1987 08 12
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12, 1987
~Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Howard Noziska
and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and James Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE .97 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF
22,100 AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTY~SINGLE--
FAMILY AND LOCATED AT LOTS 1,"2" AND 3, SHORE ACRES""(LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD),
ROBERT ROGERS. -- - -- - - --
Public Present:
Norm Kranz
Al Klingelhutz
9021 Lake Riley Road
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision request.
Robert Rogers: We've been here twice before. Both times requesting three
lots. Both times the Commission members, I felt, encouraged me to come back
~with a two lot request. I've been paying two sewer assessments for many
years. I've gotten two tax statements on the property for many, many years.
I feel that one lot in that location will not be consistent with the other
lots along the lake.
Emmings:
In what way?
Robert Rogers:
It would be so large.
Emmings: How big are the other lots?
Robert Rogers: There are lots on down the road all the way from 47 feet
frontage to some 150.
Olsen: A majority of the lots are smaller. They were all subdivided prior
to the zoning ordinance.
Robert Rogers: All the lots down there are much smaller to the south.
Emmings: And they were platted?
Olsen: Prior to the ordinance.
Robert Rogers: The other problem that we have at the moment is that when
the surveyor was taking, we took out a new survey because the land planner
4ItOf the City required elevation lines so the survey taken on July 1st, and of
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 2
4Itcourse you know what happened since then when the water went to the lake and
that's the reason that today we've got 19,400 feet.
Norm Kranz: My property is right to the north of Roger's property and I
guess my only reason for corning is the same reason I carne in the past and
that's that Bob owns property across the street also, some 30 odd acres I
believe it is and in the past a representative of Mr. Rogers implied
townhouses, beachlots, lake access and things like that and I simply want to
be on the record as being opposed to that. That's the last thing I would
like to see happen there. I like the idea, and the three lot idea before as
I understand it at best, I wasn't really against that. The two lot idea
here I think is perfect even though it may be a little bit shy, I think two
single family lots there is appropriate. The size seems right. It fits the
neighborhood and so on. As opposed to three lots, I think it's perfect. As
opposed to one great big lot, I don't think that would fit so well either.
Ernmings: How much frontage do you have?
Norm Kranz:
I have 156 feet.
Emmings: Do you know what your square footage is?
Norm Kranz: Right off hand no. I would put it right close to 20,000.
Al Klingelhutz: I didn't corne up here for that purpose tonight. I live
~own in that area and I know the area real well. Originally when it was
platted in 1930, most of those lots were platted at 50 foot lots as you can
see on the map. Down towards the south end of the lake and Bob did at one
time have three lots there and I think he should be complimented on corning
in for a two lot subdivision instead of three lots.
Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Headla: Apparently ever since we had sewer assessments we led these people
to believe they could have two lots there?
Olsen: Right. That's how they determined it. Usually by street frontage.
Headla: Have we more or less led these individuals to believe in all of his
financial planning that he could do that?
Olsen: That's what you would assume with the two hook-ups.
Headla: And your reason for recommending denial is strictly for making the
1,200?
Olsen: Right.
Headla: If we denied that, would he get interest and principal back on his
_assessment?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 3
.Olsen:
I believe so.
Headla: What has been the policy on that? Is there a policy?
Dacy: It would just go back to Council. It would be up to the Council to
decide if they would rebate that. We can't speak to that.
Headla: But have we ever done this before?
Olsen: Yes, it's been done before.
Headla: And what's been the decision there?
Olsen: It's been approved but I don't know exactly if they get back
principal and interest.
Headla: If we recommended approval, would you go back to your four
recommendations then?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: I guess my position is that I think we ought to approve this based
on the whole area there and what we asked this individual to do...
Noziska: I have to pretty much agree with Dave's analysis. What we're
~looking at here is a 3% variance. 19,400 is only 3% shy of 100%. That means
it's 98% in compliance with an area requirement. If we look at 143 versus
some of the other lots, the 50 footers, it's not quite 3 times or not quite
300% but say it's 250 or 270, that's a whale of a lot different than the 3%
that we would be varying. I think we would be more in conformance with the
neighborhood still, they are huge lots compared to what's there. 3 times or
nearly times. Certainly twice what's there or over twice so my comments
would be that a 3% variance in area doesn't bother me at all. I agree with
Al Klingelhutz, I think he's to be commended for going after two lots rather
than three because I believe I got in on some of those three lot discussions
and I think the four recommendations that you carne up with prior to this
survey idiosyncrasy, and I think we have to recognize that anybody on the
lake is going to gain property and lose property depending on whether or not
it rains so I don't know if the area of the lot is ever going to be any
closer than the 3% to within some sort of a nebulous 20,000 square foot area
so that's the end of that speech. But at any rate I think we should stick
with the four recommendations that carne up in the report.
Siegel: I don't have much to add. What happened to the 70 square foot
that's missing? You started out with 38,870 square feet and we ended up
with two lots with exactly 19,400 feet. There is 70 feet missing somewhere.
Applicant's Engineer: Just rounding off.
Erhart: On the first go around when we approved the three lots, what did we
~consider the total plat to be?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 4
tlblsen: 40,200.
Erhart: Did you purchase the lot about that time? I guess the fact that
at one time the financial planning assumed this lot to be 40,000 excess
feet. To me that's the hardship. The different way of somehow measuring
these amounts within 3%. To me that's hardship enough to approve it.
Emmings: I just had a couple things. Is the fact that there are
assessments on there, are those lots already stubbed in from the street or
not?
Olsen: No, I don't believe so.
Applicant's Engineer:
lot.
Yes they are. There are sewer services in on the
Ernmings: So they are stubbed in from the street to the lot?
Applicant's Engineer: Yes.
Emmings: And there are two of those?
Applicant's Engineer: Yes.
Emmings: In my own mind that about clinches it. I think it ought to be
~pproved. We've been looking at it as two lots, it's hard for us I think
at this point to say it's not. I'm concerned about the survey. Don't we
have a standard that says that when we've got a survey on riparian lots that
they should be done to the ordinary high water mark?
Olsen: Right and there's not a definite ordinary high water mark for Lake
Riley. They did show one number for Lake Riley and that is the elevation
that they did use, the 864.5. There is a slight argument to go by.
Headla: There isn't one on Lake Riley so what we're judging is somewhat
arbitrary?
Olsen: Somewhat yes.
Emmings: But otherwise when we have people do surveys they are supposed to
them to the ordinary high water mark?
Olsen: Right. That's always where they come from.
Dacy: If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval to the City
Council, would you also include that our City Attorney evaluate the issue of
assessments versus the lot area variances because I know in the past Mr.
Knutson has been concerned that just because a property has x amount of
assessments against it, sometimes it doesn't necessarily mean that if you
don't meet certain length regulations that that doesn't defacto establish
ew h e the r 0 r not you h a vex am 0 un t 0 f lot s . But the Com m i s s ion i s to
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 5
4Itrecommend approval, we would like that opinion to go to the City Council
just to make sure.
Emmings: Alright, something specifically, you want a fifth condition that
would say what?
Dacy: That would say, to have the City Attorney review the assessment
policy on the subject parcel. Just to have him review the case and the
background of the facts and so on and just leave it at that.
Noziska: Even if we're not using the two assessment rule as justification
for approving it?
Dacy: Maybe I misunderstood.
I did hear a lot of comments.
Noziska: Some people did. I guess in my mind, two lots or three lot
assessment, whatever, really didn't play into it. What played into my
discussion was the fact that we have water that's going up and down and
we're within 3% of the so called nebulous area. Somewhere in the vicinity
of 20,000 square feet.
Dacy: Then in your motion of approval be sure to state that. That the
assessments were not a basis.
Noziska: I think you satisfied our curiousity when you said that if we cut
4Ithim back to one lot, then the City Council will go into some sort of
discussion as to whether or not they should pay him for what he's put into
it because it was misleading but I don't know. If you think that's a part
of our analysis, it was a part of mine so I wouldn't say that somehow in my
eyes the fifth discussion would just be getting the City Attorney, no
offense but I like to limit attorney man hours. I don't think it's
necessary for some attorney to look at something.
Emmings: On one end there's this old plat was divided into three and on
that one end it looks like there is 132 feet in total depth and they need 30
feet setback in the front and 75 from the lake which leaves them 27 feet to
build in. Is that adequate?
Olsen: On the more recent plan it has 140.
Emmings: But we know they were measuring to the water line.
Olsen: Right. It's most likely going to have to require a variance when it
comes back. I talked to the building inspector and he said that typical
width of a house ranges from 24 to 28 and most of the homes are ranch style
along Lake Riley so they do have adequate area in here but any deck or
variations of that might.
Emmings: Here it's only 132 which might be a problem but would they worry
about that at a point that the building permit rather than now?
e
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 6
4Iblsen: Right. The Board of Adjustments. I forgot to point out, we
mentioned the gas main that needs to be vacated or relocated and that has
been accomplished so that condition can be removed.
