrc iiil
lllotlll D, totlai
ZIIIENtlAX FABTI
I
I I a
I
I tHt[;
6 I
II
i
:
il;llF
lr
I
i
I
I
aI
I,t1
Irt.
I
+
I
I
?r.iE
,tI
ti*'
XE
I!l
lr
il'
IE
ir
I
I'f
s
3a-
ie
,
t
i
it
,II
I
III
:.
I
I
J
7t
L-
I
:
8 II
I
I
I
I
i
lE!
l[!
ta
I
!
a
I:l
IIa
!l ilEEI ll r-I l:ruif:: 11.6.i ilI!!,
it.
ii!i
:i!!
!iii
i!il
!rr!
:il
t!ir!.
,l
!!N
ilN'
1[
al
IrEF<
lco<o
e
r
u
!.
t
\I
E
rnesR.Hil[inc
PLAlYrrEis / Erlofi EERS / g.R'yEroEl
Ja
==-j-
ZI IiERIAN rlEI
PFELI I
^TY
i.I?
lllo?rt a. t]Otlu
I
It.
I
CITY OF
CHINH.TSSEN
P.C. DATE:Jan. 17, 1990i
C.C. DATE: Feb. 12, 1990
CASB NOs 89-8 ZOA
.Prepared bys Olsen,/v
Fz
()
=0-L
(
E
LJFa
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section20-263 (7 and 13) Concerning Conditions fora Dock on a Recreational Beichtot
Acton bY C Y AdninislEtot
tntn, ':t'Z',&E-
Hct rr--
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION :
APPLICANT:
Y;5zz;-
Drtr:.!'., .'. tL ' "lsDn
PRESENT ZONTNG:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USEs N-
s-
E-
w-
ITATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAT CEARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
STAFF REPORT
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed a zoning ordi-
nance amenilment to Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code pertaining
to the lot alepth requirement for installation of a dock on a
recreational beachlot (Attachment {11). Staff had recommended
that the ordinance be amenileCl to read that 'no tlock shall be per-
mitted on a recreational beachlot unLess it has at least 200 feet
of lake frontage and the 1ot has at least 100 feet of lot depth
WHERE THE DOCK IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED". ThE iNIENt Of thc
amenalnent h,as to a1low docks on recleational beachlots that meet
or exceed the 1ot area and .Lake frontage requirement but have a
portion of the lot that is narrow, resulting in less than a 100
toot mean tlepth. The amendment would instead have required a 100
foot depth where the dock is located to provide a larger area
where the more intensive use of the recreational beachlot will
exist.
The Planning Commission recornrnended approval of a zoning ortli-
nance amendment as follows: 'No dock shall be permitted on a
recreational beachlot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth measured per-
pendicular landwaril fron the ordinary high water mark to the
first intersecting Iot line inclusive of the street
r ight-of-way. "
The City Council reviewed the
on April 25, 1988 (Attachment
subject, the City Council did
ordinance amendment.
proposed zoning ordinance amendment*2). After much iliscussion of the
not approve the proposed zoning
On November 6, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
reviewed an appeal to staffrs interpretation of the recreational'
beachlot ordinance by Robert Pierce (Attachment *3). The appeal
was to staff's interpretation of the 100 foot depth requirement
for recreational beachlots to have a dock. The zoning ordinance
states that no dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach-
lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot
has at least a 1.00 foot depth. Staff originally int.erpreted this
statement to mean that the recreational beachlot must have a lot
depth of 100 foot which is defined by the definition section of
the zoning orclinance as a "mean ilepth'. The applicantrs appeal
to staffrs interpretation was that they did not feel -that the way
the recreational beachlot ordinance was written required a mean
1ot depth to be provided for a dock on a recreational beachlot.
Upon further review of the ordinance, staff agreed that it could
be interpreted differently since it states that the recreational
beachlot musc have a depth of 100 feet and not a 'Iot" depth of
100 feet. Therefore, staff recommencled approval of the appeal to
staff's interpregation and further recommendeil that the ordinance
be amended to clirify the intent of the ordinance.
2OA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, L989
Page 3
Planning Commissioner Steven D. Emmings has submitled proposed
amendments t.o the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance (Attlchment*6). Commissioner Ernmings proposed changes to the Code whichwould require buffering of activities on a recreational beachlotfrom surrounding properties anCl othe! uses on the same lake andprovides wordage which provides an intent of the conditions fora recreational beachlot. The amendments are proposed as follows:
17, No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlotunless the beachlot meets the following conditions:
(a) Shoreline of at least 200 ft. per dock, and
(b) Area of at least 30,000
dock and an additionaladditional dock, antl
sguare feet for lhe first
20,000 sguare feet for each
(c) A sufficient buffer to insulate neighboring prop-erty owners and other lakeshore oirners from beach-1ot activities ( see paragraph 13 belorr).
Based upon experience, it is recognized by the Citythat the use of lakeshore by multiple parties is anintensive use of lakeshore that may present conflictswith neighboring uses of lakeshore or the use of other
lakeshore on the same lake. Further, beachLots generate
(13)
The Board of Adjustments unanimously recommendecl approval of theappeal to staffrs interpretation. The Board of Adjustments feltthat the application meets the requirements as currently in theorilinance for a ilock on a recreational beachlot. City -ouncil
members Jay Johnson and Bill Boyt requested an appeal to thedecision of the Board at the November 6, 1989, City Councilmeeting (Attachment *4). The City Council felt the ordinanceshould be amended prior to acting on lhe appeal. The appeal tothe Board of Adjustment's decision will be heard by the aityCouncil at the same time as the zoning ordinance amendment.
On December 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a ZoningOrilinance Amenilment to amenal the City Code to modify theRecreationaL Beachlot Ordinance clarifying lot depth require-ments. After much discussion, it was recomrnended to tabLe actionuntil a new amendment. could be provided clarifying the intent ofthe Recreational Beachlot Ordinance and providing means for buf-fering activities on a recreational beachlot from surroundingproperties (Attachment *5).
ANALYSIS
The maximum number of docks for any beachlot is three(3).
zOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 4
complaints because they are not maintained to the same
stanilards as single family lakeshore 1ots. A11 beach-
Iots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other
property owners from beachl-ot activities. This buffer
may-coniist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance
(wiatn or depth), or other features or combinations of
features which, in the opinion of the City, serve the
purpose of providling a buffer for beachlot activities.
io insure appropriate buffering, the City may require
conditions Lo insulate beachlot activities including,
but not linited to:
(a) Increased sidle or front Yardareas, tlocks, racks or other
equipment or activities;
setbacks for beach
allowed recreational
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Hours of use i
Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs;
Erection of fences;
the Planning Commission aalopt-the following
Standartls of maintenance including mowing and
ming, painting and upkeep of racks, docks and
equipment; disposal of trash or debris, etc.i
tr im-
other
(f) Increased width, depth or area requirements based
upon the intensity of use Proposed or the number of
dwellings having rights of access.
The City reserves the right to impose the following con-
ditions even after approval of the recreational beachlot if
the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts with other
less intensive uses of neighboring or lakeshore properties(with the exception that the city may not require the beach-
lot to be larger after it is approved).
Staff is recommending placing part of (13), as proposed by
Commissioner Emrnings, at the beginning of the standartls for a
recreational beachlot to serve as an intent statement. Sta.ff has
reworded a portion of (7), has removetl (7)(c), and has also changed
the last sentence in (13).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that
motion:
'The Planning Commission recommentls amending section 20-263of the chanhassen city code by adding:
)
zOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1990
Page 5
Section 20-263. Intent. Based upon experience, it is
recognized by the City that the use of lakeshore by multipleparties is an intensive use of lakeshore that may presentconflicts with neighborhing uses of lakeshore or the use ofother lakeshore on the same 1ake. Further, beachlots
generate complaints because they are not maintianed to the
same standarils as single fanily lakeshore lots. Therefore,the City requires the following conditions for recreational
beachlots:
and by amending Section 20-263(7) as follows:
The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot isthree (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational
beachlot unless the beachlot meets the following conilitions:
(a) Shoreline of at least 200 feet per ilock, and
(b) Area of at least 301000 square feet for the first dock
and adilitional 20,000 square feet for each additional
dock .
and by amending Section 20-263(13) as follows:
A11 recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient toinsulate other property owners from beachlot activiites.This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation,distance (width or depth), or other features or combinationsof features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriatebuffering, the City may impose conditions to insulate beach-lot activiites including, but not limited to:
(a) Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas,
docks, racks or other allowed recreational equipment oractivities;
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Planting of trees and shrubsi
Erection of fences i
Standards of maintenance including mowing andpainting and upkeep of racks, docks and other
ilisposal of trash anil debris;
trimming;
equipnent;
(f) Increased width, depth or area requirements basetl uponthe intensity of the use proposeal or the number of
dwellings having rights of access.
To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions
even after efprovaL of the beachlot if the city finds it
necessary based upon conflicts with the use of other Property.
Hours of use i
ZOA for Recreational Beachlots
December 6, 1989
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1988.
city Council minutes dated April 25, 1988.
Board of Adjustments minutes dated November 6, 1989.
City Council minutes dateil November 6, 1989.
Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1989.
Memo from Commissioner Emmings.
Proposetl Ordinance Amendment.
Pl enn i ng
Apri I 6,
Conmission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 43
(
Jack Brambilla: We did sendplot is Listed there.a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole
Emnrings: That I s
Jack Brambilla:site plan.
not a site
I guess we
Plan.
have to go with rrhat we had initially on the
Dacy: As represented in
approval on.
Attachment t2 is what you will be basing your
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the planning conmission recorunendapproval of Conditional Use pernit Request lgg-4 as shown on the siteplan stamped '.Received Iarch 16, 1988'r for outdoor display ofmerchandise, specificalry landscape products, on propeity rocated at 66gFlying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conaitioirs:
1. Coropliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuelstorage tanks.
2. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to instalration.
3. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback.
4. Tbe applicant shall comply rrith all applicable sewer and sewagedisposal code and provide the City rrith the proper septic tanipumping contracts once every three years starting on lhe effectivedate of this conditional use permit.
5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriatedriveway access plan.
6- Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on thesite plan.stamped rrReceived March 16r l9gg". Tlie display area isIirnited within the area designated by the fence and fH Z1Z.
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried.
Erhart: Irm opposed for the reasons stated
Erunings: Traffic considerations?
Erhart: Safety.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2g-263 16 &7) OE THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH
REQUIREMENT EOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK,,/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT
PIERCE.,s
\
Planning
April 61
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 44
PubIic Present:
Name
Bernie Hanson
Larry Wen zeI
Robert Pierce
Address
4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka
6900 Minnewashta Parkway
AppI i cant
one, j ustout to all
Emnings: Again, as a preliminary matter on thisfirst one, Irve got to ask staff if notice irent
oYrners pursuant to the ordinance?
as on thethe lakeshore
(
Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations withrecreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners.
Enmings: Then I'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this
one that we did rrith the first one. There are people who probably vrould
come tonight to speak about this. I think they should go ahead and maketheir comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing andcontinue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance
amendroent that requires notice to aII the property onners abutting theIake pursuant to Sectioa 2A-43.
Erhart: Are you sure? In Lrhat yourre looking at, requires us to, whendealing qrith a specific property proposal, it requires that we notify
everyone on that particular Iake.
Enmings: This is under Division Two, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
everyone on all lakes because the zoning
Erhart: Did you publish notification?
Dacy: we did the public hearing ad and we prioriti.ze the homeownersassociation with the beachlots
Erhart: Then r.re have to noti f y
ordinance deals grith all lakes.
Enmings: It makes sense with the conditional use permitit make sense to have it here under the zoning Ordinance
Does having this provision, which is in here?
section. Does
Amendmen t s ?
Dacy: I really think it's a judgnent call on the issue. If you wanttable it for us to contact everybody, thatrs up to the Coomission.
to
&mings: Let Be explain. I live on Lake l.tinnei{ashta.at this property just like I look right across at Reddidn't know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it erentand I thought gee,'it,s amazing they can do sometbingsaying anything to any of us r^,ho are directly affecttd
I look d i rectly
Cedar Cove. Iin. Uy neighborslike that rrithoutby the proj ect .
t
(
Headla: Itrs got to be Dore than just the lakes. It has to be
publ i shed .
PlanningApril 5,
Comnission Meeti ng
1988 - Page 45
{
Tbis is 5gg feet of the lakeshorethe right where we all look and ICommission, Ird never would haveneighbors didn. t ei ther .
on our lake.got no not i ce.
known this was
right over there toI hadnrt been on theon and I know my
It I s
If
going
Erhart: But lrerre not dealing rrith Red Cedar
Emmings: I rrn aware of that but werre dealingthatrs closer to me than Red Cedar C
Erhart: Irm not arguing, Ievery lakeshore owner?
Cove.
with this piece of property
ove.
is here. l.laybe we could do the sane
agree but rrrhat do you want to do? Invite
Dacy: f do know that the applicantthing that we did on Sunny Sfope.
hmings: Thatrs what r rm.proposing but now rtm questioning t hether thismakes sense on zoning ordinance amendments. It,J here in ltre orainance-but rrm not sure that it makes a lot of sense. rtrs one thing if werretalking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here werre doingit rearry at the instance of a particular d6veroper-for a particula:- '
piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing ihe ordinancefor all future beachrots, thia is coming in from u p.i"on who wants to doa specific thing to a specific piece of-property anl r think at least thelakeshore owners on that rake ought to ue rrere ir tney want to be.Besides, thatrs what the ordinance says. r guess rhal t wourd like to do( is literarly read the ordinance. co lhead aia do eveiything ".."n ao --
L tonight. Handle it.the same way we did the first one and n5fa tne publichearing open. I think there are people who would h,anE to come.
Emmings: Herers erhat they've done. Theyrve given notice to thehomeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probabry has oneand the ordinance reguires them to do that and they dia it lut ihey didnot do another thing. the ordinance requires and thatrs to give everyproperty ogrner abutting the lake on which the development is going tooccur, that same notice. Irm not in any homeowners issociati6n. -
Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association.
EIIson: So you're saying every lakeowner?
Emmings: The ordinance says that.
Erhart: On what?
Emmings: Under public hearing for
says is a development is proposed
useage of the lake, the applicantpropeEty owners abutting the lakeCity shall provide mailed notice
t ith the procedures above, which
homeowners associations.)
amendments to the zoning ordinance, itadjacent to a lake or niII affect theshall provide the City rrith a Iist ofat the time of the application. Theto the lake homeowners as in cornpliancespecify the procedures for notifying
Erhart: I didnrt hear zoning ordinance.
e
PlanningApril 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 45
(
Batzli: Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people rrho
have shown up to speak in public hearing, ask the City Attorney to give
us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through withthe appropriate notification procedure?
EEnings: Thatrs fine if you think thatrs appropriate.it needls interpretation but if you feel like it does.ahead. Is there a staff report?
I don't know thatwel,l, letr s go
Dacy:it.I have nothing more to add unless you did $ant me to go through
(
t
Emnrings: Yes.
Robert Pierce: Okay, so that's the only lake werre concerned with. Isthat a month a$ray now?
Dacys No, two weeks. Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta-tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that rrould affect all lakesand thatrs why again, ire just notified the homeorrners associations. Inthe case of Sunny Slope, we made a mistake. We should have notifiedeverybody on Lake Riley. In this case, ere felt that a homeowners
associations nith beachlots erould be directly affected. you i:ave broughtup another side of that concern that we did not look at so that.s why.
Robert Pierce: Whatrs done is done. I just want to knor,v to elirninate
maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point. At anyrate, let me just go through a Iittte bit of what ere're pla;ning here.Iive gone to quite a few meetings so I might get some$hat direcily to thehigh points. Werre asking for one dock with three overnight storagefacilities. The slips irould belong to Lots 3,4 and 5 of the dock. Theywould go with those lots. Werre also asking for a canoe rack. One canoespace for.Iots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would bealloered just one. .,flerre putting the dock on the widest side of theparcel towards the north. werre leaving basically intact al.r the trees.werve had them located and werve designed our path down to the lake
Emmings: Yes, the whole section in one zoning orclinance amendments.Thatrs erhat the whole section is.
Robert Pierce: I guess I'm not quite following where werre at with thisprocess. This is the third time, which has cost thousands to me, thatthe notices have been out to the wrong people and itrs getting somewhattiresome. I guess, where are we going from here erith that. Is the CityAttorney, is that what's going to happen?
Emnings: I donrt know erhat the City Attorney is going to say. What Irnsaying is therers a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody
who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have inputif they want to. They didn't get it.
Robert Pierce: Is that Lake llinnewashta?
PLanning
Apri). 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 47
{
around the trees in order to leave as muchitrs natural state. we are having a sandfrom- our original proposal considerably.to the south, weire leaving quite an aiea,to clean up the area. It gives a lot of aproperties.
Emmings: I donrt mean to interrupt but I just have away down the slope, there was a lot of tall last timewhether it was a ramp or stairs. What is that?
Robert Pierce: I guess at this point it doesn.t really matter to us.werll wotk erith staff or whoever might have reconunendai ions . Itrs justnot a big concern. .r think personarly the tiered steps may rook a iitttenicer. That lrourd just be my reeting-s on thai uut-weire witting to i;;i-at it. r think you'!re pretty farniriir, we have 55g feet of rakeshoreroughly and we're about 115 feet on the north side and about g0, itrsslightry narro$rer in the uriddle. we,ve moved fron the originii'pioposarthat we looked at' most everything tohrards the north. the dilemira ie,rehaving here, the docks arrow us t6 start on our deveropment with a far,far higher cariber of home. rf lre are abre to go atreab with that andmarket it at thi.s pgil!. -!9're going to be rooking at tromes probably fromthe $2gg'gso -gs to g4go,gqg.00 iange. you can.t narket that with the( 9g:I"^:id_!he beach, we're going to be reducing, in my feetings, about| $L_gg,0OO.gg per parcel for the finished produci. I think it'aadvantageous for.all concerned, incrudin! ttre city, to have this areastart out in a nice fashion. There,s a 1ot of taid in the future thatthe city planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probablygoing to be opening up here over the next, who knows hoi long. ft mili:tbe soon, it might be a whire but I berieve this atea is one of the ar6asthat starts off, the flavor wilr probably carry through onto the otherparcels. I think fol tlre cj.ty, for tax reasoni, this erourd be a verygood idea. Also, it's just the same useage as far as overnight stoiige,as rrB sure yourre alr aware of, one dock r{ith three uoats il the sam6h,hat one singJ.e famiry can have. wetre trying to rork with the city andbring our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in .'"i."rray that we can for everyone concerned. I think as a whole, serre onvery good rerationship with people around us. r think we can naintainthat.
Larry Wenzel: I live just south of that area. I guess Irm a littleconfused as to what we're doing with this not onry just on our rake butall the rakes. Apparentry the change is to a requirement which is r00foot depth by 2o0 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional usevariety for this type of piece of property. Thatrs a lot of land. Itseems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilizethat as beachlot has got to be sithin l,ggg feet of eitheE that beachrotor waterline, r donrt know which. rf you look at that in reration to thesize lots, probabry 7 famiries courd utilize 2g,gga square feet. Now, onour particular lake right there, we had a public acceis that rras utirizedby the generar public and we would have Lg to 2g to 36 cars parked on thestreet ilregatry. 'Nobody did anything about them. couldn,t get anybodyto tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but thit doelnrt-
as possible. The beach area inblanket. We shorten it dor,rn
On either end, to the north andbasically untouched other thanbuffer zone to any adjoining
thought that theyou were here about
t-
mean anything. They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night.Screeching tires and the whole thing. Werve got another access just doyJnon Little Joe thatrs about another half a block with the access is adriveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then you
cone to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you rre a landowner ordeveloper or yourre a group of people and you want to utilize it forpeople that are owners within the area, you have to have all this space.It doesnrt seem to fit. Somethingrs missing here. We do haverecreationaL beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than apublic access. The only reason the public access on our side of the lake
was closed is that the park hrent in on the far side and as soon as youstarted to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so theyrd have togo there to uoload. That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake butsonething's not fitting ri9ht.
Enmings: What rrould you like to see the City do on this issue?
Larry llenzel: I donrt think that you can take an overall scale of squarefootage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lakebecause theyrre not all the same. The conditions are different. Thepopulation on the lake is all different and I donrt knor^r that you canjust put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that. Itdoesnrt make sense especially when yourve got public accesses anil public( accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to doL with the beachlot. Everybody has their orrn position but this isnttfitting right for some reason. I have no objection to the beachlot therray Pierce is laying his out because right there, werve got others andtheyr re more satisfactory than the public access, as far as the
landowners that are there or the neighbors. Thatrs not a problen butwhen you start talking about something thatrs all of a sudden is 2OA feetby L0O feet or 2g,Ag0 square feet and you only get limited amount ofspaces for utilization, that doesn,t necessarily make sense either. Ifyou go harf a block away and use the public access and run your boat intoeverybodyrs shore and beach it because they canrt kick you off anywayfrom tbe lake. rt just doesn't make sense. werre so restrictive on theguy that owns the Property but werre not restrictive in the sense of whatwe do with the Public access or the utilization of the lake. That's kindof irhere Irm coming from.
Emings: And you're expressing support for this plan?
Larry wenzel: r think this plan in this particular area, which affectsne, is great. This rnight not fit, but I don,t think for instance ifyourre going to s?y that hers got to have 2g,qgg square feet, whichI think youlre thinking about the ordinance changing to be, aod frm notsure what that is.
the ordinance. ttts 2gg feet ofthe uay along it is the way rightgoing to try and clear that up.
Enmings: Right now that isrrith a Lgg foot depth. A11interpretting it but l,erre
Larry vlenzel:that down.
Lakeshore
noi{ we I reL
In S-ome places yourve got roads that come down and shorten
(
Planning Commission Meet i n9April 6, 1988 - page 48
PI ann i ngApril 6,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - Page 49
{
Eunings: I think they Looked at that andwe've got that situation lsnrt it?this is the only place where
Dacy: On the west side of Lake ttinner.rashta.
Larry llenzel: So then that gets anended in that sense or what?
Dacy: Whatrl being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposto be arnended so that you only have to have r00 feet oi rot aeplrr wnethe dock is going to be locatad. As long as you neet the arearequirement and as long as you meet the Lake irontage requiienent, ifhave 100 feet of Lot depth where the dock is locate5, it.'i;= ttr"proposal.
ed
re
you
Larry Wenzel: What if you
Dacy: Then you would have
Conrad: Then basically we
Emrnings: Do you own land
Lgg foot anywhere in the section?
a variance.
a beachlot there.
road and the lake?
donr t have
to receive
don I t erant
bet$reen the
a
I
Larry Wenzel: yes. Sure.
Etnmings: Do you have any other comments on this item?
Emmings: And hov, much frontage do you have?
Larry wenzel: 249 feet and it's r0.5 acres total but rrm already intotrdo front 10ts. rt's. plotted that way novJ but that doesn't necessarymean that at one point or another, r,ie got no benefit going eithei -way
if r deverop because lots on the front that have their own iake properiyin relation to a series of lots arr sharing, rrm not sure how tnit varuiwourd be accepted. The value of the rot eicrusive or jointry but it justseems that arl of a sudden rrerve got a situation where therers a roadthat cuts in Iike tbat. That road has been there, Ely house has beenthere since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things arechanging and it just doesn't seen right that the ordinance. rt doesn,t
seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but itrs isolated.you can go just a short rray away and yourve got public accesses wherethere are no restrictions. That just doesnrt make a whore heck of a lotof sense.
Larry WenzeI: No.
92sg,ggg.gq housesthing tbat creates
Ird rather see 9406rqSS.og houses
because that helps everybody. Ifit, I'm all for it.
than I wouldthatrs the type of
L Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close thein favor and the pubtic hearing was closed.
public hearing. AIl voted
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 59
Erhart: Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all hasto be 100 feet so if this thing was l,OO0 feeE long and there i{as onesPot in t-hat L,Agg feet that rrasnr t 190 feet wide, you couldnrt put a
dock in?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart3 That seems a 1ittle silly doesnr t it? I think it sounds
reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing
hmings: Give any conrBents yourve got so he gets the benefit.
Erhart: Okay, werre not going to vote on this tonight then?
Ermings: No, irei re going to table it.
Erhart: Yourre suggesting that the number of canoe racks sirnplyto the judgnental decision at the time the conditional use permitin, is that correct?
Dacy: That I s correct.
Erhart: Thatrs a1I Irve got.
Iike a
too ?
be left
comes
(Conrad: I have no probLem with changing the amendment. I think thatrsfine. I do think that for canoes, I agree erith the concept, I donrt knovr
why we had limitations on canoes before. I think if we want a million
canoes on a property, thatrs fine rdith me if thatrs the way they chooseto decorate their beachlot. However, as part of the staff report, itsaid instead staff recommends tbat canoe racks be a permitted use inrecreational beachlots. The number of canoes to be determined as a partof the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines
and therefore Irm kind of happy we're tabling this because here
somebody's going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline'andIrm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara. I started thinkingwhat they are. I thj.nk philosophically I don,t know that we need tolinit the number. Yet on the other hand, to say it's going to be aconditional use and we're going to review it, we should have somethingthatts going to guide tbat review. Otherrdise I donrt lrant to see it
because philosophica).Iy Ird say we could have a million canoe5 so I don,treally want to see this unless we have some standards to apply todifferent situations like the gentleman was describing. I think staffshould do a litt1e bit of analysis on the canoe aspect.
(
Emings: That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racksbut they store rratercraft. They donrt just store canoes anil I donrtknow, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats, allkinds of things and I donrt know if we want to get into tttat but thatcould be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to( store sonrething on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of\' houses? I
PlanningApril 6,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - eage 51
{
Wildernuth: Didnit you say thatequate the number of residents innumber of available racks?
somewhere Barbara? Didn r t youthe beachlot association wi th try to
the
license watercraft
on the side orthe si de?
Dacy: That t ould be one idea because that isapplicant. That,s fine. I think maybe in theshould change that language regardini to thatnon-motorized watercraft Lecause Mr. Chairman,It's sailboats and sai lboard s.
being proposed by theterm canoe racks, maybe wesection to be storage of
you I re right, itrs canoes.
Emmings: What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rorrboat?
Dacy: Thatrs fine.
&rmings: As tong as it doesn't havethere too right?
Conrad: That I get reat interestedanimal lre t re talking about.
a notor on it, they coutd go on
in because thatrs a whole different
Batzli: Isn't the distinction made by the people thatin the State of Minnesota? whether |ou need numbersirhether you just need like the sailboit and sticker on
{\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 mi.ght look into thatdistinction based on the State'sIanguage for the amendment Eo the
recommend that you don't includeto be located but actually wherethe dock to be located at the IOO
Dacy: Yes.
as being able to make some sort ofdefinition of that. The recommendeddock section, I would stronglythe.language where_the dock is proposedit is located. I am assumj.ng you wantfoot depth, correct?
Batzli: so you donrt want that to be where the dock is proposed to bebut rrhere it actually is rocated. My second comment would be that rrrould prefer that tbere be some, taking Tinrs commeot, that if you haaL,ooo feex of rakeshore and onLy one foot didnrt have the rss f;ot depth,change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and yourve got r iooiof it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the reluirea iquaie ---
footage. r'd Like to see that there be some minimum amorint havin-g thelgg -foot depths stirr. At reast as a minimum. For instance, how-muchIand has to be on either side of the dock?
t Enrnings: . The setback? The side setback?
Batzli: Do you kndw what that is?
PlanningApril 6,
Comrnission Meeting
1988 - Page 52
(
Dacy: There is aoff the top of my
mdock setbackr'
head.
but I canrt recall what that is right
Batzli : Since it I s being tabled,
and I assume it,s going to be 19you have a minimum 100 foot depth
and you don,t like it, Irll stitlnext tine.
I guess I'd look at sonething like thatfeet or 15 feet and double that so thatof 2g or 30 feet. If you look at itprobably recommend something like that
(
Wildermuth: I think thatrs a good idea. I think Brian,s comment is avery good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for acanoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talkingabout hrith the number requirements or just the sticker requirement. thalmight be the way to describe that.
Headla: I like what Pierce has proposed. I certainly support it. Ithink the 2Ag foot and the LQA foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. Ithink itis ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because hedoesnrt have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting abeachlot. I have yet to hear any rationale, whatsoever, rrhatrs so magicabout 109 feet? why is lO0 feet better than 50 feet? why isn,t it 2ASfeet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic, yourre cutting offsonebody. Pierce has to screw around with us for how long just becausewe're using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth. I think thatrsunacceptable. This isn't a day where we just arbitrarily put any numberand say, thatrs good, Iet's fly with it. I think we really got to take alook at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I thinkthat has some value. I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it, whydoesn't somebody go to somebody like pleasant Acres and look at it.Theyive got a big area, how much of it is really used? They've got aroad down there and they probabLy use 30 to 4g feet of it and theyrve gota volleyball court, they have a catamaran, a boat there, tero satellites,thatrs the area that they really use.
Enunings: Two satellites?
Head1a: 3g ot 4g feet from the lake.
all the time because those are notErunings: Have they been
permitted on beachlots.
there
Headla: That I s another thing,
we dontt have then.
they shouLd perrnit them. Itis ridiculous
(
Enmings: If I didnrt know better I,d think
road and the lake too Dave. You sound like
Headla: The requirement of
requirement and thatts gotfron using it.
only comment Irve got is
Brian I s coEment that the
you orrned land between thethose guys.
no cars, I think thatis an excellentto stay. Thatrs going to stop a lot of people
Emnings: Thehere. I li ke
I think he's got a very nice plandock setback, at least the area of
Planning
April 6,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 53
.{
L
rL
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to table action onAmendnent to amend Section 2S-263 (6 & 7) of theOrdinance until the proper notification has beenfavor and motion carried.
the zoning
Recreationaldone. AlI
Ord i nance
neacht'o tvoted in
PUBLIC HEARING:
coNDTTIONAL usE PERMTT oN PROPERTY zoNED BH, BUsrNEss HIGHwAy DrsTRrcTAND LOCATED oN Lor 5 AND PART oF Lor 6, BLocK 1, FRoNTTER DEVELOPMENTPARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USESTO BE LOCATED IN A L9,q48 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING:
SMALL VEHICLE SALES
OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE
SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE
AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER
A
B
D
Barbara Dacy preseBted the staff leport on this itetn.
the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that hasto be 109 feet. That'!s something that we shourd rook at. This plan rthink fits this property very weil. I think it would be ridicul6us towind up with a resurt here where we denied arl the peopre riving rightacross the road fron that shoreline, the ability to-gei down to the lake.r-think it's a very ninimal impact on the lake.- r l5ok at this. rrmdirectly affected by it and it doesn.t bother me at all. r think itrs agood pIan.
conrad: rt's a great use of a beachlot. rtrs a crassic for what you rrantto do.
Er nings: The problem with the beachlot thing to me is, if everybodycould bring in a plan and say, this is what we rrant to do, I think wewouldnrt_have any trouble saying yes, this oners good and'that oners badbut lre wind up erith more ritigaiion over beachroti proriury-'th.n unyother issue for the simpre reison that it,s just imiossiuil to try anddefine a set of standards that we can app].y.- That,i.n ouj""ti"e set ofstandards that we can carry fron one ueiirrrot to the next.- Thatrs theproblem. vlerre aII bending over backwards trying to get this oneapproved because it makes sense and we,re goiig io do-everything re can,I think is erhat I hear- and is the way f feef a6out it, to i"t this oneapproved. unfortunately sre canrt write a standard like thit. werLrapProve it if we like it and we rronr t if we donrt.
Robert Pierce: The onry thing is r am anxious in the economic crimate tostart marketing them and ve been a rittre hesitant to do that. rtrsvery hard to market them saying we're going to have a dock here. r,m inthe process that looks good. people siy, wetr calr roe back later. rguess thatrs where Irm coming from and maybe r.re,re closer here.
)k
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 4
BatzIj. moved, Emmings seconded that the Ptanning Commission recommenddenial of Conditional Use Permit *84-6 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
37 of Shore Acres. AIl voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2g-263 (6 & 7) OE THE
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A
DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE.
PubIic Present:
Name Address
Robert Pierce
Richard and Ann zrre j. g
Annalee Hanson
Zoe Bros
Mary Jo Hoore
Ray Roettgerur. and l,!rs. Larry Wenzel
stephen C. Slaq
Steve Burke
Barbara Dacy presented the staff rePort.
zoe Bros: Irm curious to know, soneone
of property there. DepEh. I live just
Irm contesting the fact that there's no
beach area.
Applicant
3501 Ironwood Road
6400 Greenbriar Avenue
66 31 Minnewashta Pa r kway
323I Dartmouth Drive
3221. Dartnouth Drive
6900 uinnewashta Parkway
Lake susan
340 Deerfoot Trail
has claimeda bit north
land there.
that there is 50 feet
of thj.s property.
That there isn't any
Hrmings: I thj.nk the map that was presented to us sho$red a Lgg
the north end from between the lake and the road. I donrt know
itrs there or not but that's what they showed us. I assume shel
about Stratford Ridge. What end wasn't there a Lgg feet?
feet on
whether
s talkj ng
Robert Pierce: I might just say that the survey that we had done are
done by SchoeII and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot theelevations, the water levels, they know the mean water level and shootall that. I rrould be willing to say that their data is.correct, probablywithin inches.
Dacy: It is not I00
100 feet and then it
Zoe Bros: Hovr do you propose to get
feet all the ray down. In one certain area it,s atapers down.
Robert Pierce: what we have here
Putting a walkway, either stePs or
to this property?
a walkway. Werre
slope down using
To this beach?
planning on
timbers and we've
ts
a
Dacy: According to the half section maps that we have, this distance
from here to here is 100 feet. The property owner is here al,so.
designed it in such a way that we eriminate the need for removing anytrees. we've put a rot of thought into trying to leave the bank and thearea along the beach there about as natural ai possible and to work ourwalkway around the trees. Our intent is to preity much leave thevegetation intact. Basically bring in a sand branket because it shows onthe plan' r donrt know if you can see but stretching from about here downto.here. Cleaning it up and just making it look nj.ce and Leaving themajority of the front in itrs natural siate. We have roughly 550 feetthere and we're only using approxjmatley t66 or plus feet.
Pldnning Commi ss j. on MeetingApril- 2A, 1988 - page 5
Zoe Bros: For
Robert Pierce:
15 fam i 1i es?
Yes .
zoe Bros: We1l, I really dispute
and therets no lg6 feet.SchoeII and Madsen. I was there today
Richard Zweig: We live on the north sj.de of Lake Minnewashta. I havenrt
been down there and measured. I drive by there fairly regularly but thequestion that I would ask, and I'm not nlcessarj.ly go;n9 [o doubt thesurvey but what I vrill say is that neasured I00 feet from where the slopegoes down and then goes out to the lake or are we maybe talking 190 feetup to the road because there's a big difference there. yourve got a hillsloping away, you might be talking 25 feet out before you actuatly get tothe base of that hill and then towards the lake so that would be myquestion. What does LgU feeE reall.y nean?
Robert Pierce: I would
Minnewashta Parkway.
assume that it's taken from the right-of-way from
Richard Zweig: I think that's probably where you donrt see the 100 feet
and l donrt kno$, that I would either if I erent over there. I donrt know
what that amount hrould be, I'd have to go and measure it but that makes
very snall area then. yourre not going to cut a bank straight do$rn'and
out.
a
zoe Bros: Most of it is str:ight up and down.
Robert Pierce: You might say that the right-of-way that is given
tlinnewashta, which the measurements have probably been taken off
toof, is
much wider than that. The asPhalt that you see there.
zoe Bros: I dontt know what yourre sayi.ng.
Richard zweig: Eor further widening of the road, is thit what yourre
saying?
Robert Pierce:
wrong, itrs 50
r ight-of-way?
No. When you dedicate a city road, not correct me if I'm
normally but I'm not sure, Minnewashta might be 6g fool
Dacy: It's 55 feetj wide, the right-of-way is. The 106 distance ishorizontal distance measured on the nap. Yourre absolutely correct.A
a
significant part of that distance is a sloped area. Thatrsdispute. we use the horizontal distance just as we measureIot depth and that's part of the issue that the Commission
Planning Commission Meeting
Ap.iL 29, 1988 - Page 5
Richard Zweig: I see thatgiving variances. If thattalking one game but if youexactly what she's talkingthe sIope.
as a real problem if you're going to startvariance was flat 1and, nor., you might besee that piece of property, yourIl knowabout. There isnrt very much that's down in
not
1otwill
in
width or
discuss.
it, s
control?
conrad: Let me just jump in a little bit. The reason we have a depthrequirement, there are two reasons. one, we want room for peopre to useit. We're concerned r.rith safety. If you put a bunch of peiple on 12feet of depth, there are some problems. That's one of thi rLasons. Theother reasons we do want it buffered from any neighbors. we wantbeachlots buffered so that yourre not abutti;g a iouse and affectingthem. rn this particurar case, and we,re looling at the generar isiue,yourre obviously very interested in the specific and r unEerstand that,we have to be rear concerned with r^rhat this ordinance says in generalbecause other forks will want to take advantage of whateier we do. rnthis particurar case holrever, because you hav6 the buffer of the street,*g'I".really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in mymind is not there. The issue that is there in my mind is there rearryenoug! room for people to be on that beachl.t? is there enough room tosatisfy their particurar needs and uses of Ehat? r think that's key.Thatrs important here but it's also important that vre make sure that ourordinance considers that aspect of use-. we just want there io be enougharea for it to be an active area if there,s i beachlot. Anyr,ray, f jus[wanted to jump in on that thought.
Ray Roettger: ...h":.an excellent pojnt. We come here and I th j.nk wemay be against something just because we rook.at the piece-or p.op..iy
"or think what courd happen is i.t should be defined "..'v ,"ir-ior us.These peopre naybe are used to looked at this stutt. -aie-you talkirigabout the road right-of-way that schoelr and Madsen submitteal ..-z
Robert Pierce: To be very honest, r courdnrt answer that question.
Ray Roettger: you shourd know that is exactry what you're tarking about.The others, you drawing lines, as Barb confiried, " iroii r"rt"r, riie goesfrom point A to point B but if that rine is ar a'di";;;;i;"|ou "un r,urr.Lqa feet and end up rear.ry with r00 feer arong tire piopeily'iin" and endup with 10 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it rg0 felt aiong theproperty line or is it r00 feet of depth perpendicular io-tt. tr,i"particular line?
Conrad: Barbara, are you comfortable that when we say IOOobviously perpendicular to something. Do you feef we'traveDo lre think we know the specificatj ons weli enough?
fee t
tha t
Dacy: ?he ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 2gg feet in,idth_arong the lakL-frontage. and the depth sharl be measured 1g0 feetback from the perpendicurar rine arong tLe edge of th;-i;[;. typicalry
Planning Commission Meeti ngApri]- 20, 1988 - page 7
how you wouldfeet this sray
Ray Roettger:quite an ang Ieat an angle.
measure it, if thj.s is
aod 106 feet deep.
the shoreline, werII measure 200
Dacy: Rigbt, whenelevation is. In
945 so we look for
zoe Bros: Because we have lo!, r,rater right now.
they submit a survey they,ll indicate where thatthe case of Lake Minne$rashta I think itrs elevationthat elevation and take our distances from that.
.:ee my point. The property line there is running atthat road and Itm just saying if that lg0 foot is taken
Zoe Bros: Are you talking the edge of
Dacy: The ordinary high water mark asDepartment of Natural Resources.
the water or the high water mark?
established by the Minnesota
you
u can measure perpend iculartherers a dispute as toI determined that 100 feet
The issue is, and not onlyoccur, js the CorLmissionin depth? If you,re not,
rea I Iythe lot
That I s what
sa ti sfy
You
to
Conrad: No, it would be perpendicular to the water. Barbara, may6ebetter help- r guess r canrt interpret $rhat the ordinance says.
Dacy: If this is the property lines here, yoto here. That's how you can measure it. Iawhether or not this is LAg feet or lrhatever,
oased. on measuring from the half section map.in this case but in any other case that mig-htand City Council satisfied with the 100 fe;tthen you have the option to change it.
Conrad: But for this gentleman, what you just said, werre notconcerned with the lot line. we,re noi ruining it parallel toline. Werre-running it perpendicular to the high ,"ui", .iii.I understand Barbara to be telling us, right? So that shouldyour concern.
Ray Roettqer: No, they're really not the same questjon. Werre not justtalking about this property but we,re tarking a6out...and werre talki;;-about changing the ordinance. r think how that is defined, the depth,if you. coul9 get the condition in there... r think there,s a rot ofvariation there. A lot of variation in depth.
conrad: Hord rrourd you respond to that? Do you stirl feel that the vrayse measure that, hon many feet is adequate Barbara?
the Commission. Thatrs the way werve been neasuringto further define it in the ordinance, thatrs fine.
Dacy: Itrs up toit. rf you want
Robert Pierce:
15 fami I ies.Iikelihood onwould be veryJuly and evenTherer s a lot
I feel like there is more than ample road down there forI thj.nk when yourre looking at 15 families using it theany given day that you have 15 families on that is reallyunusu3l. If it happens it would probably be on the 4th afthen, I doubt you would have all 15 families down there.of room on that frontage. people rdho would be using it
Planning Commission Meet ingAptil- 29, 1988 - page 8
irouldn't all be concentrated in one area either. Theyrd be novingaround. I think it will be a really nice frontage.
Richard Zweig: How many docks are you looking to bui Id?
Robert Pierce: We're looking for right now, one dock witb three slipsthat will be for Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1. The ones that face onMinnewashta Parkway. Thatrs the sane useage for a dock that you wouLdhave allowed by a single famiJ.y horne. you can have one dock rrith threeboats on it. We're asking for one dock with three boats. Three boatsfor overnight storage. We have roughly a development of around 9 acres.lle feel thatrs a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lakeuowo, the canoe racks, that type of useage that would be very easilyhandled on the lake.
Richard Zweig: Ho$, nany canoe racks and how many canoes?
Robert Pierce: What werre looking for is one canoe rack, which is rrhat
we had requested, one canoe rack per lot hrhich would be 15 canoes dr
taaybe 15 sailboats or something like that. sailboards.
Richard Zweig: But they would definitelynot have a motor put on then.
be non-motorized. They cou ld
Robert Pierce: Thatrs the way I understand it.
Richard Zweig: There wouldn't be a rowboat on Ehe rack
brings a 25 horse molor down and things Iike that?
and somebody
Robert Pierce: Thatrs vrhat I understand. AIso, I th j.nk
understood it before that these are racks are designed to
si zes of watercraft.
tha tfir if rcertain
Richard Zweig: The regulation
erhat I $rant perfectly clear in
Conrad: That's right.
Steve Slaq: I have some property
what about the. . .
is such that it is non-motori.zed. Thatrs
my mind.
on Lake Susan. The question I have is,
Robert Pierce: No bui ld inq.
Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualification on
Steve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational
amendment or discussing his particuLar one?
a 75 foot setback.
beachlot ordinance
Conrad: WeII,forefront. we
Steve Burke:
ord inance .
his particular one is bringing the amendment to theare talking the amendment.
okay I because most of the discussion is not germain to your
Conrad: tde're using it asthe amendment prope r I y.a case study to make sure that we can modify
Steve BuEke: Let me ask a question then. As you know, Irm with Sunny!lgp::_"ly donrt.you leave the ordinance exactty the rray it stands andrequrre them, this developer to come in with. i,.iiun".'rliuest and retthe city council deterrnin6 erhether or not they h,ish to arror{ a variance:o lh: Igg foot depth then itrs not your aeciiion, iii"-tfre councildecision. The other. part of yoor u.inJrnent is to'.trint.-tie canoe rackand give the discretign to tt6 City Councif. Now ,fr"n.r.-i"o. tt"provision we rrere tord, r was wondlrins, ttri" recreational beachlot seemsto be amended every time a ner^r deverol6r "or"r in and insieao of askingthat developer to come in with varianles, tim just ,o.,aeiing what ismoving the councir to consider a*enain! the whore ordinance rather thanrequiring just a variance apprication ind then r.tting 'ti;. councir reactto that.
conrad: r'11 try to ansr{rer that. variances are rearry tough to handle.We prefer not to have variances because theyr re hard to ao",ir.ni il;---'why's and the wherefo.",:. .If y9, grant a_ variance to on", then prettysoon evervbodv is there_rooking for a simiriii-[ya; ;;ri;;;" and yourearry do need some good ratioiare to document that variance and thereasons you granted that.- when we see, as a planning commission, a casewhere the ordinance can be revi sed ueciuse in concept the originalordinance may not have been perfect unJ ," can see some modifications toit so we don't have to.go th-rougt a vaiiance process, $re,d much preferthat. As long as the intent of the oiainrr,""- is being opt"ia, ,.,."going to modify that ordinance so tr,.t it can incorporate uniquenesses.There are a lot of numbers in ordi.nances and we fini tn"t it.y tend to bearbitrary in many cases but we ao trave some standards, we do have anintent of the ordinance that vre'!re trying to uphord and if we can makesure that thar intent is still ueing ipnerd, wi can "".,-iii. in thisparticular case, where rn my personal opinion, tf,. int.nt-oi tt"ordinance is. beins upheld. -wL are protlctin9'tne ";i;il;.;: we ardprotecting the people that are using the tan6. rnei.'i=-pr"ntv of rand,$'hen we tatk about this, there is pieniy of rand for a recreationarbeachlot. rt's a classic case of i gooa beachrot. rt,s whit beachlotsare intended to serve and in this caie, the ordinance had some nunbers init that may be didn'!t ever consider this type of situation.- r think inmy mindl Iim setting a precedent if we, as a group, decide to,.change |t,rrerre setting a precedent that r,d feei rear 6omr-oi taui e
-trrJt we courdcarry forth and have future deveropments come in and u=-u..!pt.rle underthis particular change.
steve Burke: r donit.disagree with your statement that that. particularbeachlot is, r think is probably a good one. r.m not contending thatitrs bad but it seems to me tha-t thit one i" "-.i"sii"-ioJ=9.urrtin9 uvariance- in that yourve got the road and you canrt urake the'rot anydeeper than what it is without rearigning the road so ir vour variance,through the process vou can sav the ieas5n ia ;;;-.;;."""ii'." granr avariance for rhis one $as we courdn't realign ih; ;;;;:-'i'ot ,n"n yoo!"yg u developel thit comes in and uuys-a wtrore bunch, -ir-voo
change theordinance and if your intent is to haie a"lit - io-u"J.iroir'Ina you have a
Planning Commission Meet i ngApxiL 29, 1988 - page 9
Planning Commission Meeting
ApxiL 20, 1988 - Page 10
developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing hisroad, now yourre allowing him to have a narrower beachlot by just
changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants itto be on undeveloped property whereas this developer, it erould seem to methat he should get a variance. If you're addressj.ng that particular
one, if you don't change your ordinance, yourre going to have to come inwith a variance and I would say that the City Council is probabty goingto look favorably on it because they're probably not going to require thedeveloper to realign the road because he can reatign it on his property
but he canrt...
Conrad: You make a good argument.
Steve Burke: My staternent was, what you're looking at in your beachlot
ordinance and if yourre allowing it to become narrorder and narrower, from
my perspective, from Sunny Slope, the ordinance was established in 1982
was one thing and werve been trying to work and werre still trying and
everytime we turn around it seems that the City Council, for every
developer that comes in, is willing to modify, the vern cagne property
and you said they arenrt putting very many people within L.ggA sqtare
feet so let's make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and
liberalized your language. Nord another developer comes in and it seems
to me that a variance would handle this much better and you're ready to,it seems frorn our perspective, at a drop of the hat, a new developer
comes in, sure we'Il change it for you. I donrt know if this is the
irnpetus for the Cj.ty to consider a change to the ordinance, I would
recommend that the City Council not change the oridinance but ask the
developer to come in with a variance because I thj.nk the City Council
looks very favorably, ...to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and
there I s a real hardship.
Zoe Bros: I still maintain that there isn't I00 feet there.
Steve Burke: The question is not not therers 100 feet.vJhether or
is a goodzoe Bros: He keeps on saying this example, it's not.
Steve Burke: But theyr re not ruling on his development.
Conrad3 Werre making a statement that I00 feet should be there, wherethe dock is placed. That's r.rhat !re're looking at. If there isntt 1ggfeet, their application would not be accepted. Werre not ruling on theirappli.cation. werre looking at the ordinance in general.
Larry wenzel: I kind of agree with the gentleman that this particularinstance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the squarefootage, even if he only had 50 feet, sti.Il is way in excess of theordinance as far as the number of square foot per house. It doesnrt seemto me that other than the fact, probably roughly four properties in rhj.chthere is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comesinto play in this p?rticular instance because people don.t, from apractical standpoint, the use from the beachr they donrt sit log feet
away from the water. Theyrre up high and if you went to the beach and
Planning Conmission MeetingApxil 26, lgBB - page 1I
you can only get within rgo feet you hrourdn't go there anyway so thatdoesn't make a whore rot of sensel r guess, r had sone other questionsthat may not necessariJ.y in reration t5 tri" parti cutii piop".tv but theordinance...and that is with lake property and the vray it meanders, wben
YouJ re working with a. depth-and ttrin you -ome along aid say well, thedock is going to be at tl.re deepest point of that rot at 100 feet and the,ay- lots are joined, it seems Lo me- that what youire pr"t ing is ror aocrsto be put. in a specific position on a lot rine-wheie in.r.ior. you get aconcentration of docks. from.property to property more so than spreadingthem out. The other thing il .i tti"" tirinls, ana i aon,i--lninr tu.ttl?!:" necessarily a good practicai ining to have trappen iror.utilization standpoina. T[re other ttring is, if you're alrocating wherethat dock goes from the depth of the pr5perly in'rerition-to wtrere ttrerandowner- or the peopre wourd want it in rer.ation to lrhat the beachfrooris, the floor on the bottom of the rake, you might have-io-pot your dockup in an area that was marshy where you d6n,t nive a piop".'beach withrespect to x number of feet over wheie you,ve got a b;aa;r-tnut, "beautifur so that doesnrt make a rot or'sense. The next thing is that,if you've got the beachrot and there are x amount of dock spaces forboats and r' don't know the_raw today uoi it seems to ,.-tt"i propertywill come into the r.rater r0 feet fr6m ihe existing ,ui..-."ix "o that ifthe $raEer drops, the randown.r ."n i[rii 9o out rg feet if the waterrises' You stirr have access to the rake. you canrt rose your access tothe lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever that is,5 feetor I0 feet, hrhatever turns from private property to pubLic water.whatever the state ralrs and who iontrois- th! rno6ring'of uoats if they'reproperly identified and requested in publi" ,"t.i"i' a; ;f-;"" say youcan only have two bola: ?n this propeity, h,hy wouldnrt five'peopte moortheir boats in public. lraters because t;;ir" iestricting their normaldockage? Just by putting it in publii waters, you have basically nocontrol. That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me,as far as the water usea_ge of gettiig in and out. Especially if yourrein a restricted area. you could hav! a particular beachl.t that rrouldhave the r0g foot depth and 20a foot widlh and x number oi peopte usingit according to the ordinance of a tooi per home ;;e t;.-;q;are footagerate. AIl of a sudden you have x number of boats ,ooor"d or't ,r, op"nwater in front of that piece of property and nov, you've goi-anotnerproblem.
Conrad: Hord do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara? !Dacy: The ordinance regurates overnight storage. rt says that no morethan three boats can -be stored overnigtrt at the dock. ai "ny lake thereis a public, I shouldn't say any lake in Ctranfrassen'-Uut"it-f,"X"Minnewashta, at Lotus Lake there is a public ...""".- -p..prJ can raunchtheir boats through that pubric access and yes, outsiae-oi-Ihe beachrot,maybe 100 feet on the rake, you could have 5 or 6 boats theie skiing,fishing or rdhatever. The ordinance regutates or;r;i;;t ;;;;9". Theordinance _arso regurates the number of sairboat .ooring"-ihlt can belocated off of a beachrot. The term overnight is aeriiea-ilo, u periodtton 2.gg a.m. to s.oo a.m. in the morning. The rii" i"-p"uric water andpeople can operate 4heir boats, if they'16 ricensed rv in;-c".uer countyBoat patrol enforces the license as w"-r l as DNR so thi key for the
Planning Commission Meeting
ApriL 29, 1988 - Page 12
beachlot ord inance is the overnight storage at
sti 11 havenrt answered, who
the dock.
controls the publ icYouLarry Wenzel:
waters.
Dacy: The DNR
Larry Wenzel:
Conrad:
lake.
If you
and Carver County Boat Patrol.
I guess the question is, uhat is the rule on...
didn't orrn lakeshore, you could not noor your boat in the
Batzli: Thatrs Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake
Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted
to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area, you can boat
around the entire lake. You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on
the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight,
youtd have to take it back out through the boat access.
Larry Wenzel: okay but hor., do they handle on Calhoun for instance?
cathoun.
water andLarry Wenzel: who has the actual
thatts r,rha t I don't understand.
control over the publ ic
Conrad: The DNR does.
