1977 10 12
.'
.
.
.
I
f....
t-'"
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1977
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47
EXPANSION OF LOT LIMITATIONS
Dick Dutcher called the public hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. with the following members
present: Roman Roos, Hud Hollenback, Jerry Neher, and Walter Thompson. Mal MacAlpine
and Les Bridger were absent. Russell Larson, Bob Waibel, Bruce Pankonin, and Mayor
Hobbs were present.
Bruce Pankonin - This proposed amendment says that if you had a legally platted lot,
and if you met 50% of todays requirements and you fronted on a street you could use
it for single family dwelling purposes provided sanitary sewer and water was
installed and assessed and the structure to be put on the lot meets the setbacks.
You would just get a building permit. If you need other considerations in terms
of setbacks, etc. you would have to go through the variance procedure.
Dick Dutcher - A lot of people get very excited about small lot size. I have seen
small lot sizes work very well for residential development. I think the key is
the amount of open space that is available within a given area, let's say a
neighborhood. Where you have a situation like Carver Beach and Red Cedar Point
I would think that since it's a problem and it's going to be a problem and short
of urban renewal that maybe the best tack for the city to take would be to try to
preserve as much open space adjacent to or near those areas as we possibly can so
that there is a reasonable amount of open space for the people in those areas to
use. We have talked about these small lot sizes over and over again. The problems
in Red Cedar Point. The problems in Carver Beach. I think if there were
reasonable review, architectural or other kinds of review, so that the people
when they built homes in those areas aren't cutting off their next door neighbors
light or a reasonable amount of air or what have you, that they werentt building
shacks. We wouldn't end up with that bad a development even though it's something
that we have inherited from the past and it's going to be difficult to work with,
in the long range it's going to be an asset to the community.
Mayor Hobbs - In listening to your discussion on these small lots the first thing
that comes to mind when we thing of a 6, 7, or 8,000 square foot lot, a row of
houses in Minneapolis or St. Paul are all the same, you get out here and for many,
many years 15,000 square feet, front yard, side yard setbacks, the individual had
enough space to do most anything he wanted to within that lot without having that
much effect on the neighbors on either side. You get into a situation like the
Council faced on this variance in Red Cedar Point where the request was setback,
side yard setback type thing and all of a sudden the concern from the neighbors
didn't deal with the fact that they didn't think that person should be able to
set back a foot or two off the lot line, it was the structure to be put on it
and how it would affect other structures around it. I think that becomes more
increasingly important with smaller lots. Strong arguments were made that you
cannot use the variance request to dictate to the person what style of house he
puts on there.
Walter Thompson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Roman Roos
and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
MINUTE$: Hud Hollenback moved to approve the September 28,1977, Planning Commission
minutes. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
MINNE~OTA POLLUTI ON CONTROL "AGENCY NOISE STANDARDS: A 1 Perez from the MPCA was
preas.ent < and urgeCl the Planning Cbmmi ss ion to recommend approval of thet10Tse
or lnance.
" t
"
Regular Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-2-
He brought a sound level meter for members to view. This type of equipment would
cost from $300 to $600. There are programs for loaning equipment through the .
federal government which he felt the city should investigate. The MPCA does have .
meters they will loan for a few days at a time. MPCA hold workshops twice a year
to familiarize persons with sound level meters, how to calibrate them, etc.
They will also train people at any time.
Hud Hollenback moved to recommend the City Council consider incorporating by
reference the Minnesota PCA Noise Standards into Ordinance 47 and amend the noise
standards in Section 12.7. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously
approved.
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 47, ZONING LOT LIMITATIONS: Hud Holl enback moved to
recommend the City Council' consider amending Ordinance 47, Section 19.15 to read
as foll ows:
1. Only one principal structure shall be permitted on each zoning lot.
2. A platted lot of record in the office of the Register of Deeds or Registrar
of Titles of Carver County on 0." before February 8, 1972, shall be deemed a
buildable lot provided sanitary sewer and water are in plate and assessed
and it has frontage on a public right-of.way and frontage and area
requirements for the district in which it is located or adjusted to
conform as follows:
A platted lot of record in the office of the Register of Deeds or
Registrar of Titles on or before February 8, 1972, which is in an
"R" district and which does not meet the requirements of this
ordinance as to area or frontage, may be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes provided the measurements of such area,
frontage or open space are within 50% of the requirements of this .
ordinance and sanitary sewer is in place and assessed to the platted
lot of record, and the principal structure which is proposed to be
constructed on the platted lot of record shall conform to all
setback requirements of the district in which the platted lot of
record is located.
Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST... DAVID LARSON: The City Planner recommended that proposed
Lot 3 have the minimum 90 feet of frontage on Pleasant View Road and further
that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to test neighborhood sentiment.
Mr. Larson has revised the proposed plat to reflect the requested frontage.
Roman Roos moved to hold a public hearing on November 9, 1977, at 8:15 p.m. to
consider the subdivision request for David Larson. Motion seconded by Hud
Hollenback and unanimously approved.
SUBDIVISION RE UEST ... HERBERT BLOOMBERG: Mr. Bloomberg was present seeking
approva to su lV1 e 1S property on t e east side of Colonial Grove into 30
single family lots and one common outlot. Sewer and water are in place to the
property. All the lots to be created meet or exceed the minimum requirements
of Ordinance 47 except for Lot 5, Block 1. This lot has to be 75 feet wide
pursuant to the Shoreland Ordinance, and Lot 4, Block 3 does not have sufficient
buildable area when all side yard and rear yard setbacks are considered.
Elimination of this lot would equalize the lot area in Lots 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Lot 4 is proposed as a common outlot and is allowed upon the issuance of a
conditional use permit. The City Planner feels the proposed subdivision plan .
is in conformance with the cityls plan for land use, transportation, and zoning
provided it is changed to reflect the above items.
"
,'"'
e
e
.
.100(: j
Pl anning Commissi on Meeting October 12, 1977
-3-
Bill Brezinsky .. The horizontal alignment, right-of-way width and corner radii
are in accordance with ordinance standards. The vertical alignment isn't shown
on the plans submitted. The street grades should be in accordance with ordinance
standards with a maximum of 7% and a minimum of 0.5% except at the two intersections
where it should be a maximum of 3% for 30 feet back from the intersection. A
typical street section isn't shown. The street required should be 28 feet wide
back-to-back of concrete drive over curb and gutter. The street should be 7-ton
capacity. The front yards of the lots on Sandy Hook Road and Cheyenne will drain
to the streets. The interior lots will drain to a storm sewer with catch basins
located at the south end of the "U" road. Storm sewer will have to be installed
and connected with the existing system in Colonial Grove. This storm sewer outlets
into the lake on the north side of Colonial Grove. Storm sewer plans will be
submitted to the watershed district for their approval and recommendations before
this plan will go ahead. The city should check out the existing line to be sure
that that's open and functional before a connection is made.
Hud Hollenback - I am frankly more sensitive as to what happens to this water
by the time it gets to the lake than I am having storm sewers starting off the
land. When we interrupt the natural soil conditions and put down pavement and
roof tops that water is going to end up in the lake and the solution we came up
wi th to take it off the roads and into the 1 ake we are just pumpi ng trashy water
into the lake. A storm sewer is a lot different than filtering it down through
vegetation.
Bill Brezinsky - The outlet for the storm sewer is at least 100 feet from the lake
ri gh t now.
Di ck Dutcher - You may settl e out the sol i dsbut you are not going to fi lter out
nutrients and that is the major problem. These peopl~ will be fertilizing their
yards and in turn fertilizing the lake.
Bill Brezinsky - What you are saying is that possibly there should be some upland
storage or else the sump area should remain.
Dick Dutcher - Mother Nature has provided liIS with a solution right now. It's in
existance and it didn't cost anything when it was first created. Now were are changing
or altered that situation. I think a concern has been raised that if it is altered
that the balance of the ecology the environment of the area not be. disturbed. There
is some question in my mind and as Hud indicated in his mind, as to whether a storm
sewer does provide that kind of insurance.
