1987 03 25
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
4ItMARCH 25, 1987
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska,
and David Headla.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel and James Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
REVIEW WETLAND ORDINANCE.
Conrad: What I would like to do is go through the Ordinance itself and take
some comments from the experts that we have in attendance tonight. The
direction I would like to go in and focus our attention on is, how do we
process some of the wetland permits that have been presented to us?
Basically, what I've seen over the past month or two are permit requests and
our Ordinance is being tested and we've never really had the opportunity to
take that Ordinance and say how do we use it? What I would like to somehow
structure is a methodology to tell Staff this is how we would like you to
proceed when a permit comes in and this is the information we would like you
to provide us with. To get us to that point tonight, I thought it would be
~nstructive to invite our new members of the City Council here because they
~ere not involved in the Wetland Ordinance development so they could share
their thoughts with us and hear some of the expert advice. I invited my
wife, who was on the Envinromental Protection Committee, to fill us in as to
how the Ordinance was originally developed and what the thinking was and the
strategy when the City got into the development of that Ordinance. To kick
it off I'll just condense a few things. Maybe three years ago the
Environmental Protection Committee was established and on that committee we
put five or six people. Really we started with the lake study committee
group who had been around for a long time and because Chanhassen has a lot of
lakes, a lot of wetlands, the lake study committee was around to help
monitor, protect, guide the City in terms of how we manage that lake
resource. That committee was kind of reformulated into the Environmental
Protection Committee of which the members were a gentlemen by the name of
Dick Vogel, who was a farmer. We wanted the farm community represented
because there is a lot of wetland in the rural area. We had Court McFarland
on the committee who was on the previous committee and his background, he is
a realtor and therefore very familiar with development. We had Rick Murray,
who you've seen in front of us a time or two, who is a very active developer
in the City of Chanhassen. We had Henry Sosin who is a surgeon and very
interested in lake environmental issues. We had my wife who is an
environmentalist and there was another woman who was on the committee that
was the Chair for a while but she resigned and therefore was an inactive
person for the bulk of the work. That committee worked for roughly two
years. Passed an Ordinance maybe the middle part of last year if I'm not
~~istaken. The Committee started three years ago but the Ordinance went in
~hen?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 2
e
Olsen:
In 1984.
Conrad: Long time ago. I stand corrected. I think as we see the rural area
develop these days, I think we're now seeing how the Wetland Ordinance works.
with that, I would like Susan to kind of get into the background of how that
Ordinance was developed and maybe some of the uniquenesses of the Ordinance
that Chanhassen had put into it.
Susan Conrad: We did finish it three years ago and we did start a year and a
half or two years before that. When Ladd has brought, he rarely talks about
City stuff because we generally end up in an argument but when he has
mentioned that he has been looking at wetland permits in the last month, it's
just incredible how my mind just went blank. I left that all three years ago
and today to go over some of the material to try to fill you in, I hope I
don't leave huge gaps but what bothers me, and that's why I'm so glad you
guys are here, is that when I spent a lot of time even before the Committee
was put into action learning about it from reading and from a whole bunch of
scientists that I contacted and for me to have forgotten so many details
worries me that the Council isn't going to have any of that still in their
heads and they are going to have lost the philosophy that we put forth. As I
read through the Ord inance today, I real i zed that it is not as clear in it's
philosophy as we set out to do and it takes this kind of time to be removed
from it to see that. The reason we got started was I was real active in a
lake association and we were facing a developer on Lotus Lake that was
<<ooking at what appeared to the neighborhood to be high density. We got
nvolved with realizing that there was some wetland there and through that
process we did a lot of learning and talking to scientists and different
agencies and the conclusion we came to, at the end of over a years battle
there, was that the DNR has jurisdiction up to the high water mark. The Army
Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over wetlands and correct me, I know you
two ladies know better about that, and Fish and Wildlife was the service that
we found most helpful because they seemed not to owe anything to anyone and
not to be as black and white about everything. They seemed to have a vision
that we all came to in our homeowners association that all of this is inter-
dependent and you can't stop at the high water mark because things kind of
fringe over and we sawall kind of gaps where the DNR and the people we
talked with were very, very frustrated because they couldn't go beyond their
jurisdiction and likewise the Army Corps of Engineers or Soil and Water or
whoever we were talking with, they were stopped at a certain point and they
would see a reason for an overlap and interworking situation but the
structure wasn't there for them to do that. To give us advice on the
overlaps so we went to Council and persuaded Council with films and bringing
in some people from the University and some people from Fish and wildlife to
convince the Council that we really needed a wetland protection ordinance in
this City to fill in those gaps. When I went out to learn about this, I
guess I got real romantic about my approach and the way I viewed things and
on the committee, as we became educated, we developed a concept of
stewardship and I think that's the philosophy with which we wrote this. Even
the people like Rick Murray who were at the opposite end, probably that's why
the Ordinance took us three years to write because Rick and I were at
~pposite ends here and we argued every single little point that came through
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 3
eb u t we a 11 had a s ens e 0 f s t e war d s hip and a fee 1 i n g t hat i t was rea 1
important to serve this community and serve nature and see that whole balance
and here we were charged with protecting just one little part of it so we got
real religious about our approach to writing this Ordinance. What we learned
was that between 1950 and 1970,50% of the wetlands in the united States were
destroyed and as a result, there are billions of dollars now being spent on
flood water control. There are all kinds of dollars being spent to retrieve
damage to lakes and waterways and streams and should I tell you the value of
wetlands? Do you what to know that?
Ladd Conrad:
Go ahead.
Susan Conrad: The wetlands, flood control is the most obvious. The part
that we see in the dollar value put on it because that's where a lot of money
has had to be spen t to retr i eve the damage tha t wa s done. The wild 1 i fe
habitat is obvious to everyone. As we were writing this people were saying,
well, it's wonderful to protect the environment but the mosquito thrives on
it and we got all kinds of negative response to that but since then, I think
we've seen that the mosquito is just a small part of all that. It's a real
wildlife habitat and it's real important for the whole chain of things to
have that. As Planning Commissioners, you are real aware of open space and
wetlands are given for that. They allow good planning and good recreational
use. The pollution control was what we dwelled on. The fact that a wetland
is like a sponge. As sediment and nutrients roll down the hills and roll
<<own the watershed, the wetlands, because of it's vegetation, just hangs onto
11 that particulate matter and it hangs on to the nutrients and it slows
down the velocity of the water so we have sheet flow movement of water and
the water consequently, when it gets to the lakes and streams, is somewhat
cleaner and those wetlands are real important. They are there for real
important reasons to do that kind of filtering. There is a concept in the
Ordinance about mitigation that I have a lot of trouble with. Engineers
typically like to pipe water straight to something. Wetlands change that
whole system and I think engineers now are changing their philosophy on how
water should go but the part about mitigation is one that I think the various
departments in the government that I worked with, felt it was real positive.
If you destory a wetland or fill it in here and there, it's okay as long as
you create a wetland someplace else and everybody that I asked and everybody
our committee asked about that, Mr. Weller being the source at the
University that I was most impressed with because of his knowledge, said that
it's real tough to answer that one and where they are located for real
specific reasons and nobody knows what happens when you tamper with the way
those wetlands were placed and that mitigation is not, was something that
Mr. Weller and some of the scientists at Fish and Wildlife questioned so I
still have a lot of trouble with mitigation being a part of this wetland
ordinance. Ground water recharge is another thing that wetlands obviously
filter the junk that goes down and helps to make the ground water pure. I
was reading today, and just as a refresher that we have 1% of the water
that's available in this country is drinkable. We often open the paper
and weekly, I guess St. Louis Park strikes me most that hear about their
~ater being polluted and some kind of accident or some kind of damage to
~heir groundwater and I think there has to be a reason for that. We've got
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 4
e .
to pay attentIon to that and I'm real proud that Chanhassen has made an
effort to pay attention to that. When we got to actually writing this and
getting real specific about things, the committee's philosophy was that we
wanted to hire some people to come in and look at all of Chanhassen, to
survey all of the land that we had. To do aerial maps and to reclassify
every single wetland in Chanhassen, even if it was a little pothole. The DNR
was protecting Type II wetlands up to 2 acres but we wanted those that were
an acre and a half or one-third of an acre. We had learned those were worth
protecting too so we went into writing this Ordinance with the intention of
protecting every tiny little pothole in Chanhassen and that was impractical.
We, one, couldn't afford to have those maps redesigned. We couldn't afford
to have engineers go out and survey every single piece of land so we had to
rely on what was existing which was the Met Council's map of wetlands. So
when you guys are looking at a wetland permit and it says that you can do
certain things to what we classified as A and B wetlands, to me that's just
religious. To me it has to be real extreme for you to even touch a B wetland
because our committee wanted you to look at every single wetland lower than a
B. We wanted you to consider and we talked about having the City Engineer go
out and do an on-site inspection of every single piece of property that was
ever going to be developed and any size wetland, for him to give an opinion
to the Planning Commission and City Council as far as protecting it. That is
the strongest point, as I reread this Ordinance today, that I think slipped
by. The fact that Type B wetlands certainly are worth protecting but we
really have strong enough legislation with the DNR to protect those and we
~eally need to look at this Ordinance philosophically as wanting to protect
~very single wetland even beyond that and to at least treat it with some
degree of respect. The thing that actually our committee didn't write, the
permitting process. We wrote that the City Council had to pass a wetland
permit application by a 3 member vote in order for it to pass and beyond
that, the point that we put down that was real important to us was a phrase
that we called burden of proof. That if an applicant comes in and asks you
for a wetland permit, that they absolutely have to bear the expense of
proving to you that that wetland follows all of these guidelines. When I was
looking through this today, very practically speaking, if you go from page 81
to page 83, you can simply turn the wetland alteration permit guidelines
around and say to the applicant, have you proven that each of these points
have been fulfilled and that's their responsibility. That's not the
responsibility of the City to prove those things are true. We have to use
the City Engineer to give an opinion but beyond that, and we can call on the
agencies that are around to help us interpret some of this stuff but beyond
that, the applicant bears that burden. Is it okay Ladd if we just skim
through this because there are a few things, from some of the stuff you've
looked at recently and I don't even know what the outcomes were?
Ladd Conrad: Can you tell me, the DNR protects wetlands and different
agencies protect them, can you summarize how our Ordinance goes beyond the
rulings of the other regulatory agencies? Other than our intent, the intent
is there, but specifically I think members on the Planning Commission are
saying we need a regulatory body to advise us yet they will advise based on
4Ittheir parameters they have for their agency. I'm questioning what are the
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 5
e. .
thIngs that Chanhassen has control over and are not gOIng to come back from a
regulatory state or federal body?
Susan Conrad: For that I would have to compare this document with the DNR's
document and what I believe is true that everything that was listed under
prohibited uses in Class A wetlands and Class B wetlands is something that
wasn't specific to the DNR's regulations on wetland protection. They are
simply more detailed and more specific. I really should know that but I
don't really know what the DNR's regulation is as far as structure setback
from a wetland. I don't believe that exists.
Judy Boudreau:
You're right.
Susan Conrad: So we were real specific about setbacks. We were treating
wetlands like the DNR treats open water. I realize that's a wetland too but
as they were treating lakes as far as setbacks go and our specifications
under 524-5, page 79.
Barbara Dacy:
They don't have those pages.
Susan Conrad: Under the prohibited uses in Class A wetland and prohibited
uses in Class B are very specific and not at all laid out to the DNR's
restrictions. And by the way, the DNR was very supportive of us doing this.
They thought that was wonderful. We got all kinds of support from Met
Council for the restrictions that were put forth. As far as the activities
or telling a wetland alteration permit, that was all done by the City Staff.
Our committee didn't do that part.
Ladd Conrad: So what you're telling me is that these are pretty specific to
the City of Chanhassen?
Susan Conrad: Yes, and we read wetland ordinances from other cities and were
told that the most restrictive one was Orono as I recall. Lakeville also had
a real restrictive one. None of those ordinances were even close to being as
restricted as ours. Ours is very specific and very restrictive and this
document that finally passed through this committee, of which Ladd and Howard
are the only surviving members, and the Council, is very much softer than the
Ordinance that our committee actually wrote. It got neutralized by quite a
bit but it's still, in that form, it's far more restrictive than any City we
looked at. I just want to tell you about the couple of things that you've
come across like for instance the Lake Lucy permit that you were asked to act
on and I thought if I just picked out a few specific things, it would make
sense on how we intended for the City to interpret it. Under the prohibited
uses of a Class A wetland, that little piece of land or piece of water or
marsh that is next to Lake Lucy that apparently someone was proposing to
dredge a channel through, it is indeed a Class A wetland because it is
adjacent to a wateway and to break into a waterway, real specifically under
prohibited uses, it says operation of motorized craft. Oh, it doesn't say
canoes though. I was assuming that it meant no watercraft could go through
that kind of a channel but to break that seal between the two is just real
~ontrary to the philosophy of wetland preservation or conservation because
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 6
-the reasontha t probably Type I I I or IV wet land is there is to protect Lake
Lucy and to filter at a real close proximity to that lake. To me, to grant
permission to break through that seal is really bad and I believe the DNR
can't legislate against that if it's that kind of a small lake even though
they may want to. They just don't have the legislative permission to do that
kind of thing.
Ladd Conrad: You take a 1/2% of a wetland away and what's the impact which
is what it was? It was less than half. It was a minute percent.
Susan Conrad: I know. You say that all the ti me. It may not seem 1 i ke a
whole lot but between 1950 and 1970, 50% of our wetlands were drained for
agricultural use. Each farmer said I have this little 8 acre plot and it
doesn't make a big deal. They had no idea what they were doing and it's just
all those little percentages that get chipped away.
Ladd Conrad: It doesn't seem like that has a bearing in this particular
case. I thought what Hank Sosin was talking about is that the wetland does
not function as a whole when you start breaking up a little bit of it like
that. Rather than thinking of it globally, we just lost another half percent
or 500 feet, how does the wetland function? Does the wetland continue to
function as well when you put a channel through it?
Dr. Rockwell: Could I help you out? It's a cumulative impact that
~akes a big difference. You chip a little bit away here and a little bit
~here and before long, and in fact, it doesn't take very long, the cumulative
effect is a huge adverse impact on the environment. The 50%, don't forget
that by now, in Minnesota between 75% and 90% of the original wetland is
gone. I believe the rate of wetland fill, the annual rate in Minnesota is
still 20,000 acres per year. So you chip a little bit here and a little bit
there and before you know it it's all gone.
Susan Conrad: What's you feeling about mitigation as far as that?
