1989 10 18
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 1989
e
Chai~man Con~ad called the meeting to orde~ at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ~llson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and Jim wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
planner
PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK
IN A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JEFF MAY.
Public Present:
NaIlle
Address
Jeff May
Steve Decateur
745 pleasant View Road
6645 Ho~seshoe Cu~ve
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hea~ing to order.
e Conrad: The applicant's he~e. Any comIllents?
Jeff May: No. She's accurate in what she's said. I did want to state
that just to ~einforce that we're very sensitive about the wetland. We
have tried to do nothing to change anything that wasn't already there.
That path that's the~e is on high ground and it's been there for at least
25 years because the people that we bought the house from had indicated
that the path was the~e when they first had the property. They had not
used it for a period of time so there was a dock there and he left the
materials there and footings to indicate there was a dock there. We only
placed the dock over the exact length of the dock that was there so we're
just trying to utilize essentially what was there and in no way trying to
alter the equipment other than that.
Conrad: Okay, thank you.
Steve Decateur: Steve Decateur, 6645 Horseshoe Curve. I'm curious about
your intent for disturbing any of the aquatic vegetation that grows in the
lake. Do you intend to have a large boat on the dock? A small motor boat
or . . . ?
-
Jeff May: By the way I do want to make a cOIl~ent. It came to my attention
indirectly that sOIllebody had complained that we had taIllpered wi th the water
or done something to disturb the lilly pads because the path through the
pads down in that area. When we looked into this, first of all the type of
lilly pads that the individual, who they might be, they didn't contact us,
had indicated they were concerned about a certain type of pad. The type of
pad they were concerned about is not the type of pad, we had the DNR come
,//
~
Planning COIu!'dssion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 2
e
out and look at that. They have no concerns at all as indicated in some
letters that we have. Our intention is to have a sIuall motor boat. We
have it thel"e now. A small 14 foot fishing boat with a s!'lall!'lotor on it
so my son can use it to fish. That's all we actually intended to use.
Steve DecatelH::
. . . weed s?
Jeff May: That's not deternlined yet. We don't want to do anything that's
going to do anything negative to the area. What we did when we had the
boat there is we siplply created a path by the action of the prop going
through the weeds. Now the DNR did tell us that if we wanted to that we
could ask the!'1 to b~ea tapa th p1~obably 5 feet wide or 10 feet wide, enough
to nm the boat through if we wanted to do that. They would have no
problelll with that. I have not asked for that. We're pretty sensitive
about that area. We just want to get access to a srnall lllOt01~ boat so we
can use it for that purpose. Mainly fishing. We don't intend to have a
large power boat in there to waterski. We just want to have access to and
from the edge of that land so we can fish.
Conrad: Any other cOlllments?
Ellll'dngs Ploved, WilderPluth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
e
Steve Decateur: Can I address the cOll~ission on a general topic related to
this? I'm curious what kind of precedent might be established. There are
adj acent lots in Fox Chase area and I'rn assuming add i tional requests wi 11
COllIe through. I'm concerned that by looking at that one case we not
disturb that end of the lake to any great degree. There's already been...
We're not adding greatly to it. Is there any intent on the part of the
Council to establish a policy for what additional applications lltight be
expected f01~ silltilar kind of developruent on the lake?
Conrad: Jo Ann, in writing the staff report, basically in a Class A
wetland, which this is, docks are not permitted?
Olsen: Without a permit. without the wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: Yeah, without a permit but basically they are not allowed.
Olsen: You have allowed them in the past and what we've always done is try
to minimize the disturbance whereas we typically, even like in this case,
we would have required a boardwalk to go through the wetland all the way to
the open water rather than a path. When we have the opportunity, when we
have a new subdivision and there's a wetland, we usually prohibit at that
point, will prohibit any docks going through that wetland but what's
happening now is there's lots of existing lots along where in the past we
have allowed the!'1 under c i :rCUlllstances wi th the least di sturbance to the
wetland. As far as Fox Chase, there's a conse:rvation easement all along
there and they do not have any right. I think the:re's one dock. There's
like 4 lots that can sha:re one dock.
-
Planning Cop~ission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 3
e
Steve Decateur: So it can't be...
Olsen: Not on Fox Chase.
wildermuth: Was that done at the time of the subdivision?
Olsen: Yes. And that's right when the wetland alteration...
Wildermuth: Process was installed?
Olsen: Ordinance. That's when we had more control than lots that already
existed.
Steve Decateln-: Is there a penal ty and enforceIllent si tua tion should
sOIllebody develop wi thout knowledge of the easel1'lent and what would be the
intent at that point should that occur?
Olsen:
If Fox Chase did something like that?
Steve Decateur:
wetland policy.
If it happens to be in any wetland that would apply to the
Olsen: The oridnance now requires to double the application fee plus there
can be a IllisdeIlleanor and fine. The Council has the power to have thenl
reIllOve whatever has been installed and to restote the wetland.
e
Conrad: Did we allow a dock out on Minnewashta? Dan Hertz? Did we allow
that?
Er\lIllings: For each lot. Five.
Conrad: We gave theIlI access?
EIlIIllings: They had perIllanent docks thJ~ough the wetland and then teIllpOJ~ary,
seasonal docks fr.:OPI the edge of the wetland out, if I remember right.
Olsen: Right. They have boardwalks through the wetland part.
Emmings: Essentially a permanent dock to the end of the wetland.
Olsen: I think they only had four. Two of the lots had to share.
Emnlings: That rings a bell.
Conrad: Was that an A wetland? Must have been.
En~ings: That's the one I thought of when I thought about this one.
Steve Decateur:
I hate to dredge up old business but...
_ Enwlings: Don't say dredge.
Planning COI"lII'lission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 4
e
Steve Decateur: I'm sorry. But on the east end of the lake there I know
was an issue and to my knowledge it's not been resolved for wetlands
disturbed brought up to the Council's attention. Planning Cop~ission's
attention and I'm interested, as long as we're discussing it, finding out
where that situation is. I'm not objecting. I understand one person and
you obviously have a process and this gentlenlan has gone through the
process. That doesn't create a problem but I have a problem with people
who flagrantly go ahead and destroy the wetland. It was brought to the
attention of the Council. There's a remedial action prescribed and there
seenls to be no resolution to those types of cases. It lays in limbo for
months and I'm interested in an update on that...
Conrad: Let's wait. steve, let's wait until this one is taken care of
and then maybe we can bring that up. What did we do Jo Ann to, there was a
resident on. the east side of Lotus Lake who had put in a trail and
sonlething and something?
Olsen: We made them put in a boardwalk and allowed them to keep the dock.
The reason we're not requesting that here is because again, this trail, the
path has always been there and they're not changing anything. Essentially
it's grandfathered in.
Conrad:
Is that true? Is it grand fathered in?
e
Olsen: It was an alteration that's always been there. It would be almost
the same if a dock had been placed, if the original dock were still there.
Fronl our visiting the site with the DNR and the applicant, it doesn't
appear that that's been widened over and above what's there.
Conrad: So once upon a time I heard there was fill but really the fill was
on the tJ'~ail.
Olsen: On this site? There is fill next to it. The lot next to it.
That's where there's been lots of fill.
Wildermuth: Fronl the sewer p:t~oject?
Olsen: No. They were filling in.
Jeff May: You're not talking about my site?
Olsen: Mike Clark.
Jeff May:
Oh, okay. But not on mine.
I haven't fi lIed nlY lot.
Olsen: No.
e
Jeff May: I want to be very clear about this okay? I want to reiterate
sonlething. That we're sensitive to this gentleman's point of view. We
bought the property because it had lake access. We bought it because it
had a dock and we bought it with the intention of using that but we also
have tried, I think we've almost bent over backwards not to run afoul of
the intent that we have in the ordinance. We just want to use what's been
e
e
e
Planning COIIIlllission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 5
there for years. That path was built there years ago by the previous
residents who had a dock there. It's always been a dock in the past. It's
a high land point and we're just asking to be able to use it as it was.
Not trying to change anything.
Conrad: I appreciate your attitude and that's one of the things that
Chanhassen residents 3-4 years ago subscribed to in terD1S of the value of
wetlands and it's sort of an education process and I'nl not going to preach
for talking about the purpose of them but they are quite significant. And
any break in the wetland can basically reduce the value of that wetland.
This cOD~ission and previous cOD~issions have spent, and staff spends hours
:r~eviewing these things and we'd :r~ather not. Yet on the othe:r~ hand, we know
that there's a water quality issue that the residents really are very
interested in. Being blunt, based on the staff report, there seems to be a
series of con~unications with you and lack of response and actions before
permi ts. The Chanhassen ordinance does CODle before DNR ord inance. We are
more restr icti ve in sonle cases here and it's not that the DNR has final
say. The City of Chanhassen has final say. Jinl, comments.'
Wi ldernluth:
talks about?
Who wOllld have done the filling that the area hydrologist
The previous owner?
Jeff May: Let me explain that please. I'd like to explain, or have
response to the con~ents that you just made. There's one thing to
knowingly violate an ordinance. There's another thing to not know you
violated anything and I think what you are, the impression I have is that
you feel, th:r~ough reading what you read, that we knowingly violated the
ordinance. It's not true. We had a misunderstanding but I took action to
talk to the City about what it would take to have a dock out there. I
wasn't sure, I'd been told there was a dock out there. I wasn't sure that
we had a dock out there and when I talked to the City, I don't think, in
fact I know I didn't indicate that there had been a dock out there.