Bruce Pankonin - May I suggest that Mr. Bloomberg go back to his engineer, come up
with a grading plan that attempts to keep the water on the land for the longest
period of time and then come back to the Planning Commission. We will take that
plan to the DNR, PCA, and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District to see if it
meets their standards.
Herb Bloomberg - I would say our essential ponding area is really not being disturbed.
We can develop what would b~ a ponding area that would eventually seep off. I think
as far as any of Bruce's recommendations to conform with the code on size lots, there
is no argument on that. I think his suggestions are good and we just drop that one
lot. We are indicating a neighborhood use o.f the one lot. We would .end up with a
25 foot wide lane to the lake and the other part would accommodate two tennis courts.
We are hoping to work out some sort of accommodation to let the back court of the
tennis court encroach perhaps up to 10 feet on the 30 foot setback. It would be
a pl aying area.
Bruce Pankonin - The Board of Adjustments and Appeals acts on variance requests.
The Planning Commission could sure'make a recommendation on that issue. I would
like to prepare a staff report for the next meeting on this issue.
Herb Bloomberg - This lot would belong to an association in its management and care.
We would like to put a dock out for swimmers and perhaps have a canoe launching place
and possibly small sailboats. We would restrict against any marina because we
wouldn't ask these people that are on the shore close by to put up with an anchorage.
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-4-
, r
Bruce Pankonin - I would suggest that all of the grading plans be here prior to
the next meeting. Possibly the Planning Commission could meet early to generally
discuss this, tour the site, come back here and have your regular meeting and at ~
that time decide if you are ready to have the public hearing or not. ,.,
RECONSIDERATION - REI CHERT I S CONSERVATION EASEMENT:
Bruce Pankonin - At the last Council meeting Bob Reichert requested the Council
take another look at their action of June 6 wherein they approved his preliminary
plat conditioned upon Mr. Reichert signing a conservation easement. The Council
last Monday directed the Planning Commission to take a look at the Planning
Commission recommendation which suggested that the Council place a conservation
easement on these outlots on Lotus Lake.
Dick Dutcher - Can we clarify the reason the conservation easement was placed
on there to begin with. I think that was a matter of concurrence between the
developer and the Planning Commission was it not as a result of an exchange
for subsequent need? Is that a fair account? I believe the reason for the
conservation easement being suggested and being agreed upon initially was a
result of discussions we had at prior Planning Commission meetings to which you
agreed.
Bob Reichert - Yes. The intent of keeping the lakeshore natural was basically
what we had done all the way along the line.
Bruce Pankonin - To refresh your memory the subject property is located on the
northern most portion of Lotus Lake and itls adjacent to a spawning bed in the
lake. On June 6 the Council approved rezoning of this property from R-1A to R-1.
They al so suggested a conservati'oneasement be p1 a"ced on thi s property. and the
reasons are shown in the Planning Commission minutes of May 31. Bob asked the
Council to reconsider their motion of last June. Mr. Reichert disagrees with
the conservation easement at this time. As Bob pointed out all the conditions
in the proposed conservation easement are found for the most part in our ~
shoreland ordinance. The City's shorelandordinance, however, does not recognize .,
the intrusion of motor boats in spawning beds. This prohibition is found in
other DNR regulations. The Planning Commission in recommending and the Council
in requiring the conservation easement as part of plat approval felt the
easement was necessary to preserve the natural, ,environmental values of the
shore1and and to prevent deterioration of it's scenic qualities and further
to prevent erosion and destruction of marshland vegetation and to prevent the
loss of fish and wildlife habitat areas. The Commission and Council, I feel,
knew at the time that DNR regulations adequately handle and protect and preserve
the sensitive shoreland and natural areas; however, it has been our experience
the property owner becomes aware of DNR regulations after he has done sometimes
irrevocable damage to the sensitive areas. To alleviate "ignorance" as to
specific environmental concerns, it is the feeling of the Planning Commission
and Council to htghlight the salient features of the important DNR regulations
and put these in some form of document that would be easily distributed and
understood by all. By taking this course of action, every property owner
who had hi s ti tl e exami ned, woul d be knowl edgeab 1 e in ci ty requi rements as to
the protection of sensitive areas. From a planning perspective, I believe the
most appropriate use for the land located between Pleasant View Road and Lotus
Lake is in the form of a common area which is "designed" to protect the sensitive
environmental areas, provide proper access to Lotus Lake and adequately buffer
nei ghbori'1i1W,'property from encroachment. I think there is room for thi s but th is
isn't part of his proposal. As you know, this proposed common outlot was
discussed. Based on the facts known today, I would recommend the Planning
Commission not reconsider their recommendation of May 25, 1977. If, however,
Mr. Reichert pursues some other reasonable use of the land, I recommend the tit
Planning Commission reopen their discussion on this issue, provided the spirit
and intent of the Planning Commission's recommendation of May 25 and the
Council IS action of June 6 is not compromised. By that I mean, maybe there is
.'