Barbara Dacy: Could I introduce her? with us tonight is Dr. Elizabeth
Rockwell from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the right of her is
Judy Boudreau from the Department of Natural Resources. Dr. Rockwell had a
graduate degree from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Natural
Resources and a Masters in wildlife Biology. We've been calling people for
"expert advice" for this ordinance and over the past year and a half, all the
people that we've called say, this woman right here so for the past year and
a half, Chanhassen probably has had the best advice that we could get. She
has worked a number of years on a variety of conservation projects for
wetlands and she has recently accepted an honorary part-time teaching
position with the University of Minnesota. Has given a seminar on federal
protected wetlands on the St. Paul campus and her comments tonight, she did
want to pick up on the different types and then Judy was going to talk about
the DNR's regulations. Judy has been with DNR for about 8 years. Equally as
qualified and then we wanted to talk about the specific cases because what
~ou said on the Rivkin proposal, those are the very reasons why Staff was
..,ecommending denial on that as well as the reservations by the experts.
Planning commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 7
e
Ladd Conrad: Did you have anything else you wanted to add?
Dr. Rockwell: I wanted to talk about other specifics.
Ladd Conrad: Let's get into that if we can later on. I would really like to
close this down at 8:30 and I'm not sure we're going to be able to.
Noziska: When you talk about the impact of trenches, if the reason for the
wetland is to slow down the flow, then you poke a hole in the dam, then of
course you're going to adversely affect the effluent flowing through instead
of slowing it down and stopping it and allowing the sponge to suck it up.
Suck up the nutrients and allow the silt so putting a trench through makes a
big difference.
Ladd Conrad: We get back into an issue that bothers me and that is, we look
at the positives and negatives and we can permit a lot of stuff if we see the
positives coming through but it's a question of how do we get a handle of the
positives and in that particular case I wasn't finding many but again, it was
a hard one for me to get a total handle on. If Dr. Rockwell could speak to
us for a bit. I don't know what you would like to speak about.
Dr. Rockwell: I think every biologist in the Fish and Wildlife Service will
agree with your statements of the last 25 minutes or so and I might want to
say that ultimately the expert on hydrology is Judy here. It's not myself.
.n addition to the legal restrictions on wetland impacts that come from
ederal and state legislature, I feel that the City of Chanhassen can be as
restrictive with it's wetland ordinance as it wants to be and it would
certainly have the support of the Fish and Wildlife Service and probably
the DNR. Because we have lost so much wetlands in the last century and
because the wetland impacts continue at a very high rate, I believe it is
very important that wetland impact, particularly in total elimination of
wetlands, be avoided wherever possible and at least minimized. As far as
mitigating goes, I agree with you that we just don't know yet or the state at
large isn't to the point where we know what exactly is the effect of the
elimination of one wetland on adjacent wetlands or on wetlands that may be
ever as far away as a mile. There are some papers out on that, I can get the
information on authors and titles for you in the journal, that says yes,
there is an effect on other wetlands within a mile radius or farther if you
fill up a wetland in a given area so we have to be very careful with
mitigation because what can we replace with mitigation? In other words, what
can we replace by digging a manmade wetland out of upland elsewhere? Maybe
we can replace some wildlife habitat but can we replace replenishment of
ground water? We don't know. I think for example, wetland areas adjacent to
lakes, you just can not mitigate for that because the filtration of the run-
off is so important to the qualify of that lake water that if you do away
with it, how could you mitigate for it? You want the run-off with some sort
of other man made filter? It's not anywhere near as effective as a natural
wetland. You may be able to dig a hole someplace else and have the control
of storm water. In other words, you could control or minimize flooding
~ownstream with a manmade structure but there are so many other things, we
~ust don't know and the assumption right now is no, we can not mitigate the
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 8
e loss of certain wetlands or maybe not any. But, reality for the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and again you are correct in saying that we act only in a
consulting fashion for other agencies, particularly the Corps of Engineers
that is required to consult with us when it gives out permits for wetland
fills. Reality is different. Even the Fish and Wildlife Service can not
consistently recommend the denial of permits for wetland fills or for
example, the denial of FHA, the mortgage insurance for development required
for some wetland fill. Against out better judgment, we have to come to some
sort of mutual agreement with the Corps of Engineers which is far more
liberal with it's wetland fills than we would like it to be and with
developers. This is what I've done most of the time when I've come here to
Chanhassen and looked at wetlands. I've judged among other things, the
present quality of the given wetland and by that I mean is it cattail choked
because possibly it's partially drained or is it choked or degraded by excess
of sedimentation or possibly has it's quality as wildlife habitat been
degraded significantly to maybe hay or grazing or some other agricultural
practices. Then I usually tell Jo Ann that there is or is not room for a
trade-off. If the wetland is in very good quality and a very good state,
then I usually suggest to her, save it. Don't let anyone touch it. If I see
that the quality isn't that great, and that excludes the wetlands that are
adjacent to lakes because no matter what condition they are in, I feel are
incidental. I may suggest that perhaps there is room for trade-off because
the one thing you have, throughout the seven metropolitan counties, not just
in Chanhassen, you have very many wetlands that are in very poor state
~because of activities around it that have impacted it adversely and you may
.be able to let a development fill 25% of what he intends to fill if he
upgrades the remaining 75% of wetland on his or her property and then put a
deed restriction on that to prevent any further wetland fill. That is an
alternative. Whether or not the City of Chanhassen wants to take advantage
of that, that of course is up to you.
Ladd Conrad: When you advise Jo Ann, are you advising over the phone?
Dr. Rockwell: ah no. I come here. It's amazing the phone calls I get from
Jo Ann or the phone calls I get from diverse developers who say, Jo Ann said
to contact you to come and look at a wetland to tell me whether it is a
wetland to possibly assist in the delineation. These usually are wetlands
that are not under the state protection of the DNR because if they are, then
the DNR comes into the picture. I help delineate it and I provide a
statement about the quality of the wetland from the on-site inspection.
Ladd Conrad: But is your advice based on the parameters that, you're not
looking at our Ordinance when you advise us? You're looking within your
confines of responsibilities and therefore...
Dr. Rockwell: I can say that either this wetland in my opinion is a very
good quality as wildlife habitat or that it is absolutely indispensable for
some other reason like filtration or run-off through lakes or streams but
then what you do with it ultimately, other than the permit you may require or
~ the developer may be required to obtain from the State or Federal agency, I
Wcan not.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 9
e
Ladd Conrad: Thank you. Judy, do you have anything to add to our
conversation?
Judy Boudreau: I can't add to Elizabeth's expertise because I'm not a
biologist but I can give you a quick rundown on how we've been dealing with
wetlands in permit process and some of the problems we've run across. Prior
to 1978 the State had to prove that a wetland had value for a number of
different reasons. whether it be wetland habitat, that it served as ground
water recharge area or that it was a floodplain wetland. We had no size
limitations. We did have some wetland type limitations. It became such a
burden to go through this proof with each development that came through
that this wetland should be protected by DNR for whatever reasons that the
legislature finally agreed that we should put a size limitation of 2 1/2
acres, a minimum size of 2 1/2 acres in incorporated areas and a 10 acre
minimum for unincorporated areas. Obviously the DNR is in a very political
situation. Even those sizes have been lambasted by many counties and
communities and I think Chanhassen is a very unusual community in that you do
want to have much more restrictive controls than what even we can do. One of
the problems we run into is there is often ponds out in somebody's backyard
development that really don't serve much more than a holding pond for the
city's storm sewers and they meet the size critieria and they are open water
so they become a protected wetlands. Some of those were created by some of
the developers. They don't have the vegetative habitat value that helps to
absorb nutrients and yet we're supposed to protect them as we are these
~natural high quality wetlands Elizabeth just eluded to. That we're stuck
~with. Sometimes we even look at some projects with a little bit more
flexibility than others but I think our permit program was much more flexible
too prior to 1983 where we did allow that tit for tat habitat mitigation
thing. Well, can I fill here as long as I compenstate over here? We did have
an attitude back in the pre-1983 that allowed a lot of that. Our rules did
change in 1983 that said that absolutely no development except in the case of
a road which is owned by a government a unit, be it a city, the county or
MnDot and that there is no other alternative. Then for certain mitigation is
required but you show your need first. We don't have as critical or
restrictive regulations on excavation. The sum of pervasive feeling within
DNR that riparian owners or owners that owned property to the ordinance high
water level of the lake are not guaranteed access but should be considered
for access. Excavations, such as the permit that you've been dealing with,
is somewhat held back just by the inability of the owner to be able to pay
for that type of project. Often, if there is a group of landowners that have
inability to get to a lake that they are riparian to, we'll suggest one
channel for a group of people and try and concentrate their boat moorings and
that type of thing. We are stuck with specific regulations that say you can
excavate as long as there is no wildlife or fisheries impact. We've been
around and around with this particular issue with Fisheries and Wildlife.
Our wildlife area manager has not felt that the project would be necessarily
good but he's also saying that it's not necessarily bad if it's done with
care so he's not willing to put his life on the line if we were to have to go
through a legal process over this site. Fisheries originally had some
problems with it but with some changes in the design, they were willing to
_admit that there wasn't as much negative impact as originally they thought
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 10
4Itthere would be. We still aren't gung ho for the project but we don't have
the legal recourse to deny it as long as the applicant can modify it enough
to protect the resources as much as possible. That's where I'm hoping that
the City has a little bit more restriction than we do because that is a
beautiful valuable habitat there. To stick a channel through it, to me
personally, aesthetically, now that I've come to appreciate wetlands, would
be a bad thing to do. For another person, the aesthetics mean having their
land sodded down to the lake and being able to have the access so it's a
difference of opinions and it's hard to explain to people that want the
Better Homes and Garden's look what negative impacts are. With regard to
mitigation, we don't like to see a bad project being made less bad. If you
can show that there absolutely is a need, then mitigation comes in to hand
here. I don't know if we ever gave you folks a copy of our Wetland pamphlet
that we send out in our permit program. I brought what I could tonight and
if you need more, we can get more from our central office. I'll leave them
before I go. More power to your program. I know that there are some value
judgments that have to be made on the different wetland types and as
Elizabeth was mentioning, some have more value than others and those I guess
have to be considered when you're looking at it. It takes time and it takes
a lot of effort and it can be a nightmare trying to enforce those types of
ordinances. We'll try to help as much as possible. We aren't as much an
advisory role as the Fish and Wildlife Service. Every time Barb and Jo Ann
call me they know I'm pulling my hair out just because of the high
development that's going on these days. The mild weather, it's been crazy
ttbut I know that we're all supportive of your program.
Ladd Conrad: Thank you Judy. I would like to take this up to maybe some
examples and see how we work within the process.
Dacy: In the handguide we put together, in essence, wetland alteration
permits are typically processed, outside of the Rivkin proposal on Lake Lucy,
in conjunction with a subdivision plat. We have a conference with the
applicant as part of their application of the subdivision. Because they are
doing detailed topo, existing and proposed grades, that's when we typically
process the alteration permit. Field inspection is typically done during the
application review process. DNR or u.S. Fish and wildlife come out. They
determine the function that Dr. Rockwell referred to earlier and we also try
to determine the edge where wetland vegetation changes to primarily
terrestrial or the ordinary high water mark if it is of such a size that one
is identified. The plans show the existing and proposed grades. If it's
going to be used for a ponding area, the engineer and the Watershed District's
engineer have to review that to meet the 100 year storm event as well as the
storm event that is listed in the Wetland Ordinance. We evaluate the plat
and make a recommendation. On the next page of that handout is a listing of
all the wetland alteration permits that we have processed. To quickly
summarize, in each of these cases there has been no wetland that has been
completely filled. Yes, there has been minor alterations. The good thing
about this Ordinance is that it has gone beyond identifying wetlands that are
on the map that was adopted as a part of the Ordinance. The Chanhassen vista
application, the Piper Ridge application, those two applications contained
4Itwetlands below the 2 1/2 acres that Staff identified to the applicant as
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 11
~SaYing you need a wetland alteration permit. Another thing that is working
about the Ordinance is establishment of setbacks. Mrs. Conrad referred to,
we can establish an edge but what happens around the periphery? Those we
have seen most importantly in the rural area with the Gagne subdivision. 150
foot setback from the septic tank drainfields. The Commission and Council
have upheld those. To summarize, the Ordinance has been working. In the
Chan vista application, they did submit a proposal that went to the Planning
Commission of filling in the wetland and putting the streets and lots over
that. The Planning Commission said no way. The Ordinance worked. In the
Rivkin case, we, the City, has the ability to deny that permit. Staff
recommended denial. We sited the intent of the Ordinance. It's completely
contrary to that. There is no question in my mind that that Ordinance is
working and I think there is evidence. True, some of the wetlands have been
altered. Being used for storm water ponds, which helps in the overall water
management system. The Gagne application, a portion was touched for the road
and a culvert was put in place. That's altering 2,500 square feet yet the
function of that wetland was created because of broken down drain tile that
occurred a number of years ago. Almost a manmade condition. To be honest,
Staff went back and we looked at all of our Staff Reports on this and if
there is a critique to be made, I think we can say to ourselves that maybe we
haven't communicated the details about the pros versus the cons well enough.
We've assumed a lot of the technical information and we've made our
recommendations. Maybe things have been a little unclear as to why. Going
through Mrs. Conrad's comments about what you were trying to do, establishing
~setbacks, making sure things that were the smallest little wetlands
"'possible. I honestly believe that we're meeting the intent of the Ordinance.
Ladd Conrad: Let me give you an example in the most recent one is tpe Gagne
property where based on Staff direction, a road was placed over a B wetland
based on matching driveways. From what I heard from the developer, they
could have put their road anyplace. That's what I heard but based on Staff
direction, they put it to match another road on the southerly access and
therefore the road they were putting in would go over a B. There's a case
where I don't know what the negatives were of going over and I think most of
our comments were, is somebody going to tell us what they were and I didn't
see anybody saying in a formal document that it just was not perceived to be
that significant a problem. Plus the fact that it really was steered that
way by Staff. You obviously had your reasons. You were trying to do some
other types of planning for that particular project besides wetland and I
think what I saw was lack of information that maybe I would like to see in
terms of a more formalized procedure as to how it gets to us. That Staff
condenses the Fish and Wildlife review and says the pros and cons. Condenses
the DNR's and says the pros and cons. Condenses the City Engineer because
the City Engineer is who I'm holding up to be the representative of
Chanhassen and our Ordinance, somehow has to say now this is my Ordinance and
I'm going to tell you how and I know we can't be totally accurate on this
stuff but somehow we need that input in all cases from Staff or the Engineer
to say that in this particular case you're talking about some things that I
didn't hear in that meeting about the B wetland. That it was maybe a non-
functioning, not necessarily the best of all wetlands but I didn't hear that
4Itand that's why I wanted to bring this back. I need a methodology so that some
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 12
4Itof the folks that haven't been here can more understand what you've gone
through before it got here. All I see is the Staff saying we recommend a
permit and I don't see that process that you're going through.