Larry wenzel: Okay, what is their ruling as far as mooring a boat in
public water? Do you have to be a laodowner to moor you boat in public
erater? I don't think you do. I think as long as the boat is properly
identified as far as traffic hitt ing it, especially at night with thereflectors, it can be moored.
Batzli: I donrt believe thatrs right. I r,Jonrt disagree with you be'causeI dontt knos, thatrs a fact but lrm under the impression that there aredefinite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and Ithink that you can not just go moor a boat in public hraters. I rrould
wager small sums of money that you can't do that.
Conrad: Irm sure you can't but whatrs your point? werre not 'rea).ly
talking about mooring boats tonight. Is this relevant to anything?
Larry wenzel: I'm worried about if
People can store on the ProPerty...
you regulate too constrictively what
conrad: weire generalizing tonight. werre not restricting. Werre
opening it up.
Batzli: Your point though is that
merely moor their boats off-shoredifferent problem. ,
Larry l{enzel 3 Sure, why wouldn't
if
and
we restr ict
you bel i eve
it too far, they will
have created a
they and now you,ve got a different
Planning Commission l.teet i ngApril 20, I98B - page 13
problem which is a bigger
know what the rules are.
Conrad: But renember the l0O feetright now yourve got a hi1l and acase. . .
problem than the one you started with. I donrt
Dacy-:_ The City also has a water surface useageto this lake. I can provide a copy of that toissue during previous ordinance a.'enament".
ord inanceyou. That
which appl ies
has not been an
:::I:d:-_rI: i:glils" on a beachrot, we do have restricrions on how manyooaEs can be moored- Now rrm going to say this tongue in cheek a littr-ebit-but the DNR, r assume that ordinance has been reviewed and the statefinds it satisfacrory so r.re are controrring the ;;;;;-;i-.6orings on abeachl0t' However, there have ueen iecent cases when $re found that maybein the wetlands case where we didnrt trave authority.
Headla: r think that'is the key thing there. we didn,t have authorityand I really question on the mooringi.
Conrad: Interesting. to follor{ up, however f donrt h,ant to get hung up onthat. one issue tonight. r think we're rooking at some oit,"i trring". Ithink we will follow up your comments because theyr re of interest and Ithink we'1r direct staif- to herp us stiu991e througn trrit-.i some pointin the future. Barbara, can you do that?
uary Jo Moore: r $rould_ recommend if you're going to make any adjustmentsin the. ordinance, that the Lag foot d6pth be useable rand at a maximumelevation. _ The property that has brouiht this before the council is not106 feet of useable rand. It's not ev6n gg reet. Therei= i r"ry "t""penbankment with very rittre frat ground. r think there should be anelevation requi rement
Conrad: You I rethis particular
Conrad: Itrs something
how wide is this room?
fami l ies? You' 11 never
chance if they did go, i
right. They have hundreds
case where they can use it
really a buffer. Itrs a buffer andas a buffer so in this particular
50 feet,put 12but, by
1S
r oad
llary Jo Moore:that land for
canoes.
a
ftrs not a buffer, it's. r"rhether thef can actuatly userecreational beachlot which means a swimming U"iit,,--
Uary Jo Moore: you have to pin down that number too.
$re have to resolve in our minds. Even5g feet.? 50 feet? Is that enough toget 12 families down there at one times that enough room? More than likely.
Mary Jo Moore: If it was useable land.
Conrad: Letrs say they only have 50 feetsomething we have tt resolve up here.
down there but I guess thatrs
of feet on the 1ake where in
Planning Commission MeetingAprll 20 1 1988 - Page 14
Mary Jo Moore: ...instance where we have this measurement of land, I amnext to an outlot, on this Iot they've got 6g feet of lakeshore. However,the land is at an angle and 6g feet is out into the water. AcEuallakeshore is 30 feet. Now it depends on what measurements you use right?If you're going to take Schoell and Madsenis with 60 feet of lakeshore,letts go out here... As far as a canoe rack goes, I think that shoulddefinitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lotas opposed to how many docks you can have...
Hrs. Wenzel: Yourre looking at this on a square footage basis a
square feet for each of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12by his 550 feet long and it would still be adequate for those 15Itrs still that much square footage.
Conrad: And your point is?
nd 4ggfeet wicle
houses.
Mrs. Wenzel,: My point is that it doesnrt make,it LSg feet wide, then it could be less length.
length and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550
requirements for I5,090 square feet.
if you're going to make
He has 550 feet in
and that would meet the
Zoe Bros: Last spring there
all.
would not have been any property there at
Robert Pierce: I guess Ird have to totally disagree. Every time Irve
been down there and I have gone down there, Irve taken my kids dorrrn andthere used to be a dock there and there hasn'E been for a period of timesince they moved out and itrs been used and all I can say is, on thisparticular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along thatway, I donrt believe that when they made the ordinance that they were
able to look at every type of useage. I{erve worked very hard to rratchthe inpact on the neighbors, the impact on the lake and feel that werre
doing a good job and our request is extremely reason_able.
Ray Roettger: I Live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I knowexactly what shers talking about because it's a piece of property thatrsdefined by Schoell and l.ladsen Engineers. It was surveyed in 1960 orthereabouts. There is no more land there. It was surveyed, stakes
pounded in, dredged and it has it down something like 35 feet.' I'm kindof, with my engineering background and I've done some surveying, Barbrsdefined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board
and I think you'll see what the problem is that Irm talking about. Ifyou took a piece of property like this and there's a road there and you
took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laidout soEeway and you met these requirements but this dimension here is I0feet. If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension, depending
on how you measure it, along the shore, you can get a very minjmum
dimension here and I think thatrs what your ordinance should take a lookat. what the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface.
Conrad: staff is tClling us that thatts ho$, they do it. Thatrs whatI heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. Staff is saying
rre measure it perpendicularly from...
Ray Roettger:
Conrad: That i s
Can you tell us then $rhat that miniurum dimension is?
what we,re looking at tonight.
about theHeadla: That realIy isnrt pertinent novr. Wer re talkingordinance, not approving thit particular one.
Ray Roettger: But that should be put into the ordinance
Conrad: There are some good points being brought up andthem aII. Anything elsei
Richard Zweig: What are we amending this to? If yourre talking aboutamending this thing, r agree with t6is gentreman over here. r don,tthink you shourd eier chinge ttre orJinaice and that there shourd be avariance but what is it being u."rra.a--toa
Conrad: The beachlot ord inance .
Richard Zreig: From what to what? What size?
conrad: Right now ererre looki.ng at two things. werre saying the minimumrequ i re.ent . depth wise is rsT t'eet "ii-tt" lray through the beachrot. Thereconmendation or the thought that we,re reviiwins-iil iI-aJLsn, t have tobe Lgg feet arl the way thiough. o"iy-.t the dock. That.s what $rerrelooking at.
Rjchard Zvreig: So in other words, the amendment isit's up to the planning Com:nission io-a.Lia" whetheris-necessary. yourre iot going aown-to-iS or you,reit's on a case by case basis?
though.
I appreciate
up to the Council,or not the 190 feetnot going down to,
Conrad: No. There are a lot of situations, 1f-we change it, the lqofeet is an absolute-. rtrs easy to measure. rt's ea€y to 100k at. wecan always telr. rf we change it, there are other siiuations erhere oneend of the beachrot courd be rg feet and where tt" ao"i-i" it could beL00 feet and that's the only.place where we have 100 teet anO r.re nay nothave a good beachlot. Thatis the situation thai *";a-ti""-'io considerthat might rorl in. rrm very confiden. that this particuiai grainance asrrerre 1ooking at it and the changes to the languagl ,.riJ,-itri"particular request that werre nof rooking at t5ni{nt uul-is-an exampre,rrm comfortable that this request is not abusi"g [tre oiiii]"." and anychange that irerre looking at $rourdn't have an iipact. i""""ur, in thefuture is vrhat we're, rooiing at. werve got to b6 rear comiortabre thatwerre not changing the -ranguage where we qet a aiftereni-".t orcircumstances that we didnit inticipate. -end mayue, ;"-";; people havebrought up, maybe the variance in ti:is c"se *i!f,i-;; il"-;;; ro fly.
l.la ry Jo I'|oore: My understanding was that athrough on this property and everything was)Dacy: That,s correct. The appJ.icant filedAttorney's opinion r^ra s that the City should
variance request eras putapproved but the dock.
a var t ance.not consi der
The Ci tya variance for
Planning Conmission MeetingApril 20, l98B - page t5
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri]- 29, 1988 - page 16
that particular case. The applicant
ordinance amendment appl ication.consequently filed the zon i ng
So in this case, his variance eras approved except for theMary Jo Moore:
dockage?
Dacy: No, no var iance
a recleational beachlot
was
was
approved.
without a
His conditional use
dock.
permit to aI low
Mary Jo l.loore 3 Okay,
through on a requestto get the va r i ance?
so then because the dock wasto change the ordinance so he
denied he comes
doesn't need a permi t
Conrad: He'd like to have a dock and werre just Eaking a look at the
ordinance to see if that ordinance i'ras too hard and didn't consider all.the circumstances. Werre looking at this one but vre're really looking atthe ordinance. He's obviously interested in changing it so he doesnrt
need a variance and we're obviously not proned to having variances. we
really don't like variances because they're hard to defend and r.re want to
make sure that if we change this ordinance that it's in the right
di rection.
Mary Jo Moore: But
Conrad: Itrs not.
know wer re doing it
looking at it right
ordinance is beingapplied for.
I don't think it should be self serving.
werre not doing it for him. vlerre smart enough to
for whoever comes in and applies and that's why werre
now. Werre looking at it to see if our intent of the
upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are
Ann Zlreig: AIl I wanE to say is what happened to
that have been denied docks then? There are also
and west side.
the residential 1o ts
those on the north side
Conrad: It has nothing to do with beachlots. Werre looking only at
beachlots.
Ann Zweig: fhis is a beachlot. Residental neighborhood group, 15families that have a beachlot. Is that that werre looking at?
Conrad: If they
come back in and
have been denied and we changed
apPl y.
the ordinance, they can
Richard zweigi Don't change the ord inance.
of ilocks.Ann zweig: Then we get lots
Conrail: No. I think you're wrong on that. The ordinance is very
restrictive and you don't get lots of docks. You simply dontt get lotsof docks. You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may gettwo. What is it Bafbara, after every 2OO feel, for every 2gg feetadditional you may be a dock? And thatrs less dockage than mostresidential p€ople have on the lake. Thatrs less dockage so you.re not
Planning Commission Meeti ngApxil 2A, 1988 - page 17
getting lots of docks. I donttgranting docks wiIly nilIy. Iti
want you to think that wetre out heres quite restrictive.
there anl,'rday?
theyrre concerned about. Hov, many beachlots
BatzIi:
Conrad:
How many beachlots are
On all lakes?
Batzli: On the lakes thatare there on your lake?
Dacy: There's at least 5 or G
we know if we change the ordinance how it rrourd affect those
Dacy: The existing beachl0ts would be grandfathered in as they are
Batzli: Do
beachlots?
Batzli: f know butand if the rules areadditional docks?
if they were deniedrelaxed under the
dock before
ord inance,
a
new
under
would
the oldthere be
no 9t.
rules
any
Dacy: There has not been any other recreationar beachl0t request on LakeMinnewashta since rrve been ie." so i-a"n,t know ,t"t on""-ihey, rereferring to thatrs been denied
Richard zweigz There are some there without docks. There are some thereh'ithout docks right now-and thatrs ,try-rten you rerax tt,.-o.ain.n.",rather than keep the ordinanc€r Irm d6n,t know !hy, t,m noi a cityplanner and r donrt know. why you don;i give variances but it seems to nethat you wourd keep a rule io-una rattrer'thun ;^;;ei;; trrur^.na then gofor a variance. r donrt. have a probrem with this prin. -tr,ut,s not whatm having a probrem with. r'm iatisiied here but- r don,i iir" the ideaof anending an ordinance rather than doing a variance because there aresome beachlots, r know one in particular ind r know tt. p.opr" who dothis, thatrs on the northhrest itrore ana- they have no dock now and Irmsure theyrve got enough, I.was going to may6e they,ve got iSg t""t, tdonrt know, but if the ordinanci is-change3, they-m.y jo"t-Io." in andsay rre had a beachrot before but now rre rrrant a dock wilir z or 3 boats. rEhink thatrs a real problem.
Conrad: And why rrould that be a problem?
Richard zweigz Because there are no boats there nol, and they were notauthorized to have any before. I just donrt understana. -i-tt,i.rt tfr"rule thatts up here is great thatrl set up now and r think that if hersgranted a variance, r can see where that makes sense uut wtry amenat $rhatr sarready there, which is very good and reave it that ";t-u;J'then have himfile for a variance on that? -Like you say, I aon't se6 i lroUlem withthat. There's arr kinds of square iootage there. ue's oniy asking forthree_boats. why is the city wanting to do that? r,m at'"'to"". Like rsaY, Irm not a city. planner but I donrt undeEstand.I
Planning Commission Meeting
AptiL 29, 1988 - Page 18
Ann Zweig: What wouLd be the language of the ordinance? What are you
changing it to?
Conrad: We donrt knoi{. Thatrs what werre trying to decide. The concept
would be, we maintain the 100 feet but only where the dock is placed,
with or rithout sone other conments. The current language says you have
to have 100 feet throughout the beachlot. t{e're considering having that
\ga feet be maintained only where the dock is pJ.aced so the rest of the
beachlot could go down to less footage and depth.
Ray Roettger: Sir, I'm going to have to insist on that location of that
dock at a I0g foot depth, you can force someone to Put a dock in the
lrorse possible location on that Piece of property. I donrt think the
dock really would be significant as to where that dePth would occur.
would it not be better to go to some ninimum depth anywhere on the
proPerty?
Conrad: Herers what you have for a beachlot ordinance. You have 209
frontage feet. You've got to have the 2gg feet and you have to have
3g rOgg total square feet.
Dacy: 3g,Ogg for the first dock and 20,A00 fot the second dock Plus 200
feet of additional lake frontage.
Conrad: So you have those restrictions. That's giving us some kind of
control . Just generally, the 3g'ggg is a good tool to use. whether that
LAO feet is a good tool is reaIly. That 301000 talks to me about buffers
and enough size. The 100 feet doesn't say much other than itrs an
absolute rule and there are exceptions to that. 98 feet,94 feet. Geez,
but r,re've got the 3q,gAO in there, werve got enough feet. There is
enough square footage with ctr;cr ?3rts of thj.s ordinance to Protect the
citizens so I'm really comfortable that there are those elements there.
Werre just debating whether that 100 foot is an absolute and whether lde
should change it o; vrbether $re should communicate that ere don't wand to
change it and recommend a variance in thjs case because there aren't that
many other alternatives and I don't know what lre're going to do.
Anyttring else thatrs ne$r? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
wildernuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldnr t
explain $rhat the undesirability connected with variances is and the
probleos that the CitY has?
Conrad: I tried to do that before.
gfildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest jn variances and
handting this situation with variances.
conrad: Letis close the public hearing and IrlI mention that Jim. Irll
go through it again and Baybe Barbara can heLp.
JBatzIi moved, wi ldermuth seconded
in favor and motion carried. The
to close the public bearing. Al-L votedpublic hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 26, I98B - page 19
Conrad: . Basically, in terms of going through this again, and Barbaraherp me if you can because r'm not tfrat astute on all the ramificationsof variances but basicarly our Attorney says variances are tough to dealyitl' when you grant a viriance yoo "6t a precedent and you rearty haveto docunent why you set that precldent real-Iy precisely. 'ReaIIyprecisely and many times thatls not easy. uln! times !o" oi. generatlanguage to document that and most of tie timel when ylu giant thatvariance you have a lot of.other people coming in and and takingadvantage of that same. variance- tiat-you just granted because you haven'ttotally documented that and Barbara hLlp me out. rrm sure if rde had thecity Attorney here he'!d be killing r. o-n this on.. The other thing is,you try to make ordinances as good as you can. you grant a variance itmeans hey, who cares about the ordinanie, it must be rousy and we used tohave many variances in the old chanhassen days 3-4 years igo ana it meantthat the ordinances meant nothing. what we'ie tryi-ng to d6 now is makesure that the ordinance means something. we can stand behind them. wecan teLl peopre that. they mean something and they nean someiirinq ror ireal good reason. That's why werre rooking at cl.ranging trre oriinance-tonight is saying hey, does it make sense to change thit ordinance andthatrs $rhat werre doing. werre trying to make th6 ordinances tne vari.aones that rule the City-and you reitty don't like to rule ihe city byvariances. you rearry don't because it,s rear difficurt. rt,s c-ostiy.As taxpayers you spend regal fees, Attorney fees supporting it. rt,s'notonry the one issue, it's the next five issues that Lome up and typicarrythey break down that ordinance. Therefore, our direction here on thePlanning commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in thefirst place. There are times when variances make sense and ih"y ar"appropriate but we choose to make sure that the ordinances are iigr,t.
aspect as welI. I think be spoke mostly of theThere's also a city ordinaoce as to when youhas str ict guidelines as well so yourre notprecedent standpoint but yourre also Iooking atthe ordinance to grant the variance in the
Enmings: with the 3g,aga square foot area, minimum requirement and 20afeet of shorerine, if_yourve got only the 2og feet you;ve got to have anaverage depth of r50 feet arready so that does affoid anotfrer {protection.Just the area and vridth requirement gives you some protection iigntthere. rrve got some rear uncomfortabre feerings about this for tworeasons. r guess the horns of the dilemma for me are, r feer rike we'rereacting to one proposal and we're changing tbe ordinanee to ret in one
^oroject here and I don't like that- That feels like spot zoning. Itfeers rike a bad thing to do. on the other hand, I rike his proposar. rthink itrs appropriate. I have no problem with rdhat he,s prolosing to doand r rive on that lake and look at that shore too. aeforE r came heretonight r had resolved in my ogrn mind that thereis nothing wrong with ourordinance and that this matter should be handred through i variince. rthink that the commfnEs of the gentleman from sunny sl5pe are ererl taken.r think he said eveiything that r thought of and then some. we did see asurvey done by staff as t6 what properiies are reft in the city which
Batzli: There I s a second
precedence and the poI icy.
can find a variance whichonly looking at it from ameeting specifications onfirst place.
Planning Commission Meeti ng
April 20, 1988 - Page 2g
could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth
variance are along that shore of Lake Minnewashta and itrs Daversproperty, these folks back here have some property and this one and I
don't know, there might be a couple of others. The reason they donrt
have the depth is because of the road wh ich makes it to me a very clearcut case for granting a variance because it's a thing that's there thatrs
imposed on them. It's not sornething they imposed on themselves. I donrtthink that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerousprecedent for those other cases where there's potential for beachlots and
I donrt see any reason to dispense with the 169 foot minimum requirement.
The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these
amendments, he's still going to need a variance because hers going to
need a variance under Section 13that Barbara brought to our attentiontonight. We're looking at amending two sections that would get our
ordinance in shape for him to be allor,red to do whatever he wants to dobut hers still- going to run afoul with Number 13 isnrt he?
Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council eranted to change the
ordinance to reduce the Iot depth, they would also have to amend ndmber
13 as well.
Emnings: I
proposed so
amend three.
var iance.
know but all thatrs been proposed tonight,
and
to aPply for the
all that ' s beenreally have tofar is the amendment of two sections
Otherwise he's still goj.ng to have
we
Dacy: Yes and I vrould follow that by saying that because we are underlawsuit from the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and because the CityAttorney looked at this case and felt and r/ient through the criter j.a andsaid no, a variance rrould not be justified and said that the Councilshould amend the ordinance rather than granting variances. Thatrs why werrent back and initiated this application.
Emmings: My own personal opinion on this, my positi_on on this mattdr isthis. They should leave the ordinance a1one. There's nothing wrong withit. I want him to get what he wants and I think he should be granted avariance for the dock. I don't think it creates any kind of a badprecedent or anything else. The only other specific comment I have isjust probably a lot nore trivial, is that I think in the section of theordinance that's nunber 5 that werre Looking at amending, there's asentence that starts, I think we ought to get canoe racks out of there.In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then in anothersentence it talks about canoe racks but we're really talking aboutstoring a lot of different kinds of watercraft on these. racis. Callingthem canoe racks I think just adds confusion to this. I think therers asentence that begins sith the word canoes and itrs about the sixth linedown and r think what hre ought to do is say that starting there it shourdread, non-motorized $ratercraft such as, and then just pick up thesentence where it starts, canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and smaIIsailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if theyr restored on racks spe.cificarry designed for that purpose and then just lakethe word canoe out 'of the next sentence so it wouf- just say, the numberof racks shaLl be determined as part of the conditional use permit
-f
L
, Ci.ty Courcil l4eeting : ay 31, 19gg
!'layor lhnirton: rtut a signed agre€fiEnt betueen tlre &eds ard the developer besigned so everybody knovrs whots paying it.
CourEifrEn Johnson: I?e trail. being built?
Mayor lhniltm: Right.
Roger lhutson: rtre develognent clntract requires soneone to do sqnething. I.balso require an escro, or retter of credit to rnke grre it gets aeqrlished.
@urEilnan Boyt.: !,low r^,e need to understand !,trat r€rre getting. I€ are talking
r about a city trail. Right? rtts 8 feet wide. rhat's our staidard. Just sotJpre's rp confusion. Ihatrs ou! typical trail.
Mayor Hanirton moved, 6urrci1man ceving secorrted to a[prore ttE partial vacation,of l€st 64th Street corditioned r4nn the following:
ltE Citsy AttorrEy's Offioe shall prepare an analysis of all stelE to be
acrornpl ished prior to filing tlre vacation resolution including &iver.rayrelocation extrEnses, reconstruction ard relocatim plans, filing ofappropriate letters of credit or escror{r arncunts, and retainirg trecessary
drainage ard utility eassnents ard any other itsns desned nec6ssary Uy -tfe
City Attorneyrs Office. Itris will be bror:ght back for Council approv;I.
A left turn lane off of IH 7 be coflpleted prior to tte vacation of 64thStreet. Gnpleted either by tttEbt or t}re developer.
An 8 foot trail be constructed by the developer frcn ttle vacated portion of
64th Street to TH 41.
I
2.
3
Vacation of 54th Street is cuEingent r4nn a develotrment c$tract being
signed ard that the develoFnent contract spells out that the developer isresponsible for ttre exlEnse of constn:cting the cul{e-sac ard constructionof the trail.
A1I voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution gg-4g
zolilllE oRDItRlltE N{END,tEhtI Ip N{EhlD SECAIoII 2g-253 16 & 7) OE rI{E CITY CODE TO
A}IE\ID TtIE T.OT DEPIII REOUIREMENT EOR INSIhLTATION OE A DCK AND O}IE CAIIOE RANIY
DCK REQI'IREMEbE.
1_
t1
4.
Barbara Dacy: 1\^ro issues, one issue is the lot depth requirenent for abeacttlot in order to have a dock. ItE secord issue is tte canoe rack issr-.Orrrently as !,,ritten you tr,ave to have a dock in order to have a canoe rack. Sothe Planning Conrnission acted to recrqrmerd that the Council amerd the ordinarceto keep the 100 foot lot depth requiraneot for a dock but added a grrase tlratsaid, inclusive of street right{f-!,ia}rs. Ard as to the canoe rack issue, t}ey
nade t}le language on [Ege 7 in the staff report, reconmerding that t]rere be no
more than 7 racks tEr beachlot. Tlrose are tlle tre issues.
Courci lnan Johnson: ,. Did they cqne up uith ttre nrmber 7?
Barbara, malte )rou could
Barbara Ecy: the nunber 7 as a rnaximun was based on, staff looked at alr ofthe recreational beachrots in the city ard rookd at the maximm nunber of lotsthat would be arloned urder the L,000 fcpt [ErirEter ard t]tat rorked out to beabout 45 lots. If you assurE that each rack has 6 slips ;:er rack, that Hay 7 x6 ras 42 so that ras a recqrmerrled rmximun on the canoe ricks.
Councilnan Johns6!: D you knor rrhat t}re maxjmun is right mn?
Barbara Ecy: Ct canoe racl€?
Oourrcilnan Jottnsd!: Cr carE r*ks. Ittat beadtlot has ?.
Balbara hcy: Itpre is rn langr:age mw $trlch salE that.
councilman Johnsdr: 7 is just an ungodry nr.lser of canoe racks r think.
Malror Ha[ilton: fh]A
Courci lman Johnson: Thatrs a lot of canoes.
develo;rnent owns a canoe.
I don I t tiink errerlbody in a
MalDr Hamilton: Ge of the things r think re need to keep in urind is everlbodyhas a right to use tlE rake. rf you use it uith " canoe, tro* are you huriing-it? lttat rould be, r would trrinxl the urtfuEte use. I€ rould r,nnl everybody touse a canoe or a sailboat on the Lake. rf you say uell, werre going to rirniicanoe racks lte,Il restrict people fron canoeirq. I donit ca.e if y6, p,rt fggcanoes dorm there. wtrat rmuld ha$)en to [ake ltarriett ani lake caimG if theysaid you can mly have 2 canoe racks?
Courcilman Johnson: I think you havst I t even included that. I'm saying 7 istoo nany. Itn not saying I. I rEver said I. I think lrs too little'.
Mayor fhnilton: lthaE r s wrong with Ig is r*Et I'm saying? I.m s6ying, r*,"tdifference does it rnake the nr.unber you have. you want to enceurage the peopreto use the lake arrr using a canoe ii tl," best .€y to use the lake I think.
oourrilman Johnsdl: r donrt tnlnk re should prt an unreasonable nmber dorn.
-
r-f -ryo look at a 30,qgg square foot beachrot, urtrich cqnes .ri-t" ii"[,*p.Lg,ggg sqoare feet of useabre area, put 7 canoe rrcks qr there, tte-iJhtot, sgoing to be aesthetically terrible. -
rGyor Hamilton: I"bybe instead
-
of saying 7 it strourd be the nmber of canoesbecause you can strck canoes in srrch rirc *ey ao in tte city;-fi t.arv xr-,theyr Ee tlere ancl there are rmre tJEn six qr i rack. .
- ' *':-'--
c.ourrilrnan Johnson: r think tle nr.unber stnuld be, is decided qron ar tf,E siteplan ard tD, it wirl be visuarry in that ard ho, rnany households the;; ;". rf
{ou get a groq) that has 4? hones ard theyr ve got an area strere ttev-can niaetlp canoe racks to ,bere tl.y don,t beco6 a viiuar ai"[oruurce,l#rI-Joura b"scr* nLrnber. I thiok 4,,4 is orE Dore than rerve got at any ouier plaoe. If I
t
t
!2
236-City Cowrif !€etirE - t,h, ,1, IggB
ltayor tlamilton: ItEre was sonre rationale for ttBt.
IEss that q!.
;6'!
City Counci I leeting - rny 317 1988
i'layor Hanirton: there used to be a dock in here. ?here cDurd the dock be if you
were goirg to trrt it?
Robert Pierce: q) in here ard I hroutd cqrle out this rray.
Councilman @ving: Iihere would you put the canoe racks?
Robert Pierce: Irm o[En to any suggestions but they could be [rrt out in t]isarea here behird scne of the trees scnrethirg... r eras doffii there this weekeni,_I think you could almost hide 2g to 30 canoes dom! there and tEople tlDuLd behard press€al to even fird tllgn.
Counci Lnan Geving: If l'ou haal tte ability to F:t in any nunber of canoe racks,
how many lt\3uld you want? In your develolment bow nany? Ihlee?
Courcilman @ving: So you reeil tiree racks?
Robert Pierce: I rpuld like to see one per tuildabte lot. Ihat rnay not have
ansr€red.
Courci Iman ceving: the problem is, I recogni ze that r.re have to have scme kirdof basis hrtten rie do sonethirg like this. ScnE basis for devisirry the...that
r^erve got a basis and rie say if yourve got so many lots, virtually every lot can
have a canoe. I know fuUy weII that not every hcne is goirry to have a can@.
l4a)'be 50t. )
T- uas.going to grt a max on it. r think that 4 is rcre than etrery other house1 owning a canoe ard $ranting it at the rake. A rot of people want a canoe atI hane.
Mayor rbmilton: l"tr. pierce, did you have anything you vlanted to present to usthis evening?
Robert Pierce: I think frou've pretty mtrch seen the ptans for it dohrn there butr did ilraw tp a littre bit of a plan here stpwirg tte laxe useage as r see it.Irm just trying to show. ntry. I,m doing this. I guess by show.ing
-you this, justvisualize a little bit tlre idea. rtre reason r think there stroitl u ".,alerdnent is one, r donrt think that the ordinance as it stands is taking intoeffect the parcels on this portion of tle take ard as hard as everybody hasrprked m it, scmetfurEs there ale areas that can be overrooked. lG tn-ve enor:gnhere, breakirg into 150 foot plts frontages, just saying that the possibility of
. each one of tlese trones, three hqnes, just rere inclusive of these- lots. rccould have three docks ard nine boats. Again, I think thatrs even a veryrreasonabre request but r think r*lat r€'re doing here with the ray r"e're -trying
ito use it is to minirnize the impact of power uoats m tie lake, itricr, r bel ie;ewas )Dur nunicer one @rcern. Be abre to set tiE tone for a really top quality
develolment by usirg the lake to a lesser degree that everlbody r"ourd- be hapfwith and just start this area of deverognent. rherers a rot nrore to cqne arrl rthink tbe way r+e're going about it, I think itrs really a gooal $,ay to use tlE
]ake. A good way for tle City of Chanhassen to have a high qual ity hcme anditrs a good way for me to market to produce a top quality-devetoprLnt.
L
13
It+
Robert Pierce: yes.
238' City Counci I |Eeting - Ma] -,11 1988
Robert Pierce: l,ly quess is you're probably very right.
Courrcilman @ving: I think a rationale is rnore important in the lorg term.
Robert Pierce: Itrs rp so m:cfr that I believe that everyorE is going to have a
canoe doh'n there. I donrt bel ieve that that will probably hapEEn but wtat Irmtlyirg to do here is say, you have tlle otportunity to use tbe take ard that
gives value to the [Erson. ltEther they're going to use it or not, thatts their
perogative but it allor.vs us to develop a nicer area. I really do think also, I
uas out on the lake this lEnorial [Ey r€ekerd. I think too, if you bave 1=oplecanoeirg ard wirdsurfers, I think in that area, I enjoy seeirry ttEn out therefor one but I also think that that q/pe of useage will probably, if therers aIot of canoeirg, a lot of wirdsurfing ard that tytE of useage of the lake, Ithink it also curtails the high speed boats. lbt to say that there might not be
sqrE that rould abuse it but as a rule I think people are scmewtEt courteous of
each otherrs. ues of the lake and stay clear. I just think itrs an excellent t,layto use the Iake ard to inpact it as little as possible.
Barbara Dacy: Just one clarification. I krlow that ttre Council is getting
involved in discussion about tte nunber of racks but I just vrant to rsnird- the
@urrci I that the ray that itrs written now, in order to have any canoe racks you
have to have a dock first ard I think at minjmun it really shoutd be anerded losay that canoe racks are a [Ermitted use on a beachlot with or without a dock.
The nunber is kird of...
Mayor Hamilton: Did you folks have a question?
Jeff Bros: f don't live on take Minnewashta but bottr our families do ard we've
been very concerned with tEst activities by the Council. It se€ns like everytirne scnebody is goirg to devetop sonethirg near or on take I'tinrewashta, theie
ordinances have been changed to suit slhoever's going to develop. ty motherIives on Minnerrashta Parkway. There is an acsess three lots north of her,s.Therers not supposed to be any boats there. Thele are por^rer boats anchored offof that beach. I€ have a hard tjrE believirg tlnt anybody r s goirg to be able todevelop anything on the lake and not eEnt power boats to be there. tibw r€rrenot against pohrer boats, r.ra both have thsn ard werre both avid skiers. !{er reboth avid sailers arrl sairboards. I{erre using t}re lake as much as rE possibrycan. I{er re greedy about it but you start by sayirg you want canoe racks. Icanrt believe you can have more tlran five hcrnes in an area to develop that
sorebody I s goirg to have a power boat ard scmeMy's going to have a sai lboatard theyr re going to uant to keep that down on the beach ueccnes nobody on thewest side of the take is going to drive arr the r.,ay over to tlE park a-nl raurchtf.i. -ufl ev. e1)time they Hant to use it. we're c.oncerned that -it,s going to beabused _like it's beirg abused now, the ordinancTe. !{erre scared that 5"o6irr*scmeMy erants to develop on take Minnevashta , the ordinance is going to getcharged to fit tten.
!Es. Bros: rs there 166 feel. on the section vrhere )Durre planning on FrttingtlE dek?
!,layor lhnilton: that rmuld include t]re road.
Robert. Pierce: What you're lookirg at there too, if r€ were just takirB lotrridth into consideratiofi, re have npre than apre for lot widih. rhis Is tne
L
t
E
14
2?C,
-t-
I
City CourEi I [eeting - ..,ay 3l; Iggg
tlpe of usieage. !€rre rooking for ttrree overnight slips. cte boat for trosethree front lots. rtrere are ictuarly four but lrrree tirat airectiy-rice. oneovernight- storage ard tl* canoe racks for the deverolmeot for eaci rardorrner.VE feel that is an extrqnely light useage.
Jeff. Bros: -I-think yourre being trnreasonably light in your useage. I donrtthink. anybodyr s goirg to buy a hore witjr raki rilhts ari not uG a uoa[. rrean- it hasnit happened yet. !,lobodyr s going to pay any pricre ttrat pu-vant tora lake useage lot ard nox, ov,n a boat, arf not just a canoe.
llayor lbnilton: I{e have other develotrrnents in tte curmunity that are verysimiLar to this one. what r€ have told tlrqn is they can sLrt out with ttrreeboats, the same as rtlat Hr. pie. rce is asking for. rta tora tJ|e develoEEr it msW to him to decide rdtp e,as going to bave use of the thlee slips that rrcreavairabre to ttEn. t€ are totarly out of it. tbr€ver t}rey raiare it is rp totlsn. lE have never heard a carpraint ard people are stirl livirg there so
scruahow they'|ve haDdled that within their reighborhood ard their association.ltratts fine with us.
rhatrs their probrem. rbatrs the problam r,tr. pierc-e will have to rork out.
!rrs. Bros: ltey can have 3 boats ard I canoe on tlrat strip of prolErtl? lraveyou been out there ard seen it?
lrayor Hamirton: I certainly have. rlve mlked the rhore tiing. rtrs a very bigpiece of property. 39,900 square feet.
Jeff Bros: lbw about sailboats?
Councilman @ving: SaiLboats are a peuni tted use.
Jeff Bros: Anchored out.
Mayor Hamilton: V0latrs tte nunber of tlrose?
Courrilman Johnson: Ihree.
Barbara Ecy: three sailboat flEorings.
allowed.
three sailboat nrcorings stlaU also be
Jeff Bros: I{hat about sairboats on the beach rike rerve got at the otller cqmona!ea? Are they allowed?
Barbara Ebcy: Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards ard sBall saitboats rnay be
stored o\remight on any recreatiorEl beachlot if they are stored on rifsspecifically designed for that frrpose.
1
Jeff Bros: Itis beiDg abused right non qr the lake.
t5
lralror Harilton! uts have to rely on people like yourselves to caII it to ourattention. !€ dontt have lake IEtroIs goirg arourd ard loking at everybeachl.ot. If people donrt inform us, tjley donrt in aII cases go cr. I€ need torely dl people who live near by or use tte lake to let us krDw about it.
Jeff Bros: CouLtl yori please go orer with ne again, sirce Irm mt cqnpletely
24$City CourEi 1 l€eting - !,fa'l, 1988
l.trs. kos: Ard r{,hat is it nithout it?
Ha13
lihatrs the depth without tle right-of-
clear on it. gtty can't this go through right now? whatrs restricting this frangoirg through now? Is it size or what has to be anerded?
Rirbara Dacy: Ihe lot depth.
!'b)ror Hamilton: Ttre planning cqrmission reviewed this arri suggestd that tlle 1otdggt}, be charged to irclr.rde the road right-of-r,ray in the deplh rneasurqnent. rnthis particular case tlnt rnurd give tne aevetofr rlg Lgg ieet so he rcuLd beallowed b [xrt a dock in.
t-
Balbara Ecy: BetlEen {O and g0 feet.
Robert PiercE: In q)ots 115 but purre talking, the lday the City hasinterpretted it is they r,Ent, r bel ieve Lga f;t across the boat ard r believeon l{re ve.ry northem edge I bel ieve re have about Il5 feet ard or the verlrsouthern bourdary ve have about_go and it gets rErro$,er down to the s10peinbetrrreen so there is an area of a rot 1es5. I€ have ti,e equivar-ent-sdare reetin excess of tr+o bui rdabre sites square footage wise arri r*ral ere
-oiaiilnce isstatirg right now, without any charge, there'i 9 acres roughly. n "i.;, SSSfeet of lakeshore and right now you-could not _Frt one trqne on 9 acres ard F,t adock. rhatrs how the ord inance says ard r thGk thatrs not what the city oran)body with a hcnre for scnrething fiXe ttrat.
Jeff Bros: wetre concerned because obviousry you borrght this parcel of raniknowing that these rots were not buildabte i-n iiris ,*y. oia 'noi neet-tirerequiranrents.
Rsert Pierce: vgt*n r first started tl= process, no ard thatrs *fly r can*through the @uncil. As r started to get into ii, r ba ,".r= .onil.rg. io *the. Frrchase agreqnent. r started to 6et into it and saw there irere scmeproblsrs. r started to go through the process to see hrhat r was lp against ardr fert that r trad a rot of encoui.gatreni to cqtinue. tt qns donn-a-iiir.r.ntroad-at that particular tjme but I think for ttp cier staff *.it -; oiai*.,."arcn&rlent is, as I unlerstand it, certainly protectJ everyone in tt" O"rtpossible raay.
l'trs ' Bros: so your dock, you're proposing prtting that out there is nhere youhave the 190 feet deep? fi tUt coriect?- '
t'a)Dr Hamilton: Right. ql the northern end- you've got to remsrber, rrtten rEadopt ordinarces r.e canrt anticitEte. every possibre sienario ttrtr"-goi; tocure before us so r r.purd certainry hope t}'t tris o".*ii-"rt ?,iailE-t-"ir"could be open to charge at any time. lca can't anticipate-eGy-ill"irf,'
"n rrg.thatrs going to ha*{En in the o..rtd at the time th" o;ein";." i"=;;;.
Mrs. Bros: But ]rou do have ordinanc.es Set q) for reasons.
Ma),or Hadlton: TtEtrs true but they also can be changed for a reason.
Jeff Bros: Ttris is our biggest corcem. is everytine scnebody is cuning in, itseems like everyui:re scmgone is cuning in to pr6pose scnethiig to * Jr. to
I
E
I5
T
City Courci J. l€eting -.ay 3I, 198g
gain access to the lake, wtrich again r€rre olEn to if itrs done in a crorrectm.rnner. It seans like everytirne it's dorE the ordinance gets changed. ttynpther courd not builil the house stle Ented on her lot because stre courd not geta varianc.e for how she wanted it on her lot but now this ard charge it arourd so
scmebody else can develop nrore lard ard it just doesn i t rEigh out for us.fiatis $hy we raise c!rcern.
Councilman Boyt: A cqment to staff. I think this is the beginning of theprocess ard not the erd of tlE process. I think $erre makirE a mistake if lredon't csntinue to clean r4r the beachlot ordinance rather than take it one blowat a tfune. lE're goirg to take a good hard look at it. Itrere are sarE [Ertsrrd particularly like to direct staff to. Scnre of t}tgn a:e related to ttrisissue. GE of thgo is, I think rE need to very seriously look at the size ofthe beachlot in t€rms of the nrmber of [Eople tlEt are going to be using it. r. think that r€ need a different ninimun act-ua[y. Ttrat iay 6e impactea uy thenunber of boats. In reading tle Planning Cdmission Minutes, they talked aboutttle inequities of sqneone who wants to [xrt a beachlot in for 10 houses versus
scrneone $tto uants to gJt a beachl0t in for 45 houses ard trow are roinimunstardard is the sane either r*ay. r think that i€ arready have a reasonabre
minjmtm that bE should conts[plate looking at ard that ii, r.ten re ask for parkdedication r€ work on ?5 peopre [Er acre. 25 people per acre rpuld nrean thatbasically 40 households would not rork with our o<istirg minjmun. I€ rmuldrequire a bigger minjrnun for 40 households. I think tlE reascn re need to lookat that is because the issue *eire deal. ing with here is concentration of people.-. Although J. r.rgsr-r.'t here when they originally wrote the ordinance, my ass,mitiin
I rdcurd. b qt they tried to cqne to scme sort of grips with how many peopre can
I F lut-on.3g,ggg- square feet or bigger? rhe gentrernan tonight has a Ligaer rotJ- to deal with and he firds himself hard icapped by our ordinance because i-ttrinXdepth nas an atte,nPt to v'rrestle with this sane issr:e of corEsltration of peopleuse. I think the secord issue is separation frcm neigtibors so we ought to haveso,E r.Ey when re deal with beadtrots of saying, is there an appropriitese[Eration from reighbors. ],lor., clearry in t]ris beachlot rre,vJgot a greatse[Eration frorn t]re neigtrbors. Itre rot's big enor:gh to certainiy tunite park
use of I bel ieve it rras, did you say 15? 2S? tbw many tDuses?
Oourcilman Johnson: 15.
oourEi lnan Bo].t: the lot id certainry big enough to hanile park use of peoprefrqn 15 households if re assuna the tlpical average of arourd 2.g people perhouse. So from the starrlpoint of the logic of can this piece of pioperty
sutrx)ort a beachlot, I think wetve agreed atl alorg that it can, oi af 1east Ihave.fert that it probably couId. rtrs a natter of how can re ap6lroach it arr:lretain ou! ability to protect the lake frqn the people arourd it- ard theconcentration of r:se. I am in agreemenE ,rith tlre elanning ccnrnission ttlat ttre
easy vray out -for this particu].a! situation is to incrude tlE tEEmanent roadwiay.r halpen to feel tlEt tlEt is a stop gap nEasure ard werre milsiog the boat itr€ donit take this otpoEtunity to go back ard rook at the h,hole iisrc itself.
Ttten distanc€ aside, r think that point 2 urrier t}e beachrot ordinarre that doesnot allor., beachlot owners to maintain a satellite needs to be corrected. rtimplies ttrat those;=ople ar:e not responsible enough, can rlot sign a clntractwith the sane servioe the city sigrns a contract wittr arrl r donrt think the cityis any better qr:alified to naintain a Satellite than the pople r,lbo o*rbeachrots artl $erre makirg a real mistake r^,hen r€ errurage peopre to make scneotlrer provisions ard -don't allos them to use tlre best availJte eguignent. x\)
.r
L7
.) A -
,Z4Z
.Ci ty Courcil t€eting - ltay 1988
the canoe racks. rtrs real interesting as r rook at this issue Tqn because ragree with you that it nrakes sense for people to be able to have a canoe. l,!ycorcern is, in having used ard l ived arourd city lakes for a good bit of mylife, take Harriet. I may be ldrorg but they don,t, in my nranr6ry, have 7 canoeracks and they service thous3nds of pople htto enter a diawing ard if you're
|uclry you get a canoe. I think the problsr I have with it is the screiningissue. l,Iow you mentioned in this particurar situation the canoe racks are easyto screen. &r the other bard, the drawback to a screenirg issr,e is tror do 1ou-pro!9ct your canoe? If l,ou canrt see it and orre sonebodyr s down there, iCrdourd be very easy for tlrgn to vardalize the canoes. Especialty is a situationr,*ere your re going to have a relatively snal1 nunber of peopfe using thatbeachlot. I agree that limiting the canoe racks, oDe cairoe- rack foi a 36 r0AAsquare foot beachlot is overkill. Itm cucerned that 7 canoe racks isconceivably too nany ald Irm interested in tlle cqrments frcm the rest of theoourci I but the issue of putting canoes and other itsns on tle ).ake, r guess rdonrt have l'lr. Piercers confiderre, having just slEnt a good bit of tlE-rreekerdout on totus take. r donrt think peopre watch out for canoes or sailboats. BJton the other hard r donrt think re have the right to deny reasonable accesseither.
counci lman @ving: Irll keep my cqment quite brief . r think tlrat rre always
have to be consistent in hovr r,re r re dealirg with deverolErs ard their tErspeclivedevelognents. In doing that rE have to also be fair. I€rve invested a greatdeal of money, r€ have a vision. hE can see the market ard ho(,, it could be
marketed best tErticularry on lake lots that have scrne anrenity and ere shouldnrt
deny tten unless it's absolutely essential to maintain the consisterry thatI mentioned. I'm not really in favor of amerriing the provisions for adjustingour ordinances for each of potential develo[ments that may c-qrE a1ong.
Develognents are alr different arrl re bave to have requiranents. cle tlring thathas to stard however is our ordinance. It r^ras built...with a great deal of
thought ard the people s[Ent a rot of time rooking at the issues ard they shourdstard, for tl€ most part, beirE successful a good deal of the tirne but it can be
changed and thatrs wtry r.e have an aoendnent process and tjte variarrce process.In this IErticular develo[[Ent Irm not realJ.y in favor of ctranging tt6ordinanc.e. Irm not in favor of it for the same reason that I menlioned, anatter of consistency. r change this ordinance now and arnend it, tcmorrow orno<t r*eek, next yea! another develolEr wilt cqre in with scnrething slightlydifferent with a little bit different twist but essentially tney ire sane.- rtreymnt to arerd tle ordinance. rn teErls of the canoe area side, r really feelstrongry tha! if you have a develo[ment of 15 h Eor,mers nho can see tie rake,you can gnell the lake ard you bought your hone to take advantage of thataenity, to buy that to orn rake pro[Erty, it,s kind of nice to be abte to havea canoe. At least a caDoe if 1ou donrt have a motorized boat. But to be ableto go to down to tle rake ard utilize it. For that reason r think re slrourdbuild into our ordinarre scne provision where re bave a recreational' beachrotwhere errery hc.neoMEr should have at least the ability to buy a canoe to use tlrelake so r agree with the staff proposal here to break- that afurt f,rcrr the dekissue. r think we can provide the trcnreormers with canoe potintial rrithouttuving a dek. Thatrs really about all I have to say !c.n. I think'Irve said itall . I 'm rDt in favor of anerding tlre ordinanc.e.
courci lman Johnson: I agree with Bill on arl of his conments or lookirg at thewhore ordinance here. r arso r€nt to rook at useable rand. you've got i 3otgrade on the beadrLot ard louive got a sLrar{) along the front of the 3gt grade or
t-
I8
E
L
5) A.)
T
City OourEil lEeting - 3y 3t; 19gg
26X grac€ on the back erd of it. Srre ]Du might have sT,Ogq ox 60 1060 qaarefeet of beachlot but how rm:ch of it is iearry- usearle ard wtpre are those peoplegoing to corcentlate. Are they going to crrrentrate on the beach rfiich in tnis
,case. lngnens to be right on the edge. Itre beachlot issue, he,s already got thebeachlot apgrroved. tE's got a reasonable use for that lard. as a ueacirtot, ralmost laugh, I uas tarking to scmebody on the phone today Htto did raugh r*fren rtold than exactly htEt r€s going on here as far as, gee re,re going to ircludetE .o"d right<f-lay. If }rou reaUy look at that ard start lookirg ard say, inorder to rnake this f it ret re going to irch:ile the city prolErty in ihat re cantgU tlte people they can use. frr tbe surface it toofs prelty arbitrary. tibwr*Et I do bel ieve, if the p:rpose of the 100 foot rEs Gparation again-, that anordinance charge sayirg that at ttE point that the dak ;iu be at; fo; ros foot
makes sqne sense to me but to irclr.rde road right-of-my in t}|e rsg foot doesn'tnake any sense at aII. Itrs just h:dicrous to rne. Canoe racks, I can go tqDdifferent rrals. Qre is enough canoe racks holdirg 6 canoes each to tanire sgtof tle poprlation. In this case he,s got 15 people, that rsuld be tr€ canoeracks so herd actually be able to do 12. Ihatts kirrl of a cqnplex way to lookat it but this gives, Iid say at least half the people or just zut an absolute
maxirnun, Ird lxtt that at 4 right now because I donrt tl|.ink-anllboilyrs ever
requested 7. r krptl that tt. pierce is requesting 2 in this case. r do bel ieve
canoe racks should be setrErate issues frcrn tle dock. It doesnr t nake sense.
l'tayte sairboat noorings should be based on length of the property arso versusjust arbitrarily 3 sai lboat nporings. tErs got 550 feet of property that be canprt 3 sai lboats on $ttere scnebody else can put 3 on Zgg foot of property.
Ihatrs interesting there. thatts not on here either but I think the enlire
ordinancre does stard to be rooked at again to see if it is stirr reasonabre. rrmstill rpt I00t sure of the basis of a I00 foot. I tnve a feel ing the IOO foot
depth is for se[Eration Frrposes. If it includes road right-of-ray in it, youdonrt separate anybody because the road is stiLl erithin 100 foot. I rpuld nnrchrather see tllgn say 109 foot at tlle [roint of tle dock, in wtridr case I teuld
bave been hal fway incl ined to vote for ttris. As is, Irm not at all. I rrouldvote for 4 canoe racks ard rnax imun of 50t of the houses. A canoe is one thing
you can carry dovnt to the beach too. I trculdnrt tant to keep it at the sanrelake.
MalDr tlanilton: Even if 1ou have a cirnoe rack you can do tlat. I guess eillpoints out sane good points. I€ do need to have sqtE rrork done on our ordinanceard certainly the people r.rho did t}e rprk on ttte last one, Frt it together, did
the best je they could at that tirrE but tiltes change ard thirgs change. Life
changes :rtd everything is almys in a state of flex so re have to tly to keepcurrent with everythirg thatts going on arouni us. lto ignore ard turn dor,n apersonrs reguest to change an ord inance seenrs ludicrous to rrE. Since ti,mes
change ard if at tte tiJrE the East ordinance rras being developed rE looked at
!,1r. [aerson's prolErty ard said teck, t]ris is going to be requested to be a
beachlot sqfleday, r€ ought to take it into consideration, it probably rould
alreaaly have been accornplished but r.,tto can know how a prolErtyr s- going to
develop t*rrs goirg to request rrhat. So I feel veq, bad that the crqmlents Itmhearing that scrne [Eop1e arenrt willing to cttange ordinanc€s on a sould request.I do also feel ard agree with Councilman Boyt that rE should look at tte entire
ordinarrce ard probably do a significant ctranging of tJre ordinance. Edraftirgof it. Separatirg the canoes ard docks rnakes a lot of sense ard perhaps ctrning
t4> with some rnore corcrete reasons ntry re are attaching nmbers that re areattachirg but that isnrt goirg to hetp !'tr. pieroe at this ttre in his
develotrment. l{eire all in agreement in separating docks frqn canoe racks wi1l
1
L
19
2/L/+
City CowEil tbeting - Ma- Jt; 1989
help sore. I think if you are familiar with tt. prolErty, if you go out arxallook at it, you can see the nice piece of property ttrat it is. rt has u5 feetof depth not ircluding the street right-of-my at one end. you could txrt a dockin -there for onry 3 boats, r think there is more than adequate rocnr at aepEr
and -rength. ard to deny it, r rourd'think that !t. Fierce rourd bave an anrirttygood case in court ard Ird be inct ired to back hrm up. I think it', anunforturEte thing that rerre doing to a develotEr to- a nice deverodrEnt and ttren-you look at.a piece of protEEty that is beirg proposed for one dei, 3 boats isnot a very intense use ard could tnrrile that- use very easily.
oourcil'an Bo!t: r think tlEt if you Look at the piece of property ard tlren 1ougo along rake [innerEshta ard took at wtEre t]p otlrer docks- ar!. it"." tt -
house is sepaEated by the road. r{oe, have E had any reported trouurei -
F.rbara Ecy: qt the Est side of take ltinnerashta, no.
courrilman Boyt: Ard rser re.looking at sonethirg when re talk about inrpact orthe lake, tlterers quite a bit of fiontage there. tten se tark about impact onchanhasssr as a whole recognizing- that ,ulae this is "* *i t"r-ii,"'Lsy t"think of it as a ri.y of.just penitizing tie deveroper but it-per'lizes alr ofus. Insta''r of him havirg houses that are a quart-r of a rniriion dorrais arnFYitg, f donit la:ow, g7,000.Ag Eo g1.gqg.60 iln taxes a yeElr, it helps us all tobring taxes down. hter re saying !o him, ],ou can,t do it. G'yd ;i;; l-r,*nith lake rights are very eipnsive hcnei right now altd r,tut fo're aoinl, rre'retakirE a-lot that, forget the road. Nobo !r can get rrithin lOO feet of inereliving wise. of r*rere the dock is going to be. iE've got plenty of squarefootage. This is a sitr:ation that-cries out for sqre linr-of .- r"urorLbresolution ttEt doesn r t overwtelm our ordinarrce for future consideration. r rpuralike to see us state to this feuofl ard to others that are going 6 E-irr roysirnirar situations, this is a- fairry ro$, ir[Ect. rtis a drince to deverop thecity. Y-e, it herps the developer Lut thati s minor. rt.s r^rhat does it do forT: I.think_r,e ought to pass this. I'm not ctrnfortable with the canoe racks$.tuatron.ard rnaltbe rc ought to hang on to a IErt of that for r*hen re review the
{nf3 -o1fignce bur you guys, thereis sanething about t}ris tfr.i *V=-iI-slDuldn rt be turn€d down.