Emmings: Then in your condition 2 it says a clearcutting plan shall be
provided and there be no clearcutting within 75 foot area. Should we add
language in there that clearcutting plan will be provided prior to removal
of any trees or shurbs? We've been worried about this in the past where
people go ahead and do it and then corne in with their plan.
Olsen: No, that's fine.
Ernmings: Just to make that real clear to them what we have in mind there.
Headla: How did you word that Steve?
Emmings: After where it says clearcutting plan shall be provided just
insert the words prior to removal of any trees or shurbs. I guess I would
agree, I'm real relunctant to grant any variances but somehow it feels right
to grant it in this case and I guess I base it more on the fact, it's no so
much the fact that they are stubbed in there. They've got two services
already stubbed in although that means something to me but I think the fact
that, as Howard pointed out, it's only a 3% difference and we don't really
have the high water mark identified so we're measuring from a line that
isn't well defined and given that I think 3%, and suitability to the area.
~lso, like the neighbor to the north pointed out, I would much be looking at
this for two houses than for a beachlot or some other more intensive use
that wouldn't fit at all so for those reasons I think this plan ought to be
approved. Is there any more public comment? After hearing our comments,
do you have anything else you want to add? Okay.
Headla:
policy,
I think
part of
The reason I say that on number 5, the City Attorney look at the
I think maybe and I agree with what you're saying Howard on that but
the Council should have that information available to use that as
their rationale to approve this subdivision.
Noziska: I would like to lobby against that attorney looking into it if
we're not utilizing that as our reasoning. If your reasoning includes the
fact that we've been assessing him, then I suppose it's appropriate for him
to look at the policy but I would like to not see him get askewed and hone
in on that as one of the main reasons why we're recommending that the City
Council approve this subdivision.
Emmings: That's because, you're supporting or willing to support it on the
grounds strictly apart from the fact that the service is stubbed in. The
fact that we don't know where the ordinary high water mark is, it's a real
minimal variance. It's suitable to the neighborhood and probably the best
use of the property.
Noziska: If I felt that this property deserved to be one lot or two or
_three for those particular reasons then I would say that but I think two is
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 7
ean excellent use. I think three would make the one lot 6 times the size of
any of the other ones. As it is it's going to be 2 1/2 times the size of a
lot of those lots along that in Lake Riley so I really don't like to see the
City Attorney get involved in something that doesn't apply to this matter
but if you think that that is part of your reasoning and justification then
that's fine. I suppose he could but I would not like to see that be sort of
the main issue with the City Council.
Emmings: They'll have our Minutes to read and they will be able to see that
we're really focused elsewhere and I think Barb, do you think it would still
be, given the discussion that we've had, do you still think you would like
to have the City Attorney address this?
Dacy: I didn't mean to muddy the issue like this. It is not imparitive to
have it as part of the motion. As a matter of fact we would probably do it
anyway if it is going to be denied at the Council but no, it doesn't need to
be in the motion given your discussion about the lake levels and the
adjoining lot sizes, etc..
Siegel: I don't feel that it's necessary as a part of the motion either as
a condition. It's really a policy more than a condition of this recommenda-
tion.
Emming: Do you want to revise your motion or leave it the way it is?
4ItHeadla: Let's delete the one on the City Attorney.
Emmings: Okay, so as I understand it, the motion in front of us is the way
it's written for approval with conditions 1, 2 revised and 4.
Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #84-17 subdivision as shown on the plat
stamped "Received July 23, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
1. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1
and erosion control shall be installed prior to construction of the
site.
2. A clearcutting plan shall be provided prior to removal of any trees
or shurbs and no clearcutting shall be permitted within the 75 foot
shoreland setback.
3. All utilities shall be constructed consistent with the City's urban
standards.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 8
~UBLIC HEARING:
ROD GRAMS, PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON
LYMAN BOULEVARD, ZONED A-2 AGRICULTURAL ESTATES.
ROAD AND
A. SUBDIVISION OF 73 ACRES INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS
---
A WETLAND.
Public Present:
Name
Jay Johnson
Al Klingelhutz
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report.
Rod Grams: Basically, Barb has covered eveything that we have talked about
over the last couple of months. I sent you a letter earlier just kind of
outlining what we propose to do with it. The type of housing we plan to put
on there but we feel this area is advantageous to the type of homes we want
to see along there. That is solar type home and take advantage of the ridge
~tself so we would try to work real closely with the building department as
far as any problems we might encounter as far as the sewage system or
anything like that to make sure everything is met.
Jay Johnson: I had a question for Tim. Tim, I believe you walked up, was
it Bluff Creek you walked and you were talking about trails along there.
Was this part of that?
Erhart: Yes.
Jay Johnson: Would you explain the impact of what we're looking at and how
that would affect your ideas on the trail for Bluff Creek Trail.
Erhart: That was one of my questions Jay. Has Park and Rec looked at this?
Dacy: Yes they did. That was an oversight on my part. I made a mistake.
I should have included their action. I know they have acted on it and I
think they had recommended to obtain an easement through the wetland area.
Erhart: Which side of the creek? Do you know which side of the creek?
Dacy: No.
I apologize.
Erhart: Some side there's a 20 foot trail easement. You're aware of that?
_ROd Gr ams :
Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 9
~rhart: Jay, does that answer your question?
Emmings: Should that be added then as a condition and how would you like to
state it? That they follow the recommendations of Park and Rec. Was that
the only thing that they said though?
Olsen: Yes. We had also discussed possibly using it as a park area,
because they were looking at an overall area for parkland and the Park
Commission didn't like that.
Emmings: So we would have a condition 17 that would say they supply a trail
easement along the creek as requested by the Park and Rec Commission or
something like that?
Dacy: Just compliance with Park and Rec Commission comments and then you're
not bound by it.
Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Emmings: I'm confused about the 200 foot setback for the septic systems.
We're going to be considering that later tonight, is that right? That's the
same one.
eoacy: Right.
Emmings:
I'm confused why that has to go to the Board of Adjustments?
Dacy: Typically with the Subdivision Ordinance you're looking at lot area,
lot width and lot depth issues for creating lots. Typically setback
concerns are dictated by the zoning Ordinance and should be decided by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals. A similar case that we tangled with was
the Hanson subdivision on Lake Riley. He wanted to create three lots on
Lake Riley and we had multiple variance requests. It was staff's position
that he wasn't even creating a lot that even met the setback standards and
that was the basis for our denial on that. That's a similar situation. I
know it's confusing and this is one that we've had to grapple with
administratively. That we're looking at specifically setting out in the
ordinance that the subdivision ordinance is looking at lot area, width and
depth whereas these setback issues should be settled by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. Now, if the Commission approves that Ordinance
amendment tonight and that can go on to Council, then he may not have to go
to the Board. If 150 foot is reinstated, there may not be an issue.
Emmings: Would it make any sense to take that issue up first?
Dacy:
If you want to, that would be fine.
Noziska: Are we not in the middle of something?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 10
~mmings: Let's just try and get our work done without being too technical.
Noziska: It's okay with me.
Headla: Why can't we just pick that up later on?
Emmings: Fine. I don't care. I thought it was a way to avoid it because I
have a feeling, from what I've heard at least that the 200 was absolutely
arbitrary to begin with.
Dacy:
so to
4 and
Board
We can discuss that but condition 16 is giving the Commission an out
speak. Basically what we're saying is that the setback issue for Lots
5 is not to be decided by the Commission, it is to be decided by the
of Adjustments and Appeals.
Erhart: How long have you owned this property?
Rod Gr ams :
I purchased it in February of 1987. This year.
Erhart: For the purpose of subdividing it?
Rod Grams: Yes, we also plan to build our house there.
Erhart: On which lot?
~ROd Grams: On Lot 2.
Erhart: Then you're just going to hang onto the rest of the acreage?
Rod Grams: My wife would like horses and stuff so that's going to be the
reason to keep that for right now is to give us some land. That's why Lot 2
kind of abuts up against there so we have legal access to that area so we
can use it.
Erhart: What's envelope construction on a house?
Rod Grams: That's a solar envelope design where we have, it's in the
construction where there is a air space around the whole house so it's like
a house built within a house. We have like a 9 foot ceiling that's
insulated above then we drop the ceiling a foot, insulate it again and that
is acted as a duckwork from the solarium to the south side where the heat
collects during the day and then has a duckwork system then to make it to
the north side of the house which also has a double wall, a foot of air
space that gives it access to the basement and once it's down there it can
be drawn back into the solarium so it completes the total air pattern around
the house. It's called an envelope because we envelope the home with warm
air.
Erhart: Are you a home builder yourself?
eROd Grams:
Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 11
4ItErhart: And you build solar homes?
Rod Grams: Yes.
some in Chaska.