.
e
e
. .
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-5-
a compromise somewhere along the line, maybe it is in the form of protecting the
sensitive areas but utilizing the areas that could be utilized outside the spawning
bed.
Craig Mertz, Assistant City Attorney, submitted a report dated October 6, 1977,
stating the reasons for the conservation easement~ '
Bob Reichert - The only reason I am here is primarily this conservation easement,
I want the Planning Commission as well as the Council to see this document before
they make a determination whether or not they are for it or not. Our intent has
always been the same and I agree with Bruce ,'the intent is to keep the 1 akeshore
as natural as possible. At the time that we had the public hearing we had no
conservati on easement but we had some covenants. Since there were no ordinances
at that time we all agreed that there was a need for protecting the shoreline
so we came up with an idea that there could be some way of doing this by
conservation easement which was not defined or no one at that time knew what it
was. As of September 14 I have seen the conservation easement which I feeli s
confiscatory. Since that time in July an ordinance has been passed by the
Council incorporating the DNR proposals so we have some ordinances. I assume
we have all seen the conservati on easement now. I would 1 ike to pass out this
document. I f you remember ori gi na lly we had the restri cti ve covenants that we
had proposed and which we thought did the job at that time, which now I would
like to see if we can use those covenants to do the same job as an effective
tool to keep that area natural and following the same spi rit and intent as we
started with originally.
Hud Hollenback - Could we have a minute, we never saw these covenants.
Greg Gustafson, Attorney for Mr. Reichert - The letter from the Assistant Attorney
and the comments from the City Planner have been addressed to the issue of
approving an easement contrary to or in lieu of an ordinance because it
better serves to put the public on notice of the specific disallowed uses that
the property can be put to. We donlt have a problem with that. We can agree
that that is a beneficial purpose. The document that you are looking at now,
we submit,can do the same job and it can do it in a much less restrictive
manner than the easement. The biggest problem has been that, although he is
very knowledgeable in real estate, and he is not an attorney, some of the
discussions that took place before this body and the Council and what not,
some of the give and take back and forth, was perhaps a communication problem
or what not, but the actual easement document was not actually viewed by Mr.
Reichert until less than a month ago and I know he feels and I feel too, that
if you read it there is very little anyone can do with the property. There is
very little reason to really leave the property. in the name of Mr. Reichert
because there is nothing left he can do with it. The ordinance basically,
as it has been pointed out, restricts him just as substantially except that there
is a provision for going in and asking for permits and then using the property
in a way after itls been subjected to the review procedure and also ordinances
can change. They can get more onerous or less onerous as the will of the
community changes. He is asking to be treated the same way that all the other
lakeshore is treated, i.e. let the ordinances do the job, and he is asking to
not have the use of his property inextricably tied up. The retort has been
submi"tted that, well if he wants to do somethi ng wi th it he can come/in and try
and get the easement altered, but thatls a much moreunwieldly process. Itls a
much more legally uncertain process. Thatls his biggest concern. The detElaration
which you have before you, this has been before you countless times, Mr. Reichert
is in a bind because he has 'sold some of the lots and the new buyers want to build
and that is his problem not yours. I submit that it really isnlt necessary for
the Planning Commission to review and pass upon the legal document but primarily
to get the legal concepts down so that you can advise the Council. In summary
Plannfng Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-6-
, ,.