9],or lbmilton: r guess to rnake a cq',oent that r€'re just doing - scnething for adeveloper wtrether it,s lt. _pierce 9r son+ody else, wiat ie sdeUo{ wtp fnabeen qr the cqrmittee r*ro deveroped tlre firsi ordinance."*-i; h.;: IJ saia,r.'ve beeo str:il. yirg the ordinarre !r,.t * IEssed several y".r" iq;-irdir*rthat itrs deficient. r*'ve missed sanef+ing in here and'br;di-rp'l ii.ir".case like this without even havirg Mr. pier& here. roukr re-ttren--*vlLl1
!'our re just a citizen- t€rre not going to risten to 1ou j,st u"""*'rao *.aon the cftnittee trat passed this thirq. rhat.s rrhat yooi."
""virry il] youdon't r',ant to do this because 1ou don'i ennt to ctunge scrnettrini-6.'I-"p""iti.develolEr but if so=body cane-in here ard said r think rc*i;-s&-;;$G^i;"our ordinance - r think lt stroura be clEng;:--Des that make a differerre?Iet's be fair about it.
Courcilnan @ving: Ibs any rEnber ever done tlEt?
ltayor tbmilt-,: r'm EakirB a sc.enario. you kr,, r an. rim EEking a scenario.
courni Luan @ving: r€Il, you are h,rt you rnight be naking an r.:nfair sc.ernrio.
I
I
t
2g
aa ,a i-it.-:
{
You might _be tarking about people $,ho don't exist. r don't know of any ms.berthat rcuLd cqre in here ard say to revies this ordinance
Mayo! lbmilton: Iim just making a scenario. I canrt say itrs going to halpen ornot haFEEn. r'm just sayirg rrttat if. rt,s a r*Et if situatioi. frh"t ir'"haFpen every day.
City Courcil tbeting - .ay 31; 1988
Courci lnan Johnson: Stte canrt [rrt a dock in?
Robert Pierce: No, she can not pr.t a dock in.
Councilnan Geving: lfrry eanrt stre?
bbert Pierc€: Because stre is erderry ard has not had a dock. rf r€ rrurd havehd a dek on o'r pro[Erty, if the [awson,s rpuld have stayea tneie, d rouldnr tbe arguing about a dock because it rDurd have been grandfathered in. At anypoint that there's not a dock E't in, for -wiutever ieason, po io* }.oi riitrtsto tlp lake.
lbyor Hanilton: Ebr how rong a period of titre Barbara? rs it a seasonar thingif you +ake the dock out? htheo do you lose )rou! rights to prt-Vorrr-a*i U*Xin?
Balbara Dacy 3 rrm mt famiriar witi the case tlEt yourre tarking about.
Mayor Haniltoo: If you had a dck in cr your propelty continuously ard ],oucutinued to Flt it in there, tnose that rerJ granafithered in nGn the'ordinarre $ras [Essed rsnain to be grardfathered in. Hot€ver, if ]rou take it outand leave it out for a [Eriod of.
courcilman Johnson: r- think- one of-my biggest problanrs on this one is not onryhow itrs dore rhere it looks like it'sl :.tii irciuairry .*a ,ight;iiy, it isso obviously pointing at_this one piece of prolErty. - ttrere is-onry one piece otproperty-in the city of. chanhassenl accoraing -to ,rint I ras tora, -tnat-tnis wittreally affect because the other pieces of pr5p.rty arong l.tinnewaiht .r. toopll:_-_T_V'.:_99irg to.be l}.rroun away Uecauie tiey'..-t. tt--is,;;o "qr.."rooE an}llf,ay. I&En t€ make.this,.it's going to, future lEople are going to Imkat it ard fy o{iousLy this ordinarre-r*as-rerrised speciriliirv lo'"iiil tti"one thing in. rf the p:rpose of rg0 foot is separation, *-J3oia !J!-roo t "t- at tbe dock. rf therers a different Fr4)ose toi tre rg:g f@t, ilpn-6 *rourahave, street right-of-ray just aoesni t ao it.
Mayor Hanilton: without the street right-of-*ay you have r15 feet at the d€k.
'Courrilnan Johnson: Right.
:
Rotrert pierce r
, ,I tl.,ouSh! q?t e= se-paration too eEs to keep the beach).ots away
-r II*.:i.sI: faniry. hone dwerlings ard the crosest to this p"iti"ura, dek,
I I?::hly he're looking at about 180 feet to ttre rot line tfren you take tt,e
I S:T!!: rhere,s probably 2gg feFJt to tbe closest house. G i.t is ,ight ,orr,
-L the.Proryrtl to the north, I don't lgtow how nany acres it is ard there'i a houseon it ard th" rugy is-an erderly person. stre can,t put her dock in anlmorebecause she hasn'E had it in foi the rast corpre yeais. rbereis sco.tiingdrastically wrorg wit} tle ordinance.
1-
2L
24:o
City CourEil !@ting - lray , 1988
Barbara Ecy: the ordinance section says itrs a non<rnforming use.
l,tayor Hamilton: Is it orE year Roger? Do )rou recall?
Boger lhutson: Irm double ctecking.
Uayor tlamilton ! Because t})e tanrsonis had a dock on tlEt prolErty last 1,ear atthis tire.
Courcilnan Johnson: Bt orre you subdivide and you change this not to anirdividuar hqneoe,ner I s lot but a recreational beaihlot, ii,s under a ccapreterydifferent ordinarrce arrl yourre no ronger grardfathered in at a1r. gven ir u
had a dek there last year.
bbert Pierce : VltEt I 'm saying is , tle neigtrbors ttsnselves , she r s going to be
moving out t<j a hqre ard I will guarantee you that the person wtp bu]rs that
houes will not bother to call the City arrl ask if he can have a dock. Itwourdnrt even cross my mird ard tley can not ptrt a dek in under your ordinanceperiod ard they probably hrve.2TTt malbe 300 ieet of Iakeshore anl multipteacres ard your ordinance states, itrs the green house to ttE north of the
Pro[Erty, they can not do it. Ac.cord ing to ]rour ordinance. Itrs just beyordcunprehension to me. Ite idea that tlE dock on this size [Ercel, it,s iustbeyord.. .
t
oounciLnan Johnson: ...canrt he Ft it back in? rrm mt familiar rith thatordinarrce. this is gettirg a littre off tte subject but it still is docks. Ariparian trcneowner can not ;rrt a dock in if ttey- leren t t grandfatheredpreviously in?
Ibger Knutson: Does stte ord! a hqE t}tere?
I'tayor thnilton: yes.
Counci klan Johnson: She lives there.
Roger Knutson 3 shers not under the recreationar beachlot ordinarre rpw.
hbert Pierce: i€ have a hcme but r.e canrt I)ttt a dock in there.
Roger niutsms yqr dqrrt have a ttqE there rDW?
bert Pierce: tE burnt it dorm because it ras abardoned.
Roger ltrutsm: A recreationar beachrot is ore thing. A dek, arn acEessiory toa- sirgle farnily hcnre is sarething else. If ],ou can fove a sinife f"riiy t.*there, you can have a dock.
Robert Pierce: r donrt berieve tttatrs right. rtEtrs mt uhat r Es told rdhen rcnrF to ttn City.
qer lflutson: Itrs an ele€isory use.
Robert Piercr: R en if jt doesnrt cnonform?
t
L
E
22
T
,).tn
City Counci I !,teeting - y 31; 1988
Roger l(nutson: Itrs a non-conforming use.
lrayor Hanilton: Roger, IErhaps 1ou could make cqrment on ttris beachlot. I guessIrd alpreciate your input at this point.
Roger Knutson: Everyone r*p has cqne in contact rrith it, tlEt Irve been ar,rareof ard Irm not saying, itts certainly been a controversial ordinarre for you.
9ftether tlEt nakes it good, bad or ird i fferent, Irll let you decide but iE has
generated a lot of tpat, a lot of discussion as to wtrether itrs appropriate. Itnink rftat. you I re talking about is all the other lots...and how many people areusirg it. mat kird of exanination h'tridl...
rl,lal,or Eamilton: Should this IErticular (:.lse be tested? I know Htrat lrou do about'it. lihat rnuld your view be? I think itts quite jsportant that t€ know tlrat.
'&ger I(nutson: the standards of ri,ttether, in regards to the City @uncil acted
ialbitrarily ard capriously ard thatrs a matter of opinion. your opinion rould
,be tlnt it is. OtlEr IEopIe reould say that it,s not. I guess tlnt rcuId be rp:to the court to decide. This is not a great place to do an analysis... Tbefirst day you hired me 11h, rerrErnber you told ne one thing. ttrratever lrou do
almys win. Rgnsnber that?
, Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think yourd have a hard tj.nre on ttris one.
,Jeff Bros: Ird just Iike to speak. liErre not corrcerned about having a dock if
they eant to tEve a dock r*rere ttE protrErty meets the lgg f@t setback but Icertainly think that is beirg one-sided ard showi.rg a certain amount of
unfairness to the rest of the hffeowners arrl pro[Erty orners on the lake to
include the street ard the roadr{ay right-of-way to nake rocrn for }ris dock. Ithink ttEtts being just ridiculous.
Mayor Hanilton: fb has 115 feet without the roadw;ay.
Jeff Bros: At that one point. If he erants to i[t the dock in ntrere itrs 115feet, that's fine but for the City Council to charrye the ordinarrce for this
instance to include the street as his property to nEke room tor a dock, I thinkttrat's being very selfish ard I think it,s showing favoritign... I think itts
being abusive to the hcrneowners on tle lake wtro are paying *e S7,OOg.gg.
Anl.wttere fxcrd $5,ggg.gg to $8 rggg.00 a year in prolErty taxes. Who had to get
variances to [xlt houses that tlley rrish to build on their lots tlrat they paid a
praniun price for, to be able to arbitrarily charqe it to irElude now thestreet. SoneMy else cqnes in, they get the other side of the *reet. I donrt
urderstard how you can strow this kird of favoritign.
Mayor tlamilton: I donrt think therers any favoritisn being shown. Itrs the
reccfimerdation frorn Ule Planning Ccnmission that tlle street right-of-way be
used. I donrt know wtry they recormerded that but it. ilhether it was
specifically directed at l,lr. Piercers develoFnent. It tDuld be used for
anybodyr s develoEment, not just l,lr. Piercers so itrs not for just orE person.
Jeff Bros: I think theyrre going to rEnt to add another two ca! garage to rfly
nother I s house.)
-l
23
24Pr; -rr.t,. leetins - Lray , 1988
Courci lman Bo].t: As we look at this, one of the reasons that the roadright-of-way becqnes attractive is that it's so lfunited. rt makes a charge tothe ordinance but it's very nrrrow in it's impact. you may think of that as ariabirity. rE's actually a strength in that it doesnrt open tte ordinance l4) toother abuse. [et's take the possibility of having a dock built r*rere the lot,sa 100 feet deep. Norr what se,ve done is we've given scmebody out there theopportunity to construct a beachrot tIEt looks rike this. sure, we,1l give you
Lgg f-*-t but then alorg the trrc sides r+e're going to have it be about 5 feetdeep. rtEre are probabty t'prse care scenarios with every event arrl r think whatnas appealirg to the planning ccnmission is that this rrai so Darrow in feusthat it. r*ould actualry appry to onry a c')rpre of potentiar beachlots. r donrt
krrcru quite hltrat your issue was a year or trc ago 6r whenever this cane in. rthinl- yo:l raise the. question
_
of is the City going to be fair to ever]roDe? It,sawfully hard. r think the city is going to try Lo be but crearly yoi don'ttnink tle city IEs been. Wben re ctrange an orEinarce re certainili have to becareful that rrre create a situation tlrai re think is going to have'as tittle aspossible impact. r don't ttrink ttris has a 10t of imfucti rt has a lot ofimpact on our ability to get sqrE tax morEy to this iol,n. r guess r canrt sayanlmore.
councilman. @ving: rtd like to see that we take that canoe one separately.The whole issue of the canoes.
Courci lman Boy!: V0trat's you! magic nuber going to be?
@uncilnran @ving: r have several suggestions. rt could be based on thenunber of lots in the develo;ment with a maximun nunber of four.
lEyor Hamilton: r suggested that there r{ouldnrt be any nrnnbe! establishd buteach request rpuld be evaluated during a corditional use permit approval.
Councilman @ving: I like tlnt idea. Here he's got three.
courci lman Johnson: lvith guidelines written in, herers the normar gn:ider ines.lde can p.t guiderine whatever ard say our guiderine is canoes for 50i of thehouseholds and sorne situations mighfrnrreit more. sqoe situatio* rnightwarrant less.
@urci Iman Boyt: I{e can do that but r donrt think ttrat makes sense. !€rve gotto fight the issue out as clea: as hE can, tonight such that r donrt have anytlouble separating the canoes frcrn the other iisue but I thi;k ii'=-"ui *,."going to_ let this just ftoat rrith eltEtever the situation i" "t ur ti.a', .rs soonas ne make our first decision about it, r.p set the precedent ttwr trriir'ret'ssuppose tle first [Erson comes in and t]rey '*nt 12 Lnoes because *r"y'"r" goingto have 12 tpuses. you alprove that. rte next guy has got ao hou;'urd r*t"40 canoe racks, we're going to be in, I think a aiificuf[ position.- -An1,nay, rri,orrld argue that $rhy not put it out. there like Dale saia wittr- i"". - ri.-#"r*" .mlook at the rdrole ordinarce.
!'layor tranilton: BJt re can review thgn nrtren they cune in for a conditionary.e--.just because you alrow 15 here d@sn,t me.* ttrat you have to-iii-, Eg ro.the next orE.
F
t
t
24
II
I
L
City Courcil !€eting - r'ay 311 1988
Courci lman Boyt: I think that ere have to make our decision based on scrne fact
anl I think this will open it l{) to, it just makes the whole ordinance harder to
resolve each time if we donrt have a clear statsnent.
Courcilman Johnson: I rrould like to see us say a maximun of 503 of the
households. Canoe racks able to hold 50t of the households or a total rnaximunof four.
I.layor tlanilton: Itut means he gets to build another rack.
Courcilman Gevirg: No, four. Four rDuld give him 24.
Courcilman Johnson: lbrs got 15 households so 50t !'DuId b 7-7 l/2 so itrsorer 5 so he gets 2. You canrt build a rack nittr only one. lE gets 2 rackswith tlEt.
Courcilman @ving: I guess I r^Duld go tjle other $ay.
have tle possibility of getting a canoe.
Eccflnend that every lot
councilman Bo)rt: lbv, are r,ve going to rnake that decision at the time?
Councilman Gevirg: Base it on the nrmrber of lots that are beirg proposed inthe develognent ard ]rou corriition it. lbke a cordition that if in the judgmentof the council that particrar recreational beachrot wonrt hord as nany is Lhereare for ttut particular develotrment, yourd say ret's cut it doh'n to 2- ratherthan 4 but the maximun srculd be 4.
courci lman Boyt.3 gtren you get into those situations then r€ create an area
hrhere Jeff cluLd say yourre not fair. r think r€ opexr ourselves up to that.
Ilhy -d!n
I t rc just cqne to grips with it. If we vEnt 1 canoe [Er, then lettssee if that passes.
Councilnan Geving: Grere's nothing wrong with it. Ittatrs a good place tost^:'t. At reast yourve got a basis for your intention ard ther youi re not goirgwith 508 or 758 or htratever.
Courrilman Johnson: I would like to see 1 IEr w"ith a max.
counci lman Johnson: untir you start p.rttirry rike this ptJD that they have r4r,httatrs that one call with aII tl|e corrios?
Barbara Dacy: tled Ceda! Cove.
@uncilman Boyt.: rftat about l per with r.p to 4 as a plaoe $ttere r€ can start.
l,le can leave the vrhole ordinance out ard figure out what the reasonabre logic ishere. If it qxnes out that I per household 14) to rfiatever.
Barbara Dacry: Thatrs the way the proposeal larguage is irritten rpw. Ore per
househord. _.Ihe Planning ccnnrission reccnnrended 7. rf l,ou vEnt to cttange it to4, thatr s fire too. 7
25
!'tayor lhnilton: !{e've arready 6r:t a maximun of L,ggg feet so you,ve rimited thenu$er of trcnes that could use ttle outlot.
25U. City Courcil lGeti.ng - !ra_ J1; t98g
CourEi lman Johnson: IrIl move that. Gp per with a rnaximun of four.
Councilrnan Gevirg: IrIl secord that.
Mayor lranilton: I think itrs being rear sighted.
Councilnan Gevirg: It stiu gives you 24 though 1,cm.
Mayor Hamirton: r donrt care. stilr t]re useage you rrant to have on t}e rake ifI',Ou,ant to crean up lrour rakes, ard not arrd people to use ttgtr unrel *"...I don . t kmw that ere, re ever going to get a; ; ,n"*irn * of lZ oi-r.Ul"re. .
CourciLnan Gevirg: A practical maximun nudber of users is probably close toharf' rf you tood 42 trcrneonners, my guess is that no npre tlEn 15 or so rcurdhave canoes.
r'tayor Harnilton: Btt rG,re kind of limiting it for the IEopIe trho do.
c'ounci lman cevim: rrm just takirg it frqn a practic^l stardpoint of kmwinghow many peopre rive on "-raie aJ-A;; iit lr'oout" they have.
Councilman Bo]rt: If i€ go back to I per household but pro\ride sqrE sort ofprovision so tt't peopre don't. s*d; i-#") ."noesr *rere,sr Jiln ,pot onthe rack so r stoEe rrw canoe aorn tGre. -ia.n;t-x*"1';; Ir["rTir.* ro,people to srore their canoes or a prace drJ p".pi"'-"ttli[ iiT*"ita, rr rEhad soreoay of preventing...
l€yor Hanilton: yourre park of the Sunrise Hillrs Association right?
Oouncilman Bol.t.: Fight.
Hayor thmilton: Ihey have tro racks.
Courci]Jnan Boyt: I\p racks ard I donrt know, 45 frqaes.
r'ta)'or Hamilton: r've *"=. F.Id anlbody ctnrprain about that. those rd)o donrthave it on the beach probably aon,t'evd U-rE-"-
-"..*.
Courcihan Boyt: 0h yes,
'[1!_Ffpq: and naybe rhis r,Duldnit haIrIEn if thereuere more racks, but what happerrs G it o.e or'tr,o- spot-s becrres open ard itrsopen for a few reeks, if scmeLody t"" " *tion,-tl=y,ii-;;ItE ffi o6their rack at hqrE a,,i Dut it up' tfreie. - A;-;; out of ttE yard. ,Ihat , s not atlbad. rt kinar of creans the.ri;hb.il..d 6] -i,Lr"."
a r*rore rot to this issueard r suess if re courd strike sanethi.r,g, l-i*'r'r.* Jiiii.}ii'r}ti#,oor *::l:=l:., itrs fairly rErrow or any otner 1o[ ancl seeing 7 canoe racks. rt,s a
I?S: Hamilton: rttere aren,t going to be 7 bere. you,ve gor to keep Erat in
courcirman Bolt: t811, as- rtve. said arr a10ng, the thought of havirg e\rer),bodywtro is a part of the beachl.t r^,tro t ants . "u,# o. ""iil;; a. f iif"=t *r"it rnakes a lot of **.,t
26
t
I
City Courci I theting - ,y 31, 1988
Barbara Dacys But the motion was for a maximtm of four.
l.layor tlamiLton: I still dontt have see the problsn with having a maximun of 7 aslorg as you can control that within your corditional use. yourre saying if inthe future ssne, and I don't think retre ever going to have that situation, butif sonething cane in ard they had a huge outlot ard r,ranted to have 7 canoe racks
on this huge outtot. Ihe potential is tlere but ft. pierce doesn r t rant Z. -
CourcikEn Geving: l{ow did },ou arrive at 7?
Barbara Dacy: that eras based on existing exampLes of largest subdivision in an
urban area e,as totus take Estates which had 44 lots so if you say I IEr lot, 6on a rack rculd be 7.
Barbara Dacry: Canoe racks?
lrayor tbmilton: Yes.
Barbala Dacry: t{o more than 3.
Courci lman Ceving : I€t me ask }rou, how about the Kurver I s protErty that t s
beirg developed? Ttey had a recreational beachlot.
Barbara Dacy: Itrcy rec.eived approval for teD docks ard I believe it tEs 3
canoe racks also. There were 36 lots.
Courrci lman Johnson: Seven just seqns to be too high.
Councilman Bo).t.: It seqns like tlre thing roe're saying to scnebody, if you have
a beachlot you can pJt up a canoe rack. Werre taking that alcy frqn the dock
issue so thatrs a good point.
Mayor lbmilton: I kird of agree with Tcm. I think I'd rather go back to the 7.
there is that practical possibility. There's nothirry wrorg -witb a 7 as a
rnaximun.
CourrciLnan Boyt: Otce r€ go there r€ @n't cqne back dorrrn.
Counci lman Johnson: I'd like to do 4 right no({ ard thst like BiIl says,
therels a lot of issues to look at with tlE beachlot ard rre might rEnt to [rrt a
beachlot groq> back togethe!, Iook at the whole thing ircludirg tle nr.unbers
instead of sitting here tonight ard fignrrirg it out. I€ive got'a reasonable
cunprunise here betueen the I ard 7 that lriU fit every atplication r€ know in
the City. therers nobody asking for anything rear tlle nunber rr're proposing.It sbould be kird of non- c-ontroversial.
Courcilman Bo].t: I sense that 4 will pass. Let's take a vote on 4.
T
Ttrr
It
27
Mayor }bmilton: ltey can have how many right nos,?
Counci lman Johnson moved, Oourci lman Cevirg seconded the first reading of Zoning
Ordinarre AnErdnertt to arcnd Section 2S-263 (6, to read as follows:
25:2
City CourEil tbeting - May 11; t98g
f,layor Hanilton: ihis will be separated frqn the need to have a dck, correct?
Courrilman Johnson: yes.
No recreational beachrot "Frr F used for Frrposes of overnight storage orovernight noorirg of more than three (3) moiori zea o. ,rooootoiizJ ralEicrarttEr dock. rf a recreationar beachrot is arror.Ed upre than qte (1) dock;horever, the altowed nur!-er o! boats may be clustered. r:p to tfiil- tii 'saifUat
moorings stEll also be alloned. lbrnrot6ri zed e.tercraft -*.h
", ;";:,winilsurfers, sailboards ard sralt saitboats mayL storea orernight an anyrecreationar beachlot if tjr"y are stored o., rulk" speciricariv -dsign;-for
thatFrrpose. l{o more than six..(6) $atercraft may be stored q, . i."t. 't n,uocerof racks sharr rDt exceed the arcunt of "torig--rr..."sary to pennit one (r) rack:lip go lot served I the beachlot; f-*u"i,'in'* ..* shall there be morethan four (4) racks per beachrot. oocting ;; ;u-. Etercraft or seaplanes ispernissible at any tirE other than ou"rniit i. --
All voted in favor ard the nption carried.
I
r,ayor lramilton: Just the canoe rack issue here arrl $Erre not tying it to docksor anyEhirg else.
(Councilman ncrn arrived at this point in the nEeting.)
l''ayor Hamilton: I{e are wrestling with the issr:e right rrcry of the dock to beallowed on ttr. pierce r s ou,,ot ;rn hare th"-r* of three rptori zed boats forovernight storage. r€ have just vot€d r""orJiv to. charrye o* oiJiiliJ "rro*,the first readinq, to arlo$, ior. "*o" ir"Gl-i',**i** 6i i;r-;;iI.il.x" p.,beachrot, si.x canoes ;=r rack ." ;;;il;:'rtut uring" ]rou r{l to h*Eteverhappened. !{e seqn to be fairly sprit on th" i;" of Mr. pierce,s use of hisProperty to put a dock on aro io lrtoor him to have tttree boats. tb has r15 feetof depth on his lot without the use of tfre ioaa right_of_iray.. .
t
Courri lman Horn:
CourEi Illan Boyt:
Oourci lnan Hrcrn:
lb stiU needs a variance thor:gh?
I*nt hers proposing is to cttange t}e. ordinance.
the proposed location rDuld include the...?
Ma)Dr tbrnilton: thatrs the planning oqrmissionis proposar to us. r.re seeds toffdfftrffT;l:.s.:*ti'o oi'"ot'vo'-'lit-ti' ;;ti;;,iid .ff';. ".rE .n,
courci lman Johnson: I'1y. disagreansrt cr.ark is rh,t- irEludirg road rlght<f-uayaplEars rhar r€'re charning our ordinarre speciiica[y-i*-iiri?.jJi'"rr: rbel ieve tlEt r€ can drai our position *freil""-q-"t E Ey, buy yodr propertyard go for it ard qet ,rou. ordi*G;h"fi;-t'*_re ]rou can get what llou want.,?rese gr.rys theyrll- - up with * .."iiil.L^ * do this. rrcIude roadright-of-$,ay. rf the mriose "f u* iil-;;i G, t* selEratiqt, he,s got lggfoot rrtpre the dock is, tien trnt mares
-Jii [J.*rrg. the ordinanc.e to nEeEthe grrpose of the r0o fe.t. rnclude-;oad ;igil-ot-my into that to rneet ,Econfines of tlp ordinance to nE "..,,. iuiiry-iirirGivl l;;1 iloilL,ritr,
t
28
r
City Courrcil tEering - ry 31; 198g
t}Iat- r donIt tJrink with 506 f*t or whatever of rake front here with one dockwill have a huge iJn[Ect on take Minneorashta. I wiII be more than wiUinl to gothe other rny. I'm not moved rm:ch by the argunent tllat r€rre going to get alithese huge taxes. I€ donrt get that much taxes by the tine tfe County irn
everybody else takes our their eihack but that help6 all of us too I guess.rtpse are going to be scnre fairly good si zed tranes. Even without the rights tobave a boat on ttris dock, I don't suspect you t re going to g.rt 9G0,0g0.00 hcrues
on those fou! Iots erithout a boat there. ftEy rlay not be 9250106A.6A }!all€s. Itnigtrt jr:st b $2gg rgg6.gg hcrnes but to nE that,s not a huge differerre. I,m notgoirg to vote for changirg our beachlot ordinance on the iact that this changewill generate more tax revenues to the City.
CourcilEan Horn 3 TtEt's ttE argrment?
Courpilrnan Johnson: Ittat was orle argrrEnt that rE had earlier $as that geez,
Iook at irhat this vpuLd do for generating morEy but I don,t like the road'right+f-vay part. thatts my argunent against it is including road right-of-rmy
in measurirg lour setback ard this is essentially a setback tyIE of thirg to nre.'It's kind of silly.
CourciLsan tlorn: It's unique to this prolErty though?
Councilman Johnscn: Yes.
Barbara Ecy: It will affect one other prolErty on tlle r€st siile of
Minrewashta also.
Courci loan Johnsoo: lftat rrculd you syr lgg foot at the point of the dock.
!b!, many properties blculd that affect do you think?
Barbara Ecy: ltre Planning Cqrnission stn ggl,ed with tlut because how wide of
an ar€ do you bave that 100 feet? Do you keep it al 20, 3g ox 4g? Ard theyfelt mcqnfortable tttat that rras being just as arbitrary as antrthing else so re
uant€d to try to establ istr a consistent means of creating a guidelire in the
ordinance to avoid a situation like this, as l,tr. Bolrt pointed out. Yes, they
Iooked at tlle map ard saw that there vJas one other property; tle Zieglerrs southof the tawson property on tlle i€st side of [ake ttinneuashta tllat this r€uld
affect but selEration wae a big issr:e. ltE rationale beirg that that road
right-of-r,ay does serve a Fr4)ose as a br:ffer ard tle Planning Ocnmission
ctairnan really e:rplained that ttEy felt that that stDuld be included as tErt of
ttle buffer betrNeen a beachlot ard a groq> of single fanity hcnes. Also, it
provided an easy nechanign to erforce the ordinance because again, Iook at thatarea. tEts got malbe 30 feet of the beachlot being 115 feet deep. Is that
really rrtEt your re tryirg to s€parate frcm adj ac€nt single fanily trcmes?
Councilman Johnson: Itre other oDe rDuLd be a 100 foot depth with an averagelot depth of the entire lergth of the lot of 75 feet, 90 feet or scrnething to
v,bere tbat, &viously tlEt t$E of "Td shalE, your average lot depth is going toh rday low or flag Lots or scrE rrordirE there.
Barbara Dacy: Again, it still doesntt affect tlpse beachlots that do not have
road right-of-nay. You still have to have 100 feet of lot depth rp matter rrtEtin this case so tneyfelt that lDurre acheivirg both objectives. Your re setting
an establish€d minjmr:m with or without tle road right{f{,ray.
t
L
29
25+' City Courcil !&eting - ltay -, lggg
courciLnan Johnson: ItEt about tle peopte $Jho, tlley Ent to add a tno cargarage in the front of ttreir house but theyrre too close to the roadright-of-rny to do it d ll*v Fy !€'11 iust irctuae tlre road right-of-way inour setback. ltey did it for the beac*tlots.
@uncihEn Boyt: ttrole different issue.
Councilman Johnson: Sirnilar.
courci lrEn Boyt.: lb. lrrch different issue. r*En r€ tark about a garage arrl inputting traffic cn the road, we'ive got a safety issue. wtrat reire Gixir,g
"boothere isntt a safety issue, itrs a conc€ntratioi of useage.
Councikoan Johnson: Iibrre putting [Edestrians across it.
courcilnan rrrn: $1 you.distinguish, in lour lrovsaber 12th nenorancrun yousaid you courdnrt differeniate bete,e€n lot depth ard rot size. c." po ao tr,rtnow in terms of intent of ordinance ed.tt! rdhat tI," planning cqnnissioireccimerded? G do you think, the i.rq>ression rrm getting here is that thePlanning cqrmission feel s that tlreir proposal leti the intent of ttre ordinarrce.I donrt think there is anythirg that meets the intent of the lot size. yourooked at this in terms of depth... rf you rook at it in tenns
-oi ii re a:.rowthe road right-of-$ray as they reuld get g]e gst.r area, there ses0s to be rotsthat lrould change tleir curpliance based on the area.
Barbara Dacy: Ttre ccnnissionrs intent r.s not to irch:de the road right<f-nayas a part of the lot area.L
t
Courci lman lbrn :
capricous?
So how do re differeniate that in terms of arbitrary and
Ite differencre being is ttrat the Cormission ras looking at this.
So it t,ias intent of the ordinarre?
I donrt lsDw.
Thatrs the questim to the AttorrEy.
Your re ctnnging tlre ordinarre.
Barbara Dacy:
Counci lman Horn 3
Barbara Dacy:
Courcilman Horn:
Roger Knutson:
Councilman liorn:
Courcilrnan Johnson:
right-of-i'Ey to get
@urciLnan Horn: As I got your issr:e the question could go
19uld yog change the ordinance for depth without ctranging itlihat rDuld be ]rour ratiorEle?
Roger Knutson: Do rE think that the ordinance is fine. Itdepth lErt of the ordinarEe shall re charge? Are 1€ talkirgdepth as a buffering and { ircIrding t}re road re acafilt)lish
baclsrards. tftryfor lot size?
helps 1pu. . . in tlre
about changing the
the hrfferirg.
You could argrE that lot area is a buffer.
lbrd r,$3 could use ttle lot area, ttte 66 foot of roadscrne'of these belon 3A,AAA q,nre feet r4r to 1S,S\S.
I
3g
zoD
I
city Courrci I l.heting - .Ey 31; I9g8
Barbara Daqf: t\b.
Courcilnan Johnson:
to get it.
Courcihan Boyt: It i s a different issue.
l,layor ltatrilton: Do l,ou have another question Clark?
oourciLnan Horn: l,b. I'm stilr trying to sort out how that,s a differentissue. In my mird I can.t differentiate that.
Bar-bara Ecy: rf clarification of the intent rEeds to be sorved. t.E can easiryadal a- sentence that sa]6, hor.Jever, road right-{f-way sharr not be us€d in thecarcurati6n of lot area for the beachrot. - that can be addeal. hger assessnentof the distance anl the depth issues is exactly right there. ror-wtraG"erreason in 1982 Lgg feet was set as a minirrun tot aeptn, so uhat tley rerelookirg aE is werl , r,E do have narrow stretcttes beti.reen Hinrewashta' part<my aruIake l'linnewashta ard the cqrmission felt that incrr:ding tlre road right-of-way asfar as that lot depu! calculation i{Ets, i{.ls appropriatel
l.layor thnilton: Anl.thing else Clark?
t
courrcilrmn Horn: Irm stirl having troubre with it. r canrt differentiate
betr.reen 30 ard. . .
Barbara hcy: the other criteria for area is ttnt you have enough atea for
canoe racks ard play areas, swinmirg beaches, volleyball nets ard so on. Sosupposedly tlre ordinance already says 3g,ggg square feet ard then 2O,gAg q,rarefeet for any addi tional dek so ttrere's a relationship there between deks ard
useage.
Courrci lnan Horn:
related to...?So one is strictly related to a dock issue ard the other is
L
Barbara Ecy: f guess, yes.
ual,or tlanilton: rtEre r,ere so.rE ccm€nts tnade by scrE of tle council rieribersthat they rrere relunctant to charge the ordinarne for a qleci f ic developer. r
ques-s I still ask the question, rE,re not going to ctnngJ it for a qlecific
develognr, h'hat if the staff, another wtrat if, wtrat if tle staff had- rociked atthe ordinarre ard said look,_...ard brought this sarne issue before us to change?Would.r€ be sittirg here,...in mird to deny it or reuld you...? Ihatiscgr,l:.in1y an issue for ne because I know tlre...just to use it can nake adi fference.
courcihnan Hcrn: r agree with you Tqn on ttEt. r think obviously uten 1puget rEi, uses ard rrer{ circunstarE€s that c.oe in, thatrs usuarry r{bai the pioblanris. tbke a rook at tlp ordinance see if it still makes sense-. I donit have...
!'layor tlamil ton: r'm going to make a notioo to alprove zoning ordinancle arendnentfor a recreatiorEl b€Echlot to allow. Hrr do you $ant to d; 6is? Section
2S-263.
thatrs the next request. Itreyr II use the exact sarc logic
31
Z{fiv courcit r,reerins - Ma'l, 1988
I
L
32
t
Barbara Dacy: It's on tage 7. 2g-2G3(7).
!'tayor tramiLton: To adopt the reccmnerrlation of the planning @urission asoutlined oo tEge 7. h lrou want ne to read it? Is there i secord to themotion?
Councilman Boyt: ItlI secord it.
l€yor tlaoilton: Is there further discussion?
courci rman Johnson: y?:. r:d like the city Attorney to rook at souething. rnthe e:<isting ordinarrce it states no dock strair u p.6itt a on a recieationarbeachrot unless it has at least 2gq f*"t of take fiontage and ttr" Loi Ls atleast.a.Ioo foot depti. In our definitions, in our Zonirry OrdirEnoe
- -
definitions, we tEver define actua[y, re define the lot 6epth but here re didnot say Lga foot of lot depth. IE just said 1go foot of aeittr at this point intlris ordinance. can there be_ an argunent that he does not il"d i"a;;fi o.Fu" F used it eveqr plae else in-the ordinance? Ithat I,m tryirrg to'say i",is this even necessary in this case?
tbger Knutson ! rt'|s a good point and r think it is sqsrhat arbiguous but frcmmy urderstardirg is that they're tarkirE about lot average ard he eid not haveLqg f@t average lot depth.
!G)'or thnilton: rtle ordinance anendnent routd clarify tlat t,here it says roo
Iee!. deptjr rEasured perperdicurar lardward frcm the -the ordinary trigtr-irater mrrtto the first intersecting rot line inclusive of the street righi-oflray. rt,smore specific than wtntrs in there currently.
Roger lhutson: r suggast_ so yerre all very clear that usually tlle rord 10tdepth, actually rot depth is defined in the ordinanoe ard h,hat the means is anaverage depth.
courrilrnan Johnson: Iot depth is defined. thre r€rre just sayirrg cbpth. llg,sg_ot LgO foot depth rayirg perperdicular frqn the ordinar! high ;,at& niark to ttrefirst intersecting lot line.period. rE's got t}at righinoor';Eil; i[r,raing
tlE -street _right-of{,ay. wit}t lhe street ;ight-or-r,a! te has r8o i*i- "t rotdepth at this point. rlpre|s no rEed to irride ttp itreet rigni-oi-nay here inthis case, the r,ay they defined it.
Barbara Dacy: tb doesnrt have an average lot deptr of I0g feet. tb has a.,point in the lot thatrs I00 feet.
CourciLnan Johnson: It doesnrt say average lot depth.
Barbara Dacy: Ihatrs defineal.
Roger l(nutson: TtEt lot depth is an average.
courcilman trrorn: so if you cut in, Fltr€d in tte sides of the lot, take out!b .r* ttEt donrt curpry to grrr ic wde! tlre rean, could he cqne out nith alot tlrat r€ Hculd? )
,aot -city courEil tGeting - .y 31; D8g
t-
Courcilman Bo!t: He,d lose square footage.
Councilnan tlorn: Isuld he lose it in the square footage then?
Courcilnan Boyt: I think so. Hers only got 4g r0gg square feet.
Barbara Dacy: No, hers got 3l,Sgg.
Courcilmn Bo)rt: ltren he definitely can,t.
courcilman ttcrn: vfien re originarry changed ttris ordinance, the argr.ment sEsbrgught forth that re slrould not be more restrictive on a beachrot tfr.r, t*rat uprivate irdividuar courd do if he had riparian rights on a beachlot. rt"t ti*tle argurent nade sense to rE that re sbould use ttat in rnaking the decisiqr tochange because that argu0ent rras sound. r donit think tl:at re[uiranent in truein this case. r don't think re have a buildabre lot ard r don it think therer sany rEy t}!at this roeErn average thing wirl rcrk out to rrtere it rcutd Grrply.
Balbara Dacy: wh€n he first alptied, our interpretatiql was that the ordinarrewas saying !.t yoo had to have-a cqsistent depth of 1gg feet arr the *nythroughout the beachrot. rhat's vrhat re requiiea every other application todo.. If be had a spot that hd ]:ag feet so f agree witfr pu kind-;f. It,sambiguous ard there is an advantage to arerdirg that to -crarity
hosr re measurelot depth.
lrayor lramilton moved, Cor:ncifman Bol.t seconded to alprove Zoning Ordinanceanerdtrent to anerd section 2s-263 (71 of the city coae to reaa as follom:
tlo dek sttall be permitted on a recreational beachlot rnless it has at least trrc
| lunard QgTl feet -of lake frontage arrl tlE rot has at least ore hurdred (1gg)
I i-t _Fth.reasured perperdicular tardrrard frqn the ordinary high rnter mark tol- tte first intersectirE lot line irrclusive of tlE street right-oiray. l,lc morethan orE (I) tlock rna5t be erected on a recreational beachlol every tto hurrired
33
I ;Fyo..1?:nilton: Sincg re lre arbitrary on errerything else, sE can be arbitrary onI ti= *idth be at the I00 foot depth to give you a minimun. I would think r^re'ie
L arbitrary. you pick 100 feet out of the air. rtereis no reason why L00 foot isso.
courci lman Johnson: As r go trrough tlre zoning ordinance, every prac-e else inthe zoning. ordinarrce that talks about depth of the lot. it salE tol aepur. rtrisone point it says depth.
@er Knutson: Gp easiest expranation for tlrat is that often the zoning
or- dinance, youtre looking at vns drafted by the Plannirg staff of a consuiting,planner. r?p recreational beachlot ras drafted by a curnitt-ee arrt I think thediffererne is the sty).e that rrerre talking about. A slight language variatiqrare a result of that rather any intention on the IErt of- tfp ariftsnan to dra$,attentiq!.
councilman Jottnson: rf tln pople wtro drafted this rere thinktrg t}lat .tleyrere looking at an. average 1ot depth at the tine or ttey were jusf looking iorLgg f@t at any point.
2&V Courcil lGeting - t{a 1, t98g
Sttdritted by Don AshworthCity !,rarEger
ttepared by lrann @reim
l2s0) f@t of lake frontage. rn addition, thirty thousa ra l],g,sggl square feet
9! Iard is required for the first dock ad an add itional twenty ti.rd;
l2g rgggl square feet is required for each additionar dock. Ho-raore tlran ttEee(3) docks, Lrowever, shaU be erected qr a recreational beachlot.
l€]ror thnilton ard CourEilnan Bo]rt voted in favor of tbe notion. Oouncilrnanllornr. @urEilman _ceving ard courcilman Johnsoo voted in otrposition to tlF tnotion-anal the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Robert Pierce: Can I say scmethirg?
I'tayor tlamilton : Sure.
Robert- Pierc.e: I glress at this point, you ptrt this into a, I iras erEoulaged by!,our Plannirg comnission-. r've been encouriged here ard there. y*-i*rr" ,* *clpice but to start regar action. I€ wiu g6i *." rrse on that rake tian e,rratre asked for. r dontt fight unress r'm p.rsied in a corner. r donrt ask forunreasonable things...but r g.ess as far as rrm clrEerned, t}e trnople arourrilour lake has lost. 'ItE city has rost. rtre wtrore tore oi tt t'*,-"r. ilo ootthere. is going to b $Lgg,qsat.s-0 ress IEr tme. r€ wirt "*.-L;i-;-ilya" aosarethirg there ri th tl:e lake frontagi but r canrt ber ieve it. -iou-ttrrow ttebaby out rrith the bath rEter ard lou;re tosing itt t}'e ray ;;;r.;:- ffir r"bact ard kerll get it. I just can not urdersLrd. Thank'1rou: - --
Cowrci Lnan @ving moved, Councilnan Johnson secorried. to adjourn tie neeting.Al1 voted in favor ard rhe motion carried. rte meetirg -#-;j;;Jli lrasP.m..
t-
34
L
E
;ITY OF
EHINHASSEN
P.C. DATE: April 6, 1988 -
C.C. DATB: April 25, 1988
CASE NO: 88-3 zOA
Prepared by: Olsen,/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
C)
=(LL
ko
hJFa
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263(5 & 7 ) of the City Code to Amend the Lot Depth
Requirement for Installation of a Dock and One
Canoe Rack,/Dock Requirement.
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:Pierce Construction
3 915 Farmhill Circle
Uound, !,lN 55364
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND I,AND USE:N-
s-
E-
w-
Iejri- ,, --Iltti--- -.--.
Et S,:h'7: :+b-Et '2
hr s:
WATER AND SETIER:-5:-?-
(.
5+3-Et
PEYSICAL CEARAC. :
1990 LAND USB PLAN s
"i
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-263 (?) of the City Code requires at least 200 feet oflake frontage for a recreational beachlot and reguires at least
301000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational
beachlot to have a dock (Attachnent *1).
Section 20-263 (6) of the City Code permits only one canoe rackper ilock (Attachment *2).
BACKGROUND
On February 22, L988, the City Council reviewed a conditional usepermit for a recreational beachlot as a part of the Stratford
Ridge subdivision (Attachment *3). The property proposed for therecreational beachlot is long anil narrov, with less than 100 feet
mean depth. The applicant received approval for a recreational
beachlot but was not permitted a dock since it did not have the
required 100 foot depth. The applicant had also reguested three
canoe racks with 15 sIips. Since the recreational beachlot lvas
not permitted a dock, the canoe racks were not. permitted either.
The Planning Commission and City Council commented that the
variance was not justified but that the applicant should pursue a
zoning ordinance amentlment (Attachments *3 and 14). It was com-
mented that the proposed site hail aalequate area and lake frontage(31,000 s.f. and 550 feet) to support a dock and related activi-ties and that review of the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate.
ANALYS I S
The applicant has applied for a zoning ordinance amenalment topermit a dock on a recreational beachlot irithout a mean depth of -100 feet and to permit more than one canoe rack per clock.
Dock
The Zoning Ordinance requires a mean depth of 100 feet for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock. The intent of the I00 feetof lot depth reguirement for a dock rras to maintain adequade areafor the intensity of use relateil to a dock. Staff reviewed
existing parcels around the city's lakes which could be appliedfor conditional use pernits for recreational beachlots
(Attachment 15). The majority of the remaining parcels will be
able to provide the required 100 feeE of lot depth. Only along
!li.nneerashta Parkway does the potential exist for recreational
beachlots without 100 feet of lot depth. This is a result of the
location of Minnewashta Parkway near Lake Minnewashta.
Staff feels the 100 feet of lot depth is important co maintain in
the proximity of,, the dock because this usually is the area of
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 6, 1988
Page 3
Canoe Racks
higher use. To accommodate the sites that do not have the meandepth of 100 feet but have enough lot area and lake frontage tosupport a dock, staff recommends that the following language beincluded in the Recreational Beachlot Regulations:
Section 20-263 (7) - No dock shall be permitted on anyrecreational beachlot unless it has 200 feet of take irontageand the lot has at least 100 feet of lot depth where the itockis proposed to be located.
The above language would permit tlocks on recreational beachlotsthat neet or exceed the lot area and lake frontage requirementsyet have a portion of the Iot that. is very narrow resulting inless than 100 feet mean depth. As a part of the conditionil usepermit process a site plan will be approved which wilt ensurethat the dock is located rlrhere there is I00 feet of depth.
RECOMMENDATION - Dock
Planning staff recommenils the planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommenils amending Section 20-263the City Code to read as follows:
No dock shall be pernitted on a recreational beachlot unlessit has at least two hundred (200) feet of 1ake froDtage analthe 1ot has at least one hundred (100) feet of lot delthwhere the dock is proposed to be located. No more than one(1) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot every twohundred (200) feet of lake frontage. In addition, thirlythousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for thlfirst dock and an additional twenty thousand (2OrOOO) sguarefeet is required for each additional dock. No more tharithree (3) docks, however, shall be erected on a recreationalbeachlot . r'
(7) of
of
not
The Zoning Ordinance currently ties the number of canoe radkspermitted with the the number of docks permitted on arecreational beachlot. The code states that no more than onecanoe rack shaLl be allowed per dock. Staff feels the numbercanoe racks permitted should not be dictated by the nunber ofdocks pernitted on a recreational beachlot. There may besituations where a canoe rack is appropriate where a dock ispernitted or more than one canoe rick is acceptable.
The number of lots which have use ofnormally dictate the number of canoerequested. The gpplicants typically
the recreational beachlotracks ( slips ) that arerequest a number of canoe
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 5, 1988
Page 4
rack slips equal to the nunber of lots proposeil (six watercraftare permitted per canoe rack). Therefore, it is difficult toregulate a maximum number of canoe racks for a1l recreationalbeachlots. Instead, staff recommends that canoe racks be a per-mitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of canoeracks be determined as part of the conditional use permit review.
This would permit each site to be reviewed separately to deter-
mine the appropriate number of canoe racks.
RECOI.{MENDAT I ON
"The Planning Commission recommends amending the fifth sentence
of Section 20-263 (6) of the City Code to reacl 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 watercraft per dock. If arecreational beachlot is allowecl more than one (1) dock,
hor{rever, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be alloweil. Canoes,winilsurfers, sailboards, and small sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. The number of
canoe racks shall be determined as part of the conditional
use permit process. No more than six (6) watercraft may be
stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes
is permissible at any time other than overnight."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 5, I988
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item until 1ot
owners of all lakes within the city were notified. The notifica-
tions for this public hearing were mailed on April 11, 1988.
Staff has received a number of phone ca1ls regarding this item,
the najority of which are to clarify that the ortlinance change
does not affect individual lot owners their ability to install a
dock.
The Commissionrs comments as to the first issue of consideration,
the lot depth requirement, ranged from having no minimum require-
ment of 1ot depth to establishing some type of standard eitherfor the entire beachlot or for just the area where the docks areto be locatecl. There is a need tso have some type of minimum
st.andard, As the ordinance requires a minimum 1ot depth for a
singLe family lot or creates a minimum setback, the intent ofthat provision is to proviile some separation between adjacentbuildings, streets or uses to prevent overcrolvaling of the land
anil safe access. In the case of recreational beachlots, some of
them are located directly adjacent to major streets, others are
located within the subdivision. The beachlot activity, as any
other use, shoulo have some type of minimum separation. The
problem is how to establish that standaral.
Stratford Ridge ZOA
April 6, 1988
Page 5
In existing cases, the lot depth issue has not been a problem.
The majority of the beachlots are at least 100 feet in depth.
Ltost of the issues pertaining to the older beachlots were 1ot
width anil area. For future beachlot requests, the lot depth
issue woultl arise onJ.y in the area where the Stratford Ridge sub-
division is proposed bethreen Minnewashta Parkway and Lake
ttlinnewashta. Other potential beachlot requests are located in
areas where there is not a road in the immealiate vicinity of the
lake. In the Lake Minnewashta area, the lakeshore varies t.o as
small as 25 feet and to as aleep as 200 feet.
The Planning Commission also suggested that the dock setback zoneof 10 feet be doubled or tripletl so that the area where the dockis to be located is at least 20 to 30 feet wide and 100 feet indepth. In the Lake ltlinnewashta area, the fol-lowing properties
coul-d not survive even a minimal amount of area for the I00 footIot depth: the Ziegler, vfenzel and Headla properties (see
Attachment *7). Reducing the 1ot depth to 75 feet would stillprevent the Wenzel and Ziegler property from meeting thisrequirement. The l{enze1 and Ziegler property at its narrowestpoint is approximately 40 feet. At its widest point it is about
80 feet with an average depth of 50 feet. The Headla property isabout 80 feet deep. The vienzel and Eeailla properties have
approximately 250 feet of lake frontage and the Ziegler property
approximately 450 feet. Both these properties cannot meet thelot area test a1so. It is questionable then whether these sites
woulil be considered as beachlots.
Potential language that the Planning Commission could use is asfollows:
No dock shalI be pernitted on a recreational beachlot unlessit has at least two hundred (200) feet of take frontage andthe lot contains at least one hundred (100) feet of Iot depth-for at least thirty (30) feet of width where the dock is tobe located.
The Commission can reduce the 100 foot 1ot depth reguirement. Itis recomrnended that at minimum 50 feet be maintained in order toprovide a picnic area, sand blanket, storage of canoe racks, andallowing other park activities. The 30 feet of Iot width r6com-
mended for the area where the dock is to be located is basetl ontwice the dock setback fron a tot line (10 feet) plus 6 feet inwiilth for a typical dock.
As to the number of canoe racks, the Commission wanted t.oestablish some type of standard either a maximum number of racksor a maximun nurnber of slips per rack. Some beachlots could con-tain at least 30 to 40 single family lots (for example, KurversPoint subdivision on the east side of Lotus Lake). One slip per
Stratford Ridge ZOAApril 5, 1988
Page 6
home would mean that if a rack contained 6 slips for storage,
that anywhere from 5 to 6 racks could be located on a beachlot.
The largest number of lots permitted within 1000 feet of a beach-
1ot would be approximately 40. Seven racks at six/rack woulil
allow storage of 42 boats.
It was also suggested that distinction for the type of boats to
be storeal on racks would be the ones that are licensed by thestate. canoes and sailboats do need to be licensed by the state
as weII as small row boats. rnflatable rafts do require alicense. The intent of the lack is to be able to store the non-
motorized watercraft in a neat and safe fashion. Further, theintent of the ordinance is to permit overnight storage of these
types of boats and to provide guidance as to the nunber of racks
stored on the property. Therefore, baseil on the Commission's
discussion, the following is recommendeil to be included as part
of Section 20-263 (61z
"No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of over-night storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3)
:notorized or nonmotorized watercraft per clock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock,
however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to
three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards, and smalI sailboats may be stored
overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on
racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more thansix (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. The nunber of
racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary topernit one (I) slip per lot served by the beachloti hoeever,in no case shall there be more than seven (7) racks per
beachlot. Docking of other rratercraft or seaplanes is per-
missible at any time other than overnight."
NOTE: RememDer that the racks do pose a visual impact,
properly designed, the site plan tluring conditional use
review can address this issue.
but if
permi t
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommencled the ordinance be amended as
f ol lows :
secrion 20-453 ( 6 )
'No recreational beachlot sha1l be used for purposes of overnight
storage or overnight rnooring of more than three (3) motorized or
nonmotorized rratercraf t per dock. If a recreational beachlot is
allowed more than one (l) dock, however, the allowed number of
boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall
also be aIlohred. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, wind-
surfers, sailboards and smalI sailboats may be stored overnight
Stratforal Ridge ZOAApriL 6, 1988
Page 7
on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifi-cally designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft
may De stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceedthe amount of storage necessary to permit one (1) rack slip per1ot served by the beachlot; horrever, in no case shall there be
more than seven (7) racks per beachlot. Docking of otherwatercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other thanovernight.