Several here in Chanhassen and some in Eden prairie and
I currently live in one now.
Erhart: There's nothing that requires those types of house be built on this
property?
Rod Grams: No. That's another reason to take advantage of the ridge
because of the sun that it will provide all year. We have no tree problems.
We have no other houses in our way or obstructions so we're going to get
100% of available sunlight.
Erhart: That's the only questions I have on that. What is the rationale
for having the wetland alteration again?
Dacy: The ordinance says that any development within 200 feet has to come
through the alteration permit process. They are creating lots within that
area.
Erhart: So the fact that we're having a new property owner going through a
wetland, he has to have a wetland alteration permit. Why are some of these
rural subdivisions that we're looking at, 50 foot easements to a city street
curb and some of them we're looking how many?
.acy: Typically in the rural area what we have is a 60 foot wide easement
and a ditch section and 24 feet of pavement. The only instance that we
waiver from that and installed curbs was over on the Worm property. Because
of vegetation on the slopes on there, it dictated that an urban section
would be more appropriate. Traditionally we've been going the rural
section.
Erhart: So subdivide everything, then preferably the curb because it would
fit that would be an adequate reason too. Is it more expensive generally?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: More expensive than putting in ditches.
Dacy: In the urban section there is 28 feet of bituminous versus 24 in the
rural so you've got 4 extra feet there all the way down.
Erhart: The base is the same?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: Okay, those are all the questions I have.
Noziska:
on our 1
_1/2 acre
Let's go over this one more time. This is the first application
unit per 10 acres but we're still allow them to go down to that 2
minimum?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 12
~DaCy: Right. The total acreage for the site is 73 acres so they are
allowed 7 building eligibilities so they're creating six lots and they are
reserving the large outlot until either it is resubdivided in the future or
they could build one home on that outlot. So we're maintaining a density.
You can have a lot size down to 2 1/2 acres but the overall density of 1 per
10 is maintained. You can have no more than 7.
Noziska: So Outlot A, that 39.8 acre is farmland until sewer gets in?
Dacy: Right.
Noziska: I guess this is one of the things when we start bouncing from one
area to the other and tying up land like that, I just hope that the next guy
that buys that 39.8 acres doesn't want to come back with four.
Dacy: That's why in the development contract there will be specific section
addressing this issue that Outlot A shall have no more than one building
eligibility and can not receive more than that until water and sewer is
available.
Noziska: Okay, so that is in the development contract and spelled out in
bold letters.
Dacy: We are go i ng to crea t i ng a documen t to record tha t along with the
plat. Along with the description of Outlot A so that any future owners the
4ItGrams convey the property down the line several years from now...
Noziska: In the title search that will show up?
Dacy: Right.
Headla: Why did they call that a Class A wetland?
Dacy: Because of it's location streamside, adjacent to Bluff Creek and it
is typed as a Type II which under our ordinance is technically a Class Bbut
because it is subject to flooding, depending on what Bluff Creek is doing,
it's been classed as a Class A on the DNR maps. A similar wetland would be
located in the pryzmus property. Again, you have Bluff Creek going through
there and the reed grass directly adjacent to it, that also is a Class A.
Headla: So they would be able to use that as they see fit as long as they
don't move the soils?
Dacy: There would be a drainage easement placed over that wetland area.
They could not alter it or do anything without going through a permit
process.
Headla: I don't know what you mean by alter. Could they cut it up like a
regular lawn?
.acy:
No.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 13
~Headla: They can't do that?
Erhart: They can't pasture it.
Noziska: Whether or not it's a wetland, it still counts toward the total
acreage, available acreage of the site?
Headla: The reason I bring this up, they could go through gradual
degregation of that property. Continually cutting the grass or whatever.
Dacy: That might be a good idea to put in the conditions of approval for
the wetland alteration permit. That the area is to be reserved and there is
to be no alteration. That's a good point.
Headla: Is there something we can put in there to make that last? I think
that's important it being a Class A wetland.
Dacy: Yes, because eventually the lawn moves out here.
Headla: And I think we'd all do that. On number 1, the cul-de-sac as a
permanent facility. I'm having a hard time with the permanent. It's only
temporary until the property to the north is developed.
Dacy: The difference between temporary and permanent is a matter of time
and it could be 10, 20, maybe even 30 years before that outlot is served by
~water and sewer. The applicant has indicated that they may be looking at
"'purchasing the adjacent property over to the east. In that case that would
give this area frontage to Audubon.
Headla: Oh, that's why you worded it that way.
Dacy: In the meantime, no matter when that is, by saying permanent we mean
the base and bituminous, everything meeting our typical Ioad standards.
Headla: In Roger's note, on his second page, the third paragraph from the
last, we would recommend the pressure distribution be used for all mounds
even where the elevation is such and so forth. Is there any reason we
didn't use that in your recommendation? It sounds like that's kind of a
critical recommendation.
Dacy: I know that he's mentioned that before on some of the other
applications. Why it wasn't recommended specifically is because in some
cases some of the lots could have a standard septic system.
Headla:
Is he talking about just mounds then?
Dacy: Yes, but I was just saying that we didn't want to lock them into a
pressurized mound system if the standard systemn could be located
adequately.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 14
.eadla: Should we put in something that if a mound is used then we revert
to the pressure distribution?
Dacy: Sure.
Erhart: Does that apply to all mound systems or just in this case?
Dacy: That's what I'm unsure of at this point.
it.
I remember him discussing
Emmings: Would it be appropriate to put in a condition that says that the
design of each septic system should be approved by our consultants for each
lot?
Dacy: How about if you enable us to do this, we can go back and check back
and see if this is standard procedure anyway because we've had lots go
through in the last six months and I'm not aware, I can find out through the
bui~gdepartment whether or not they are doing this as a matter of course
or not.
Erhart: It just seems if there is something to it, it ought to be in the
septic system ordinance and not have to go through this on every
subdivision. We have a building department job to do that and seeing a
proper place for it.
~acy: If you just wanted us, if you don't make to make it part of the
-motion but just direct us to confirm one way or the other before it hits
Council.
Emmings: Here again, there's two ways to do this. You do it by gravity or
you do it by pressure distribution and if they are recommending that, we pay
these people we ought to listen to them.
Headla: They're the experts.
Rod Grams: Just from my experience in studying what they mean by
pressurized is I was talking to one developer or one builder who has used
these. By pressurized what they're talking about is if it doesn't
sufficiently provide a flow from the front of the mound to the rear, they
want to pressurize it and either they do that by mechanical or non-
mechanical means. In other words, holding some of the effluent until it
generates enough pressure that would release some doors and the rush of
fluid then make sure that it's distributed over the entire bed because they
found in the past, it would enter the front of it and then stay there so the
front half of the mound would be utilized and the rear half wouldn't but in
a situation like this I think what he's saying is, if there is sufficient
gravity flow to insure that it's going to move from one end of the mound to
the other and equally distribute over the rockbed so I think that's what his
concern was and that way you wouldn't build it, if it was on the level or
even slightly inclined from the rear to the front, you would probably need a
4Ifressurized type system to make sure the effluent would rush across the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 15
~rear. So in this system, when I talked to him also, he thought that it
wouldn't need it because of the slope would generate enough gravity flow
that each one so in talking with him on that, that's what he stated.
Dacy: We would find that out at the time of permit application because when
the design is submitted the inspectors are going to be aware of whether or
not there is adequate gravity or whether or not the pressure distribution
system is needed. Maybe if the Commission so desires to go ahead and
recommend inclusion of the pressure distribution system for the mound
systems if determined at building permit application and the design
submitted determines that that is needed.
Headla: Or should we just stay out of it and let them be where they are?
Tim, what do you think?
Erhart: I think we should just stay out of it. If it's an issue then I
think we should look at the septic system ordinance.
Noziska: We are in a pretty sensitive area right next to the watershed so I
think it's good to be very concerned about soil tests and the design of the
septic. I think it also has merit to be concerned about burying of
construction debris. In particular treated wood and this and that for my
money should not be buried on site. It should be taken to Hennepin County.
Somewhere out of Chanhassen. I guess I just want to re-emphasize the
criticalness of not goofing up the watershed. It's sitting right on top of
~Bluff Creek and that means if something goes astray we can have pollutants
"'running down the creek and that's what I'm trying to prevent.
Emmings: As a suggestion, maybe we could just add a condition that the
design of the septic system be reviewed at the time of permit application in
light of the report of Resource Engineers. That would let everybody know.
I sort of had comments like Dave's about the wetland alteration permit
language. It doesn't seem to say anything and that bothers me. It says
that we are recommending approval of wetland alteration permit.
Dacy: When there's no alteration.