Dacy: And I think what has happened, because they are typically
incorporated in the subdivision review, not only are we talking wetlands
issue, we're talking public safety issues, street alignment, land use, lot
size. I think when we work with the developer we're addressing all those
issues and I think in the wetland case, we're trying to balance all these
issues and make sure that all of the Ordinances are being met. That's why we
felt when we went back over it that we probably didn't spend much time
talking about it and communicating facts and recommendations to the
Commission and Council.
Ladd Conrad:
In terms of what we do, we should be upholding the philosophy.
Dacy: And I'm saying that is still being done through your subdivision
review. The Engineer reviews the drainage calculations and looks at the
storm events and so on. The wildlife experts are going out there and we're
all working together to make a sound recommendation and maybe it's coming
down to just a communication problem rather than an Ordinance enforcement.
Ladd Conrad: I don't know that I have a problem with Ordinance enforcement.
I think I have a problem with the process because I'm not seeing all the
_things that are going on. A good point would be where we have some technical
"'information in our Ordinance about the permitting process and we've granted
some permits but I haven't seen the engineer come back and say, given the
fact that we're filling in that wetland, that it will not severely impact the
standard of a 5.9 inch rainfall in a 24 hour period. There are some
technical aspects in here that somebody has to say aye or nay on given the
fact that we're filling in that wetland and I don't see it.
Dacy: And the rainfall event is typically used for granting subdivision plat
so in our mind it's a technical item that we either check off as either they
need it or they don't. Maybe just a simple statement on the report is what
you're asking for.
Ladd Conrad: Bill or Jay, any comments on what we're talking about tonight?
Councilman Johnson: I agree with you quite a bit. I would like to see more
information coming forward. I would like to see it somewhat in a similar
form to what the EA is where you've got a checklist. Where you can start
here, Wetland Alteration Permit Guidelines and you've got a checklist here.
Almost fill it out like an EA where you say, this is what we're doing. We've
going to fill this many acres and it's going to have this effect on the
ecology, this effect on the hydrogeology and run right down through these
pages as a checklist. Have the final conclusions written up by the engineer
saying here's the negative, here's the positive like you say. It would be a
mini-environmental assessment is what it would end up being specific to our
Ordinance. Of course, with the u.s. Fish and wildlife and the DNR's comments
~attached. I would like to see that.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 13
e Councilman Boyt: ...any alteration of a wetland should be an extremely rare
event and that I would encourage you to haul out the old one and see if we
could pass it. I hear our experts saying that they would love to see us pass
it. I know I don't want to see us lose any wetland and if a stronger
Ordinance would handle that I would be for it. I think we do have an
enforcement problem. I can show numerous events where the City has not
stayed on top of developers and I think they are now moving in that
direction.
Susan Conrad: When Barbara was talking about weighing all the factors, can
what Jay and Bill are recommending the checklist, can things be prioritized?
For instance, two of these projects had streets going over B wetlands and I'm
going to ask you two experts, wouldn't a street and run-off from cars be
as bad as farmland run-off? As detrimental? So how could we possibly have
allowed those two things to pass? When we were talking about public safety
and welfare and traffic and all those things being weighed and it seemed as
through the street being there was better for those other things. I don't
want to pretend that I'm at all prejudice but I would think that the Wetland
Ordinance would take priority in that situation.
Dacy: But on a case by case basis, for example the Piper Ridge situation,
their only means of access was a 60 foot piece of frontage and the wetland
was right there. If they would have denied any type of access through the
wetland, then he couldn't have use of his property so in that case the Council
~shifted the road all the way over. I see what you're saying. Put a little
~higher priority on preservations of wetlands and that's fine except when you
come to another issue like traffic safety, it's hard to, should you have 150
feet from a street to a major intersection or 300? If 300 is what MnDot
requires and unfortunately the wetland is right there, we're going to try and
do the best we can to meet both objectives. That's what I was referring to.
There are some instances where they conflict and the Commission and Council
constantly have to do a balancing act between all 'of the issues. That was
the intent of my comment.
Ladd Conrad: Here's what I would like to do. Maybe you all have some
questions up here. I think where I want to direct this is pretty much what
Jay had to say. I don't have any problems with the Ordinance. Maybe with
how it's being executed but I do need to see how it is being executed. I do
need to see the proces s tha t we're go i ng through on these so when it comes to
me I have a condensed version of the different inputs including the outside
agencies and in terms of the City of Chanhassen so when we give a permit, I
have a piece of paper in front of me that says there is a net positive impact
or a net negative impact and I can decide whether that permit is worthy of
granting based on a condensed version of all the different technical inputs
and I guess I would like to see Staff develop that. It is simply a matter of
paperwork but it would be a way of bringing all the different things
together. I sure would like to direct Staff to help design that process.
Are there any comments?
Noziska: Just a checklist?
-
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 14
eLadd Conrad: Just a checklist of comments so we can see pros and cons and we
make sure that we're going through all the different procedures that we said
we would do in the Ordinance. That's really what I think would be
beneficial. When Staff says we're going to put a roadway over it, Staff says
the pros of the roadway are this and the negatives are this and we can say,
that's alright or that's not what we want.
Erhart: I would like to point out here that we get thrown at this loss of
85% of wetland area in the great plain states over the last 50 years. I want
to point out that almost all of that wetland loss was due to agriculture. It
had nothing to do...
Dr. Rockwell: 80% due to agriculture.
Erhart: And to come in and berate the developers because the developers have
wasted all the wetlands, that's not fair at all. I'm all for preserving
wetlands but I think we have to keep this in focus a little bit. If we get
in the situation where the Planning Commission and Council can't use just
good common sense on some of these issues relating to streets through Class B
wetlands and so forth, and we get the rule so hard, we're not going to
make good decisions. I think this is a very complex subject as we saw on the
Rivkin deal and there is no simple solution. I think if we work too hard to
try and make rules and regulations, it's going to end up being a worse
situation.
_Dr. Rockwell: I think with developers, typically, every case should be
reviewed and judged on the basis of it's own plans and proposals. You can't
just make blank judgments. The one thing I do want to say, for example I
constantly run into developers who have, and let me just pull off a random
figure, we have a 40 acre site and 5 acres of it are wetland but they want it
all. My philosophy is, if there is a 40 acre site and 35 acres of it is
upland, that's plenty to muck around in without getting into wetlands. But
if you have a site under the same circumstances and you may have little dots
of wetlands all throughout, like a tenth of an acre here and half of a tenth
of an acre here, all throughout the site, then maybe you can make some
compromises and say, I'll let you fill in a couple of these little dots and
you create something here or you set something here aside so you can't just
make a blank judgment on how to handle the development of any given site.
Erhart: Then I had a question for you, the thing that I'm very interested
in, how do you improve, let's say you have a wetland that you look at what
you consider, now you used the term bad shape. I'm not sure what that is.
Dr. Rockwell: Something I recommended today. I was at a site in Anoka
County and there is a completely cattail choked marsh. There is hardly any
standing water because there is a little channel that comes out of it and
most of the run-off that runs into that marsh is drained off. The channel
has been dug by someone. It didn't just develop there by itself. My
recommendation to the developer was, you can improve this wetland if you plug
up that channel and he was perfectly willing to do that so you will about a
efoot or foot and a half of water on a seasonal basis to this marsh. What
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 15
~Will happen is that in the deeper portions of that marsh the cattails will
die out because they can not be flooded all the time. 4 feet of water, you
won't have any cattails and this will return that marsh to it's original
condition. You have a nice interspesant of open water and cattails which
makes it very nice for wetlands plus you have the better storage capacity.
This wetland also happens to be next to a stream and you reduce the flooding
after a storm downstream because you hold that water in that wetland longer
and you may have replenishment of groundwater. That's how you can improve
the quality of the wetland. That's one way.
Erhart: You're saying increasing the open water area.
Dr. Rockwell: A very nice improvement of many of these scrub shurb wetlands
would be to set a match to it but most cities don't allow that. Get rid of
some of the upland invasion that spoils the wetland.
Erhart: Do you consider an area that is now not a wetland and the reason
it's not is because it's drained for agricultural purposes, because it's
drained with tile, is that now a wetland or not a wetland?
Dr. Rockwell: I know what you want to say. Let me give you a rule of thumb.
The Fish and Wildlife Service judges an area by what it is now and not what
it has been. If it's a wetland now, it's a wetland regardless of how it got
there. Whether it was dug by humans or whether it got there naturally. If
~it isn't there anymore, no matter by what action, it isn't a wetland anymore.
~However, let me point something out. What makes a wetland? What is the
criteria that goes into determining whether an area is or is not a wetland?
We have three and these are accepted by most agencies including the DNR and
the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency and of course, the
Fish and wildlife Service. That is the flooding regime which you usually can
determine just by what people know. They will tell you that this area floods
or has standing water on it during some part of the season. The other one is
hydrant vegetation. There is a certain flora that will not grow in an upland
area. It will only grow in a wetland. The difference between among some
agencies is that the Fish and Wildlife Service will consider an area a
wetland if it meets anyone of those characteristics. If the soil is hydrant
and there is no wetl and vegeta t i on on it beca use it has been removed or the
flooding regime has been interrupted by some action of humans, it still is a
wetland. Whereas, for the Corps of Engineers, all three of these
characteristics have to be present for it to be determined as a wetland.
Does that answer your question?
Erhart: Yes. I could go on for two hours with questions.
interesting subject for me.
It is a very
Dr. Rockwell:
It's not a clear yes or no.
Susan Conrad: To also enhance a wetland, what we designed in the Ordinance
was upland holding ponds in regard to development. Isn't that true that that
e allows. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 16
~Dr. Rockwell: Sometimes it's nice to create that emergent in it gives proper
wetlands because, and that's for wildlife habitat, wildlife that is adapted
to a wetland environment likes best is a combination of wetland. Not just a
pond or a fresh...or something like this but have three or four different
wetland types together in a wetland complex. Because of the absence of
natural fires, we control fires, we don't let anything burn anymore, and the
absence of natural flooding, what we get many times is, particularly in
eastern and norther portion of Minnesota, we get in rapid succession that
goes wetland into upland. You have that invasion of shrubs in the absence of
open water so it's nice to create some pools. Just get a backhoe or whatever
will do the job and dig some pool out and we have certain specifications that
we provide to developers for these pools. Namely we like to have a free flow
shape rather than a symmetrical, round, oval or square pond. We like to have
very shallow embankments. Usually a slope that ranges from 12 to 1 or 213 to
1. We would like to have a molded bottom contour so you get different water
depths ranging let's say from a seasonal half a foot to no more than four
feet. That brings us the emergent vegetation and it provides different
wildlife species with whatever requirements they have for certain water
depths so yes, that can be an enhancement. I have right now 36 projects in
the seven metro area that I'm checking up on where this particular work has
been done. That was the result of over the years having come up with
different regulations about a year and a half, going on two years ago. I
can't really tell you yet what the results are. What I have so far is
nothing to support that type of mitigation as being beneficial either for
4Itwildlife or for planting other...
Erhart: I might add, another thing we could have done with that Lake Riley
Woods, they wanted to put that road through the Class B wetlands, make them
improve what was left. Had we thought about that, that was an excellent
idea. It really was a marginal Class B wetland.
Dr. Rockwell: This is something that I pursue because I can not always say,
I recommend denial because I would like to do that most of the time but that
also might not be the best decision for the natural resource. Sometimes they
are more important but again, I recommend just what we have been doing all
along and that is, take a look at every site. Weigh the different
alternatives that are possible and then make a decision that is taylor made
to that specific site rather than coming up with generalizations.
Susan Conrad: Tim, what you're facing are developments in the future which
is why you're here and the fact that wetlands were drained for agriculture is
a thing of the past. No one can find that the blame goes to developers
bu t . . .
Noziska: Does it add to the ground water or take away from the ground water?
Dr. Rockwell: You mean the filling of wetlands?
Noziska: No, does a wetland, does it draw moisture from the ground or does
it provide moisture to filter into the ground?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 17
4t. Rockwell: I'm not a hydrologist and my expertise in that field is very
limited. I understand that it can do both. Again, that depends on the
wetlands so I do believe, there is a name of a fellow who's name eludes me
right now, a scientist, who has done quite a bit of work with that but still
not enough. How do we determine whether or not a given wetland does either
one or the other but you're quite correct in bringing that up because it can
do both.
Noziska: I thought that was a very interesting discussion. We got into it
enough the last time around to be totally confused and I guess if the
scientist who has been into it for several years still needs to spend several
more years at it, then we shouldn't feel bad about our confusion.
Dr. Rockwell: I agree. There really hasn't been done sufficient
comprehensive research to clear up these kinds of questions. I guess
because it's time consuming and it is expensive.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Subdivision of 1.5 acres into three single family lots on property zoned RSF,
Single FamilyReSTdential and located at the northw~comer of Yosemi te and
West 63rdstreet, Milton S"Igel. - - - --- -
Public Present:
.y Statler
Olsen: The applicant proposes a subdivision of 1.47 acres into three single
family lots. The property is zoned single family and it's located at the
northwest corner of 63rd Street and Yosemite Avenue. The single family
district requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and 90 feet of
street frontage. The proposed subdivision meets all these requirements.
There is an existing house on Lot 2 and there is already an existing shed,
which is actually a garage and a barn. I found out from the applicant today
that they do wish to maintain the shed on the property. They actually want
to keep Lot 2 and 1 under one ownership and sell Lot 3. If the building is
maintained, it will be a non-conforming structure and Staff is recommending
to clean the subdivision up, that the building be raised prior to final plat
approval. There is also a fence on the property that is located off of the
property to the north and within the right-of-way of 63rd Street. Staff is
also recommending that this fence be removed from this area. Staff is
recommending approval of the subdivision the two conditions that the existing
shed shall be removed from the site and that the existing fence shall be
removed from 63rd Street right-of-way and from the property to the north.
Charles Booth: I'm representing the applicant. He lives in Indiana. What
the owner was trying to do was plat this out in two lots. Keep ownership of
1 and 2 and sell Lot 3. We were trying to save Staff in platting all
three at the present time. what is called out there as the shed is actually
4Ir garage for the house as well as the stables. I think had he realized
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 18
~iS, the recommendation to raise it, he would have gone for the Lot 1 and 2.
63rd Street there, he would have liked to keep the garage and stables for the
house as it would lessen the value of the house if the garage were gone. If
need be, tonight you would agree to eliminate that line between Lots 1 and 2
and keep that as one parcel. Again, this was an effort to save a step and
just to plat this as three now. The fence is no problem as far as removing
that from the right-of-way.
Conrad: Jo Ann, if we did what the applicant is suggesting and just
basically subdivided Lot 3, breaking Lot 3 off, then we have no problem with
the garage?
Olsen: It's still non-conforming with the fact that it's within the
front yard setback but that can't be changed anyway but it would be off of
the property line and it would be fine.
Troy Statler: Is the road front from Lot 2 to Lot 3 where the frontage road
is? Is that 90' feet? From Lot 3 there, is that 90' feet of roadway there?