Section 20-26317,
No dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless ithas at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage and the lothas at least one hundred (100) feet depth measured perpendicular
landward from the ordinary high water mark to the first inter-secting 1ot line inclusive of the street right-of-way. No morethan one (L) dock may be erected on a recreational beachlot everytwo hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. fn addition, thirtythousand (30,000) square feet of land is required for the first
dock and an ailditional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet isrequired for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks,however, shall be erected on a recreational beachlot."
Headla was opposed the amendment to (7) (see minutes).
CITY COUNCIL RECOi{MENDATION
It is recommenCed that the City Council adopt the recommendation
made by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Section 20-363 (7) of CSection 20-263 (6) of CCity Council minutes daPlanning Commission min
Code .
Code .
February 22, 1988.s dated January 5, 1988.
ityity
ted
ute
Map showing potential recreational beachlots.Letter from applicant.Detailed location map of Lake Minnewashta Iots.Planning Commission minutes dated ApriI 6, I988,20, 1988.
and Apri I
r
BOARD OF ADJUSTI,TENTS AND APPEALS I{INUTES
llovEr{BER 5, 1989
llEllBBRS PRESENI3 Willardl Johnson, Carol l{atson and Ursula Dimler
STAFP PRBSENB:
PIERCE APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING OR DINANCE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL BEACELOTS
Staff presentedl the report to the Board.
Peter Beck Btated that the general concensus of the City Councilduring the last discussion of this item wrs that the dock would
be okay but that an anendment to the ordinance Bhould be pro-
cessed rather than granting a variance. By tbe tine that theCouncil reviewedl the zoning ordinance anendment it could not be
agreedl upon how to amenal the ordinance and the orilinance anend-Dent eas denied. During the City Council review, the guestion ofinterpretation of the ordinance ras brought up by Councilman JayJohnson. Jay Johnson questioned if the applicant did not alreadyneet the regulation since it stateil that they nust have a 100foot depth, which the recreational beachlot does have.
Watson stated how can the
and it seems like te areCity Council shoultl make
means and that is not a d
Aal justments .
Dimler stated that the
depth which ls hou itis requesting an appea
anil feels that the Boa
ppeal if we donrt knon what it neansting the cart before the horse. Ihedetermination of ehat the ordinancernination of the Board of
recreatioaal beachlot does have a 100 foot
ya
put
the
ete
E1liot Nnetsch atated that the Board of Adjustment'a purpose isto review the ordinances as they are written right non anil theapplicantrs appeal is to the interpretation of hor{ the ordinanceis stated and that the ball is ln the Board of Adjustmentrscourt.
Dimler questioned how the applicant would determine rho uaes therecreational beachlot.
Peter Beck stated that there rould be a homeorner I g association
and only the front three lots along Lake Uinnerashta uould haveuse of the dock.
Johnson stated that there is 95 feet of dlepth rt t;e area'wherethe dlock is being propoaed and that he feelg the interpretationof the ordlinance could be aeen aa only reguiring 100 foot depthshich the recreatlonaL beachlot does have end that the dockshould be perDi ttett.
iB stated ln the ordlinance.1 to staff interpretatlon ord of AdJustnentB nust revi
Thef the
ew th
appl i cant
ordinance
e Yay the
a
BOA l,tinutes
November 6, 1989
Page 2
ordinance is written today. The ordinance states that a
recreational beachlot must have a 100 foot depth and again, that
they do have a 100 foot depth andl that she recommends approval ofthe 100 foot depth interpretation.
Dinler noveil, aecondled by ilohnson to approve the interpretationof the 100 foot depth for recreational beachlots as atated in the
zoning ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
lfatson moved, secondedl by Dinler to close the public hearing.All voteil in favor anil the notion carried.
-r
I Ha:'or Ctmier.: .s rEgotiate witi trE sctrl distrret to see if eorethirg can beresorved siti it ard r donrt sF any reason, ttey harre .p".iii.-iJ.J-,Juregulations ard tlDse rules arrl regilations'are rDt Gst in corrcrete either. rthink tlE:,'d have to strow de ca'rs6 as b !fit,-just ,*r"t oon-Jia-dL irtlpre's a vdricle in tlpre ard tlel, can't nte ftnt hrrn, if tfreie;s-sore,m,tley can Fake that within those cu-Idesacs. ttle:rr re f.ig" ;ugh.- 6.!--'*ecificall:' tlEt orE, :rourre rDt goirg to tnve &s prfia m i[.
l6pr Ctmiel mo\rd, On Eihan Bo:rt secordd to direct Btaff to nEet sitlr theltinretonka sctDol District to -e lf a resolutlon can be rcrlred o.rt for a scrroolbus to turn arourd in orrry Earn*. All voted rn favor aru trre nptLn ca:ried.
APPEAL ITilERPRETATIO}I OF ZONI}E ORDITBIT REQUIruilEltT G lSO FWI tIN DEPIII E1CRA DcK 0N A RDCREATTOIAL BBctlt r, o(mrr A, srRArfoRD RrmE, RGERT piERcE.
Jo lnn Olsen: Ihe Board of tdjushslts aprovd the aFeal to tlEinterpretation of the ordinarrce. rt Es ,rnanrnous apiorra:. ard it can bedisassed.
lElor Ctmiel: It can be diecrrssed bA,OurEil but having rnraninprrs alproval tlnactim is to re\ri that.
bJncilr'.an lrbrkF,an: so re'lt rook to a'€nd tJle ordirErce? rhere esnit avariarce?
Jo lrul Olsen: !b variance.
&urcilnran lbrlorat: So ttE:r can build a dock rDrn
.,o Ann _Olsen: rhe:r Ere glven an aFear to tj,at deision, @rrect and also asIElt of this, ttrgr re will pr-ess an ordinare arendrEnt'to .i"rid Li"tfy
'd,"t the intent is. rhq, asreF that ttte sy ttre ordinarce is rrltt r,
-iigti
rw, it's rot clear that-ttil' have to t * 6,.i-f"t d.pth:- fteiao-fnv! a fSgfoot dq,th as it is stated so tle:, nEet tln ordinarre.
OcxrEilrgrEn Dinler: It Bs nq' urrlerstanitirg that ourcil rcu1d have i"p,rt -tothe clarificationl
.ro lnn Olsen: Correct.
llalor Clrrriel : Okay, any discussion?
o.'Eilndl Jotnson: r'd rike to tnve tle ltinutes because r Es J.rst gettingb-k lrm tlr airgnrt Bo r Esn't abre to'get IEre to tEar it. i,a rir. to trave
.tne ndnut= as.$fcSf -as possible. [ereis a tl.rrefrare .por, *ri"t,-i iorg"ttrwnaqr dbl'= it ie before it cu be ag=ald but r.d rihe- b see tL-r.Gutesfirst.
Jo Ann Olsen: the ordinarEe BEates b!, eitlpr tjre owEr or EorEbody slthln SSSfeet. I donit l(rw *rat tlE lrast poltc..v has been.
o.rElhE^ Johnso.: $ereta sq*thing erse in there bearrse E can & it too.)
31
-l
I
City otnril lbeting - Novaiber 6; 1989
City orrEil l€etirq - ttovg'iber 6, 1989
eurEitrldl &!t: eny cltizen can do it.
OtrEilnil Jotnsm: tny citizen cil (b lt artt thatis lpn'eive ttqre it in the
psE is a lErDeE of the ouril eayirg e're also a citlzen arrl re are alpealingir.
rlalDr Ctmiet: Dn, yDurre thaking loru tcad ps.
Ibn lstrDrths lhat's correct.
o|rEittst fbrhran: Its danrt lave tle rrlnutes thor4h do e?
(hrEill|ldl Jotnson: !b, it juat hatpend at 7.gg toright.
CrrEihgl blt! tE:r don't take nlnrtes.
& Arrl OIs€n: I Eite th€n dom. Geyr re rot verbatim.
CourEiltqan Bol't: I mul.d like to see this alpealed. ts a citizen I rcufd
challenge that decisisr. t{inutes or no minutes, I think itis a declsion that
bears investigation b:' the ourcil as a rdtple. Anl [Ersonally, I think it's ttle
wrorq tra:7 to gp about charq ing an ordinarce. If E rrant to change an ordlnare,E ought to prt it through a Srrbl ic tearlng and cfrarige it. $ts *louldnr t have
tlE Board of ldjusttsrt atd AFpeafs writirg ordinarre charges for us. AII :,ou
have to do is read the minutes frqrr the first tirre tle Courcil nrade this
discussion to see that Barbara llary, Roger lgrutson ard virtr:ally, rell that ras
the staff tttat +oke m it at tlE tinE, nde it real clear tnw they ere
definirg that Lot depth isse. So to cqtE back rEr,, ard say that ttE Cit:,
AttorrE!, ard tlE senior plarner did it morg is and given that es a Oorrril
action, rDt a Board action, I think tle @urril ought to revia it. If E're
gotns to c*range t}e ordinance, Iet's ctrange tle ordinarre. nrrn tne tlirg dour.
Charge ttre ordinarEe ard ib it right.
CorrEilruta r Dinler: f&11 8i11, yourre right. Ifre City' 6rrci1 is the only ore
that can ctnrge the ordinarr brrt rihat tlE Board can do is act ar the
interp[etation dd tbatrs shat E did tonight.
Ha:Dr Ctmiel: lur?
H
I
t
32
7
etrEirJnJr l$rlqEn: I donrt have aqr cqmslts.
t{a!,or Grtriel: ltn only thirq I slt back to Jo tlryl Bs your lettii ofliltfi of 1987 ard in there lou inilicated, ttE question Es if the Ocnnrlssion
Ents to be able to peEdt the appllcant to have a dock sr a recreatiorEf
beachlot ryd tpw can they dto it. tE Board of edjustrstt ard 4f,eals has tlEabitiq, to grant a variarre. ItE better aFproadr rpuld b to aqerd tlEordinarce. I think I agree, re should probably have tle grlcl ic tearlng to arend
the ordinarEe ard go frorr there.
Jo Ann Olsen s that will still be done. Iihat the Board dlid tonight es the sy
the ordinare is r{rittsr toda:r, that it stiU can be inte4rretted dlfferentllz.
etd they agreed that it Es rDt interpretted correctllr.
City orrrcil lGetirg - ts,vsriber 6; 1989 7
t ourcilnan Bolt: I think that itrs aru8irg that an alDolnted board can saythat, officialty sa:, t}lat tle City Orrcil I s decision Es wronJ and tlatrs rfiat
they're syirTl.
161or Clmiel: Euer:DrE has an opinion.
orrrcilrnran Dim1er: llc, re didnrt sa:, the opinion Eri srong. the
interpretatlon, the sy it Es Eitten, it ss left olen to a differentinte4xetatim. leybe EUiott could )lou dress that please because your re the
orE that gave us that direction.
Elliott EEtsch: I think *!at the q,Estion €s, tlE Board of ldj ustltstts ard
Appeals is tle. prognr board to l@k at an int€rpretation of the ordinarE€ that
has been nrade. Interpretation ms nrade that sincre tle ordinarr= did rpt
specificaUl, sa:, lot depth, lt Es EcrrHtEt vagrE or aribignpus ard tlE aSplicant
did aEf,eal that interE retation. So tlE ball es ln the ceurt of tle Board of
Adj ustlE rts ard Appeals ard tlty loked at it ard because it does not
specifically sa:, lot dePth, they felt that sinc€ the lot is 100 feet at soqe
point ard at a point close to rhere tle pEot os€d dek Fuld be, that that does
FEet the E:, the ordinatic\e is Eritt€n. ltrey we rDt tr:drq to sa!, rihat the
original intent of ttE City burcil nas ard I don't think it's ttEir job to sa:,
htEt tlE original intent ras. tey rere looktng at tpw tlE ordinavre reads.
CourcilrurEn Dlmler: that's right ard ,pll, E carn, llke pu sa:r, tlE ourEil can
abcide tne ret,l mrdirg hat at this Frticular ti!E, the ray itrs rcrded, the
inteqxetation could be different frcrr tle intetrt of tlr fonrrer ourcil.
orrrcilrran Boyt: Irm sorr!/ I got r{pset about it. lltpre will. be p}ent:, of
olPortmit:t to discuss it so.
Etliott fietsch: ertainly it's within lour rlghts as a citian ard a corrcil
ngriber to brirg r4r tlE Board of AdjustrEnts ad APPeaLs decision for revie*r b1t
Oorrcil.
brncilsrran Dirnler: libll I think ttE OrrEil des have to harrlle the rew
ordinarre rordirg. that Es rDt ttE lntent of the Board to do tlEt. I,iE didn$
tr!, to do tlEt. t*Et € Ere ttoing ms intergegng tle I@pholes 60 to EtEak
that tlE lxesent rcrdirg leaves.
}la1or ctmiel: tr. Eck, it l@ks llke lou Ent to 8a!,8q€thirE.
Et€r Beck: ItE onu, thing I rant€d to 3a:i Es. . .the &urcil h.sr I t .ev.er be€n
presented with this issue before bnight. ltEy havsrrt &ideal... Dring t]te
disc,rssions, the last tinE lt. Herce requested a varianoe lrd erreryuE kint of
agreecl the derr|srt Flde sense t,lrt tlE:, Preferred it be a1loed by neans of an
ordinarre aner&Ent lnstead ao lten tE regEsted the ordlnance anerthent ard
there got to be different verslo,ls of it. Because there rere dlfferent versions
of lt, ttE prior City OutEil atldl' t adoPt an:, of tjlsn ad ttE result Es rE
dock. D[irg that discttssion 6l that ordinarEe arerdrgrtr ourrtltra&er Johnson
pointed out [hat tE lxobabur csrp] ied bt that iasn rasn't before t]n Oorrrcil
Eo ttE!, didn't reafly decide sr it. AI1 E reall:, dlld this tlrE Es 3a!'
errcitnarber Johnsm has a Point. tetrs Present th.t l8$E to the City ard tjte
onl!' E!, E can do that is throrrgh ttD Board to deciab if the lot c'aqrlie6 ard
tlen tlre d€k can go ahead in with tlE cordltion l use pendt. It haenrt been
t
-l
f
33
7
City 6urci1 feeting - llovober 6, 1989
to ttE corrEil before. If tJe corrcil Ents to take it q), b:r all neans tlE!,
can. trts cEn do it tonight or an:i ottEr tittE.
!.la:ror ctmiel : ltnt is total lot si ze?
Eter Beck: Itts orer 311000 square feet and 550 sqqe feet of frontage on tlE
lake. lte general consensusi I think of all tle grbl ic bodies has been tte dockisnit, ttE mI:, qEstion tEs been lDr, to Frt it tlere anl reaul, the right
ansrer r*rs an ordinarce aerrlrent but tle prior Ourcil just cluldn't get 4
votes for ore prticular version of the ordinance. fits just lresent this as ore
m1t, fairly silple sy to resolve lt. Plerc€'s problar so he can go ahed ardsell tlpse lots because tIE tEEorrErs...and tjren e couldni t agree more t]lattte Courcil stDuld take that olportunit!, after that to clear r4r that larguage intlp ordinance.
Gurcilrrren Dirnler: ees tltat clari4A
[a:ror Ctmiel: Ye6. Are E goirg to ha\re a trlotion?
OrrEi]Iqa tbrlftan: Irn rDt srre I lspw r*lat Bill.s gettirg at other tlnn the
ordinarre, doirg so'ethirg against an ordinare. D :ou feel therers saethirB
urorg with this fuk?
o|rcilnran Bolt: rell, I think r*!at Erre doing lere is re,re tatking about,
rcrre settirg precedent in tentrs of bor rerre goirg to rrite thisr r*zite the
orclinarce. erd I think ratlEr than set prec€dencle on this olrr issrr, F should
not do ttEt. Iits should 9o tlrough a glblic hearirg. lib stDuld give people a
charce yfio uant it, to have inprt on tiis ard tlen e should resolve lt in a
reasonable fashisr. All 1on have to do is read tlE Uinutes frqr fra:, 31, 1988 to
see t}lat 4rlErentl:, there's been quite a reversal in tlE EErt of olnr oorrEllrsthinkirg abouE Hhat rr tEant here because bger Xnutson very clearly salE, itrs
n:, urderstanding that tleyr re tafking about lot average ard tE did rDt have a
Lgg f@t. average lot depth. owEi]IrEn Johnsm salE, lt doesn I t, say average lotdepth. Barbara Ec!', thatis defin€d. Fger Xhutsn, tJE lot cbpth is an
average. lbh, for the Board of Mjustnents ard elfEals to turn arourd ard sayEU, UE!, di&rrt get it right. I think tlEtra a big decision.
orrvrilqu|En Di!i[er: Jo Ann, rculd 1ou adress that please?
Jo Ann Olsen: As f,ar as tlE lot depth, it d6r.t lrder tfte reglrlations for tterecreational beadrlot dcs rpt state lot depth.
olrEi.trE l Johnsst s It just eays depth.
burEillrrt blt: I wtlerstanl that ard I dontt dtqrrts that.
?
I
;
Jo AIul Olsen: I lspn but t}|atrs r*rere t}e discreprry lies. Itm the one nhoEote ttE first re[Drt, the variarre report ard thatr8 ts. e dl.d defire lt ani
i"P.p"! it.. I gnEss pu r9{ Iot depth or lgg f@t depth, h,tEn:,ou reall!,look at it, it doesn I t sa!, that.
orrEilt''an Bo!t: ltErer I amt}er lgsrre eorrentrat related b *!at re.re golrg todo with the ordinarce. I think that a case could be tiade that this ls not abdldabre lot as lt sits Eo it de€n't have, rt=n l.t cqre aro''d to discusslng t
34
/
Citl' 6|rEi1 l€etirg - [cvst&er 6, 1989
this for an ordinance change, I muld atggest tlat € do rDt Ent to create asituatiqr in rdrictr a recreational beachlot is entitled to kter rights that
Fuldnr t be tlere if tlEt ns a lxivate turre. Ald so, I tlrink tle isste is norecqplicated than e rdnt to plor into as a 6urci1 ard rrake a birding declsion
tonight on. Ard if E overturn, if e go along rith ttre bard of ldjrrstrtEnt ard
A1peal.s, tlsl r€ have in fact given ttEse Fople the right to [rrt their dock ln
ard said lourre grardfatlEred artf then *En E I@k at the ordinance itself, r€rp longer have an ogporttrrity to c.ontrol this.
owcilrur|an Ditder: fibuld you er(plain t*t}' thatis rpt a tuildabte lot?
Ourcllnan Bo:'t: It doesnt t have tle ibpth.
CorrEilurran Dir er : For a beachlot?
ourilnran Bolt: I.m talking &out, can scrrrebod3r lrrt a Eivate t[rE m t]atIot?
I
I
Fter Beck: lt . l,hlDr , &urciLrngtbers. Efore lrr . pierce prrchased theprotrErq' ard suHivided it, this proIErE, Es Irart of a Iarger lot that hd theright to a dek anl it had a dock ard Uoats ard that,s exrcfly *!y eE I initedour request to only wbat the protErq, rDuld be aIloHEd if lt ms stitl in asingre lot r*rich is tlE l dock ant 3 boats. tb'd tlke to have 4 boats becausehe's got { *aterfront or take Hinrewashta parlsja}r front lots but I told hilnletr s keep it at tlE 3 boats because tlrat r s $ttat it atklE ss allosed as asingle farrily prolErt:,. Nil, stardirg alone, just tfre poittor that is thebeachl.ot, is you're right, is rpt b.rj.ldable as a sirgle fardU' lot because itdoesnit have, it couldnr t FEet setbacks ard a nrrtber of thirg! Edged beti,E€nthe parkray ard the lake blt t*En lt Es IErt of tle bigger angfe- faqitypropert:r that r,rent back to the rrst of Hinrer*ashta parl<fla:r, it ms allored arddid have a dock.
I
ourEilrrlan Bog: Brt as I recaLl, ttrat dock ss rarpvd anll esnrt replacedmtil, it doesn't have a dock rpn.
Fter Eck: It &es rpt have a dock mw, thatrs right.
Oourcilrtran Boyt: Ard r*Et lt es srtdivided, it Eanit creat€d as orE lot dltrD sides of tle road, reasonably ernrrgh. Ihe ironic thing l,tr. t{alor is that
nay llr 1988 I argu€d for givirg t{r. pierce his dek. I.nl just sayirg nor thatI think the r.E1z to do it, as lDutve inlicated, ts to changi t}re or6inirne arrt fdon't think givar that E.re taLkirg about alnDst 2 years, tEIl a lEar ard ahalf later, tlat the col-E)le of nslths ltrs going b take to rewrlte tjreordinara is goirg to be that crltical. I.d rattpr see us do it tlEt rE:/. IgrEss I I trl t]rough dlebatlrg .
G
ol,EilEqan Dirrrler: Ert I think the f,act renains that theyr re t=re before us
now ard E're actirg sr the ordlnare as itrs Eitt€n rpu. Ihatrs all re could
alo.
l{a1or Ctmiel: }n}, ot}Er discussion?
owcilrrran l&rlsrE l: ,Etis fuk lsnrt a pnunent dek? Itrs rDt going to bebuilt rbw right? Itis a pelrranent dek but it rDn,t be butlt untit next sprirg?
35
F
City &rrril tceting - llovaber 6, 1989
Eter Beck: It wil.l be a seasonal dek just llke an1, other dek in the
corrrrrnity.
talor Ctmiel: lbt a boardlelk?
Eter Beck: !b, rD. Itrs rDt a cltErete rylon, rE. It sill be just a regular
like any ottrer troreor,mers dock with rorr for 3 boats m it.
Euiott xlEtsdl: Before they prt in t}re fuk, they rculd t€eal to cqre ln for a
corditional ue peErdt ard lorr cal see tle proposal in npre detail at tbat tirtE.
Eter Bck: It's rDt a rrEtter of tjlat it rculd go in this eason of course but
tte srrbdivisiqr is developirg row ard has prrchase agrealE lts 6t a aot{rle lots
ani they ilal=rd sr rtEtlEr tlErets a dek or rDt. f*Et kird of a qec house he
builds qr tte thi[d lot deperds on whetter therer s a dek or not. Ihat's [Ertof the reason tut reall1' tln rtain reason € slt this route is becarrse re tried
- anerlzttrirg e1-. tt trid the variarne. It Es denied b€car:se tE stDuld get an
ordinarre argr&rent. IE tried tte ordinarce atgt&rent ard CorrEiI just didnrt
cl ick or a verslsr that tlE]t liked so reall:r tbere rrasnr t mudl el* to do exc€Pt
to lmk at r&rat tfe ordinarre said and as staff ard tbe bard said, r*hen 1oured it, it al4nars to aUol, a dek qr a lot like this so thatrs gtl:' E Ent
this route.
CornEilJnan Boyt.: l*E t ms tle ordinarce argdrrent discussedl b!' the City
6urEiI?
Fter Beck: that Es tlEt lb:, 31 neetirg that lDu Ee readirg to the [inutes?
I i 11 get nry tDt€s.
colrEiLrEn ,rotnson 3 Itrs r*Ere E argued to get tlE right rcrdirg in tlpre.
owEilFlan blt: Oka:r. vhat re did pss there, I lnw re passed eorething, es
canoe racks ard tlen discussed at great length this isse about lot depth. I
ttidnrt sense that E trrrned an:thirg dorr there. I just throtrght.€ Passed Part
of it.
Fter Beck: ltre ordinance Bs 'Dt a'grted as recqrnraded blt tjte staff and tlE
PlannirB @rmj.ssion tlrat cDuld allow a dek. Ihat Part of the otdinarre
arerrlrcnt rtss rDt adopted so tlE dock still Esn't allorEd ad still isnrt
unless this atrpeal is upheld.
I
t
or.IrEilltlan blt.: I g"Ess I don't -e ln tere, tle ordlinarce r*pre tlere ss
e\ren a suggestio about lot dePtb in tte proposed ordinarce.
Fter Beck: Ihere Esr't. It dealt sith it in a different e!t. Irn t4ring to
renenber. I think tlE staff recurrerded ore approach ard I canrt rstsdbr
e:(atly r$at it Es hrt t}le Plannlrg Cormission ca€ rP with a different
a[proach ard I bet ieve t]tat Es to ircLde tfe right-of-mf in t]E lbt dePth ard
the &rrcil hd both of tlese sqgestlons ard, 811 !,ou can read tle Mlnutes
lourself ht tIE e'll resuLt rEs tllat rDrE of tlgt rere dopteil that FuId aflot
a dock an this pr tiorlar beactrtot. Brt ln the neantlrre, nob@ hd ever really
said tjtat rculd it be inappropriate to have a dock in this situatlon. It just
rElrer got to a solution that inp}ate'it€d it.t
36
city erciL lEeting - rnvarber 6; 1989 r
I CouEifnan lbrknran: Fter, can :Iou gr+rs be Ftlent rrltil E got our ordinance
arerded rith tlE intent that thatrs tlE directim rE're tEdirg in?
Eter Eck: Iou lsEirr:rourd tEve to talk to Bob about that. Ibrs been that
route before but be it with a different @u,cll but it takes { votes avri I thinkit uiU be easier for tte Oourcil. to consider it ard discuss lt rrithout carrl"irg
tlE bagg4e of this Frtic-ular project alorg with it. I just thlnk :'ou rculdfird it an esier task to deal with it m a nore citl' gide scale than in
referere to this lErtlcular project.
OrEiLqan Johnson: Jo Arrl, rtp ss prbl ic roticed m this variarre?
Jo Arn Olsen: It Es in tlE paper ard th€n all the property orrlers.
Oo|'Eiban Jottnson: llhere ms a lake l{inrEEshta IrcEErs Asselation? I
nean tleyi re the dEs that rere ln here:reUirg about the dock in tle firstpl-e. IEre those 1=ople, Es .reff &os lnforF€d?
Jo lrn Olsen: It sas all tte sare llst as before.
OowEitttan Johnstrr s Did pu give us a list in tere of r&ro?
Jo Aryl Olsen: t\b. Itts not in the regnrt.
ColrEilrian Jotnsdr: Because Irnr anr;xised titat tlEy Eenrt tEre. IiEre ttE:,
trcre for tlE apFal?
Jo ltn Olsen: lb. lte1r ere ent a rDtice. tb, they rerenit.
orrrilpan Johnson: fElI Uhat e!(actl:' rBs decidd by tb Board?
Jo Am OI-n: thelt agteed tjtat tlE interPretation using t}e lot depthdefinitim ras irrcrrect ard that tte my lt's rritten could nEan that the
recreational berchlot had to have lgg feet in tlep,th ard it does have 100 feet in
depth.
I
@rEthE r Jolnson: So they agreed slth rhat t said a lrar anit a half 4o brt-
the rest of tlE ourcil. didnrt agree yith trE?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. lbat Esr't belng discussed at tlat tirtE. Ihe:, rerenrt
dirussirg tle appeal. of the interpretation, rhictr ls $hat thel, did tonight.
O|'EiIr|En Jotyrson: I.tlo tiade tln flrst inte4rretatlon?
'Jo lrn Olssr: Staff did.
1.
CorrEiIrE r Jotrisdr: Brt tlEn tlE orrEil afftrmd tjlat *En E told hirr tE
csuldrrt Ft ln his dock? tbn IE has to coF€ before us for a cprdltimal use
PeEdt?
Jo Arn Olsen:tts rDu1d still tarre to & that.
$rre.
37
t MalDr Clhiel:
Citli 6l,Eit lCeting : Svs'&er 6, 1989
&l'Eilrian Joltnsst: Ibt lorg does that take?
Jo A'n OI=n: A coqfle trst]ts.
OurEilnzr Jobnsm: So re've got a coq)le rrrortlrs to ctrarge'the ordinarre one
ua], G arDther. l{tsl te cqres before us vith a corditional use tE,]tdt, t}E
ordinarre cotrld be different orE E:, or the otler. So the tine's there?
Eter Beck: BIt ln tlE t€antfuE lf re get lnto this log ja,, dl tlE ordinarEe,
at least b could Foceed.
olrEilndr Jotnson: IE can advertise his propert:, an:, sa:, tE sEnts to advertise
his proper!' but tE aloes rDt have a corditlonal rr.e Eenrrit for a dock. If tE
Ents to advertise his pro[Ert!, as havirg dock rights, you nright rEnt to do
that. BIt r.tEn it cqres tle tirE tE gets his corditional use petmit, te better
be ready or the ordinance might be fined qr to sa]' average lot depth at that
point in tiFE ard lE mnrt get his clrditional use lunrit. Ihat's a
possibilit1,. I?en 4ain, I argued tie otJer E:' Iast :ear. Brt I'm pointirg
olrt the possibitities. I't'r pointirg out ttE possibilities. Irltl tDt pointirg
out *!at I'n going to vote for because I probab:, rode it prett:t clear *rat I
thought ttE trrrpose of the 100 foot ras last !,ear.
Eter Beck: And I think really re are [Eocding because it did appear that all
the pblic bodies didn't think tlE dek ras unreasonable. Ihe real harg-tp uas
trw do 1ou actrrrplislr it. Ite Planning &r&ission has recqrrnended it a coq>le
tirres. ltE Board of Adjusurcnts ard ttE ciq, Ourcil discussion, it msn't
reall:' an issre tlEt they didnrt tlrink a ibck should be on this 311000 square
foot beac*tlot. It Es onl:r, tnn do you arrerd the ord inarr to acurrplish that
art it di&l't agree on an a|Erd'rent.
o|rrciltrEn Jotrrson: I think htEt realllt haFened Es rt 'Ever got arourd to
reaU:' gettirE at t}!at isstE. :the issrr just kird of .
Fter Beck: tlE 100 feet?
ourEiIF an Johnson: fiE LSS feet isstr.
Eter Beck: Absolutefl'. tEt's *!, F brought it ttr) tonight. -You brought it
q) but it Esn't really decided.
o|,Eihran Johnson: At tlat point it rs,s'tr t. Ihe!, didntt E lt to talk &out
tte rcks ard rEt the...
Eter Beck: Ihat's rtt:' E brought this request to feus tEople cn that as a
cledl Eli to resolve this Frticrflar piec€ of proEErt:r ani recognizirg lorr rould
Fobabl:, Ent to 90 alEad...
6rEib6n Jotnson: If you loked at the de\reloFsrt txessure tiat es on ataff
at UEt tinE, ttE atolrlt of Frk the:, ere doing and our clrrsl st€nt 1:09 in tlre
nornirg rEetirEs that e rEre havirg, !,ou catr teU utl}/ sdtEthirg like lot dePth
clange cr this ordinarce slilped through t}te 1=rverblal crrck. I think tlatrs
prdabl.!, erorrgh for this issr-. I€ can 9() o ard lf anlb@, r,ants to al4nal it,
they've got their 5 or Ig da!'s, t hatever it Ls to 4Deal it.
t
t
t
38
City 6rrci1 lbeting - tbverr&er 6, 1989
Ool,EiIn n Bo:t.: I interrl to aIfEal it. I a1rea4, have irdicated rrry intention
to dlo that.
Elliott xrEtsch: It's 19 tlap. Fild wlth tlE Dnint drinstrator.
ourEiblan blt,: Can I borrow a pieoe of IEper anl IrIl rBke it easlr.
Etliott xrEtsch: It doesn' t say writt€n ,Dtic€ so.
e{I,EibE r Johruisr: so ttE zonirg adrinstrator ls here tonlght ard BilL has
6aid tErs abing it so itrs fifed sith tle zonirg ..\instrator. tlat niu be prt
cr a fubrre courcil agerda.
ourEihtan llcrlgrEn: So rr ddr't have anlthlr|g to do? No Ilption?
l{alor Ctrniel: I donrt see anlr.
olrEitFlan Bo!t: If :ou grt+,s Ent b \rote on this, your re ElcqtE to \rot€ on it
tonight.
ourcibE r Jotnsdr: Ird ratlEr Eit.
bwEiL|En Boyt: Brt I'n just sa1'lrg tlrat I Ett tfe orrril to \rote on it
ard Ird reaU!' Iike the orrrcil to do an ordlnarr argrdhent pr@ss. I ttrink
rErve got the caqrle tlslths to do that.
Colrilsrran Dtnter: Bt this Btaff had a differgrt tDsitlon this tle 8i11.
Ol[Eiutlan Boyt: Srre. I red ttE re[Drt.
G|,EilEtlan Dirnler: [E:, Ere in R{port of +prova1.)
I
I Oourrilruun Dinrler: I€rre goirg to db the ordinarce aqeyrdhcnt if possible.
Oourcilnran Bolt: i{eII rp should turn tiis dorn and & it throrrgh an ordinarce
arEnhent.
Ourrilrran Johnson ! I don't think tlere ras any affect on this because tE sEiIIhas te qqre in for a clrditional use pemit.
ourcilrEn Bolrt: Canrt brrn it dorn lay.
Corrci]nan Johnson: ft!, rEt?
Co|rEi Lian Bolt: If E agree rrith the alfEal, hers got t}e right to a dek anlE can tell htn nalbe sa€thing ahout the cordltions of trtttirg it in but sEtre
rDt in a position to trrm it alorrl.
Ourcilnan Johnsryl: OGlr.
col:rEillr|an b:tE: oka:" lE e4rport tJE staff ard orrcil I e previorrs position
arrl deny tle a1peaI. lbtJ E conside[ a zonlrB ordinarne. fE char€e tte zonirg
ordinayre.
I
39
\
Citl' 6wril fEeting - llovgr$er 6, 1989 F
t a:ror Clriiel: I g[Es I'm loking at eit]rer at€rtainirg a motion or 90 cr ],our
interventicn portior for the 1g dbl,s ard apeaL that accordingllz.
Ol'EiIErEl Dililer: You rrE r Ehold t,re position of tfie board rDo ard Bill canstill alpeal.
tlalpr Ctrriel: If you ehold tle psition of tlp Board.
GurEilmlE t DjrnLer: tta ca still a;ltrEal it.
Ibn AshlDrth: tib.
O,lrEillltdr b:rt.: I donrt think so.
ourrilnan Johnsm: CEe the ourEtl \rotes on it, te canrt a[fEal it.
- outEilEran Dirnler: I tlnrrght pu aaid zr1'citizen has 10 da:'E to cute in.
U
OorrEilnan Johnson: Ihat's because tle Couril r s beerr doirg it rzong for a
nrrrrber of years. r argud this point 2 :'ears ago wittr tte prior Courcil. $E
canmt tEar tie alpeal tle night of tlE Board's decision. liE have to rEit to
the ner(t ourcil neetirg as far as Itm @rcerned. Itt stlould rbt be affiEring or
denyrng t}e Boardrs position at tle sare night tlEt tlE Board tEars it because
thatis tlE mf it rns dore then sE tpre a townstrip ard itrs aLE]ts be€n the E:'
itts been dore. that Es amtlEr interPretation of the ordinarce tJlat t*En I
c.rrE o'1 the Courcil I said I didn't agree r.rith tlE lnt€rPretation. I think that
E sltouLt get the bardrs !'tinutes before re decide. Itm ,Dt gging to declde on
*rat tlE noara saiA hlhetr I Esnrt tlpre ard I doni t have the [inutes of the
!€etirlg or anyttring. I have rothirg in front of FE to confirm or deny. lbw can
I do that? titss I there to listen to :,ou? lib, r Es m an airplane.
olrEilErEn Diriler: Yourre mt going to get verbatirrr t{inutes
owEilFEn Johnson: Irn goirg to get sdtE kint of uinutes. Itr official
inutes.
ourEilElan Dt'iler: Brt I iriIl tell !,ou r*tat tlE nDtion Bs if ],ou Bnt to
tnos uhat it Es.
QtrEifrtlan Johnson ! !13. I knt tlE official Hinutes afxov€d b:,:rou as a
rsrrber of t}E Boaral. Yolr a[Prove !,our t{inutes et erl, tl!E. :fhen ItI} hear this.
oryEilEran DiJr er: E[Iiott, t*lat do E do?
I
ourrilnran Johnsor: Iihatr s the hurrl? .
Elliott ttEtsch: Briefl!, I think, to al,tlEri E r*rat lour options are, miber 1,
lorr could tonight voE to affint, E6rer8e or nodlf!, tlE bard of e[fEals
aecision rEw tllat an atpeal has Een fild. G, lorr ceuld Eit b a s$seqElt
ourcll ncetirg to have a tearlrg at tle alpeal at ritridr ttrre 3ou rilI vote to
affintr re\rerse or notlify tle Boardrs decision.torEilttan Jdrlaotl! Io|r se ao-U@ else cJr a[fEal tarDrror,?
J
's
r7
I
City orrcil t€eting - ffcvs$er 6; D89
EUiott lgEtsch r lhatrs clrrect.
ColrEillran .rohnson: It dcs,ltt nEke sense for us to affirm an opinion before
the lg ah]4s has expired. IrE'II just have to do it again in 10 &:'s.
Elliott luEtsch: I think tjle trrrrpose of reitirg to a srbsequent neetlng rpuld
be so that others r.t!o FB:, feel aggriand I the decisim rould have a charae toc{.rE to the tearing ard present t}relr ideas. I€ alread}r torow that there is analpeal filed so tlEre sill be burEll actim either affinrirg or rerrersirg thedecision.
ol,IrEilrqan &Iu|son: Iihatrs ttE hrrr!?
ourEillrlan Bolt: l{eII, }et.s decide sorethirg.
l,ta:,or Ctniel: I donrt re any.
ourclLqan Jorrrson: r no\re rE just crose tjre discrrssion arrl rore slto itsrr g.
161or Grrriel: I grEss re couldl.
Oourcilnan h!rt.: ffiatever :rc|u Ent to do.
MalDr Orrdel: I.rn sort of twistd inbetrer here. I cdl urderstanat ttEpositio of tjte alpr icant as 811. Iibnting to proceed with hts 10ts bt on th€other hard, I arso feel tbat rE strould revia ard charge the ordirErEe as [Er se
nd 9o through t}at pr€€ss r-think of a p:bl ic tearirg aspect and gettirg tlEin;rt frm the other people wtthin the currnrnity.
courcilm.En Dimler: r agree r00t. w only point ls that they are before usrur. Ihe onrlr ordinarae E have rlght rpu is the qe tbat E harre interpretted.lbre l@ser:, perhaps tban tle int€nt rBs hrt tlEt ras ttre decision of the Boardard that Es the right of the Board to nake that decision. lbrr, rdhen 6urEil.ges back, and the:, strould have tne b€neflt of tjte tlming tere ifut tbey, re tere
Ffore y?. thatrs t'ry arguEnt. Vltgr Ourrit gets togetlrer rps ard re interprettJrc rcrding y r€y rr rEnt to. tts can drange tt. tc can Leave lt up sarre errE can FEke lt looser or EtEtarer re & wlth it, ttEy rculd no !.orger beaffected ry t}lat because ttE benefit of tlre ttming tltat ttel'. re beiore us row,thatrs the ordinare a,d tlE interpretatian that re.re rrslrg.
ourEihran ttrlman: Cre qps;tlon. tb[ is tiat to our advantage?
Oourcilmran Dirrrler: It isnrt. Brt are iE alElrs bere to benefit o*Llro o.do e mnt to benefit our citl zens?
Orryuilnran norlsrun: I thir* ehen I sa:, L, , ,."r,...
ourcilrrla'r Johnson: te citizrs tEis i'r king abort.
ourcilrran lbrhun: I agree yitn Ja:' gl tlat. I ttrlnk re can sit ard finistrthis rtrr in January anl tten e can do lt.
ourrllnran Johnson: See if ttcre are Jt, ottEr aIlnals fitd.
I
I
i
!t1
City 6urEi1 ttetirg - Novg'ber 6; 1989
Couuilnrzr tibrlsEn: I'm rpt srried abouE that. I'n just sayirE, letrs get...
tla]ror Cthiel: okay, proger action for this rDuld be?
ELl iott F€tscil: Ib EcHule tlre alpeal tearing for a s:bseguent corrril
reetirg.
}la]ror Ctmiel : .kay.
oowEillurEr Dirqler: Brt rDt unifornlly throughout?
&utEillllan &hnsms & e\ren tlE average.
courcitre Dirqler: ...lots are just rDt that [Erfect.
courcilrran Jotnson: l|b. I donrt thir* ttE average stpuld be ln there. I think
at the point tnat tlE dek is at, you strould have at least 100 feet at tlat
point.
olrEilmrEn Dlrler: erd Eey Euld treet that. tey could lrEet that.
Corrri}'rar Johnson: ItE:t could t€et that by ptttirq the dek in, ttc proper
position. SEtrs Fql opinion.
OourEiltfarEl Dirnler: Ard I agree rith }ou.
Oourcilna Jotvrson: lbll tlratts 2. It takes 4. 3.
ourcilnar b:t 3 I Ent Fblic irgrt. ltris is 07€ of ttE [tDst c'ontest€al
ordinarnes in our city.
OtrEifnan Jotrnson: I agree.
Grrcllwr Dtder: tratts becauae e nake lt o.
6urcilr,an Jofnsqr: tS. )
u
ourEilndl hyt: I rcu1d ask that staff begin Frrsuitt ttte ordinance ctnnge
alorg ttE lircs of tle discussian E've had tonight. Start that at tlE Platrnirg
&rrrrission at the rst agerda ard -e 1f e canrt Fake Progreas on tiis tling.
Oorlcilworan Diriler: f donrt kru, if staff can go ated becaue tlE:7 donrt ktD&r
rdEt our, try intent is rDt to have lt rnifonlally 100 feet. I don't lgpw tpw
everlrbod:, else feels. I ltEan rE don't have a @nsensus Cr that.
ourcilnran Johnson: IE can take a straw polt right row. I believe at the point
t*re dock is at 1ou stould have at least lgg feet.
I
corEihrdt Bolt: l€rre granting rights to a berchlot that E don't rpr* grant to
a sirgte farily residential lot m a lake 3o I'm just saYirg, rhat rerve talked
abort, I tlrink 1ou can draft sorething. If rotiirg else, stirt utere 1ou errled
q, Last title ard letts get tltts thirg in tle tpfper ard 8ee rihat cq€s out.F
42
t
I
City ewcil lceting - lfcvsnbd 6, 1989
Ha:ror GmieL: Is there a secord b tjrat?
ol'EilFlan Bolt: Iou canrt db tbat. I rDuld prefer 1ou rpt do that. I cantell ]ou. I'nr going to be olt of torn m tJre 20th. You catr tDId that o\rer t,ttll
ttE rE (t neeting in Ecerrber or I can sEit 19 day:s to file nry a14na1.
couEilnan Johnson; Irnr going to be olrt of tosr on tlE 20th too brt Irm flyirg
brck for the rreetirg.
CorrEibEn Bo:rt : I 'm imgnessed.
orrEitfrlan Johnsdl: &rst because tlE scHuLe rcrked that m1,. I onl:, have to
be there until rpon.I ralDr Ordel: I'd jrrst like to teep t}is noving.
&urEilrran Bo:rt: I€II I muld llke to keep it nrovirg. t€t's do tte ord inarce
arenient. that thing ln a nstttt ard a half uill be q> here in front of us anil
re can straighten it out ard get it dore.
Jo tnn Olsen: So },ou ddtrt Ent !E to continre tlE aEPeaU
OrEilF an Bolt: rcU yeah. Yolr have to clrltinrE tte a1peal. I'd prefer 1ou
to db it to tte first treting in Ecgtber.
ElI lott l(netach: the action of tle Board of MjustrEnts is vacated perdirg tlp
outcoe of ttris aPFaI. ltn City OrrEil will have the final decision row.
olrEilfr|an Boyt: Secdrt.
ol'Eihan Jotrnsm noved, ourEilttlan b$ eecorded b plrce the 4PeaI tearing
for ttr interpretatlon of Zonirg Ordtinare requirerents of 190 foot lot dlePth
ioi " a""t on'a recreational beichlot rnti I tne first cit!'i 6rrci1 neetirg ln
Decsrber. Al,1 voted ln favor ard the nption carrled -I
\
{3
orEilrqan Jotrrson: I think e have 3 olt of 5 rErbers of tlp Oorvrcil sa:4n9
that at ttE point of tle dak r€ need 190 foot. Brind that forraral to
tle Planing Cu'mission.
Ilalor Ctniel: I $Ess that's basicall:7 r*Ere Erre at.
&wEilrqan Bolt: Slre. Ihatra sensible.
OoryEifnan Johnson: So tlerers sqre klrrl of direction at the en of this.
t rnot e e [rrt tlE aIfEal m tlE tp.t 6urc11 agerda.
f,a1or Ctmiel: Itratrs right.
oll,Eilrllan .rdvlsc|,l: l[E,l trII rD\re that ttE 4pea1 is tEaral the first {EetirB
in Decgt&er.
c
e
ctfY oF
crlltu{AssEU
aAsf ru
?ofer-tf,, ^- RerEzt*flo$L
b*cn LoTe
BA D E
I
F
2
5
4
J
4A
l-
tbl:'\
r
L_-
A
D0
$
#\nl
;t
,r
J1'
=
--tFr=
I,
6
Fr-r_J-----t_.J-----.]7
. :,i; ,s ri,i'?:i:;:ii,- .'l :l
\.
I
;:'3
o
ll:
7
If *
w,
g
ci f,{as-x tx*tir, E't
IYrlt {rrr
Pl ann i ng
DeceFrber
Connrission Meeting
6, 1989 - Page 17
think people would have good
the definition of structure.
tough luck.
argunents tha t
I rnr noving a
llsted separa telynot a building and
thelr r re
shed but
under
so
Itrurrings ' Is there a definition under
Batzli: No. Not building by itself.irant except building b], itself.
bui 1d ing?
Any other kinil of building that you
Enrrnings nroved, Ellson secondeal to table the Zonlng Ordinance Anrenatnent to
anend the Cit:, Code, Oivision 5, Site PIan Revlew to revise the procedures,
expand on developnent stanalards and require financlal guarantees for
Iandscaping and othet site improvements 60 staff can nake the modificationsoutlined b:r the Planning Corqmission. AII voteil in favor and the hotion
carr ied .
PUBLIC HEARI NG:
ZONING ORDINANCE AUENDMENT TO A}IEND THE CITY CODE TO I,IODIFY THE
RECREATIONAL BEAC}TLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.
Public Present:
NaFre
l{arlt Jo }loore
Ray Roettger
323L
322t
Da r tmouth
Dartnouth
Dr lve
Drive
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff leport on the ltem. Chairrran Conrad call
tbe public hearlng to order.
I
Conradl: Okay. An!' other corrFrents? Would it be wise to table this andbring it back? An:, rush to get this through to Cit!, Council?
Krauss: No. Jo Ann anil I have been spending tirne trying to get things
together for the spring rrrsh and I think holding it over a nreeting is notgoing to hurt that. We don't have real big agendas coDring up so that willbe f ine.
Conrail: I think because we askeil lrou to change enough words in enoughsections that it Probabllt nakes sense. I thlnk if you gave us a real, Idonrt think it's going to clog the next agenda. It ahortld race throughhere. Give us one final chance to take a look at it. Is there a notion totable thi s?
Enhings: So nroved.
EIIson: And Ir11 second it.
Address
Plann j.ng
Decerlber
Colrrrrission Meeting5, 1989 - Page 18
Conrad: Oka1r, thanks Jofor public coFarents.
Ann. It is a public hearing so werll open it up
Uarlt Jo t oore.
Dartnouth Dr ivesubnit a tetterpass it on?
Conrad: But it's good tdonrt think anybod!, else
through t hat !,ou said in lrour letter becarrse Iheard it.
Good evening. M:' na&e is Mary Jo Hoore. I live at 3231which is lakeshore propert:' on Lake Hinnewashta. I ilidto Ursula Dinrler that I asked that she pass on. Did she
Conrad: She diiln't pass the letter on but she did call nre.
Har]t Jo lloore: oka1,.
ogo
has
ltary Jo l,!oore: Wel l it was
you rd Iike.a 4 page letter. I have it in ny purse if
Conrad: It would be real good, if it had gone tohave included it in our packets brrt because...
ci tlt staff the:r hrould
Ellson: Brrt Ursula did contact :rou and give you the context?
Conrad: Tried to over the phone and itrs not
Phone. But an!lwa], I think itrs real wise thatletter by the tinre this gets to Cit], Council.of the letter? So nrake sure that she gets it.
easlt to do a 4 Pagerthe Cit:, get a cop],
Jo Ann, do ltou have
over tbeof :toura cop!,
Har!, Jo lloore: That Jo Ann gets it? Oka1,. At an!, rate, the basis of theletter, without going through the whole 4 pages, I live between tworakeshore associations one of which r rpr a member. rrm considered anonshore lrenber. I do not use the propertlr. I do pa:r dues on it fornraintenance and insurance anil that soi-t oI thing. -A3 even a dues payingnrerrber, r have difficurt:, enforcing the provisions of the associatioi_, i.e.let's clean up the docks. The:r.re falling down. Letrs fix then. Lei'sclean up the-propert!,. you canrt enforce-these things. The people thatare using this lake propert!' are not looking at it. Thewrre ioiir! anO- -
thelzrre juFrping in their- boat and the]r,re tiXing off and if thef, Ian have apost thatrs sturd:, enough to tie theii boat to, that.s alr theii "o"."in"a- -with. The!' donrt clean the beach. The other assoclatlon which is a 30foot. lakefron! . proper t]r ls onto the east of me. rt,s inbeiw"-i' i.y-."6 ."andl therers thls 30 foot Eection of beach that is a aisaiiei. Ra!r- keeps -his property cleaned up. I keep rry propert:' cleanecl up. fhis eection is a
d i Easter .
Bftingss Is that the Shores?
Mar!, Jo lloore: Thatrs sterling Estates is to the east of rrre and r haveItlinnewashta shores rrest of rne io r irq inbetween these two, member of one.One thing that also rather upsets he eas that this pierce propertlr, iuasnrt aware of lt. I tr!, to fo1Ioi, nhat's going on in ttris ilty'.' i,o,rorking full tine thgugh. I canrt show up eierlr-evening tbat soiething isgoing on. I Has not notified. Ra:, uas not notifiea. 6ut I atid notic6 in
Planning
DeceFrber
Conrnrission l,teeti ng
6, 1989 - Page 19
the Paper that a Ptrblic hearing was going to be hetd on NoveFrber 13th. Rayand I shorred up for the public hearing and found out that it hras in factheld on Novenber 6th, one week eartier withorrt any rescinding notice in theVillager or anlt notice to the residents of the lake. I guess I rronrt getinto the Pierce propert:t since that isnrt the subject of this issrre. Irvereaal through the proposal and in the analysis that has corre throrrgh, werreequating private propert:r, the DNR regulations for private propert:/ to arecreational beachlot that is for the benefit of how nan], people? In thePierce case it's 15 residents. I donrt think :7ou can take a 59 x 10 foot
Piece of Propert!, that's for a private resialence, who is restricted I nightadd, to 3 boats. The:, hust be in their nahes. I hean we have moreregulations on the Iake than these recreational beachlots. Youire taking
and equating this DNR regulation to a beachlot. I don't think, thatdoesn't rrake sense to F.re because therers too nan:r people. Another thing isa sand beachlot is generally speaking a swinrnring beach area. Thatrs not
soneplace where lzourre going to stick a dock. Itrs unsafe. You have
swittprers in and out of the dock so I donrt see an!, correlation between this
DNR regulation and the beachlot. I also feel that the 109 foot depth, Irve
been involved in this since da1' one. Since the!, started the surveys on thelake and were investigating it. This was to preclude developers conring in,buying tbere's an awful lot of farnrland around thatrs in nrany acres. Theybu]' it up and the:' stick one little lot on the lake that everybod:' gets touse and then the:t develop around it and it creates a Fress. As is stated inhere in the analysis, the Cit:t has no control over these associations. I
as a nrerrber of one association have no irnpact so the developer walks away.
Hers done his bit. He's sold his propertlr. He goes. The resiilents the,.ethen tlo lrhatever the!' want to do and itts the other neighboring people that
have to tr], to control this and it has created disaster in rtrlr instance.
Irve tried to work with neighbors regariling the Sterling Estates. Askeal
then to get together anal Irm not part of their association, to work thingsout. The], wonrt do it because theyi re all afraid the]r're going to lose
their little access so the!, wonrt even talk to one another. What else inhere? At an:, rate, I think there should be nore teeth put into the
ordinance nhere the Citlt does have control over the associations anil their
regulations as opposed to eliFrinating that section entirely. Again,'Ithink the Lgg foot, it should be a rrinirrut\ 100 foot depth at an:i one point.
f as a lakeshore owner, if I bought a piece of propert:r anil I rras going to
buiId, Irnr reqrrilEd to build back 75 feet fron the ordinarl, high water
nark. That iloesn't mean one corner of nr]r property has to be 75 feet back
but the rest of it can angle into the lake. Itrs a rrrinimun 75 and frohthat point back. wlth the Pierce property, we have taken cit:r,'Propertl'.