"
what Mr. Reichert is proposing is to submit a declaration which will have the
effect of subjecting Outlot F to common ownership by an association. The other
outlots would all be subject to the ordinances and the fact of the existance of .
the ordinances is referenced in the document so that the concern that has been
expressed, an attorney examining a title for someone who wants to buy Lot 2 and
also Outlot A I would put that into the opinion, I would say there is a declaration
against which restricts the use of the property,your attention is drawn to it
you should read it, I submit that should be adequate. Itls reasonably adequate
at least to prevent a new owner coming in with a bulldozer before he has any
awareness of the ordinances. I am not belittling the problem because once you
have destroyed a beach, itls gone, and we know that. The other safeguard in this
document is that Outlots A, B, C, and 0 are subjected to certain specific
restrictions. Mr. Reichert is here to try to get a problem solved and he is
wide open to suggestions but I am just trying to clarify the issues. He suggests
in it that there will be no docks on Outlots A, B, e, and D. His contention is
that if a guy wants to own Outlot A and go down there and maybe put a garden in
the way the easements drawn you can do anything ever. This destroys the economic
value of all these lots. By putting in specific restrictions on A, B, C, and 0
it is his intention to protect the spawning area to the extent that the owner
of the lakeshore can protect the adjacent spawning area. Outlot E does not have
any specific prohibitions against it on the theory that basically the spawning
area is not adjacent'to Outlot E and F so that the expectation is that sometime
in the future those two outlots might be subjected to some use, i.e. a dock, but
it's not on the table at this time because we donlt have a proposal firmly in hand.
These lots are all going to be owned by people other than Mr. Reichert and he
is going to leave it up to the association sometime in the future and/or the
owner of Outlot E as to whether or not they might want to pursue. They might
decide to leave it natural. Mr. Reichert never reviewed the easement and 1111
agree with Bruce that the basic terms of the easement are in fact contained in ~
the planning report. ..,
Bob Reichert - I think somewhere along the line that easement got to the point
where I looked at it and I said whoa, if the city and I enter'into this document
in the future other lakeshore, if itls going to be treated the same, there is
going to be a lot of problems around the community, I would say this is a trial
case or if we are setting a precedent I woul dn It want to be the person setting
that precedent, I would rather see that someplace else in another county because
it looks to me like itls confiscatory and an emminent domain action rather than
an ordinance or an action of law. I am looking for guidance. That's why I
brought back the restrictive covenants that I had at one time tossed in the
wastebasket. I have amended it to the various points. I have a 100 foot area
there for a common area and I feel that 100 foot area is really all you need for
people to get their canoe down to the lake or put in a small fishing boat. I am
not trying to get in here with a water ski troup because itls against my principles
and I think we are all in agreement the intent of that area is keep it natural,
canoes, people that might want a small fishing boat, fine.
Russell Larson - I have three points that I feel the commission should be informed
upon in considering whether to reconsider this. The easement follows the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Council to the letter. There
has been nothing added to the easement which is any different than what came
out of your recommendation. We have discussed the matter of protective covenants
early on in this undertaking. Protective covenants have limited 1 ife. They
are good for only 25 years. They must then be renewed or they expire by the
operation of law. In addition they can be amended or canceled by action of the
property owners at any time. Mr. Reichert, for example, could file the
covenants and the final plat, having received approval of the Council, and ten ~
days later revoke the covenants without any input on our part or any action on
our part or any really effective means by which we could stop him. The DNR
regulations which are embodied in our enabling ordinance can be changed at any
time without.any input in to any of those changes and then, o~ cou~se, you have
Craig's report why we feel the easement is the better way of lnsurlng that
.'
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-7-
the interests of the public are protected and that the interests of the buyers
are protected. That easement will appear in the chain of the ti tl e to each of
the lots and they are then placed on special legal notice of the extent of the
restrictions on those outlots. It's the only effective means of achieving what
you set out to do.
Greg Gustafson - I think we are still discussing whether or not even
to reconsider and I think, the primary point,I would like you to
consider two,' (1) leave the easements and would you put those easements
on your own land and still consider having things worth having and
(2) is the fact that remember when all of these actions took place,
which we are simply asking you to reconsider, there was no ordinance
in effect. I really do feel that's sufficient basis for at least
re-opening the thing to appropriate discussion.