Olsen:
It's 10'3 and this is 92 feet.
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
~hart: I don't understand exactly what we're proposing here now. We're
~nging the plats. Are we proposing a two lot split or three lot split?
Conrad: The applicant is saying that he will fall back to a two lot split if
we maintain Staff's position for using the garage.
Erhart: Okay, let's assume we're going to do that so what we're going to
vote on a two lot split and then the garage issue becomes simply a variance
to the setback? Is that what the applicant wants, a two lot split?
Conrad: The applicant would want a three lot split as I read it but if we
support Staff's position, he doesn't want the three lots.
Erhart: The only question I have is if you do a three lot and as long as you
keep the garage, how do you force him later on, if you sell that one lot off,
who is going to keep track later on that the garage is going to be removed?
Emmings: If we could save him a step that would be nice and rather than
making him corne back twice and I wonder if we could just put a condition on
there that no building permit would be issued for Lot 1 until the shed was
removed, the part that hangs over? Could we also prohibit a sale of Lot 1
until he removes the garage?
Dacy: A building permit would be easier.
Emmings: I don't see any sense in him corning back again and as much as I'm
4It favor of supporting the Staff's position, given this change in his
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 19
tIlition, I think I would be willing to support something that would allow
him to split it into three but just so he knows that there will be no
building permit for Lot 1 until that shed is removed. The other thing that
seemed a little peculiar to me, it seems that he's being required to remove a
fence that isn't on his property. It's actually on his property. Is that
what's going on?
Olsen: It's his fence and I think that was just when it was surveyed that
they found that it actually wasn't on his property.
Emmings: But that's a border fence I take it.
Troy Statler:
It's a horse fence.
Emmings: Do you care if he removes it?
Troy Statler: No, not at all.
Emmings: Okay, that's all I got.
Noziska: I think Steve covered it well. I think it makes sense to put it
into three parcels so the guy doesn't have to come back putting the condition
on that he can't build on Lot 1 until he gets the shed off of the lot line.
~adla: Steve, what did you mean by the shed being removed?
~t moved?
Torn down or
Emmings: I guess I would say he's got to get it completely off of Lot 1 and
back to the point where there would be a setback from the lot line between
Lot 1 and 2.
Headla: I would go along with that. I think that building fits right in
wi th the house and if they have to tear it down, then...but if we just say
it's got to be moved, I like that.
Conrad: So if we passed a motion it could relate that the building permit
would not be granted until the garage met all City Standards.
Emmings moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated
March 13, 1987 with the following conditions:
1. No building permit will be issued for Lot 1 until the shed is either
removed or moved to comply with all City Ordinances.
2. The existing fence shall be removed from the 63rd Street right-of-
way and from the property to the north.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 20
~division of 5 acres into 12 single family lots on property zoned RSF,
Single FamilY-Residentiar-an~located at the ~heast corner of Pleasant
View Road, just west of Fox Hollow, North~tus Lake, Herb Bloomberg.
Public Present:
Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Schroeder
Carl McNutt
Olsen: The property is zoned Single Family. It's 4.88 acres to be split
into 12 single family lots. The density is 2.46 units per acre. The
Ordinance requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet per lot and 90 feet of
street frontage. All the lots meet this requirement and they also have
access to sewer and water. As far as the street extensions, Fox Hollow is
being extended to Pleasant View and the City Council has reviewed with the
residents of Fox Hollow, the subdivision. They wanted to prevent it from
being a direct thoroughfare to Pleasant View Drive. The proposal that was
given preliminary approval by the Council was to have a 20 foot private drive
extended from the Fox Hollow cul-de-sac up to where the cul-de-sac will be
corning off of Pleasant View to the proposed subdivision that we are reviewing
tonight. It will be heavily landscaped and will allow for emergency access
and access to the park but again prevent traffic from using it as a straight
through street. As far as the subdivision itself, all of the lots will have
Icess from the cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View Road except for Lot 6 which
11 have to have direct access off of Pleasant View Road. Staff is
recommending that the driveway on Lot 6 be at least 100 feet from the
existing driveway to the east. Lots 11 and 12 will have to take access from
the existing cul-de-sac of Fox Hollow Drive. Lot 11 will have to obtain a
driveway easement over Lot 12 to gain access to this cul-de-sac. Also, the
cul-de-sac is within Lot 12 and an easement over this cul-de-sac will have to
be acquired. As far as grading and drainage, there is an existing swale on
the property and the applicant is proposing to move this over to the east
where it will be directed to a basin and then follow a pipe where it will
drain into the park site to the south. An easement will have to be dedicated
over this swale and basin and Staff is recommending that the easement be set
at the 918 foot elevation along the swale and at the 100 year high water mark
along the basin. As far as miscellaneous items, they have proposed the cul-
de-sac to be called Fox Hollow Drive. This is not an extension of Fox Hollow
drive and therefore it must have a different name. Staff is recommending
approval of the subdivision with the conditions outline in the Staff Report.
Bill Engelhardt: I'm here tonight representing the Bloomberg Companies on
this particular preliminary plat. On item 1, we suggest that the name of the
cul-de-sac be changed to Pleasant Park Drive instead of Fox Hollow Drive.
Other than that, we fully agree with all the stipulations that the Staff has
recommended and we fully intend to conform with all those stipulations
upon submittal of our preliminary plat. The Watershed permit, after, if
there are any changes tonight or any recommendations from the Planning
Commission, the Watershed permit will be applied for and I'm pretty sure it
~ll be obtained. If you have any other questions, I will be happy to answer
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 21
e them. Just one quick comment on the easement for Lot 11. We propose that it
be a 25 foot easement across this corner providing access into Lot 11. The
easement that they were speaking about for Lot 12, right now the cul-de-sac
is actually physically constructed outside of the existing right-of-way
limits and we will grant an easement for that existing cul-de-sac. Other
than that, it's fairly straight forward. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mrs. Arnold Schroeder: I want to make darn sure that the water isn't going
to stand because a year ago last winter when they did the soil borings, our
water has never gone out right since that. They goofed it up in the woods.
It's just been a mess since then.
Bill Engelhardt: I think that with the development of this property as
proposed, that the drain approved coming down through here, the outlet for
this storm sewer is a storm sewer that is being worked on by the park
designers and we have coordinated closely with them for this outlet and this
swale area. The ponding area that is being constructed here and creation of a
swale has a greater grade on it so it's going to take the water out at a
faster rate from an existing 15 inch culvert in this area and I think there
is an existing 8 inch pipe coming in here. This takes the load off of this
storm sewer system to reduce the pipe size underneath the tennis court.
Conrad: I don't understand. What has caused the problem?
_Mrs. Schroeder: The natural waterway has been for, we moved out there in
1950 and it was there then so.
Conrad: So it wasn't a problem until just this last year you're saying?
Mrs. Schroeder: No, but the water is going through there.
Bill Engelhardt: I believe it will be the backyard of these properties and I
would guess it will be sodded and maintained so the flow of water...
Mrs. Schroeder: The water is just going to flow on top? You're not having a
storm sewer?
Bill Engelhardt: Right, it's just going to flow on top and this existing
pipe down to a ponding area and then go out via a pipe down through this area
to the storm sewer.
Mrs. Schroeder: But it will be low enough that you're not filling it in like
it is to the south of us?
Bill Engelhardt: No. You shouldn't have any problem with this. The water
path is being maintained at probably a little better grade. It's going to be
a grass area so you're not going to have any ruts or anything that's going to
slow it up back into the area.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 22
-carl McNutt:
that culvert?
I'm a neighbor of the Schroeders.
Will it drain into your land?
will anything be done with
Bill Engelhardt: This one right here? There is a 15 inch culvert right
here.
Carl McNutt: Yes, so that will be left there and continue to drain in?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes.
Carl McNutt: And the other side will still have to be done?
Bill Engelhardt: That's the reason for the drainage swale going all the way
up to this point is to pick up that 15 inch culvert and bring the drainage
through so we maintain the existing drainage patterns.
Noziska: Actually you're putting the contours lines closer together, that
means the slope is going to be more and it's going to be much better defined
than what it is right now. Right now it's just sort of a natural swale that
is sort of willy nelly and not as direct.
Bill Engelhardt: I think maybe too the problem that they're having is, there
has been some driving around of a vehicle and it's soft and it might have
created ruts. Again, this is all going to be sodded backyard with nice
_gravity swales. It should work out better.
Noziska: They had a track vehicle in there and they just never smoothed it
out after they got through?
Bill Engelhardt: No.
Conrad: Barbara, what are the assurances that a homeowner that raises a
question like this has? We have the engineer saying that it's going to be
improved and it looks like it's going to improve. Our engineer is looking
at it and he says it makes sense. Is that enough assurance that we have two
sets of engineers looking at the drainage that can make a homeowner in the
neighborhood feel comfortable?
Bill Engelhardt: There will be three because the Watershed too so there will
be three people looking at it.
Dacy: The answer to your question is yes. Secondly, one of the conditions
is to require a drainage easement over that area preventing building activity
and filling activity in there. Again, everything has to be inspected by the
City to meet those standards. If people feel there is something going on
wrong, typically they will call us up and tell us about it also.
Mrs. Schroeder: Yes, but when the basements are in, what do you do then if
they are higher like they did to the south of us?
eDacy: As I recall on that subdivision, between the two lot lines, I remember
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 23
~the engineer's recommendation about a swale between those two lots. If you
feel that wasn't done properly, we can easily arrange to go out there and
reinspect it if you feel it wasn't done properly.
Mrs. Schroeder: We had somebody out there from the City.
Carl McNutt: I watched them put in PVC pipe, storm sewer going in and they
dug it up in the hill...and when they got beyond that last catch basin, they
come to this swampy part and it was just muck. They put a pipe in there and
they covered it up. They should have filled it in and put it the pipe on
there. I don't know what is going to happen because I don't know if it's
still there.
Conrad: Did you have the City Engineer come out?
Carl McNutt: I told him about it and he said, well, it's guaranteed for a
year. Well, something put in the ground should be permanent I would think
but who am I to tell him how to do it. I'm just trying to save him some
money and let him know what's going on.
Dacy: The year business, I think he probably was referring to the developer.
If there are any problems with that, and Bill you've been involved in a lot
of contracts too, correct me if I'm wrong, but if something goes wrong within
a year's timeframe, the developer is responsible for paying for that. After
~that point in time it becomes the City's responsibility. Again, if there are
~problems out there, we'll go out and check it again if we have to.
Conrad: If it's still a problem in your mind, make sure that you talk to the
City Staff, Barbara or our engineer until there is satisfaction. They will
talk to you. That's their job to make sure that the developer did what they
said they were going to do and I would rather have it reviewed before that
one year is out and the City takes reponsibility for it. I think it's real
smart that they are living up to the standards that they said in the
beginning.
Councilman Johnson: I thought there was a park path coming out of Near
Mountain going down to this new park. Does this impact that park path at all
or is that someplace else?
Olsen: This is still going to go in front of the Park and Recreation
Commission and that is something that they are going to ask for along the
eastern edge.
Councilman Johnson: So this hasn't gone to Park and Rec yet?
Bill Engelhardt: Where is this going to go?
Olsen: It's going to go along the eastern edge. They want some sort of
trail and that's where Lori mentioned. They had not seen this plan yet
though but they do want some sort of connection from Near Mountain. If they
_have to corne through Lot 4 and 5 or Lot 5 and 6 and go along the cul-de-sac.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 24
eBut it
April.
will be going before the Park and Rec Commission the first Tuesday in
Bill Engelhardt: I'm just thinking, I was in almost a similar circumstance
where you build a trail here or even if you were to follow Pleasant View
around, they are going to cut right through here so it almost makes more
sense to put some kind of a walkway through Lots 4 and 5. They are going to
take the shortest route. I don't know how that affects, I don't think it
affects their lot because we've got over 15,000. We've got almost 16,000
square feet on this so we would be willing to agree that we have a trail
between Lots 4 and 5. I would hate to start to try and build a trail along
this property line and have it disrupt the swale. It just isn't going to
work. They're not going to use it anyway.
Carl McNutt: Can I ask you how far that driveway is for Lot 6?
Bill Engelhardt: 100 feet which will be right in this corner.
Mr. Schroeder: I hope you monitor the traffic there because they certainly
don't go 30 mph.
Noziska: The lot is only 108 feet wide so.
Bill Engelhardt: Right on the westerly edge.
eEmmings moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Headla: Will you clarify for me where the driveway is going to go and how
that affects the lot sizes?
Olsen:
It will just be an easement so it won't impact the lot sizes at all.
Bill Engelhardt: We propose that the driveway is going to go across this
corner coming right out the end of the cul-de-sac. This is platted public
right-of-way in front of this lot and in order to get access to this lot and
conform with the park plan of bringing the road through and landscaping, we
felt it would be best to bring this driveway right through here. We grant a
driveway easement across that corner of the lot.
Headla: Then on number 9, the developer's agreement with the City. Can you
just tell what the basic subjects are in a developer's agreement and how the
City looks at it?
Olsen: It's usually coordinated between the City Engineer and the developer.
It's a basic development contract that they go through with each developer
for the larger subdivisions. It can either be public installation or private
installation and it's the legal contract for who is going to pay for what.
Who is responsible for what. putting in the streets and utilities.
4ItHeadla: Nobody with financial background. We used that term in another one.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 25
~Olsen: We're setting it out as conditions just
have Council final approval. They review it.
to make it clear but it does
Noziska: In this little swale, that's not meant to create a little pond? It
will always be drained?
Bill Engelhardt: That's right.
Emmings: I assume that Lot 11 needs a variance because it doesn't have any
street frontage?
Olsen: It does have street frontage.
Emmings: By approving this thing we're automatically granting the variance?
Olsen: It does have street frontage. There is a 50 foot right-of-way
throughout here and it's not being changed. That right-of-way is being
maintained. Technically, it still has right-of-way but what we're doing is
realigning the street so it doesn't have direct access to the street but the
right-of-way is still there.
Emmings: So it doesn't need a variance because?
Olsen: The right-of-way is there.
eEmmings: That's interesting.
Conrad: What's our policy, that Lot 6, there is no way to design the cul-de-
sac to get to Lot 6? Obviously the developer didn't think so. It's just
really too bad that we've got to put a road out onto Pleasant View. It's
going to be a traffic problem.
Bill Engelhardt: If I could speak to that issue. If you notice, the existing
utilities that are shown on this plat indicate that services were provided
to all these lots or to all the frontage along Pleasant View and was
previously assessed for approximately $46,000.00 for sewer and water service.
I feel that the developer is trying to accommodate the City by not fronting
the lots on Pleasant View. I think the way he was previously assessed and
the way it was laid out, certainly the front lots on Pleasant View, but by
creating this cul-de-sac, he's saying that he would prefer bringing the lots
off of the cul-de-sac and we had one left over and that was Lot 6. We're
hoping that you feel comfortable with that one in lieu of having lots all the
way along.