The cit1, right-of-wa:r for the road and added that into their depth. It
Just, that is not L0g feet there and I think that itis a definite
requirement that we have to have specific minlnrurr wldths anal lengths. As
far as the docks, the proposed recommendled language here, you sa:l a dock
ever!, 2gg feet. Does that mean 200 feet, herera a ilock? 2gg feet here's a
dock. 2gg feet herets a dock or are they altogether and how nany boats can
be moorecl on each one of these docks? I think therers an awful lot of
clean up would have to be done to the recom:nended language and again, I
donit think 2S-263 should be deleted. I think it should be expanded so the
City has nore control over the association rules. And of course, as lroucan probabl:, tell, Ild just as soon elirrinate beachlots altogether. Thatr s
all I have to sa!r. ttrank 1tou.
Pl ann i ng
Dece!rber
Coprnrission Meeting6, 1989 - Page 2g
Ra:, Roettger: Irve talked aborrt this before. The nane is Ray Roettger. Ilive nexE to Mar:' Jo lloore. 3221 Dartnorrth Drive. I thlnk i couple oftyPes of Propert:, would come into nrind. One would be a crescent shaped,half proon lot that corrlil be jrrst like a crescent and you coulil say, youcould lreasrtre along the peripherl, of that on a curve and conre up rrith 190feet. I think you have to define it a litt1e bit nore. Another one wouldbe kincl of a triangrrlar piece such as the outlot is between Uar:, Jo andnr:'self wbich tends to expand 3, feet wide anil then tends to expand a littlebit. Like Joe Boyer said, there are 60 feet out there. Irlell, 60 feet outin-the lake sorrreplace brrt people I guess donrt guite mechanicallyunderstand how sone of these things develop. Har:, Jo iras wrong on onePoint. I reall:, an the caretaker of that piece of propert:' bel.ween andI spend several days picking and pulling up purple loosestrife which haddeveloped but tr!' as I Fra:' to tr!, to get aome help, they use it anil walkawav. I don't think anybod:r's. ever picked rrp a beer can. The south facing
|ot i9 going to pick up alt this stuff sooner or later. The:, just donrt d5it and I think there should be sonrething that someone could 3o-to sa:, helr,let's straighten up the docks, clean rrp the propert:7, lrou know iprpos- soirerestrictions on thenr. I think an!, concession along that t ine of ibeachlot, yorr shorrld have sone teeth in it like uaiy .lo says in case itgets too baal but the property she,s referring to iras beautiful . They riprapped it. They dredged it. put up docks. Ever!'thingrs straight ana tttenone :tear the), just leaned over and theyrve been that walr for 4 or 5 lrears.I nean itrs terrible and I don't understand wh], the], don.t clean it up.
Conraal: Paul, what is the solution for a problet\ Iike that?
Olsen: Not cleaning it up?
Conrad: Yeah. Is it a nuisance?
and sa:t it's not being kept up?
Is it a public nuisance? CaLl the Citv
Olsen: With weeds andIot. It could be. Hor^rit as a nui sance .
things Iike that?far we rd get with
Yeah. Thatis just like an!' otherthat Irn not sure but we corrld do
Conrad: Yeah, itrs real infornral.
)
Erlson: Things like beer cans and strrff rike that, that courd get into thenater and that rrould be solhe good reason...pull the loosestrife; that rrright -be a little hard to try to neasle in.
Olsen: We do with obnoxious eeeds though.
Conrads Is the honreowners association reglstered?
Olsen: f donrt know if the:'rre all regletered brrt a lot of then don.t,ue're not- up to date_ wlth ehors the prisident. A 10t of times se tr:' tokeep rrp wlth that but even a rot of the rreprbers donrt know who ttrepresident is or who to contact.
Planning
Decenber
Conu'rission ueeting6, 1989 - Page 21
Mary Jo l{oore3 Sterling Estates, thatassociatlon. we have deeded rights to
Batzli: So if !'ou eere to notify them,registered Ietter to every person?
Conrad: And then basicall]r would sa!,the Cit!, worrlil undertake the cJ.ean-up
Ray Roettger: See the danger kind ofI also oirn part of that outtot. If Isits back and.. .
is, Irm part of the problenr becausedonrt clean it up, but ever:'body just
isnrt
this
wha t
even
piece
wou Id
organized into anof property...
you do? Send a
lf nothing is done
and charge it back
within 30 days,to the individual.
Enftings: Letrs !'ou do it.
Ralt Roettger: Cut the grass and clean it up and everything else. The fealproblenr is, you suddenly become the enenry of all the other people becarrseif you say sorrething, then old rrran Joe Boyer...tells tqe Irm selfish. you
know, how do :rou handte it. Itts kind of like take it arra], brrt I think bythe way, Mar!' Jo brorrght trp a point when sbe said the depth, does itinclude the right-of-way or does it not?
Olsen: No!, what wetre proposing.
Ray Roettger: So itrs all part of the propertlr.
uar:, Jo Moore: The one point...
Ra], Roettger: The lgg foot depth,
Conrad: Basicall:r :res, except for
Olsen: These are both 100 feet, or
is that perpentlicular to the...
where the dock goes.
even more than 109 feet basically...
Ra]t Roettger: I asked a question of the dock as proposed there, it lookslike it's nade to acconmoalate 3 boats but actually could handle 7.
Olsen: That is a wbole different process. The!, EtiIIthe ohole conditional use which is another...have to go through
Ra!, Roettger: Are the!, restrlcted to 3 boats?
Olsen: If the:' have enough area, fTou have to bave intially 3g r0gg and then
an additional 2A,OOO and then 1,ou have to add lhe 2gg foot of lake frontageor additiona! 20A feet to have more docks. Right now the:7 are only, again
werre not reviewing that right non but they're onl!, proposlng one dock with
3 boats.
Uary Jo tloore3 I can put up a dock on nl]r property and I can have Ig boats
on it.
Olsen: You're lirrited to 5 I think.
Har:, Jo
as:tou
Conrad:
Eou'rings:the law-
lloore :
want.
I mean :'ou could potentiall:, trith I dock have aS rranv boats -
Conraal ! AbsoI uteI:r. AbsoIuteI:r. Therebecause, is lt 5 absolute?
ls a linrit and now itrs escaped Fre
Eriarings: No, itrs 3.
Conrad: Itrs 3 for an individual propert:, but for a beachlot, I think wehave granted up to geez, I donrt knoir, 6 per dock.
Olsen: For a recreational beachlot therers a prax iFtulr of 9 ovetnight boats.
Conradl: So there is an absolute. And I thinkcare of. We beat that one up a whole 1ot. frnrgoing back through it. It rnakes sense based onhave 1,ou. It does nrake Sone kind of sense.
Ray Roettger: on the pierce propertlr, are there 1g lots or 12 Lots or how
man:r?
But itrs restricted.
You'd be breaking the lau. Iou could do it but youid be breaking
that I s prett!, weII takennot real interested in
si ze restrlctions and what
Olsen: I think
than 10. Brrt th
Minnerrashta r{oul
rev i ened .
re was like 15. The nunber has escaped nre buthave been saylng just three of the lots a).ongave rights. Again, that.s sonrething that t,ill
the
e:,dh
it's more
La ke
be
Uar:, Jo Uoore: I reallze that.
)Enrrrings: I didnit know lf you did.
Planning Connrission Meeting
DeceFrber 6, 1989 - Page 22
Ra:, Roettger: Can lrou acconnodate. . .sith the approval?
Olsen: yorr could nake that a condition of what 1ot8 the:, have... ,
Ra!, Roettger: Wellr I guess that rrould be m}, euggestlon lrou know to put anumber.
olsen: As far as the boats and r donrt knoe rhether rerd put a restrictionon who coukl use it.
fRa:' Roettger: No, but the nunber. IE there a poasibillt!, of dolng that?
Conrad: Thatts a dlfferent lgsue than we have tonlght.
EFunings ' r'n. not srlre, werre klnd of talktng cross purposes here. r donrtknow if !'ou folks underatand that this ls noi the wh6le-beachlot ordlnanceby an1' means and tbat there are other sectlons or ini-ueichiot orainancethat regulate the nunber of boats and all klndg of otfrer ibings.
Ilar]r Jo l'!oore: But r think these rheasurenrents , rhen the ord inance easadopted and passed, these measurehents lrere considerably...
Ra:' Roettger: hthy else wouLd they put the I00 feet in?
conrad: For severar reasons. The too is there to buffer it. The lgo isa buffering nrechanisrr and in the case that rre sent to the city council,rhich ttrey havenrt acted on, the street becanre part of the buffer so wefelt prettl, coprfottable. Again, lrourve got to rnake sure, the ke:/ prenisehere of the beachlot is to buffer the suirounding neighbors. rf-wE feelthat thatrs done, I don,t care if itrs, Lgg is aiUitriryr. It could be 9g.rt courd be 1rg. rt courd be a driveway. rt courd be; hiIl. rt courd bea street. r donrt care rrhat. r want a buffer there so in the cases whereyou have a street that acts rike a buffer that keeps it from the neighbors,thatfs fine. So the LOA in Fry nind is jrrst arbitrary. If there,s a-brrffeithere, thatts the bottot'r line so Itn not convinced that lg0 feet, Irmterring 1'ou where rrn at on this but thatis the rationale for the 1g0 $rasbuffering. The other part of the rationale was enorrgh area for thosepeople who rrse it to recreate so that it r,asn't unconfortable for then. sothe developer doesn't go out and oversell the propert!, and say everybodyowns it. The:, get there and you pack 300 people on a postage stanrp. Birtthatrs taken care of with sorre of the 20 ro00 square foot rrrininrums lnd the35. There are sohe other things stuek ln there, the 4 foot per personwhich the staff is recohnrending taking out. That was intended t6 take careof those issrres and I [ra!r have sorre concerns with the staffrs perspectiveon that because that doesnrt solve sonre of the real intent of the ordinanceso I grress thatrs the background to that 100 feet that I know of anil it,sthe loglc that Frakes sense to ne anal I irant to carry that logic orrt lnhowever we nrodify the ordinance that re have tonlghl .
Ra:, Roettger: Yes, your ordinance is for now and in the future but thatrsprecisely the problenr se have. with aII these lota and everybod:/ wants toput a boat ilown there. Years ago we fought it.
Conrad: The ordinance does take care of the quantity of boats. It stitlis going to be a problem for yorr. Uost of the tinre it becorres a problerrfor the beachlot people thenselves becarrse usrrally if therers 2g lots, onl!'6 people or 3 people have docking rights. Then sohe people leave thenrthere overnight and then it becomes a problenr of patrolllng themselves sothere are some problems. Any other publlc corhnents? Is there ra motion toclose the public hear ing?
Batzli noved, Ellson seconded to close the publlc hearing. All voted infavor and the rrotion carried. ?he public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Frot\ rrhat I see the object of this iliscusslon tonight is sinrply toalter the ordinance to make it absolutellr clear what.s allowed and rrhattsnot allowed so therer s nothlng subjective to it. There can be nointerpretation because this is probabll' the single thlng in this city where
ever:rbod!, wants to tI !, to fit their little lot into sonehow neet theordinance and so apparently werve got a phrase ln here that's vague. So
Planning Conmrission Heeting
Decenrber 6, 1989 - page 23
Planning
DeceFrber
Conmrission Meeting
6, 1989 - Page 24
shat lrourre trying to do is clarify it, correct?
OIsen: Correct.
Erhart: Thatrs the purpose of this whole discussion?
OIsen: The whole purpose.
Erhart: And so, if !'ou feel that this does that, rithout getting into abig discussion of what an:, of these dimensions, whether the:rrre right or
wrong, I'nr all in support of clarifying it. I donrt think yourd ever cometo a conclusion on shat the right sized lots are. Itn sure this sane
arguFrent will go on fol' lrears and vears. so if thatrs what the purpose is,
then I would go to the recoFarendatlon that :7ou have and the wording and
suggest that that part of the sentence where it sa1's measured both at theordinary high water rrark and, is really redundant I believe in that if yorr
have 26A foot lake frontage, obviousl!' itrs going to be at least 50 footwide at the high water mark. That r'ra], be an incorrect...
Olsen: But now with the depth of I00 feet.
Erhart: IrFl not suggesting yorr take that out. Irn suggesting that it just
simpllz read, no dock sha}l be pernitted on a recreatlonal beaehlot unlessit's at least 2gg feet lake frontage and a width at anl, point lgO feet
landward froFr the ordinarlr high water mark of not less than 50 feet. Idonrt think lrou need that phrase whete it sa:7s neasured both at theordinary high water trark and at a point 100 feet in. I think it's just a
l i ttle cleaner.
Krauss: I think the onCouncil, I forget wbo ia situation where you h
measurenrent at one pOin
this litt1e pinrple of propert], or nhatever, alloer therhthe requirerrent for the dock.
Erhart: So lrout re saying lrou neasured the
follow the actual contour of the shoreline?
Iake frontage essentially yorr
Ilt reason we tlid that is becauset rras. Sonebodlz suggested that
ad a narrow penninsrrla going outt but otherwise was onl:, Ig feet
at the Ci t:'
thelt hranted to avoidthat met that
wide and shou lilto have, to satisf:r
Olsen: Right. The era]' that this is written requires lrou tofeet and 1gg. I donrt know if you take orrt those words how,read it the rray your re doing it.
Erhart: AII Itm salrlng, it atready reads :rourve gotthe lake front anal thatrs already there in the first
have
I I ltr
that 59trlri ng to
Olsen: Werre sa:ring you have to have a 2gg fooLfoot depth. You could still have that 290 footnecessarill' 100 foot.
to have 2gg feet at
phrase.
wide plece that has a lgglake frontage but not
Erhart: How could :tou have 260 foot, ma]'be PauI can deseribe that but Iwas wondering how can :rou have a 2gg foot lake frontage and not have 59feet at the ordinaryrhigh rrater mark?
Pl ann ing
DeceFrber
Corrnrission Heeting6, 1989 - Page 25
Elttlrings ' You can't.
Olsen: See :rou're got over 56A feet of lake frontage but 1'orr don't have adepth of Lgg feet for 5A feet for the whole thing. What netre doing isrequiring that for an area. you have a 5g foot widttr ttrat has a 100 feet.
Erhart: Irn not saying grorr take orrt the 5g feet at the 100 foot in. I'prjust saying lf you remove the phrase the 50 feet at the ordinary hlgh waternark, lrourve essentiall:, got that slth the 2gg feet frontage requirenrent.
Olsen: But I think it still neeals that.
Kfauss:net thethat.
In itrs
fron tage
u could havefeet deep or
sonreth l ng
soBrethlng
Frost extreme case though,reguirenrent that was on l:,:,o
3
tha tlike
Erhart: That neasureil 1i near 1:r?
Krauss: Right. And then extends out into the water 190 feet but lt,s onl],2 feet wide r.rhen it gets to that polnt. Frankl!' Tirrr it rasnit particularlyour issue but rre were trying to anticipate rrhat the Council directive was.
Erhart: That was the only point. Again,then fine. I think it,s just fine.if this nrakes it unargrreable,
Erarings: I think the language is real confrrsing. I think I understand
what the:'rre sa:ting but I think the language is real confusing. f rnr notsrrre that right off the bat that the ordinance needs to be changed but if
rre trl, to rrork lrith it, I'il like to propose a couple of alternatives Pral,bejust for discussion if nothlng else. I think what really nrakes thisconfusing is when :torr sa:t at a poj.nt Lgq feel landirard lrourve got to have awidth of 59 feet. you can,t have a eridth at a point. I think that rea1l!'
screr^rs :rou rrp so I think one thing you could do there xould be to sa:" I r dbe inclined to write this as follotrs. I would salT no dock shalL be
Perhitted on an:' recreational beachlot unless it has at least 2gg fedt oflake frontage and a minimunr of 391600 square feet in area. Itd startthere. Pulling that up frorr down below. Period. Then lrd say inaitdition, there must be an area 50 feet ln width at the high water mark and
59 feet in wldth along a Ilne 190 feet land$ard of the high water rrrark.
Sonrething Like that. Deflne that area but define lt ln terms of put thatas an additional. I donrt thlnk that quite does lt because you uant to
nake srrre it lines up but I think re could, if we rork on it for a minute,I think ue could come up with sorre language. Then Ird say that you canrthave, go right on ehere :rou are. No nore than 1 dock ltray be erected on arecreational beachlot for each 2gg feel of lake frontage-and lf an:'additional , there shall be an area requlrernent of an additional 2O t00Qsquare feet for each addltlonal dock. Put those 2 ldeae together. Ithlnk it would heJ.p clean lt up but the onl!, thingr then a second approach.
That worrld be nry first cholce. l{}' second choice would be tbat ue klnd oftake Ladd's idea and saY that we ron! t allos any docks on a recreltional
beachLot unless it has 2gg feet of lake frontage, 3grgg0 square feet
nrininrunr area and a byffer frorr neighboring lanitounerB. Norr the probleh'a
Pl ann i ng
Decelrrber
Corurri ss ion l,teeting5, 1989 - Page 26
going to be defining that buffer anil we could sa:/ sonething ltke, thisbuffer rray consist of topograph:r, streets, or the depth of the propert],ltself. So the:, nreet this requirernent, this kind of a requirement and thenthat's a forn of a buffer but the buffer nright be other things. Then wejust have to do it on a case by case basis after that. But that might do abetter job of getting at the intent. Noi, tttis particular one, the iierceone, which I look at froFr my house, I knor, it when I drive by there prett!,often and itrs not onl:, buffered f rortr. First of all, the propertles behl;dit are the people that are using it. Fron back there itis buifereil notonl!, b:, the road but b!, topography because the land drops down so Fruch andreall!, uhen you're uP on that road, itis tough to 6ee down there. I donrtflnd this one bit offensive. I donit find it offensive looking at it fromthe lakeside either. Hotever, l{innewashta Heights Ird have sone conftentsabout and the Shores and Sterling Estates but thatrE a policing problenthat will never solve. Itrs just beyoncl hope r think ana Lake innewashtaunfortunately is blessed with a great nunrber of these.
uar!' Jo }loore: put a little bit more teeth in the ordinance. Brrtthe ordinance also...it easnrt just a buffer frorrr the neighbors, irestrict lake useage. t ,nean thatrs one of the reasons, in fact icalled I think a Lake useage ordinance...
Enrrrings: I donrt know the], tho[ght theyrd restrlct lake useage byin beachlots.
I thinkt rgas tot was
putting
Ma r:,
wi th
uoore: You donrt dunrp 20boats into the rrater hrith
Ihtplings: Thatrs what a beachlot
Uar:' Jo l,loore : yes, and that I sthe ordinance to prevent...
that aren't living on the lakepiece of propert:'.
Jo
2g
farri I iesa 50 foot
does.
wh:, the:' put in the restrictions in passing
a
Ernrings: The other thing about the beachlots on ltinneuashta, thewrveclearly grorrn. The intensit:t of the use has grown in- the 6 years I'v'e been -out on the lake. There are rrrore boats on then non than there ever havebeen but this stuff is just imgosslbre to porice. rt.s not irhpossibre. rtjust ieould exhaust the Citlrts resourcea. But anlrwa:r, that roul.d be theaecond approach that rrd suggest. rrd do one or-thi other and r think ltnould nraybe herp rnake more sense. r feel llke the rhole thing is prett!'arbitrary. I rnl prett!, rrruch for, I gueaa lf I had to make a a6c'ls16ntonight, Ird sa]' there ought to be a Frlnimurrr of Lgg feet along the nholething. There shourdnrt be any polnt at rrhich ls less than 1gg feet fronthe ordinary high water mark. That rould be nry basic position exceptwhen r tr:' to appl!' that to this propert:r, it doesn.t irake Eense to tne. r -think a beachlot on thls propert!' is finL. I don.t think that land has anlrother use than for this and I don.t thlnk, I think the use that the:rrreproposing is not very lntense. If itrs rrsed the ra!, thelrrre saylng- it willbe used, I don,t think itra going to be a detrinent to tie Lake-eo'Iguess Ird like sorqe flexlbility ln bere go that ehen ue have a proposallike this that seerqs reasonable, we corrLd approve it rlthout .pifyir,g .hard rule that thereJs got to be 100 feet in-depth ever! rhere. I kn6sthere are properties to the south of thls one that don.t have all the
Pl ann i ng
DeceFrber
Corrnr i ss i on Meet i ng5, 1989 - Page 27
, we usuall,y, we are talking about the separation of the street
)rourve got adjacent properties. I was having a hard tinre
How are ltou going to buf fer or def ine so :rorr donr t rrrean thisthis or do you hean this?
It'E another strlp like this thatie owned by a house. Is that
qepth. The:rire also up, their elevation is up closer to the road so the:,donrt have the screening that this one does b:r topographlr. One is Dave '
Headra and other nelghbors of his to the south ana i cin-werl irragine thatonce the], decide to subdivide their properties, theyrre golng to wantbeachrots down there too because it,i going to tiake a hell oi a differencein the value of their propert]'. Those I donrt think shoulal be approved.Those Ird be opposedl to because theyrre narroser along the lake. Theydonrt have the frontage and they don'|t have the buffei. This one rrrr notopposed to.
Itlar:, Jo Moore: If lrou change the ordinance so it,s 100 feet to 50 feet,then this propert], wourdnr t have r00 feet and r know heis got at reast igg.
Errnrings. No. You ! re rrri sunder stand ing rrbat i afeet on the Iake.here. You.ve got to have 2gg
Uar], Jo Moore:
Lhnrings: I donrt know. If he does, then he.s got a right to come in andask for a beachrot but wetre saying thereta got to be Zaa feet. werre notchanging that to 59 feet. werre just changlng the area that has to be r00feet deep. Of that 2gg feet, onl:, 59 feet has to be l0g feet deep. you
understand? 50 feet in wldth has to be LOA feet deep.
Olsen: Your second recoFurrenda t i on, that's sonethlng I was looking atbecause that reall:, is the intent. You just have it buffered and thatseparation but then I hail a difficult tiire becarrse rhen we talk aborrt thebuffer in9
but then
def ini.ng.
:,ou nrean
but
Conrad:Yeah, lrou do mean the sides too. And thatrs rhy you don't like...
So this doesnrt really appl:, to that.
Haybe you have to have a sideyard aetback tlrpe of thlng.
Ol sen :
Enrmings:
Olsen: We have a dock setback...so if that sas applled to thi8, thenwouldnrt, rrhen the], come through the conditlonal use permit, we rould
:rou have to put ln a fence or screening.
we
say
Conrad: Brrt see to the north or to the northeastthat Jo Ann? Just out of curiousity.of that red area, rrhat ls
Olsen:
you?
Ernrings:
house.
No. Itrs not been subdivided. Itrs Just solrebod3r there ln the
Conrad: Based on
tough tinre puttlng I eould appl:, as
dock rlght there
the lntent, Iright next to
rould have a real
a private residence.
rrhg t
the
Pl ann i ng
DeceFrber
Corrrrisslon Ueeting6, 1989 - Page 28
The long ternr intent ls to cluster use. The short terrn intent however isthe fact there is a private landtowner over there and we.re putting a dockand all the useage right next to that. I find that trnacceplable eventhough itrs better in the long run, it worrlit be offensive Lo n,e if I werethat resident.
Olsen: If that is the intent, thense should have that other...what werre doing doesn.t do it. Then
Conrad: Yeah, I,n not sold on what rre've done here.
Ehnings!- I guess. the other thing is, lf yourre going to use thls approach,do yorr then restrict the beach activitles to tha[ 5t- foot wide area where
:rourve- got the depth and the buffer and where do :rou put. Does that area,does that hean as J.ong as they have that area the1, can actually spreadtheir activities arong the hrhore beachlot or prrt lheir beach on thenarrowest portion? I don't think thatrs what werre intending either so Ithink therers a lot of things that have to be talked about hire.
Olsen: Thatrs rrhere the buffering...
Etnings: You alnost need sideyard setbacks to the Sg x Lgg foot areaassuming yourre going to stick rrith that concept.
Ra:, Roettger:
woulaln I t that
Errrnings: I think it is one
now?
now isnrt it? Isn.t that a beachlot down there
vtHa
jus I
be
just ask, the propert!, adjacent to this, to the north,
soRte more of the sarne?
Ol sen :
EFrrrrings:
Okay.
SingIe
Then
ownership.
lt must be a little further north therers one isn.t there?
Conrad See nry problenr is with thatEor safetlr purposes, Iboats or whatever it nrIeave some things undinegatives to looking tbeing used by a lot of
guess I can I
ight be. I u
sturbed yet oo the future.people c1o8ene. Even though there are sohe ner
sorretinre down the road. Frorn the sresident, I couldntt do it.
thelt t\a!, convert it to a beachlot.imagine clusterlng trro docks and 5derstand some clusterlng concepts tothe other hand, I gueas I see someI just find puttlng a dock thatrsto an:, other propert:, not acceptable. tota to lt, if therers a beachlotandpoint of a current neighbor
t
n
n
it
llary Jo l,toore: Right now theis a swirtrrring beach in. It.6 is.. . recreational
the t|riddLe of that
on thls end li ke
beachlot and there
Proper t!, .
It' s shorn on
proper t:,
about 1n
Elrni1gs. Is it? I thought it r.s horebere.
Uar!, Jo Moore: No.
nriddle rrhere the act
think itrB cloaer to HeadlarsI swimpring area is. There are Property. l{ore in thestaira in...so their
I
a(
Pl ann i ng
Decenrber
Conmission Heeting6, 1989 - Page 29
dock is going to be away fron this area that they actuall!' have arecreational beachlot and canoe racks rrith then.
Ellson: The onl1, thing that kept going through rrry mind reading this, firstof all r thought it was confusing. r tried to viiualize rith arrows erhatIt irould be and I had n!' husband look at it anit what eould you think it isand both of us had totarly dlfferent drawings aB to what it'rgouLd be. Forwhat itrs ,orth, the lay people that ve are, couldnrt figure it out but IremeFrber in your analysis !'ou said only aLong Lake ttinneiashta parkway doesthe potential exist for the beachlots t ithout the IO0 foot.
Olsen: Lake Rile:, I think...
Ellson: This one conment just said only this Lake uinnewashta parkh,a:' areaand so the thought is. are we writing this ln case therers a crescent, incase there's a penninsula, uhen we know only Lake llinnewashtars the onethat werre really concerned about. Letrs hrrite it towards the areas thatwe know werre trying to protect. If r,e know therers no pennlnsrrla there,then letrs not irorr:, about tr:ring to cover that. Letis go to the
Potentials there after we rurite sonething and nake srrre :res, it wortld workhere. No, it wouldn.t irork there. yes, therers a natutll buffer. No,tbere isn't but I do like the idea of rewordlng it and I think Steve was onthe right track as far as giving the lntent statehent. I don't know, itrsnot easy. I couldnrt figure out a better rra:, to say it either but I figurethatrs irhl, people of yorrr background, lrou can rrite ordinances better thanne but I just know that I had trouble interpretting it.
Conrad: Okay. In Fr:' ftind there's a confrrsion between allowing the dock
and requiring, rlgbt now werre focused on allowing a dock. Thatrs rrhltwerre rewriting this is to figure out when we can allow a dock.
Olsen: One of the conditions to have a dock, yeah.
Conrad: But itrs focusecl arotrnd a dock and not focusedt arounil the areathat a beacblot needs. Itrs focused around a dock.
Olsen: Yourve got that area alread:, rrhere you have to have lhe 30t000aquare feet before :rou can even have a recreational beachlot.
Conrad: In my mlnd, as I $ent through that, I didnrt know rrhat ee erere
-solving. I really didn't know if re Bere concernedl with the things that Ihad expressed before. The buffering of the neighbors. Stlll rriaintaining a
Parcel. the size that doesn't lead to overuse of that parcel. I guess Stevehentioned one alternative and that.s to redo lt and to come up rlth soheexceptions or 6oFre philosophies. I think thatra ny directlon or the wa:' Ieould go. Therere no right number here. Itn not convlnCedt we need to takethe 4 feet out. As arbitrar!, as lt is, the prlnclple is that se donrt nantthe parcel overused. The prlnclple ie lf youtve gol. Lgg lots that couldpotentlall:, rrse the parcel , they have to have 4gg feet. Aa arbitrar!, asthat is, it is a concept of telling rre we donrt xant the parcel overuaed.
Now if we can put that ln other words, then I.m fine sith lt but that Ifoot aa:rs we're sensltive to use based on the nurrber of propert:, oirners sotherefore, at thls polnt in tlme, I.ve got to keep lt in until Eornebod!' can
Planning
Decehber
Corqtrrission ]teeting
6, 1989 - Page 30
glve nre the rationale for taking it out.
Olsen: We just eronrt tie lt to horieowners assoclation. l,!a:rbe rrer II jrrst
sa:, for each lot in the subdivision, no natter if they have the right ornot, that they'd have to have the rl llneaI feet?
Conrad: Again Jo Ann, whether we keep lt in or not, the subject is use.Intenslt:, of use anal thatrs what to the talks about intensity. The 3grgggsquare feet talks to rrre about bufferlng. Then ue get into the dock issue.
When do ]rou get a dock? You get a dock shen you have so hany feet and yorrrreet sorre other requiretnents that is not irtrpacting your neighbor. Bottonrline, without dragging thls out is I guess t don.E rrina snat we had tobegin with if we could talk about exceptions to tbe ru1e. Exceptions tothe 109 foot.
Euqings. Basically tal kingexists.about trading depth where adequate buffering
Conrad: Rigbt. Then I think we heet what serre trying to do and stillkeep the intent of lrhat rre have done ln the past. I donrt vrant to throwthe intent. Staff recohnrended the rl feet. it rasn't solrething thatthe Planning Conrrrission or Cit], Council came up with and they put sorrre timeinto it anil r berieve staff has put sorre tinre into this also-but Irm notrear conrfortabre throwing it out yet and r think $e can sorve the problenrthatrs being throrrn around here in a different way and Ird like to tr!'. I
know that sounds like a 1ot of rrork Jo Ann.
Olsen: werll cone up with an intent statenent or sonething.
intent statenent in allowing exceptions or variances orkno!, what it is but I certainl:7 could grant sonrebody aget rid of that Lgg foot read easily if other intents
ConraCI: To rre the
whatever, I don' tdifferent, I corrld
are being nret.
Erfiings' I think se should
language on this before theserll corhpare what teIve got
want to also. I guess thiswilling to take sone tihe.
table this. I rrortld take a sring at sonrenext nreeting and rnaybe you want to too andand Eee nhatrs the best. }{alrbe other peopleis an issue that tqatters to ne and Ird LeIrlI dictate sonrething and mall it to you.
Olsen: We_will propose an intent statement. Thatrs probabt:, what uereall:, need here but then that would not Just concern docks Lut an1,activity on the recreational beachlot, do-you rant lt to be allencorrpassing or are you more concerned rrith the buffering of docks?
ttrrarlngs' Ever:'thing. Because !,ou.re typlcally putting a strote bunch ofPeople on a residentiar rot betrreen two residenti arthough there.s not alot of activity there in the slnter. There is enough in-the sut'u'.er uhenl'ou want to be outside so ltrs a pain ln the neck. r think re do nant,thatrs rrhat rrerre looking at so I think itrs all the activlt!, but itrghard- I{e have, r'nr sure thls is the third or fourth time weive looked atthis since rtve been-on the planning conrnrisslon. wben se go around andaround and we donrt ieall:, seen to get an:rplace but not f lltnf aone of
:rour ideas about the intent and the buffering nraybe can help us get to sone
ney, grounal that rre havenrt plorred 5 tines.
Conrad: There are 3 things that yourre trying to do. yourre tr:ring togive people space to recreate. Yourre trying to keep a developer fionrabusing the potential of screning up the lake and screwing up the propert],
and screwing up the neighbors. Thatrs the bottonr line. you realty, aie andthat rras the fear that ne hail a long tine ago so youtve got to give enoughspace there for the people who buy into the beachlot enough space torecreate rrithout impacting the neighbors. Then !rou're also trlring to linritoveruse. You realll, canrt cram a thousand people into a snrall space. Thoseare the 3 things. Therers some great purposes. Great uses of beachlotsand I've seen them. We've got one on Lotus Lake rrhere the:, jrrst ilid aterrific job of not abusing sonre, several beachlots, of not abusing thenatrrral habitat there. The:' elustered. The:' put docks together and justreall!' fine but an:,oay, Irm sorry to kick that back at :rou but I think....
Olsen: I think thatrs the problenr we've been traving is what the intent is.
Conrad: I think I still remenber so maybe we
notion?
can work that in. Is there a
Ihunings Froved, Ellson seconded to table the Zoning Oritinance Amen6p,",.t1 ao
alrend the Cit:, Code to rrodifl, the recreational beachlot ordinance toclarify lot depth requirenrents. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: Mary Jo, Ra],
coFments.
thank lrou for conring in. We appreciate :rour
Planning Conunission Meeting
Decerrber 5, 1989 - Page 31
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Frnrings rlroved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutesof the Planning Conrnrission nreeting dated Novenber 15r 1989 as presented.
All votetl in favor except TiItr Erhart nho abstained and the notion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: There yrere only 2 iterrs that the City Council considered.Actually I was sick on }londay so I donrt know what they dtd but they
apprgved the preliminar!, plat for uarket Square. It rras realtlz no bigdeal. Ersbo Addition was a little interesting. I raised the iasues that
you had raised here at the Planning Conrrriesion regartling access to hishone. To the back lot and I preparetl an exhibit for them ahowing hoe a
road re had dlscussed wlth you, remember se hail just gotten the maps in,
could colhe in on the nest side of that wetland, loop, thls i6 through the
adjoinlng propertlt to the west. Loop around over their drlvesa:', coBle tothe back part of Ersbo and go back out to Powers. They agreed with that inprlnciple and then cane up with a requirement that at such time as Ersbo
sants to Eubdivide or whenever that road, if the road is built, rheneverthat roail is built to the south, that he has to turn his access around and
he has to elirninate hls existing driveway to Lake Lucy Road and then hookbis holre up to the south. So that I think addresses lrour concerns about
TOi
SI'BJECT '
FRO}I:Steven D.
(?) No dock rhal
unless the beacbl
(b) Area offirst dfor eac
propert
fron be
Planning
Proposed
d 9lanning Commiesion Irleubers
ts to Recreational Bcachlot Ordliaance
Iting code section 20-263 (7) and (131 ae
recrertional baachlot
condlitione :
r alock , aaal
e feet for the
000 sguare feet
te neighboring
eshore owners
paragraph (13)
!
Ihe maximum nunbe
nultiple partieE is a inteasive use of lakorhore tbat roay
B^FED u?or{ Ex"TCrErregJ
(13)AI+ is recognized lby the City tiat the use of lakeahore by
present conflicts r,i
o1{rt
@F*r.{L.", \. I\.L
neighboring ures of lakeshore or the uge
ofllakeshore on the a lake.a AlI beachlott aha1l
sufficient to inaula other property orn.ra frm beachlot
activitles. IhLs buf nay consist of topoEraphy, streFts,
vegetetlon, dl.Btance
combLnationr of feat
ttre purpose of provl
wi,dth or alepth), or other features or
s rhich, in the opialon qf ttrc Clty,
ng a buffer for bcachlot activl,ties.
a Uuffer
!er?e
![o
Eirllr
t,k.
a,/rrl,a^rl
I wou }d propose !e-wr
follors:
(a) Shoreline o
30
(cl A sufficien buffer
dock, and
and
below).+
docks for any boacblot is thtee (3).
v*U*{.
3 I c\t'e h*^'.\
insure appropriatc bu feringl the Clty may require conditions to
Lnsulate beachlot act vities includlng r but not linrlteil to:
de or front yard setbacks for beachr lecks or other allo*eil recreationalactivities,
(a) Increased sareas, dock
equipment o
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
EourE of
ePlantingiof
ErectLon of
StandardE otri"e$ing, p
andl other e
etc. t
IncreaEed w
uPon the inof dwelling
trees and 6brub6 i
fences i
nalntcnaDce ineluding noring andinting and upleep of rackr, docksipoent; disposal of tragh or debris,
(f)dlth, depth or area rcquir.ne$tr basedensity of uac proposedl or the nunbcrhaving riEhts of access.
The City reEelves the i ri ght to i,npose theEe condlitions even aftcr
approval of the beach ot lf the City finde it aecessary batcd
upon conflicts erith
Jakeshore properties
require the beachlot
6DE:mab
er LcaB intcnsive ulies of aolghboring or
$ith the exception that thc City nay not
o be larger after it it agprovedl).
f
2
CIil OF CBAITHASSEN
CARVEN AND EENNEPIN @I'}ITIES, IiINNESOIIA
ORDITTANSE TO.
Itl ORDTIINCE ltGNDrrC CEmTEn 20 0t EEEqEllgEIESEX CIEI GODB, !!Et SOXIUC ORDIttlt{CE,
ool{qEnlrlIo DlcRllltonl. EElCEr.Oas
llhe Clty council of the clty ot Chanhaescn ordalne:
B.ctlo! t.Ssctlon 20-263(71 of the Chanbaaeen clty Code ls
aaended to read:
_ 8.ct!,op 2. Scction 20-263(13) of the Cbanhaaeen Clty Codels aJDended to read! .
AII recreatlonal beacblott aball havo a buffer sufflclent toinsulate other property ourerB frou bc.chlot actr.vitles.Thie buffer tay consict of topoEraDhy, atreeta, vegetation,dlstance (vldth or depth), or othci ieaturee or colnbinatl,onsof f€aturcs rhtch prorrtde a buffer. To Lncule approprlatebuffering, tbe Clty lay llpose condltl.one to lneulalebeacblot astlvltle8 Lncludlng, but not lleitcd to:
lhe naxlan:o nruber of docks on ! llcreatlonal Deaclrlot 18thrce (3). l{o dock chal1 be pcnitted oD any recreatlonalbeachlot unl.aB tbe bcachlot !.Gt8 the tollorl.ng condltions:
(a) Shorcll.nc of at laast 200 f3ct lr.r dock, anA
(b) Area of at teast 30rooo aquare feet for tbc firat dock
and addl.tlonal 20rO0O square feet for each additional
atock.
(a) lncreaeed rlde or front yard setbact.3 for bcach area8,dockc, r- ackr or otbcr al,loved rccrcatl.onal cqulpaent 6ractlvltlea;
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Eour6 of uaei
Plantl.ng of treea and rhnrbt;
I
J$H91998 15:A? FRtI'r ffELL, SCoTT & Fi,h€ rD 875739 P.B
Sr.ctlon of tctrc.3, i
StanAarAE of laintonanoe tncludlng roulnE and trluoinE;palntlng and upkeep of racfa, aoclis and 6theroqulprent; dltposal of tra.tl and Ccbrl,rt j
Incrcaaed yld$r dcptb or ar.a regulrcnenta bascd upontlre- intentl,ty of th. uic proDoB€d -or tbe nuuber of -
drelllngs bavtnE rlght ol acccr.
JnN-49-19Sa 15:A? FRO'I CFi'FBELL ' SCUTT & FiiO€ TO 9375'89 P. e3
To thc extent feasible, ttre City lay hPoEe Eucb condltlons
.ven after apProval of thc beachlot if the Clty flnds it
necessary basEd upon confllcte rlth the use of other
ProP.rtY.
S.ctloD 3. Ttrir ordlnance rball bc offectlve imeAiately
upon 3ffiFage and publlcatlon.
PASSED ll{D ADogfED by the Chanharaen City Council t}rls
-
day ol . 1990.
AETEST:
Don Alhrortb, Clerk /l{anager Donalat J. chniel, xayor
(Publlehed in the ChanlraEaen Vlllagcr on 1990. )
I
)
MEI'TORANDUM
TO: Planning Commi ssion
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: January 10, L990
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CITY OF
EH[I{H[SEEN
6c
SUBJ: Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Dealing with
Neck,,/F1ag Lots and Lot Frontage Requirements
BACKGROUND
During the review of several recent development groposals, staff
became aware of two related problems with the Zoning Ordinance.
The first deals with neck lots anil lots accessed by private drive-ways. The Subdivision Ordinance a1lows up to four lots to be
accessed by private drives ISection 18-57(n)] outsitle the UUSAline subject to certain criteria, but does not provide similarfJ.exibility in serviced areas. The ordinance formerly allo$red upto three homes on private drives anywhere in the City, but this
was deleted several years ago. In any case, the City continuesto receive requests for this type of developnent, most recentLywith the Vineland Forest p1at. The RSF district requires thatall lots nust have a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet, thusprecluding the possibility of developing neck lots or lots served
by private driveway irithout the granting of variances. (A neckor flag 1ot is a lot whose only street frontage is a narrow stripof land J,eading up to the homesite. Typically, the only purposeof the neck is to accommoilate the tlriveway. )
Staff beLieves that there are valid reasons to consiiler
approval of neck lots and lots accessed by private drives. It is
occasionally inappropriate to force construction of a ful1 stan-daril public street. The use of private tlriveways can result in
decreased environmental impact due to their more flexible design.In adtlition, the alevelopment pattern in an area may preclude theoption of constructing a public atreet since it may serve only
one or lwo 1ots. It may be economically unviable to build astreet or a street could impact lots located outside the plat (for
example if a road is run along rear property lines). At the sametime, lots having little or no frontage on a public right-of-way
can provide high quality homesites that are accessed in a mannerthat is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private drives
Planning Conmission
January 10, 1990
Page 2
could also a1low property owners to maximize the utilization
of their Iand. consequently, we are proposing revised ordinance
language that would give the City discretion to aIlow neck lots
and access by private drives. The ordinance is alesigned so that
the City may approve these situations, if certain criteria are
met, without resorting to the need to grant a variance. we
believe the continued reliance on variances to resolve these
situations as done in the past is inappropriate and would compro-
mise the City's ability to exercise the high degree of control
needeti to regulate them. The orilinance lists the situations
where these alternatives may be appropriate, proviiles building
setback standards appropriate to these lots and provitles design
standards to insure that the private driveway is constructed to
acceptable stanilards. The orilinance states that the city council
may a11ow the use of private drives and/or neck lots when it
finds that the following conditions exist:
1. Due to topography and/or the surrounding development pat-
tern the City determines that it is not feasible to
construct a fu11 width public street.
2 The use of a private drive results in enhanced environ-
mental proteetion for wetlands, tree cover antl drainage
ways.
3. The City determines that a public street
subject and adjacent properties will notoption in the future.
serving the
be a viable
4 Use of a private drive minimizes inpact on
cels located outside the p1at.
ailjacent par-
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
Private driveways woulcl be subject
The standarCls include, but are not
to high development standards.limited to the following:
be accessetl by a privateI. No mole thandrive.4 homes are to
Private tlrives serving 2 or more homes must be built to a
minimum 7 ton design, be paved to a width of 20 feet,utilize grailes not exceeding 10$ anil provide a turnarounilarea acceptable to the Fire Marshal .
Private drives must be maintained in good condition.
Covenants outlining respons ibi Ii ties for joint main-
tenance must be f il,ed with the benefitting prope!tsies.
The clriveway must be provided with ilrainage improvements
iletermined to be necessary by the City Engineer.
Street addresses must be clearly posteil irhere the drive-
Iday meets the public right-of-way.
3
4
5
Planning
January
Page 3
Commission10, 1990
The driveway shall be sited to minimize or avoid impacts
upon mature trees and wetlands and sha1l be reasonably
screened from adjoining parcels. The City may require
landscaping improvements to accomplish the screening if
considered necessary.
The driveway must be located within a strip of propertyat least 30 feet ridle or covereil by a permanently
recorded easement granting fu11 rights of use to
benef itting properties.
S ETBACKS
Home setback standards need to be consiilered as an elenent ofthis ordinance. It is not possible tso consistentLy determine
where a lotts front, rear and side Iot lines are when there islittle or no street frontage. Homes on these lots are usually
siteal baseal more upon land features than street orientation.addition, rrhen Lots are platted to the rear of existing lots
having street frontage, adjoining owners may feel that insuf-ficient setbacks would result in intrusions into their private
yard areas. Conseguently' we are proposing the following:
In
6
7
A fu1I 30 ft. front yard setback must be provided. The Citywill determine which Iot line constitutes the front lot lineat the time of platting. The rear lot line shall be oppositeof the front line and a fu11 30 ft. rear yaril required. Side
yard setbacks should be increased from 10 ft. to 20 ft. to
provide addit.ional buffering for adjoining lots. The loca-tion of front, side and rear lot lines should not limit the
iliscretion of the builder to orient the home in whatever
manner is desireil so long as setback standards are met.
The second purpose of this ordinance amendment is to clarify lot
fronEage requirements. The ordinance allorrs the lot frontage on
cul-de-sacs to be measured ats the building setback Line rather
than street right-of-way. The intent of this provision is to
recognize the difficulty of providing 90 ft. at the right-of-way
irith the "pie-shaped" lots that are founil at the end of the cu1-
de-sac.
While the intent of the ordinance is reasonable it does have
problems. It does not state rrhere on a cul--ale-sac the reducedlot frontage applies. It also ignores a related situation whele
there is a diffiuclty in meeting the lot frontage standaral on
lots located on curved street seceions. The standartl rigitl 90
ft. lot frontage works well on grid or straight street sections,
but often results in inefficient lanal utilization on curvalinear
suburban street sections found in a community such as Chanhassen.
LOT FRONTAGE ON CUL-DE-SACS
In the past, staff has frequently made a determination that
cul-de-iac standaril should be applieil to curvalinear streets
avoid variance situations. This procetlure is 1ega11y
questionable but it has become normal operating proceilure.
Planning Commission
January I0, 1990
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommenils that the
ortlinance changes dealing
private drives.
Planning Commission approve proposeai
r^rith neck lots and lots accessed by
the
to
NOTE: A copy of this ordinance has been submitteCl to the Public
Safety commiision for review. This issue has been discussed by
them in the past andl they have indicated a desire to have street
names posted for private alrives. They may also vrish to provide
added language to insure that the ilriveways are maintainetl in a
passable condition. Any recommendations made by the Publ,ic.
Safety Commission will be incorporated into the recommendation
that is forwarded to the City Council.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, II{INNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AT,IENDING SBCTION 20.515 OF TBE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCBRNING LOT RBQUIREUBNTS AND SETBACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-615 entitled Lot Requirements antl
Setbacks shal1 be amended to reail as follows:
(I) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousanal (15,000 square
feet ) .
(21 The minimun lots frontage is ninety (90) feet, exceptthat lots fronting on a cul-de-sac :EqEEE OR ALONG THE
OUTSIDE CURVE OF CURVALINEAR STREET SECTIONS ShAII bEilnetv tgo-'I-?eEE TilTIiiEEaT ffi-EEiTdEg setback line.
Lots Where Frontage ls
Measured At Setback Line
The following minimum lequirements shall be observed in an
'RSF' District subject to adclitional requirements, exceptions and
urodifications set forth in this chapter:
a a a a c LL
t
a t,
I
a
a,,,,j--
--1o
a
a
a
,f
,
(
(3) The minimum 1ot depth Is one hundred twenty-five (125)
feet.
ORDINANCE NO.
I
I
a
,
o
(4) The maximum 1ot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent.
(5) Ihe setbacks are as follows:
t yards, thirty (30) feet.yards, thirty (30) feet.yards, ten (10) feet
FOR FRONT YARD,THIRTY (30) FEET.THE FRONT YARD
SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME TEE
LOT IS CREATED. THE REAR YARD LOT LINE IS TO BE
LOCATED OPPOSITE FROM TIIE FRONT LOT LINE WITE THE
REMAINING EXPOSURES TREATED AS SIDE LOT LINES. ON
NECK LOTS THE FRONT YARD SETBACX SHALL BE II{EASURED
AT THE POINT NEAREST THE FRONT LOT LTNE WHERE TIIE
LOT ACHIEVES A NINETY (90) FT. UINIUUM WTDTH.
a
b
c
(
(
(
fron
rear
s ide
For
For
For
(6) THE SETBACKS FOR LOTS SERVED BY PRIVATE DRIVEI{AYS AND,/OR
NECK LOTS, ARE AS FOLI,OWS:
b FOR REAR YARDS,
FOR SIDE YARDS,
THTRTY (30) FEET.
TWENTY (20) FEET.
Nack , Flrg Lots
l-
J
(7) The maximum height is as follous:
a For the principal atructure, (three (3)stories/forty (tlO) feet.
b For accesgory structures, three
( a0) feet.
(3) stories /forty
Section 2. This ordinance shal1
upon its pEs-age and publication.
LL
be effective imnediately
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L - -J I
I
I
tt-
-2-
Pa
day of
ATTEST:
ssed and adopt ed by the Chanhassen City Council this, 1990.
Don Ashworth, City Clerk,/Uanage! Donald J. Chmiel, Irlayor
(Published in the Chanhassen villager on , 1990)
-3-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE A.ITENDING SECTION 18-57 OF TEE ZONING ORDINANCE
ENTITLED STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1.section 18-57 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance
entitled tStreets" sha1l be ameniled by adding the following new
section:
(N) UP TO FOUR (4) LOTS MAY BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
IF THE CITY F'INDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO EXIST:
( 1) THE PREVAILING DEVELOPIIIENT PATTERN MAKES IT
UNFEASIBLE OR INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC
STREET. LOCATIONS OF' EXISTING HOMES,PROPERTY
LINES AND POTENTIAL FUTURE HOII{E SITES MAY BE
CONCLUDED THAT AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC STREET
SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED TO SERVE OTHER PARCELS IN
THE AREA, III{PROVE ACCESS, OR TO PROVIDE A STREET
SYSTEM CONSISTENT WITH THE COI{PREHENSIVE PLAN.
(3)THE USE OF A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY WILL PERMIT ENHANCED
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND MATURE TREES.
IF THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE ALLOWED, THEY
sHar,r, eE sueJeEr-Eo-THa ror,lowrlrc s-refrEehos:
-( 1) PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING TWO ( 2 ) OR MORE HOMES
I{UST BE BUILT TO 4 SEVEN (7) TON DESIGN, PAVED TO A
WID?H OF TWENTY (20)FEET, UTILIZE A MAXIMUT4 GRADE
OF IOI, AND PROVIDE A TURNAROUND AREA ACCEPTABLE TO
THE FIRE !4ARSHAL. PLANS FOR THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. UPON COMPLETION OF
THE DRIVEWAY THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
SUBMIT A SET OF I'AS-BUILT' PLANS S'ENED BY A
REGISTERED ENGINEER.
(2) PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS II{UST BE UAINTAINED IN GOOD
CONDITION AND PLOWED AS NEEDED. COVENANTS
CONCERNING MAINTENANCE SHALL BE FILED AGAINST ALL
BENEFITTING PROPERTIES.
( 3 ) THE DRIVEWAY UUST BE PROVIDED WITH DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE CITY
ENGINEER.
( 4 ) STREET ADDRESSES MUST BE POSTED AT THE POINT WHERE
THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY INTERSECTS THE PUBLTC
R IGHT-OF-WAY .
CONSIDERED.
(2) AFTER REVIEWING THE SURROUNDING AREA IT IS
(5) THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMTZE III{PACTS
UPON ADJOINING PARCELS .THE CITY MAY REOU I RE
REVISED ALIGNMENTS AND LANDSCAPING TO MINIMIZE
I MPACT .
( 6 ) THE DRIVEWAY MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A STRIP OF
PROPERTY AT LEAST THIRTY (30) FEET WIDE EXTENDING
OUT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR COVERED BY A
rHrnET?50t-Ft.w-rDE-nasrurnrrriar-rsprnuEneFrr,y
RECORDED OVER ALL BENEFITTED AND IMPACTED PARCELS.
Section 2. Section 18-57(n) as it reads before this amend-
ment sha1l be relabeled to Section 18-57(o).
Section 3. This ordinance shal1 be effective immed i ate 1y
upon its passage and publication.
Passed antl adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of ,1990.
ATTEST:
Don Ashrdorth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Irlayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 1990 )
-2-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS ION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 3, L99g
Chairn,an Conrad called the nreeting to order at 7:30 p.r!,..
COI,IMI S S ION }IEMBERS
Ladd Conrad, Br j. an
STAFF PRESENT: PAIT I
Planner ; and Sharr,in
PRESENT: Tirr Erhart, Steve Er,r,ings, Annette Ellson,BatzIi, Jim Wilderrr,uth and Joan Ahrens
Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, SeniorAl-Jaff, Planning Intern
Prrbl ic Present:
Nar,e Address
6575 Pleasant VieYJ Wav
6745 AF,herst
365 Pleasant view
5507 Horseshoe Curve
6605 Horseshoe Curve
Sharnrin A1-Jaff presented the staff report.
Conrad: You didn't go through the recorrutendation. BasicalIy staff has a
reconr,endation of 8 points here. Ma]rbe rrer 1l cover those lateE. Qulckqrrestion bef ore we open it up f or coFrr,ents. The outlet that I s recot'ryrended,
and Irnr asking this because I think werre all goj.ng to have the saF'e
coF'r,ents on that. what rights does that outlot have PauI? As a 15 foot
reide, 20A f oot strip, what r:ights does that give sor',ebody?