I subsequently when winter cleared, went down there and found out that
there was a dock there and I asked people. I made probably a boo boo here
but I asked people, it wasn't intentional, about that and almost the
universal feeling I had was gee, you're grandfathered in. It shouldn't be
any problenl so we went ahead and did that. Went ahead and put the dock in
but we were extrenlely careful not to do anything that wasn't there
previously. Now the only fill problem that we had is on the high path that
again has been there for years. There were some ruts down there and I
tripped and I fell and I felt it was a safety hazard so I put a very thin
layer of fill, probably the rut's about like that and a very thin layer of
fill. Spread it out a little bit along the pathway only. What happened
here is that when the City caIne out and saw that there was some activity on
the property next to mine, they noticed that. They were rightfully
concerned about that because if you look at it, it looked like it had been
filled in. Okay? And that was the right thing. I wasn't around. The
next thing I knew I received a letter froIn the DNR concerned about it. I
responded imnlediately on that. They came out. We worked well with the
Ci ty on this. They callie out. Took sanlples. Imnlediately saw that we went
down that far to solid black dirt. Saw that we hadn't violated anything
and the letter that they wrote is attached. So if I'm guilty of something,
it's because I wanted to get rid of those ruts because I thought that it
Planning COl'\Il\ission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 6
.
was a safety hazard and there were about 4 of them that were filled in. It
wasn't our intention to fill in any wetland. It was kept right on that
path and we have not filled in a wetland area. Now you made a mistake I
guess because I listen to people, ...we all do that I felt were
knowledgeable and it seemed logical to me that we had a dock there. That's
why we bought the property and so we went ahead and put it in because the
people said gee you're maybe grandfathered. Now the reason I didn't
respond as quickly as Jo Ann would have liked and I should have done it.
I indicated in the letter, if you read the letter, was because I travel
extensively and I was in Hong Kong and also in China during that timeframe
because I had business relative to that area and involved in the Teniment
Square probleI"s, I was out of the country a lot. So we weren't trying to
dodge anything there. When I got Jo Ann's certified letter, I was in the
process of filling out the application anyhow so I got it to her quickly
and I explained it to her and the City Manager at that time because I was
concerned that it not be misconstrued that we were trying to dodge anything
so I hope you'll accept that because that's exactly what happened.
e
Wildermuth: It was apparently above the ordinary high water line anyway as
it turns out so it really isn't a big issue. I guess I"y thinking is that
the dock was put, or the upgraded dock was put in with some degree of
sensitivity and it looks like a grandfather situation. It would appear
that the requirements for the wetland alteration permit have been satisfied
in terms of letter of spirit. There's only one thing that bothers me and
that is that the dock and the work was done and was in existence before the
application was made again. At SOllie point we're going to have to put some
teeth in our regulations and requirements I think. There's going to have
to be a penalty. As we talked about earlier this spring. Was it last
spring or this fall that we had another issue on Lotus Lake?
Batzli: I agree with JiIl\'s COIl\I1\ents. Jo Ann? How do you determine
whether sOIl\ething is grandfathered in? There's a sta tement somewhere that
it has to be, if it's less than 50% destroyed it has to be replaced within
1 yea)':?
Olsen: I'm not saying the new dock is grandfathered in. That's why I'l'l
I1\aking.. .
Batzli: But on the old one, how did we come to the conclusion that it was
in such a state of disrepair that it had to be repaired within one year?
At what point do you make that decision?
Olsen: I don't know if I'm following you but all that was left were the
supports.
Batzli: So it was that bad?
01 sen : Yeah.
e
Ba tzl i : Other than echoing what Jirl\ has to say, if we do approve thi s I
would adjust two of the conditions slightly by saying the existing path,
the first one, rather than just path. And add at the end on the first line
of the third condition, or other filling so it would read, any expansion of
Planning COfl\mission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 7
e
the dock or path further into the wetland or any other filling shall
require wetland al tera tion pern\i t.
wildernlUth: Just out of curiousity, why have woodchips fallen out of
favor?
Olsen: We've found that those wash out into the wetland and they're a lot
of maintenance towards that.
Wildermuth: You have to keep renewing them?
Olsen: Yes.
e
ElIson: I really don't have anything new that the other two haven't said.
Again 1'1'1 disappointed that it happened after the fact but I think that his
intentions are, it's not like he put in twice the size or 3 times the size
or sonlething like that the dock in replaced but you know it still calls to
nle that we aren't comIllunicating or sending out infor!llation to people who
live on these wetlands that they know if all his neighbors feel this is
grandfathered in and that's just another indication that people who live on
them and deal with them still don't understand what we want out of thenl so
maybe we ought to be looking at con~unicating directly to these people
ei ther through SOllie sort of ma i I ing vehicle or sornething like that. I
real i ze that IlIOSt people should be noti f ied when they're buying so they
have it but we see it time and time again and it's just another example
so I think it's got to more than us just having an ordinance and then give
us reason to slap sOIllebody on the wr i st. We al so have to be a little more
proactive on educating people. His neighbors for example. That it's not
necessarily grandfathered in. I can understand how the majority rules and
you think, well geez 5 people who've lived here 15 years, they ought to
know. It's not necessarily the case but as far as this particular request,
I could see approving it.
Batzli: Jo Ann? Do we have an overlay of the wetlands in Chanhassen?
Olsen: We've been working with the Fish and Wildlife to update that
because what we have doesn't show all the wetlands.
Batzli: So if we wanted to generate a mailing to all the property owners
in Chanhassen about the rules within Chanhassen, we couldn't generate that
right now?
Olsen: Well we've been putting that off until we did get that map. The
updated one. We can still do it but as you'll be seeing, there will be
other cases corning siIllilar to this but where they did get the wetland nlap
and a wetland wasn't on there.
ElIson: Right. I like them having a map of the details...
e
~~ings: Generally I'm satisfied that this is a reasonable thing to permit
and I also don't really have much suspicion that there were anything but
bad cOIlIDlunications here. I don't think there were any bad intentions
so I don't care about that very much. I'm interested in, I just have a
Planning COllII'd ss ion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 8
e
couple of 'questions here. On that drawing that's up there Jo Ann, there's
a line there, a dashed line and it's indicated to be an approximate
location of ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland.
Olsen: That's how the DNR determines their edge of wetland.
En~ings: From that line at the bottom it says shoreline. There's a line
way down there. Do you see that one? Now is the wetland between those two
lines?
Olsen: No. It also shows the edge of the cattails. There is still
wetland vegetation over here too. Not necessarily cattails. This is l'lore
the open water.
EnIl'lings: WheJ'~e' s the wetland on this?
Olsen: The wetland is, not having the specific survey, is approximately in
this location...
Enmlings: So the line that's indicated to be ordinary high water nlark and
edge of wetland, that's not the edge of the wetland on the landward side
but on the lake side? Is that what you're telling me?
Olsen: That would take...
e Enlndngs: It is? So that is the landward side of the wetland, that dashed
line? Is that right? Put your finger on it. Okay. So that's the
landward side of the wetland? Landward edge of the wetland?
Olsen: Right. This is where the water...
Emmings: It says shoreline down at the bottom so that's confusing to nle.
Can you tell nle on there where the wetland is? Fronl where to where? Put
your two hands. Okay. That's what I was asking. That's the wetland.
We've got dock in the wetland?
01 sen: Right.
Enll'lings: Is it all seasonal dock? Is it all going to be taken out and put
back?
Jeff May: I guess it possibly could be. Right now the way it's set is
this is left in and then the part that goes into the water is actually
taken out.
En~ings: Okay, so you've got a permanent boardwalk in the wetland and a
temporary or seasonal dock in the lake?
Jeff May:
I guess that's it.
e
Enlndngs: Okay. That's good because that's what we've done before and I
didn't see that was what was going on.
e
e
--
Planning Conmd.ssion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 9
Jeff May: I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to make it clear.
Enmd.ngs: Well, I nlay be ITlaking SOIlle up here anyway so don't feel bad.
Jeff May: Again, as I said, we were aware of that and that actually serves
as a boardwalk. Not a dock. In fact it was very expensive to do that and
we did it with that in mind. There's only a small part that gets used as a
dock. This is all boardwalk by your definition. It's just enough dock to
go into the water so I can have a 14 foot motor boat.
Emmings: I understand. I just wondered if that part in the wetland would
be put in and taken out every year but it's permanent. Okay, good.
Jeff May: It's like a boardwalk, so that's what it is. It's not a 120
foot dock by that definition. It's about 20 feet.
Batzli: I think we may want to reflect that in the conditions that that is
a permanent portion that won't be renlOved seasonally.
Enmlings:
this dock
addressed
lot?
Then my next question is, is there any problem with the fact that
is on a lot that has a separate legal description and I know you
it briefly in the report but it seems to me, is that a buildable
Olsen: No.
Enrmings:
It isn't?
Olsen: Well if they separated it. Right now it's only separated by an
eaSeITlent that he has ownership of so it's a continuous piece of property.
Enmtings: Okay. So this is Tract B of a registered land survey and where
your house is, is that also Tract B?
Jeff May: No.
Emntings: It's Tract D?
Jeff May: Yeah.
Enlnting s: So it has a separate legal descr iption. It's not the sanle lot.
Olsen: No.
It's not the same lot but it's continuous.
Enmlings: But is that alright? Do we let people live on one lot and as
long as they own another lot.
Olsen: It's not a separate lot. If it's not separated by a street.
That's the definition...
En~ings: It is a separate lot with a separate legal description period.
It is.
--
Planning Co'mmission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 10
e
Olsen: Well we can confirm that. It was under single ownership.
EIllIltings: Both lots are, yes I agree. There is no problem wi th tha t? It's
my own curiousity.
Olsen: I think it was okay because it's just separated by that easeIllent
description which they also, it's not even an easement.
Jeff May: It's solid all the way down there. There is an easement
granted.
Olsen:
parcel.
D is actually a parcel.
Parcel D.
This isn't even an easement.
It's a
Jeff May: A constant strip of land separated by a small tract...