Bruce Pankonin - I truly believe that there is an area for compromise.
I think that area of compromise is Reichert and the City coming to an
agreement as to the scope of the common beach lot on the southern end
of this property and adequate assurance to protect the integrity of
the sensitive areas in the northern portion of the property. It may
be a conservation easement and a development contract outlining the
scope of a common beach area linked with dock, mooring, etc. in the
area where it is appropriate. I have to agree with Russ, the only
effective way of protecting Outlots A, B,C, andD,and part of F
would be a conservation easement. The vast majority of F and G could
be used as a common lot.
Russell Larson - That would require a conditional use permit and a
public hearing.
Bruce pankonin - The common beach lot was not part of the public hearing
back in Mayor April. That proposal would have to have a public hearing.
He would have to show us exactly what he is proposing.
Hud Hollenback - It wouldn't necessarily have to be a conditional use
permit, it could be written in the terms of a conservation easement
which would go on record with the title.
Russell Larson - The conservation easement would go on record with the
title to the lot that would be the proprietors of the beach lot but
at this point I can't see how the beach lot, to be effective, would
have to be owned by a homeowners association whose administration
changes from time to time and whose ideas as to use of the beach lot
would change from time to time. I don't see that, except under a very
stringent conditional use permit, would we have much regulatory power
over a beach lot.
Greg Gustafson - Bob's position, he is not prepared to discuss in
detail the proposed use of the' beach lot and he agrees, yes, it requires
a conditional use permit and absolutely there is a rather complicated
procedure that has to be gone through, what he is asking for now is
a chance to get the whole thing reconsidered on the basis of a change
in circumstances and a chance to put forth his opinion, which I guess
I have already done, that the ordinance is adequate. Go ahead and
approve the plat the way it is so that people can start building and
as such time as they want to use one or more of the common lots for a
beach or put docks or whatever, they would have to come in for all the
hearings. They may do it next spring. They may do it never. ~hey
don't know. It depends on who owns it and what the people want to do.
Roman Roos - Of the seven points' on the conservation easement, apparently
the one that you are referring to would be item #1, is that right?
Bob Reichert - Yes. For the Council I did make up a summary of what
bothered me. The last couple of items in there are good. This is the
intent that we have always had. I was at a point where why not
incorporate a clause within the restrictive covenants that we will
"
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-8-
agree or the association will agree to some sort of conservation
easement on th0se lots down in the spawning area not a strict as this
one because no one could put a garden down there or maybe a little ~
japanese garden type thing that wouldn't get to the lake shore but ..
this conservation easement restricts all the land right back up to
the street even to a point where, the City has been digging there
and the City now has utility easements along there which they would
be restricted too. This easement, I would assume, if I were to
sign it, the City would also sign it. There are items of removing soil,
digging up anything, things like that, that are very tough to live
with. There are some items I like but there are some items,I think,
are very restrictive and affect the use of the land in its entirety.
Roman Roos - I look at the seven points and I look at item 7, 6, and
5 which I agree, I think we both agree that we are looking for, I
pick up item 3, "no marsh land vegetation located on the servient
estate or in the public waters shall be destroyed, etc." I think we
both agree on that. I look at number 2, "no soil, sand or other
material commonly use as landfill or trash", we agree with that I
am sure. Then I come down with item 1 and item 4. Number 4 being
the removal of any material from the property period.
Dick Dutcher - If we should choose to reconsider the easement agreement,
what are we getting into, another negotiating session?
Russell Larson - Another negotiating session. We would have to
negotiate the terms of the conditional use for the south lots and go
through the public hearing process on that. You would have to
instruct us as to what might go into the conservation easement that
they have announced that they would be willing to put on the other
lots. It would be starting again practically from ground zero.
I have no idea how far his sales have gone, whether he has deeded out e
a tract of land. He may have entered into purchase agreements.
Greg Gustafson - They have been purchase agreements.
Russell Larson - I don't think that that should in any way color your
approach to this.