Krauss: virtually none. Itrs not large enough to be a recreational
beachlot so therers no dockage priviledges that are attached to it. Itrs
real11' an anor',aLy, that the lot we're working with tonight had a ver:t
strange configuration which is essentialllt a tail of right-of-wa!, that rras
draped onto it. It reall!, had no purpose. when we looked at the plat, we
tried to deterrr'ine whether or not we should accept dedication of all of it
and then vacate it again because we had no need for that outlot area. That
tail of right-of-way up to that orrtlot serves a Purpose. Itrs either
right-of-wa]r that yrould be attached to Pleasant view Road. and used for that
or attached to Horseshoe Curve but that area thatrs orrtlined in red has nopublic purpose at all and it nould be severed f r olrr the r',a in parcel by this
action. B]' our taking the right-of-way that we do need. In talking to the
propertl, owner, thel' wish to r,aintain ownership of it slr,Ply because ltgives thenr, they hrould be the bu!'er of Lot 2. It gives ther, the right to
walk down to the lake on their Propert]t. They r'a:, want to launch a canoe
froFr there. Reall:, nothing else and nothing else could be done. rn order
to lnsure that itrs not significantly disturbed as a condition of aPProval
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIHINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.2 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 2.S8
AND .79 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED BETWEEN PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
AND LOTUS tAKE, 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, ROBERT SATHRE.
AIan & Carol LenhartStuart Hoarn
Robert sathre
John Daniel son
Ron Harvieux
PIanning
Janua r:t
Con,r',i ss i on Meeting
3, L99g - Page 2
that lir,it tree crrtting on the outlot and rrould
approval. So reall], the frrndar,ental uses of it
Conrad 3 we'II open it up for public cotrrrents.
the floor and talk abou\ this or would ltou likereport in any way?
reqtr i r e grading pern,it
are ver], r.,inir,al .
Bob, worrld
to react to
Iike to have
staff!'o u
the
Bob Sathr e :I guess it
lrou readConrad: Have
the!' said?
Krauss: Right nohr :rourthe public r ight-of-ray.
take title to this whole
what it is at this point.
staff report and :tout re cortrfortable with what
is
the
Bob Sathre: Yes I have.
Conrad: CoF,for tab I e?
Bob Sathre: Yes.
Conrad: Other coFa,ents.
Krauss: Yes it does. WeIl actuall]r right now it goes over this lot. Irn,not sure how your driveway exlsts right noe.
Ron Harvieux: Irnr veryr unsure how lt
issues.
exists on that n,ap. Thatrs one of n1,
d r i veway
what rre
section
crosses a
I re doingof publ ic
tail of this propert], to get to
b:, this action is werre golng otright-of-way. Cal1 it Horseshoe
Ron Harvieux: Mv naFre is Ron Harvieux. I live al 66A5 Horseshoe Curve
which is the, I think it's called the exception lot there. It's the lot
directly to the east, northeast of that red orrtlot. Yep, thatrs it. Thank
Itou. I gtress fii], coFrrents have to do prir',aril1z with it. The rest of Lot 2,
up on Horseshoe Cllrve is not at issrre with I',e and qrr lte frankl:, Irnr not
sure hrhat issue I have with the area outlined in red. I feel probler,edl
because onl:' toda!, did I find orrt about tbe fact that part of thissubdivision included that red line. I r,a], be r,istaken but the notification _we received for the Decenber 6th Planning Cor',t',ission which rdas, I grressthis issue was not discussed then, but I belleve the notification that I
received onl:, outlined the area at the top. That is Lot 2 and there was nooutlot rrrentloned or if there lras, I Frust adn,it I r,isread or rrrisconstrlred.In fact it vrasn't until toda:/ that nr}, wife up at Citlr HaIl got a packet ofpaper that outlined the fact that outlot red is going to be involved.. I
have sor'e concerns becarrse I believe the passagewalz, the access to outlotred, IrF, not a lawyer but I'd sure like to talk to one becarrse Itrl,
concerned about sorre issrres here. I believe the passagewa:, to that outlotred goes over what I thlnk is rty driveway. Not Fr], driveway. A drivewaythat I use to get to r,:t hor,e. I'rt not sure rrhat the legal issues are andwhat happens if sorreone trapsing down to Outlot red, I trrean I jlrst donttknorr. I donrt know rrhatrs there. Right about in there is part I think ofthe driveway that services and then from there, does that touch HorseshoeCurve right there?
Planning Con,n ission ueeting
Janrrarw 3, ]-99g - Page 3
Curve so then ]rou will have direct frontage
donrt appear to have at this tiFre.
ona public street which yrou
Ron Harvieux: I guess that appears to be
again I don't know if this is exactly theIrIl ask the question. One of the issuesthen of the drivewa!, that currentl:, I andproposal? What is it?
Krauss: You would have a
pern,isslble.
drivewal' located in public tight-of-way which is
Ron Harvieux: Anal whoid responsible for any upkeep or an:t
Krauss: You are.
kind of . . .
Ron Harvieux: So I ar' responsible for sor,eone froFr Lot 2 going to thepublic lake access and red outlot over that clriveway?
Krauss: Your drivewawr which is now constructed over private propert]r,yrorrld becor,e located in prrbl ic r ight-of -rra]r. An:'bod:r in the pubt ic hasright to rrse that right-of-way for access. PresrrF,eably if they hrantealtake a canoe down to the lake, thel' would corre dovrn the public sectionof Hotseshoe Curve and then r,ake a trail or sor,ething down through the
woods to get down to the lake.
the
to
Ron Harvierrx: I rrnderstand what lrourre saying. I guess I still wouldsurely like to have sonreone clariflt it for r,e. Irrr not trl,ing to chaltenge
what lrou're saying. I'd just like to have clarification as to what that
t\eans to r',e legalIy. If Irnr responsible for shoveling that drivewal' off. I
rr€6n I just dontt know. I don't know what's going to happen on that piece.
This is kind of a new deal for r,e toda:, so I guess what I irt reall}, here todo is I'd like to ask the Planning Cor'rrission to allow nre the opportrrnitltto take the packet of infornation which now exists and seer,s prett!' clear I
guess brrt I just kind of tried to start consrrr,ing it. I don't know if Irve
done that verl' adequatell, right nohr as evidenced b!, this right here and IrdIike to have the chance to look at it and share it with sorreone who cantell n,e where r,y rights are because I art concern about what happens to thatdriveway. This is kind of a ilifferent cut of cloth frorr, h,hat I thorrght iras
going to happen here. So those are rr'!/ coF'rr,ents.
Ew,ings. can I just ask a qrrick qrrestion? Talking about shoveling the
drlvewalr and r,aintenance and things, whors doing it now?
Ron Harvierrx: I or the fella sitting here.
Errrtrrings: So if you continue to do it, nothing woulil change it sounds like.
Ron Harvieux: The onl:, thing that would change grould be who's passing over
lt and rrhat F,:r legal, yeah. Thatis right. I wouldnrt do anythingctifferently I don't think. Iid just like to know whatrs involved for r',e.I also just really would like to have, just kind of in general, tir'e to
the case. One of nr!, and
forw, to get an ansuer or not butis that what is the legal statrrs
n,y neighbor share as of this
react to vJhat Irve seen
ar,bience if you rrill of
here becarrse it certainl:, does irtpact a part of the
Conrad: Thanks.Anw otber conm,ents?
John Danielson: M]r name is John Danielson. I live at 66A7 Horseshoe
Curve. I'Fr on the other side of the parcel that werre talking about andlike Ron Harvieux, I didnrt know until 6:00 tonight that this r',eeting was
even going to happen. I havenrt had tiFre to review anl'thing. I ilonrt even
have a cop1, of it :tet. I was loaned a copl' at 6290 and one of thequestions that I did have as I read that was that the property appears tobe able to be further subdivided. Nor{ what kind of useage rlould that place
on that strip, the access strip to the lake, how nrany parcels could the
Iand be subdivideil? Is it r',ore than 1 or 2?
Krauss: WeIl letrs take it one at a ti!,e. Both of the Lots aretheoreticall!, large enough to be subdivideit. The Cit!, requires L5.ggg
sgrrare foot lots. Lot 2r which is the sn,aller one, is 33,ggg square feet.
Depending upon where thelr put the horrel if thel' put a horre as illustratedright sr,ack in the r,iddle of a lot, it would not be possible to srrbdivideit. Lot 1is quite a bit larger witn. 9A166O square feet and istheoreticall]t also frlrther srrbdivisible. Horrever, a lot of the square
footage is in that arr, that extends out to the street and is occupied bythe driveway. We think thelt can get sonre additional lots out of there butthelt're not proposing it at this tirte. Also, those Lots nould take
variances under crrrrent statutes because the!, probabl]r $rould not havefrontage on a prrblic right-of-way and it would be up to the Cit!' Council to
approve that to technically speaking, those Iots are not going to be,probably are not going to be subdivisible without variances.
John Danielson: But it could be, it sounds like...rrp to 6 or so lots?Irve knoh,n Bob as a neighbor for years and I certainl:, donrt want torestrict. It's his propert]t. He owns it. What I'rr, prir.,ari11r concernedabout is how r,rrch activitlz there will be next to rqe. You indicated rtinir,al
useage with a canoe perhaps. One canoe, nobody can coFrplain about onecanoe or a sailboat r,oored out there. Six, you know thatrs a differentstor:/. How about swir,r',ing rafts? Floats? Things like that. We see thelake and itrs population densit]' now. We see the nuF,ber of boats that areon it already. I rrr' concerneil about safet!, and Itrr concerned about rtr], ownprivacy. Werve bad the luxury of having that strip for !,ears separatingour ProPerties and in the suFrrrer !7ou canrt even see one another. It|sbeautiful. Werd like to keep it like that. I guess rr,:' rtessage is that Ialso would like sor,e tinre to think about this if it,s possible. I donrtknow. You know 6:90 until 7200 or 7:15 wasntt adequate. Hoer rras ther,eeting publ ici zed?
Krauss: There rras a r,ailed notice that went out for the originaland I believe we probabl:r, Jo Ann, did we renotif], for the dela:r?get a nrailed notice fronr us? It should be on the n,ailing llst.
back a r,onth or so
tabled or whatever
r,eeti ng
Dld you
ago roughly
and we
John Danielson: Not this week. We got one
and we were told that that meeting had been
havenrt heard anltthing about it since then.
Planning Cono,ission l.teeting
Janrrar], 3, L99g - Page 4
Planning Cor.,rt ission Meeting
Januar], 3, l99g - Page 5
Olsen: we rrsrrally will send out another hearing...
John Danielson: Did 1'ou get a notice Ron?
Ron Harvieux: I donrt
thought different f rort
Krauss: No.
sent out was
that we use.that f i nger
surve]t tha t
all one tax
Ron Harv ienx:
probler, at aII
issue with.
think I did...this one?
Was the first r.reeting or the first
What was different though is, the n.eeting notice that rrassent out based upon the County half section r'ap. PIat r'aps
The plat nraps that we used, the haLf section r,aps don't showof ProPert!'. That finger of propert]' showed up on the actual
was subr,itted to us. It iras always part of the sar'e lot. It'sparcel. It just didnrt show up on our rrap.
I grress for r,e, thatrs a drar',atic difference. I have
rrith Lot 2. Itrs the red thing potentiall], could have
no
an
John Danielson: Itrs just that finger, yeah. I think it concerns us both.
Conrad: Thanks. Anv other con,rrents?
Ellson rtroV€d 7 Wilden,rrth seconded to close the public hearing. Al1 votedin favor and the niotion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I think I't'r starting to understand this. I probabl:r got Frore out
of the conversation than I did by, trying to read the historlt. Itrs a torrgh
one. Let nre ask you this. On Pleasant View or next to the red, lrhatis now
tern'ed the red outlot, where you have called Batdur Avenue. what is that
toda:,? Is that dh €ds€rr€nt?
Krauss: Actrrall:, therer s an existing platted right-of-way called Baldur
Avenue thatts 15 feet wide. vlhat purpose it had and whlz it dead ended in
the lake I couldnrt tell :rou because we canrt figure it out. This tail of
Iand frorr, this tax parcel was evidentall:, intended to be dedicated for
right-of-wa], down to the lake. we donrt believe we need that right-of-way
for any public purpose and therefore couldntt see the point in accePting
dedication of it or reqrriririg dedication of it. In fact, the other 15 feet
of Baldur Avenue could be vacated if we got a request fror'. sor'.ebod!, to do
so.
Erhart: WeLI for the benefit of ever]rbod]r. Okalz. So lre still have,
thatrs a street easement or a right-of-walr?
Krauss ! Itis a right-of-wa1'.
Erhart: So by nraking Outlot A, teire onllt actually doing half of what :touthlnk, half of rrhat yrerre attempting to do.
wer re not cor,pound ing thethe blue side.,of it as rrell
probler,, r ight .if we received a
As I sa!t, we
reqrlest to do
co rr 1d
so.
Krauss 3
vaca te
Planning Cor.ut ission Meeting
Januar!, 3, !999 - Page 6
Erhart: You cannot think of
foot right-of-wa], right down
Krauss: No. What we have along
that Sharr'in discussed which runsthat|s soFreplace in that area.
reason wh]r r.re I d Trant to have a 30
edge ?
is we have a sanitary sewer
and we have a purrp station
an
to
y poss ible
the lake
the la ke
through
her e
he re
Erhart: So part of the conditions is that they provide an easement overLot I and Baldur Avenue?
Krauss: Right.
Erhar t : Can lrou shor., that one on the Frap PauI ?
John Danielson: What !,our re looking at there is a ravine, kind of a swa1e.Itrs on a fairly steep hiJ.lside anal it's a natural place erhere the watertypically runs off doi{n to the lake.
Krauss: The sanitary sevrer that was installetl runs along the lakeshore
through here so while rce're willing to accept the outlot status on OutlotA, we want to take an easeF,ent ov€r soFr€thing like that to protect ourrights to have that sanitar]t seerer in there. The other easetrrent h,er re
taJ.king about is soFre titrre ago when this lift station rsas installed, this
easer,ent that was drawn up over the driveway that exists on the propert]r toallow orrr rr,aintenance crehrs to get dorrn there and that is in fact howthe]r've been serving this propert], since it was first put in. we know theeaser'ent sas drafted. Werre not sure that the easeFrent iras ever filed andwhat werre trying to do tonight ls just basically rectif], that error in thepast and put it in concrete.
Erhart: Alright. So therers no
or Outlot A to the...
reason to get access through Baldur Avenue
Krauss: No. In fact itts
for us to go donn that ira:r.
heavily treed and it would be prett!' distuptive
Batzli: PauI, doesnrt the report
Avenue was already vacated? Just
Krauss: It i{as? We did vacate that?
John Danielson: I read that inreall:, know what that r,eans.
sa:, that the westerly half of Baldurto clarify that.
the report. I question that also. I don't
Etr.ings: Unless !iou've got it vacated, it must be :rours now.
John Danielson: 15 lrears ago I did appl:r rrith theand at the tir'e thelt rrere llnsure as to lrhat theirand the!, denied ri]' request.
City to have it vacatedfuture plans were for it
Krauss: Sharrrin said she found
vacation but it still, shows rrpfiled.
tha t i{as srrppor t i ve of the
Brap so evidentally lt wasnrt
a docur,ent
on the plat
Planning Corm,ission Meeting
Januar]t 3, l99g - Page 7
Ellson: Itrs like a housecleaning job here.
Batzli: Stuff not being filed.
Er,mings: If the rest half wasnrt vacateal, hos could an:rbod]r own the easthalf? Thatrs nhat I donrt understand. Things are getting kind of loose
here but I donrt understand hon someone could own the east half if the uest
half uasn't vacated.
Krauss: The east half was aLways private propert!,. It was never dedicated
to the Ci t!,.
Erhart: The east half was owned b1z this guy.
Err,r..ings: So the east half never was right-of-rralr?
Krauss: No.
Erarings: onl], the l,est half?
Krauss: Right. They accepteal the dedication of a half street. Yeah, ver!,
unusual. Irve never seen anlrthing llke it.
Erhart: I iras beginning to feel self-conscience that I rras the onl]' gu!'
having a hard tirr,e understanding this. Okay, I think Iive got that now.
Er'rrings: But then it doesn't r,ake sense to talk about as the west half
because it's just Baldur Avenue.
Erhart: Regarding directions, I have another problerr on condj.tion 1. It
seerrrs where yJe use tbe terrr easterl!, edge of Lot 2, what I think you r,ean
there, isn't it better described as northerl.y edge?
Krauss: Northerl]r.
Erhart: WeIl, ot hoe about northeasterl:r corner or solr,ething?
Err'mings: It can t t be east.
Batzli: Itrs nor th,/nor theaster I!'.
Erhart: Driveua!, access easerrrent over Lot 1, Block 1, thatrs the one we
thought we had but werre nos going to tr:7 to catch it. Itrs over an
existing driveway. Is that clear?
Krausa: The srrrveyor, Attachtient 1, the surveyor gave uJ a descriPtion of
where the existing easerrent uas suPPosd to be. I,le donit have a
transparency of it but if ]rou look through !,our Packet, You'll find that in
there .
Erhart: We're talking, in lten 4, werre talking about a tree preservation
plan. Go on to say that clearcutting of trees of { lnch caliper or larger
shall be prohibited." I guess r,:t question ls not referring to this
Plannlng Cor,nrission Meeting
Januarlt 3, L99g - Page I
Erhart: How Frany feet is that? L,ggg feet. Okay. I guess I don't have aprobler', with it here. I think we keep adding things. Now werre adding tobe rrrarked by snowf ence. I rFr concerned on thls whol,e tree, as r.rrrch as Ilike trees as n,uch as an1'body. Irtr, concerned as a group werre treadingever so closely to telling soneboily lf the:, can plant or cut a tree ontheir Propert]r. Just as a thought. Again, rde go down on 8. I guess IrIr,more cop,fortable with that one because thatrs right next to the lake.Thatrs all the questions I had.
F'rrings: I've still got soFe confusions about this.the top of page 3 in the discussion in our packet itapplicant wishes to retain ownership to provide r',eanslakeshore and thatrs what the], rrant the OutLot A for.that the orrner of Lot 2 will own Orrtlot A?
Iid like to ask, at
sa:rs that theof accessing the
So do I under stand
particular subdivision but I guess over the last couple of years we keeptreailing on tr:,ing to prohibit subdevelopers frorr clearcutting withouttrying to invade on peopJ-ers rights to use their propert], and L-eFrove treesif that's what the:' want to do. Norr ire have a situation where essentiall],
we have one lot. Werre not directing this at, are we directing this at asubdeveloper or are we directing it at the fellow who owns ttris lot?
Krauss: It's directed at whonever would buil.d on it and own it, ]res.Werve had sir,ilar stipulations attached to indivj.dual lots and largersubdivisions. I thlnk Trapper I s pass eas one, just to the northeast ofhere has several of those lots.
Olsen: The shoreland lots.
Krauss: Thatis true, it is a Ehorelandl lot ae well.
Erhart! what, this one is?
OIsen: ...under the Shoreland Ordinance prohibits clearcutting...
Erhart: Yourre sa:ring that therers a State lar.
Olsen: That clearcutting sithin the shoreIand...
Krauss: Yes.
Et'ttrings: O!"y. Then it salrs the propert]r using the drivewalr for accesscan be subtlivided in the future. Noi, r think yourre there talking aboutthis gentrerranrs property back here. The one thatrs rlght next to outlotA, is that right? And it says in order to prevent thes6 ;Iots fron belnglandlocked, hot would that happen? I don.t understand that.
Krausss Keep in rrrind that this very unrrsuallv configured lot actuall:,cor'es doirn like this right norr. As we read the surve:r, this parcel his nofrontage on a pubtic right-of-way. It's actually a lindrocked parcel right
lotr. B!, our taking the dedicatlon of this segrtrent of street and aaaing itto Horseshoe Curve r ight-of-walr.
Errn ings: yourve giving him frontage?
Krauss: Right.
Er'F ings : Okay.
Under lot depth
And the bottor, of that
therer s just a nrisprint
saFe Page, ln your table there.under Lot 2 is that right?
Krauss: Yeah.
Krauss: Thatrs right. Whatrs shown on there is schen,atic and the honre
cou Id be an:rirhere .
Enrn,ings: On the recoF[tendatlons it sa]rs the driveway access tobe located to the far easterly edge of Lot 2 and I thonght thatTirr was getting at. I dontt understand that at all.
Lot
was
2 would
what
Er,n,ings: Oh fine. A1rigtrt. I rr,isseal that. Sorr:, everybod!'. Letrs see,
easer,ents required. Reflect the existing sanitarlt serrer and then (b)
easer,ent (b) there. Drivewa!, access easement over Lot I, Block 1. Thatrsin favor of the Citlz is that right?
Eo,ings: I think it should sa:' that. Now I want to talk about Outlot A
and Baldur Avenue. Contrarlr to irhatrs in the report where rre have a Balilur
Avenue uith an east and rrest half, do I understanil now that yout re telling
us that BaLdur Avenue is only erhat werve been talklng about as the west
half?
Krauss: Onllt the nest half exists.
Er,r,ings ! And how far does it go fror, the lake?
Ktauss: It goes op io Ho."eshoe Crrrve.
Planning Cor',r',i ss i on Ueeting
Januarlr 3, ]-99g - Page 9
Etfirings: Is that srrpposed to be 289? Just so I,rt reading it right. Isthat ehat hras lntended there? Werre talking about the depth of that Lot 2.Okay. And is the reason that under Lot 2 under the next three colurrrns thatitrs not applicable is because therets been no plan for a house right nowor shat?
AI-Jaff: The site is heavily rrooated so !,ou really dontt get very wellvlsibility and with the way the street curves, :rou donrt see an!, carscorting. If rre shift the driveway further to the north, then lt would allowbetter visibility.
Enrrr,ings: It says to the east the walr I read it.
Erhart: We just changed it.
Etr,ings: Oh, did :rou already change that?
Al-Jaff ! Yes.
Krauss: Cor rect .
Planning CoFa,ission Meeting
Jannar!, 3, L99g - Page I0
A1-Jaff: Except for the 22q.
Err'[.ings: No, that 22A feet is not Baldur Avenue.
Krauss: Steve, I think the confusion to s or,e
slrrvelt we received ldhere the surve:ror Iabeled
assurr,ing that we would accept it or take it as
con,plete 30 foot right-of-way. Yourre right.
Baldur Avenue that rrer re taking there. Itrs a
2.
extent cor,es about frorrr the
the outlot Bal,dur Avenueright-of-way and rt ake the
Yourre correct. It is notportion of the site. Of Lot
Et'n,ings: Well, itrs not. I canrt tell that fror. looking,tell that fror, looking at the plat because it would appearbeing designated as an outlot which nreans itrs not part ofLot 2. Itrs an outlot.
at least I canr tto II,e, itrsLot l or part of
Krauss: That would be the case into flip back to AttachFent A.
the future, right. If lrou would refer
Erhart: I think the confusion here is the terrr Horseshoe Curve isnit it?
Thatrs a separate confuslon. Now
Page .
EFa'ings: Wel1, that's also await a n,inute. Let's aII get
confusion.
on the saF,e
Ellson: At tachrr,ent I?
Krauss: AttachFent 1. Irtrr sorry. On Attachrr,ent 1 you see the existingproperty and along Pleasant View, the propert:, is platted out to the centerIine of Pleasant View. You'll see, if :rou extend that on around, thereis atail to that lot that goes all the way ilown to the lake, adjacent to BaldurAvenue, around that offsteep ladled propert!'. B:, our taking the right-of-ira:, that we feel we need for Pleasant View and for Horseshoe, that rill
beconie a free standing parcel. It will no longer have any frontage or an:,connection to the balance of the site. Hence the outlot designation
Errr'lngs: r donrt have any probler, with that and r iFr not trlring'to gulbbrewith you. I want to r,ake sure that lf werre going to put s or,e conditlonson this thing, first of aII I think the subdivlsion is fine. Irve got no
Problerrr with that. I irant to F,ake srrre that werre not creating anyconfusions by uslng language that seerred to be right given the-inf6rrr,atlonwe were given in this report and it turng out to be all wrong. Letrs goback to outlot A.
Krausss Possibl], it tould be better if we measured it, insteadr'easuring it frorr, the north, which is whatrs done here and itrsif we n,easured the outlot frorr the lakeshore going to the north.
of
confusing,
Erarings: And ends? Okay. Then condition 6 doesn't r,ake sense. To r,e it
sa!,s the final plat will reflect the dedication of Baldur evenue and thatrswrong. An. I r ight?
Planning
Januar],
CoFo,ission Meeting3, l99O - Page 11
Eltdr'ings: Why do you have to nreasureA. Why not just call it Outlot A?take out that first sentence in 6.
be rewr i tten .
ir
why
Itrs
j ust
at aII?
don i t ire
on the plat
Salr, )tOU I ve
as Outlotgot to
Batzli: I rrn sorrlr,
Er'n'ings: 6 has to
Batzli: What does
why donrt rre just take out 6?
it have to be in there for? Itrs on the plat.
Krauss: I could clarif1,, yeah. We got the surve:, that shorrs Outlot A lastweek after the staff report was written. Thatrs wh1, therers the confusion.
Ero,ings. Okay. So 6 has to be striken. Atright.
Krauss: And replaced rrith outlot A. No, it doesnrt have to be repraced.
Erorings: I think that ire should, I noticed I read our B],-Iaws. I do thisannuarry before this first r,eeting ln the year. I didn'i have a lot to dotoda!' so I read the B:r-lahrs. It sa]rs we cin leave the record open forwritten coF[rrents if we choose or r ionrt know. r canit ren,en,bei if itrs atlzour discretion or whatever but Fraybe that wourd fit the birr for thesegentrenren who hrould live on eittrer side of thls outrot A. rf we couldleave. the record open for written coFfrrents. rf they had a coupre of weeksto get in their confirents and then tbose could go wiitr whatever-we do withthis to the Cit!' Council so at least :rou get a chance to speak their peace.
Conrad: Wer ve never done that. Itrs in the B:r_lairs?
Enfi,ings: yes. The onry other thought r had was that r just sonder ifthere should be sor,e restrictions in this subdivision apiroval to ,,ake itPerfectl!' clear to anybody who owns Outlot A that the1, iin't have araunching pad for docks. - swirto,ing docks. Donrt have'a place to put canoeracks or anything eIse. r think it,s crear that under o'ur fresentordinances none would ever be alrowed but if itrs right in ihere, r thinkitrs a good idea to put there explicitedllz.
Batzri: vlhy erourdntt it be arrowed in our current ordinance if thehon,eowner of Lot 2 wanted to lauch tris canoe from his outlot?
Er,r,ings: rrd have to go through this. rive looked at this in the past onother ones. I thlnk lrou canrt have an accessory uae. you knoo all ofthose things are accessor:, uses. I think this is the rra:, it goes and paul
Probabllr-can correct rne- if Irrrr wrong. you can have an accessory, use on a.parcel sithout there being a principle use so since you oan never build ahouse. on there, you could onl1, have-those thlngs as iccessor!, to theprinciple use of a residence. Since lrou cantt have a resldencee lou cilhr thave the accessor]r uses.
Wildernuth: Or it has to qualify as a beachlot.
a beachlot.Ertr,ings: Unless it can be
Pl.anning Cor,n ission Heeting
Januar:/ 3, l99g - Page 12
Batzli: So :rourre saying that he canrt have a raft, weII he rright be able
to have a raft depending on sor,ething else, but he canrt have a dock and he
canlt have, store his canoe there but he would be able to walk ovet the
property and launch his canoe?
Err,ings: Yeah.
Conrad: Anlrthing else Steve?
Er,ftrings: No.
Conrad: Annette.
Ellson: IrIl try to be brief after those trro.
Er'nrings: Wel l , pardon nie.
Ellson: I guess I iras just a Iittle concerned because of so r',any are
through and I think our loopholes that it has to be a hardship, Irtt
conceined that it easil1' would be one and sortethlng like this where t
only, one F.rajor access anal aII of a sudlden werre clustering in the way
rrant.
going
EIIson: Just giving yorr a hard tin,e. I shared John Danielsonr s concern
about the subdividing the other lots. rn the analltsis !'ou talked about Lot
1 could be split but the staff is in the Process of developing ordinance
revisions that's going to ctaxiftt the issue. can ltou exPound on that?
Kfauss: sure. since the faII ire've had a nurtrber of situations where neck
lot sltuations have been approved. Variances have been given but there was
no clear direction on how to handle these things. wetve also had son,e
sitrrations, not so recently that I can recall, but where te've useil Private
drivewayrs io access properaies that r',ight otherwise be unaccessible. Each
tir,e we said that whlt se'd like to do is con,e back to :'ou with a set of
policies and recoF,lrended ordinance changes that will provide sor,e guldance
ior dealing with these things. Probabl:' what we wirl be suggesting are
standards b1t which variances could be authorized for neck lot and no
frontage situations. so as we pointed out' right now this reguires a
varianie to be aPProved. In the future it either lrro}, hot require a
variance or it r',i1, have standards that if these lots meet, that a variance
could be authorized. But at this point that would be a r€colt{rrendation frorr
us to :rou. It can always be denied.
herers
we
Krauss: One of the
uP to 4 hor,es to be
doesnr t allow any.
po ints
served
of confusion is the subdivision ordinance alloers
off a private driveway. The RSF dlstrict
Iega1l1,. Can we? Not if ire
nice to control but we're not
so thatrs Part of that you're
Bob Sathre: vle lrould accept the condition rrhere the lots irouLd not be
further subd iv ided.
Ellson: I don't knoe, if we can even do that
allow 151000 square feet and stuff. It'd be
allowed to do that I"dontt think. But oka]',
PLanning Cor',rr,ission Heeting
January 3, l99g - Page 13
talking about. Just the ordinance. Overala rule of thup,b as to, it seen,s funn:, thatgoing to be allowed when the whole idea isquestion. I already asked r'!r other questio
paper street and I was a little concerned tcorrld put a street through that steep thingrrhatever but I seeF, to be consoled that thasteve that we should r,ake it a point ln thethat they're not going to be able to have athat. Therers rran! a person who cor,es hereland the:' were allowed to do what have !,ouour ordinances but aLso have it with thit pany nistaking that. Nothing further.
I ordinance revisions. uore of
lrou'd sa1, okay now a variance isnot to allow ther''. That was onen. I never heard the phrase
hat soFredalt sorreone actua 1I r/
again for-a boat launch ortis not a problen. I agree with
docuFrents wherever possible
dock there and things like
and says rrhen they borrght this
and if ne not only have it iniece of propert:,, there wonrt be
Batzri: Two questions. one is after r said retrs derete nur,,ber 6. Thequestion I have, Steve lrou probabl!, know the answer to this. Even thorrghitrs shosn on the prat, do lou norrrarr! Sa! sorrething in the conditionsthat right-of-wa1, for instance for streets and such ire going to bededicated to the Cit:, or recorded or an]rthing like that?
Ellson: In favor of the Citlr?
Etrrr,lngs: We can I t delete 6 and I real i zed that af ter but whatdo is we have to have, lt seerrs to tt,e there has to be a thingthe plat will show, we still have to get this piece fror, thishere dedicated to the Cit], and 6 has to say thit.
Batzli: So ]rourre working on that?
Etur,lngs: Yeah. Theyrve got to call for the legal descriptionpiece and get it in there under number 6.
Batzri: T!: other question r had is just nurr,ber 4. The tree preservationplan. I didnrt hear if that was sor,ehow changed by Tim but the questionis, can :'ou get a grading perrr,it bef ore lrou get a Luilding perr,iie
Krauss3 Yes, if a condition exists that sa!'s that lrouprobabl:, another, every tirrre we scratch at ihis we getthe grading ordinance is one that the City Englneer isPlanning to revise as well. We have put this kind ofseveral recent approvals to require a grading perrt,it.
Batzli: That eras r.*7 question was should it be a building and/or grading,rhichever comes first kind of a deal.
Krauss: That would be fine. That would be acceptable.
Batzli s Those were the onl!, trro guestions I had.
wildernruth: The subdivision looks appropriate.
se€nrs that outlot A is unflnished business. Itshould be taken b], the Cit), and then vacated inproperty owners.
we have toin there tha tline down to
for that
can. Our grading,
another issue butworking wi tha condition on
I donrt
seems asfavor of
like, it just
though OutIot Athe adj acent
Planning Cor,r',i ss i on Meeting
Januar!' 3, L99g - Page 14
Er'rrrings: You t ve got to pay f or it.
Wildern,uth: It just looks untidy.
Conrad: The Cit:, would have to bu]t it.
Irlildern,uth: Right. Because they donrt have a planned use for it.
Conrad: Right.
Wilderrr,uth: No intention to put a street in.
Conrad: Anything eI se?
wildetr,iuth3 No. That I s it.
Conrad: Joan, haven't reall!'/ said anything to you tonight but t,elcor,e to
the Planning Conu,iission.
Ahrens: Thank :,ou.
conrad: Andl ItlI let you have a crack at thls one.
Ahrens: The questions I had concerned Baldur Avenue also and they have
been raised aireadl'. r had probler's rcith Baldur Avenue r guess in general.
conrad: okay,. strttcture wlse, the onl:' thing that bothers me ln the whole
thing is nurtrler 8 or the red outlot or however we tertr, it. That just seeF,s
real unusual and not rearry a Purpose fot an!'/thing other than son'e' itis
there and we have to deal iittr it. Could the owner of that Put a dteck or
stairway in paul? Isnit there a Setback frort lots for a stalrway or deck?
llildern,uth: The:, could Put a Path in.
Krauss: IrIl defer that to the expert.
Conrad: To the one in the stands. Oka!,, Jo Ann. Tell rr,e what can happen
on thls parcel? I'r'r intrigued.
olsen: Decks and...or soniethlng like that, that would be an accessory
structure. That wouldnrt be Perlrritted. A stairway.
conrad: No setbacks on stairwal,s. rtrs Prett:' rough terrltory. rt is a
drainage €as€rrrent so to fill lt, what would have to haPPer? Can thel' flll
it? T; fifl it, grade lt, do r,e have soRething in here sa!'ing tbat !'ou
canrt really tar,per r,ith it unlesE, weII tree rerroval plan. Grading
approval plln. ilanning Dlrector. Because itrs a drainageway, I suPpose
engineers can get it b!, an:rthing canrt thelt. So thereotically it could be
cltared of evei!,thing ottrei than 4 inch dlaF,eter trees. coulil be leveled.
t{ater could be piped. Drainage could be piped down. Baslcall!' fllled.
Olsen: ...pern,lt frdrr, the DNR to get a aandblanket.
Planning
Janua r y
CoFFrission Meeting3, L99g - Page 15
Conrad: SoF,e of that is okay. They could do that.
ELlson: So do lrou like Jin,, s idea of the City buying it or yourre justquestioning it?
conrad: No. rrft, not wild about that. r believe two things should happen.one, r think the neighbors, rrhether through their own faurt or througir-orrrsor whatever, realr!, shourd have an opportunity to get sor,e advice on thisone or to stud!, it. Eor irhatever reason being given, there iras no signaror flags. thrown up based on the data that the!' got and in terF,s of thls oneparcel- that.werre playing erith and r think th-y-shourd have an opportunit!,to look at it which rT,eans rde have an opportunitl, to table the aciion for'their further review or to just, as steve r,entiined, ue courd leave therecord open and they_could, it sure appears to r,e this is the only issue onthis particurar subdivision. rhey polsiury corrld get that input in ti.. -
for_city council review. Hy only conrnrent r tninr is, if r were to erord arrotion on this one, it would reall!, deal irith nur,ber g and basicaffy-statethat there would be no significant alteration to that outlot.
Batzli! You r,ean that recording against the propertlr, that the:, canrtchange the . . .
conrad: Basicarly. That wourd give the new owner, whoever, the right touse it but not the right to change the character.
stuart Hoarn: r rF, stuart Hoarn and r arr contenrplating purchase of Lot 2and the onl}, reason for it worrrd be to access or go down to... r supposethe arternative is Robert courd withdrae the apptication for thesubdlvision and fence- the whole thing. That eroutd create even biggerprobrer's so r think therers a barance of interests of the var i orrs -iroper t1,owners that I think would...
Conrad: Keep going. We create bad recor,,r.,endations unless. . .
stuart Hoarn: we have no ideas about putting in a stairway, viaducts.None of that.
Conrad: And :rourre pror.rising lrourre going to live there forever.
stuart Hoarn: No. I think it noutd be a good idea to put in there that ifthere are alterations there, if itrs not 169aI for us ti sa1, that rre don,trrant to...subdivide either Lot 2 or Lot 1, i guess we canrt do that but rthink thatrs sorrrething, we would alroh, a deed restrictlon or sorrething.Whatever was needed. There has to be sorr,ewa!, that the trro lots couldagree, ti{o oirners could agree that lt wourd not be resubdivlded. Itrsrealrlz an unpracticar thing because of the terraln and to have a citweaser'ent running right through the rrriddle or the edge of the house c3urd...to resubdivide it further. It rrasn.t my intentlon.
Conrad: Okay. An:, other coFfi,ents?
EIIson: Did you reufite that one?
En,nlngs: Which one?
Batzli: Nunrber 5
ED,n,ings: Yeah.
EIIson: Just rrondering if you needed Frore tiF.re.
Batzli: Are you looking for a rr,otion Ladd?
Conrad: Not yet. I'm thinking. This is think tine Brian and wasting
everltbod:t elses tirr,e. Yeah, Iooking for a r'otion. HopefuIl:, sor',ebody
deal with that parcel. Hopefull!' sor'ebod:, can deal with providing the
neighbors a chance to get sonre inPut in and solt,e legal advice on this.
would hope we could incorporate that into a r,otion.
En,r',ings: I t 1I rrove that the Planning Cor,r,ission r€coltrt'rend approval of
Srrbilivision *89-29 as shorrn on the PIat dated NoveF,ber 6, 1989.
Batzli: I think it's Decer,ber 29th.
can
I
ETrnrings: The plat dated Deceniber 29r 1989 and subject to the following
conditions. NuPrber l would be altered so it sa:ts, easterl!' will be changed
to northerl:' edge. 2(b) will be altered, sirtply add that the access is in
the favor oi the City of chanhassen. Nur,ber 4 lrill be altered in the
second line to say tirat the tree preservation plan must be subr,itted Prlor
to issuance of a Luilding andlor grading perrr,it. There is no number 5 so
irerve got to change the nurrbering so rre donrt have g9ps. What was 5 will
now be 5 and that wiII now say that the final plat shall reflect the
dedication of a parcer tegalll' described as, and rrrrr going to leave that
blank. what I'r., intending here is that the staff c otrre up t,ith a legal
description of a parcel thatrs defined by the northeasterly extension of
the soirth line of Lot 2 across this way on the north and on the south it
woul.d be the north line of Outlot A.
Krauss:to ensure
way.
while weire talking about dedication of right-of-iray,
that we get the dedication of the Pleasant vield Road
vre aI so need
r ight-of-
Errrrrings: Isn I t
BatzIi: ShalI
dedicate it.
that already
show it but I
on here?
think the
thatts the next one.
appllcant should dlso be required to
Er,r,ings: oka!', so what was 7 here will now be nur,ber 6 and it will say
that the final plat witl show the width of Pleasant view Road and that
shall be dedicated as right-of-wa!' so that will be artered to shoi' that
thatrs also dedicated as right-of-wa1'. DoYrn at ntrrrber I will now becor'e
nuF,ber 7 and it witl sa1, the following. The orrner of Outlot A will not be
pernritted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in anlt wal' without
pern ission of the ci!:'. The owner of outlot A will not be allorred an!'
dock, swinr',ing raft, boat r.,oorings or other accessor], uses on Outlot A
Planning Cor',rr,ission Meeting
January 3, L990 - Page 16
Planning Conrr,issi on Meeting
Januar]' 3, L99g - Page 17
En,r',ings: yeah, Iadd that -
think it should be recorded against the property. I'd
Batzli: I worrLd accept that.
Conrad: Basicall:, you have not taken awa], an:, rights that previousl!,existed for this parcel . Was your intent just to-ctarlf1, wirat their rightsor lack of rights were but lrou have not fuither restrict6d in your n,oti5n.
Etur.ings: rtrs as close as r can get rrithout their having just d littletinre to kinil of stating what the 6rdinances sa!, an]rrralr. I donrt thinkwerre taking arrray anythlng. r don,t rike outrot A. i d6n,t think it oughtto be there. r think.it ought to be part of this gentler,anrs property overhere but rrr. not willing to go so far as to put th;t in ie a c6naitio-n ofallowing a plat. I think thatrs going too flr.
Conrail: In )rour rnotion f or nunrber 7 !,ou basically, the irording that :louItsed to nre said that the:, can alter only after tha Citfr, the eianning-Director has seen erhat the:r irant to do io :rour n.otion, based on the wordsI heard-lrou say, 1'ou said the outlot can b6 altered ontt, aiter it lsapproved b:, the PIanrjing Director.
other than uslng it as a Freans of access by foot to the rakeshore. r donrtr,ean to exclude hir, carry'ing a boat down there. Hot, can we salr that? Idonrt like that. Letrs go back. r'rt golng to start over with that. Letisjust sa:,, the first sentence is okay, that therers no grading or otheralteration of the propert:' with a pernit fror, the City.
Batzli: Are you striking the part about the tree rer,oval?
Etr,r,ings: No, IrF golng to put that on the end. I.r, going to start outthis way. And then let,s put dorm that thelr.re not perr,t [.ted any docks,swirro,ing raft or boat n,oorings and then go lo the lairguage that was undernun,ber 8. The part about the trees. Juit reave it ai ii. then finali1,,the _record, hoi, long will it take for this to get to Cit!, Council? .liniriry22^d?
Olsen: Yes.
Etrr,ings: Thatts arrrrost 3 weeks so that the record wirl be kept open fort ritten cona,ents fron, property owners that rright be affected L1, tiris anathe:' should have their hlritten corrrrrrents into planning staff within 2 weeksso they have tir,e to get it into the packet to the Cit1, Council.
Batzl.i s IrII second it.
Conrad: Discussion.
Batzll: Steve, do ]rou F,ean to have any of your langrrage f r or., new nurr,ber 7recorded against Outlot A since reall:, what wour re iro6aUiy or people wouldbe rrost concerned about is if a new owner puichases it and isn't asare ofthese conditions.
Planning Conrr,ission Meeting
Jantrar:r 3. l99g - Page 18
Er,n ings: I don't knoer. I said unless he gets a Pernrit f r or', the Clt:, or
Perrrri ssion frorr, the city.
Conrad: tlhich is salting exactl!' shat staff said to begin with. You
havenrt changed the use. Yourve clarified the use of that. You have
basically gone along with city staff.
Erarings: Yes.
Conrad: Anlt other dlscrrssion?
Wilderr.uth: I have one question for the aaljacent propertlt oyrners to Outlot
A. Is there any interest in pursuing soFe kind of legaL t alt to obtain
Outlot A?
Ron Harvieux: I canrt sa:t never. I think 3 or 4 years ago we discussed a
trade off of land because this has always looked like a blight and I think
we kincl of got sorr,ethere but Irrr not sure we stopped I believe because the
City seerr,ed to want rrs to plat the land which looked Iike it would be n,ore
exp-nsive fron, what was going on at that tir,e. At least thatrs nhat I took
awi1, than $e iranted to oicur - so lre dropPedl that. Since that tir',e, I rt ight
be i,isstating it. r donrt knor', if it's 3 or 4 1'ears ago but it's sor'e tir'e
in the past. since that tine untit now I didnrt kno$ that that iras back on
the issue and I woulil be very willing to reopen those kinds of discussions.
we irere talking equal land trade-off. At least that was the concept then.
I'd be certainil, wirting to reopen that discussion. Just haven't had tir'e
to do it becarrse frankly...didn't know that outlot A Yras part of what was
now going on tonight.
John Danielson: EroFr n,y point of view, Ird be n,ore than hapP:' to !r]' and
have the rerr,ainder of the other balf of Baldur Avenue.
Conrad: John, yourre so generous I canrt believe it.
John Danielson: I tried 15 Years ago
gave up but itrs a nice natural Pieceif it were available, I'd be rnore than
it riII be left in it's natural state.
Ron Harvieux3 If I nright just add if I could, this rtay or rr,a:7 not be the
place but I have no ProbleL...the lake access issue is an inportant one Irnt
sure to him. I rtr, not sure that with a trade-of f of landl f r or, rr,1' easterl:'
boundary, I just donit know. we talked several years ago, rtra]'be Bob could
see a w;y to alloy, access right down that drivewa:' $hich already^exists-. A
clear cul straight aheail drivewa:' to the shore. rf lake access is reaIl:'
i&portant, Irr.. ;ot so sure it can't occur totall], t ithin Lot I. I just
don't know. I guess again, it certainll' looks like...trying to run it over
what wetre talking about now. I'd sure Like to discuss it.
rrithout success
and I rd like towilling to put
and I just kind of
keep it that wa], and
that in t riting that
conrad:Any other discussions?
Planning
January
Con,rr,i ss i on Hee t i ng3, !999 - Page 19
2. Easehents requi red :
Reflect the existing sanitar!, sewer easerrent over Lot 1 and Baldur
Avenue .
b. Driveway access easeF,entof Chanhassen.
over Lot 1, Block 1 in favor of the Citw
3. Park and trait dedication fees
ded ication.will be required in lieu of park land
4.
5.
6. The final plat shall show the width ofcenter of the existing road to the Lotas 33 feet.
Pleasant View Roail frorr theI and Lot 2 front property lines
7 A stipulation shall be recorded against the propert:,Outlot A will not be pernritted to grade or otherBisean!, rra], without perr,ission frorr the City and will notdock, swirtrrrring raft, or boat r,oorings on Outlot A.
An], tree on Outlot A rdith a caliper of 4 inches or greater shall bepreserveil . A tree rer,oval plan shall be subrt,i tted prior to an1,disturbance of the area along Baldur Avenue. a graling plan approvedb:, the Planning Director is required
The public record shall be kept open for 2 weeks to give the affectealPropert), owners tinie to subn,it written cor,rrrents befoie going to theCity Council.
that the owner ofalter Outlot A inbe allowed any
8.
o
AII voted incarried wi th
favor except Conrad and Wilderrnuth who opposed and the rr,otiona vote of 5 to 2.
Er[rrings rrrov€d I Batzli seconded that the planning CoF,r,ission r€corror€nd
aPProval of Subdivision 189-29 as shown on the plat dated Decen,ber 29, Lgggand subject to the following conilitions:
1. The drivera:, access to Lot 2 shalI be located to the far northerly edgeof Lot 2. Notice of the locatlon shall be placed in the Chain-of-titleof the lot.
A tree preservation pran r,ust be subtr'itted prlor to issuance of abuirding and/or grading perr.,it. The plan should iltustrate how thedriveway and house placer,ent and construction wirl rt,lnir.,ize tree ross.The plan rrust be approved b:r staff. preservation areas shall beadequatel:r.niarked by snow fence prior to construction to avoid danrage.clear cutting of trees of 4 inch cariper or rarger sharl be prohibil.ed.
The final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legall],described as follows:
Planning Cor',n,i ss i on !.teeting
Januar]' 3, L99g - Page 2g
Conrad: Jir,, your reasons for lrour negative vote?
Wildernrrrth: I don't like the existence of Outlot A and I'd like to give
the adjacent propertlt owners as well as the adjacent property owners
to otrtlot A as well as the applicant for the subdivision an opportunit!' to
either rdork out sor'e kind of a land swap or sorr,e kind of an arrangerqent.
Conraal: I basically agree rrith Jin,'s coro,ents because I think it's a real
strange parcel but Ird also, even if it does exist in the end, Ird prefer
to have the wording on it's use to be as restrictive as possible and I
didnrt notice that the r,otion for itert 7 really providetl that restriction
and r,aintained the character of that Particular otrtlot. This till go ahead
though to City Council. would be uP there what? Did we say the 22nd of
Januar]r? We left the record open for coFrt,ents so the neighbors can rtake
their con,rr,ents and get then, in for City Council review. I thank you all
for cor.ing in. Thanks ver1, r',uch.
PUBLIC HEARI NG:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 3I, MURRAY HILL
BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON
ROAD, JUST SOUTH OE MELODY HILL ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
AND LOT 1,
MURRY HILL
5444 Hurra:, HiIl Road
Sharn,in AI-Jaff presented the staff rePort. Chairn,an Conrad called the
public hearing to order.
Gilbert Kreidberg: I aF, Block 1, Lot 1. I'r, the one with a vested
interest. In fact...that trail access to the torrer. Part of that PrOcessis the acguisition of that portion of...and lr,ake sure that the activity i.s
stalring per agreer,ent... I think itrs probabl!, prett!' straight forward...
so unless lrou have an!, questions. I guess the engineers donrt corre to
these &eetings.
conrad: Thelz do occasionalL:r but not usuaI1lr. okay, any otherpublic
COIr'[tentS?
Erhart moved, Er'n'i ng s seconded to close th e publlc hearing. All voted in
hearing was closed.
Public Present:
NaFre
cilbert Kr iedberg
favor and the r,otion carried.
Conrad: Joan at 1,our end. AnY
Ahrens: I have no coFfirents abo
Wildern,nth: Where is the fence
fence here with a ga€e.
Address
The publ lc
COtrlFren tS ?
ut this.
going to go? Therets soF,e elusion to a
Planning Cop,n,ission Meeting
Jantrar:' 3, L99g - Page 2I
Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes, that will go across the roadway there or thepathwal, going back to the tower. What it will do, it will providepedestrian access brrt preclude vehicle access with a 1ocked gate to it..we had problerrs with snomiobiles running through there at speeds well inexcess...kids pla]ring out there and going back and forth to the school.Itrs designed as a safety factor and part of the neighborhood...
Wilderrr,uth: So the City is going to construct the fence?
Gilbert Kreidberg: ...and that is part of all of this thing.
Wilderrrruth: And the area isreadily? Is that the idea?
so wooded that the!, canrt get ar-ound the fence
Gilbert Kreidberg: yes. The!, would on, at that point the1,on private propert!, and both of ther, will be fencld off soaccess...The City I guess wanted to service the tower fron,side even though they,ve been servicing it for 15-15 yearswesterl], side...
therers a no building clarlsg
what would yorr ever use it
worrld be go ingthat will be thethe ea s ter l:,fron, the
on
for
Wildernruth: Sounds good to n,e. Irmpa:, that kind of rrroney f or that.
Gilbert Kreidberg: you,re tel1i ng
Batzli: T$ro questions. One was,a fence along the easertent?
lr,pressed that soFrebodl" s willing to
Irrg . . .
if I understand it, yrourre going to buiLd
else to put a requiteFrentelse in this parcel ?
Gilbert Kreidberg: yes. ?hat is correct.
Batzli: Is that in the purchase agreeF,ent as well?
Gilbert Kreidberg: The Cit:, has requested that I build a fence on lrhatwould be the northern border of the easeF,ent over...fence it up 10 feet andthe-]'ard directly behind rr:, house is aI1 wooded... The City propertlr,while it is wooded, itrs not particularl:, heavil!, wooded in'the area thatI't', going to be acquiring. Itrs-prett:, r.,uch open with sorre trees along...and nrostllr between the propertl, 1ine...
Batzli: Is there an:, reason paul or anlroneregarding cutting doin of trees or anytiing
Krauss: Mr. Batzli, Irm reall!' not certain as to rrhether we need an:rthing.l{e didnrt give it an}' considerition. This has been in -discussion wilh so-tr,uch actlvit!, betrreen the propert:, oirner and the City iouncit that webaslcally just process the suLdivision at this point-. There rras no intentto build on the propertlr. There r,a:, be sorre use, recreational use of thepropert], at soF,e point in the futrrre, soF,e facility like that. If )rorrrdfeer p,ore con,fortabre irlth sor,e sort of a tree preiervation elerrrent.
Batzli: WeII itrs just interesting becauseit already so they cin't ever build on it so
excePt as a back!,ard?
cilbert Kreidberg: ua:rbe I could put a pool in.
tfilderF,uth3 Right. I irouldnrt want to preelude him prltting
pool back in.
Cilbert Kreidberg: Yeah, thatrs really what it is. The big trees, the
last thing I want to do is take ther, down unless they die. Therers a lot
of little trees. The cit!' has let this thing 9o for 16 or 17 years. r
rtean it's a Fress. Therer s al1 kinds of dead foliage on it. Therers junk
all over. If I hadnrt done this, the:, sure worrld have had to clean it up.
Therets a whole lot of litt1e trees Planted in bunches that had no sense to
protect the trees... The one thlng I r,ight do is clean that rrP so
everything survives because thatrs aII there is. The real big trees are
along the part for which the €dSBFr€ht would involved...
Batzli: worrld )rou object to having the cittr review if ltou rrere to niake a
plan of what lzou were going to do with cleaning it up?
Gilbert Kreidberg: I think it nakes it kind of cuF,bersoFr€ on lrr€ because
what I'n going to do to clean up, pick uP all the junk thatrs there and the
deail treei and weed out soF,e of the garbage that's there. I rrould never
crrt a trees thatrs probabl!, Itrore than 2 inch sPread but you know soF,e
places you have to ;Iean u! because, I Fean you dontt have a Picture of it
Lut along the northerly portion therers parts where there's like F,aybe 4g
trees wifh 2O feer' of wiatn anil 19 feet of length. I tr,ean the:rrre just all
bunched together. In order for those to survive, sorre of those have to be
cleaned up.
Batzli: No, I'r, fan,iliar with the area. I kno!, vrhat it looks like and
I in,agine that youtre golng to be golng in there and crrttlng down sorre
trees is Fr:, onl]t point.
going
the], I re
a swirtr', i ng
take an]rthi ng
bunched
cilbert Kreidberg: Oh,
dolrn that stands taIler
together.
little strrf f . Irnr not
I am except for where
j ust
than
to
so
Batzli: well r don't know. r'11 see if an!'bod!' else jun'ps on the band
wagon.
Ellson: I thought this was a happy ending. I think itrs nice to see that
we got irhat we wanted as the cit)' out of it and usuall!' i,e get
neighborhoods that sa:' donrt do an]rthing there !'et the:/ d_onrt want to 90
and get the propertl, to do anl,thlng else with lt and I'rr teally Pleased to
see this gu]rrs taking it upon hir',self to r,ake it a better looking Place.
cilbert Kreidberg: I think it wilt be a lot nicer irhen I rr, done.
Ellson: And I agree. I think it would
confused on what you eranteil nur,ber 3 to
too
be.
after I looked at it. I rras
Planning Cor',n,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 22
Planning
Januar]t
Corm,ission Meeting
3, L99g - Page 23
A1-Jaff: That there would be no
new residences would be bui1t.further subdivision in the future and no
Ertutings: I think it's, Iike Annette says, itrs just a good thing forever]rbodl,. As far as Brianis eoncerned about the trees, r like iirr, arr, nothappy about inposing Frttch on individual landowners on a deal like this. Irr,rr.ore concerned when sre have a devel0per cor,ing in on a rarger area to rrorr:/about protecting the trees. r think rrhat, s appropriate to do it in thelast one because the rand that you were doing- it -on rs"s closer to the rakebut I think of r,yself on rr,1, Iot. If I nant to cut down a tree, I don,tYrant to go to the city to teLr therr r rrant to cut down a tree. rrve got 15or 20 oaks that are L00 feet tarr and r donrt want to crrt theFr down but l,God if r do want to cut theFr down, r'rr, going to cut ttrer", aown--a;;-; ;;;';'erant an:, crap fronr the City about it.
Ellson: Werre trlring to preserve our nature and natural beauty.
Batzli: ?his n'ight be a little bit different because the oerner of the totis.going to go on thete with the intention of creaning it np "r,a cuttingthings down.
Etrr,ings: r worr], about peopre rike the developers back here who ca're inand sttovred us a nice plan and said how nuch he liked trees and then rrentthrough i{ith a bulldozer and jrrst took everlrthing down. -ifrit,s the partthat scares n,e but anwhes, I ahink that sho-utd U6 feft ,rp-[o ni" disiretionbut I have a Frore inrportant reservation about this. you have a son thatplays soccer.
Gilbert Kreidberg: I certainly do.
Hr,n,ings: His nane is Nathan isnrt that right? And
son I s tearr, last sunrrer, his teanr eron didn'i it? I'rtUnless I can have soF,e guarantees about next sutir,er.
ElIson: Oka1t. I got the srrbdivisionI donrt have anything else.
part but I rrasnr t sure about, okay.
when his tear, pla]red pr],
opposed to this.
Oka:r, I 'rrr interested.
think it looks li kehis rords reflected
issue is an i ssrre
Erhart: I have nothing additionaL to add other than Ia reasonable subdivision and I think Steve pretty rr,uchnr:t thoughts on tree rer,oval things.
Conrad: I have nothing to add. I don,t feel the treethat I arr concerned with. Is there a r,otion?
EIIson: I'll rtove the planning Cor.miissioh r€coF[rr€nd approval ofsubdivision Reqrrest *99-23 as shown on the plat dated blcenter zg,subject to the conditions tisted here with one additional one thatnot allow further subdivision and no additionar residences rrourd beal l owed .
1989 and
rrould
Erhart: I'II second it.
Planning Conu',i ss ion l.leeting
Januar], 3, !990 - Page 24
El1son rnoved. Erhart seconded that the Plannlng Cor',r,lssion reconrltr€nd
approval of subdivision Request i89-23 as shown on the Plat dateil DeceB,ber
29, L989 and srrbject to the following conditions:
t. Lot 2 be shorrn as Outlot A on the final plat.
2. The north 2g feet of outlot A is iledicated as a traiL easetent.
3. The property cannot be further subdivided or any new residences be
built on the site.
AII voted in favor and the rtrotion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISH THE
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS AT 15 ACRES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this iter,.
conrad: So basicall!, lrou're saying that sorr,ebod:t could c or,e in, subdivide
a parcel and basicatly get around the ordinance that rra:'?
Krauss: Yes, that's correct. In fact there was a related qtrestion. If
you recall we processed a conditional use perrtit.or a site plan for a
church in the Frontier building. The clt:' councll dlaln't have a probreih
with the chrrrch going in there but they were concerned what rdoutd happen if
a chrrrch purchased the buitding and n,ade it tax exer'pt. Roger basicalll'
said there,s absolutel:t nothing ltou can ilo about that. whether or not a
church is occupl,lng the propertl'; thel' could purchase it an'l put sonre kind
of a functio" l" i[ and n,ake the r.rhole thing tax exeFrPt. Therer s virtually
nothing a cor'r,uni t:, can do to stop it. The practicalit:/ of lt is ls that
it's not going to happen v€r!, Fruch because it's exPensive Propert:' but
that's the question that he left us with.
Conrad: So what we've got on the books here is an ordinance that canrt
reall!,, or yJe,ve got a proposal of an ordinance that reallY doesnrt achieve
what lhe city council intendetl . Therers a wa:' to get arounil it' wourd it
accoF'plish anything? The rray I read it right nos, itis Probably more
restr-ictive in other areas bacause we rrent fror, chrrrch to, didnit he draft
the ordinance to reall], sa:t any tax exerrPt which actualllz in concePt lrlrt
nore in favor of tnan iiqniflting church but I donrt know if it harrts the
City r,ore in terr,s of restricting sorr'ething that rre malt want.
wililern,uth: I don't knoy, if it's a probler, of adjacent Parcels is such a
big issue. Do you think it is?
Ellsons I $onder if there'd even be another
all know it's an afterthought kind of thing
it's a vra:, to show the citizens that theltrre
Prevent it fror', happening again.
church that would cort e in. We
to whatrs been haPPening and
tryinq to put sor,ething ln to
Batzli: Itrs not a knee jerk reaction is it?
Planning
Janua r y
Cor,r',i ss i on Meeting
3, l99g - Page 25
Ellson: I'rr, just wondering the probability of lt.
Batzli: Well if they really wanted to linlt it, rrh!, dontt the:r do rhatthe!, did rrith contractor I s .yards.
Ellson: Located it within each other and things like that?
Batz1l: Yeah. Make then, have to be nithin 15 niles of each other orsonrething.
Erhart: Erir'inate churches. Thatts what yJe did with contractorrs lrards.
Er'rrrings: That t s rhere I thought it t,as golng. It r s kinit of a boldproposal.
Batzli 3 I backed off.
conrad: rtrs an ordinance that the city council initiated. rs there an],direction right now on this? Should r,re vote on it as presented? The on6thing that didn't happen r noticed. when it first hit us and we sent itback' there were s orre conditions for other r',odifications for the ordlnance.Basicall], sorre setbacks and what have !rou. Those rrere not incorporatedinto the new ordinance but stilr those condltions erere thought to beappropriate Paut?
Krauss: The conditions that I think yorrrre referring to are the CUpconditlons that apply to churches anal the!, rrere not changed.
Krauss: Theyr werenr t nei, conditlons being applied under this ordinance.
Conrad: An], direction? Anybody have a feeling on this one? Steve.
Err rings' r think the r"otivation for this is totall!' ir',proper, that beingthe Eckankar Church. I think the goal rras appropriate. That is notwinding rrp with a lot of land off ihe tax ro1ts.- r donrt think this doesit and I alonr t see how it can be done. Brian or sorieone brought up the
Car,pf ire girls. What if they carrre out here you know and thelr wanted tohave, car,p Tanadoona wasntt there anal the car'pf ire organization car,e outand said rde want to do sorrrething at ranadoona, we'd arr be supportive ofthat.
Wildernruth: No. I donrtdevelopnient I rrou Id rather
In this stage of Chanhassen.s
revenue producing for' that property.
EFIT,ings: So f donrt think we necessaril:, want to restrict ownership ofland by tax exerrpt organizatlons here. ihis ordinance sonrt do lt.
Ellson: Maltbe it's an atterrpt to show those that weire concerned thattheir concerns rrere at least addressed. Malrbe itrs not ponerful but itrsan atteFpt. We listsned to then and I think thatrs what the Cit!' Councilhad. You know the]' were in front of all those peopre either not voting or
think so.
See 6OFre
Planning Con,n,ission Meeting
Januar:, 3, L990 - Page 26
salting that they'11 do t^thatever
know legally the), corrld probably
least our atter,pt to sa!' that rre
do sor,ething to answer that. Bu
can to prevent it again where we allit if prrsh came to shove. This is at
tened to the people who erere trying toain, if the Car.,pfire girls car,e in or
sorr,ething like that, the!,'d probabl.1' still be able to get it.
Enrr'ings: Except to the extent that I suppose to solrre extent the r,arket is
going to liF,it this stuff because as land prices go up in Chanhassen,
organizations that want large tracts of land to do things on are going to
have to go frrrther away fron, the cit], so I think we're probably, kind of
protected b), the increased propert:r values out here.
Wilderrr,uth: Does an!, other nrunicipality have anything like this?
Krauss: Roger did sonr€ r€s€irch on that and he iras not able to find anlt
other- coFd'runi t:t that did it.
l{i lderr',uth : },ta}rbe there I s a n essage there .
Ellson: weII lrou wonder if sorr,ebodl' nas shoPping for land and the!, saw
that ere had this and another city didnrt, t ould it just deter hirt, fron, even
apptyinq or would the]' sa!, te can fight this, let's go at it? If yotr look
at it that rra]r, are ire accottrPlishing irhat s ot,e of those People wanted.
Meaning sor',e wouldn't even F,aybe atteFiPt because they think werre tr:tinq to
prevent it so in that aspect it t ould ProbabL], work for rrhat soFre People
wanteal to do.
Ertrr,ings: Yeah, but worl r re assur',ing that those People are undesireable. . .
EIIson: Right. Absolutell,. IIII just sal,ing that the People' and I donrt
even agree that it's probabllt a majority, want to see the Citl' doing
sorr,ething and weire here to Probabl]t represent ther,. So ls the Citlt
Council and so thelr're saying okay, we'll trlt to answer your concern or at
least an attempt. If it norks either slightly, then itrs a tr!' I guess. I
think the City Council wants sorr'ething.
Conrad: we donrt have to 9o along with it.
Ellson! No, absolutellr. Irm juat saying I think soFethingt s going to cor'e
out just because they promised thel,rre going to do sorr,ething.
conrad: Yeah. And itts an issue that do rre rrant to take this one on
ourselves or just pass it to therr, one ra]t or another and let therr deal rrith
it so the!, can feel cor,fortable because it was theirts initially. Titt, you
santed to direct us sotrre sa!, I know.
Erhart: I I d rather corrrrtr€h t on the issue at hand. It appears to Fre,
correct rte if Irn, wrong, lt appears to r'e thereis already gorre ltrechanlsrr
for the cit:, to establish rrhat portion of a piece of propertl, owned by a
church is taxed and wtrich isnrt taxed. You klnd of have to read that
between the lines here but it appears to &e that it lsn't clear that the
Eck propertl, is going to be totalllt tax free and that s otre rtechanisr,
alread:r exists to tax portions of that propertlt t ithout this ordinance.
thelt
doIistag
Planning Cor,niission Meeting
Januarl, 3, L99g - Page 27
Krauss: Roger had a Fen,o thatI forget the exact wording of
has to use the propert!' for a
the:t are holding propert:, as ait out to somebod:t else, yes.
back on the tax rolls.
was glven out last s[Frrrr€r that got at that.it but basicalllt the tax €r€rrrpt institutionrelateil use for it to becor'e tax exe!,pt. Ifspeculative cort[rrod i t], or if thelrrre renting
Therer s ver:' good grounds for that being put
Erhart: Is there an:/ precedent for that?
Krauss: Apparently so. Therers been s orrre cases been decided.
Erhart: The fact that there alread:/ is a n,echanisr,, it rra:, not be aperfect one. In Looking at this, I think the r,erit of it, the potentialr,erits of it are so outireighed by the potential problen,s. those which wecan anticipate here starting this thing, plus those which we canrtanticipate. I sense therers all kinds of problenrs this ordinance couldbring that ere canrt even anticipate. One of then that just can.e up andthat is just the sense that werre trwing to prohibit people like Cln,pf ireGirls or soryreone to c orrre into the cit]r. r F,ean it could be interprettedthat way.- I just.donit think the value is there that supports re-on,nendingthis to the Council.
Conrad: Any corrrFrents over here?
Batzli: r agree. r don't think that this ordinance does it. r think theinteresting anor,aly that irer re noe, faced with in the City is that if infact a church can get around an ordinance like this by purchasing 4adjacent Iots, the interesting thing is then if in the Countlr's -1rs sincetheyrre adjacent rots, theyrd be given a singre tax identifilation nw,ber.If the:r were given a single tax identification nunrber, it nould be aninteresting apportionrr,ent of the use of the rot and the concurrence on theownership which is apparentLlr the test for tax exenrption. Becauseaccording to Roger, when the sanie oHner owns two adjacent parcels, the]rrregiven one tax ID nurrrber so in fact the church, regaidtess of tne use,'it
seerr's under that definition, would be given a singre tax rD nur\ber and allfour lots would then becorre tax exerrpt. Noi, the law salrs that the churchr{ould have the burden of proof of non-taxation but if you give thertr aslngle tax ID nur,ber, it seems tike the Cit:' would have ttre burden of proofto corrre back and indicate that no, :rourre using that as a ballfield andthatrs really not a related use to nhlr :/our re a tax exerrpt orgafiization forinstance for a church. rtrs interesting that we're going to iind ourservesin that t],pe of sltuation if that is the law. Brrt I donit think this doesirhat rre I re trying to do and I don' t knor,, that it r s proper that we do it inthe first place so I would definitell, vote against lt. .
Conrad: Thatrs interesting. If thelz bought four parcels, adjacent parcels
and put a chrrrch on one and the other three had actlvities that real1y
werenr t related to the church.
Batzli: WelL for tax exeFrpt status the:/ do have to be related.
Planning coF,r,i ss ion Meeting
Januar], 3, 1990 - Page 28
Conrad: Then the:, would literall], have to structure it
three parcels had an activity related to the church and
could do that ver:t easily. I don't think you could run
substantiate that that is...
so those otherI donr t think thel'
a ballfield and
EI lson: That I s right.
real easily. Because
or iented .
The deviLs
retreats and
against the
things 1i ke
saints. r think the:, couldthat. That's also chrrrch
Conraal: But the!, would literally have to structure those four Parcels to
physically be used for a special purpose that the!, can sor,ehow docurtrent
related to the church. I donrt knoy, that the ordinance rrouldntt do
sortething. Jir,, what was lrour direction on this?
WilderEuth: weII I think the situation is a dilen,n,a as to the
appropriateness of restricting churches in general on the one hand and the
tax revenue issue on the other hand. It seeFrs to rrre a ua:/ could be found
if we wete reall!, serious and intent on restricting tax exerrPt land use. I
think we could find a wav to do it.
Conr aal : Joan?
Ahrenss well you know as an outsider to this, this whole issue that ],ourve
been discr:ssing for qrrite a while, I read through this package a couPle
days ago and I was kind of shocked to teII ]iou the truth that so r,uch tir'e
wbs being spent on an issue that r considered to be one that the citl'
shoulcl not be spending so rr,uch tir,e on. I was trYing to tar'e rtry language
doh,n there bllt I think that itrs interesting that the ordinance $as written
b!, Roger to address atl tax exerrrpt organizations and Frost of the discussion
even here is about churches. Itrs obviousl:, a knee jerk reaction to the
Eckankar Church. I donrt think that we shorrldr I hate to see an ordinance
that tries to liF,it all tax exer'pt organizations f roryr, or trlt to lirtit them
to certain acreage in our coFr'unit:'. r think there rrill situations that
arise wbere people wiLl t ant that kind of developn,ent and then werll have
to go back and Lhange the ordinance. I think also, to create an ordinance
that is hard to enforce or irtpossible to enforce because.they can bu!,
adjacent parcels, is kind of a ridiculous exercise. wh!' pass an ordinance
that thel' can get around so easil]' by just buying up adjacent parcels and I
think they could build a baltfield on the end of one and Ea!' lt rras a
church purpose. I'rr, in favor of the ordinance.
conrad: Yeah, to surfiiarize. I think the Eckankar propert]t Posed aparticular probler, and ln rr! nrind it Possibl]t took sonre econor',lcally
valrrable land for city use and their expansion for the business district,
it took it out of circulation at least ter,porarily. Therefore the reaction
to not letting that bappen again, in r,y n,ind taking out farttland that we
really havenrt proposed to be part of a new corr'riercial direction or
Ellson: ror the social clubs of ltour chrrrch. I think thelt eould and I
think the:, could have a school and a little nurser], school thing.
Erra.ings: ProFroting fellowship of church mertbers ln an atrr,osphere of
Christian bli ss .
Planning Con,n,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 29
whatever, that nould not bother rre at all to take out land that is in a
corr,n,ercial area and restricts the financial viability of Chanhassen I thinkis a problerr, and I thought there was r'erit to Iooking at this. As I lookat it riqht now, f rrr not sure, f donrt kno9, that therers another Eckankarpropert]r arorrnd here thatrs going to have that kind of inipact. If sop'echurch bought it and I don't know that it oould restrict some of thedirections that Chanhassen would go ln in terrs of taking out corutrercialproperty that we wanted to be conr,erclal. I think right now the land valuewill restrict a whole lot of that but you know, Eckankar could bu:'ailditional proPert!'. Thatts the bottoF, Iine. The!' F,a:' want to do that
which is their right and for speculation purposes.
Batzli: tlhatrs stopping ther, fror, buylng the TH 2L2/TH 101 interchange?
Conrad: Yeah. They literall]r could do that. However, I see thealternatives. I see the ordinance as sor,ething that Irr., jrrst really not asupporter of the ordinance as drafted. frm not cor,fortable with it and
although it was our direction to staff to liberalize it in terr,s of notjust sal,ing chrrrches. we told staff that werre really uncor,fortable. It
seer,s like we're singling therrr out. We directed staff to corr,e back withbasically a broader category brrt then you look at the broader categor:, andI guess when I see it on paper Irr, just as uncor,fortable as I was rdhen I
saw it lirr,ited to chrlrches. Mlr general feeling is to pass this along toCity Council and let therr, deal with this because it's son,ething that I
guess I canrt chan,pion right now.
EIIson: What would we have to do? Allto do in order to pass it on?
of us denlt it or what would we have
Conrad: Werd vote on it.
Batzl i :Are
IrrtrConrad:
we can vote on the ordinance as proposed.
for...
a rrotion to vote on the ortlinance.
you Iooking
looking for
Batzli Frov€d1 Ellson seconded that the Planning Coro,ission
deny of zoning Ordinance ArrendF,ent to ar,end the Cit:' Codeestablishing the rtaximurr Iot size for church developn,ents
voted in favor and the notion carried unanirtousll'.
reCOrr'rtrend tOwith regard toat 15 acres. All
Conrad: Reason for the denial. I guess if rre can suFrr,arize
ordinance siII not achieve the desireable result. An], other
would be the
reasons?
Batzli: WelI I think that several corr,rr,issloners expressed that they didnrt
know if the, well, the result of irr,proving the tax base of Chanhassen is agoal that I think all of us would agree is a positive and good purpose but
werre not sure that this weighed and balance of that was a desireable goal.
Conrad: Dopositives?see ryrore negatives cor,ing out of this ordinance
that enlrthlng? AnY other reasons?
we
IS
than
Planning Cortr.,i s s ion l,leeting
Januar], 3, L99g - Page 30
I think werve surrrr,ed ther, up fairly well. The]trve got the Minutes
Conrad: Itis nice to surur,arize.
Er'II,ings: I thinkfeeling that this
good.
Conr ad :
weis all have, or at least sor,e of us have kind of aprobably ir,proper in s orr,e wa1r. It just doesnr t
quee zl,
fee I
Are we
Ethics
Conrad: By ex pand i ng
uncorrfortable than we
Batzli: I
Whether it
two lesser
concerned wi th
I guess behind
the
it.
overall.
It doesn't seeFr right to be able to do
ex€Frptl does that make us r,ore
were sin,ply dealing irith churches?
it to all
were when
tax
we
Br,r',ings: Just as r.lncon,f ortable, 1'eah.
think last tin,e at least I expressed that I was uncorrfortable.
was for just churches or aII tax exerrrpt but given the choice ofevils, I irould rather not just single out churches.
Conrad: Oka1t. llaybe we coulal tr:t to surtr,arize that. t{ake s otne kind of
sense out of it for the Cit]' Council.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE
REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES EOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IT,IPROVEMENTS.
PLAN
REQU I RE
PauI Krauss presented the staff report on this iter'.
Conrad: Okay, Tirr, Iin going to start down at ]rour end. Werve got, itrs
changed a little bit fror, the last time we saw it. Do :rou have anyspecifics?
Erhart! I notice I didntt have any coFlrrents frorrr the last coFdients,aalditions or lnvolved in the last F,eeting. I probabl], ronrt haye a lotthis tir,e. I do have one question on lroir itei, 4 theie where ]'ou sa:r
non-agr icul tural r,etaI buildings are prohibited in the ordinance. What
does that nean specifically PauI?
Krauss: Specificall]' the ordinance is intended to prohiblt the developn,entof ptir,arillt r',etal buildings in alI non-agr lcul tural districts. For
exaF,Ple :rou can't throw uP a Fretal warehouse.
Erhart: I understand that but does that sa:, that? Non-agr icul tural rretalbuildings? Wh1' don't te just sa], n,etal buildings are prohibited in the
orilinance?
EI1 son :
also.
Ell son:
that.
Planning Cor',r',ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 31
Krauss: It sa)rs r'etal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance and theni! V9u 90 up to the front, f dontt find it as citation, on the first pageof the ordinance, well at the botton of the first page of the ordinance]Section 2g-198, it says exceptions to the ordinance. On the following page(d), an exception to this ordinance, requirement for site plan review- ii -
construction of buildings for agricultural uses on Iandl zoned and utilizedfor agricurtural purposes. so a rretar Butrer buirding on an agriculturalplece of ground does not have to be reviewecl and is acceptable.
Erhart: Okay. That is the understanding lrorr have? Okay. Thatls the onl:/thing Irve got Ladd.
Efidrrings' I donrt have an:rthing.
El1son: Nothing here.
Batz1i: I had a lot of qrrestionsstill the adriinstrative approval.ties in with 20-I08, section (b).
last tinre. This
Section 2g-L13.
tirt e n,y question is
My question is how that
Krauss:
Batzli:
Krauss:
Section 2g-L98, Section?
B.
Which is an exception.
Batzli: If therers an exception. Uy question isdonit reqrrire site plan approval but :ret reallltPlanning would be giving thefii site plan approvala&r,instrative site plan approval wouldnr t it?
this, ltou r re sayingirhat, as the Directorbut it would be an
YOUof
Krauss: Right. But it wouldnr t appll' to anything in Section 2g-IgB.An:rthing in Section ZS-LS| is exenrpted from all the requirerrrents of thesite plan review ordinance.
Batzli: But yourre exertpting, and maybe I'rr, missing sorrrething here, yourreexer,pting enlargenent of a building at less than lot of itrs gross floorarea which is what ]tou sa:t in the 6ection of adminstrative approval butreally you need site plan approval. Itrs just that it can beadr,inistrative site plan approval. Right?
Krauss: Right.
Batzli: Irm just nonder ing . . . everytirre I think about it, it just doesnrt
seerq to r,ake aense.
Krauss: Itrs an exception frort an exception.
Batzli: Yeah. I donrt know that lt should be an exception. It should bean exception frorr the formal process but not of site plan approval is how,
nr}, gut feeling but I donit know that thatrs what it sa]rs.
Er,rtings: We could just eliF,inate it.
Planning Cor,r', i sslon Meeting
January 3, L990 - Page 32
Batzli: I don't know but I ilonr t really want to do son,ething kind of kneejerk here at the r,eeting because I couldnrt figure it out and I didnrt want
to say letrs just strike it but I think thatts soF'ething you have to look
at before we pass lt.
Krauss: I donrt know if it's
but it rr,ay be F'ore appropr iate
approval required and r',ake it
adr,inistrative review.
solution lret. Ird
to relocate that to(d) under that and
a
a
Ii ke to
Sectionclarif1t
think about it
107 which isthat that I s an
Batzti: Yeah, :/ou see I don't knoi, that lrou have to have it as an
exception or in 107. I rrn not sure. I think that if itis requiretl and you
can do it in accordance with your adn,instrative approval section, that
shorrld be aalequate. I donrt know that :rou have to accept it. Irve alsojrrst got soF,e $rords in here that I was going through and circling that :rourra! want to take a look at after we get ever:rthing said and done. The]rrrejust changing of yrording fron, Section to Division and things like that that
I kind of glossed over last tir,e and I think we Frissed just one or ti{o
here.
Conrad:
Batzl.i:
Er,n,ings:
words.
Batzli: I think that last tirr'e when we talked about section I13, we had a
phitosophical probler, as to what the authorit!' of the Director of Planning
would be. At least Ladd and I did. And when ne t ould ever see it and
when we would know about it. I like the ira], you tried to handle it b]r,rather than salring what your poirers were, saying what thelt irerenr t. I
thought that was a good wa!' to tr}, and handle it and Ird be interested in
hearing fror', Steve and Tin, if thelt have a probleFr r+ith the hra!, he wordedit. I donrt know if 1,ou had a problen, wlth lt the first tinre but in anlreventr thatrs all I've got to sa:, about this.
Wilderr',uth: I donrt have a probler, with that Section 113.
Conrad: Iive got coF.'rnents on 113. It speaks to 10t of gross floor space
or area but it doesnrt speak to the intent of rhat was, t hen we talk abouta site plan change, werre reall1' talking about sor.ething that rraa just
approved.
Do !'ou want to read ther, out now or.
Ir11 give thern to PauI. I donrt think they're major deals.
He could change ther' on his own if itrs less than 10t of the
Ahrens: I have ho coF.nr€nt.
Krauss: Not necessarily. You corrld be talking, a tenant rrroves into abuilding. Tinr purchased a building or expanded into it and r,alzbe his needs
e€r€ sorrr€uhat different than the original orrner and the!, need to nrake sorrren,odifications. To house soFre new equipn,ent the:, need to push out abuilding wall or sor.,ething like that. Those kinds of things crop up quite
frequently.
Planning Cono,ission Meet i ng
Januar:' 3, L99g - Page 33
Conrad 3
Krauss:
Conrad:
Conrad: Itrs stiIl acceptable underlot different' than erhat we origlnallyr
Itlha t would lrou do?
Expanded parking space. Would that be one?
That could be. sure.
How about taking an in,pervious surface ratio up bv 1rt?
Krauss: To the point where it would create a var iance?
the ordinance but lt
saw but it still met
certalnl]t rras a
the ordinance.
Krauss: I donrt know. I,d really have to say itrs a rratter ofI felt it sas really a departure fror, the intent of the approvalI can figure out what that rras, I erould bring it back.
degree.
as best
If
as
Conrad: oka1z, yorr just said the rrords anil I didnrt see ther, in there butthe intent is really where lrn, going. I donrt know, I think that has gotto be in here in terr,s of sonehow saf ing you have authority. yourve got toIook at what i{as originally intended to-happen and r'"ake sure that if it'sstill n,eeting that original intent, then I thlnk ]'ou should have thatapproval. I think the 10t of the gross floor area, thatrs one aspect ofsite plans and it nisses a whole bunch of other ones so it onl!, tilks to r,,eabout one thing. And itrs not bad but I guess rather than having 1'oudetail all the, detail ever!'thing and lirritations on everything, I thinkrerve.got to get an intent staterhent in there in terr,s of significantllzaLtering the intent of what was original.ly proposed. tty only other c oirrrten ton these things is therers no t{a]r to nronitor rrhat :rourre doing. Again,don't interpret this as I donrt $rant to get into what yourre doing. Ithink this is really a valid, I like adrrrinstrative appiovals but i al.solike our abillty to r,onitor wbat those are so if we lin see that you,regoing bel,ond shat werd like, therets sorr,e iralr for us to revlew the process.
Maybe thatts self policing, I donrt know. How do we find out what ^1rou.ve
approved without us?
Krauss: Well, Ladd as we discussed last tiFre, I think to be tirr,ely inresponding to these things, I couldntt corne back to :rou first and ask for
lrour approval t!'Picall], but we irould certainly be happ], to give you aperiodic update and saY this is what werve done on these. is ttris rreetingyour intent. If not, let us know anil re can revise our position in thefuture. Wetre asked to r"ake these decislons on a prett:r ilaily basis.
Krauss : That I s
Conrad: What do
exac t1:,
PeoPle
do it.
the case.
rrant to do?
El I son : Let hirrr
EIIson: You $ere safing ]routre basically sorrewhat doing that now just toaave the time and ]rou just t ould like to nrore lega1 and rltltten in here andstuff 1i ke that.
Planning Cono,ission t{ee t i ng
Januar:/ 3, L99g - Page 34
I think the Planning Directorrs got to have soFe adrr,instrative
Conrad: And rrhat is that Jin,?
Ellson! I like your idea about the intent. I think that you could look at
rrhat weire intending to do and if it looks like they're adding rr,ore parking
space or ir,pervious surface, even based on the ordinance and we knor we
were trying to save that big oak tree and that extra space is going to takeit down. I trust his judgr,ent that herd bring it back to us or sonethingthat he feels is ir.,portant. I think this kind of stuff is done regularly
and I think we donrt need to be bothered with sor,e of these other things.
Conrad: vlhat if liou were here when dorrntown iras being proposed and for
soF,e reason the:' decided that altering the City HalI. When we sa!, it it
nas perfectll' square with the street and it never caF,e back to us, antl that
was not a site plan. I donrt know what the process was but it never can,e
back to us wbere the architect decided that it should be cocked at a littl.e
bit of an angle. Had ere seen that, it would not be the way it was toala:,
but that's the t!'pe of thing that can sneak through.
Ellson: And Barbara let that go through?
Conrad: Iirr' just posing the question.
Wilderniuth: But I think if you try to...
Ellson: Be aII things to all people :'oui re going to be here until tiidnight
every night.
wilderr,uth: If you tr!, to control sonething like that or restraln
sorrrething like that, yourre going to be so restrictlve. As it turns out inretrospect, the positioning of the old Cit:, HaIl is probabllt aborrt as lt
should be. It probabtl, looks rr,uch better than lt rrould squared off as it
turns out.
Conrad: nell.
wildermuth: But I agree. A lot of people corr,plained about it at the tirre.
Conrad: Itrs not one of rry favorite thlngs that has happened here. It
seer,s like a designer, I Hork eith designers ao I knos what the!, like to do
and on paper it rrralr have looked alright but I'rt not convinced lt sas therlght thing to do. But thatrs just a r,inor exartpld. I guess Jirrr, you
basically donit want any kind of control on the process? ,
El1son: Itrs not sayring :/ourre not going to have an!r.
filderrruth: I think werve got control here.
Conrad: WeIl. how do :'ou know? Out of sight 1 out of rr,ind.
Wilderr,uth:
discretion.
Planning Corr,r,ission Ueeting
January 3, L99g - Page 35
llildern,uth: It sa]rs rr,inor site plan and building
involve a variance and which are not accorr,paniedconsideration by the Planning Corur,ission or Citythe Planning Departr'ent.
alterations which do not
by other r,atters requiring
Council Fa), be approved by
Ellson: We can get a list of what rrinorfeel itrs getting out of hand.
things have been done anil if vorr
Conrad: And Iin, just challenging what our rolewerre allowing ther, to do and what ererre not andAnd we haven't in the past. Zippo.
ls so we knoi, exactly what
how we lrant to F.'on i tor i t -
Batzli: Interest i ngCity Planner.
question is how Fruch power can we delegate to the
Conrad: We can take it away.
Batzli: WeIl ire can
tlrpe Process can :rouhearing or whateverknow. Paul?
take it awa!, but hoe, tr,uch under a site plangive to the Cit], Planner and not have it beis required or ]rou knoir, that t!'pe of thing?
rev iewa publ icI donrt
Krauss: I donrt knoe, erhat the real answer is but I knorc that there arecotroiunities that have staff authorize virtuatly all site plans without anypublic hearing at atl. Itrs just they do it adr,lnstratival!' which we wouldfeel very uncolrfortable with and wouldnr t recortrrrend so cl-eaiIy the spectruFris way over.
Conrad: Tir.,, an! Cotrrtrren t s ? Well, I directed coF{rrents at lrou and you
didnr t salt an:rthing.
ErrFrings: Thatrs because other people were talking and Irn polite.
Conrad: Yourre corrfortable?
Wilderr,uth: I would be comfortable with a perlodic review.
Conrad: l{ell Steve, t hat do !,ou care?
Wildermuth: I rrould be coF.fortable Ladd erith a periodic revier ofadr,instrative approvals. I rrould be conrfortable with that.
Conrail: Is anybod:, interested in that?
Ellson: You rtrean like it wouldnit necessarily be our consent agenda orsomething like that but just to get a feel . I think that sould r,ake youfeel better.
Conrad: No, I rr, just raising an issue here and staff does do this all thetirre and all the:rrre doing is putting what thelrrre doing everyda:r on paper.
Ellson: And I think the], should.
Planning Cor,rr,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 36
Conrad:Thi s
Hers
And
is a new role.
EIlson:bucking for cha i rr,an .
Conrad:
Furrings' I think it t ould be a good idea. IrFr cor,fortable with thls. I
think itrs in,portant to get rid of s orre of this stuff on the adrtinstrative
side so that t,e don't have it here and thatrs whatrs being done now. The
control there to rne is that if Paul gets Porrer crazed and starts Puttingbuiltlings in places where we haven't seen then, before, then ire have other
recourse I guess. The key to B.e is that as long as thel' donrt involve a
variance, which it sa1's and then if we added a clause right after that that
said, which are consistent irith the intent of aPProval, and then flnish the
sentence, which are not accolr,panied by other n,atters that require it. I
think that's enough because to rre that does define rr'inor change.
Batzl,i: So itrs up to his discretion as to rrhat the lntent itas?
Er,rrings: Yeah it is. But ltou know, if :rou canrt trust the adk',instrator
side of the city to do those things, $hat have you got then, there for?
Batzli: r agree. r rr, just crarifying that :rorrrre alrowing theP' to infer
what your intent was. Itrs a stater,ent. IrFr not questioning that they
canrt do that. I think theyz do a good job of that.
Errrrrings: I guess Irnr con,fortable with whatt s here and as far as ther,
reporting to us, I get enough to read alreadlt. I think if thel' do
sor,ething outlandish, it will coFie to our attention solte wa]t or other.
Batzli: But then it will be too late.
Err,rr,ings: It's going to be too late an:rvJa]/.
Batzli: I know.
Conrad: Not if everl'tirr,e the:, niade a significant change, thel' notified us.
Ena.ings: what does that rrean?
Batzli: Theyrd have to notify Ladd.
:iou can have it too. Yourve got tr':, vote feLla.
Conrads Yeah, thelr'd notiflt nre at hoFre.
could llterally docw,ent the changes that
interested in. The:t thought.
Erfi.ings: Yeah, itrs real nebulous.
Conrad3 But the:r could let us know.
before it reall!, gets done. There is
that but Irn, saying there is a rra!, to
a wa!, to coFfiiunicate
it. IrF, not lobbying for
The!,
the:,
could ca l1
thought we
me. No, they
would be
so there's
a walt to do
do it.
Er'Fr i ng s : How?
Conrad: Ever], 2 weeks we see what site plan changes they have approved.
Batzli: well, letrs get a sense here. How Frany site plan changes arethere every 2 t eeks?
Enrn.ings: He just said hels doing it on a dail1, basis.
Krauss: When things are going hot and heavy like in the fall when they
t anted to get a lot of certificates of occupanc:, done, therer s probabll, acould a week. 2orr3 a week.
Er,r,ings: Oh well1 thatrs different than on a daily basis.
E11son3 Feels like it Irrr, sure wben you working on it.
Conrad: Tin,l you donrt tant us in this F,ess do :rou? you prefer to keep usout of thi s I rrould assur,e .
Erhart: Yeah
adr,i ns tra t i on
but I think therers, help onapprovals of a new site plan
2g-LI3. Are reor are lrorr al so
talking about
includ i ng?
Conrad: Everything.
Are :,ou also incluiling in that paragraph an:r changes to thosethat havenrt been but have been approved?
Both.
Erhart :
things
Krauss:
Conrad: Things that rrere approved 5 !,ears ago.
Erhart: M1' feeling is that yeah, you have to trust your planner to do theadrrrinstrative things. However, in the real irorld when you get down to theapplicant versus the pLanner and in a discussion of whether he irants toapprove it or forcing it to go back to Planning Corur,ission, things likeadding niore than 10t actuall1r is to the detrir,ent of the planner becausethen the applicant can corr,e in anil sa!', thelr can work it around so it
becor,es 9.9? and then takes the argurrrent that weII, since the ordinancesa!'s that lrou can do this because itrs onl:' 9.9?, therefore lzoutreinsulting me or sorrrething else. Yourre just being a jerk if you go back tothe Planning Conrr,ission. I|d rather see it used Frore in terrr,s 9f intent ofthe Planning Corr,n,ission. Things like that because then it corrres aloirn to itis truly teft up to the j udgrr,ent of the Planner whether the guy is changingthe intent of what Planning Conrr,ission approveit or not.
Batzli: I Like Stevei s suggested language and lf ]rou.re 'concerned aboutit, are you concerneal that it looks like the adr'.instrator doesnrt have theauthorit]' to take it back to the Council or the Planning Cor..,r,ission if infact it fits within those guidelines? Would ]rou rather see at his optionhe can take it back even if he thlnks it is within the intent?
Er,r,ings: I think that I s erhat it sa],s.
Planning Cor,n,ission Ueeting
Januar!, 3, L99g - Page 37
Planning Cor,r,ission Meeting
January 3, l99g - Page 38
Erhart:
that -
Irrr just saying, as soon as ltou put 10t in there, the1rrll use
think they can. Paul can just sa!,.
ca11.
Er'n'ings: I donrt
Ellson: Itts his
Err,rr,ings: Yeah. It seeFs to nie it would
it con,es back or not.
Conrad: Especially if we put the 3 new words in referring
rrhat was originall!, stateal . If thatrs in there, then PauI
control to bounce it back or to handle it hir,self .
be verv r',uch in his hands whether
to intent of
has tota I
Krauss: WeIl it went to the City Council initially because we were underthe gun. The:r i{anted to break ground before the first of the ltear fortheir financing. It iras one of those situations where tbey were probabl:/
going to 9o to the City Council anyway if I didnrt get there first anal oneof the things I stressed to the Cit!' Council is that the appropriate wa!' tohandle this is to send it back to the Planning Cor',r',is s ion' and thel, agreed.they tolil the developer look, if you want to push us an], further, lrou'vegot to go back through the hoops.
Furrings: I thought it was
r'.,issed us in that setting.
anything rdr ong about that,discretion and couId.,go to
fine that you did. I eas just wondering why you
If the!, needed it for tllrre. I dontt see
even if it said it in here. Itts your
the City Council.
Erhart: The other thing is that, does it state, basically we donrt have
our architectural regulations or control. On the other hand, when sor,eone
cories in here, Iet's say like this building of the hotel ' essentiall:, our
disapproval or approval is. as rr,uch based on our PercePtion of thearchitectural integrity as it is about the ordinances. whether it passes
or meets or doesn't Freet and so is it clear or should we er,phasize rnorethat any changes in the architectrrral intent of it should corr,e back to
the Planning Con,rr,ission? Again, ItF, not proposing that we bring aII this
stuff back. I think the staff should be able to do these things. Itrrtrying to give then, the arr,unition to argue with the applicants and sa!,
Yeah, this has to go back and not just being a jerk.
Krauss: well it says rtinor, it does talk about r',inor site and buililingalterations and I think it gives us enough latitude to do just what we didwith the hotel and say that it's still a hotel but it doesn't look the i,rayit did when the Planning Cor,r,ission approved it.
Erhart: So yourre talking about builaling size essentiall:r. Therer s
nothing that sa],s anlzthing about architectural alteration.
Wilderrruth: I think thatrs a good case in point for the hotel situation
where you exercised gooil discretion there.
Errm,ings: Why did it go to the Cit], Council? Thatts the part that I donrt
understand.
Planning Cor,rt ission l.{ee t i ng
Januar], 3, !999 - Page 39
Krauss: well and a}so, at the this tirt'e werre working $iththat doesnrt sa:r an:rthing aborrt adrtinstratlve approvals andanything architectural review either.
anit ord inance
doesn r t salt
Conrad: Oka]t. Any specific wording changes? Steve ProPosed the one. Weincorporated the rrord intent and sorie stuff like that. An:, other tording
changes to 2g-lL3? Shall we skip an!' kind of a review? Does an:rbod]' wanta review at all tucked in there?
Batzli: I rrould prefer to see an update.
we currently have rather than requiring lt
Conrad: so not something that weid really
soltething that r{e'd have our staff just.
of an inf orrr,al status I ike
per sona l,1]r.
Kind
here
put into our ordinance brrt
Hrurrings: Hov, about an agenda iteFr? Why don't ire put it right
agenda to be on there as a routine iter,.on our
EIIson: Minor adr'instrative appr ov a 1s .
Wilderr',uth: How big a problerr, worrld that be Paul? How tirre consr[r,ing
rrould that be?
Krauss: I suppose we can tr!' it and find
enthusiasn, PauI. Itts
be last on the agenda.
out.
9oin9 to turn into one of thoseConr ad : TaF,e
i ter,s that it 1'ourwiII
Ellson: Like approvaL of Minutes. Approval of the r,inor iten,s.
Wi ldernruth :At a quarter
won't be hereEIlSon:
things.
Batzl i :to be on
We
to L2zgg.
tLL L2rgg because there will be less of these
WeLI that| s the nrost
an agenda i tenr.
review yourre going to get if itrs required
EF,r,ings: But ]rou know we've tried this before nith other things like Citl,
Council update is on there but r,a:7be there wasnrt any Cit!, Councll rneeting.
There's nothing or rr,aybe youire going to do it ora1ly. I don't knoer.
Krauss: Yes. I irill.
Er,rrrings' And the other thing that was supposed to be on ttere was our work
list. Irve alira],s eranted that as an agenda i tetr and it not onl1t is it not
an agenda iter,, but it's never, well...we got talking about the agenda.
Ellson: The 1a st
status report.
one we had was November 9th. Ongoing issues. That
Planning Coro,ission ueeting
Januar], 3, !999 - Page 4g
Er,rr'ings: Ma:rbe we can talk about the agenda when we talk about
adFrinstrative stuff. Ma:rbe re shorrld try it and leave it up to
ones he brings to us. We tr], it for a while. If we don't like
alrrays get rid of it.
Erhart: I want to r',ake sure it doesn, t but I |rt stillnot, that this whole paragraph is all oriented around...architectural and structural.
other
h ir., Lrh i chit, we can
Conrad: Okalt. Letrs leave it out of the ordinance. Anlt kind ofadrtinstrative processing for us. Letrs keep that out of this docutent.Okay. Any other eoF{rrents on the ordinance? Is .there a Frotion?
Er''Frings: I I 11 r',ove that the Planning Coro,ission approve the draf t of
review and adoption b:, the Cit1, Council as contained in the packet under a
memo dated Decer'ber 27, L989 with the change that wetve all beendiscussing. In the first full sentence of 2g-l-l-3 so it wouLd read, nrinorsite plan and building alterations which do not invoLve a variance, whichare consistent with the intent of the original approval , and which are not
accotrrpanied b:, other F,atters requiring consideration by the Planning
Conrr,ission or Cit!, council, nra:r be approved b], the Director of pl"anning.
Ellson: IrlI second.
Erhart: Would yorr consider adding the h,ord to your addition, a nordstructurall:t and archi tectura lly.
Conrad: In 113?
Erhart: Yeah.
Erjrrings: Where $ould ]rou put it?
Erhart! Right in the rtriddle of your, in other words, changes to the intentstructuralllt and architecturall:t.
EIIson: Wouldn't that lirrrit that just to those two things?
concerned that rre arestructural.
Ellson: But nature is part of the intent.
Erhart: WeIl the sarre t ords that hers got.
Ero,ings: If 1'ou rrant to do sorr,ething tike that, fiialrbe !,ouparenthesis after intent. Sa!' archi tectua 11:', structutaily
Erhart: Right. You would do that including architectura.I ,otherwise.
En,r,ings:I suppoEe we could
Do :7ou gant to aftend
)
do that. Thatrd be flne t ith r,e.
nant to put a
and otherwise.
structural and
Conrad:lrour second?
Planning CoF,ltrission ueeting
Januar!, 1, L99g - Page 41
Ellson: Irll ar,end rty second to sa:, architectualllr, structurally
otberwi se .
and
Conrad: othervrise is sort of inclusive.
Batzli: That is kind of a catch all isnrt it?
Conrad: Any tr.'ore discussion?
Ero,ing s rroved
approval of6, Site Planfollowing as
which do not
s tructur a I1:,
which are notthe PlanningP1anning. AI
, EIlson seconded that the Planning Corr,niission recoF,rt,end
Zoning Ordinance Arr,endr,ent to an,end the Cit], code, DivisionReview with an arr'endn,ent to Section 2g-L]-3 to include ttrethe first sentence: Minor site plan and bullding alterationsinvolve a variance, wh5.ch are consistent archite-turally,
and otherwise, with the intent of the original approval, and
accorr,panietl b], other Irratters reqrriring consideration byCorrn,ission or Cit], Council, r'a:r be approved b:, the Oireitor ofI voted in favor and the r,otion carried.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1990.
Conrad: Ir11 give you Fr}, corur,on speech on this iterr. If therei s sorr,ebodwnho is dying to do this, or not even dlring, I think we should norninate thitperson. Irrrl rnore than happ:r to sit on the planning Cor,r.ission.
Elr'rtrings. I nor,inate Ladd f or Chair.
Batzll: I second that.
Ellson: I like the ldea of getting lour cofirrrr€hts ahead of tirtre sorretimes.I think yorr being the last isntt always to our benefit. I think it.d benice if we...
conrad3 The chairrs job is not to direct as r,uch as to... Brian, do youfeel like yourd like to chair this for a year?
Ellson: Herd be late every ti&e.
Batzli: See ue'd never get started on tir.e. youire just tr!,ing to get rtehere. No, Ird be ttrore than happli to slt in once or twice but I donti haveany designs to become chair.
Erharts rt shourd be everybodyrs objectlve at sorr,e polnt in thelr rife.
Batzli: WeIl not at this nrorrrent.
Conrad : Tirvr, how about !rou?
Erhart: No. I r tr' not ready.
Planning Cor',rr,ission Meeting
Januar:' 3, L990 - Page 42
Conrad: I{e I ve been groor,ing and groor,ing. Yolr know I have to rtra ke a
corrrrrr€'lt. We havenrt heard the corr{hunisFr speech for 2 or 3 years.
Batzli: Our first meeting he gave us that speech I thlnk, or part of it
anln a:7.
Erhart: The onl]r coFrr'unists that are left now are in, I won.t say therord. In that State organizatlon they call the lrhat, ltet Council. Thelrrrethe only coF'nunists that are left...
Ellson: Steve, you donrt want to do lt?
Frtings: No. I don't ,ant to do it because I think Ladd ought to do it.Ir& aerious.
Ellson: I think you have a real good repoire eith the public and I think
that I 6 irr.portant . Sor,e people get pretty upset.
Er.$tings: Ladd does a good job. Hers good erlth the people in public
hearlngs and I think that's the rr,ain reason. The onl:r thing I hate, aslong as werre getting into it, the only thing I hate is your lntroductoryspeech. Irr. real bored with it.
Conrad: l,ta:rbe I could start delegating some of these things. Steve, till
you introduce?
Er'rrrings: Here r s Ladd. Hor,' s that?
Conrad: Is there a nor.,lnatlon for chairFran?
Wilderr,uth: I nor'rinate Ladd Conrad for Chalrtan.
Enrringa s Second .
Conrad: Are there an], other nominations?
llildermuth: Annette, do lrou have a burning deslre?
Ellson: No. I was thinking it would be nice to have a corrple different
people only frort the standpoint that I think the few tirr,es, Ilke 1,ou'vesaid, the two tirres when yourve sat outside, we got soFe of :rour cor'r,ents
wbich is usuall1' sorr'e prettl, good insight anil we donrt usuall:, get that
until tbe end. I donrt knoi, about lrou gulrs, but sorretir,es I can have rr!,
rrrind rr,ade up and af ter hearlng 3 people and I see their points, I can
change rt 1' r.,ind after IIve gotten 3 other peopleI s vlewpoihts and sor,etlr,es
I wish your viewpoint a little bit earller on ln the dlscussions since a
Iot of it is wrought rdith experience and things like that.
Conrad! The nice thing about being la6t is ltou hear everybod:, else talk.
Erdr,ings: But I knoe, at least one occasion when yorr intentionalll, didnrt
chair it because you "wanted.
Planning Corur,ission Meeting
Januar!' 3, L99g - Page 43
Conrad: There are tinres when yeah, whento get out of the chairn'anship role.I want to swalr opinion, IrlI tr:t
Errarings: But I think he can decide
BatzIi: Although rr,eetingselse.
when he wants
a lot shorter
question ]tet.
that.
nent with son,ebody
to do
if welrou I d be
Conrad: WelL we havenr t called the
Erhart: r think Ladd does do a good job with the public and at the sarretinre keeps it going to sotte degree. i ttrinX it ts; we,re getting in alittle big of danger of getting a little bit stale. I donit thi;k to thepoint where I think your service is invaluable or should be r,aintained foranother ]rear. on the other hand, I think we ought to be start thinkingabout doing sor,e rotation. r don't want to do rike the park coro,issiondoes but perhaps maybe one of the wa!,s to do it is to have a different ViceChairn,an this ]rear. Not that Stever i done a bad job at aII.
Erfirings: I havenrt done anything.
Erhart: He hasnrt done anything but get an opportunit:, to start trainingso to speak sor,e different people in the position.
Conrad: I reall:, think itts inportant. Ird reall:, Iike to have different
Peopre chair the rr,eeting. r think itrs real in,portant to have differentpeopre rrrnning this thing so r second your r',otion Tin,. r find it rear easwto run the n,eeting. Itrs not a strain. It's not a pressure deal.Sonretimes it's r',ore fun sitting over where sorr,ebodl' llse is because lrou cantake s or,e neat shots but Irrr, not golng to be here iorever.
Batzl-i: Nord is that talking about r,ortatit:r?
Conrad: Yeah, I could die toF,orrow. But I realllr think itrs good so Idonrt know. on the other hand, r can see that son,e peopre could step in,if I resigned, I think sone people could step in irr,nidiitely because-vrervegot a fairr!, good aFrouht of experience on tha cor,n,ission. i think wetveall been around for a few lrears. Joan being the new person on the block.
Ellson: A few hours for Joan.
Conrad: A fel, hours and she rra]r resign after nhat we've been doing.
Erhart: Malrbe the question is, ls there any one of us rdho are ver!,interested and letrs say if you wanted to siep out for a year. Juit say:tou rtant to steP out for a lrear next lrear. Is an:' one Of uS interestedbecorr,ing chairn,an in the following :rear at this tin,e? Which is Steve.)'ourre interested in doing lt, than I think we ought to keep lrou as Vicechairnran. But if therets sonr€oh€ erse interested in acting a! chairr.,anthe. f ollowilg ]rear, then I rrould propose that nralzbe we r.,ak6 hir, Vice
Cha i rn,an this year.
inIf
1n
Planning Cor,r.,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 44
Eur,ings: Either that or give, I
so gre get, instead of one person itit
ast wear I
doing
4 people do it or anybody who would do
Erhart: Chairr.,an or vice Chairr',an?
Ero,ings: Just to chair sor.,e r,eetings. I dont t know wh1, we
the Vice Chairrran does nothing in this group except sit down
either he doesn't want to or bers not here.
proPosed that h,e pass it around
for a lrear, wh}, not let the 3 or
need a vice,
when Ladd says
Batzli: No, thatts an iFrportant function to have that person in case Ladd
isnit here. Sor,eone needs to be in charge. A Person itith that title is
iF,portant. whether the), actually chair the r,eeting or not is unir',portant
but there is sor',eone that is kind of the second in cor,r',and rrhen Ladd can I t
be here. I think thatrs an inportant function.