Emmings: And it doesn't even say what we're allowing them to do or not
allowing them to do and I think it will be cleared up if we just make it
more specific to say that we're allowing them a wetland alteration permit
because there is absolutely no plans to alter the wetland. Then I think as
long as we've said that, then we're saying something. I also wonder if it
wouldn't be a good idea, I always like tying one thing to the other, it
wouldn't be a good idea to say that our approval is conditioned upon the
developer meeting all of the conditions imposed by the City on their
subdivision request because if for any reason the subdivision doesn't go
through we sure don't want them sitting out there with a wetland alteration
permit. We want to look at that again in light of the new development I
would think. So if that one fails then this one should fail too.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 16
~rhart: What we're approving there essentially is a description of his form
isn't it? Isn't this form?
Emmings: But it doesn't say that.
Erhart: But the form doesn't have your number on it.
Emmings: That's not the permit. We're approving the permit and that's not
the permit. That's the application.
Erhart: That's the application, you're right. So we don't have to look at
the permit.
Dacy: The permit is your approval. That form is to give you an indication
of what's to be going on with the application and there is nothing going on
outside of the lots being created.
Emmings: In light of the comments you've heard up here, do you have
anything else you would like to add Mr. Grams?
Rod Grams: No, not specifically except that one of the reasons we like the
site so well is because of the wildlife and habitat that that would remain
as is because that's part of the beauty of the area.
Emming: Your motives are good but other people will be owning this
aroperty and we want to make sure that we make them have the same kind of
feelings about it that you do.
Noziska: Steve, what do you think about the feasibility of limiting on-site
burial construction...
Emmings: I just don't know anything about it. I would defer to you on
that.
Noziska: Normally they gather all that stuff up and dig a big hole and dump
it in.
Erhart: Howard, let me read to you what the prohibited use in the Class A
wetland. Prohibited use includes disposal of waste material including but
not limited to sewage, demolition debris, hazardous and toxic substance.
Noziska: That's in the wetland.
Dacy: Mr. Johnson also requested this item of us too and we are in the
process of getting regulations from PCA and looking at a specific ordinance
regulating that but also with construction debris and so on, we have looked
at that through the final plans and spec process. If there is to be any
removal of buildings on site or any burying, that that is indicated to us
through the final plan process. Are you concerned that they are going to be
burying something on this particular site?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 17
~oziska: I think because of it's proximity to the creek it makes sense to
not have a lot of decomposing debris in a hole somewhere.
Dacy: From the construction process?
Noziska: Yes.
Dacy:
If you would like to add it as a condition that's fine.
Emmings: Maybe go back too for anybody who is going to make a motion,
number 9 they want to add language from the paragraph across the page so
that it would have individual grading and erosion control plans submitted
for Lots 3, 4 and 5 at the time of building permit application. Then in our
discussion we also talked about what would be another condition which would
be compliance with Park and Recreation Commission action. That would be
like 17. Then we also talked about one which could be 18, if people are
interested. That the design of septic systems be reviewed at the time of
the building permit application in light of the report of our consultants,
Resource Engineer. Then we also talked about burial of debris so those are
things to take into account.
Headla: Steve, did you mention degregation of wetlands?
Dacy: That would be in the next motion.
~mmings: That's on the wetland alteration permit?
~otion now on the subdivision request.
I'm only asking for a
Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-25 subject to the preliminary plat
stamped "Received July 23, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
1. The cul-de-sac on the west end of the road shall be constructed and
maintained as a permanent facility.
2. The right-of-way width at the cul-de-sac shall be a 60 foot radius
extending outward from the centerline of the cul-de-sac.
3. The proposed profile shall include a landing area at the proposed
intersection with a grade of 0.5% or less.
4. The speed 1 im it on Audubon Road is to be reduced by the Ci ty
Council to 45 miles per hour from 400 feet north of the proposed
intersection of Lyman Blvd..
5. A sign indicating the proposed intersection is to be posted north
of the intersection.
6. The access for Lot 6 is to be located 300 feet north of Lyman Blvd.
e 7. The access of Lot 5 should be located 700 feet north of Lyman Blvd.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 18
e
8.
No access will be allowed directly on to Lyman Blvd.
9. The applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan sugject to the
approval of the City Engineer and individual Grading and Erosion
Control Plans shall be submitted for Lots 3, 4 and 5 at the time of
building permit application.
10. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed consistent with the
City's rural standards.
11. A culvert shall be placed east of the "bubble" of the cul-de-sac
with a sufficient volume of rip-rap to prevent erosion on the down
stream end of the culvert.
12. Berms are to be constructed north of the proposed house pad and
septic systems on Lot 5 in such a manner to direct drainage away
from the sites.
13. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than
3: 1.
14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR and other appropriate regulator agencies and comply
with their conditions of approval.
e
15.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide
the City with the financial sureties required by this contract for
proper installation of these improvements.
16. Approval of setback variances for Lots 4 and 5 by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. If the variances are denied, the plat
shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission.
17. Compliance with Park and Recreation Commission action.
18. Design of septic systems shall be reviewed at the time of building
permit application in light of the report by Resource Engineers.
19. Not allow disposal of any waste materials in the wetland area.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A
---
WETLAND.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I'm a Ii ttle concerned about that one.
that Lots 4 and 5 I believe it is, might be within 150-200 feet
the sewer, if you won't allow any alterations in that wetland,
recommending no alterations, I don't think that can happen.
The fact
setback from
you're
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 19
~ Dacy: But that's going to be through the zoning ordinance amendment process
or the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Emmings: Now are you just talking about the septic.
talking about?
Is that all you're
Al Klingelhutz: That's all I'm talking about. I'm a little concerned when
you said there would be no alterations in the wetland, that isn't going to
happen.
Dacy: The septic systems are outside the physical limits of the wetland.
Noziska: By 150 or 200 feet.
Erhart: Not if we change it to 150 feet. We're dealing with 200 feet right
now.
Emmings: There's no way the septic systems could ever go in the wetland.
Al Klingelhutz:
guess...
One place we say it's 200 feet and another place 150 and I
Emmings: But both of those are measured away from the wetland. There's no
way you'll ever get a septic system in the wetland. We're only talking
about can you be as close as 150 feet from the wetland or do you have to be
~ 200 feet away? That's the only issue.
Noziska: And that's sort of been covered by the motion that we just covered
AI. It says approval of setback variances for Lots 4 and 5 by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals so that sort of covered us just in case the next
item on our agenda goes awry and we stick with 200 feet rather than 150.
Gut feeling is we'll probably end up with 150 but this covers us.
Erhart moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-11 which allows no changes to the
wetland and subject to the preliminary plat stamped "Received July 23, 1987"
with the following conditions:
1. That the wetland area remain undisturbed.
2. The applicant must meet all conditions imposed by the City for
Subdivision Request #87-25.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SEPTIC AND SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM
SETBACK FROM ~ WETLAND FRO~ 200 FEET TO 150 FEET~IofY()F CHANHASSEN,
APPLICANT.
~ Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 20
~mming: Do I understand that our consultants, both Mr. Machmeier and Dr.
Rockwell feel that 150 feet is adequate and that's what the DNR has in it's
regulations for shoreland management?
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: In the Minutes of the City Council meeting where they changed it
to 200 feet, the rationale seemed to be that we have the right to be more
restrictive if we want to. Well, under that rationale you could have it 800
feet too and it just doesn't make much sense. Anybody have any discussion
on this? Why doesn't everybody tell us what they think about this.
Headla: In going through the Minutes it looks like the flow was going with
150 feet and then a council person said 200 and jumped on it and it passed.
Noziska: I see no rationale to leave it at 200.
Siegel: Ditto.
Erhart: No comment.
Noziska moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #87-5 to amend Article V, Section 24
(13) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows:
e
3.
Septic and soil absorption system setbacks 150 feet from the
ordinary high water mark.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Emmings: I would like to go back, as long as Mr. Grams is still sitting
here, is there some way, in the report on Mr. Grams application it said that
the applicant had submitted a plan which showed a location of treatment
systems on Lots 4 and 5 meeting the setback requirements. However, the
consultant has recommended that a better location is at the bottom of the
slope. Is that one of the issues that the Board of Adjustment would be
looking at?
Dacy: Right. They are going to be looking at whether or not to place the
septic systems beyond the 200 foot setback. That's going to be the request.
They could put the septic systems at the 200 foot setback but there is a
likelihood that they are going to fail.
Emmings: I guess I would like the Board of Adjustments to know that I, at
least as a Planning Commission member would like to see the recommendations
of our consultants followed unless there is a good reason not to. I don't
know if anybody else wants to answer that.
Headla: Why pay them if we're not going to follow them.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 21
e Noziska: Also, they're the guys that should know because that's what
they're getting paid to do.
Emmings: And I don't think we do and the people on the Board of Adjustments
have that expertise or training either.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 22, 1987. All voted in favor
except Erhart who abstained and motion carried.
UPDATE ON DOGWOOD ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Barbara Dacy gave a presentation of the Dogwood Road feasibility study
update.
Erhart: My reaction to that is, how much ~hasis~ are we putting on this
assessment test of increasing the valuation to the degree of expenditure?
Dacy: That is set by State Statute, Chapter 429 in the assessment project.
Erhart: I look at thi s and I think we're deal ing with a safety issue.
You've got 12 houses in there and you have only access and the access, to
say the least, is not secure.
~ Dacy: Unfortunately, if there is a challenge to the assessment process and
the court finds that it doesn't meet those standard tests, then they will
throw that out. Especially in view of a secondary access that could be
achieved.
Erhart: It doesn't give you a secondary access because there's only one
access to a highway.
Dacy: It may not be the best conditions. However, it does provide another
means out.
Erhart: What happens if you can't get in to where that intersection is?
Dacy: You can make those arguments with the connection also.
Erhart: The other thing is, well no, because you can always get in from the
other direction from a highway in either direction. The second question is,
the $91,000.00 in cost, what's the length of that street?
Dacy: The length of connection?
Erhart: Yes. Well, the question I ask, in reading these Minutes is you're
just looking at a number but how does that compare to the cost of that equal
amount of distance down to the Worm property? Is it 50% more per foot.
100% more. 1,000% more. Comparing that against the safety issue of being
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 22
4Ibb1e to get through there, you can just look at a number and say $91,000.00,
that's too much. Compared to what? I guess my only reaction to this thing
was that it seemed like it was being rejected out of hand because of some
number and I guess I get a very negative reaction to that.
Dacy: He did not compare
received those plans yet.
project and just based on
because of the slopes and
it to the Worm construction. We have not
I can tell you though that it is significant
our exper ience, I think $100,000.00 is too low
vegetation.
Headla: ...just give us a right-of-way besides an easement so we could get
through. Not that we would do it right away and I thought that was a good
idea. I'm in total agreement from the safety aspect. Just because we don't
do it now.
Dacy: We're not saying that it won't ever happen. We're looking as a
measure to look at that secondary access back out to Tanadoona Drive. When
and if water and sewer are into that area, we have more lots to sustain and
assess, it could happen but they are able to resubdivided anyway at that
time.
Emmings: We reserved the easement on the Worm property and we've also done
it on the Foster property haven't we?
Erhart:
_acy:
Going around it, not going through it.
Right. There will not be an easement reserved through Lot 3.
Emmings: So the shortest direct connection is out as an alternative?
Erhart: Has that been approved by the City Council? Our recommendation was
an easement going around the property?
Dacy: That was one of the options. Your recommendation was to look at some
type of connection. This has gone to the Council on August 3rd.
Erhart: What was approved?
Dacy: They approved looking at a secondary access.
Erhart: So they haven't approved the subdivision yet?
Dacy: Yes they have.
Erhart: And was there an easement through or wasn't there?
Dacy: No. They approved the preliminary plat subject to doing the study
and then looking at how much...
Erhart: So our statements here tonight are going to be in the Minutes at
~the Council will review?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 23
e Dacy: Right. They will see them.
Erhart: So any comments you have on this. I made mine.
Headla: And I agree with you. I think that safety aspect is extremely
critical. I wonder what the city's liability is. If we have a bad snow and
we can only get in from the one way, then there's an emergency in there.
Are we liable for that?
Dacy: Right now we're not even maintaining the road and that's part of the
homeowners request is that they want us to start...
Headla: Okay, but what about 18 months from now?
Dacy: That's why the city is looking at improving the existing Dogwood Road.
alignment to bring it up to some standards that the city would be able to
accept a reasonable risk as far as a liable situation. As it stands now,
there is 12 feet of road down on Dogwood and what the Council wants to make
sure is to make sure that meet some type of standard so if there is an
accident that we can sustain a lawsuit but right now we have no liability
because we're not maintaining it.
Erhart: I guess my view of this thing is, it isn't that often that you get
an opportunity like this to correct something that's been an accumulation of
sort of oversights and just progress going on without any planning and
~ here's an opportunity where we have both these pieces of land simultaneously
come in for a subdivision and have an opportunity to do some good planning
here and I think if we don't do it we're really missing it if we don't do
something.
Dacy: I agree with you 100% but the Council did look at the intersection of
the Worms was realigned so it was a curved alignment like that. They were
concerned about the additional traffic and this whole intersection on TH 5.
I agree, if we can make a connection, the planning department is going to be
the first ones to...
Erhart: If it goes out on TH 5 or TH 41, what difference does it make? It
still is going to corne out on TH 5.
Dacy: I don't want to beleaguered but I'm just saying that we agree and
that we felt that we identified another way out that would do the same
thing.
Noziska: The loop back to Tanadoona Drive or the loop back to Hazeltine
will all do the same thing as connecting up with TH 5?
Dacy: It will provide a second means out. If it was flat between the end
of Dogwood Road and the end of the Worm property, it would be an excellent
idea. Just go straight on down to TH 5 but unfortunately the land does not
lie like that.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 24
~siegel: Don't we have several instances where similar situations exist
where we do have public streets? Some of these long cul-de-sacs. For one
thing Frontier Trail was like that for years. Same thing. Same situation.
One way in. It's not a unique situation and here they have a private road
and really it's their own situation. I don't know if it's fixed...
Dacy: I think we're all getting at the same point. There's got to be a
second way out and it's how do we do that and that's the situation. But I
agree, it's a mile long and it shouldn't be like that. From the end of that
cul-de-sac it's 300 feet and you can see it but it's just not...
Emmings: I certainly would like to put myself on the Minutes as agreeing
with Tim's comments. I think he's right on everything. Anybody else?
Headla: I've got some other questions, you're looking at now upgrading it
so we can get heavier vehicles in there?
Dacy: Right.
Headla: And what's the flavor of who's going to pay for that?
Dacy: That's what is being looked at right now. We're going to try and see
if we can minimize the cost by having the city crews do some of the grading
and some of the scraping work. We're getting estimates now from bituminous
and asphalt companies. It is going to be difficult. We're trying to get an
~assessment down to a reasonable level that the homeowners could live with
. that also.
Headla: So you're going to amortize that among the owners?
Dacy: Yes.
Headla: I had a call from the one who worked to get that approved and they
were concerned about that. The feeling was why should they pay for a lot of
road improvements when they have gotten along the way it is now.
Dacy: That's the classic issue with assessment projects.
Headla: Any problem now if I pass this off to them and let them distribute
that to the neighborhood. It should be available to them.
Dacy: I sent a copy of that to the Homeowners Association already. They
should have a copy of that.
Noziska: I think we're all concerned about that secondary access and I
guess after listening to the discussion I'm not 1,000% convinced that we
should simply throwaway the thought of connecting Dogwood to TH 5.
Emmings: Am I not hearing you say that the City Council has looked at that
and decided not to do it.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 25
4Ibacy: Yes, the issue about connecting to TH 5 was a concern. The curve in
the street in the Worm property. Maybe what I can do, my memory is a little
sketchy no w, let me go back and get the verba t i m m i nu tes and I can send you
all a copy of that. If you want the item to be reconsidered by the Council,
this issue is going to be coming back to them in other forms. Like the
maintenance of having a road and this other issue.
Erhart:
Is cost a factor?
Siegel: It's too expensive of a road to build and what reasoning are they
using because they would assess all of the cost back to the developer
wouldn't they?
Dacy: No, because the benefit from the road improvement could be logically
assessed to other people that live along Dogwood Road and if you have 10 or
11 people with $100,000.00 or $150,000.00 project, that's $10,000.00 to
$15,000.00 assessment over a 6 to 8 year period.
Siegel: And that's the reasoning, it's too expensive for those people to
handle.
Emmings: You've also said that they've approved the subdivision without
reserving an easement across that land to make that direct connection
between Dogwood and the road that's coming up through the Worm property.
~We sent all the stuff to the City Council saying here's an opportunity and
~we think it's an important thing to do and they rejected that. I think it's
probably too late to bring it up.
Dacy: What they've done is they approved the preliminary plat subject to
looking at whether or not a connection from Dogwood Road could be made to TH
5. That was one meeting. The next meeting the feasibility study comes back
and says, we've looked at the issue. A direct connection from Dogwood is
too expensive for an assessment project. They talk about other concerns
about the connection. There is another means out. We can create another
street through Outlot A. It may not be as good as a direct connection but
we can conceivably either it get done real quick or within the next 3 to 5
year period and look at improving Dogwood Road so that's where we are now.
Noziska: What is the cost of that going to be?
Dacy: That's what we're looking at also.
Noziska:
It seems to me like that was going to be quite a distance.
Dacy: Right, the advantage to it though is that there are additional lots
that could be created to share the burden and spread the burden out.
Erhart: But then that same argument applies to the connection. If that
connection doesn't have to be paid for by the existing 12 people, that could
~be paid for in the future by existing lots along the east side of Dogwood.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 26
eDacy: But the assessment is based on the amount of units that exist there
now and you're not going to get more, you're going to get more through
Outlot A than you are with the straight connection.
DISCUSSION OF GARDEN CENTER ~ THE RR DISTRICT, JAY KROENICK.
Dacy: The memorandum is self explanatory. Maybe you should allow the
applicant to describe his proposed business in more detail and then after
that if you want to discuss the options that I referred to in my memorandum
about the long term issues, we can get into that if you like.
Emmings: Why don't you tell us what you would like to do here.
Jay Kroenick: Thanks for the opportunity to talk about this issue. We're
looking at the site on TH 5 just west of town. It presently houses the
Natural Green landscaping/contracting business. I've been talking to the
owner of the property about a purchase agreement on it. One of the factors
that I need to consider very seriously is whether I can operate the type of
business I envision on that site. What I propose doing is occupying the
existing residence as a residence for my family and in conjunction with
that, using a portion of the property primarily the front part of it up
close to the road for the site of a retail garden center. Perhaps to give
Ayou an idea of what I would envision as being the focus of that business,
~primarily the sale of landscaping plants and related materials. Shrubs,
bedding plants in season, mulch, bottom soil, top soil, fertilizers,
insecticides, garden implements. Not power tools but hand implements.
Perhaps some produce in season, pumpkins and so forth during the fall and
certainly Christmas trees and wreaths and ornaments which is something that
garden centers have typically gotten into to extend the season. It's pretty
short otherwise and garden centers have a tough time making a go of it so
realistically I would look to be able to do something year round on the
property. In a nutshell that's it. It's a 5 acre site. Just over 5 acres.
I've worked out some sketches of what I would like to do just to give you a
rough idea at this point. I think we're talking about the retail facility
itself, the part that would be available to the public, occupying
approximately one acre of the total. The rest of the property will be used,
loosely defined for agriculture. There are some greenhouses and I will
intend to venture into doing some growing of my own material. The rest of
the land would be used for either nursery stock or some agricultural
products which I believe is consistent with existing regulations on the
property.
Emmings: And you for see putting up a building of some kind I guess?
Jay Kroenick: The property presently has the old Chanhassen railroad depot
on the site and it needs some work but I think that would an ideal facility.
Garden centers really don't need an extensive amount of building space.
~ That building is 600 square feet. I probably need a little bit more than
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 27
4Itthat. What I would propose doing and obviously this is subject to
consideration, is move that building forward from it's present location and
build a shelter adjacent to it to house some of the other products that just
wouldn't fit in there and I would also like to put up a hoop style
greenhouse to house bedding plants in season.
Emmings: This land and the land around it, as you probably know, is zoned
rural residential and the intent of that area is for single family
residential subdivisions intended for large lot development. How do you
think you would fit into that kind of neighborhood?
Jay Kroenick: I think it would fit in just fine from my perspective. The
business, when I thought about what I would be looking for in terms of site
for my business, I was kind of envisioning the ideal site was a place where
I could live and work together. I think there are many reasons in the
garden and landscaping business where that's important. Plants require care
at strange times of day. They may need water regularly. I don't want to
have to be running back to a site that's 15-213 minutes away from the house
to take care of things and I plan to put in a lot of hours working on it.
It's a love as well as an occupation for me and that convenience was
certa inly a factor. I guess I al so see it as being consi sten t. I'm not
proposing a convenience store or bank or something else but the garden
center business is essentially green. I think it would be aesthetically
appealing and more of an agricultural lifestyle than anything else.
~Headla: What chemicals do you use?
Jay Kroenick: My use of chemicals would probaby be restricted to the
greenhouse where I was doing some growing.
Headla: Out in back with them? I just drove by a nursery today and boy, it
was really clean. It's out on TH 169. That thing had got to be loaded with
chemicals. The trees are nice and clean all the way through.
Jay Kroenick: I suppose there might be a need on occasion for use of
chemicals. My personal philosophy about pesticides in general is that their
use ought to be as minimal as possible and that's a philosophy I intend to
carryover in the garden center if I get one set up. Regardless of where it
is, there are a lot of alternative means to controlling the pests without
harming the environment. There are certain situations in a production
setting, whether it's on the farm or greenhouse, where chemicals play an
important role.
Headla: And not necessarily bad.
Jay Kroenick: I guess that's my point. If they are used properly and under
the right conditions, I've had a reasonable amount of experience in that
regard.
Headla: Would your property abut Lake Ann?
-
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 28
4ItJay Kroenick: No, it would abut to the stream that feeds out of the lake.
Headla: Would they need a building permit for those greenhouses.
Dacy: Yes.
Headla: What if it1s just a bow frame covered with poly?
Dacy: The Uniform Building Code has minimum threshholds.
spoken to Ron.
I know you have
Jay Kroenick: I didn1t talk about the greenhouse.
Olsen: Anything more than 120 square feet has to have a building permit.
Dacy: We1ve got to look at fire accesses and the safety access, I just
can1t imagine a building permit not being required. There1s got to be some
permit approval because if something happens in this situation.
Headla: I guess I was thinking more in terms of maybe you put up a
structure, a long wood structure covered with polyester. Purely temporary.
Jay Kroenick: That1s the type of greenhouse I envision. Actually a steel
frame rather than wood.
tlr.eadla: Then if it1s steel, then that1s more permanent in nature, then you
would be able to control it right?
Olsen: Again, we1re not versed in the UBC but whatever that says goes.
Headla: Then aesthetically, if you have a very high building.
Jay Kroenick: The depot is one story and the addition I would propose is
one story. The greenhouse is certainly more or less one story, I think 12-
15, 18 feet high at the most but they come in different sizes. I can work
on that. The residence is two stories that exists. It's set back.
Noziska: I'm not so concerned about that. One thing that does concern me
is the traffic from that access because that is a measurable road.
Jay Kroenick: I would agree in terms of traffic.
Noziska:
I don't know if you're prepared to alter the on and off condition.
Jay Kroenick: If necessary I would be. Barbara was nice enough to give me
a California DOT study on garden center traffic and from my best estimates,
based on the size of operation I propose, 50 to 100 vehicles per day is what
I would guess. You may have more on the weekends but presumably there would
be less of the other traffic on the weekend. The present occupant of the
site gives me his best estimate that he's got at least 100 trips in and out
4Ita day of primarily trucks.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 29
~oziska: So it isn't that much differnce?
Jay Kroenick: If anything it would be less. Cars and pull in and out a
little more quickly than those big trucks he's got as far as accelerating
and getting up to speed. I guess that would be the point I would raise in
general about the operation I propose compared to what exists on the
property now is that I see it as a less intensive use.
Erhart:
there?
Is Luse leaving the property if you do this or what's happening
Jay Kroenick: He is looking for another piece of land at the same time that
I am talking with him about purchasing his property. Nothing is settled
yet.
Erhart: So you're talking about buying, he owns only 5 acres there?
Jay Kroenick: He may own an adjacent parcel and lease it or something. I'm
not quite clear on that. But the site in question is a 5 plus acres.
Erhart:
He basically has a permit for a contractor's yard.
Dacy:
Through 1995.
Erhart:
eDaCy:
And then he has to renew it at that time.
No, he's done at 1995.
Erhart:
Why's that.
Dacy: Prior to the contractor's yard it was through a settlement agreement
through a legal action so until he's done in 1995 or until he sells the
property.
Erhart: In other contractor's yards there is no limit to the conditional
use permit?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: If we don't approve anything, in 1995 that essentially will revert
back to agricultural unless the MUSA line is extended to include that area.
Noziska: still, I understand what you're saying about perhaps less traffic
but when the truck drivers drive out there they are at least driving out of
there as professional drivers and you end up with sort of casual drivers
with trees sticking out of their cars, piling all my shrubs and most the
time you can't see out the back and out the side and looking around so
that's the reason why I'm concerned.
Jay Kroenick: I think it's a reasonable concern and I would essentially
eleave the judgment to the City as to whether, based on my predictions or
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 30
&our own on what kind of traffic this would generate, if a turn lane needs
to be added to the highway and I have to bear the cost of that, I'll accept
it if the cost is reasonable. I don't really know quite what's involved but
I would not want that to be a stumbling block. I'm perfectly willing to
satisfy conditions that may be deemed necessary as long as they're
reasonable and not ruin the chances for success of the business.
Erhart: Barb, what are we being asked to do here? Is to alter the
ordinance to include the retail nurseries in that zone as well as the A-2
zone or not the A-2?
Ernmings: They're not asking us to act on anything.
Dacy: Right. The purpose tonight is the applicant is from Maryland, he's
in town...
Erhart: But that's what we're leading to right?
Dacy: Yes and he would like to gain some type of direction but if there is
to be, for example, this were an application it would be a zoning ordinance
amendment to allow garden centers in the RR.
Ernrnings: As a conditional use, permitted use, whatever?
Dacy: Whatever. We're recommending, if you do want to consider it, that it
~e a conditional use rather than permitted.
Emmings: The use that he's proposing is kind of an attractive one for that
and there's no problem with that area as it is today and I would like to
have another garden center somewhere in town. I'm forever driving over to
Bachman's or someplace making long trips and I've got no problem with the
wholesale operation. We've looked at this issue as recently as a few years
ago and said absolutely no retail in the RR. We didn't mind having a
wholesale because it's essentially agricultural in nature. You're just
growing, as someone pointed out in these minutes here, if you crop is trees,
you're growing trees but I can see down the road once the land comes into
development to have this in the middle of a lot of houses is going to be a
big conflict. When I initially went through this I was opposed to expanding
what we've already allowed. We've said you can have wholesale operations
and we've said no to the retail operation but just now I looked under RR and
under conditional uses we've got commercial kennels, stables and riding
academies which to me would be even a great conflict with large lot
developments surrounding them so I don't know. I'm kind of torn about it.
Siegel: Don't you suppose Mr. Kroenick is looking at it as an investment of
land too. When that land becomes so valuable for development as a single
family dwelling parcel, he'll probably be moving his garden center someplace
else.
Noziska: But then also you have to look at Richfield Gardens and Bachman's.
4ItTheY're right in the midst of residential. Tight residential so it's a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 31
4Ibommercial mixed in with residential somewhere
there can be the traffic to support the thing.
agree wi th you. I think it's an excellent use.
driving all the way in myself to get shrubs.
close to a major artery so
If it's done attractively,
You bet, I'm tired of
I
Emmings: Why were we so adamant about not having retain in the RR because
it really was unanimous? Nobody wanted to see it.
Dacy: As I recall in reviewing the file, originally the amendment was for
wholesale and retail nurseries and greenhouses but after discussion the
Commission I think in general was feeling that we're going to get traffic
beyond wholesale traffic. It's not just the trucks corning in, it is
everyday traffic. More traffic than is anticipated with a wholesale
operations and then it is retail operation. At that time we were allowing
the 2 1/2 acre developments and the nurseries were just light contractor's
yards in some instances and the compatibility issue and traffic issues so it
was specifically wholesale rather than retail. It's always the classic
ordinance problem. We have a specific situation, a particular area of land
in comparison with the rest of the RR district or in comparison to the rest
of the A-2, you are always trying to balance a specific request versus an
overall intent. When he first walked into the office both Jo Ann and I said
well. We gave him the Minutes for the wholesale nursery and said they
really specified wholesale. As the way the ordinance is written now, we
couldn't recommend approval based on the intent statements and what was
already allowed.
4ItErhart: Wholesale nurseries are not allowed in the RR district.
Dacy: That's correct because you wanted to contain that area to the A-2.
The RR is going to be eventually served by the Lake Ann Interceptor and
wanting to avoid those non-conforming situations. At the Council meeting
they were kind of looking at trying to pick up on some of the lots. What's
going to happen in the longterm when there is water and sewer, we've got the
driving range on CR 117 and now we have Mills Fleet Farm, we talked about
that briefly several months ago that is looking at this site at the
northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41 we have that old MUSA issue to settle out
with them first. Meanwhile we have the commercial area down to the east and
then right across the street from this site is the Industrial Office Park
and we're getting McGlynn Bakeries on this site now, they just sold that so
the Council, maybe you can correct and Jay might want to comment but there
was concern about how is the whole TH 5 corridor going to looking 10 to 15
years from now. How does this particular use fit in that whole scenario.
Jay Johnson: I think Barbara put that very well in that looking long term,
RR is reserving it knowing there's going to be a different use in the
future so we're putting in large residential now knowing that when the sewer
comes in we could have a different use in the future and that different use
isn't defined yet. At what point do we define that different use? What is
that TH 5 corridor? Is that going to be single family housing with a four
lane highway in front of it or is that going to be more commercial or
~industrial or whatever and should we be doing something about that now?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 32
alSO, the other arterials. It's a real planning issue. Is RR correct for
along TH 5 or should we have another category between now and when the MUSA
is extended and we have sewer in that area?
Emmings: It seems to me that to date we've been really trying to restrict
the commercial to downtown. That's been a real goal of the City to try and
build the downtown and not see it spread out along the highway. We turned
down the driving range for that very reason. It wasn't allowed out in that
area and it was supposed to be in a different area.
Siegel: Well, it was one reason.
Emmings: There was also wetland alteration. But we were trying to restrict
the commercial development to downtown but is this really commercial. It's
a kind of hybrid.
Noziska: Also I think your point is well taken. You have to take another
look at TH 5 cor r idor and does it make sense to bui Id sing Ie fam i ly houses
next to a freeway with that sort of traffic. Does it make more sense to set
certain areas aside for commercial.
Ernmings: Or maybe a less intensive form of commercial.
Noziska: I think what Bloomington has done along I-494 and it's really not
totally like that but somewhat, it's the same sort of thing, where they have
~heir development next to the interstate. A well planned out event and
they've really done a nice job of mixing them as they go back away from the
freeway and continue to lower the intensity as the speed lowers on the road.
That's something we probably need to take another look at and think about.
It's beyond your question.
Erhart: with respect to that very thought, I think what's there to do in
looking at this, if TH 5 is four lane in this area, as a freeway, you're
going to have limited left turns basically on a intersection so hopefully
within 10 years access to that kind of business would be by service road.
Although that would make sense to gave some commercial zoned along this
particular service road and residential behind it like the way they have in
a planned community.
Noziska: Yes, like it was actually planned.
Erhart: What would be nice somehow, to eliminate years down the road the
freeway walls. If somehow we can do such a good job of planning the
transition to eliminate the construction of the walls. Not that they are
all ugly. There are few pretty ones but for the most part, the ones they
throw up because of the budget requires concrete, concrete walls are really
ugly. I think it would be nice if we could prevent that. Somehow use the
transition zone along the service road to get it into residential behind it
but I think if you think about the fact that in the longterm it's got to be
a service road there if we're going to put commercial businesses along TH 5.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 33
~oziska: That might include not to be too over anxious to move your
building next to the freeway.
Jay Kroenick:
I've given some thought to that.
Erhart: Yes, it requires easement planning and stuff too.
Emmings: what should we do Barb?
Dacy: I'm hearing a conflict because I think you're really struggling with
what to do with this particular application now versus realizing that maybe
we've got to look at the long term along TH 5. Mark Koegler is going to be
back in and we're going to be talking about Comp Plan again because we kind
of dropped it because of how busy we've been but we're going to be looking
at concentrating commercial areas at the major intersections. We're going
to be looking at this entire area. This area may not be suitable to
commercial and office. Because of it's location on the lake we may find
that it would be more beneficial for a multiple family development. These
are all issues that unfortunately we can't give direction to him tonight nor
can the Council and Commission. I guess to help him out the best way that
we could is to try and make a decision as to whether or not, given today's
conditions, whether or not we would entertain a zoning ordinance amendment
to allow garden centers in the RR district. Knowing all along that we're
going to be doing this long range planning, but that timing so long as that
doesn't encompass any future plan.
eNoziska: Why do we have to make it so general? Can't we make it just
specifically. We say garden centers in the RR district. That all of a
sudden envisions in my mind popping little garden centers up on every
corner.
Dacy: Even it's a conditional use, yes, you could grant it specifically for
this site but there's nothing to prevent people in other areas of the RR, up
in Lake Lucy Highlands, to file an application. Again, that's what I was
saying, the classic problem between a specific lot versus the whole
ordinance issue.
Headla: Couldn't we say as a general consensus that we would look favorable
on garden centers be approved at that location.
Noziska: As a conditional use.
Jay Kroenick: If I could suggest, I would be happy with it being
conditional upon the residents being there as long as the business operates
and limiting it to an arterial. You can narrow it in several ways and that
would satisfy me. I don't plan to move off the site 3 years later. My
intent is to live there as long as I'm working there if that helps you folks
in narrowing it.
Dacy: Sometimes it's just hard to write those intentions into the
eordinance, especially when the Planning Commission's change and the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 34
~ouncil's change. We could corne up with requirements like you have to have
5 acres and you've got to live on site, etc., etc. but I just don't want the
Commission to get the impression that yes, it's okay to have this as a
conditional use and yes, we'll just approve it for this site and then 3
years down the road some other application comes in and the Commission and
Council may feel that that location is good for one also.
Headla: Maybe I misunderstood. I thought Mr. Kroenick was looking for some
direction on would we favorably accept it or not. Are you actually looking
for proposal for an ordinance change?
Dacy: You need to tell him whether or not you would even entertain an
ordinance amendment. If all of you feel that this is just a stupid idea,
don't even bother, then he needs to hear that tonight so he can make his
plans.
Siegel: Barbara, is Natural Green operating under a conditional use permit?
Dacy: No, they are operating under a settlement agreement as the result of
a lawsuit.
Siegel:
Is a contractor's yard operating under a conditional use permit?
Dacy:
allowed
-Siegel:
A contractor's yard in the A-2 district. A contractor's yard is not
in the RR.
Okay, but a horse stable operation is a permitted use in the RR.
Dacy: A private horse stable. A commercial horse stable would be a
conditional use.
Ernmings: No, private stables is a conditional use in the RR.
Erhart: We're talking about some things up here, we're talking about an
area here and I keep hearing the MUSA line or not going to be in the sewered
area for a long time yet we have Fleet Farm out there.
Dacy: That's not for sure.
Erhart: I don't understand how we can even be talking about it. Somehow we
have a conflict there. Are we talking about making that a sewered area
fairly quickly so these business go in or are we going to talk about putting
these businesses in with septic systems?
Dacy: We're talking about putting these businesses in with the septic
systems. We're getting pressure for commercializing TH 5 prior to even the
Lake Ann are being able to service that area.
Erhart: Is there anyplace else in the Twin Cities where, I suppose there
are a lot of places in the rural areas where they have a business like that
~With the sewer in.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 35
4Ibacy: I'm sure in the rural and out-state of Minnesota there are areas
that do have package plants for businesses but again, we've got the MUSA line
cutting us diagonally. We're "the metropolitan region" and we have to deal
with the Metropolitan Council policies about where do we locate growth and
so on. We have to apply for a land use plan amendment for commercial on
this site and I'm willing to bet you money that the Met Council is going to
come back and commercial with no urban sevices, good luck. But still we're
getting pressure to do that.
Erhar t: I f we were to go ahead and perm it these, allow these people to put
those, if we were to rezone that commercial without urban services and they
build their buildings out there, could the Metropolitan Council rule on
that? Would that pressure them to extend the MUSA line.
Oacy: I hate to see that happen but I'm sure that they would take the legal
means necessary, either evoking a violation of the sewer facility agreement
on Lake Ann and I think there is a fine in the violations section. Sooner
or later they would come back...
Erhart: Of course, Fleet Farm would take about 10 acres to put on facility
on there, that would not be in violation.
Oacy: No, because we're dealing with the use. This is a commercial use.
Erhart:
-oacy:
What, does the agreement say...
No, the zoning Ordinance says you can only have single family.
Erhart: No, saying we change the zoning ordinance so it allow commercial
along TH 5, then each commercial establishment has to be, the density still
have to be within the 1 in 10 limits as defined by the agreement with Met
Council. Then we are not...
Oacy: I think you're not comparing the right thing because a commercial
use, the 1 per 10 is specifically establishe for single family homes. The
commercial use is much more intense.
Erhart: I'm just looking at what is the agreement with the Metropolitan
Council say?
Oacy: The agreement with the Met Council says that we're going to abide by
the urban service area until the year 2000.
Erhart: If these places have septic systems, we are abiding by that
agreement.
Oacy: But the thing here Tim is that it's on our land use plan as
agricultural and the key is we would be changing from ag to commercial and
that's where they're going to get you.
_Erhart:
We've already done that.
We have it down on TH 212.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 36
4Ibacy: That area, we managed to eXplain that
areas have been existing for several years.
by saying that those
Erhart: We just expanded it.
Dacy: That's because that restaurant has been there for years.
Erhart: Didn't we expand it on the storage building for Brown?
Dacy: Fleet Fam is a conmercial/retail...
Erhart: The fact that you're entertaining the thought of having a Fleet
Farm, somebody must be thinking about doing something or else the guy just
would have said no and you wouldn't have brought it up tonight.
Dacy: That's not necessarily true.
Headla: I'm confused. I hear you saying that you really would like to
entertain an ordinance change then on the other side I hear...
Dacy: We're just saying, you guys have to make the decision. We're just
trying to facilitate the facts for the applicant.
Siegel: Barbara, don't you think the point could be made, as you look back
at the metropolitan area has more than doubled the rate of the 70's so far
~n this decade. The Metropolitan Council can't live in the past and they
are living with past decisions based on presumptions of growth.
Dacy: I kno....11but we're locked into the legal document with the sewer
facility agreement and
have legal ties and legal basis to enforce an agreement.
Siegel: Are they that hardcore that they would come after us with a fleet
of attorneys and get down to the bottom line...
Dacy: Because that agreement is guaranteeing our sewer capacity for not
only the existing urban service area but for his potential project and
everybody elses, I don't think that the City should be taking that chance.
Why call their bluff. Furthermore, the City needs to settle the issue of
whether or not it's good planning to be putting the commercial without urban
services at this location.
Headla: Are we talking about this L shaped piece of property here?
Jay Kroenick: This one here.
Dacy: The 5 acre piece is directly adjacent to the Lake Ann Park. There's
about 400 to 500 feet but it's next to Lake Ann Park.
eHeadla:
Is there any reason why we shouldn't look favorably on this?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 37
~mmings: I don't think we have to go that far. I think we could tell him
that we're not going to reject this thing out of hand. If he puts in a
request, we'll give it our consideration. That's the way I feel about it. I
think each of us should tell him how we feel about it.
Jay Kroenick: That's fair.
I don't expect a decision.
Emmings: We can't do that because we don't have anything in front of us.
In addition to that though I think what we should do in the meantime, before
he makes his proposal or maybe at the latest concurrently, is take a look at
TH 5 and what we think is going to go on there so we can both give it some
general attention and specific attention directed to his proposal. I think
we ought to do both those things and we ought to get started on the TH 5
thing right away. It sounds like a lot of action there and we ought to
ready for it.
Noziska: Rather than be totally reactive we should be proactive right now.
Emmings: Does everybody kind of agree with that?
Dacy: I think it would be good to just go through the zoning ordinance
amendment process. If it is approved as a conditional use, he's going to
have to spend some money on site plan and potential building plans and
potential soil borings. I know timing is important here but if he files
application for a zoning ordinance amendment and then it is denied, then
~e's spent all this money on a specfic site plan for a conditional use
permit.
Emmings: Should we do that first, a zoning ordinance amendment first and
then go from there? We're going to be concerned, I know one thing everyone
is going to be concerned about is lights and things like that. What you
plan to do for big lighting because if we're looking in the future of houses
being built around that property, if we would approve the thing, we want to
know about hours of operation, lights.
Jay Kroenick: You ask a specific question about lights, I don't really see
a need. Daylight hours primarily is when the business will be open.
Dacy: And that's the issue. I'm saying is if the zoning ordinance
amendment we're looking at the general issues of compatibility between uses,
and you won't have a specific plan.
Emmings: But I think we have a pretty good idea.
Dacy: Through that process we could set some standards like no lighting or
x amount of acres for a minimum lot size or whatever. I just wanted to make
that clear.
Jay Kroenick: I'm satisfied with what I've heard this evening. Like I
said, I didn't expect any answers tonight. I realize we've got to go
~thrOUgh the formal procedure. What I wanted to avoid was starting to do
Planning Commission Meeting
August 12, 1987 - Page 38
~hat sort of thing if there was just a complete objection at the outset.
Essentially I'm perfectly willing to let you folks set the conditions as you
see fit and then something just isn't acceptable, if you're going to limit
my hours to no Sunday hours, I can't see operating a garden center and not
being open half of the weekend time so there are some things that I'm just
going to have to have but for the most part I'm willing to let you set the
conditions and I'll accept them as reasonable hopefully. I would ask the
question, are you prepared to accept an application at your next regular
meeting? I feel I could accomplish that. I think the 31st is the deadline
for applications because timing is of importance to me.
Emmings: Let's assume he gets his application in by the end of this month.
What meeting is he going to be?
Olsen: The 9th.
Emmings: You will try to get notices out but then could we look at maybe
our next meeting at some of these broader things.
Dacy: The meeting on the 26th? We have a full agenda for that. The
September 9th meeting I think we can corne prepared to address the overall
issues. This is part of Mark's scope of services anyway.
Emmings: So he could be here too?
~acy: Yes. We have talked about this initially last week.
Emmings: I think that will work out well and then we'll have Ladd back and
with Howard and Ladd here to tell us about how they looked at this zoning
in the past is very important because none of us were here when this was
zoned the last time around. Right at the end of the process but not during
the whole thing.
LICENSING BUILDING CONTRACTORS.
Staff stated that the Public Safety Commission was interested in getting
Howard Noziska involved in this issue and the Planning Commission was in
support of the licensing of building contractors as presented by staff.
Tim Erhart commented that now is the time to begin planning for development
along TH 101 south of TH 5 so development doesn't end up like TH 101 north
of TH 5. Staff stated that they will be looking at that as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan review.
Headla moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
~prepared by Nann Opheim