Hud Hollenback - If I were to reconsider, I would personally insist
that the conservation easement stand as it applies to Lots A through
E. Lots F and G upon the negotiation of a conditional use permit be
used as a common outlot for the homeowners that don't have lake access.
There is not a thing in here,except for possibly 5, that don't already
apply. We keep hearing that this is all after the fact, it isn't
after the fact, the DNR Ordinance was in effect long before this was
written. We are saying the same thing they are. We don't want
structures 75 feet. There is nothing here that is compromising anybody.
This is the law. If there is the need for an outlot for the homeowners
then there is a logical place for it and I am sure we can negotiate
a conditional use
John Nikolai - I have entered into a purchase agreement with Bob for
Lot 9 and Outlot E. If the city goes with the easement as it stands,
is it possible for an owner to come to the Planning Commission and the
City Council and request a conditional use permit for a dock? I have
a canoe. Would I forever be restricted to paying taxes on a useless
piece of land?
Russell Larson - We cover that in the next to the last paragraph.
If there were a change in conditions that would render the terms of
the conservation easement unreasonable or unduly harsh, the terms ~
of the conservation easement could be modified upon agreement of ..
both the City and the owner of each lot in question. We did conceive
of a situation in which case you would want to come in and put in a
dock.
John Nikolai - Could each lot owner request specific usage?
, ...
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-9-
Russell Larson - That's the way we have approached it, yes.
Dick Dutcher ~ May I poll the members of the Planning Commission in
regard to the comment Hud made earlier as to the feeling on his part
that the conservation easement should stand for Outlots A through E
but F and G would or could be a common beach lot. with ,the understanding
that if that were to be the case we would have toga through the
public hearing process allover again. There is no guaratee that
there would be a modification.
Walter Thompson - I would agree with Hud.
Jerry Neher - I more or less agree with Hud also. I think a good deal
that caused that ordinance to be passed as it was, it was more or less
a stop gap measure and it was brought to the, point because of the
problems that had arisen from this particular development. I think
we all felt and I think the City Council all felt that the DNR
ordinance that we adopted by reference was not adequate, it was a
stop gap measure because we didn't have time to get the things that
we needed into it. I don't think it's strict enough, therefore, I
don't think we should use that to influence us to the fact that things
have changed, conditions have changed. I do feel there is room to
compromise on this whole thing. I do feel we should have a pretty
basic amount of restrictions on the property.
Roman Roos - I echo the same sentiments. I look at the common outlots
and that's where I have my hang up.
Greg Gustafson ~ I was going to suggest or ask you to vote to re-open
this thing and put it on for next Planning Commission.
Dick Dutcher - You understand that should we do this that we are starting
allover again and will have to go through the public hearing process.
Russell Larson - That will delay the filing of the final plat.
Greg Gustafson- It was my understanding that we wouldn't have to go
through a public hearing at this time. That the resolution adopting
the plat be modified at least in part to modify the requirement of
the conservation easement at least against all the outlots, perhaps
to say the easement has to go through Lots A through E which seems
to be generally what we seem to be drifting towards. If that were
done then E and F would remain and we could get the plat recorded.
Before E and F could be used we would have to go through the public
hearing.
Russell Larson - I don't see how we can handle that procedurely.
Bruce Pankonin - If you turned your back on the creation of all the
outlots the City Council could consider the subdivision on the other
side. Not make this creation of these lots part of the subdivision
and then consider the creation of those lots at some future time.
Russell Larson - That would involve two plats.
Dick Dutcher - Is that feasible? Do we still maintain a reasonable
wedge or a reasonable control over that lake shore because I think
that's the whole crux of the matter.
Russell Larson - It would involve two plats. You would have a plat
on the land side of the road, then you would have to come along and
plat the land between the road and the lake. If that's all approved
and. the proper easement is prepared, the conditional use is worked
out, he would convey the two south outlots to a homeowners association
and the balance of the lots to the lots across the road. You are
creating a legal morass. It would involve a lot of paper work.
Dick Dutcher - As a City our concern is that we are not going to create
a situation that's going to cause a great deal of future litigation
and uncertainty on the part of the City as well as property owners.
Russell Larson - I am unhappy with that approach to it because we
have no control over what representations are made to future buyers
with respect to those outlots.