Etorings: Even if gre do have sorrreone whor s vice Chairrrran, I still think
that anybod:' who,s readlz to chair a rr,eeting. An]rbod], who isnrt absolutel]t
oPPosed to doing it. r know last !,ear Annette didn't want to but Fra]'be
this !'ear she feets differently but I think Ti!, and Brian and Jin', unless
:zou don't want to, ought to chair a rreeting this year. Irve done it a few
tir,es antl r can ilo it if r have to and r think everlibod:' orrght to feer that
way.
Conrad: I know that rde got soFre coFrF,ents froFr Cit!' Council back
that the:t didnrt want a fixed rotation. But that ditln't Frean we
rotate iL brrt thel' sinply didn't erant it scheduled as such.
to see rtrore
least frorr
Iast lrear
couldn I t
Peop 1e
Bo]tt.Batzri: There was a coFarent arso that thelt wourtl rike
get involved with chairing r,eetings though as weII. At
Conr ad :
BatzIi:
Erhar t:
Is that
Yeah .
I think
r ight?
l,lore actlvellt lnvolved to
the problerr, with the Park
be able to. . .
and Rec is. . .
Ellson: What do the:' do? You said like then. I have no idea.
Erhart: The!, rotate everl, rreek. The Probletn lrou have there is. ltou have
nobody tho's clearllt the leader of that group because there is no leader.
It juat rotates and I dontt think serre in danger of doing that just b]'
allowing somebody else to chair a r,eeting once a :7ear.
conrad: I think t,e should norrinate a vice Chalr. Typicalll' what has
happened this last ltear, even though I said we nere going to rotate this
thtng or give other PeoPle a chance. By the t ir',e we got to the end of the
r,eeting, that's the last thing that I rras thinking of. Of saf ing 2 weeks
froF, now, I want wou to chair the rreeting. But r,aybe, grhlt donrt we make a
Frore aglressive atterrpt at rotating that occasionalllt- so those.peoPle that
don't ieel uncortfortable doing it, have that opPortunlty. It is a good
opportunity and I think just for our personal grolrth standPoint, I thlnk
it's good for people to talk to the public and try to persuade theFr werre
Planning Cor',n ission Meeting
Janrrarl, 3, ]-99g - Page 45
doing a decent job. And to let therr thinkthen,. Itts klnd of a fun deal. I,11 take
Etutings: III1 non,inate Tir..
Batzli: I second it.
Conrad: Are there an:, other nottrinations?
Batzli: Did we have to vote on lrou Ladd?
Er'lrrings 3 tle' re going to do it all at onceplanning Ladd?
Conrad: Thatrs h,hat I was planning.
that governrrent
nor',inations for
is working forVice Chair.
I think. Thatrs what ]rorr were
Erhart: Can I give Ii,], speech? I,m going to express a concernlong terrr of, not lack of interest in being a chairr,an but theattenilance for r,yself personally. If sorrebodlr else feels, whoattendance and feels that the!, would both want to and becauseattendance could be a chair next !'ear, I erould think thelrrd beappropriate candidate for Vice Chair. I,ll take it but i iust
Conrad: Are volr salring, do you see sor.,ething?
Erhart: Not the probler, with attendance as Vice Chairrtan but inbeing a chairnran sorreda]r, is the attendance probler, because of n,ytravels...I just wanted to point that out.
If ]tou were, if thebut neIve sti1I got
electing a cha i rr,an
I have in
concern is
has goodof their
a FrOf e
wanted to...
light of
Vice Chairrrana euofunrl ffor the
F,n'ings: Let n,e ask a question on that.and ChairFan are gone at the sarrre n,eetingtake it we can still run a r,eeting? JustF,eeting.
Er'r'ings: So then itrs not a prob1er,.
EIIson: WeII and even your probler, ofstill gives everybody the opportrrnit],l,ant to do anyway. So if you have 70tsorreone for 30t of the tir,e.
Conrad: Srlre can.
Erhart: Thatis fine but I r,ouldthis year is in your absence anddo do this rotating thing.
being chairFan a year after that,to rotate in like the], eventuall!,attendance, I think we could find
to have, I think rrhat I,d likeoccaslonalLlt when ]rou I re here,
tois do
we
Iike
even
Errson: Thatrs our intent. RerrreF,ber that thing about intent paul .
Conrad:
closed.Are there a
t{e I 11 cal l n!t
a
other noFrinations for Vice Chair? Norr,inationsquestion for election of the Chairr,an and Vice
are
Chair.
Planning Corr,r.,ission Meeting
Januar:' 3, l99g - Page 46
wilderr,uth nor',inated, Er,r',ings seconded
the Planning Cora,isslon for 1990. AIl
carr ied .
Ladd Conrad as Chairn,an offavor and the rtro t i on
to elect
voted in
ADOPT PLANNING CO}IM ISS ION BY-LAWS.
Batzli: B!, the wa:r, we're supposed to give new rrer,bers an oath. Does
anlzbody know what that oath is, according to the B:r-lans?
Conrad: Nornrall:, don't we have a written sheet? So actualllt Joan yourre
not sworn in 1zet.
Ahrens: Can I go then?
Conrad: AII those rise decisions you rrade tonight, will never be
reflected. There really lsnrt a legal ir'.,p1ication of that oath is there?
Ellson: Itrs in onr Blr-Latrs.
conrad: It basicall!' talks about the resPect you have to hold for your
fellow cott ,issioners. I canrt reF,eF,ber. So wei11 get that docuttrent to
Joan and ria:rbe send it out or walt for 2 weeks. tlhatever. B1t-laws, anl'
changes in our By-Iarrs that an:rbod:t sees necessar:7?
Ellson: WelI just the one se just brought up. Undler 3.2 it sa!'is that
every appointed n,er,ber sha1l before entering, take an oath that he wl11
faithfully discharge the duties of his office' At an:' time we can artenil
those, do we rant to say that that aloesn't have to be done or he bas to
just reacl it over and sign it sor,etir'e? It doesn't seer, like we're
following. on page 2. 3.2.
Erhart: Yourre referring to the last aentence there about corr,pensation?
Ellson: That souldnrt be bad to change either. Free Pop at least and
sandsiches every other. The only other thing, I know we brought it up
before. Do !,ou 9u!'8 stitl thlnk 7:39 Ls the best tlrre? I klnd of llked
that earl:, one shen we had it.
Conrad: I have a tough time earlier.
Batzli 3 I don I t even have to cottrtrreht.
conrad: Brian's position is prett!' clear- r donit even know what the oath
says and the legaI irr,plications of that Annette.
Ellson: It seetrrs like if we're not followlng it.
conrait: well didn't you sign it?
EFrrrings r,oved, wilderrruth seconded to elect Tir, Erhart as Vice Chalrr'an of
the Planning Cor ,ission for L990. All voted in favor and the rtotion
carried.
PIanning
Januar l,
Cor',r',i ss i on Meeting3, l99g - Page 47
Conrad: I rr, sure you signed it. I think everybody has. It's just been solong since we've had €r h€w coF rrissioner.
Ellson: I think I remeF,ber reading it.
Ellson: Jo Ann, do yorr know what it is? Is it sorrething we say?
Son,ething we sign?
Olsen: ItIs sor'ethlng 1'ou sign.
EIIson: Then rre ought to get it for Joan here.
Batzlis Itrs not in the ordinance establishing us.
Ellson: AIright. Forget it.
Conrad: Is there a r,otion to approve the Blr-larrs?
Errur,ing s: r have a question. Hord crosery do we tant the rures that governyour behavior to be coF,patible? What extent do we t ant theFr to becortpatible hrith what we actuall:, do?
Ellson: What do lrou trrean?
EFnings: WelI, therers a lot of things in here that we donrt do. Uaybe wedonrt care, shich is fine. r don't llke rures. r donrt Like these r-ulesand IIn perfectly corrfortable sal,ing we approve these rules and then lreignore ther, for another ]rear. But thatrs sort of the way I look atsorrrething like that but otherwise, therer s a1l kinds of thlngs in here thatire j ust plain don I t do.
Batzri: For instance, the chaiurran shalr conduct the rtreetings so as tokeep it F,oving rapidly... I had to get that shot in.
EIIson: No, itrs sorrrething about us talking to the prrblic. OnI:, thechalrn,an calls on those people.
Errfiiings: Yeah. Petitioner and pubJ.ic w111 address the chair onl]r. Notstaff or other comrrissioners. Werre alrrays vlolating that.
Ellson: There shall be no dialogue .[r,ong the corrrnissioners.
Er.lngs:- And (g), after all facts and inforrr,atlon have been brought forth,the hearing shall be closed and Lnterested persons shall not be hiardagain. We always open lt back up and I think it's appropriate that I,e door that we at least have the discretlon to do what t,e nant. We couldchange thenr so that lt said that. Or we can ignore theFr.
Erhart: r think these rules are irrrportant rrhen lrou get lnto hot lssues andthe chairr,an eants to carl the meeting back. Get a meeting back in order.If it gets down to it, he can refer to sorre rules.
Planning Corr,n,ission lteeting
Januar], 3, ].99g - Page 48
Batzli:And salt
Yeah .
no, I've closed it. Yourve
If you canrt say that, then
Er'rr'ings' But therer s a walr to rrrite this.
hearing shall be closed. Interested persons
unless in the discretion of the Chairrr,an.
Erhart:
had:,our
ltou can I t
You couldshaII not
say.
get it back in
sir,ply sa:, that
be heard aga in
order.
the
Batzli: But ]rou also have, if
if we reall}, wanteil to.lrou look at 7.2, we can alwa]rs suspend these
Errrrrings: wh:, donrt we just suspend the rrrles for the :tear? 7.1, it says
rratters for discussion which dontt appear on the agenda can be considered
anil discussed only when initiated anil presented by the staff? Again,
thatrs another one. I donrt particularll' like that one. I donrt knol., $hy
we canrt bring up things and discuss then if rre rrant. Vle do it.
Ellson: onl:, when initiated blr the staff. sure, lrourve done a lot of that
non-initiated by staff.
Conrad: I donrt know how that can be done because thatrs not legal.
Er,r,ings: what?
Conrad: To have staff present sorrething that has not really appeared
the agenda or been published.
on
Fdtrings: wetl it says Iyratters for discussion.
action so I donrt know why we shouldn't be able
discussion. I suppose the right thing to do is
call and get it on the agenda.
Conrad: cet it on the agenda. Plan it.
sorrething coFres up I don't know
It
toif
doesn I t sa]' for an:t
initiate tr,atters for
:/ou got an ltert, is to
Enutings: But on the other hand, if
canit talk about it.
Conrad: But we do.
whw we
Er,rr,ings: So I guess,
per fectl:, cor,f or table
there are little things likejust ignoring it but I donrt
that. Like I sa!7, I'!r
knor.r.
Erhar t :
Conrad !
Er'rr i ng s :
Batzl i :
Erhar t 3
Conrad:
Do we have an], authorit]t to change the Bv- laws ?
Yes .
we did it last :rear.
Yeah, we have author i t1t.
Does any by-Iaw change reqrrire the Cit:, Council approval?
Oh lteah, the]t'd have to.
Planning Cor',rr,i ss i on Meeting
Januar!' 3, L990 - Page 49
En,tt'ings: Do yorr think so?
Conrad: Oh ]reah.
Batzli: It doesn't sa!' that.
Elrdrri ng s s By-laws are things that hre have to govern the
Batz1i: 7.3 and 7.4 sa:r that we can a:r,end it.
Etlnrings: Do they? That nrakes sense.
way ire act I think.
El1son: I think we,re r,aking too big a deal out of it. I think this ishelpful if you get sor,ebody whors going power hungr!' and things tike thatand it brings therr back to rife but vre don't seen,-t6 have a whole lot ofprobleri.working together and r think it'id be a rot r,ore work going throughand trying to reerord it than itis worth.
Erhart: Ii11 tell you, if i{e can atrrend it1 Ird certainll, be in favorartending, I think 6 is fine but I thlnk that 7.I is so flr away fron,realit], that I think that it would rrarrant nraking a change there.
Conrad: WeII , rdhat do 1,ou want to sa:, Tinr?
of
El1son: Do you want tostaff F'a], be considered
take orrt,
and sha 1I
onllt irhen
be placed
initiated andat the end of Presented b:'the agenda.
Erhart: Do we need it at all?
Erhart: Either that Brian or the alternative ofthe agenda. On the spot.the Chairrtan can prrt it on
Batzri: v{ell r think vor r{dDtr if sor,eone is bringing something up thatPeople donrt want to discuss, :rou rrra], erant sor,ething Eo be able to shutthen off. So if in fact lrou wanted it U1' a n,ajorit! vote of the planningconrp,ission. That if itrs not on the ageida an6 the-planning cor,r,ission -
doesn't want to talk about it, najoritlr vote says vrerre not going to talkabout it tonight. put it on the next agenda.
BatzIi: At his discretion?
Erhart: At his discretion, yeah. That wouldjust start talklng about everything.
Wilderltruth: Put the ltonke:, on the Chairmanr s back.
keep it in order so rre donrt
E o,ings: I think that,s fine. At the discretion ofeither discrrss it that night or put it on the agenda
Batzli: So it,s only when initiated and presented bdiscretion of the Chqirrrran. I 1ike it. It's got a
the
for Cha i rr,an , he canthe next rr,eet i ng .
:, the staff or at the
gootl ring.
Planning Cor,n,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 50
Conrads Anlrthing else that lrou would like to change? Going back to
6.2(e). I donrt run Freetings that hralr where the:, onl!, address nre. PeoPle
tend to ignore rrre so the:r're talking ar'ongst therrrselves but do we want to,
I donrt know that that would serve any usefuL PurPose. At least the way I
run a r,eeting. To change it.
Batzli: If the]r are harranging one of the corrlr,issioners, ltou could always
polnt out that the:' should address you on1y.
Er'rrings: And werve had pubLic hearings where werve gotten into a little
bit of in arftuFr€nt. . .
Conrad: Okay, so we!11 leave that
the discretion of the Cha I rlr'an in
r'otion to approve the B]r-laws.
So the onl], addition would be, or
With that revislon, is there a
in.7.r.
Etrr'tr ings r',oved, Wildern,uth seconded that the Planning Cor,r,iission adoPt the
Planning Con,rr,ission By-laws with an atrrendrrrend to 7.1, inserting the Phrase,
or at the discretion of the ChairF,an. AII voted in favor and the r'otion
carried.
ELECT HRA LIASON.
Batz1i: I norr,inate Jirrr.
Ellson: I second it.
Errrtings: I third it.
wilderr,uth: I haven, t gone to the last 3 meetings. I have not gone ln the
last 3 meetings.
E11aon3 Then lrourre overdue so even Itrore reason to be on it.
tfi lderrr.rrth: Nulrrber one. Nurrber tso, I realll, dont t thlnk rre need a liaBon
because therei 3 really not that r,uch that hapPens at t!o8e rr'eetlngs. I
think a Iot of the deaisions are Prett:' neII Predeterrtrined. wouldn't ]'ou
agree to sorre degree?
Conrad: Norttrall], ne assign the nesest rrrerr.ber.
wl Lderrrruth: I started out b!, taking noteg studlously each one of theae
things to rePort back to !'ou and r'd end uP with the date'srltten down and
rho eas there and that was lt.
Ellson: Why do we have a llaEon? was it sortrebod:, r E idea years ago or is
it a requir€[rr€nt?
Conraat: I thlnk just cor&,unication elth those grouPs.
Ellson: we couldntt'g"t a rePort fror. thek?
Planning Cor,rt ission Meeting
Januar:' 3, L99g - Page 51
Batzli: Irn, srrre it rras the situation that we ran into erith the park
Rec Cor,r\ission where I suggested better con,r.,un i ca t i on and suddenly Ialmost the representatlve to the park and Rec.
Conrad: And then ]rou decided cor,r',unication was prett!, good.
and
was
Batzli: No, I donrt know that we need it.
Corr,rrrission, I really don I t recalI too rt,anltther'. I donrt knon. In the past was it a
Conrad: I think to r,ake this a non-issue,
Ellson: How hrorrld you like to just look atj udgr.rent if lrou think itrs worth your whiletrust that if yorr thought it was sorhethingcould go.
Since ltve been on thereports that werve neetlecl froni
ProbleF,?
the agenda and take your bestgoing or not and we wouldthat would concern us, that
in the corr,rr,un i ty is going to change
I would non inate Jirr,.
EIIson: But he doesnrt have to have perfect attendance.
Er,rr,ings: Ha]rbe lre don I t want an HRA I iason.
j ust
you
Wi ld e rnruth :with what I s
I think the HRAts role
happening with funding.
Krarrss: Well the tax increnrent districts are, ]rourre not creating newdistricts and the Cit:/ Council ls riding sith the nerrest district-anywal,directry without going through the Hna io as downtown F,atures and theindustrial parks fill up their role, unless the]' corrre up with a new role,their role worrld be diminishing.
Wildermuth: Therer s sorreforefront thatts going toflnancIng.
other rrechanism thatkind of d irr,in i sh the
seeFrs to be corting torole of the HRA. It,s the
S Oltre
Krauss: WeII tax increr,ent
Wi lderrt,uth: The leg i slation
Krauss: Lirrriting it, 1,eah.
Et'$rings: If you had to say
lrou sa:r? rlhat I s their role
Krauss: I think the:, served
Ettrlt lngs' For developF,ent of
financing is, the legislation
is Iirr'itin9 it right?
1S changi.ng.
in 25 words
here.
or less what they do, what irould
a real role as prirting the [rump.
the doirntorrn?
Krauss: And of the business park. The incentiveswere able to put together got thlngs going.
Conrad: And what do-:rou see the role of abody? Or not really on it but.
and the packages the:,
Planning corrrri ss i oner on that
Planning Coro,ission Meeting
Januar:, 3, 1^99g - Page 52
Krauss: Our HRA is kind of unusual in that to a certain extent it has a
guasi planning function, or at least it ditl. Tbey were instrurrental with
how dorrntorrn caF,e out looking. Nor, a }ot of that stuff was also reviewed
by you but the:, F,ade sor,e decisions. The hotel site plan, the HRA actuall!'
appioved the site p!.an independentl], of your review anal the City Council's
approval. So the develoPer actuall:, has to go back and ask t herr, for
approval as welI because the!'tre getting $32g rqgg.A0 fr orr, the HRA.
EIIson: What's your
think Jirr.'s...
feeling? Do !'ou think we need a liason or do vou
Krauss: well I like the idea of having sor,ebody
basis. It alwa:ts seeltrs to cor,e out that the Yreek
wefve already had 2 or 3 rreetings and this is his
wilderr,uth: Ird volunteer on that basis. If ],oucertainl:, go.
available on an
they have theirthird or fourth
gave ne a call,
as needed
Ereetings,
one.
r rd
Batzli rtoved,
wi IderIT,uth as
carrled.
Erhart seconded that the Planning Cono,ission elect Jir,
the HRA liason as needed. All voted in favor and the r,otion
CITY COUNCIL UPDATES:
Krauss: The Citl' Council only had one lT,eeting. I guess the:/ had 2
r.eetings in Decer'.ber - one since 1'ou last r.et' They apProved the final
plats ior vineland Eorest and for Ersbo Addition. Reall]t no nelv changes
wittr ttrat. Pretty r,ucb as :'ou saw theFr. The councit also reviewed 3
ordinances that hive corre through !'ou. The parking ordinance and the
convenience stores and the]t were scheduled to revlew the interirr' use
perr,its but ran out of tirte and didnit get to lt-
conrad: convenience stores, what'd the]' do on the convenience stores?
Krauss: Convenience stores, well thel' gave convenlence stores flrst
reaaling. The:r approved first reading. Thel' talked about the setback or
the seiaration sllndards and lour CoF rr€hts irere related to them. Thelt are
considlring, what they did is thelz approveil , gave lt first reading an'l said
they wanted to reconsider soF,e of the separation requireEents and gave sor,e
indication that the], Probabl:' would irant to increase the separation
requirer.,ents frorl, the gas prrFrps to residential properties-. They. also added
a dhar,ge, and it i.as J;!, Johnson who pointed it out, that'oftentlF,es the
vent pipes fror, the storage tanks are as obnoxious or dangerous as the gas
puF,ps then,selves so the ordinance is being changed ao that the setback
ipplies both fror., the gas purrps and fror. the vent PiPes. l{erve had a
piobler., over here with Brookets ln that the vent PiPes are on the
iesidential property line and the people can sgrell it. There was also an
amen&rent tror., bift Boltt that said that basically if you're, I forget
exactllt how he worded it but if :tou're selling Rotor ol1 anal ]'ou get a
conditionar use perrrit under this section, ltou could have an obligation to
Planning Con,n,i ss i on Ueeting
Jannar], 3, L990 - Page 53
collect it.
EIlson: The dirtl' stuff?
Krauss: Right.
Wilderrruth: I think thatrs arequire sorne sort of capture
Krauss: I think the:' do that
good idea. . . soF,e legislation that r s going toof vapors fron, the vents of tanks.
in California non and you get a nuch biggernozzle.
wi lderrruth :California just passed the requirements.
Batzli: Worrld that include then the vents for the tanks?
Krauss: Well it nright. Conceiveably 1t should.
Wilderrrruth: In fact they even wanted to extend lt to autohotive gasso nothing could escape fror, the bottleneck while lrou,re filfing itapparentrl, the secretary of Transportation has detErnined that itrsto be unsafe - r think the Big 3 persuaded hirr, that it wasn't a good
90.
tanks
but
going
wa!, to
Krauss: So the!, didordinance, they also
change was that an},efficiency apa r tr,entthat are enclosed.
Conrad: And lre sent up
give that one first reading. On the parkinggave that first reading but thel, rr,ade a change and thetype of nrulti-fartily housing t ith larger than anas crrrrently drafted, would require 2 parking stalls
Krauss: Iouto thep,.
sent up I
L L/2.
1,/2 which was the recorw.endation that was presented
EIlson: Even
figures?
after that big speech that we got and all the facts and
Krauss: werl he gave it again and there were soFre additional peopre there.
1'. il the process right now of going back_and_ drafting up a second readingfor that. In it I cont.inue to sa:, that f frankl!' tfrin[ ii's sorr,eHhatexcessive based on what other conr.,unities are reluiring and based on whatthey can physicarry provide to do that. They diJcusse6 lrandting, breakingout townhoFes and quads_and handring those dlfferently than apartr,ents, andtherers son,e rationale for doing th;t because the occtpanel, ii a fittl;different. A toirnhorre is rargei and tends to.have *o.i ttr-.n one personoccupying it and the]r- own it longer and thelr have Frore storage reluirerr,entsand whatever else. I rn bringing to theF, sorr,e inforr.,ation ttrit ba6icallyrsa1's if, yourve got the standard 3 story apartrtent brrilding, it,s ptryii-irryin,possibre to do that. some inforrration i got fror, nrvid-iltness whodesigned the aparthent bullding going up heie and a nurrrber oi ottrerProjects, is that the average 3 stor:r apartr.ent building, the averageapartnient unit slze is 90a square feet of froor area. ihe average larking
Planning Cor.ar,i ss ion Meeting
Januar!' 3, L99g - Page 54
space takes tp 1A0 square feet. So if youive got 3 floors of. 9gA square
foot units, :rou can only put the 3 stalls underneath it and there is no
Frore roon physicall!' unless you expand the baser'ent of the building out
beyond the building watl, which is done occasionally.
Batzli: Put a second 1evel of parking.
Krauss: You could do that too and of course that' s treF,endousl]t expensive.
just off VaIIe:' Vierr. Nearwildertrruth: But it uas done in Eden Prairie
the intersection of valle:, View and TH 4.
EIIson: Yeah, I know where youire talking. we were jrrst saying, r think
hls presentation to F,e yras so Persuasive in tbat ere're eli!,inating a whole
group of people from living in Chanhassen because werre r,aking it so-xpensive to live here if lre start putting this requirertents on. Thatrs
irh], I r,{a s persrraded back to 1 I,/2 sinipl}t because we're real stuf f!'/ on uPPer
rtiddle incor,e and nothing less can afford to live here and that doesnr t
seen, right when we have so rran!, people emplo:'/ed that are quite less than
that .
Er,rrrings: That and the nuF,ber of single parent farr,llies that buy these
t!,pes.
Ellson: Right and it was over
one car.
5Ot of ther' vrere single shich could Iead :tou
That surPrises F,e. I thought that
because I car,e in here and that reallyto believe there rras
presentation rras so
turned rrre around.
per sua s 1ve
Erhart: Does the grouP actualIl,
applied to apartFient bui Id i ng s?
we actuall:, think about that?
conrad: I did but I
irr,plications of that
Presentation. What
understand that the
We recorT,rT,ended that
garage restr iction
ordinance change. Did
Erlr.ings: I donrt think so.
Erhart: In r'':' tT,ind I did not ever think we were talking about apartrrent
buildings.
WilderF,uth: I did.Thatts erh]' I backed away fron the I L/2.
sure didnrt know of any kind of statisticai
untll we started talking. The PeoPle r,ade the
el se?
Krauss: Thati s about it.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Conrad: We want to r..ake sure that tbe next tirr,e through
talking about Stevers letter corr,lng back and referring to
the beachlot ordinanoe. Next F,eeting wiII we be talking
ordinance and Steve t s reconrrtr€nda t ions?
Paul that rre I r-e
the shoreland or
about a beachlot
Planning Cor',rr,ission Meeting
January 3, L99g - Page 55
OIsen: Ye6.
Etr'ings: During open discussion, can we talk about the agenda?
APPROVAL OF I,IINUTES: Ellson moved, Batzli secondedof the Planning Cortrr,ission rr,eeting dateil Decerrber 6AI1 voted in favor and the rqotion carried.
, can ire put itthis last:tear
irrpor tant that
soFre cop i eS .
to approve the Minrrtes
, 1989 as presented.
on the agenda
and essentially you
we continue to do
Conrad: Steve, yorr hold the floor.
Err,r,ings: well we alread:, talked about this. we shortld have an iter, onhere that we talked about for the Director to report on an:, adrr,instrativeapprovals under the ordinance. under the site pran ordinance r think andarso there shourd be an iten on here that talks about our ongoing issrres.r think that should be an iterr on the agenda. r think Tirt, night have rr,oreto sa:/ about that.
OPEN DI SCUSS ION CONTINUED.
Erhart: I just asked that ire puttonight !,1r. Chairrran? We started
handed this thing out and I thinkthat so just at the last n,inute Icopy wi th lzou?
Krauss: No. Holrever
it on
doingitrs
made
Erhart: This was j ust
Conrad: Where do you
Do :tou have the old
to Novenrber.
Can we talk about this now Ladd?
it? Do ]rou want to go through these?
we updated it
one I found.
want to take
Erhart: well first r want to talk about the ir,portance that rre do see itand r think we shorrrd add it to the agenda. second r want to talk about rgrress F,!' concern about getting solrre progress on soFr€ of these things fasterthan we have been. rn the past itrs because of staffing probrens 6rrt rguess r In looking f or s orr,e kind of a corr,n itr,ent that this- year ire areactually going to work on things that when the Planning Col;r,ission coFres upwith an issue thatts ir,portant enough for thenr to have us look at it, Ifeer we ought to have sorrre rrov€m€nt on it. otherwise r question wheiherthe Planning Con,n,issionrs really accor,plishlng an!,thing. -
Krauss: We rrould certainllr support putting it on a regutar basis. Thereis, we did update one in Noverrrber. It eras hit and rt,is! but we added sonrethings to it.
Ellson: A lot of the things rrerve done too.
Krauss: But Irou,re right, putting it ondo it and oftentines.,in the conversation
sa1' add to the list. That way ee can.
a regular basls
we cone up wi th
the onl], Yra:, toiter, that we
:-
an
Ellson: I think :tou gu:rs don't realize, I think rre have done a ton of
these. I rr'ean I ahink we are noving right along but I like the idea of
follow-up but if it r,eans that werre going to be here until 12:90 because
we've gol this need to absolutel!, get sortething done the next week and
anothei one done the next ireek, we all know that se get totalllt incon,petent
later on at night and just for the sake of throt ing one on there, I donrt
l,ant to but I think in general irith nhatrs been going on this year, werve
done a lot of therr. According to this Nover,ber one, therers a ton of theFr
on here that nerve either hanilled or were on agendas and I think we are,
and keeping theFr on here I think w111 do lt but I dontt know thit tre have
to absolutely guarantee one of these sill be on ever:7 tir,e because se get
sor,e fuII agendas. I hate the thought of saying weII, this is going to be
done no Fatter what. I sant that breathing roor. ao that we can get out at
a decent hour.
Err{rrings: So we won I t get an}tthing done.
Ellson: I think youire being hard on !'ouselves. I think we're getting
r,ore done than :rou're giving ltouselves credit for.
Er,r.,lngs: we I ve been jtrf ing to get the
years and we haven't done it.
Con,prehensive PIan uPdated for 2
Planning Cor',rt ission Meeting
Jantrar]t 3, L99g - Page 56
Erhart: In previous :,ears we actuall!, sat down and laid out objectlves. Is
this the tirr,e to do that again?
olsen: The rrertio that got out, didnr t reaLl!, prep !,ou... Yes it is the
tir.e to alo that. To coFe up with the objectives for this 1,ear and take it
to the Council.
Erhart: can we put that on next meetingrs agenda?
Conrad: Ieah, I'd like to.
Erhart: Prioriti ze these things.
Ellson: well r,a]rbe we should get this thing that ire had before. we had
r,ajor priorities and I think some of theni se have tried to deal with.
Convenience store. contractor I s yards. Tree ordinance. Recycling oiI.
Sor,e of these things we have been. Cor,prehensive PIan but just another
review. I don't think we have to start fror, scratch again.
olsen: But there rr.ight be other issues that !'ou want to Ptrt on that list
too .
Erhart: Right. so I guess if we could just get thls on the agenda on a
consistent basis and then for next rreetingrs agendal to actually review
objectives for next ltear.
Enr,ings: Maybe when we coltre across this as an agenda itert each F,eeting
tot ard the end of tbe neeting, },e can say let's do this one next time.
Let I s Pick one anil do it. rf we did that, trta!'be we'd get sonre rtrovettent '
Batzli: But look at the effort that went into it this year. This pastyear. There was a lot of special nieetings and rraybe thatrs what itrequires to do sor,e of these things.
EF,rr,ings: Right. and thatis fine but if you don't stal, on top of then, andyou don't push it ever], rreek, I guarantee :,ou they ironr t get done. Wecanrt just have a list and be satisfied. It isnrt worth a darrn.
Conrad: WeIl the kelt that drives it is this colur,n called status and the
word ongoing doesnrt drive any project to cor',pletion. What drives it is adate so I think the process and Irr' not sure that I want to see this everlz
week or everlt other week, and it can be done, but r,y feeling is that atleast on a F,onthllt basis we see this list. We review it. We see if thereare dates that we want to insert to r,ake sure that it happens. But if youfeel r',ore corrrfortable on an ever!, 2 week basis, and I donrt know that that
would be that r,uch of a brrrden either for staff to include this in thepacket.
Erhart: Ird rather see it on ever], rr,eeting. We canit if the r,eeting gets late but I think just to have
Packet gives us aI1 an opportunit!' to review it.
elect not to discussit included with the
BatzIi: Is it fair
n'ea n i ng a Frer,ber of
one of those i ten,s
along?
to have sor,ething of a project rr,anager if you will,the Planning Cor.,rr,ission who's very interested in seeing
con,e to fruition, to be put in charge of rroving it
EIlson: Yeah, it sa vs in our B]r-Iarrs rre can have subcorrrrrittees anytir,e.
Batzli: Yeah, we could forr, a subcoFiittee and draft s or.,e of these things
because it's obvious that the staff is busl' on a dail1, basis hanillingreaction t]rpe projects and many of these are more proactive and things that
ire want to see done but it wouldnr t hurt, r,lself included, to get more
involved and r.eet with staff and try and c orre up with sorre drafts sothe!'rre not forced to have to do all of the work. Is that part of what
werre here for? For instance, steve drafted a proposed beachlot ordinance
anil I think that was good because...
Err,r,ings: Tini's done the sanie thing on trails
doing that a little but maybe lre should do it
and other stuff so werve been
more .
Batzli : Hayrbe we should do it rr,ore.
Erhart: I tlke the idea of identlfying a project spearhead. I think
thatr s a good idea.
Errr$,ings: Thatr s a little too militarlr. Yourll have to find another irr,age
for r,e to get behind it.
Erhart: To keep fror, getting. . . things on there where we just talk about it
but no oners willing..to take up the, the terr. I was going to use was sword.
Take it up. On the other hand, it also gives sorr,eone the official blessing
Planning Conur,i ss i on Meeting
Januar:, 3, L990 - Page 57
Planning Corru',i ss ion Meeting
January 3, ]-99g - Page 58
I guess that ].ou are encouraged to get out and do sor,e work on it. so I
li ke that idea .
Batzli: Is that sor,ething that ere should do next week when we prioritize?
Erhart: sure.
Batzli: So then the next guestion is, can
recent status chart to us so Lre can take a
and talk about that next ireek?
a coP], of the rrrostit and decide priorities1'ou r,a i 1look at
Krauss:
Batz 1i s
OI sen :
pr obI er,
Conrad:
Ol sen 3
Krauss:
OI sen :
Conrad:
It should con,e with the next packet.
At least bv then.
l{e can just nrail it out so you have it before that. Thatrs no
for us to do that.
Whatr s on the next agenda?
The recreational beachlot ortlinance.
Werve got 2 subdivisions kicking around.
Z ir,rre rIr,an I is cor.,ing in.
or3
think
Er'..'ings: Whlz is this in rtr), packet? Stratf ord Ridge conditional use perFtit
for locating a dock? Just inf orrrrational?
Olsen: Yeah, itrs inforr,ational. The reason the i terrr was deleted vras
because a condition of the original conditional use perrr,it rras that if theapplicant received a variance to the ordinance, then the!' would beperrr,itted a dock and the canoe racks and the:/ essentially obtained thatthrough the appeal. to the Board. So we had it on the agenda and then whilewriting the report I saw that condition and thought, well...but it's one ofthose adr,instrative things to still let lrou see. Actualll' erhere the dockis proposed, we night r'ove it just a litt1e bit to the south to get it awa!'fror, the swir,rr,ing area. Itrs just for inforrtration.
Errrr,ings: ftis a funny thing there but therers no setback frorrr thatside!,ard. Thatrs the thing rrhen I looked at it, I thought geez, :routve got
hundreds of feet of lakeshore here and :,ou put the beach and aIl theactivity on the erhole thing right next to the neighbor; light up to the
neighbor rs propert], line which is just...
Batzli! Thereis an 8 foot sidevard?
Olsen: 16 foot.
An]rthing of controvers]' or r,ajor?
a dock, there's a I0 foot dock setback.
the beach .
Eor
forEr'rr,ings: But not
Planning Con,r,i ss i on Meeting
January 3, l99g - Page 59
EFrr.ings: Ma]rbe itrs okay but I donrt knor^r. It seerrrs funny doesni t it?donit know whatrs next door to thexe. I canrt renrerriber.
I
Conrad: So next r,eeting we have, it sounds like we have sor,e tir,e to talkabout priorities and goals. HeIp rne reflect on when we got the Citl,Council input for what the:trd like us to work on. Was that last !,ear?
Olsen: Itrs vacant. The beachlot is just to the northpiece. Theret s nothing out there. Itrs just a sinrilar
Olsen: Steve rras still here and it tent to Council andgive any direction. Steve left and then I took it back
need sone so b]. then it was alrrrost sur,Frer.
of that other
piece.
they didn't reaIly
again saying we
EIIson: We decided to do our own, thatis rrhat happened.
Conrad: So riight this have been, how niany rronths ago?
Olsen: ?hat :/ou finally got it back?
Conrad: That I read their
ha lf a year?
Minutes as to their priorities for us? Is that
Olsen: 6 n onths, Ireah.
Erhart: we essentially got theirdid set the priorities.con r,ents, that iras about it. They never
Olsen: No, it was real Iate and so all they did was hand r,e their.
Erhart: And thatrs oka]r too.but if they donrt vrant to, thencettainly have enough things.
I think we should give ther, the opportunit!,I think we have our oirn agenda here. we
Conrad: So Jo Ann, if
next.1'ou could resurrect their corrur,ents for us for the
Olsen: The one that Annette has, we sent out the last ongoing list I sentout had the prioritization of yours and the Councilrs together.
Conrad: Ah, maybe thatte where I read it.
olsen: Yeah, things like Eurasian t{ater }tllfoiI ragn.t 6xactly ours but ltras theirs.
Erhart: And if sorrre of theseletrs take it off the list.things are done like contractorr s yards,
EIlson; Yeah, it was
irhat we did co&plete.
Llsted as being con,plete but I think rre ought to knoi,
Krauss: Ladd, one of the things I
schedule a special rr,eetlng for the
forgot to rhention.
Cor,prehensive PIan
Vle I re tr:ring to
for Januar:r 24th
Planning Con,r,ission l,teeting
Januarl, 3, L99g - Page 60
shich is an al ternate
To finish rrp the LandLast t ip,e .
from the nex t
and to look at
Plannlng Cor,r.,ission r.,eeting.
the goals and policies one
wed ne sd
USE PIa
av
n
Conrad: Oka1t. So Paul is just talking about a special Freeting in 2 weeks
or 3 or sor,ething like that. Steve, one thing that rre started doing and we
stopped, rrer re really revising those. For a while we were taking a look at
the goals anil we have reall:' stopped looking at those goals. I teII you,
shen we get back together again in 3 weeks and review that, either t,e take
a look. I think rde should rr,ake sure se're corr,f ortable with the goals at
that point in tin,e and if we donrt want to get into it anlt frlrther, wellljust j utr,p orrt of it and forget about ther' and get into the detail. Yet on
the other hand, I always bu:r personall:, that the goals are and nraking thenr
as specific and as n'eaningful as possible. so prior to that preetlng, what
should rde do to, do rre have in orrr possessions right now the goal
staterr,ent? Have the goal statep'ents been revised at all? You've got help
Fe on that. I donrt even reF,en,ber what werve looked at.
were revised a couple of tin,es.
was expandetl on and then steve did
we carrre up with an initial 8
Erhart: We never discussed therr, after Steve did
SOFre .
his.
for rrs .El1son: He was going to put sorrrething together
did.
carrre up uith a representative 2 0r 3
Enr'.ings: I
Krauss: Thor 12 and i
Batzli: He
ew
t
Erhart: we were looking for a forrrat. we got into f orr,at issrres and Steve
can'e back with sor,e ideas for forrrrat so we never discussed it !ret.
Er'trrings: Itrs a littte like the discussion we had about the B!r-Iat's. It
aII depends on, I think wourve got to have a philosoph:, about what yoq're
doing. Goals alwa]rs to ttre are pure air. I think yourve got to have them
but I think if what lrou're reaLly doing, I think lrhat people should think
about is do we want to list ever:, goal we can think of or do we want to
List more broadly'. what I trl' to do is just put down ver!, big goals vtith
soFre representative exarrples of hot re irr,plertrent. That to me is much r',ore
concrete. when I read our old goals, they never neant an:,thing to rre and I
dontt think, I can thlnk of one tir"e in all the time Irve been here, that
we ever referred to those in setting policies. Or in approving a plan or
an:,thing else. I canrt think of a one so I realIy nonder shat theyrre for.
Conrad: Well if the:, donrt have rteaning, then the:, are worthless. You can
read the goals and Fost of ther, sound Like God, Motherhood and the Flag.
We will provide decent access or roadways to get froFr one side of town tothe other or we will provide affordable housing to ever!,body and to Frost ofus, that could be a cora,itr'ent but on the other hand, ltrs eas:r to sluff
that one off and sa:' geez, thatrs eas:, to do. weill aLloi, an apartnentbuilding to go up sor',etir,e so sorrre of those are reall:, r,eaningless but I
think ltorr can c orr,e rrp with soFre, and ma]'be the:t onl:/ deserve a little bit
of attention and ire can just carr:, theFr out. WetlI devote the appropriate
Plannlng Cor,It,ission Meeting
Januarl, 3, L99g - Page 6l
altollnt of energ], to that. Yet on the other hand, there are sorire othergoals that rraybe we lndividuals have that we feel- are irrportant for theCit], to have and to pursue and this is the tirr,e to put thert in and if theyrforce a direction, then I think theyr re really valid to have in there. Sowe will review those for the rast tine in 3 weeks or the 24th or wheneverthe special rteeting is. We shouldnr t do it in that F,eeting. you shouldcor,e to that nreeting with sone idea of sor',ething that you eant to have asg9al. WeIre not going to brainstorn, that meetlng. we rray get consensusthat r,eeting but r donrt think it should be treated as a Lriinstorrr, andletis figure out what the:' should be. I think if yourve got an:', that'sthe tirrre to offer therTr. We'1I decide if the]r,re erorth pursuing.
a
Krauss: Werve also tried to Ia!' out a fairly ar.,bitious schedule, in factwerll finish up the other plan elements that will provide for a jointmeeting with the Cit:' Council and then a series of- public r',eetinls on theland use plan and other elenients cuhinating in sorre public hearlngslooking towards getting the thing approved to the point where we can srrbr,,i tlt to the Metro Councll. Probably in June and luly and the]' have a 90 dayreview process so werre rooking hopefulry on having a new p-ran in prace, ifeverl'thing works the wa:, it should, blr Septer,ber-October. -
Er,trlings: Werll start the next one in Noverrber? The update?
Batzli: speaking of going in front of uet councir, did Eden prairie, wasthat the cor'F,unitlt that rdas trying to get more capacity on serrage?
Krauss: Yes. The]' did a couple of curious things. First of atr a rr,ajorplan an,endnrent ls apparentl]' 40 acres swatch getting into the MUSI line.Eden Prairie or the developer carne rrp with a site that was 39.74 acres.I'laybe that's realll, what it is, I donrt know but as yourre aware, I wrote aretter that iras subr,itted to the councir that said wetre concerned not sottruch with the f act that the!, want to expand the I.IUSA l ine but that irewanted to ensure that equit:, of access to the facility, to the interceptoris r,aintained and that the Metro council and Metro walie understands thatwe're going through thls process and we,re going to be having a very largear,endn,ent con,lng down the pipeJ.ine. As far as developr.,ent w6nt, thEirinitial proposal that eras subrt,itted in the EAW|s indilated sorr,eihing rike66,ggg square feet of corr,r,ercial. This is on Derl Road hrhich is oui cit,line. we indicated a concern that that is inappropriate up on TH 5 give'nit's proxin,it], to orrr centrar business district and arr thL tirte andexpenditure and rr,oney_wetve put out to get that thing off the ground. The:thad the deveroper carr r'e back. rtrs a developer th;t rrve woiked withbefore. He sent me a specific copy of a detailed cop], of the plans. Whatthe:'r!e proposing up on DelI Road and TH 5 is sorrething on the order ofonly 26t0AO square feet of cort'r'erc i aI service use of which 101000 squarefoot sorlld be an office bui!.ding. 6.OOO square foot t ould be a dayrCarecenter. r donrt know lf the nurrbers add up but it was onry a l2rggg retaitstrip. I vrrote theF, back another letter that sa1,s we stili thlni it.sinappropriate to put coFnqercial on TH 5 but iret re relleved to find thatit i s rtruch less, or the irrpact will be much less than ire originallyanticipated. Thatrs where it sits.
Batzli: So Met Council hasnrt...
Planning Co:r,rr,i ss ion Meeting
Januar], 3, L99g - Page 62
Krauss: The:, havenrt given their final approval but I donrt see wh], the],
wonrt.
Conrad: An:'thing el se?
Wildernuth: Whatrs happened to Cenvesco?
Krauss: He's waiting for.. .
Ellson: That garage thing IrII bet.
Krauss: On the parking r yeah.
Wilderrt,uth: Hers waiting for the action on the parking?
Ellson: WeIl his thing wasn't 2 cars. He santed 1 anal if that gets
passed, heis out.
llililerrruth: But at this point the:' donrt have anything in the ordinance.
Krauss: ?hey withdrew, the tir',e
rePort that was ver!, Iength!, andnot subr'itteil anlrthing since.
Jo Ann and I put together that staff
thatrs when thel' withdrew anil the1, have
Subr., i tted
Director o
PauL Krauss
PI ann i ng
b],
f
PrePared b!, Nann OPhein,
Batzli rrrov€d; Wildernuth seconded to adjourn the neeting. All voted in
favor and the nrotion carrled. The n,eeting iras adjourned at 10:55 p.nr..
\
CITY OF
CH[[IH[ESEN
I,TEUORANDUII,T
TO: Planning Commission
FROIT!: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning
DATE: January 1I, 1990
SUBJ: Report fron Planning Director W
At the January 8, 1990, City Council meeting,actions were taken:the following
Final plans and specifications for the Ersbo 2nd Additionplat on Lake Lucy Road.
The Council vacated undeveloped right-of-way for Lake LucyRoad located atljacent to the Vineland porest p1at. Thisright-of-way is no longer required for public-use.
I
2
3
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 O gg111P1gSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
The City Council gave second reading to an ordinance amend-ment for off street parking and loading. The Council had agreat deal of discussion on this matter, both at the first andsecond readings. With the approval of the first reailing, theCouncil departed from both the planning Commission's anistaff's recommendations and required 2 enclosed sta1ls forevery multi-family unit. Staff presenteil informationconcluding that this requirement was far in excess ofanything any other community had adopted, was difficult tojustify j.n terms of demand and represents significant archi-tectural design problems with standard 3-stoiy apartmentbuildings. After much discussion, the Councij. glve the ordi-nance second-reading with the following changes. A11 develop-ments locateil in the R-4, R-8, and R-12 districts wiLl berequired to have 1l sta11s enclosed per dwe11ing. However,the Council agreed with comrcnts from the audience and withstaff that if multi-farnily apartment developnent was truly tooccur in Chanhassen that the R-I2 distrj.ct provided insuflficient density to support it. Conseguently, the CityCouncil directed scaff to develop an R-I6 ResidentialDistrict in which there lrould be a I exterior parkingrequirement. The Council further directed stalf thai.increased hard surface coverage conmensurate with this typeof development should be consiilered. Staff was directed-Lo
Planning
Janua ry
Page 2
Cotnmi ss ion11, 1990
bring this ordinance back through the Planning Commission as
soon as possible. The ordinance has been drafted and the
Planning Commission will be reviewing it in February.
zoning orilinance amendment to modify restrictions and stan-
ilards for locations of convenience stores, gas stations andother uses having gas putnps. The City Council gave second
reading to this ordinance with several changes fron the draftthat was reviewed by the Planning Cornmission. Most signifi-cantly, the setback from these uses to resiilential properties
was increased from 1,00 feet to 250 feet. In adclitionr d con-
cern was brought out that the separation should not only
apply to the gas pumps themselves but also from the vent
pipes from the storage tanks which often emit noxious odors.
The final ordinance reflects these changes.
Zoning ordinance amendment regarding revisions to the ordi-
nance to a11ow for interim use permits. The City Council
approveil first reading of this ordinance with relativelylittle discussion. Staff had been previously directed to
review the list of conditional use permits allowed in eachdistrict and informed the Council which ones could better be
placed in the interim use section. This was done in the formof a menu from which the Council sel.ected a number of CUP'sto become interim use permits. When a final copy of this
ordinance is developed for second readingr I will supply lhe
Planning Commission with a copy.
Revision of sewer servi ce,/potential annexation for a sub-division proposed on the Chanhassen/Victoria border. Staff
had previously had discussions with a potential developer and
with the City Planner from Victoria regariling the subdivision
of a parcel that is located in both coumunities. Victoria
had proposed that access, utilities and other services be
provided through the City of Chanhassen. The site is located
in the northwest corner of the community near Hwy. 7 and is
physically separated from Victoria by the abandoneil railway
1ine. Staff sought direction from the City Council as to
4
5
6
whether or novices or if s
pending a reglution statin
twetaff
ues tg tha
should proceed with t.he offering of ser-
should be tlirectetl to withhold servicesfor annexation. The Council passed a reso-t services shoulil not be provided unless
the area is annexed. The total number of Iots that wouldresult from this proposal is approxinately 6 new home sites.
7. A SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE COUPREHENSIVE PLAN I{ILL BE
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, AT 6:30 P.u. AT CITY HALL.
The purpose of the meeling is to gain final agreement on the
Iand use p1an, discuss goals anal policies and review several
plan elements. An additional notice and packet will be
forthcoming next rteek.
REVISED JANUARY 5, I99O
STATUS
Adoption 9/90
Adoption 9/90
1995 Study Areas
City Council Approval
May 3, 1989
2
3
4
5
Update Zoning DIap
Blending Ordinance
Rezoning BF Distict to A-2
Convenience Store Moratorium
Sign Ordinance
Update Zoning Code
Trash and Recycable Users-
where should they be located?
wetland Violations - Add
section to wetlanal ordinance
10. Tree Ordinance - Mapping of
significant vegetative areas
11. Rezoning of 2l Acres Lotsto RR Di strict
12. Noise Ordinance
Lloratorium over -Ord. review by P. C.
Nov. 15, 1989 - Review
by council l/8/90
I nact i ve
ongoi ng
Compl ete
Working eri th DNR Forester
DNR Inventory due spring, 199
I nact i ve
Ongo i ng
I nact i ve
Inactive
6
7
I
9
Storage
Front Yard Fencing
standards for R-12
Developments - Parking r
garages, architectural
standards
Public Safety proposed an
ordinance which was denied
by City Council
Inact i ve
fnactive
13.
14.
r5.
ONGOING ISSUES
A. COIIPREEEIISIVE PLAN ISSI'ES
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
2. Amendments to MUSA Boundary
3. Future Use for Areas Out-
s iale the MUSA Boundary
B. ZONING CODE AIIENDIiBNIS
1. Contractor I s Yards
Inactive, not currently an
issue
Ord. Reviei, by P. C.
Nov. 15, 1989
CC adoption L/8/90
ONGOING ISSUES
16. Heliports
1. Update development proce-
dures including submittaldates, design review com-mittee, submittal check list
and process
2. Computerize land use fiIes,
permit.s, conditions andexpiration dates on a par-
ce1 by parcel bas is
Reappraisal on Wetland issues,
ordinance and mapping in
conjunction with storm erater
ma nagement
Eurasian Water Milfoil
8. Review of the impact of
Res idential Development
on the financial structureof the city.
9. Temporary conditional use
permits.
10. Maximun Church Lot
LI. Neck lots & lots accesseedby pri.vate drives
REVISED JANUARY 5, 1990
cc
STATUS
Inactive
Complete
Ongoi ng
CUPIs completed
New
Staff processing a position
paper to review wetland
ordinance & enforcement
Butlgeted money for update2 year timeframe
Comprehensive Plan
Not active
Recycling Committee reviewing
o rd i nance
Public Safety I nvolved
discussionsIncluded into
on Comp. Plan
3
?
P.C . review on Nov.
review on Jan. 8,
P.C. review on Jan. 3(denied by PC)
CC review on Jan. 22,
r5, L989
1990
,1990
19 90
r99 0
13.
14.
15.
Tree removal requilement
Definition of structures
P. C. reviei, on Feb.,
Inacti ve
Review t{arch, 1990
PC review Feb., 1990Sale of farm products
C. OTEER ITEMS
tl . Trail Involvenent of
Planning Commiss ion
5. Light Rail Trans i t
6. Recycling of Oil
.L 2. Recreational Beachlot -Requirement of Lot Depth
P.C. revier,v on Jan. 17, L990
16.
17.
18.
REVISED JANUARY 5, I99O
ONGOING I SSUES
Shoreland Ordinance
Flood zone Ordinance
Grad i ng,/Mi neral Extraction
STATUS
Summer 1990
Spring 1990
March 1990
*The highest 1989 priority for the Planning Commission and City
Council was the Blending Ordinance. Staff has irorked on severaldrafts of the Blending Orilinance and has not come up with a wayto buffer existing large lots from proposed subdivisions which islegal , equitable and enforceable. We understand the Planning
Commission and City Councilrs frustration with having to tel1existing homeowners that there is no way to prevent a 15,000
square feet 1ot adjacent to their 40,000 square foot lot, but aBlending Ordinance may also prevent them from subdividing their
own property in the future if the adjacent property was reuqiredto maintian an above average square footage. The Blending
Ordinance has been inactive since staff is somewhat uncomfortablewith the ordinance and the drafts we have presented have not metthe intent of the Planning Commission or City Council. Wequestion the ethics and legality of an ordinance that wouldessentially te11 a property ohrner that what they could do withtheir land is not only regulated by the City, but is also con-tingent upon the independent actions of neighboring propertyowners. This would result in the unequal application of City ortli-nances. If the Planning Commission wishes to further pursue thisissue, staff should be so directed and it would be advisable toappoint a person or persons to work with staff on it.