Noziska: To answer your question, you could probably cut Lot 5 a little bit
different but it would make one weird shaped lot. You could extend that cul-
de-sac somewhat but every square foot that the cul-de-sac picks up, is less
square foot for the lot so he's kind of already, as the builder already said,
he's already bent over somewhat as it is but you're right, it's going to be
kind of a challenge.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 26
~conrad: What's our regulation on a driveway from, we don't have a corner,
what do we call that? A curve. Is there a standard?
Dacy: No. What Mr. Noziska is saying is what would happen. You would have
to extend the cul-de-sac up, sacrifice lot area for the abutting lot areas
and essentially you would have to construct a flag lot. Have a little 20
foot strip which our Ordinance standard is saying lots abutting cul-de-sac
have to have 90 feet at the 30 foot setback line. He is constrained. He's
got a 15,000 square foot lot area. He's got a lot width requirement.
Olsen: We do not have any driveway separation right now.
Noziska: Would it make any sense to put those two right-of-ways together?
Dacy: We would have to get a joint agreement between both property owners.
Noziska: Rather than having two so close together, have you thought about
that?
Bill Engelhardt: We thought about it and usually if you look at typical
spacing of residential lots with 90 foot of frontage, you've got about 100
feet between lots and we felt that it would be best to separate those
driveways. We don't see a problem with the sight distance even with this
curve here. There is plenty of good sight distance around and we just didn't
.-see it as a problem. We felt that it would be better to separate ourselves
~from this property and keep the driveway over in this area.
Noziska:
I was just thinking about the sight distance to the corner.
Bill Engelhardt: I think we're in pretty good shape on the sight distance
there. You've got 112 and 75, you've got about 200 feet.
Noziska: So you've got about 250 feet of sight distance.
Bill Engelhardt: Again, in response to that question about Lot 6, Barb is
correct, we originally had a plan in here that had 14 lots and what we were
attempting to do is conform all aspects of the Ordinance and not request any
variances. By accommodating the 90 foot setback line for these particular
lots and that one parcel up there, we prefer not to ask for a variance to
try and squeeze another lot.
Conrad: This driveway, Pleasant Park Drive, is not park access? It's simply
an access to this particular development.
Bill Engelhardt: A portion of it, this portion right here, provides the
access to the park.
Conrad: That is the park access? Where is it going?
Bill Engelhardt: That is the park access along with this. The way this
_originally started was that the City felt very strongly that a connection
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 27
~between Pleasant View Road and Fox Hollow Road should be made. The reason
for that is this subdivision, Fox Hollow is basically isolated and there
isn't a second access to it plus the maintenance vehicles can use this access
to shorten up their maintenance run.
Conrad: They may be getting over to Fox Hollow but they're not getting to
the park?
Bill Engelhardt: The park will have additional access down south.
Conrad: That was my question. This is not the park access.
Bill Engelhardt: This is a park access to the tennis courts. The original
plan, if you look on our drawings, show the road going down around and coming
back up and that was objected to by the neighborhood in this area. That
could have been providing park access but as a result of this alignment, you
will have to provide another access down below off of Pleasant View.
Emmings: I was at the City Council meeting where they talked about the
alignment of this road and all of the neighbors who were there, very strongly
supported this alignment.
Conrad: It seems like we have a collage effect in this area. I don't have
any more questions. I think we talked about the Park and Rec has to see
_thiS.
Dacy: Yes, and they will make that recommendation and then it will go to
Council after they act on it so their recommendation will be provided to the
Council.
Conrad: And their recommendation is not, you don't think, is not going to
effect what we're reacting to right now?
Dacy: No. It's going to come down to a placement issue.
Conrad: So it's not an if, it's a where? We don't need a point in our
recommendation to insure that it's there?
Dacy: That's the Park and Recreation Commission's function.
Noziska: They are going to make sure that it's there. The only thing we
could say is we do or don't think it's a good idea it have it along the
swale. I supposed we could say that.
Bill Engelhardt: I realize that the Park and Rec should have an opportunity
to review this but if they have to review it, we intended on having this
before the City Council on the 6th of April. That means we're put off until
the 20th of April, we would like to make the suggestion and recommendation
that we grant an easement for the park trail between Lot 4 and 5 at the end
of the cul-de-sac at this time and we would be willing to do that.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 28
e
Dacy: We would love to accommodate the applicant but there is a park issue
involved. We learned on a past case that they have to see it first.
Conrad:
I really would like to follow the procedure.
Emmings: We should maybe pass it subject to their review and if their review
winds up affecting anything that we've ruled on, then it should come back
here but I don't think it will.
Erhart: Don't we have to have in there that our approval is subject to
review by the Park Board? Isn't that what we're asking?
Noziska: The Park and Rec Commission is going to review it. It's in the
procedure. I don't think we have any question about that. The only part of
my motion is that if the Park and Rec makes a significant change, that we see
it. If it's some diddily little change, I don't want to see it but a
significant change.
Headla: What's the purpose of having it come back? To me we're adding time
and delaying the builder. What happens if we didn't have that condition and
the Park and Rec Commission changed it? How would the Council look at that?
Dacy: I just can't perceive their recommendation changing the drainage plan
or the utility plan or the overall lot layout.
~Noziska: I can't see it either.
Dacy: But in the case that there is a significant issue that is raised, we
will bring it back.
Noziska: In other words Dave, if the Park and Rec for some reason had a
great amount of hearburn unless they could have their pathway over here over
the drainage and we're recommending that the drainage swale be put in here,
if somehow they want the path on top of the drainage swale, then that's a
significant change in the overall plan and we're going to have to take a look
at the drainage swale. It's not going to us near as much heartburn as it
will the developer but that's the reason for it. If they are going to change
something significantly, then we want to take a look at it. If they are
going to change a little something here and there, we don't care about that.
Headla: If they change it significantly, would it come back to us anyway?
Noziska: Not necessarily.
Dacy: It depends. The Council has the option too. If it gets to them and
they say, the Planning Commission has to take another look at this and they
can send it back also.
Emmings: I think too Dave, ordinarily Park and Rec has seen it before we do
so we can take this into account when we're looking at this and now we
eh a v en' t but may bet 0 m a k e ita 1 i t t 1 e m 0 res p e c i f i c we co u 1 d tell t hat i f
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 29
~they decide to put it hetween Lots 4 and 5 like the applicant is suggesting,
we wouldn't have any problems with that.
Headla:
Let's do it tha t way.
Noziska: Supposed they want to make it between 5 and 6? That wouldn't be a
problem but if they wanted to run it down the swale, then it's a problem.
Conrad: It's just a good policy for us to know what's going to City Council.
We should have seen the last version, the last plan.
Headla: But what I hear from them you're saying we see the last version
anyway?
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-17 as shown on the preliminary plat dated March
4, 1987 with the following conditions:
1. The proposed cul-de-sac be called Pleasant Park Drive.
2. The applicant shall provide a driveway easement for Lot 11 over Lot
12 to the existing Fox Hollow cul-de-sac.
3.
The applicant shall provide an easement over the drainage swa1e at
the 918 foot contour for Lots 6, 7 and 8 and an easement up to the
100 year high water level for the drainage basin on Lots 8, 11 and
12.
e
4. The private drive on Lot 6 must be at least 100 feet from the
existing driveway to the east.
5. Coordinate the construction of the storm sewer between Lots 11 and
12 to coincide with the availability of the receptor storm sewer
proposed for the park.
6. All utility and street improvements shall conform to City standards
for urban construction.
7. Submittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan.
8. Enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City.
9. Submittal of an acceptable drainage plan to the Watershed District.
10. If the Park and Recreation Commission makes any recommendation that
significantly alters the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
that the item come back to the Planning Commission for review.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 30
~PUBLIC HEARING:
Subdivision of 24.1 acres into 3 lots of multiple family on property zoned
R-12, High Dens~ and located west of Kerber Blvd-:-;-1/4 mile north of West
78th street, Bill Jacobson, and Site Plan Review for ~tOWlli:1ouse unTIs--OO
property zone~12, High de~ty and~ated west of~erber Blvd., 1/4 mile
north of West 78th Street, village West Townhouses, Bill Jacobson. -------
Dacy: The site is right across the street from us located between Powers
Blvd. and Kerber Blvd. just south of the Saddlebrook development that you
folks looked at last week. The proposal is to subdivide the original 22 acre
as part of the James Company subdivision proposal and take that multiple
family acreage and divide it into three lots. The site plan application that
you have before you tonight is for building permit on these two lots. Lots 2
and 3 immediately adjacent to Kerber Blvd.. You can see on your plat, you
have Lots 2 and 3 and you have the proposed reserved right-of-way.
Originally when the applicant first came in, he was petitioning the City for
potential public street through the entire property. In consultation with
the property owner who is still Charlie James of the large parcel over here,
he felt that he did not want to join into that application because he was not
sure how this was going to be developed. From the City's position also, we
felt that it would be very hard to authorize an improvement project for a
street pattern in there that we did not know how that was going to relate
with the proposed development. We advised the applicant at the time of
application to reserve a 50 foot right-of-way for a proposed street.
~However, the City Attorney came back and told us you can't do that. If
~you're going to create a right-of-way, the City is going to be responsible
for maintenance of the private drive that he is proposing to construct into
there. At this point, City Staff is not sure nor are we recommending that
the City act on a public street application. This site could develop with a
private drive system. So at the last minute we told the applicant that the
City is backing off on the right-of-way recommendation, move the lot line to
the center and instead reserve an easement just in case a public street could
go in. We still have the ability to build a street yet the City is not
responsible for that private driveway. The request before you really is Lot
2 and Lot 3 with a 50 foot easement and not a right-of-way. The plat looks
something like this. The right-of-way line will be deleted. The property
line will be created right down the middle and instead there will be a 50
foot easement with that lot line on center. When we were reviewing the plat,
of importance is the relationship of this property to the recently rezoned
multiple family piece to the north as part of the Saddlebrook development.
We compared topo and so on from both sites and after a site visit, this is an
overhead from the property to the north, the buildable areas on that piece
are over here and over here. In order for this site to function and have
both access in and out, we're recommending that site planning for Lot 1,
which is not part of the proposed development but when site plans do come in
for that lot, that it does account for some type of access, either joint
roadways or whatever. During that site plan process that access be looked at
to provide access up into this area. Saddlebrook Development, the Chan vista
entrance, Saratoga Drive is approximately over here. The entrance to this
would obviously go directly across from that but still we would like some
~type of continuity of street connections in there to provide easy traffic
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 31
e
circulaton so that was the reason for one of our recommendations. Concurrent
with this proposal, now occurring is a feasibility study looking at this
entire site for storm sewer, extension of utilities and creating the urban
section along Kerber Blvd. as well as the trail along the west side
consistent again with the conditions of Saddlebrook. The feasibility study
will answer a lot of the drainage and utility questions and that is scheduled
for completion by April 6th so a number of the engineering comments and
conditions that you have on the plat will be taken care of. They are
standard conditions. Now I would like to move onto the site plan. 32 units
on each side of the proposed driveway. The units proposed, the exterior is
proposed as face brick with cedar lapped siding. All of the units have at
least two bedrooms, some have three bedrooms. The Ordinance requires at
least two parking spaces for each unit. At least one of which must be
enclosed. That has been provided and the applicant has exceeded the parking
requirements. You'll notice on the landscaping plan he has also submitted a
landscaping plan which again exceeds our Ordinance requirements. You will
also note that on the site plan it has fencing details on the site plan. They
function for ornamental purpose and a screening purpose but they are located
at strategic points of the site plan for screening and aesthetic purposes.
They have a large setback from Kerber Blvd.. All the setbacks are met and so
on. Passing down the table there I handed out a memorandum from an interim
Fire Inspector. They had no problems with the proposed layout. It's easy to
attack in all directions. They did have one comment that there was a
proposed hydrant over in this location that they are recommending be shifted
Aover to the east another, I believe it was approximately 100 feet. Again,
~some of the utility questions, because it's a public improvement project,
will be addressed at the completion of the feasibility study. Other issues
pertaining to the plan as a miscellaneous item, the applicant is proposing
private totlots. Again, that is consistent with typical planning standards
of recreational uses with multiple family developments. Our only condition
on the site plan are really the first three that you see listed there on page
6. Detail items about the sign permit must be filed. To make sure that the
height of the fence on the trash enclosure does adequately screen the trash
dumpster. Third is our standard condition on all multiple family commercial
and industrial sites that all bituminous aeras must be lined with concrete
curb and finally compliance with all the plat conditions. I'll leave it at
that. The applicant is here.
William Jacobson: The only thought that occurred to me tonight was with the
suggestion of the road going up to the north to connect into the other multi-
family area to the north, that there might in fact not ultimately be a need
for an east/west road all the way as a driveway. The totlots that we would
provide would be safely sized for preschool children since there is a park
right across the street for school age children. The building we're
proposing will be townhouse style with cedar siding. I've built some over in
Waconia and in Jonathon. They work out very nicely. In this case, we're
going to upgrade them with washer and dryer, dishwasher and disposal in each
unit so they will be more self-contained units.
aConrad: What does face brick and cedar siding mean?
~part way?
Is that brick going up
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 32
4Itwilliam Jacobson:
Face brick up about 4 feet and then cedar siding.
Conrad: Do these units have basements?
william Jacobson: No they don't.
It's slab on grade.
Noziska: What's the square foot size again?
william Jacobson: 1,000 square feet for the two bedroom units and about
1,150 for the three. If you care to see these, I've got pictures of my other
buildings of my project over in Jonathon which is similar to what we're going
to have here.
Conrad: All the units look alike?
William Jacobson: The same general style. We have different colors and
different kinds of trim on them so they have some variety.
Erhart: Will you explain number 2 on your recommendations? Site Plan
development for Lot 1 shall reserve area for a connection driveway? Lot 1 is
the large lot?
Dacy: Right. After going out there in the field, I determined the edge of
the westerly portion of Lot 2 is over in this area and to provide access to
_this whole area, it's going to come from Lot 1 with joint access rather than
WL 0 t 2.
Erhart: What's up in that area right now?
Dacy: Right now it's vacant but you acted to rezone that to R-12, same
zoning, so you could have a similar type of request.
Erhart: So you feel it should be connected someday and the only practical
way to do it would be on the end of Lot I?
Dacy: There is more room to work with. Originally I was looking at right
down the lot line but that might not be the best place for it once plans come
in so the condition was left in a general format so that the City would have
some latitude to really determine where that connection should be made.
Erhart: And we're expecting to see townhouses up there?
Dacy: What's permitted in the district is townhouses or apartment buildings.
Erhart: What are you expecting to see?
Olsen: He has talked about townhomes.
Dacy: They haven't submitted any specific plans.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 33
~Erhart: Is that common to try and provide connection through groups of
townhomes?
Dacy: Yes. I think it is and also it kind of puts more of a burden, the
useable acreage in here probably totals up to 3 or 4. Just to localize it
all in one point, I don't think would be really good. We should try and
connect with any type of access for emergency vehicles and general use.
Erhart:
Is item 1 and item 10 essentially the same?
Dacy: Yes, that's the same. What happens is that the planners and the
engineer usually end up thinking alike and we come up with the same
conditions so there is a 25 foot easement that we also noted that the
applicant should probaby try to move their trees a little bit farther to the
west to stay out of that easement for the sewer. That's why you see
duplicated conditions.
Conrad: procedurally, have we closed public hearing?
Noziska moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Emmings: Several times you mentioned a feasibility study and I don't know
what that is.
4ItDaCy: A feasibility study is an engineering technical document that analyses
the cost and the location for extension of public improvements. Streets,
storm sewer, sewer and water and so on.
Emmings:
Is that something the applicant prepares for the City?
Dacy: Yes. The applicants have the option to request the City to do that.
In this case that has happened so utility service can be extended to the
property so he can build. In those types of situations we try to coordinate
applications and feasibility studies so we get answers about what we want.
Emmings: Because I had my eyes open somewhat at the Public Safety Commission
meeting I attended last week, I was interested to see if there would be a
Fire Department review of this thing and see if the height of the building or
anything like that caused them any problems but we got a report and it
doesn't say anything.
Dacy: I had them check two things. One, the fire hydrant radius and thus
the recommendation and second of all, the building separation between the
units. We checked the Uniform Building Code and they have 25 feet separation
between the buildings so that exceeds code requirements. You could, from
what I understand, even go down to 5 or 10 depending on the type of fire
walls that you provide. What he's proposing here and it's a fairly level
site now, he's doing minimal amount of berming that they felt it was easily
attacked from any direction.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 34
-Emmings: The only other thing I've got is in the recommendations on the site
plan. I notice that the trash enclosure is surrounding a trash dispenser
which makes it sound like people are picking up trash rather than depositing
it.
Headla: The sidewalks that they are having around there, should we require
them to have a ramp? Are they having sidewalks there?
Dacy: Yes, there are sidewalks there but I believe when they come into the
parking area they are at grade.
Headla: Shouldn't there be a little ramp? What are you doing for people in
wheelchairs.
William Jacobson: We do have to meet the State handicapped codes and they
are designed accordingly.
Headla: So does that mean there are ramps?
William Jacobson: Yes. In my drawing on the site plan I show a ramp being
down to the driveway.
Headla: Okay, then I kind of got hung-up looking at this landscape. Where
are you putting the willow tree? I looked and looked. I couldn't see it.
_Birch and fir in landscaping, I think you want absolutely minimal. I think
~utting in quaking aspen and basswood, I think we're looking for trouble. In
10 years I think it's going to be very tacky. I doubt that any of them will
be alive by then. I really think that something should be done to come in
with a better plan. Even the sugar maple is such a minimal type of thing to
put in that type of setting. I like your spruce, your conifer. I would like
to see the refuse area a little better hidden with shurbery and then a couple
of sugar maple. I had a question on roofs but your picture shows that. You
said providing necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for
completion of improvements. If a group reviews it, it probably isn't going
to get a real good review. Is there a financial person who is going to look
at it to make sure that when we get through the whole thing it isn't going to
stall out half way through?
Dacy: We're not reviewing the applicant's financial plan. What the
financial sureties are is they submit a letter of credit guaranteeing
the installation of the improvements in the amount of the improvements.
Headla: Okay. Do we have any insurance then that this is going to go all
the way through and doesn't get stalled out half way through?
Dacy: If something happens that the utilities, let's just take the
developer's example. If he is building the utilities, he goes bankrupt for
some reason, everything stops, that letter of credit is the means for the
City to go and draw against that to complete the improvements.
eNoziska:
And that's all we can do?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 35
~Headla: If he just has a hard time and it takes another year and a half, two
years to complete it, we have to go along with that?
Dacy: The financial security is only for the installation of the water and
sewer lines and if there were any public street improvements as the result of
another contract. But if the developer builds Lot 3 first and builds 32
units first, that's fine. The financial security is only for the
improvements.
Headla: What I'm concerned about is he gets halfway through. Gets the
basement in, the framing and he runs into some financial problem for some
reason he had no control over and it just stalls.
Dacy: If the situation happens that his building permit is pulled and if no
activity is going to occur, I believe the City has the recourse to go in and
either pullout what's been constructed already. It depends how much has
gone on. If it's just the slabs or something but if he's got units half
built, that's another issue.
Headla: Can we even handle that type of thing?
Noziska: We can't regulate that Dave. He better have the money pretty much
assured before he starts building or who knows, he'll end up like this little
building across from Eden prairie Center. All the City can do is make sure
.-.the sewer, water and road improvements are covered and beyond that, yes, we
~ave some stake in it but we can't worry too much about the developer's
financial status.
Headla: I'm thinking about over there by Leech's.
to get the job done. Just one heck of a long time.
whole village when they do that.
Tha t' s taken a long time
I think that affects the
Noziska: We can't hold their feet to the fire and tie them.
Dacy: In that situation over on Red Cedar Point, they are pulling building
permits on a structure by structure basis. In that case, they went one at a
time and they built three or four groupings of buildings first and then they
carne in a couple months later and started the second. You might want to ask
the developer what his timing is?
William Jacobson: As soon as we can get the ground work which looks like
June 1st, we will get a building permit for Lot 3 and build 32 units. We
intend to probably build the whole 64 unit project this year. What we want
to do is do it in a two stage operation. Putting up the first 32 units as
rental. If we get the response that we think we will, then we will go right
into phase 2.
Conrad: Just some general questions. Why did you design the development
like this? Why didn't you take more acreage, put more units into the design?
What is your logic as you carne in with this particular site plan?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 36
~William Jacobson:
In terms of the size of it?
Conrad: Yes.
William Jacobson: This is within my capability. I don't want to stick my
neck out more. I think this is quite a sizable project as a matter of fact.
It's about two and a half million total. Eventually I suppose I might get
big enough to want to put in 120 as I did over in Jonathon but that's not my
scale.
Conrad: My biggest concern is it's very straight. The units from what I can
tell are going to look pretty much alike and I think some of the photos I
saw, it looked like the units someplace else were curved, maybe on a curved
street. These really are not breaking up the visual maybe as much as I would
like to see. If that meant more acreage, more units, higher density, I think
I would sure rather see that than a really blockish type of affair where the
un its are ve r y s i mil a r . Wh e n I can get a de vel 0 per to do so met h i n gal i t tie
bit more creative, maybe a circular drive with the units around it, I prefer
to see that than what I see here. I'm not addressing the quality of what
you're putting in there because I don't know but I think visually, they are
not as creative as most of the other developments we put into town. Barbara,
on basements, we don't have any standards for basements? Storage we do not
consider a problem in any type of the multiple family development like this?
4Ifacy: There are no requirements for an extra storage building.
Erhart: Are you planning on putting the unit air conditioners like are shown
in the photographs? The same as this?
William Jacobson: Yes.
Erhart: I think that's one of the most unsightly parts of the whole thing is
the air conditioner hanging out. Opinion only.
Conrad: We're not getting many PUD applications these days are we?
Dacy: No.
Emmings: On the parking, I understand that there is at least one garage for
every unit and that there is enough parking to accommodate more than two cars
per unit. Where is that parking?
Dacy: It is located in front of the units there.
Olsen: It's in front of the garages.
Dacy: You've got four spaces in the garages and then four out.
Emmings:
garage?
e
Where does a visitor park not to block that somebody out of their
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 37
-DaCy: It's not shown on here but there are extra ones in this location.
Basically they would have to park in front of the garage probably.
Emmings: I think that's just awful. Is that a problem? Have you developed
your other ones in the same way so visitors coming to visit people who live
here, what prevents them from parking and blocking other people in or out of
their garages?
William Jacobson: The spaces in front of the garages are dedicated to the
particular unit and each unit has a certain garage space and the unit in
front of that is for their visitors. This site plan you see here was not
developed as far as this plan but there is additional parking space to the
tune of 160 total so we have a total of about 240 spaces.
Emmings: But if a person has two cars. One in the garage and one in front
of the garage door and they have five cars come over for a birthday party,
where do all those five cars park?
Dacy: You also have to think that there is a certain balance to that.
Whereas one unit may have two or three people in it, maybe another unit has
one. Those are isolated instances. There is going to be areas where people
are going to have to park in the access drives or maybe in front of
somebody's garage but he's meeting the standards of the Ordinance. Maybe
your comment is why don't you create a separate guest parking area or
4Itsomething and look at the site plan like that.
Emmings: Or several guest parking areas that will accommodate 5 to 10 cars
so they are not screwing up the parking because rather than calling it an
isolated incident, I would call it a common occurrence.
Dacy: I live in an apartment building and there typically are additional
spots available for guest.
Conrad: But not stacked Barb. These are stacked spots.
Dacy: I realize that but what I'm saying is that not everybody is going to
be having a party every day.
Emmings: It's not just a party but you could think of lots of circumstances
where people would be coming over to see someone. They can't park in front
of any of the other garages because they are dedicated to that particular
unit so even if the person right next door only has one car or no cars, they
still can't park in front of that garage door because they don't know who has
a car and who doesn't that is dedicated to that apartment. If I come over to
someone's house who has two cars and both cars are home, where do I park?
Noziska: The point is there should be someplace for a visitor to park.
Emmings: And it ought to be somehow clearly marked as such. There ought to
maybe be some directional signs that visitors have to park in a certain area
eso they don't screw up everybody else that lives there. I think that's a
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 38
4Iteal flaw here.
Would you comment on that?
William Jacobson: Yes. We do have guest parking down at the end of the
driveway.
Emmings: How many spots? That's the spots that she pointed out.
William Jacobson: If I may continue. There are additional spots down at the
end of the driveway. We have those island areas in the middle which are
projected to be, do you know what paving blocks are? Those are intended to
be paving blocks which look like grass but you can park on them. They look
green most of the time when you drive by but you can park of them. We have
quite a few additional spaces in there.
Emmings: Where is that? Where you have that one-way?
William Jacobson:
It's not shown yet but it's intended to be right here.
Dacy: The option that I could think of would be to combine the two-4 car
garages. Attach and make it a consolidated 8 car garage and then put the
additional parking spaces on either side of that. You eliminate some grass
area though but that's an option if you want to do it that way.
Conrad: The road that may go in there, the access, what would be policy for
4Iftreet parking?
Dacy: It's not a public street. It's a private driveway.
Conrad: So there can be cars there?
Noziska: As long as the street is big enough to accommodate traffic plus
parking which mayor may not be true.
Dacy:
stalls.
They have the required distance between two 90 degree angle parking
They have to have 24 feet. That's standard.
Headla:
If that's a private driveway, can the Fire Department still come in?
Dacy: Some of my original comments about the access to the fire hydrant
locations and because it's a fairly level site and fairly wide open, that I
don't think the Fire Department is going to have any problems at all about
attacking a fire.
Emmings: The roadway or private drive that will give access to this site,
from the point where the entrances are, is that going to go all the way down
to what is Lot I?
Dacy: As shown on this plan, he's got the driveway shown all the way to the
west lot line.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 39
4Ililliam Jacobson:
that city street.
That's the way it was shown because it was intended for
Emmings: You really wouldn't have to go beyond the entrances into here and
maybe that area at the end of that drive be a parking area for visitors?
Then as people come into the site, right straight ahead of them it could say
visitor parking. I know it's quite a ways away from some of the buildings
but at least it's an area that could be used for parking.
william Jacobson: There is an additional option which I have considered and
I didn't think about it in time to have for this drawing and didn't want to
complicate things, but that is to combine garages. Instead of having garages
and a courtyard between them and the units, to combine the garages into 16
units in the center of the driveway and the driveway around and open parking
in front of the units instead of like we have. Have a circular driveway
there and as long as we're not going to have a city street there, that may
make more sense because then we can have an in and out pattern.
Dacy: You've got a couple of options. As you see it now, you can recommend
approval subject to some work on reorientation of the site plan to meet your
objections of guest parking, landscaping, whatever your conditions are and
that can be addressed while it goes to Council. Or your third option is, if
you want to see another plan.
4Ifeadla: Can we ask for the other parking if it meets the Ordinance?
Dacy: I'm interpretting your comments as being not necessarily as to how
much but as to how they are oriented and you could accomplish that in the
second option by asking him to reorient the site plan and submit a revised
one before it hits Council.
Conrad: I really don't care how he does it. I think it's going to be a
problem. I'm not sure that impacts City unless we start parking out on
Kerber Drive. I really don't care.
Dacy:
If they would park on Kerber then it would be a city problem.
Conrad: Then it is a ci ty problem but as long as the problem is internal to
this development, I think it's the owner's problem and he's going to have to
solve it one way. All we're doing right now is trying to help him figure
this out because it looks like it's going to be a problem. I don't mind the
design from the standpoint of how the garages are oriented. I guess I like
that. Again, maybe we can set it out here with the comment to the developer
that he should consider better ways to incorporate visitor parking before it
gets to City Council. We have two council members. Why don't you tell him
what you want to see. Rather than waiting for a month or two weeks, do you
care? Do you care what he does with the visitors there?
Councilman Johnson: I kind of agree with you personally Ladd that as long as
nobody is parking on Kerber Blvd., it's his problem. It's good to point out
4Ito him. That's what site plan review is for to point out that you would like
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 40
4Ito see it more creative.
doing.
That's what the process is for. That's what you're
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll take a little different tact on this and I
think part of your role is to point out to the developer what makes sense. I
think you made a lot of good points about what doesn't make sense from your
experience. I think this is a place where people are going to live. They
don't get a chance to vote on this. You get a chance to vote on it. We get
a chance to vote on it. It's our responsibility to give as much direction as
we can when the Ordinance basically says to him, you've got a lot of latitude
out there. As far as I'm concerned, I think if you tell me that you have two
and four parking spaces per unit. I'd say, you've got a problem and it's
going to be a City problem as soon as you're finished developing.
Noziska: As long as they are only half leased out there's no problem but as
soon as they get totally leased out, then somebody is going to want to park
somewhere.
Conrad: Before I ask for a motion, I want to attack one problem that Dave
brought up. It was a little bit in contradiction to the Staff Report. Staff
said plenty of trees. Met standards, met whatever. True?
Dacy: Yes, as to the number but I think he was talking about the types of
trees that you were objecting to.
eonrad: And the problem with types were that they were going to die within a
few years?
Headla: Quaking aspen, a forester told my neighbor when he cut down some
aspen for posts he said, you put them in in the morning and they're rotten by
night. They are very short lived. They grow up nice and they fall down
nice.
William Jacobson: There is no basswood.
Headla:
You have a lot of linden trees.
Conrad:
Are these fast growing trees?
Headla:
They are pretty fast growing yes.
Noziska:
They are fast growing and fast dying.
Conrad:
green.
But actually there's nothing to make this area look a little bit
It's not bad to have some fast growing trees and whether they die.
Headla:
I think you can put in black walnut. You can put ash.
Conrad: David, you feel there are more predominance of fast growing, early
dying trees in this park?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 41
_eadla:
Absolutely.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #87-15 to create three parcels as shown on the
preliminary plat stamped "Received March 12, 1987" and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Reservation of a 25 foot utility easement along the easterly portion
of Lot 2 and Lot 3.
2. site Plan development for Lot 1 shall reserve area for a connecting
driveway for the development to the north.
3. The proposed street name must be approved by the Fire Department.
4. Watermain on West Village Road shall be sized for future looping and
connection to the Powers Boulevard watermain and stubbed at the west
property line of Lots 1 and 2.
5. Fire hydrants shall be properly located consistent with Fire
Department requirements.
6. A 50 foot easement shall be dedicated for West Village Road.
e
7.
The applicant shall construct West Village Road as a private roadway
at this time for access to the property.
8. Curb and gutter will be required along the west edge of Kerber
Bl vd . .
9. The applicant shall modify the site drainage plan consistent with
the conclusions of the feasibility study when it is completed and
provide drainage calculations which support the drainage design.
10. Building permits will not be issued for construction until award of
the construction contract for sanitary sewer.
11. All utility improvements shall conform to City standards for urban
construction.
12. Applicant shall submit a satisfactory grading and erosion control
plan.
13. Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City and
provide necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for
completion of the improvements.
14. Submittal of an acceptable final drainage plan for review by the
City, Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all applicable
conditions.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 42
e
15.
Final plat approval shall be withheld until award of the sanitary
sewer construction contract (File #87-1).
All voted in favor and motion carried.
(A motion was made on the site plan review with the following discussion.)
Headla: I think that's a good motion but I want to put in something on
landscaping or can I comment on that afterwards?
Conrad: You can put a comment in.
It doesn't carry as much weight.
Emmings: Move to amend my motion is what you want.
Noziska: Make an amendment then we'll address the amendment and then we'll
address the motion.
Headla: Let me make an amendment that they review the landscape plan to
put in a longer lived deciduous tree.
Noziska:
I'll second that.
Emmings: That's doesn't need a second does it?
~onrad: No, that doesn't need a second.
Emmings: He's amending my motion.
I'll accept the amendment.
Noziska: wait a second. He made an amendment to your motion so then we
address the amendment and then we address the motion if we're following
Robert's Rule of Order. He's making a separate amendment. His amendment
could pass and your motion could fail but that's how you do it. You address
the amendment.
Conrad: We address the amendment but we would want that amendment attached
to the motion?
Noziska: It is. We discuss it then we vote on it. We vote on the amendment
separate.
Emmings:
I'm in favor of the amendment.
I'm discussing it.
Erhart: Barb or Jo Ann, on our new Zoning Ordinance, we have a list of
recommended landscaping trees. I'm sure that American Linden is included but
is quaking aspen included in that list?
Dacy: I would have to check. There is a list of about 45 species but we can
work with the applicant.
e
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 43
e
Erhart: My overall feeling is that it isn't quite as bad as Dave might feel
about basswood. I think if you talk to a nurseryman, they would recommend it
as a very good landscape tree. I have a question about the quaking aspen.
Particularly to the degree it's used along there but again, the sugar
maple is an awful nice tree and there are a lot of those and a lot of blue
spruce. Sugar maple break off too yet they are considered probably the
premiere shade tree. I personally think we ought to give him our opinion but
I don't think we ought to attach this as an amendment.
Headla moved, Noziska seconded to amend the motion for the applicant to
review the landscape plan to put in longer lived deciduous trees. All voted
in favor except Erhart who opposed and the amendment carried.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approvel of Site Plan #87-2 as shown on the site plan stamped Received March
4, 1987 and the landscaping plan stamped Received March 4, 1987 subject to
the following conditions:
1. The fence height for the trash enclosure exceed the height of the
trash dispenser by one foot.
2. A sign permit must be filed for installation of the proposed sign.
3. All bituminous parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing.
e
4.
Compliance with all plat conditions.
5. Parking arrangements be changed to better accommodate visitor
parking.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
William Jacobson: Can I just comment? The additional trees, I'm pretty
happy to work with you and comments I appreciate but as far as the quaking
aspen and so forth, I have far more trees than are really required by the
Ordinance and sure, I'll be happy to change species but it doesn't matter.
They are additional trees. They are beyond what is required by the
Ordinance.
Noziska: I think all that amendment said is the Planning Commission wishes
you to get together with Staff and just review the landscaping.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated
March 4, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried.
~hairman Conrad was wondering if the City Council still wanted to continue
1I'ith verbatim minutes compared to a summarized version. Councilman Boyt
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 44
e
stated he would prefer the verbatim Minutes. He felt that a lot of the
communicaton problem between Park and Rec Commission and City Council was due
to the short summarized Minutes. Chairman Conrad felt that the City Council
was just getting segments of thoughts from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Johnson stated that maybe after the Planning Commission got the
Minutes back to put together a summary of the Planning Commission feelings.
Councilman Johnson stated that he preferred to watch the Planning Commission
meeting on television. Erhart asked if the Staff Report couldn't be deleted
from the Minutes to help shorten up the Minutes because City Council would be
seeing the Staff Report also.
REVIEW RURAL BEACHLOT STANDARDS.
Conrad: Jo Ann, other than what we're reading there, do you have anything
else to add?
Olsen: No. I guess we just want your direction on where exactly you want to
go with this. Again, it was a result of the Lake Riley Woods. The rural
subdivision where it did not meet the requirements of the recreational
beachlot because it can not meet that 1,000 foot setback. We're trying to
look at conditions for rural beachlots. George Nelson, the developer is
calling me every day. He's very anxious about this because he needs to move
forward. I guess if we go through the Zoning Ordinance amendment that means
~pening the whole thing again for the recreational beachlots and that could
~e a long process. I guess we just want direction from you that this is what
you were looking for when you directed to us corne back with specific
conditions for rural beachlots.
Emmings: Why are we distinguishing? Right now we've got our Ordinance.
It's 591 under Standards and it just says Recreational Beachlots. Why are we
talking about rural? Why are we using the word rural here?
Olsen: That's because the rural subdivision is different from the urban
which the recreational beachlot was mostly directed to urban subdivisions
where there is a larger number of lots closer to the beachlot itself. There
are a few cases where there could possibly be beachlots. The rural
subdivisions where it's the large lots and that one condition was 80%. We're
trying to accommodate those subdivisions.
Conrad: Are the rules different in the rural area is really the question or
do we keep the same rules as we have in the urban?
Emmings: I don't know why the rules would be any different because I think
it's pretty obvious that that 80% is something that is just kind of...
Dacy: But the size of the rural lots is three times as big as an urban lot
so there is no way that a rural subdivision can meet the 80%.
~mmings: Right.
"ood thing.
I think we ought to get rid of that 80%. That 80% is not a
~
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 45
tCY:
Even on the urban?
Emmings: Yes. You don't agree?
Dacy: That's contrary to the original intent.
Emmings: The point I got out of this is that the intent is you don't want
a bunch of people from Minneapolis buying a beachlot or even being across the
highway like up on Minnewashta where I live. They are putting in a
subdivision across TH 7 and I've heard neighbors out there say that they are
concerned that those folks are going to want access to the lake other than
the public access and wondering if they are going to go along and try and buy
and set up a beachlot somewhere. It seems to me that the proposal in here,
that the entire development not in anyway be separated from the beachlot. I
think it's a very hard thing to express. You talked about it not crossing
any roadways or something. I don't know what the dividing line is but the
80% doesn't mean much to me anyway.
Conrad: This is just to make sure that the houses are close to that lot.
That's the thought behind the 80%. Contiguous is one thing and make sure
that those lots are not a long distance away which is kind of a flaw in a
rural area to begin with because you based on how big the lots are, you're
going to have to drive to the beachlot. Therefore, we should put parking
standards in. Theoretically, how many folks are really going to drive? They
~e going to be many, many blocks away from the beachlot.
Emmings: But they can't park on a beachlot?
Conrad: No. The Ordinance says you can't. I don't know. I have a real
tough time with this because the Ordinance is for a urban area and it really
breaks down when you get into a rural area.
Emmings: So you think there should be a distinction in there?
Conrad: I think they are different things but a lot of this stuff looks
pretty arbitrary too. What's 45? If ever tested, we would falloff the
numbers real quickly. If someone came in with 50 lots or 60 lots, we would
say, oh yeah, you're proably right, we'll change the ordinance because we
wouldn't have any rationale for the numbers.
Emmings: It also came up with Lake Riley Woods. If you are going to count
houses, whether you count the beachfront lots that are next to the beachlot.
The individual lots that are next to it but have their own frontage on the
lake.
Dacy: The other problem is resubdivision say 20 years from now. If we are
allowing 45 lots now, let's say they are all resubdivided twice so you have
90 lots. So you go back 20 years from now and say you guys had boat rights
before but now you don't.
Jllthart: You're saying the resubdivision are asking for the same things?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 46
e
Olsen: It's just potential.
Erhart: This is the only one who is actually looking for a beachlot?
Olsen: On the Zimmerman property, the original application did propose a
beachlot but now that has fallen through and just one person is buying that
property and is just going to build a house there.
Erhart: So they've abandoned the idea of a beachlot?
Emmings: If you're looking for direction on this, I think we ought to just
direct them to resolve all this confusion.
Olsen: You have the option to grant a variance to the Ordinance right now
for the Lake Riley Woods if you feel comfortable doing that. Just as a
comment, he does have property across pioneer Trail which he did mention he
would like to also have access to that beachlot.
Headla: Why would you grant a variance?
Ordinance?
Why wouldn't you change the
Conrad: That's what Staff is giving us an option to do right now.
Headla: Just on the north side of my place there is land for sale. You've
Ao t M inn e was h taP ark way and the nth e 1 a k eon the e as t sid e and the y are go i n g
~o be coming in here looking for a lot of homes in there.
Emmings: They have been in Dave. Did you know that?
Headla: That one is all through I think and now other people are looking at
it. All the people are measuring what you do with one, why can't you do with
the other?
Olsen: You look at the specific cases and if there is hardships. I guess
you could say that the conditions of the beachlot ordinance are for urban
subdivisions and are causing a hardship for this rural subdivision because it
can not possibly meet that 80% condition. I guess that would be the easiest
way out but technically, the proper way to do it is to amend the Ordinance.
Headla: I think that 1,000 feet and 80%, there just isn't a rationale for it
and to me, when you have beachlots, it maybe gives people access to a lake
that they should have access to.
Conrad: But that's what a public beach is for. One of the things that a
lake has to protect it is simply it's shoreline. When you think of use and
abuse. Would you feel comfortable having 300 houses using 100 foot beach?
Or 500? I think the reason for that 80% and the 1,000 feet or whatever it
is, is you don't want that totally congested because you've got to think
about the families on either side of that beach too. They are going to buy
~here and to have a whole bunch of folks trooping in next to them, I don't
_hink is fair 5 years from now when they have to put with the congestion so
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 47
e
again, I think the overall Ordinance is trying to give access to people who
have lakeshore or are close to it but also minimizing impact on the lake and
minimizing the impact on the neighbors on either side of that beach10t and I
think you have to be protective about the neighbors.
Headla: I think you have to think about the neighbors but you also have to
think about the people who have the right to use it.
Emmings: A beach10t, the standards under the Conditional Use Permit also
apply to every beachlot. It is a conditional use and because of that, one of
the conditions under conditional use is it's effect on the neighboring
properties and whether or not it affects their value so it's very much a part
of this. Is there any literature in the world of planning that would tell
you how houses you can have using a 200 foot strip of beach before it gets so
congested?
Dacy: None that I know of right now. We haven't come across it in any of
typical journals. Just a historical perspective here. Remember when we
amend the Zoning Ordinance, there is a public hearing and anything about lake
issues, we notify every lake homeowners association. Remember also, they
have been in here every year and if you are going to start talking about
amending current provisions for urban lots, you're going to reopen that whole
issue allover again. You should be prepared for another long meeting like
we had last May when Lotus Lake Estates came through. The rural issue is a
Aitt1e different. It's something new that the City really hasn't encountered
~ut if you're going to go back and change the original 80% and the 1,000
feet, you get back into the Lake Study Committee's recommendations. They
spent two or three years on that original Ordinance.
Emmings: Then what was their rationale for coming up with those numbers?
Conrad: It was arbitrary. I tried to express that before. They were trying
to make sure that the neighborhood was close to that beach10t and it wasn't
three miles away and they bused in. 1,000 feet seemed like a rationale
distance to allow most developments to have their houses clustered in.
Dacy:
It fit a lot of the existing developments out there.
Conrad: It could have been 1,500 feet or 800 feet but 1,000 was a nifty
little number and 80% was another one. There was no precedent for those
numbers to my knowledge. There was no way we took that out of another
Ordinance some other place. It was a common sense approach to say, those two
numbers together will make sure that we have those houses in that community
clustered close to that beachlot.
Emmings: Since it's arbitrary, isn't it reasonable to say we're going to do
it on a case by case basis? Just for an example, when you look at the Lake
Riley Woods, that development is defined and we could say, the use of this
beachlot is restricted to the homeowners in this development. If some
~evelopment comes in with a development, say this one extended across pioneer
..,rail. We're going to say, fine you can have the beachlot but it's only
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 48
~Oing to be for the people who live in this area between pioneer Trail and TH
101. We're not going to let the people who live across the highway use that
because it's just extending it too far.
Dacy:
now.
But the problem is that you've got the 80% and the 1,000 feet in there
Emmings: No, we've got to get rid of that for the rural.
thinks that.
I think everybody
Dacy: That's what I'm saying then you have to go through the Ordinance
amendment process and all I'm saying is you will get a lot of comment about
eliminating that in the first place.
Erhart: Just eliminating it in the rural area.
saying?
Isn't that what you're
Emmings: Yes.
Dacy:
I thought you were saying on a case by case basis for everybody.
Emmings: No. Just in the rural area.
Olsen: Just make an exception that the 80% does not apply to rural
_bdivisions.
Emmings: And that we'll look at those on a case by case basis and put in a
little statement of intent. That our intent is to limit it to...
Olsen: Contiguous?
Emmings: I'm not really sure they are all contiguous. Contiguous to what?
Contiguous means next to and I don't know if that's the right word but that's
the idea.
Dacy: Not separated by.
Conrad: I kind of like that. That's acceptable. I think there should be a
maximum number of houses. I think it shouldn't just be arbitrary. I think
it should be based on the current lakeshore beachlots that we have right now.
I think there should be a maximum because again, we're talking about pressure
on there and I don't know what's different from one lake to another. There
are going to be houses on each side. There is one thing different. The
thing different would be how big that lake frontage is. The beachlot. So if
it's 200 feet. I don't know if Staff said 50 or 45 houses but I think that
seems like a reasonable number based on other beachlots.
Noziska: I wonder if we're attacking it in the right direction at all. You
can have a community of 200 houses and have fewer of those people using that
,eachlot then a community of 35 houses if everyone of the 35 houses were down
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 49
e
at the beach lot using it all the time and only 10% of the 200 house community
was.
Emmings: How will you ever know?
Noziska: I don't know. I think it's something that sort of tends to police
itself to a certain extent. If you get so arbitrary and capricous and
otherwise mox nix studying these numbers. Can we put a limit on the usage
and forget about the number of houses? It doesn't make any sense. I can see
that on some of these beachlots if all 45 houses had 1 and 1/2 parties
simultaneously on the beachlot it wouldn't work. The beachlot wouldn't
accommodate five houses having parties and their buddies from Minneapolis so
it's kind of an arbitrary calculation whether we say 10, 30 or 45. It's the
use or overuse of the beachlot.
Erhart: Barb, in your 1,000 foot rule with the 80% with 15,000 square foot
lots, how many lots can you normally find fit in that rule.
Dacy: The best example is Lotus Lake Estates.
Olsen: They have 44. That's the most.
Erhart: So you arrived at 45, isn't because you looked at the current
developments or were you just lucky.
4Ibmings: Or the usage?
Dacy: Probably a mixture of all three.
Erhart: There would be an argueable basis for the 45.
Olsen: Lotus Lake has a real long beachlot too so that 1,000 foot went a
long way.
Emmings: They are really spreading the use out there. I suppose to some,
Howard just said something that I'll agree with just for a change of pace and
that is that it will be self limiting to some extent. If we're sitting here
talking about overuse of the thing and wanting to prevent that but to the
extent that it becomes overused, people who live there aren't going to use it
either. Even if I've got a right to go down and use a beach, if it's wall to
wall people, I'm probably not going to go down there.
Noziska: They'll go somewhere else or go to the public access.
Headla:
I like the idea of just providing no parking. You've got to walk.
Emmings: That certainly is going to limit it a lot. What if there are
handicapped folks that live there and want to use it?
,oziska:
They are on their own.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 50
e
Conrad: Yes, I think they are.
If they can't get there.
Noziska: There is just so much you can legislate.
Erhart: If you had parking then it would be a public beach.
Noziska: So I think it's sort of self policing to an extent.
Conrad: The Gagne development, you know that they are probably going to come
back. It's to the developer's benefit to continue to go out and say to all
the houses around that we have beachfront rights as part of the organization
and I have no idea how many more houses he could bring in and I guess I don't
want to police how they sell but they will do that. I feel real comfortable
with a limit on the number of potential because we haven't had that many. I
don't perceive us hurting anybody by putting a limit on the number of houses
that can use a lot.
Emmings: And that number would be 45?
Conrad: 45 or 50.
Emmings: Would you count the lots that have their own frontage in the same
development?
<<nrad: No, because they already have their own.
ey have no reason to use it.
I would exclude them.
Erhart: There is a homeowners association required with a beachlot. Do
those people who actually own the lots on the lake, are they typically a
member of that homeowners association?
Dacy: I believe in Lotus Lake Estates they are anyway. Even if they are
riparian lots.
Conrad: So if we got rid of the 800 feet but put a limit on the number of
houses, that would accommodate our developer and probably achieve what that
ordinance is trying to do.
Noziska: Give some general direction but I suppose if he had tremendous
heartburn he would just come in and try to talk us into something else
anyway.
Emmings: Again, I'm kind of enamoured with this notion of adding a little
statement of intent to all this. Anytime we do something to put in there what
our goal is. It's real hard to say in this because it's hard to express in
this case but come up with some language to include with that and I think
that would make it better.
Erhart: The thing I would like to see if somehow maybe contiguous is not the
.....i.orrect word but I think a beachlot implies a neighborhood but I don't know
~w you define that.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 51
~aCy: So your direction is to go ahead with the Ordinance amendment to
include a statement of intent and what else?
Conrad: Elimination of the 800 foot standard for the rural. We're only
talking rural now and I would like to see a 50 house maximum.
Noziska: Another way, how about the homeowners association can have
Covenants or something to limit the use of the time or something? Again, I
say if you had all 44 of the Lotus Lake people, even though they have every
right to be there, if they all came down with their buddies from Minneapolis
with a keg of beer, you sure would have a mess on that beachlot and they have
every right to be there. So what's the right number? 15? 20? 30? 40?
44? It's more the use of the lot on any given day or point in time that
really is the problem.
Emmings: Again Howard, in terms of it being self policing, I suppose if it
gets crowded the homeowners association can impose the restrictions. They
can police it themselves.
Conrad: But remember what we just said that probably the lots on either side
are not part of the homeowners association. Lotus Lake we said they are but
not necessarily...
Dacy: Using the beachlot because they have their own dock.
~onrad: They have no reason to be part of the association.
Emmings: I guess all I'm saying is if the beach is getting out of hand, if
it's getting overcrowded, if the 50 houses is presenting a problem for the
use of the beach, I think it's safe to assume that the homeowners association
is going to get together and say we have to limit this amount.
Noziska: I guess my point then is are we overlegislating something? Are we
climbing a mountain we don't have to climb? I can see 45 or I can see 35 or
30 as being a moral problem as 200 depending on use.
Conrad: How are you going to steer anybody who comes in, the next development
that comes in is going to have 300 houses within a mile so what's your
guideline? How are you going to say those 300 houses are going to have far
less of an impact than the 20? What are you going to use Howie to decide
whether that's an appropriate use?
Noziska: Limit the use of the beachlot.
Dacy: But that's more difficult to enforce than just saying x number of
houses. The other thing you could do, the earliest this could be heard would
be April 22nd. What we could do by the next meeting is talk to the City
Attorney on the second option and see if there is a justification for a
variance in this case in legal terms. I have an inkling of what he's going
~o say but it's another out if the Commission is looking at that because you
~uld, after the public hearing, talk about 50, 60, 40, 30 and the best way
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 52
e
that we looked at it is what can we really expect to be developed out there
and that's why we looked at the Gagne, the Zimmerman and the property
abutting Lake Ann.
Headla: I kind of like going along and seeing if we can't do it by a
variance of some kind. No way are you going to be able to come up with
logical data. It should be like so many people per lineal foot of lakeshore.
If you have 1,000 feet of lakeshore, you sure should be able to put a lot
more houses tied in with that than if you had 200 feet.
Erhart: I don't understand why we can't pick a number. We pick a number
that we have 90 foot lots and we have 2 1/2 acre lots. Those numbers are all
arbitrary too. That's a whole ordinance full of arbitrary numbers.
Headla: I think you've got a lot more rationale for that throughout the
urban area.
Emmings: I think you could support those and I think on this one, if you got
challenged I think you would have a heck of a time.
Conrad: All we're doing is providing a guideline and if we go back to the
intent, we're trying to make it a neighborhood type of facility that's not
overused. That's really what we're trying to do but what I don't want to do
is have somebody come in to me and say that 200 is a nice neighborhood.
~sed on the intent of our ordinance you're right so you can all use that 200
~oot and then you know the people on either side. Let's do this. Why don't
you talk to the Attorney about variances. Why don't you come back in two
weeks and draft an ordinance that we can reject or approve based on our
thinking after this meeting in terms of the things that we just talked about.
The 50, lacking the 800 foot and we're only talking rural area with some
intent statements and let's see how we react to it in two weeks.
Olsen: You do want a number?
Conrad: I think we want a number and that we want a number that incorporates
all the other beachlots that we have so we're not excluding any and
grandfather them in or whatever.
Noziska: Is it worthwhile for the Attorney to take a look and see whether
the number makes any sense from his standpoint or not? If we're creating
something that simply can not be defended.
Councilman Johnson: Bill and I were discussing, what about future
subdivision?
Conrad: That's obviously going to happen out there and immediately they are
going to mushroom from 50 to 100 units to 150 units within whatever
parameters.
....ouncilman Johnson: How do we know if the rules are urban and how do we make
~at switch. Whether you say, if you subdivide your lot, you and whoever
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 53
~Uys the other lot just lost your beach right if you're more than 1,000 feet
away or something like that. I think that needs to be considered too.
REVIEW MEETING WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION.
Emmings: I met with the publis Safety Commission on the 19th. I think the
point that they primarily wanted to make is that development of almost any
kind stresses the police and fire response capabilities and they want us to
be aware of the fact that any time we approve something or there is
development, there are consequences to what they do or what they are
interested in. They mentioned the fact that other cities have done a lot
with codes relating to fire and crime prevention which help minimize the need
for expanding those fire and police services. They talked about the fact
that apparently a fairly modest investment in a new home in hardware such as
proper locks and windoww and smoke alarms and lighting and all those kinds of
things, really does a lot to prevent the need to expand those types of
services. I mentioned to them that really probably was not a planning
commission function except maybe on site plan review we can suggest things
about lighting and so forth but it really is more a building code matter and
I guess we all kind of came to the conclusion at the end of the meeting that
what they are going to do is review all of this with the new public safety
director once he's here and functioning. I suggested to them that they
obtain building code provisions. They particularly mentioned Edina who
~parently has a pretty modest size fire department. First of all, Mutual
.id supplies them with a lot of fire services that is a lot handier than
maybe what we have here but they have a pretty modest department and some of
that, keeping that department small they think is due to, at least to some
extent, to their building code provisions. Then we also talked about the
fact that maybe they would send a member here to make a presentation to us
with the new public safety director just to make us a little more aware or
sensitive to their concerns so that will proably happen some time in the
future. They had a lot of concern with regard to buildings in the Industrial
Park. They said flat out that they have no ability to fight fires in some of
the industrial buildings that are down there because of their height and
their depth and we have no aerial truck. They were also discussing the fact
that they may have to get an aerial truck in town here. They are also
concerned about multi family buildings for the same reasons. Anytime they
start getting taller or deeper, they've got a problem. I told them that
since Jim Castleberry we haven't really had any meaningful review of projects
from the respect of fire implications and told them that in particular you
and Bill used to bring this stuff up pretty regularly and Howard, the guys
that had been here longer but I don't think that the newer members, me
included, were very aware of these things. Everybody expected that is going
to improve once the new public safety director gets here. Just as a footnote
to that letter that the Fire Chief sent us on Gary Brown. I brought that
with me and gave him a specific example and there was a member of the Fire
Department present at the meeting who confirmed that Gary Brown came and
asked that that be submitted, which is what we all suspected. So that was
..onfirmed. Now I'm done with my little report and now I would like to make a
.mment.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 54
e
Conrad: You did talk about the new units down on TH 169 with them in termS?
Emmings: You mean Gary's mini-storage?
Conrad: Yes.
Emmings: Yes, I mentioned that specifically but all we heard was if it
starts on fire, the Fire Department will stand back and watch it burn and
they were kind of upset about that I think. That we weren't getting that
kind of input. But that raises an issue. With that Gary Brown thing we got
in our packet a memo that said to Jo Ann from Art Kerber and perported to be
a little review of fire department concerns about that project. Now we find
out that that was solicited by the applicant, not by the planning staff. If
I'm going to get a report perporting to be a review of something, I would
feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that it had been requested by you.
Olsen: He was requested by staff.
Dacy: Something happened in the communications. Standard policy is to refer
all plans out. We have a set list of 15 referral agencies and I think,
unfortunately what happened is that Mr. Brown made, as he has a right to do,
to go to any public meeting I guess, localized the issue only on the
screening and I think the Fire Department just focused in on that and
unfortunately didn't address the other issues.
"sen: They did get a referral from \3t.aff on the site plan<.
Dacy: And on that particular case, we are going through Steve Madden again
which will eventually be reviewed back to Mr. Castleberry until the new
public safety director is on and we are going to have that fire issue
addressed before it goes to Council.
Noziska: Brown's deal is one thing. It could be people. All you're putting
at risk are possessions and that's too bad. Also the people who store their
stuff in there are going to have to pay an outrageous fire insurance premium
if they are going to have coverage on their goods but where I think we needed
to do an awful lot better job and that's when we we're talking multi-family
and indoor motels and hotels. The little motel that we have. That's fire
resistant construction. I don't know if you know that. It's got block,
intermediate walls. The exterior happens to be wood which is something that
there is a little more maintenance involved with it but so be it but at least
if there is a fire in one of those units, that's where it stays and that
reduces the need for a dinky little community like us to have a whole bunch
of fancy fire equipment sitting around to be maintained and to have to have
people hired to drive it around.
Emmings: Are there sprinklers in that motel?
~oziska: There are sprinklers and the walls from the floor are fire
.sistant.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 55
e
Headla: Should we have been talking that tonight about the townhouses?
Dacy: I covered those two points. In this case, there is water there. The
fire hydrant access and the building separation between the buildings.
Noziska: I've got news for you, if you get a good bon fire going and you got
a little wind, the whole works is going to go up anyhow.
Dacy: But it meets code.
Noziska: I know and that's where there is a problem. Some communities will
adopt for a multi-family, fire resistant ordinance and at some point before
we get too many of these around and we do exceed excessively our fire
department's capacity, I think we should think about this.
Conrad: What do you want to do in terms of you're talking about fire Howie?
Noziska: I don't know. I think it's something that perhaps we'll wait until
our new public safety director gets on and maybe we need to get a hold of
some of these people who are in tune. There are several various
presentations that are available for different agencies and different people.
There is a damm good reason why the united States has the highest death per
capita from fire than any nation in the world because we don't pay attention
to it. You've got to go to some South African community before you finally
~t the same ratio of death. At some point it should be addressed because it
~ill affect us on taxes. I think the funniest thing i ever heard of is when
we built that burnable fire station. I thought that really was a great move.
The one out in Minnewashta.
Headla:
That's a big deal out there. We were glad just to have that.
Noziska:
think it
and also
risk.
And I think it's good. I think they should have one but I also
should have been built so there was less maintenance cost necessary
so you put those big fire engines that you park in that barn at
Chairman Conrad deleted review of rural street standards from the agenda due
to the lateness of the meeting.
Barbara Dacy stated that the Staff had been reviewing the 1988 meeting
schedule and discovered that six months out of the year the City Council's
first Monday meeting fell on holidays and therefore requested that the 1988
meeting schedule be changed so that Planning Commission meet on the first and
th i rd Wednesday of each mon th and the City Counc i 1 meet on the second and
fourth Monday of each month. The Planning Commissioners had no objections to
1st and 3rd Wednesdays.
Barbara Dacy then handed our background information regarding TH 212 which
4lihe Planning Commission requested at the last meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 56
e
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
--
.
'"