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
.. .
-10-
Hud Hollenback - I would be willing to reconsider the bottom two lots
(OutlotsF and G) as a outlot. for them to use actively with a
conditional use written. Would that foul things up? If the guys ..
that bought the lots proceed since this is already in place? ,.,
Russell Larson - If the Council accepts that concept and sets aside
those two lots for consideration under a conditional use permit
following your public hearing and your recommendation, I have no
idea what the Council would do.
Hud Hollenback - You haven't sold F and G yet, have you.
Greg Gustafson - Nothing has been irrevocably sold. Could I ask that
you table this until your next meeting? There have enough issues
opened here that I think we ought to come back next time with a more
positive proposal and meet with staff in the_next two weeks and try
to come up with a compromise that the developer and staff can support
and-hopefully meet your approval.
HudHollenback moved to-table action until the next Planning Commission
meeting. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
CARVER COUNTY REGIONAL PARK: Pat Murphy was present with a list of
items to be included in a conditional use permit for Minnewashta
Regional Park. The City Planner suggested that Carver County
recognize that there are trunk assessments on the property which
should be an acquisition cost and also. that the City has incurred
some expenses in reviewing the proposal and should be paid. He
recommended the Planning Commission order a public hearing to test
neighborhood sentiment.
Russell Larson,' Bruce Pankonin, and Pat Murphy will prepare a tit
conditional use permit for the next Planning Commission meeting
prior to the public hearing.
Jerry Neher moved to hold a public hearing on November 2, 1977, at
7:30 p.m. in the Chanhassen Elementary School to consider a conditional
use permit for Minnewashta Regional Park. Motion seconded by Hud
Hollenback and unanimously approved.
HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ PRELIMINARY PLAT: The City Planner gave his
report. Hansen and Klingelhutz is proposing to construct eight 10
uni:t apartment buildings on 6.6 acres directly north of the Chanhassen
Elementary School. The density is 12 units per acre. In 1969 H. & K.
proposed a total development plan for Western Hills. This piece of
property was proposed as multiple family. The Council rezoned the
property to P-l. The Planner suggested an earth berm be created along
the open parking area in Phase I. H. & K. should be required to
provide some active recreation space for the future residents of the
development although the property does abut the school. They should
be required to install a sidewalk along Laredo Drive.
Bill Brezinsky gave a report. In general the .enginea~zhas no problems
wi th the plan as submitted. Sarii tary sewer and water as snown on
the plan will adequately serve the property. Hydrants should be
spaced every 300 feet throughout the development. The drainage plan
is adequate except a storm sewer will have to be installed in the ..
low area. Street widths are 25 feet with no parking. _
Jim Hawks, Doug Hansen, and Tom Klingelhutz were present. Jim Hawks
gave the presentation. There are a total of 80 units, 20 of them are
one bedroom and 60 are two bedroom. The one bedroom units range in
, .
e
e
e
..
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 1977
-11-
size from 768 to 804 square feet and the two bedroom, 1,044 to 1,080
square feet. Hansen and Klingelhutz propose to offer. $1,.000 a year
for four years to be spent in developing active play areas in the
existing park north of this area.
Staging is proposed as follows:
1977-1978 Two buildings in the northeast corner of the property
with garages.
1978-1979 Two buildings in the southeast corner of the property
with garages.
1979-1980 Three buildings generally located to the south west of
the property with garages.
1980-1981 Three buildings generally located to the northwest of
the property with garages.
Grading and stabilization of the soil would be completed this year.
The buildings are to be built of stucco and wood, two story in height.
Hud Hollenback moved to hold a public hearing on November 9, 1977,
at 8:45 p.m. to consider a preliminary development plan for Santa
Vera PUD. Motion seconded by Roman Roos and unanimously approved.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST - ROBERT SOMMER: Hud Hollenback moved to hold
a public hearing on November 9, 1977, at 9:30 p.m. to consider the
subdivision request for Robert Sommer. Motion seconded by Walter
Thompson and unanimously approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Les Bridger and Jerry Neher have
indicated they wish to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission.
Hud Hollenback moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Walter
Thompson and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager