The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 09 23 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4It SEPTEMBER 23, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. ~EMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, James Wildermuth and Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT ----- OF A BOOK STORE IN HER HOME LOCATED AT 8190 GALPIN BLVD. WHICH IS ZONED A-2; AGRICULTURALESTAT"E"S-;-MARIAN SCHMI~ -- - Public Present: Mr and Mrs. Lawrence Raser 8210 Galpin Blvd. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. e Mrs. Raser: We're the Rasers, we live right next door to her and we were just kind of wondering how she can have a retail store in her house. That's our main concern. Then another thing we were wondering about parking. If there's going to an awful lot of parking with that? There's been before where they've had company and they've used our driveway for parking. They had about a 40 foot motorhome in our driveway one day when we carne home. Conrad: How close do you live to her? Mr. Raser: Right next door. Conrad: Do you think it's going to be a negative impact? It's not going to be a great use but do you think it's going to be a negative impact? Mrs. Raser: We don't know. There's enough traffic out there right now as it is. We get an awful lot of traffic. Mr. Raser: ...which is, that is agricultural land there and that's what people are buying their homes. Mrs. Raser: There was a time when Dale Wanaker had a business out there and they closed him out. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Conrad: A little bit of background. She operated the bookstore in town. In essence, has she been evicted because of the downtown redevelopment? Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 2 e Dacy: That's correct. The City had a lease with her to operate the bookstore out of the old town hall. She was given notice as required by the lease. She had been looking elsewhere and no longer in Chanhassen because commercial rent rates in a retail center is fairly expensive compared to the size of her operation. So she's continuing to look in Excelsior and other areas but in the meantime needed a temporary permit. Conrad: So we don't know how temporary it is. Dacy: She has indicated up to a year and I also related to her that past City policy has been not to approve anything beyond a year's time. Conrad: So Barbara you do not feel that the circumstances of her lease not being renewed because of the downtown redevelopment, are extenuating circumstances that would fit into the accepted means for granting her a conditional use? Dacy: I may have my own personal opinions. As a planner, I've got to interpret the ordinance and be objective with every case. There may be another case within the next month that wants a temporary use. Conrad: But because she was in a circumtance because of our downtown redevelopment, that doesn't sway you at all in this? e Dacy: I can't make a recommendation based on those facts. I have to make a recommendation based on what the ordinance says and the legal implications to the City for granting a temporary conditional use. Emmings: I basically agree with the Staff's position on this. I feel there shouldn't be a bookstore in a private home. I don't have any idea what temporary means and I don't think we should allow it even on a temporary basis. I guess if they told us they had a lease but they couldn't get into the store and they knew they were going to be able to get in 6 weeks or something, than I would look at it differently but it doesn't even sound all that, it sounds like it's entirely possible they won't find a place to rent and we may see this thing there for a long time. The other thing that kind of interested me is the fact that she apparently sells some kind of materials for people who are active in AA and is the only source of those materials locally and I wanted to ask what part of their business that was but they're not here to answer those quest ions. In 1 ight of that, I guess I'm just opposed to it. Siegel: I don't feel that we should do anything out of the ordinary as far as a conditional use permit in this case either but I don't know if we should react by removing the provision from the zoning ordinance. The provision for temporary conditional use permits I gather were taken for legitimate reasons and included in there are zoning ordinance for such things like Christmas tree lots and seasonal type operations where they require a temporary conditional use permit. I don't think we should eliminate that kind of opportunity because I don't see that in the same e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 3 e light as this kind of an application but otherwise I agree with the staff report. Headla: I'm sure glad I'm not a business person in this town. We've got some cold blooded people here. I kind of like the wording of the temporary conditional use permit. It leaves some human factor and a place to talk about it. We evicted this person, pulled out their lease. Dacy: If you could avoid the term evicted. It sounds so cold and impersonal but we had a lease agreement so both parties understood what was going to happen. Headla: Apparently we had a viable business person in this town, the lease ran out and now we're in a position we don't want to do anything to help. I'm torn now with those types of arguments because the safety factor is so important. I don't know which way I'd vote right now. Do you have any idea how much traffic goes in there now, of that store? Dacy: Based on the information that she relayed to me, for a period potentially I think she said 1 or 2 cars every hour. It is a low intensity operation but we had to address a larger issue. Headla: I can see where you're corning from with that recommendation. 4laiegel: Didn't her business exist before she located in the old town hall? Dacy: I think that's correct. I do not know where she was located prior to that however. Siegel: She entered that agreement knowing that was a redevelopment area and that location was going to be used for historical purposes so she knew it was a temporary situation when she did the lease so it's not like she didn't have an opportunity to look for other pl.aces to locate during the inter im. I don't see it as a cold blooded act. She knew that the redevelopment was going to occur eventually and in the near future when she moved in. Headla: Do we have any idea what would happen to the services they render if she can't operate out of her home for a while? Dacy: I understand that she's continuing her search to locate in some other communi ty. I only have to assume that she would have to discontinue that until she could find another place. Ernmings: Could she do it by mail? e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 4 - Dacy: Probably not but again, the Chanhassen situation we've got a lot of commercial development coming in. We approved two commercial strip centers and the one over at the Q-Superette but unfortunately those are high rent in the commercial centers for the size of her operation so we did try and work with her to say well, you could try this place, this place and this place but the economics and the market downtown now can't accomodate her. Headla: If we were to approve something for like 3 to 6 months, would there be a problem with terminating that? Dacy: The advantages of that would be that you would allow her to continue for a limited amount of time. The disadvantage would be that there is always that potential of asking for an extension and I guess you run that risk with every time period that you establish. Headla: I guess I'd like to see them have it for like 3 months only because they do serve a useful purpose to the community and if you make it 3 months, that's a big red flag that they've got to get out there and hussle and get something lined up. Anything beyond that, they can kind of sit back and bring business in there and inconvenience the neighbors which we shouldn't be doing. ~onrad: I don't agree that we should allow the conditional use. I think ~imply the proximity to the neighbors with a retail operation overshadows any kind of obligation to keep her in business. I think in this particular circumstance, if the circumstances were different and maybe even if they were here, there might be more information for me to incorporate in my thinking but right now, I think because of her close proximity to the neighbors, her potential hours of operation for a retail use, I don't think that's appropriate in this particular district. In terms of what legal counsel has directed, I guess I'm kind of naive in understanding the legal implications of the variance or the conditional uses. It seems to me to be a way that we can review certain uses on a situation by situation approach and I guess I'm not sure I want to give that up at this point in time but I don't understand the State Statute that we're operating under and therefore if it's totally out of order, I guess we should get rid of that but in terms of what Bob is saying, those conditional uses make sense should be granted. Therefore I don't know that I would like to see this conditional use struck from our ordinance. Maybe we should take, Steve you've got a little bit of insight on the legal aspects of this, what do you think? Emm i ng s: It doesn't seem to me whether or not we keep tha tin our ordinance is in front of us anyway, is it? Conrad: No. It's what we recommend the staff to do. Emmings: I agree with Bob but I think, looking at what the Attorney's eritten here, that once you grant a temporary permit an applicant can hen argue that the time limitation is prohibited by State Statute. Then Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 5 e they have the right to continue indefinitely and now you've got a real battle on your hands because now you've got to say, okay then we really can't issue these temporary permits at all. Conrad: Because they're not temporary. Emmings: Now you've got for sure you're going to go to court and that I don't think we want that. An easy way to avoid that, this thing conflicts with the use in that area and that's enough for me. If they had some concrete plan. I guess what bothers me is I don't see anything concrete from them that they plan to have this really be a temporary duration. It looks to me like it's a very marginal business, and that's not for me to judge but it's such a marginal business that they can't afford to pay rent out of what they make out of the business. Well, once I see that it conflicts with the zoning in the area, I don't think I've got any choice. It's not like Christmas trees. I think the Christmas tree example is a good one. There you know they're not going to want to be selling Christmas trees in January. You know it's going to have a life of it's own if you can reasonably put a two week limitation on it or month or whatever but this isn't the same character to me. Dacy: Maybe the suggestion is staff can work with the Attorney, maybe the proper vehicle is a conditional use permit. Maybe there's some other vehicle to allow for the types of uses that he listed tonight but again, yes you're right, that's really not the issue. e Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny the request for a temporary Conditional Use Permit #87-16 based on the Attorney's opinion. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed the motion and motion carried. Headla: I think with a small business we should extend it for a maximum of 3 months. Conrad: Barbara, in terms of the ordinance, the temporary conditional use permit, I guess I would like Staff to review it further and bring it back to us for modifications, alterations or elimination. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE {ARTICLE 2L SECTION 7(1)} FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRANCE GATEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUT~IDE OF WEST 78TH STREET (ST. HUBERT'SICEMETARY) AND ZONED-oI~ OFFICE INDUSTRIAL, ~HUBERT'S CHURCH. - Public Present: Harold Kerber Charlie Combs Representing Applicant Applicant's Architect e Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item. e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 6 Conrad: Before we open it up for public comment, a ground low profile business sign is what? Dacy: That is a sign that is directly attached to the ground and is no taller than 5 feet and no larger than 24 square feet in area. An example would be, for example I think the Redman Project sign is integrated into the ground area. The Chanhassen Office Complex sign right next to TH 5. Conrad: And this one would fail that requirement because it's more than 5 feet high? Dacy: And if you look at the definition of a sign in the ordinance it says pole structures. We look at that and said it is not a ground profile sign, it is an elevated sign. That's the issue. I know it isn't a crucial planning item. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I agree with the Staff's recommendations. Siegel: Maybe just some general informational comments that I would like to have for my own knowledge. That's a very small cemetary with limited capacity and no area for growth, what is the capacity of it now and what is the potential? Harold Kerber: It's hard to say. There's still a lot of room toward the highway, about 100 feet yet that could be used. Siegel: Towards TH 5? Harold Kerber: Yes. Siegel: I guess that's one of the questions I have about that property is don't you know the status of that right-of-way? Does that get into any kind of right-of-way situation with the railroad? Harold Kerber: Towards the back, no. We're talking about the front. Siegel: But what is the capacity of that area for a cemetary? Harold Kerber: Right now there's still 160 lots available. Eventually we'll need more land or go to the front. Is that going to be commercial land or can it be used for cemetary? Siegel: I guess my opinion would be that there would be no available land for extension of the cemetary. Harold Kerber: We couldn't come around towards the railroad? Siegel: I don't know. Barbara, do you know? e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 7 Dacy: You could occupy the land that you own between West 78th Street and the railroad. That's your land. If they wanted to expand the cemetary, that's fine. Siegel: Is it owned for cemetary purposes? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: And how much land are you talking about? Harold Kerber: About 4 acres. Dacy: That sounds fairly accurate but it's zoned office instituational. Siegel: I have a concern here, if that were to become a cemetary today, it wouldn't be. If they came in with a proposal to make a cemetary at that location, it probably wouldn't be granted because of the nature of the business industrial complex so I'm wondering whether this is sort of converging the potential growth of it in an area that is really not going to be suitable for a cemetary location. Harold Kerber: It's about 2 1/2 acres of land. Siegel: area? And there's about 160 available plots left in the existing Harold Kerber: ...they're already plotted out. Dacy: It's under the St. Hubert's Church ownership now. They can continue to locate more plots within that area. We looked at this request merely saying we want an entrance into that area and this is for that particular structure. Siegel: Does this structure go around the cemetary or is just fronting on West 78th Street? Dacy: It's just fronting on West 78th Street and will be located 10 feet behind the property line. Harold Kerber: Also on TH 101. The cemetary also goes all the way to TH 101. Dacy: I'm sorry, when I said West 78th street, I meant TH 101. It's the north side of the property. It will be located along West 78th Street which on that part is TH 101. Siegel: The question of the poles, I think it's a good idea to sign it and have it fenced very nicely as they have done here but I question whether it might be, with the pole going up, how many feet? e Dacy; _ Abg,ut 15. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 8 e Siegel: I guess from my own personal standpoint, I don't see that as a real attractive thing to put in there with poles and that kind of thing due to the fact that it's very close to our downtown bar district with the very possibility of vandalism and that kind of thing occuring to it on a regular basis. Ilm thinking of, generally you think of wrought iron or something like that having a lot more stability especially in a public area. Usually they put up wrought iron in rural areas for stability purposes. I just question whether the pole will have a lasting effect and whether there might be problems with it from a vandalism standpoint. Harold Kerber: There are going to be rock walls. Siegel: But it's going to be a wood structure, super structure right? Harold Kerber: The poles are... Siegel: Ilm not questioning the wall, Ilm questioning the pole that will be erected from the wall and that entrance there and the fact that it is in a real public area. Itls not like it's situated out in farmland so there's going to be a lot of access to it from everything from juveniles to... e Harold Kerber: Access to the cemetary you mean? Siegel: youlre in a downtown area so youlre going to have pauly's and the Riveria and the other bars are right across the street and they're going to be there I guess and stay there. Harold Kerber: Welve got signs across the street of wood structure. Siegel: And you haven't had any problem with that? Harold Kerber: No. Siegel: That's all I have. Emmings: I like the plan. I think it's very appropriate. I think it's got a certain character to it that's appropriate to where it is as part of the downtown redevelopment. I think it all fits very nicely and Ilm all for allowing it. I guess my only hang-up is how to do it for other ones that come along. Rather than granting a variance, and I think it.s very easy to do tha t because it is and it i sn I t. I tis very easy to distinguish this from the other things that we see in the industrial office area down there and I don't have any problem with that but that makes me think we ought to set it in a separate category because it really isn't a hardship situation so I don't like granting a variance for that reason but Ilm not real happy with this language and I feel we almost ought to deal with cemetarys maybe at some future meeting. The things I see, this sign that they've got, it.s got a little inspirational message on it and that.s fine. We wouldn't want to see e e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - page 9 some kind of promotional message up there and I don't know exactly what that means. It's hard to imagine somebody putting a sign on a cemetary that's going to wind up being offensive to me but it's possible. We've seen a lot of weird things. We see a lot of weird things here and you start thinking are they going to light it or are they going to put signs up with lights or light it some way, we may want to have control that way. I feel almost it's more like a conditional use type of a thing where, if we could just take a look at each one individually and say yes or no but as a matter of general intent, say they ought to be allowed to have a sign of this kind, whatever that means. So I guess those are my concerns. I would be willing to allow this one to go forward but I guess we ought to maybe have an ordinance amendment brought back to us as a separate topic and I guess I'd like to look at it as a conditional use. Conrad: The top of the sign is something made out of wood? Dacy: That's correct. Conrad: And the message is carved in the wood? To you knowledge, it's a timber... Harold Kerber: It's 10 x 10 or 8 x 8. Conrad: It's 2 x 12. Dacy: And 3 x 12 posts. Conrad: What does 3 inch by 12 inch mean? Dacy: The person who designed this has now arrived. Charlie Hoops: If you guys have any questions, my name is Charlie Hoops, I'm a parishioner over there. Conrad: We're dialoguing about the request and just for information clarification, what you've designed, the posts you've got going up, the diagram I've got says 3 inch by 12 inch posts. What does that mean? Charlie Hoops: 3 inches thick just to give it enough stability to actually the cross member on top so roughly 12 inches wide with 3 inches thick going up to hold the horizontal member. The Father was looking for something that was just kind of rustic in nature that he thought would fit in with the old church. Conrad: And the top part is made out of what? Charlie Hoops: Timber also. Conrad: And the message is carved in? e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 10 Charlie Hoops: Routed in, that's correct so it really wouldn't stand out. It basically would be something that if we put a brown stain on that it might darken out where the letters are so it's just got a brown to dark brown tone. Something that's not going to really stand out or something's that you'll notice if you stand close to it and it... Conrad: I like the fencing portion of this. A gate type structure. I think that's nice. The entryway itself, I guess I'm with Bob, I kind of like wrought iron and whatever but I think here I just don't want it to be something that's going to detract from the area and I guess my sense is it's not going to detract from the area. Therefore, I think we should be granting this. I'm interested in Steve's comments in terms of how we treat these in the future. Barbara, what do you think about a conditional use? Dacy: I think that's a good idea. Conrad: That makes sense to me. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Sign Variance Request #87-6 based on the plan submitted in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: As a footnote to that, if Staff could bring back to us their recommendation as to how we can control the cemetary use of signage through the use of a conditional use permit. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A 180 FOOT RADIO TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAr-ESTATES AND~CATED SOUTH OF CR 14 (pIONEER TRAIL) AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS NEAR THE BOUNDA~BETWEENlCHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE, D & L SPECIALITIES:-- --- ---- - - - Public Present: Mr. and Mrs. Dave Schmidtke Mrs. Robert Tischleder Applicant 185 pioneer Trail Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Dave Schmidtke: I guess it was pretty well lined out in the staff report. If there are any questions. Conrad: So nothing to add to the staff report? Dave Schmidtke: No, it covers everything. Mrs. Tischleder: You say there's a road going in on the corner? ... Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 11 e Olsen: It's just like a gravel that's been used for agricultural more than a road. Dave Schmidtke: Right on the other side of the railroad tracks. Whether there's access through ...either way. Mrs. Tischleder: Right on the Eden prairie line then? Dave Schmidtke: Yes. On the other side of the railroad tracks... Mrs. Tischleder: I'm not too crazy about looking out my picture window at this. Also, what does this cause any interference with my television, my radio? Dave Schmidtke: Not anymore than the transmissions from the Flying Cloud Airport and there's plenty from there. Conrad: How far is this tower from her house would you say? Mrs. Tischleder: It would be directly back area behind my house. I live on kind of a triangle, pie shaped. It would be right there. I guess my concern was the interference part and then having a radio tower right next door to me. ~ Dave Schmidtke: You've got trees. Mrs. Tischleder: The land goes down and then it's almost like a ravine to the railroad tracks before it starts coming up again and that's where I'm at. Conrad: Any kind of interference from this particular tower, you are under FCC control. Dave Schmidtke: The FCC will approve it. They will determine the frequency and the power and they require you to use certain type of equipment that's approved by the FCC and if you did experience some television problems or interference. If it's a strong a signal as you have with the television stations, I don't see where there would be any problems. Conrad: We've been reviewing a few of these towers and short wave and ham operator requests recently and I think the FCC really does do a pretty good job of regulating and monitoring. I think the key is, when you see some problems, you can't keep them silent. You really do either have to talk to the owner of the tower or the FCC but if you talk to them, they will resolve those. Mrs. Tischleder: What about the low flying aircraft in that area? ~ Conrad: I'm sure that's another thing they're going to have to review. e e e '- Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 12 Dave Schmidtke: The FAA has determined that there is no hazard and I'm getting air navigation review to approve this. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I feel uncomfortable with these permits. For one thing, in the recommendations, I'm not sure what we're approving. Once we approve this, he can hang anything up in the sky. How do we control, he can draw a nice little picture now but in 3 years this lady could be looking at something 5 to 10 times the square foot area and I think we ought to limiting what they really put up there. Olsen: The conditional use permit is for the 199 foot tower. One tower. I think that will give us control. Once they go over 200 feet then they'll get into regulations and I believe the FAA requires that they paint it and they have to have lights. Headla: But he can hang a lot of other antennas on this. What's the cross sectional area? Dave Schmidtke: The antennas are only approximately 2 inches in diameter, they're about 20 feet long approximately. Headla: What if the antenna, you happen to find out you can make money going into some other business of relaying? You can do that and we'd have no control over that at all but you're hanging more hardware up in the air. Dave Schmidtke: There are only so many you can hang on there. Headla: I don't know if you're at the 1% level or the 99% level. I'm concerned about the 1% level. Dave Schmidtke: The picture shows 4 or 5 antennas on it and there would be 4 or 5 antennas on it. Headla: antenna? Do you know what the total cross sectional area is on your Are we talking 2 square feet? 5 square feet? Dave Schmidtke: It isn't even 2 square feet. Headla: I think we're missing a parmeter on this that we should have more knowledge. Conrad: limit. You'd like to know what goes on then or you'd like to have a Headla: I'd like to have a limit. He says he wants something, I have no problem with that whatsoever but once we do that, we walk away from it and say here we can tell her that it's okay but in 3 years they could Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 13 e really expand that and we'd have no way of controlling that and I think we should. 01 sen: We can add another cond i t i on to say the 1 im i t on the number of antennas. I'm not exactly sure how that works. Headla: I think the applicant could probably put the wording better, I know I'm not qualified to state it properly but I see a parameter that's just out of control right now. Dave Schmidtke: We wouldn't put any lights or any signs on it. Headla: How come there isn't a light on there? That close to the airport. Dave Schmidtke: If you stay below 199 feet it's not required to have one. Headla: That close to the airport? Dave Schmidtke: It's 3 miles away from the nearest landing strip. I could put the tower further back on the property if you wanted to permit it. tt Headla: No, that isn't my point at all. Siegel: When we make a recommendation on this, what's our alternative? What if we decided not to recommend it? Olsen: This one is a little different than the prior radio operated towers. We didn't have a conditional use permit for it in the ordinance and the only condition that we have is that it either be collapsable or fall within the property lines so again, they're meeting that and unless we can find there is a definite danger to surrounding properties, it's difficult once again to deny. Siegel: This land is zoned what? Olsen: A-2. Siegel: That's all I have. Emmings: Are we still in the same situation here as we are with the others that we've looked at where if he gets FCC approval there's noth i ng we can do to stop it from goi ng in because the FCC has totally pre-empted that area, isn't that right? I don't think the State of Minnesota can get in his way and if they can't, I don't think Chanhassen can so again, I think once he gets his license from the FCC it's a foregone conclusion. I'm pretty sure. We could check with our Attorney. The other thing is they're ugly. Anybody who lives in their home, I can't imagine anyone wanting to look out at one but we can't tt Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 14 e regulate. That's an aesthetic matter and we can't regulate it. We're going to get in trouble with that one too. The only one I'm wondering about now, if we grant a conditional use permit, he's got some arrangement with, he's not the landowner so he's got some arrangement with the landowner but the conditional use permit goes with the land regardless of who's operating that tower. Should we have a condition on here or does it just go without saying? Is it necessary for some reason tha t we shou ld ha ve a cond it i on on here tha t there will be no develop- ment or no structures on that property within 200 and some feet of the tower? I think maybe we should do that. Then the chainlinked fence can't be more than 6 1/2 feet in height, is that our fence ordinance? 01 sen : Yes. Emmings: Are there any other things from the fence ordinance that we should be taking into account for this? Should we maybe just change that condition to just say the fence must comply with the ordinance? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: I can't think of anything else but. Olsen: He has to get the permit for the fence. e Emmings: So it would get checked at that time. Conrad: Staff is reviewing antennas in residential areas. Please include this district also in your review. I have no more comments other than what's been brought up. I do agree with Dave's point that we don't know what we're allowing because it's probably out of our control but do we have the right to limit the number of separate antennas coming off of this structure? We don't right now based on the ordinance. Olsen: You can make it one of the conditions. Conrad: I guess what I'd recommend to whoever makes this motion is that the applicant gives to the City Council when this is brought forward, an idea of the ultimate use so at least City Council can react to the ultimate use. I don't have enough information to make any kind of a knowledgable statement on that subject right now. Siegel: Just one comment about steve's concern about the building within 200 feet, don't you think we're covered by that building permit situation? If they do they to come in for a building permit and that would be reviewed at that point in time. Dacy: Maybe in a subdivision situation. Your basic intent is to prevent structures from being within the freefall area. It would help to make sure. e e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 15 Olsen: Just to have to keep in the file so if they do come in for a building permit, they would see that condition. Headla: Why would they want that Steve? They may have to put up another building to handle the electronics for more relay stations. Emmings: Obviously, who the hell would? I don't know. Are you going to sit there and tell me people don't do dumb things? We covered it from this angle, now...It's not a big deal. Headla: I'm only thinking in case they want to put up another equipment building, that would seem reasonable. Emmings: I don't care what they put up there. They can put anything they want to but I'm thinking about, he's got the right to use, I don't know if he's leased the whole property or just the spot where he's got his tower, I don't know what those are and I guess my thought was kind of a message to that landowner that you haven't just lost the use of that property for the area the tower stands or the building stands, you've lost use of your property for 200 feet around it. Just so that message is brought home to that landowner. That was kind of my point. Headla: In that light, I think that's a good point but how would you get that across? Conrad: Just make it in your conditions. No residential structure within 200 feet. Emmings: The conditions go against the land, not against him. Headla moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Conditional Use Permit #87-14 for a 199 foot tower and antenna and an 8' x 16' building as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1987 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive a permit from FCC. 2. The chain link fence must comply with the Fence Ordinance. 3. The applicant must receive a building permit prior to construction of the building. 4. No residential structure may be built within 200 feet of the tower. 5. That applicant submit plans for the ultimate design of the antenna. All voted in favor and motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 16 Emmings: Jo Ann, do you think we should ask the City Attorney to tell us, is there any aspect of this that we can regulate. Number of tcwers, we're already looking at that. Can we regulate the number of antennas of towers or is this all just pro forma? Can they have whatever they get from the FCC which is what I think the situation is but I think we ought to get that from our City Attorney. Otherwise, we might as well handle these with building permits instead of dragging them in front of us here because it's just a charade. Conrad: The only condition that we're looking at is the distance from the property line and that doesn't need to come here. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION REPLAT OF LOT 14, PORTIONS OF LOT 14 AND 16, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO.2 AND LOT~BLOCK 4, SOUT~LOTUS~AKE AiSDITION TO CREATE THREE L()ijiS,- TWO OF WHICH CONTAIN EXISTING SIN'GLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (7500 AND 7501~I~AVENUE) AND ONE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE LOT AREA FOR THE PROPOSED LOT IS-35,600 SQUARE FEET. THE LOTS TO CO~IN Exf:8'fING HOMES WILL HAVE~,750 SQUARE FEET AND 42,50"0 SQUAR~FEET. THE PROPERTYISZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY - RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE END OF ERIE AVENUE ADJACENT TO LOTUS - ----- LAKE, ANDREW HISCOX AND LOUISE FENGER. Public Present: Andrew Hiscox Cathy Hiscox Sharon Gagnon Earl McAllister 7500 Erie Avenue 7500 Erie Avenue 7508 Erie Avenue 7510 Erie Avenue Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Andrew Hiscox: I live at 7500 Erie Avenue and I bought it about 3 years ago and I've been working on this since then trying to determine one extra lot. It was kind of unclear based on the legal descriptions that were around, there were several conflicting legals and surveys. At least four surveys were done on the property and all them don't match. Since I bought I contracted a local surveying firm to survey the property and also to do a land survey for Torrance proceedings. I'm also with an Attorney to proceed with the Torrance issue. It's taken quite a while. We're not there yet but we've made some progress. I've got at least preliminary work done and the development has gotten to this program. There are some issues. One of them is the cul-de-sac. you'll notice what was deeded to the City was a square. What was taken was a circle and apparently my legal description, there's what I call a no man's land between the two. There is also discrepancies on the south lot line and also on the west lot line and also on the lakeshore to where the Frontier Trail Association's dock is. Is it or not on my property? Other than that, the situation with Mrs. Fenger is such that ~ Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 17 . apparently her property from one of the surveys, it looked like her house actually was over her lot line onto my property. I negotiated an agreement with her whereby I gave her some land to make her property conform with the City ordinances and in exchange for that, also in torrancing the property, in exchange for that she gave me some lakeshore. My intention is to build a house on the proposed pad. Sharon Gagnon: I live at 7508 Erie Avenue which would be the house down from this property. Indeed all of the property lines in there are in discrepency. Even when we purchased our house we had to have money put in escrow. It never could be cleared up at that time and it would involve a very lengthy type of situation. I have talked to Mr. Peter Knagle of Krueger and Associates and I have also talked, who Mr. Hiscox had hired, and also Frank Carderelle from Carderelle and Associates and both surveyors have indicated that there are not even any, the metal stakes are not, there are several of them so no one knows where our property line is at all in this particular area. And that's one huge issue here is for the McAllisters who are also south of us, somehow this has got to get all straighten out. These property lines because no one knows anymore where they are or where they should be and if we're going to start having another division within this, it has to be somehow clear cut for future time when we go to sell our homes. The second issue here that's really very important is in our deed for our homes, we have a 30 .oot easement down to the lake which is located between Mrs. Fenger's ouse and the other existing home and therefore he is saying that it is a road access but that is in our deed as access to the lake so that seems to be tha t if we are hav i ng it in our deed tha t should be our access to the lake and if he's giving another easement it looks like there but that's not even going towards the lake. It's going out and in another direction which would not be acceptable to us at all. The value of our property would be decreased by not having lake access at this time. Mr. McAllister and us as well, own part of that Frontier Trail lot down in there so we would have no way of getting down to that lot at all unless we had an easement across the property to get down there. The biggest problem between Mrs. Fenger and this lot is topography of that lot. It's like straight down to the lake so it does cause a situation there as far as Mrs. Fenger's house right now, you only look at her roof practically because of the property going straight down into the lake but we're really concerned about property lines and the easements as well. Cathy Hiscox: Have you tried to do anything with the easement? Have you tried to access the lake from an easement? Sharon Gagnon: What happened here is when Zetah's owned the house, we just all walked behind his house because it was a little bit flater there and easier to get down and of course after a while there's just a trail now walking down to the lake and our kids go down there fishing and that sort of thing so we never had any reason whatsoever to be using ~at other right next to Mrs. Fenger's house. We just let it go because ~etah's after many, many years you just use the same trail. You just use e e tit Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 18 it and that was fine with them. In fact it was dirt after a while. The kids just walked down there and the dock was right down at the bottom of there so we never had to develop that easement. Dacy: I'd like to address her comments. Your first question was why should the City be approving a third lot now until all of these lot line issues are resolved and in essence what we're doing is, this is a preliminary plat and you should have heard when I was reading through the conditions. One of the conditions was that the final plat can not be approved and recorded, which would officially create this third lot until this torrens proceeding is cleared up. The applicant is going with this application to find out in the first place if this is acceptable to the City so the preliminary plat approval is an initial step toward that approval. However, the final plat document is the one that creates the lot and the City will not sign that until we're sure that the lot lines on what is being represented here is correct. Earl McAllister: Shouldn't he get that all cleared up before he presents that to the Board? Dacy: It's one of those chicken and the egg situations. He wanted to make sure that the City felt comfortable with this entire proposed lot scheme. Creating the third lot. Looking at the connection into the sewer. He is taking his own risk. Torrance proceedings could last for another year so it's merely to go through the process and get this wrapped as far as a concept issue right now. Your second concern about, you said you have descriptions in your deed about access down to the lake. I'm sure that's true. From the City's standpoint, we're just looking at if there is any public easement, road easement right-of-way, what we're saying is we want to dedicate our interest in that. We're not dedicating your interest, because that would be a right of manner. If there was any deed that's been dedicated to the City, we want to get that off the books and that's one less thing that the applicant has to worry about in their review. We do have easement descriptions from the 70's when this improvement area was built and what the City needs to do is go through vacating that easement. A private easement, that's a different situation that needs to be handled by you and the property owner so we're just vacating ours, meaning the city's easement. Sharon Gagnon: But we're hoping that the city protects us as well. Dacy: Anybody can, Property Owner A can convey to Property Owner B the right to cross his property and the city really has nothing to say about that. If Property Owner A wants to discontinue that use, that's up to that person also. Sharon Gagnon: There is another point here though and that point is, you can not build real close to an easement or on an easement. That would be part of our easement so he would have a problem building a home plus Mrs. Fenger is too close to our easement, and she is in jeopardy. Her sideyard setback is too close to our easement, therefore she is in e e e .:Ji.... I > ", ..'4 Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 19 violation of City Code or ordinance or whatever too. Dacy: Our ordinance pertains, you can't build a structure in a public easement. If we vacate the public's interest in that, then it's no longer.. Sharon Gagnon: It's our easement. Dacy: It's a private matter that has to be negotiated between the private property owners and I guess what this points out, Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission that there are a lot of issues yet to be resolved with this particular application but again, the plat is just a step toward clearing those things up. Conrad: I wouldn't want to approve a concept if that concept didn't have a chance of going through. Whether there would be an ordinance that it was violating or the zoning condition that it was violating. In this particular case the point is brought up that there is an easement that will run very close to potential houses but that potentially can be solved. There's not any kind of condition that we have about private easements in our ordinances that would prohibit the building of a structure there. Dacy: Let me state it this way, you've got a condition in that approval that says you can not approve final plat until the Torrance proceeding is complete and these things are going to be cleared up. The City shouldn't be getting involved in private matters. Number one, we don't know the language of that particular easement. If it's just an easement for access down to the lake, a private easement, does that necessarily exclude buildings? I don't know and I don't think that that's an issue that the city should be involved. We should be concerned about public issues regarding whether or not we need this area for roads, street, utility access or whatever. Andrew Hiscox: Just to clarify something here. I guess it's my impression that since day one when the easement was granted, that easement has never been used. The reason it hasn't been used is because, as Mrs. Gagnon stated, the topography is such that you really can't use it and it's very heavily wooded. There's really no way to use the easement. I think what the issue is here is that the Gagnon's do have also within their deed a statement that says they have rights to use of the lakeshore as well. The problem is they can't very easily get down to use that lakeshore. They've never used it. What everybody in the neighborhood has used is the path. The path by the way is shown on there where Mrs. Gagnon feels that that's going off in the wrong direction. That is actually the path and what that shows there is the beginning of the path and the edge of the woods, if you will, down to the common property of the Association. One of the things that had been discussed was the issue that that's what currently being used. That's why it's shown on there. The 30 foot easement that's never been used and I guess what we're saying is that, that's...All I'm trying to do is get the first step done with this. e e e. ~~j_;-<J I.....:.~.~,.:,. "7 " ,: Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 20 Headla moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: I think all of the issues that have been raised here are things that need to be raised in a torrens proceeding and can not be considered by us. That's the whole point of the torrens proceeding is to get all of these things straighten out once and for all. I guess what bothers me is we're asked to assume that the survey that we have in front of us on which the plat is laid out is correct and until the torrens proceeding is concluded, we won't know that. Andrew Hiscox: That's true. Emmings: I have no problem, if the facts as they're presented on this plat, the boundary lines and so forth are accurate, I would have no problem approving this. I would vote for it's approval. It creates maybe one of the weirdest lots in the City and I kind of like that but the one to the west, the one you're living in now is absolutely bizzare and that's kind of fun but if it meets all the rest of the requirements I don't see any reason not to approve it but I'd sure want another opportunity to see this after the torrens proceeding is done and I don't know if... Dacy: That's still possible because the final plat still has to be approved by the City Council and if there is a substantial change, then it's required by ordinance that it does have to go back through the process again. If it comes back and we are in the point to where it will have to be approved by the council anyway. If there are dramatic shifts of lot lines, than you could see it again. Emmings: You've used the words substantial and you've used the word dramatic and they don't mean anything. As a condition I would put on there that if it is any differen~~7hat it's got to come back. ."A. Dacy: Even if the west lot line moVes 1 foot to the west or I foot to the east. Emmings: Yes, but if we don't put it that way Barb then it's a matter of who's interpretation whether it's substantial, dramatic. I foot is silly, I agree with you. Is 3 feet silly or is 9 feet silly? I don't know but I guess I'd be willing to approve this but if the torrens proc7eding. changes ;~jl..facts that we're being given tonight, I want to see It agaln~ ., Andrew Hi scox: You might as well say it has to come back because obviously the torrens proceedings is going to change it. That's why , . we re gOIng... Emmings: You see my first inclination would be to table it until we have the real facts that we need but on the other hand, I'd like to see you move along and you obviously believe in the lines you've drawn on Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 21 e here because you've presented it to us. Andrew Hiscox: I didn't draw the survey but... Emmings: That's kind of a fine distinction, your agent did. if you're asking us to table it, fine we can do that. So, yes Andrew Hiscox: That's not what I'm asking. What I'm saying is I think you're being slightly unreasonable by saying any change at all. I think material would be the right word. Emmings: What does it mean? I don't like the interpretation. I guess that bothers me. I don't know what would be material. Dacy: If the plan comes back and they meet the 913 feet lot width and the 75 feet at the lake and they exceed the lot area, they've got the sideyard setbacks met and so on, it really comes down to if some of the lot lines were 1 or 2 or 8 or 113 feet away. The torrens proceeding is going to look at that and hopefully clear those matters up. I can sense you're real uncomfortable about approving it tonight but those would be the types of issues that staff would look at to determine whether or not it's a drastic or significant change. e Headla: What's your problem about bringing it back again? Dacy: From staff's standpoint that's up to you. It's more a request from the applicant. Headla: But are we going to lose any time? Dacy: Mr. Hiscox, you might want to address that. Andrew Hiscox: I've been working on this for a year and a half and this is the first time I've been able to submit it. Emmings: But you can't go anywhere until the torrens proceeding is done anyway. You can't do anything on the land until the torrens proceeding is completed. Is that right? Dacy: Right and I know that he understands that. It's just that it's one step towards being able to walk in with the final plat and have it approved by the City Council and being able to build his house. Emmings: It seems to me we're being asked to decide an issue based on facts that don't exist and I don't like to do that. We don't have a real case in front of us. We have one person's interpretation, one surveyor's interpretation and we're told that four surveys have been done and they're all different. That really disturbs me. I guess the more you talk to me about it, the more I'm inclined to table it. I would be willing to approve it if it stays the same. Otherwise we're shooting in the dark and why should we? e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 22 e Siegel: who owns that property labeled 14, sort of the landlocked area above the beach? Just west of this property? Is that a separate? Dacy: I believe that's Mr. DeLancey's property. Siegel: Is that landlocked? There's no road access to it? Dacy: Mr. DeLancey owns all the way over to Frontier Trail. Earl McAllister: It's not landlocked because there's a 33 foot easement on the south side of my lot to get into that property. Siegel: And where's your lot, 7510 Erie? Earl McAllister: Yes. Siegel: There's nothing existing in there except woods? Dacy: Mr. DeLancey's home is obviously located there and there are other residences to the south. 7508 I think is here. Siegel: Who's dock is that that shows on this plat? Is that the Association's dock? e Dacy: Right. This is Lot 12 and this is this subdivision's beachlot. Siegel: Okay, so that dock is shown on this plat as actually the Association's dock? Dacy: That's correct. That's one of the items that they have to... Siegel: Has the Association been notified? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: So that gravel drive actually is that drive that comes in off of Frontier Trail down to the lake? Dacy: That's correct. Siegel: And that actually crosses a corner of this platted property to the dock? Okay. I don't have any other questions. Headla: What is our setback from a lot line from a house? Dacy: The side lot line setback is 10 feet. The front setback is 30 feet from the front property line and the rear setback is 30. Setback from the lake is 75 feet. e Headla: Why do we have that 10 foot setback? Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 23 - Dacy: That's typical in the zoning regulations to provide separation between building structures. Provide light, air, open space and potential access in case of emergency for fire access. Headla: We have that but we aren't particularly concerned about private easements that go right by a house? Dacy: Again, it's exactly that, a private easement. The 10 foot setback is a public regulation to regulate the location of setting on lots. Headla: I really feel uncomfortable with that. You could have a 20 foot easement and go right between two homes. Dacy: It's up to the individual property owners. We have had similar problems like this over on Lake Minnewashta where these lots were created several years ago and at that time public boat accesses or beachlots really didn't exist and people made agreements to provide one and other access to the lake. Headla: If somebody makes a private arrangement for a private easement with somebody else, do you ever have visibility of that? .acy: Headla: No. Then you have no way of controlling it? Dacy: No. Headla: I guess I have to agree with the others that we should either table this or if we approve it that it comes back to us again unless it stays exactly the same. I don't think it's as harsh as it seems. I doubt that you would lose. The next step would be the Council meeting and I don't think you'd lose time out on two weeks of the Council meeting. Siegel: Is it the intention of the applicant to leave that existing trail as an easement for the property owners who have been using it as such? Andrew Hiscox: Quite frankly, my intention is to have the people vacate the easement in exchange for the use of the path. Siegel: Okay, that's up in the air then right now. Conrad: I think the staff report is good and the comments are valid that I've heard. I would like to see this come back if there are any changes but I think what we're saying is we agree conceptually with what you're doing and I think that's why you're here tonight so conceptually we think this can work but I don't like to approve something where I .on't know what it is and right now, the lines are not quite firm and ntil the torrens proceedings have taken place, they won't be firm but Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 24 e I don't think we're going to delay you. What we are going to do is impact staff a little bit in terms of putting it on our agenda but I think in this case it's worthwhile. Jay, what did you bring me? Jay Johnson: I tried to write out what Steve was trying to say in more exact terms. If the torrens procedure results in infringement upon an easement, a setback or changing the lot width to less than the required lot widths, it has to come back to you. Instead of it being the vague terms. So it moves 3 feet, if that doesn't infringe upon the setback, what's the difference? I tried to give you some wordage to get around that without really getting involved. It didn't work. Emmings: Maybe we can avoid it by defining what is substantial I think is what he's saying and I think that's a good idea. I'm just thinking, I've got to think of everything then. So far we've got here setbacks, existing or future buildings infringing on any setbacks, easements and I guess we'd say public easements there. We want to vacate the road anyway. Easements or reductions of lot width to less than those required in the zoning and subdivision and then that preliminary plat. Are those the only issues that you can think of? I can't think of anymore right now. . Dacy: As a suggestion, you're right there is a certain amount of interpretation from staff at that time. Those items will help clarify for that staff person that things aren't exactly what was considered originally. If there could be infringements to typically expected requirements, then yes it should go back. That suggestion is fine to include that as a condition. Emmings: I guess I'm trying to be fair to the applicant. It seems to me that what we're saying is if it hasn't changed and it comes back here, it's going to be a 5 minute item and we're going to just rubber stamp it esssentially. Headla: One point, to ask Larry about the pad elevations. They had a letter in here, in our packet about that. Would you comment about that? It seemed to be a little sensitive. Larry Brown: I guess my comment, the Uniform Building Code states that the slope on the sanitary surface is recommended to be 1/4 inch per foot distance on the surface. That is not the minimum requirement however. The minimum requirement is 1/8 inch per foot and I wanted to bring this to light to the applicant. In reviewing his house pad elevation that's proposed, he can meet the 1/8 inch per foot. However, it's strongly suggested that he may want to riase that to meet the 1/4 inch recommended. However, we can not enforce that 1/4 inch but it's highly recommended. e Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-31 to replat two existing lots into three lots based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 8, Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 25 e 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a detailed grading and erosion control plan at time of building permit application. 2. Submission of a tree removal plan for access to the lake at time of building permit application. 3. The Torrens proceeding must be completed prior to final plat approval. 4. Erosion control fence shall be extended further south on the side of the building pad prior to construction. The applicant shall periodically review the erosion control and make any necessary repairs promptly throughout the period of construction. 5. The developer shall provide a house pad elevation that will ensure proper sanitary sewer service prior to construction. 6. Clarification of the easements shall be provided. 7. The utility easement shall be extended pursuant to the Engineer's report. e 8. If the torrens proceeding changes any of the facts on the survey that the Planning Commission has seen and upon which the plat is based, it will come back to the Planning Commission for review after the torrens proceedings. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: You said any change? Emmings: Yes, because I don't know how to define it any other way. Item 2 I guess, it seems to me when he goes into his torrens proceedings, he's going to be arguing for the lot lines and the survey that he's given us here and if he prevails there won't be any changes. And I think he's probably right, there will as a matter of fact, there will be changes just because it's such an incredible mess. I think it's both brave and important that he went forward with this for the future but I just think it has to come back so we know what we did. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE EAST AND - - - ---- WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY ~ DONALD PATTON:-- e A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE ------- AREA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 15 ACRES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 26 e DEVELOPMENT AND REDESIGNATE 40 ACRES AS HIGH DENSITY -- RESIDENTIAL, r!... ACRES AS PARK OPEN SPACE AND 12 ACRES AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Public Present: Bob Collin Bill Gore Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Land Use plan Amendment. Bob Collin: Now have you gentlemen changed the density from what it was? It seems like every time I come here, we're in the process of changing of the density. Have you done the same thing now? Don Patton: It's the same thing we've had all along. e Bob Collin: You know what this reminds me of? We've have been sitting and look at this all summer, I've been to everyone of these meetings, I wouldn't buy a house in there because every place I look there's an apartment building and I work for Roger's Development, I'm a project consultant. It seems to me like Chanhassen, you guys, you and you, I've got 600 projects I'm working on, they're all single family homes. They're beautiful areas. This one here, you're going to have apartments allover the damm place. You're going to look out your front window and see an apartment building. Bill Gore: I own the property that is labeled with an A-2 there right adjacent to the property and it's my understanding that my easement actually is going to be, I don't know if the correct term is violated by some of the development that's going on and I just wanted to make sure that access is going to be available to that property if it is infringed on by the property that's being laid out. Dacy: To help out the Commission, because I don't know if you're aware of all this but originally several years ago when that parcel, it was a 14 acre parcel that was conveyed by Mr. Curry something like this, there was recorded a 60 foot easement off of Audubon that jogged down and was potentially to serve that parcel that you have now bought. The condition of approval for buildability on this lot is that obviously there be some type of easement provided to the site. You have obtained this from Rime's here so you can either obtain an easement from their property, and I think at this point that would be the most logical location. You should meet with Mr. Patton and the partnership applicant's here as to the status of this easement but yes, you're right. You need access to get to that parcel and it will either be through the Rime's or in negotiations with the applicant. e e tit tit Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 27 Bill Gore: But is it my understanding that that easement does exist on an abstract and so I do have access to that through that easement and if he wants to... Dacy: Right. You need to talk to them about the legal status of that easement. Headla moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Before we get into all the different issues, maybe I'll just dialogue a little bit about where we're going tonight in terms of Planning Commission review. My understanding is that City Council has reviewed this, has basically said it meets their requirements for a PUD through the various meetings we've had jointly and them separately and maybe Jay I'll ask you the question, would you like us to operate under that assumption tonight because you've gone through it many times and although you're just representing yourself tonight, we can make this real easy and you know that we weren't thrilled with it as a PUD but given the fact that you have said it is a PUD, would you like us to assume, at least for yourself, that we should just operate as that's the way the Council is postured right now? Jay Johnson: As many people know I've been the most vocal opponent of this as a PUD. I've given it a lot of thought and everything and I've lost every time 4 to 1. The Council has voted that they believe the concept is a PUD. The last time it was brought up to us we did not vote on it. We decided not to vote on it because it was close to being dropped off as a PUD so the choice was we voted not to vote on it. Councilman Boyt wasn't sure at that point that many of the items he had brought up had been addressed and these items are being addressed. The trees and the parkland and all these items are being addressed. As a matter of fact, I've been reviewing the packet here and given more thought to various things, I am sliding more towards it. We are right doing this as a PUD. If you look at it, and they can come right in today and say we want this put in straight houses in places that are apparently zoned for houses and we would have to put hous i ng in. They would have to go for parkland that would fit that housing and they would just do all housing and we'd end up with very little parkland as a result of that. Then they can go into the apartment areas that are zoned for apartments and there's no room for parkland because it's all been used up for single family housing. At that point they pay fees for the parkland so we would end up, not going with a PUD, I believe we would end with less parkland. As I've been studying this over the last few weeks and this report here, I believe that we are as a City gaining something by this being a PUD. Conrad: I don't know the posture that the Commissioners want to take on these items tonight. I think the City Council has reviewed this significantly and are pretty much of the opinion that it is a PUD. We can turn that down as a PUD and uphold what we've always felt or carry forth and try to review it objectively on what's in front of us. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 28 . Emmings: I'd be in favor of that. I think we had our shot at saying what we thought this was. It was a subdivision and should not be a PUD and we were unanimous on that I think. We even had a special meeting with the City Council and told them why and they still found it to be a PUD so I think at this point it's kind of senseless for us to keep butting out heads against that wall. I think that if we're going to stick with that we should just deny everything here and let the City Council handle it. If they want to deal with it as a PUD, let them deal with it but I guess I don't think that's very productive. I think we would be better off at this point accepting, they are the policy makers or the deciders of these issues so I think we should accept the fact that it's a PUD at this point and give it review. Otherwise, we'll be giving them no assistance at all. Headla: What kind of value added are you looking at that we can do when it's a PUD? Conrad: We could basically turn everything down tonight Dave and basically not any kind of insights or any kind of public involvement in it and pass it forth to the City Councilor we can assume that it is a PUD based on the fact tha t the Ci ty Counc i 1 sa id it is and maybe there are some things that we would like to see changed or different and then those things could be carried along with it and maybe merged into any of _he final agreements. So we really could cut off all input tonight if we anted to and we felt that we really don't think it is a PUD, we could just stop it right there and Mr. Patton could carry it on to the City Councilor we could carry it and dialogue about it and see if there are things, given the fact that it's going to be a PUD based on what we've heard, let's add some input to that process. Headla: Let's assume it's going to be a PUD, are we supposed to be the spot for the public to hear what's going on? Conrad: Yes. Headla: So from that point of view it does have merit to know? Conrad: Land Use straight. Steve? It sure does. Anyway, we've closed the public hearing on the Plan. That's a little bit of background just to get our minds In terms of the Land Use Plan amendment and the MUSA line, Emmings: I would accept the staff's recommendation. Siegel: No comment. Headla: No comment. I like the rationale they used to justify that 15 acre extension of the MUSA line. That's good. .nrad: I have no comment either. e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 29 Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment #87-3 to amend the MUSA boundary to include 15 acres for low density residential development and to redesignate 44 acres of high density residential, 33 acres of parks and open space and 31 acres of low density residential to land uses shown in Attachment #13. All voted in favor and motion carried. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY -- -- ZONED PUD-R. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Preliminary Plat. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comments. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: Barb, do you have any comments about the water run-off going up to the north around the top there and the Ci ty Park and then go ing down to Lake Susan? If I understood you right, you said the water will control flow up to a certain point and then it just ran over ground. Larry Brown: Typically, you're right in saying the natural drainage pattern as it exists does flow overland, what's considered sheet flow and that's something that is considered good to have so we're not creating an erosion problem. Once we get a concentrated flow we have problems with erosion. The applicant has maintained that natural drainage pattern. Headla: Okay, so you're convinced there will be sheet flow there? Larry Brown: Yes. Headla: Okay, that's all I had. Siegel: I have no comment. Emmings: I would like to change condition number 7 to say that they have to have approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance with all conditions. Just to tie the two approvals together. Other than that, I don't have anything. Conrad: The concrete walkway, where does that go? Olsen: It's shown on the dotted line. Conrad: And the intent is to go where? When it's all developed, it will make the entire circle. Olsen: Right, and the trail is for connection for the park around the lake and to allow the people to visit the other parks. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 30 e Headla: Who determined that should be concrete? Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission. These are going to be sidewalks. They're not going to be more like the bike paths. These are going to be sidewalks. This will be bituminous along the lake. Conrad: I don't have any questions. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat #87-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 16, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an access permit from Carver County. 2. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for City approval prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan and shall reforest lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as recommended by the DNR forester and approved by the City Engineer. 4. The 1 inear strip of land along the west side of Lake Susan be obta i ned as shown on the concept pl an # 3 and tha t an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed on such at the time of construction of phase 1. e 5. A 5 foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk be constructed along the main street that crosses Powers Blvd. and that the trai 1 be placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods, so as to match at the Powers Boulevard intersection. 6. A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main street on the west side of Powers Boulevard. 7. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance with all conditions. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County Engineer. 10. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water pressure/flow conditions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs of Blocks 1 and 4. e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 31 e 11. An additional gate valve shall be added to the 8" watermain in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1. 12. An intersection landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a distance of 50 feet shall be used at all intersections with CSAH 17. 13. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all slopes greater than 3:1. 14. Type II erosion control (staked haybales and snow fence) shall be added along with the proposed silt fence adjacent to wetland areas 14-06, 14-07 and along the east ends of the development which are adjacent to Lake Susan. A floating siltation barrier shall be considered as part of the final erosion control plan to protect Lake Susan. 15. All utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 16. Clearcutting of trees will not be allowed. 17. Completion of EAW process. e All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. ------- Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: No comment. Siegel: No comment. Emmings: Is there any reason to have the names of these wetlands included? This 14-06 and 14-07. Should that be in there somewhere so we know which ones we're talking about? Olsen: Yes, in fact that's a real good idea. e Emmings: What we could say, in the first part after the permit number, say for alteration of wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 subject to the following conditions? Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 32 e Olsen: As shown in Attachment #16 in the staff report. Conrad: So Dr. Rockwell's comments Jo Ann are that the wetlands will be improved? Olsen: Yes. Conrad: At least one would be improved or both? Olsen: She felt both of those would be improved. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-13 for alteration of Wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 as shown in Attachment #16 of the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. A conservation easement shall be provided over the wetland area and all structures shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland boundary. 2. The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and wildlife Service: e a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbance of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. e All voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 33 e PUBLIC HEARING: ~ REZONING OF 29.9 ACRES FROM R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R-8, MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN~ESIDENT~ --- Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the rezoning. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comments. Siegel moved, Head1a seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Conrad: 11m not going to vote for rezoning so I think we probably haven't added much to the process tonight. I don't think we've added a whole lot. We've held the public hearing and the public has really not shown up other than the developers. I think the things that we've reviewed look real good up to this point in time. I think the wetlands, the plat, the areas of densities, I think that makes a whole lot of sense and I really like it. However, this is still in my mind philosophically not a PUD. I haven't really been told what has been, I haven't seen details on what has been negotiated in terms of making it a PUD although welve been in meetings, I still am not aware of some of the details so tonight I'll be voting nay on the rezoning but in terms of all the other aspects of this, I think it's well done. Staff did a good job and things look in good shape. Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #87-3 to rezone 299 acres of RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 to PUD-R. Siegel and Headla voted in favor, Conrad and Emmings voted to oppose the motion. The motion had a tie vote of 2-2 and motion failed. Conrad: Steve, your reasons? Emmings: The same as yours. You convinced me with your speech. Dacy: A tie vote is denial. I wanted to clarify that. Did the applicant hear that? The vote was a tie. It's 2 to 2. Two aye and two nay and therefore the recommendation for the rezoning is denied. Just so everybody's clear on that. Mr. Chairman, could I address your comments? Conrad: Sure. Dacy: I just wanted the Commission to understand that, first of all, Attachment #10 in your packet was transmittal problems from City Staff to our Attorney for him as a basis for including items to be used in drawing up this concept plan agreement. It included some of the action items that the Council took at the joint meeting. I just wanted the Commission to understand that the first time that you folks looked at it you made some comments. The applicant went back and amended that. Then we came e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 34 e back for the joint meeting and there were some comments generated out of that. I guess the main reason that based on the changes that the applicant made and when we do get plans for the multiple family areas, there were concerns about transitioning and buffering, I want to reassure the Commission that it's standard development policy that you will have some type of transition from single family to a multiple family. Buffer areas, open areas, lots that look at landscaping and how those uses interelate. There are also some concerns as I recall about the issue of centralizing parks and there was a concern that was discussed about having a bigger park in the middle. I think when we looked at it again and in discussing things with the applicant, that the Park and Rec Commission was looking for a certain radius of 1/4 to 1/2 mile and we did look at, what happens if we did create a larger central park here? We would still be including the same amount of area so when we went back, stepped back and looked at this we felt that this pattern was achieving the same th i ng pl us as an overall PUD and us i ng the concept plan agreement, the City would be assured that we would have x amount of acres reserved providing for the population that's proposed to be developed. We also have assurance that proposed trails that were required would also be built so we looked at it from a larger tract standpoint in that we would be assured that these basic community services would be provided. I just wanted to explain and back up some of the issues that I kind of feel were still outstanding. I know some of you may still disagree. e Conrad: I think philosophically the Planning Commission started different than the City Council and we're still different than the City Council and therefore a couple votes were of our preliminary opinion and maybe for the same reason, we're, at least I'm looking at this in terms of good philosophic planning and I didn't see the zoning transitions as you discussed Barbara. And I didn't see the central park and I saw a trade-off in MUSA throwing parkland outside the MUSA area and helping the developer put in 15 acres of buildable land in the new MUSA line. I saw a lot of things that may be didn't make sense to me from planning and I would have done this differently so philosophically I wouldn't have designed it. Dacy: It's ironic that Met Council is the one that suggested that MUSA swap. They said as long as that 15 acres is going to be held out for parks, you use that for your basis. That's ironic from Met Council. Conrad: But I think in terms of the process, I think City Council has said to us that they consider this a PUD and they felt that the exchanges have been made of which we really not negotiating amongst the Planning Commission here so we're not privy to some of the things they've talked about. Dacy: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the full issues and that all of these issues would be clarified so that you wouldn't be saying, well we never got the full set of facts. e e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 35 Emmings: My vote on the last thing, it's just one last, I'm sort of throwing a frying at a tank kind of thing. I just have to do it. NEW BUSINESS: Headla: Could we talk about this on the agenda next time? About prohibitng the use of ...dock poles in our wetlands. I'd like to have you read this and if you have more information, that's what we really need is more information, more data and then we can talk about this next time. Emmings: what's the source of this? Headla: At the bottom it says approved by the U.S. Environmental protection Agency. That's all I know. Emmings: Where do you get it? Headla: I got it from Lyman Lumber. They had it in a green sheet. I told Barbara to keep the original and they were passing it out to people who had purchased the wood. They were aware of it in Colorado too. After they filled my grandson's sandbox with this, then they find out about it and they got concerned. Emmings: When you read this, I think it's a real issue. They say you shouldn't inhale, when you're cutting the wood, you shouldn't inhale, you're supposed to wear a mask. Headla: I've gone back I don't know how many times but I just had to bring to light and share it with you and see if we couldn't talk about it next time. If somebody could get some information on it, that would be better yet. Siegel: It's dated 9/85. It's been around here for a few years. Headla: It's been around but you don't see that information out very often. Conrad: Thank's for bringing that in Dave. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes o~the Planning Commission meeting dated September 9, 1987 as amended on page 8 and 9 by Dave Headla. All voted in favor and motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION Conrad: meeting. We have City Council item action from the September 14th Tell me about number 7. Council approved with it with staff e e e Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 1987 - Page 36 recommendation that a boardwalk must be installed to replace the existing woodchip path. Where did they put the boardwalk? Olsen: The whole thing. Conrad: The whole way up. Olsen: I had Elizabeth write a letter, which I can bring a copy of, to confirm that a boardwalk was preferred over the woodchip path. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim october 4, 1987 ~~J-Y' ~kr(~* ~ ~ 10f?'(~ e Ms. Barbara Dacy City planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Barb, There seems to be a copple of mistakes in the transcript that I received of the september 23 planning commission Meeting. On page 17 Sharon Gagnon said "...who Mr. Hiscox had fired,. .." e This should read "hired" per the facts. I think she was misquoted. Ms. Gagnon was referring to Frank Carderelle further down. The path that Ms. Gagnon is talking about is the path per the survey, and the easement that I have proposed follows this existing path. Deda's should be Zetahls On page 23 my quote should read ".. .my intention is to have the people vacate the easement in exchange for use of the path." Barb, I just wanted to set the record straight, so that people who read the transcript donlt get the wrong idea about this situation, or the circumstances surrounding it. Thank you for your help. /' \/7 ~>>-;/--) CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECE!VED e Andrew Hiscox (..~) ;- r,!' 198"7 .j I v . CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.