~~ings: The land is contiguous but has separate legal descriptions and
I'm only asking if that makes a difference to us.
Olsen: When we have done, the situation when it's caused a problem before
is like on Lake Minnewashta when they own two lots but separated by public
right-of-way by street. This is, he owns this lot but then he also owns a
portion of Parcel D which is that.
e
~IIllings: I know what he owns. I'm only asking if i t Illatte:t~s. I don't
know. I can't see that it would necessarily matter. Can I have a dock, if
I live in Minneapolis and I bought Tract B here, can I put a dock on it?
Olsen:
If you bought this big piece?
EIllIlling s: No. Well, whether I did or didn't. If I bought Tract B.
Olsen:
If you owned Tract B and that's it?
EIl~ings: If I owned Tract B and lived in Minneapolis, can I have a dock on
that lot?
Olsen: No.
~mlings: Why not?
Olsen: Because it'd be considered, it's not a principle structure.
~mtings: Because it's an accessory use?
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: Your question Steve regarding two parcels of the saIlle ownership
came up about 6 months ago in another issue and it was clear at that time
that the City treats two parcels with the saIlle ownership as one parcel in
the way it applies...
e
~lIlti ng s : Out on Che s Mar?
Planning Coml'li ss ion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 11
e
Batzli: That was if the County considered it one lot for tax purposes.
Jeff May: And they do.
Batzli: They had to go through subdivision because the County considered
it one lot and if in fact the County considers this one lot for tax
purposes, I think we'd have a tough time arguing both sides of the coin.
That'd be a nice distinction.
Olsen: I can verify that.
El'IIlIing s: 1'111 not opposed to thi s in any way. It's just a question that
callie up because they're di fferent lots and I just wondered if it made a
difference I guess.
Olsen: The fact that they were continuous I think made the difference
rather than thenl being separated.
Batzli: I'd rather see the distinction being that they're considered one
lot for the county's purposes.
Olsen: Tax parcel and that they would have to, that if he wanted to sell
Lot B, he would have to COllie through the subdivision process?
4It Batzli: Right. They would.
Emlllings: Really?
Batzli: They did on Ches Mar.
~~ings: I'm not sure that's the same. You don't have to go through a
subdivision if you own, because this is a registered land survey. Tract B
and Tract D are separate lots.
Olsen: Parcels.
~~ings: Absolutely separate legally and they can probably both be built
on and no subdivision is required. You would have to tell when the deed
came through separating them, then they would change that in the Assessor's
Office or in the Auditor's Office but I don't believe there'd have to be
any other, there certainly wouldn't have to be a subdivision.
Olsen:
...Let me confirm that.
Batzli: I thought the)'~e were two lots that the County combined under
conIDlon ownership out on Ches Mar. Two separately recorded lots and they
even had different property interests because someone held a life estate
out there and they combined those and I couldn't believe that.
tit Olsen: It was the City requiring thenl to get the subdivision.
Planning CorllI'li ss ion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 12
e
Conrad: Steve, do you see any negatives to that? Let's say you're right
in terms of this. I'm trying to search for the negative impact. The
precedent or whatever and I don't see it yet.
EnIDlings: I don't see it here because they're contiguous so that doesn't,
it doesn' t bother~ me in this case. What does bother me or.: what I would
worry about is, I think that technically it probably that there's a problenl
here and that just ,under our ordinances I think that there's a technical
problenl but I think who cares basically is my answer. I don't think it's
an important problem. I think these folks ought to have, they bought that
to have lake access frOIlI their home and I think they ought to have it. You
don't buy a lot on the lake and not have access to the lake in my opinion
so.
Conrad: So your assuIIlption is it's...
En~ings: And if he should ever sells off Lot B, he's going to lose his
access to the lake and that's up to him.
Batzli: But then will that dock be grandfathered in?
Ep~ings: That dock would be grandfathered in to the new owner of Tract B.
Not to him obviously.
e Batzli: Do you I'd nd?
EIIIDli ng s: No.
Batzli: So if you lived in
through that lot.
EnlIlIi n g s : No.
Minneapolis, you would have access to the lake
Jeff May: No. You wouldn't necessarily have it because you wouldn't have
a right to drive into it.
Ba t z 1 i : Yes.
Jeff May: Would you?
Batzli: Sure. You can't necessarily sell a land locked lot and then not
provide access.
~mlings: Anybody's going to get access to a lot but I think the point here
is that his honle is on D and since it's all contiguous, I don't have a
problem with that.
Wildermuth: Boy, get two lawyers together and you get all kinds of
trouble.
e
~~ings: Like I say, I think technically it's a little strange but I think
it ought to be overlooked. I just thought it was kind of a funny thing.
The wetland ordinance is also kind of weird because oddly enough the
Planning ComI'lission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 13
e
prohibited use in the Class A wetland is operation of the motorized craft
of all sizes and classifications. It doesn't say anything about docks and
then in Division 2, under wetland alteration pernlit it says a dock is a
p}~ohibi ted use unless you give theIlI a permi t.
Conrad: That's real confusing.
It sends a real strange message.
Enwlings: Yeah. It's written in a funny way.
Conrad: It's like fill out this piece of paper and then we flip from
prohibited to accepted is the implication.
~~ings: Yeah, but I think all and all, I think it should be allowed and I
agree with the changes that Brian wants to add to 1 and 3. I think those
are good changes.
Erhart: I really don't any more to add and I would agree with staff's
recoIlIDlendations with Brian's changes. I think it's okay.
Conrad: I don't know. I have some concerns.
resolved SOIlle of my concerns in his cOI'lIDlents.
when people are not working well with the City
not necessarily the case.
I think the applicant
I get concerned a little bit
but it appears that that was
e
Batzli: Is that it?
Conrad: Yeah. The silence is it Brian. The silence is it I'm afraid. I
have 3 concerns that are not relevant to this particular application. The
grandfathering in of a dock. I'm not convinced that that's really what the
ordinance intends and I think the ordinance has to be picked apart because
I don't believe that's true and I don't believe that if a dock was, if a
dock section, I don't understand the grandfathering that we were talking
about here. Typically Jo Ann, when a grandfathering, when sOIllething hasn't
been used for a year, I thought that use is no longer...
Olsen: And that's what happened here. The reason I'm making them go
through the wetland alteration permit is because it wasn't grandfathered
in. The new dock.
Batzli: This is not a true grandfather situation?
Olsen: The reason it wasn't grandfathered in is the reason they had to go
through the permit. If that dock had been there last spring and then fell
apart, they would have been able to restore it without having to do
anything.
Conrad: Okay.
I don't have any comIllent. Is there a motion?
e
EllIDlings: I'll Illove that the Planning COIlIDtission recoIlIDlend approval of
Wetland Al teration PerIni t #89-7 as shown on the si te plan dated SepteIllber
27, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Number 1 will be altered as
Brian indicated by adding the word existing between the first and second
words. Number 3 will be altered to add the phrase, or other filling at the
Planning COIumission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 14
e
end of that first line there. And we'll add an additional condition 4 that
will state that th~ portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be a
permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock.
Batzli: Second.
Conrad: Discussion. My thought on discussion, Jo Ann? Based on the plan
that the applicant has given you, is that good enough in terms of
Illoni tor ing?
Olsen: The plan does give us elevations and dimensions so yeah. This is
sOIllething we can work wi th.
Conrad: Okav. How do we monitor Jo Ann? Is it sort of, there's really
not a Jery g;od way to monitor.
01 sen : We don't have a syteIlI.
EIllIlli ngs: Don't tell anybody.
Batzli: Can't they go down there with little soil PH testers?
Olsen: Yeah. Althought I do go out on Lotus Lake once a year on a boat.
e EIllIllings Illoved, Batzli seconded that the Planning COI'llIllission recomI'llend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated
September 27, 1989 subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall
not be widened beyond 5 feet.
2. The path may ba mowed but shall not be fertilized.
3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland or other
filling, shall require a wetland alteration permit.
4. The portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be a permanent
boardwalk and not a seasonal dock.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Olsen: Do you want me to talk about...the property on east of Lotus Lake?
Conrad: AlnlOst. I just want to tal k about penal ties on wetlands. Do vie
have penalties?
01 sen: Yeah. We can go through wi th the cr iI'llinal I'Ilisdemeanor and
~ citations.
Planning COIlIIl\ission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 15
e
Conrad: So it just goes into any kind of a misdemeanor type category and
that's what it would be?
Olsen: Right. And what we do is double the fee so for an individual it's
$50.00.
Conrad: That's not much. Have we reviewed the new DNR wetland ordinance?
Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance?
Conrad: Well no. The new ordinance that is now sort of being down played
by the DNR in terms of wetland preservation. It's one that they've had in
for, they're going to let it stay in for 2 years before they start
enforcing it.
Olsen: That's the shoreland.
Conrad:
Is it shoreland? And you've reviewed it?
Olsen: Yes. And we will be implePlenting, we have to add it in.
Conrad: We can add it in any tiI1le we want is my understanding.
e
Olsen: And that was our intention when we went through the zoning
ordinance amendIllent, we kind of left that section open that we would be
adopting.
Conrad: The DNR has implemented, has drafted an ordinance that is far
more, well more restrictive. They're being more aggressive about
preserving wetlands and how quickly they're being abused and eliplinated but
they have a phase in of 2 years which basically says that the new ordinance
is not really being applied for 2 years but I think it would be appropriate
for us to take a look at it and make sure.
Olsen: Yeah. We are working with the DNR.
they've got monies as far as grants to give
ordinance and we have been in conversation.
and meeting with us and going through it.
They are going to, in fact
to cities to help implement the
They're going to be coming out
EIlmlings: I've seen a copy. You sent Pie a copy. I think I asked for a
copy. I was looking at soolething for myself and they sent me a copy.
Olsen: The new one?
~~ings: Yeah so I looked through it a little bit and it is. Now it's
shoreland though. The one I saw. I don't know if they've done anything
with wetlands or not.
Conrad: The article that I read was in the Star and Tribune and it sure
gave me the impression we're talking wetlands but I'd be real interested.
e So Jo Ann the plan is to incorporate this in our ordinance?
Olsen:
The shoreland ordinance?
Planning Comrnission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 16
e
Conr ad : Yeah.
Olsen: Yes. Paul and I will be working on that. There's a lot in there
that doesn't apply to Chanhassen. We'll be taking out the things that do
apply and Roger Knutson has already sent me a model ordinance that has
used, taken out portions of the new shoreland ordinance so we are working
on that. It should be on the ongoing list.
Conrad:
Is that thick? How many pages is that?
Olsen: I'll send it out to everyone. It's thick. I think I did request
thertl to. send us a copy of where they crossed everything off unless I
might already have that. I'll send you copies out.
Conrad: I personally would appreciate a copy. I'd like to take a look at
that. Okay. I'm talking specifically about what Mr. Decateur is
interested in. The person across...
Olsen: Right. With VanKoch and Frost. What happened, why that's taking
so long.
Ertlmings: I don't know what we're talking about. Can someone fill me in?
That nanle doesn't rtlean anything to nle.
~ Olsen: VanKoch? There was on Sandy Hook Road right about here. They did
come, did it ever conle in front of you while I was gone?
Conr ad : Yes.
Olsen: And it was tabled.
Conrad: Right.
Olsen: One of the reasons was because the DNR was involved and the Corps.
Batzli: We never pronounced it VanKoch I don't think.
Erttnlings: Okay.
Olsen: They're the ones that filled in the wetland to get rid of the
purple loosestrife. Anyways, the reason it's taking long is because we
were trying to, the City" in their action, their recorttnlendation was going to
be remove the fill but we were waiting to get a coordinated plan from the
DNR and the Corps of what they would like to see removed and how much. I
spoke with C.L. Strauss from the DNR again last week asking about that and
they do have sonlething. They're supposed to be sending it to me. Once
I get that. Once I have a plan to say okay, this is what we want them to
do, that's when I'm going to bring it back.
e
Conrad: But my impression was, they didn't think that what we had
recortlmended was worthwhile. In other words, the resto:r~ation of the
triangle.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 17
e
Olsen: They didn't like that idea but I think one of the problems was they
wanted to actually determine where the ordinary high water mark was and
have them remove everything up to that. So they will have to restore but
it's just that we had to determine...
Conrad: And the thing that's taken so long is because we've been kind of
contingent, wai ting for somebody else fronl another agency?
Olsen: Yeah. I just wanted to let the experts say what should be done you
know. I knew we could IlIake them do it. I just wanted them to tell nle what
they would like. I kept saying what do you really want to see happen.
Batzli: Weren't we trying to get the next door neighbors?
Olsen: We do have the application. We did include the beachlot itself.
Steve Decateur: Do you think, are we talking a 30 day process? 6 months?
Olsen:
long.
I still haven't got their plan but once we get it, it won't take
e
Steve Decateur: It will be next spring... Again, I'm not interested in
nlaking an example out of this gentleman or the other party. I am
interested in the Planning Commission's position on education and getting
some teeth in the enforcement. It appears there is some in this case
that's partially satisfied but if that's going to be the policy going
forward, that based on cOIlIplaints. It's one thing to respond and restore
but another thing to make sure that the message is in the conuuunity that
you people are proactive and also that there's some teeth behind the
ordinance so when there is a problem, that word gets out to the community
to stop this sort of flagrant abuse of what I consider a very precious
resource. . . .IllY soapbox.
Conrad: I think it will be a nice precedent actually to restore something
tha t' s been taIllpered wi th. We haven't done that before so I guess it's
quite nice. Jo Ann another con~ent on my part. Chemical treatment of
wetlands. Specifically, I keep thinking of the DNR allowing the people to
chenlically treat which has happened on the north end of Lotus Lake. A boat
path.
Olsen: That's more in the open, in the lilly pads in the open water.
Conrad: So it's not really a wetland?
Olsen: No.
Conrad: Okay.
Wildermuth: That's outside the shoreland?
e
Olsen: Yeah. And they do allow it. In fact a property next to Jeff May
does have that big path and they do have a permit.
e
e
e
Planning Copmtission Meeting
Octobe~ 18, 1989 - Page 18
Wilde~muth: A~e you thinking of doing something st~onge~ for these wetland
alteration permit violations?
Olsen: We have that in place to fine thePI and the City's never taken that.
Conrad: It's not much of a fine.
Olsen: You have the double fee but I think that you could still pu~sue the
citation.
Conrad: It's barely a penalty.
~~ings: The potential fine and even jail but no judge is going to do that
and he shouldn't. You can argue if they should or shouldn't but they just
won't.
Steve Decateur: Certainly if you have restoration, it's just a precedent
that would be very expensive. If you people are willing to enforce that,
that's the teeth right there.
Emmings: That's on the civil side. That's not cJ~intinal.
Wildermuth: Yeah, that's one thing and I think the contractor that does it
has almost got to be tied in...
Ellson: Yeah, what about that contractor fronl Lake Minnetonka...and you'd
like to somehow be able to punish that contractor.
Wildermuth: Well not punish him but just make it difficult for him to do
sonlething like that again.
Conrad: As long as we're going to do some things on the new shoreland
ordinance, I'll be real interested in that. I don't know what we do in
penalties but monitoring becomes, still becomes an issue with me. There's
just no way we do a good job of monitoring and there's just a lot of cases
where these things get expanded you know.
Wi Idel:P\ll th :
It sounds like the DNR detected this.
Conrad: I think Jo Ann did is nlY inlpression. The sleuth. Which is real
good. It turns into a little bit of, which is real positive that she, that
Jo Ann found that and brought him in. I think that's really great.
En~ings: The other part that makes, the criminal side of it is kind of
ineffective or less effective because there's cost associated with
prosecution and I think making the restore it is, that really puts the
burden on them where it belongs. I think that's the best thing to do.
Olsen: Or installing those boardwalks, those are real expensive.
EITlnti n g s :
I'm sure they are.
e
e
e
Planning Comnd.ssion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 19
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CHURCH (ASSEMBLIES OF GOD) TO BE LOCATED IN THE
UPPER LEVEL OF BLOOMBERG DINNER THEATRE BUILDING, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report.
Conrad: Is the applicant here or somebody representing the applicant here
who'd like to I1lake sonle COIllIllents?
Don Finger: I'm Don Finger the pastor of what will hopefully be a...church
someday. We canle into Chanhassen last sunmler looking for SOllie space to
begin to hold a I1leeting where we can be together in someone' s hoI'ne and the
space that we've got here in Chanhassen wi th Mr. BlooI'nberg is about, it's
the only place we could find. We have a need, with him particularly the
rOOIlIS and the aIllount of space that we would rent from him. I'I'n sure that
it will be at least that one room...with an office next to that. There may
be SOllie additional space... I think there's a little over 6,000 square
feet upstairs and we're looking at a maxilllUln of l, 600 to l, 700. But
anyway, hopefully when we get this started, I foresee in the next year froIlI
50 to 75, possibly 100 people. You don't know how fast a church might
grow. SOllie people, they grow real fast and that's a problelll we have to
deal with but certainly our intent in talking with Mr. Bloomberg and...so
he took care of that and actually brought it forward and came to the idea
of...and wrote Paul a letter and we brought it from that point. But the
intent was simply to find a place temporarily until we could of course
locate, buy some property and build a building sonlewhere else. Probably
sOlllewhere in the southern part of Chanhassen area so it purely is a
temporary situation. Probably I would say on the outside 18 months before
we'd be looking to go somewhere else. I reviewed the list of things Paul
would 1 ike to have us llleet and it's all fine. I have no problenl wi th any
of it. The services are on Sunday morning. Our denomination also likes to
meet on Sunday evenings and it's also been part of the tradition, since our
denolllination is basically been in existence for 75 years, we also gather on
Wednesday evenings. Some churches call that a service. SOllie call it a
prayer service. SOllie call it a study tillle. Some call it school. Bible
School. They meet in var ious ways. WhereveJ~ there's a llleeting on
Wednesday evening, it's usually not attended as well Sunday morning. It's
usually about half or a third but we do meet on Wednesday ev.enings so I
would like to have that considered and I don't think, I've talked with Mr.
Bloomberg about that. I believe the stores are closed and the parking is
usually not totally used on Wednesday night, even when the dinner theatres
have performances on Wednesday evenings so even a meeting of our group of
say maybe 20 or 50 people, I don't think would drastically impact parking
spaces around the area so I guess I'd like to throw an exception to also be
allowed to meet on Wednesday evenings.
Conrad: Paul, how would you react to that in terlllS of a recomlllendation?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we have a particular problem with
it you know. We're dealing with something that has to do with a nUlllber of
people that are up there. If we're talking about a small percentage or a
percentage of the total group, it can probably be accomlllOdated. I don't
now how we'd change the language exactly to allow that. That a study
e
e
e
~
Planning ComPlission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 20
Dleeting is allowed on a Wednesday night. We clearly want to avoid having a
full bore service with the whole congregation that may be a 100 plus people
up there when the Dinner Theatre is active. The reality of it is, if
there's not a problem, we won't know about it and we won't react to it.
It's only there to allow us to intervene if a problem does materialize.
Conrad:
because
church.
This is a si te plan review and I'm having a real problern wi th that
the building is there and it sounds like it's being rented to the
The church is not buying it.
Batzli:
We'.re being inflexible up here.
Krauss: I have to admit this was an unusual request and it took a lot of
thinking about it before we figured out a way of dealing with it in a way
that we thought the City's interests were protected and that the parties
got what they felt they needed. Mr. Bloomberg though is technically the
applicant on this as the owner.
Erhart: I agree with you Ladd. Should it be a site plan review or are we
talking...
Wildermuth: Conditional use permit.
Krauss: No. There is no provision for a conditional use of this nature
and we weren't going to make up a conditional use for something that wasn't
listed.
Batzli: How about a teIllporary use perpd. t?
Krauss: We don't have that yet either. It could have been done that way
if there was that provision. The ordinance is pretty specific. It's not
actually taking hapmler and nails and building square footage that requires
a site plan. It could also be an increase. in ~n.tensity and we think that's
clearly the case here. The building code even reviews that type of use
differently.
Conrad: When it's rental property, how do we have control over rental
property?
Krauss: Through the owner and the owner's the applicant.
Batzli: And the owner is co-applicant here.
Erhart: We haven't got the temporary use through Council yet?
Olsen: It hasn't gotten through you yet.
Batzli:
I thought we reviewed it. Are we discussing it?
Olsen: We just discussed.
Conrad: Okay, Tim. What do you have?
e
e
e
Planning COllrIlli ss ion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 21
Erhart: Well looking beyond the issue of whether we should be talking
about it at all here, I personally would welcorne the Assembly of God church
to the co:rnmunity. I think it would be a positive addition. Just a few
things relating to that building. Maybe I'd start out. Do you have that
building site on an overhead Jo Ann?
Krauss: No, we don't have an overhead for that.
Erhart: I guess I have a hard tillle understanding what it is we're talking
about there.
Krauss: The interior floor plan?
Erhart: Yeah.
Krauss: Yeah, it's tough to figure out. They repeat the circular
stai rcase twice. There is a roorn there that I label church. The room that
they're looking at renting is that one and probably the one just below
that.
Don Finger: Just above it.
Krauss: Above it?
Don Finger: Below it is basically the porch area.
Krauss: The staircase that's going down there is new.
Erhart: WheJ':e does that come down? Does tha t COllIe frolll the hardware
store?
Olsen: In front of the seating area and Milly's Deli.
Erhart: And is the fire inspector, be able to read something in my packet
but has that all been...
Krauss: Yeah. That's how we became aware of this. There was some initial
contacts made through the building department and they asked us what we
thought about it. There are two staircases that are going to be put in
there and I don't know what other modi fications would have to be :rnade but
our building inspector and fire marshall believe the building can be
adapted to this use and meet code.
Erhart: Aren't you tying a limit to the number of people that can occupy
there?
Krauss: Yes, there will be and they have a calculation for how many people
can fit in there.
Erhart: And we're not going to include that as one of the conditions?
Krauss: No.
It will be on the building permit.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 22
e
Erhart: They are going to be required to have a building permit?
Krauss: Yes, they are and it's the same way that a fire marshall posts an
occupancy rating on any building whether or not they're coming in, you know
a restaurant has it. Any kind of congregation place.
Batzli: That's separately enforceable whether it's in this condition or
not by the fire marshall.
Erhar t: Yeah.
Wildenl1uth: Why would he need a building perIl1it? Because they're putting
in the stairway?
Krauss: Yeah. Exactly.
wildermuth: Because otherwise there isn't going to be any other building?
Krauss: No. Whatever modifications were required to meet Code, the
stairways are the largest ones. I'm not aware of any others but they may
have to oversize doors or something else.
Olsen: They have to receive the occupancy permit. That's where it first
came to light.
~ Erhart: What are all the other offices currently or planned to use for
theIl1 out there? Is sOIl1ebody in them now 1 i ke Lotus or somebody?
Olsen: Lotus is up there but I don't...
WildernlUth: These offices are whe:re BlooPlberg Companies used to be but
Herb has PlOved.
Erhart: It's potential that somebody will be occupying the remainder of
these offices. Okay, then I question. So you're saying, the fear that I
would have is that at some point before you get a new church built or
something, that people would cOPle and they'd be standing outside. The
tePlptation would be to exceed the nUPlber of people allowed. How would
you. . .
Krauss: That can happen in anyplace of assembly in an existing church
building or whatever.
-
Erhart: I understand but the big difference here, what I'm getting to, is
this facility is being shared with other offices and it relates to the next
thing you're going to have. Are you going to have music? Are you going to
have band instruments, which I'm sure you're expecting to have and how does
that relate to other people who office? Hopefully the services will be
Sunday morning and offices will be unoccupied and Sunday night and
Wednesday night but let's just say we do have a service. with the hours
you've got Paul, essentially they could have a service anytime during
business hours except from 11:00 to 1:00 so I just think we should add some
conditions that make sure that they respect the other occupants of that
Planning Comlllission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 23
e
office given that other churches have their own building and noise and the
people thing isn't a probleru.
Batzli: I would be against that. I think that's between the tenant and
the landlord. The landlord is not going to let the services disrupt his
other tenants.
wildermuth: The offices are Bloomberg Company offices so the landlord is
occupying the space.
Batzli: I think you're right. If this was in an RSF district and you're
going to be impinging on surrounding homeowners that don't have any other
recourse and they've come to the City to get us to stop it but here
Merlyn's Hardware or Millie's Deli or whoever, if they hear organ music all
hours of the day, I think they're going to be the ones going to Bloolllberg
Companies and saying you know we've got to do something about this.
Erhart: I don't genally disagree with you either but I'nl treating this
like anything else. The first thing we look at is intrusiveness on other
people and maybe it will take care of itself. I only bring it up because
those are the things that I'd be concerned about so whether we want to deal
with it or not. Other than that, it's a very appropriate temporary use and
get the organization started.
It
EnlInings: You can't sell this to me as a site plan. It's not. I don't
think anyway at least. I read the stuff in there and again I think that's
hypertechnical. I think it's fine and I think Tim's issue, I think we've
got to be a little creative. You've got to find a way here and I think you
found an appropriate way to get something done that I think is appropriate
and I think Tim's concerns I agree with Brian. Those are a landlord-tenant
problePls and I don't think the City should get involved in those.
ElIson: I think the applicant answered by first thing which is why did we
say temporary. You feel that you're looking at the longest of 18 months of
being in here? Is that what you said?
Don Finger: Yes. When we were looking, to talk to Mr. Bloomberg, we just
began talking with hinl about a tenlporary situation which at that time may
be up to 2 years or so. Paul is the one that kind of reinforced the idea
of terllporary. Even Herb did not want to see a long ternl lease of 5 years
or longer and even if we...
ElIson: Well I always have a problem with even temporary in it's nature
and I know because this is a different situation, you're going to be a part
of somebody else, that they can always yank you out of there if they don't
want you there versus the City. So you'd be moving into this and you'd
still be looking for a place to build or a better facility to move into?
Or you're trying to grow and then if you grow that's going to follow?
e
Don Finger: We would hope. I would hope that we would start looking for
some land probably this next sumPler and continue to grow to the point where
we could actually build the following year so that's why I'm thinking 18
months. Very dIose to that. We were thinking of drawing up a lease with
Planning ComI'\ission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 24
e
Herb for 18 months with an option of another 12, from 6 to 10 months if we
needed it. If we were running into snags as far as getting the building
going or that sort of thing but I'm sure that the people I've been talking
to already will 100k...into a building as soon as possible so we're not
looking to nest there for a long time.
E11son: And are you going to have, use any of the offices up there during
the day like a rectory?
Don Finger: The plan, I believe that room that is just above that major
roo:ll\ and that major room is about 1,300 square feet. That is kind of an
office space and I would probably office there. We're considering also
that following up froPI that room, you see two restrooms and then another
rOOI'1 above that. There is also I think some closet, sinks and other things
and we're also looking at that roopt as an addi tional Pleeting rooPI where we
can make coffee and things like that. Initially I think I believe those
will be spaces...
e
E11son: I think my only concern is you know landlords can come and go and
Playbe if sOPlebody new comes on and they wouldn't mind the idea of this
church turning into a full fledged congregation and wiping out the whole
upper floor or doing what have you. I guess I like the idea of us trying
to have sOPle control over the phJ~ase temporary. I'd we1coPle any other
cop~ents but I don't know how to do that. I always get a little gun shy
wi th tePlporary but you're looking at someone, I went to a church in a
warehouse for 3 years while they were building and things like that and
growing so I realize the benefit of doing something like that so I'm not
opposed to doing it. I'd just like to know that it's temporary.
Batz1i: That does kind of raise an interesting point in that it doesn't
appear to me that the portion labeled church is going to be the only
portion that's labeled church and technically you'd normally have someone
cOPle back in to expand or modi fy their si te plan but it doesn't appear to
me that you're going to do that. Are we going to know before the City
Council meeting exactly what part is going to be the church?
Don Finger: Paul is the one that labeled the church.
Krauss: My infonlation caPle froPI building inspector so yes, we can
certainly clarify that.
Batz1i: I guess I'd like, if in fact we pass this, I guess I'd like to see
it clarified.
Wildermuth: Do we care?
Batz1i: I think we do if we're trying to keep it to a certain size. If
they expand, then at least then we have a reason to look at it again.
e
Don Finger: Maybe I can address that from the standpoint that the larger
is for the church to meet as a uni t, as a group. We have rooPI to
facilitate other uses where we break down into the smaller groups or have
other functions. There's no restraint. There will be no changes in walls
Planning COJ:III1tission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 25
e
or any of those other things other than possibly...
Batzli: I think our concern is that as you grow and you may eventually
contemplate taking out walls and making larger meeting spaces on that
floor, it'd be nice to have a set floor plan as to what was initially
contemplated so you couldn't expand without corning back in and asking for
another site plan so to speak.
Conrad: That's a good idea Brian.
Batzli: I had another
the COIllluents that have
to meet on Wednesdays.
be meeting on evenings
question. One other one. Otherwise I agree with
been made. It had to do with, you wanted to be able
Aren't there other times during the year when you'd
that wasn't Wednesday evening or a Sunday?
Don Finger: Possibly. Thanksgiving day.
Batzli: Those types of events are the ones I'm thinking of and I just
don't think it's covered adequately in these conditions right now.
EIllIllings: How about Illaking 2 and 4 alternative? Either nUIllber 2 or number
4? Would you have to have the restrictions that are contained in number 2
if for sure there was, if Bloomberg went ahead and built them parking
spaces that were adequate for their use, would you still need number 2?
e Krauss: No, but that raises a different set of issues.
Erllming s: Okay. Then forget it. I thought it was siIllple and if it's going
to get COIllpl ica ted, let's not do it.
Conrad: But 2 is not all encompassing or is not satisfactory to the
church.
Krauss: Well possibly if we nlodified it by saying full church services or
sonlething of that nature?
Batzli: But I think on a Thanksgiving evening, that it might be a full
church service.
Krauss: That's true but that wouldn't, I don't believe the Dinner Theatre
would be going at that time.
Batzli: Yeah, I don't know when the Dinner Theatre operates. ChristIllas.
Chr i stnlas Eve. I don't know.
Conrad: The Dinner Theatre doesn't, I don't know that they operate on
Christnlas Day.
e
Krauss: We're not trying to restr ict the church's freedonl of action.
There's just certain times we don't want them to have a full scale service.
Any other time they have one is fine.
Conrad: Certain times. Because?
Planning CO!,lIllission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 26
e
Wildermuth: Because of the parking?
Krauss: Right. That's the sole reason.
wilder!'luth: But I think the parking situation is addressed in 4 right?
So I really don't know why we need 2. That's kind of a tenant-landlord
situation.
Krauss: 4 is there as a fallback.
deal with any other way.
If a proble!'1 !'Iaterializes that we can't
Ellson: Even if number 2 doesn't do it...I mean if 11:00 to 1:00 and you
still have problems parking, you still have 4 to say go back and...
EITIITlings: I don't like telling the church when it can Illeet. I think they
can meet whenever they want.
Wildermuth: Right.
I agree.
EITIIllings: And if parking becomes a probleIlI, then they have to build a
parking lot or somebody has to build a parking lot.
Wildermuth: Yeah. That's a tenant-landlord problem.
_ Conrad: The only case I 'Ill interested in is if it starts affecting other.
properties that aJ~e not under the owner.ship of Bloomberg.
Batzli: We should at least make sure that the projected number of people
in these area...and I think there's a concern about that.
Krauss: There is a concern about that because it's quite clear that when
the Theatre's in operation or a Wednesday matinee or. sOIllething like that,
with the noon rush hour., there's inadequate par.king. What we want to do is
make the church or have the church fit in as inconspicuously as possible
yet there is a fallback posi tion that the Bloomberg COITlpanies will pave the
parking lot to the rear but frankly we'd just as soon that nothing had to
happen back there. The way we thought to approach that was to limit those
few hour s or few tiIlles dur ing the week that it would be inappropr ia te to
have a service.
Enmting s : So to speak.
Conrad: You know, BlooIlIberg has meeting rooms allover the place. They
have their downstair meeting room. It can hold 150 people. And therefore,
how do we schedule parking for that? Those nleetings can occur while the
Theatre is in session and we're not controlling that. They're controlling
that. They schedule thenl when they can book thenl. Their party rooms.
This is another party room.
e
Krauss:
I think we were explicit as to theatre performance.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 27
e
Conrad: I don't see it any different than when another room that Bloomberg
has to fill. You need for every square foot of space, the building code
should say you have to have so many parking spots. Period. And it should
be covered. It should be covered.
Krauss: Yes. It is covered you know and I suppose we could go through the
analysis and, say what's the Illaximum number of stalls you have to put in
here and then as a condition, require the church or Bloomberg to pave it
before allowing the church in. What we've got here though is a IllUlti-
tenant building with shared use of parking. It's the same kind of thing
that we have in the shopping center that we'll be confronted with with
Market Square. You try to avoid parking the place or supplying sufficient
parking for the day before Chr i stIllas. You try to aSSUIlle that there's going
to be some cross utilization and it's in the City's best interest to do
that. We'd just as soon see as little asphalt as necessary to adequately
serve the project. In the case of the Dinner Theatre. I think there's a
hope in the back of a lot of people's Plinds that the rear area behind the
theatre will someday be redeveloped or new developIllent could occur back
there. I just as soon not see a parking field go back in there that
prejudices the case at all against that expectation if it didn't have to.
Batzli: Is there a probleIlI right now with the aIllount of parking in the
Dinner Theatres when they're full? I guess when I've been there, there's
never been a problem parking.
e Conrad: I don't recall. There are very seldom any tiples when the front of
the hardware store is packed.
Wildermuth: Noon is about the only time and I don't think the Dinner
Theatre really has much influence on that at all because usually the
matinee attendance is so low that the main parking lot can accop~odate
that. When parking is really going to be a problePI in that whole cOIllplex
there is when that hotel cOPIes in. Parking is really going to get to be a
serious issue then.
Krauss: We had wi tnessed sOPle probleIlls on Wednesday afternoons in the
sun~er when there's a big matinee scheduled and everybody's trying to go to
the shops as well. Also, Fred Hoisington has done overall studies for that
area and shown it to be underparked. Generally it works but there are
occasions when it doesn't.
Wildermuth: There is more parking across the street too right?
Krauss: Well yeah but that's owned by another property owner. As long as
they're not parking on a street, it's really not, or blocking fire lanes or
whatever, it's really not a probleIlI.
Wildermuth: But that parking across the street is never, I've never ever
seen that filled. Day or night.
e
Conrad: So Paul, on the point number 2, you're saying you like it. The
fact of the matter is, the church is going to meet on Wednesday and they're
going to meet on holidays or they're going to meet on religious days.
Planning COIumiss ion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 28
e
That's true. They're just going to do that.
wildermuth: This would preclude that though.
Conrad: The way this is worded doesn't work for that so it's not
practical. Your solution, saying the word full still doesn't work. Do you
want to elintinate, do you want to get the intent across in this statenlent
or do you want to get sorne absolutes? We don't have the absolutes here.
This is not good enough but are you comfortable with the intent statement
more or less?
Krauss: I'm comfortable with it probably because of the minimal nature of
this proposal. The likelihood is that it's not going to cause us a
problern. We were only trying to cover our bases to avoid that potential.
If you wanted to change it, SOllie sort of directive that church services
should try to be scheduled when the Dinner Theatre is not in full operation
and then have the fallback of stipulation of condition 4, that's probably
sufficient protection.
Conrad: Okay. Brian, any other?
Batzli: No.
e
Wildermuth: ...the fact that I'm glad to see that the Public Safety
Department has looked at it because it is a wooden structure, even though
it is sprinklered. The fire potential is pretty great and because it is a
wooden structure and it's going to be a second floor Iueeting area, there's
a load factor that has to be looked at and that probably dictates that any
addition or any expansion beyond a certain nunlber like the 75 or 100 that
was mentioned here, I think that should be included in the staff
recolllIllendation. If we're looking at expansion beyond a particular number,
this thing has got to go before the Public Safety group again.
Krauss: So in other words you're establishing a maximum occupancy load?
Wildermuth: Righ~. So many people per square foot in that meeting area.
Krauss: I think we can do that easily enough. It's already been
calculated.
Wildermuth: Good. And if it exceeds that, then I think it has to go, that
has to trigger the Public Safety investigation again so that something
happens. Ei ther he shores up the first floor or sonlething. That's all.
As far as the parking is concerned, I think number 4 really adequately
covers it. If there's going to be a problenl, the landlord and tenant will
have to work it out and the lease is short enough so if there is a problenl,
18 months, nobody's going to have to live with pain too long.
Batzli: But this doesn't expire at the end of the lease term.
e
Krauss: No. In fact the temporary nature of it was good information but
it was iricidental to handling this as a site plan. Presumably once we
allow this, something like this could be there forever.
.
e
.
Planning Conmlission Meeting
Octobe~ 18, 1989 - Page 29
Batzli: People could keep b~inging in new chu~ches.
Wildenluth: My point is that if it's a p~oblem for Bloomberg, he's not
going to be incl ined to ~enew the lease or if it's a problenl fo~ the
church, they're not going to be inclined to want to ~enew the lease. I
don't think we should put a rest~iction. A time rest~iction on it.
Conrad: You mean a time in terms of the lease?
Wilde~muth: Yes.
Con~ad: That's none of my business. I don't have a...
wi Ide~.ll1u th:
I have no problem at all with the church being in here.
Conrad: On point nUlnber 2, whoever makes the Illation, I'd just elirninate
those hours. I'd just say church services shall be scheduled so they don't
coincide with performances or you can water that down o~ you can eliminate
it as far as I'm concerned. I guess we could get rid of those hours
specifically and that might soften it a little bit.
Batzli: I'd just add at the start, to the extent practical.
Con~ad: Yeah, and that makes sense to me. Site plan Paul should be, there
should be an absolute site plan. There are absolute dimensions that this
facility could expand to and that has to go to the City Council. They have
to know the physical liIllitations that we're talking about right now. The
nlax imunl occupancy. I don't know if that should be in here or not. I think
Paul's going to do something with it. I don't know how we, I don't know if
that's a recommendation. Somebody certainly could Illake that motion because
I think it' s app~op~ ia te to be found sOIlleplace. Is the~e a nlOtion?
Wilde~muth:I'll take a run at this. I'd like to move the Planning
Conmlission approve Site Plan #89-7 with the following conditions. 1. Omit
2 altogether. Include 3. Include 4 and for 2 substitute wo~ds to the
effect that the site plan is contingent upon so nlany squa~e feet with a
specified load facto~. SOIllething you'll have to work with the Public
Safety people. With the Departnlent of Public Safety having looked at this,
that means that the Fi~e Depa~tments has looked at it too?
Krauss: Yes.
Wilde~muth: Okay. That would be all.
Enmtings: I'll second it.
K~auss: Could I get a clarification on that? So stipulation 1, 3 and 4
would stand.
Wildermuth: Would stand as they are. 2 would be struck as it stands and
we substi tute a ~equi~enlent for a speci fic dimension or physical dinlensions
for the site plan and a load facto~. People restriction. Not to restrict
Planning COI'mtission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 30
e
the size of the church but just to trigger another review by the Public
Safety people.
Batzli: You don't want any sort of intent stateI'lent in the conditions that
they're going to try and schedule church services around peak parking
hours? 11:00 to 1:00 p.m.? That kind of thing.
Wi IderI"llUth: I think if he's smart, he's goi ng to try and schedule around
it. Otherwise the faithful are going to have to walk. Or Bloomberg's other
tenants are going to have to walk.
Batzli:
there.
Yeah. I guess I don't know if thel:e' s a pl:obleI'1 or not
I'm so l:al:ely at Chanhassen at noon, I don't know.
Wildel:muth: I think we've got numbel: 4 thel:e to fall back on.
Conl:ad: I agl:ee.
Wildel:muth [lloved, Erllmings seconded that the Planning Commission l:ecomnlend
that site plan *89-7 be appl:oved without val:iances subjec to the following:
1. All impl:ovements l:equil:ed by the Public Safety Depal:tnlent to bring the
space into code COI'lpl iance be completed pl: iOl: to taking occupancy.
e 2. The chul:ch is limited to the space outlined on the attached floor plan.
Maximum occupant load has been set at 80 pel:sons by the Building
Depal:tment. Any expansion of this use into othel: areas of the building
will l:equil:e additional site plan appl:oval.
3. Signage shall be consistent with nOl:mal tenant pl:ovisions. A city sign
permit is requil:ed.
4. If pal:king denland exceeds the availability of spaces in the fl:ont lot,
the building ownel: shall be l:esponsible fOl: constl:ucting additional
spaces at the l:eal: of the building. Plans fOl: the expansion al:e to be
appl:oved by City staff.
-All voted in favol: and the motion cal:l:ied.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Erl~ings moved, El:hal:t seconded to appl:ove pages 40-69 of the Planning
Con~ission Minutes dated Septembel: 20, 1989 as pl:esented. All voted in
favol: except Ladd Conl:ad who abstained and the nlOtion cal:l:ied.
e
Batzli moved, Erhal:t seconded to appl:ove the Planning Con~ission Minutes
dated Octobel: 4, 1989 as pl:esented. All voted in favor except Jinl
Wildel:muth who abstained and the motion cal:l:ied.
Planning COIl\mission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 31
e
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: On October 9th the City Council approved a grading permit for
ROIllan Roos for his office building. It's scheduled to be heard, or the
site plan is scheduled to be heard on Monday. You may recall the
discussions that we had on the curb cut there. Engineering still feels
pretty strongly that they'd like to reconmlend against the curb cut and
they've done SOIlle I1lOre wOl:k and found that it confl icts wi th some cUl:b cuts
across the stl:eet as well. But again, the Council is going to get that
with your reconmlendation as well on Monday. We had a variance request fOl:
a property on Lake Riley. Now the reason why this one's of interest to the
Planning Commission is it brought into focus problems that we have with the
ordinance in dealing with neighborhoods such as this that had unusually
configured Ol: undersized lots with older hornes on them. The Council
ul tiIllately approved a val: iance fOl: a sideyal:d setback there but after S01'le
discussion we concluded that the ordinance has some deficiencies and
probably could stand to have some language that addresses these sorts of
conditions specifically so we're not shooting in the dark trying to resolve
thenl wi th var iances every time.
Enlmings: What was the si ze of the setback that was approved on this?
e
Kl:auss: It was down to 6 feet. It has a 6 foot setback so it's a 4 foot
val:iance. In this pal:ticulal: case there wel:e 2 wings of the house that
protruded to within 6 feet of the property line. There was an open area
inbetween the two wings of the house and as a part of a substantial
rennovation, he wanted ~o infill that space which required the variance.
Enlndngs: So it was already built that way?
Krauss: There was a pre-existing condition yes. He would intensify the
variance by filling it in but we'll be adding that to the lengthy and
growing list of ordinances.
Conrad: It's growing every week.
Krauss: They were scheduled to act on Lotus Lake Homeowners Association
that you had heard but it got too late and they went home. I think we told
you the last tiIlle that we rnet that the Council was going to consider the
l:evoca tion of No:r~thwest Nurser ies cond i tional use permi t. We were
responding to a cOlllplaint nlade by a neighbor and there had been a list of
outstanding issues that had to be l:esolved fronl OUl: part as well.
Ultimately I guess you'd have to say everything was worked out. There were
some si te plan iIllprovements that would resolve gradi ng and erosion
problems. Resolve dl:ainage problems. IIlIprove screening and remove a
variance situation on a shade structure that had been constructed in the
setback. There were also dates certain set for these acts to be brought
into compliance and financial guarantees as well to bring the site into
compliance. With that the Council approved or basically reaffirmed the CUP
and did not revoke it.
e
Olsen: They al:e still going through the process though. They will be
coming in front of the Planning Conmtission in a couple of months for an
Planning C01\lruission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 32
e
amendment to their conditional use permit and the wetland alteration
permit. The SaIlte thing that was before you in January with some of the
questions answered.
Batzli: Does that sideyard setback impact that person that wanted to
subdivide on Pleasant View at all? That long skinny lot? He didn't have
enough setback frOIlt the road. Are you going to be addressing any of that
type of thing? You have the same situation where the lots were created a
long time ago.
Olsen: Which lot is this?
Batzli: The one on Pleasant View.
Olsen: Curly McNutt?
Batzl i : I think so. Well, it was about, I don't know, a couple hundred
feet in from TH 101. He didn't have enough setback froot the road was the
problent. He didn't have enough depth in his lot. It was a long skinny
lot.
Olsen: Curly McNutt.
Krauss: And there was insufficient lot area.
e Batzli: Was there lot area also deficiency? Okay.
Krauss: No, what we were trying to address or to attempt to specifically
deal wi th those areas that had been platted before the ordinance caI1'te into
existence and has a bunch of smaller homes or cottages where people are
expanding.
Olsen: Carver Beach. Red.Cedar Point.
Batzli: What are you trying to take into account then? People that are
already. . .
Krauss: Well the fact that those neighborhoods are out of compliance to
begin with and that if the ordinance is used in a punitive way to prevent
these properties front being upgraded, the better interest of the City is
probably not being served. The goal of it would be to come up with some
sort of a flexible standard that recognizes those deficiencies in those
neighborhoods and tries to deal with it. There's been an ad placed in the
paper for the vacant position on the Planning Con~ission. I'm not sure if
it's been published yet but it should be shortly if it has not been and
there was a Noventber 1 deadline for applications that was set.
Conrad: So in two weeks can we review applicants?
Krauss: Well, that actually might work. If we can contact everybody in a
e suff ic ient arllount of time.
~
Planning Corllmission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 33
e
Conrad: I hate to wait another nlOnth. By the tinle we review thenl, if we
make a decision. Get it to City Council and get them in here, we're
talking another 6 weeks. We shouldn't wait that long.
Krauss: We'll certainly try.
Conrad: We should also, any applicants that have had their names in, we
should reinforIlI them. We've turned down a couple of thenl a couple times.
Olsen: We always tell them on the third time.
Conrad: Third time. Third time is magic.
Krauss: The last thing is we have a special meeting scheduled to work on
the land use plan for next week. We're actually going to be bringing you a
map with magic markers so we can start putting pen to paper. Mark Koegler
and I have taken a crack at it and we've worked with Jo Ann and Gary Warren
and we think that there's sufficient information for people to start
looking at it and really having sOIllething they can see and touch and work
with it that way.
Wildermuth: We're planning to meet next Wednesday night?
Krauss: Right.
e
wildermuth:
Is there a chance we could move that up?
Krauss: Up which way?
Wildermuth: To Tuesday night.
Krauss: We investigated meeting on Tuesday and that did not work for Mark
Koegle:r.. We had sorlie other requests to do that so we called everybody and
tried to figure Ollt whether Wednesday or Thursday would be better. It
seerlled 1 i ke Wednesday would.
wildermuth: I'll be gone both days.
Conrad: Can everybody else make that?
Erhart: Thursday's out. Wednesday's very difficult for me. I can take a
later flight but I'd still have to leave here about 10 after 9:00 so my
request with Paul, if we have to have it Wednesday, to have it as early as
possible. I request that the Conmission consider an earlier meeting if
possible.
Enlnlings: I can Illeet earlier. 6:30.
I can do that.
ElIson: I could do that.
e
Conrad: I probably could. Can you make it at 6:30? You have a tough time
making it at 7:30.
Planning Comfl\ission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 34
-
Batzli: Yeah, I can.
Erhart: Going back to Council issues. Is Council dealing with the issue
of the Halla Nursery subdivision? Right now because their time was up to
actually do the subdivision.
Olsen: They gave them a 5 year time line that they had to plat the whole
property or else the plat was void and they'd have to go through the
process again.
Erhart: That was sonlething that was done recently?
Olsen: Yeah.
Erhart: Because I would just hope that the City would not put anybody in
the position that would encouraging people to subdivide the rural land into
2 1/2 acre lots. I don't think that's probably a good one. I understood
that we might be actually forcing them to complete the subdivision today.
Olsen: Actually it is.
Krauss: I had heard from somebody today that I think there's an ad in the
paper saying that they're selling plant stock because the City's making
then\ do it.
_ Erhart: I heard that today too and I got a little disturbed and I said,
gee we certainly don't want to be in a position of forcing people to
subdivide rural lots. I'm glad it's not the case.
Batzli: It might be in 5 years.
Erhart: Hopefully we would reconsider then in 5 years. The situation may
be different. I'd like to see it indefinitely. If we're looking to put on
the record here.
Olsen: I think the factor in that though is they had no intention of ever
platting it so the Council is saying, well then, they went through and they
weren't going to plat it for 20 or 30 years.
Erhart: Right. We discussed that with that applicant when they carne in
and did that plat. I thought that was pretty clear to everybody during
that meeting that they had no intention of doing it.
Conrad: Then why did they do it?
Erhart: Because we changed our ordinance.
Efllmings: To grab the 2 1/2.
-
Conrad: Absolutely. So they want it to their advantage.
Erhart: I understand that Ladd. I'm just saying it's to no one's
advantage to encourage rural land owners to subdivide their land. We'll
,
..L.
Planning Conmission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 35
-
take whatever position we have to take so we don't find ourself in a
position of forcing people to do that.
Conrad: But then why did they come in and ask for the 2 1/2?
Erhart: Because the City, at the encouragernent of Met Council, we down
zoned every rural landowner's land without compensation. They found
themself in that position and I guess rather than suing the city, they took
that route. That's why they did that.
Conrad: They don't have to develop. They don't have to develop.
Erhart: No. But the fact is that the City, by changing their ordinance,
we downzoned their property. We took sonlething of value away from that
property owner and we forced them in a position to react.
Conrad: But if they had no intention of developing it for 30 years,
I wouldn't have done anything.
e
Erhart: Let's say they did want to develop in 25 years, you can look at
our ordinance today and say, in the prior ordinance they could have
developed it into 2 1/2 acre lots. Now we were changing it and let's say
they did want to do it in 25 years. Now we have an ordinance that says
they can't do it even in 25 years from now. I think we put, the City put
thelll in this position. That's the whole big philosophical argulllent and
probably some day will be a legal one but I just want to make sure we're
or I just wanted to express that I don't want to find us in a position
where we're encouraging subdivision of rural land and apparently they found
a solution. A temporary solution.
Conrad: We have a note frolll Sieben, Grose and Enmtings here.
Batzli:
list.
I couldn't find his nallle on there. Oh, there it is. Way down the
EIlmlings: Oh, you're so funny.
Conr ad :
I looked under counsel. Steve, do you want to introduce this?
Ellmlings: No. I just threw it out for consideration. I assumed it was
something we'd cover. I assumed it was something that would be covered at
the meeting next week.
Conrad: Anything you want to bring up on this subject Paul?
Krauss: No. I guess particularly in view of the fact of the late hour in
which you got your packet, it's kind of tough to get into that in detail at
this point.
e
Conrad: You're just lucky Headla wasn't here tonight. Actually we're
lucky. We saved 5 minutes of ranting and raving. Actually when I called
Paul about the packets, he said it was his new strategy. He wanted more of
a natural reaction to things other than any kind of detailed review. Okay,
Planning Corunlission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 36
-
let's talk about Steve's things next week in our meeting. There's a note
here on land use planning workshop.
Batzli:
Is that a hint?
Conrad: I assunle there's nloney to fund somebody to go? What is it,
$35.00?
Krauss: It's pretty reasonable.
Batzli: Where is it?
Krauss: There's a couple of the. There's one in Bloomington on NoveIllber
30th and then later in February in Brooklyn Center.
Olsen: Inte}~esting things. SOI\'letimes they're pretty good.
Conrad: Well Paul is there anybody on the Conmlission that you think really
needs to go? I went to one once upon a time a long time ago and it was
good.
Emmings: Do they offer anything in letters and teaching you how to write
lette}~s to the editor to your fellow corl\Illission members or anything like
that if you don't agree with them?
e
Conrad: As you get on the cop~ission for a couple years,
less inclined to go to stuff like this. However, the new
on, it's ablost like, I'd like to make it a requirement.
but I'd heavy hand them to get to it. I really would put
pressure as we could to get a new member there.
you get less and
people that are
Not a requirement
on as Pluch
EIlmlings: I was thinking just the other way around. I was thinking this
would probably actually mean something to me now.
Conrad: That's probably true.
Enlnting s : When I was real new...
Conrad: But you're not real motivated anymore.
EIlmtings: I'd like to. It's just tinle you know. There are 3 or 4 of them
here that I thought sounded real good. That one, Beyond the Basics one
looked good to me. The Planning Institute looked good. That Planned unit
Development approach to Land Development looked real interesting to me.
And Updating your Comprehensive Plan. What could be more relevant? I
don't know.
Batzli:
target.
e EIlIPlings: Or starting to.
If we went to the one in April, we'd probably be right about on
Batzli: Yeah, or starting to. We might get past the goals by then I think.
I;~ __
Planning COI'IDllssion Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 37
e
EI'Imings: Maybe if one person could go to one, I don't know. We could do a
little report back you know kind of thing. Get different people to
different ones.
Conrad: Was there anybody else interested in going?
Erhart: Any of these in Miami?
Batzli: Actually had one for CLE credits not too long ago steve. I don't
know if you saw that.
ErtlI'tings: No, really. Now that'd be interesting.
Com:ad:
It'd be nice if somebody could go.
ErtlIllings: How long do we have to get to you? Some time yet I think.
Krauss: Well there's a whole series of meetings so just let us know.
We'll sign you up.
Conrad: The trouble is, if you don't get a cOIlmtitment right now, it's not
going to happen. Anything else?
e
Krauss: Yeah, two other things that we'll touch on a little briefly if we
could. In your packet there was some recent articles on development...in
the Minnesota Real Estate Journal. We were featured as the headline
article in the Real Estate Journal. They did an update on the City that I
thought was fairly upbeat. It talked a little bit about MUSA line issues.
Chanhassen chugs along.
Erhart: Did the first downtown plan show 4 lanes street down there?
Krauss: Probably. The original BRW plan? I think I recall that.
Elllllling s: IIi ke your optimism Paul.
e
Krauss: After talking to the editor, apparently he used some of that
conversation to make their editorial statement for the week on Chanhassen
and MUSA line issnes in general which was a little bit taken out of context
and I'm not sure what their point was at the end of it but I guess it was
well meaning anyway. But contrasting that, on the back page is the
editorial by steve Keefe on the Metro Council and he speaks glowingly of
the MUSA system in general terms and a desire to see it maintained. I put
that in there because depending on how you interpret it, there could be
SOllIe conflict between the two. We shall see. Also, I've got in your
packet or I just handed out tonight information on a meeting that I held
with Metro Council's staff on Tuesday. Basically I wanted to sit down with
Metro Council's staff and reviewing whatever we come up with in the guide
plan process and first of all let them know that we're doing sOlllething
because they were not aware of what we were doing and secondly to layout a
strategy for taking it through a review. I'd have to say that the staff
person I Illet wi th was Ann Perlbert who is the director of whatever their
local pl.anning assi stance departIllent becaI'Ie. She's the person that would
Planning Cornmission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 38
e
coordinate the review. Was very receptive to the process and Mark and I
had put together a paper that's attached to this that basically lays out
how lllUCh developable land we have left in the city and how rapidly we're
using it and it fits well within the Metro Council's guidelines.
Apparently they feel we should have a 10 year supply of land plus a 5 year
cushion. At best we have about a 7 year supply of residential land and
virtually nothing left in industrial so we left without talking about
specifics. About a plan but feeling a little bit upbeat about how this
would be reviewed by the Metro Council. I think it's important to note
that Ann is relatively new down there and she came out of local planning.
She's not somebody that came up through the ranks in the Metro Council
which is refreshing in a way. She's dealt wi th the sallie kinds of problellls
we have to so we'll keep you informed on that.
Conrad: Good. Anything else?
Batzli: Yes. The fill that's been happening on Pleasant View by Powers
Blvd. there. Just kind of north of where the water tower is. What's
happening there? Is anybody watching that? Did we approve that?
Olsen: South of the water tower?
Batzli: North of the water tower.
e
Krauss: Is that Art Owens?
Conrad: Out by Art Owens, right.
Olsen: Right. Yes, we are looking at that one. It is Art Owens'
property. It's another one of those cases that he doesn't feel it's a
wetland and so we are going through the process wi th him to require hilll to
go through the wetland alteration permit.
Batzli: He not only dUIllped it but he graded it now.
Olsen: Since this week?
Batzli: In the last 3 weeks. He used to just have piles of dirt and he's
smoothed it out now.
Olsen: Over on the east side?
Batzli: Yes. All the way around the little swalllp.
Olsen: We've been out there twice with the Fish and Wildlife and with the
Corps and it is a wetland and they have filled it. They haven't filled in
the open water area yet. Actually, the reason it all came to light was
that they callie to apply for perlllission to dUlllp contalllinated fill so that's
when we went out and went whoa. I said, not that's a wetland so we went
out and checked it out. Again, it takes a long time.
e
Erhar t : Is thi s a case where we can lllake the guy relllOve it and restore
it?
Planning Corllmission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 39
e
Olsen: Oh yeah but what we determined...
ElIson: Why doesn't he like stop until this is all resolved?
Olsen: He hasn't dumped anything new that we can tell.
Batzli: Have you been out thel:e since it's been smoothed ovel:?
01 sen: I was out thel:e last week.
El:hal:t: Can you do a stop wOl:k?
Olsen: Yeah, we did that and we have them even put up a posting where the
dl:iveway was because fOl: a while thel:e they wel:e dumping asphalt and we had
thern l:emove that. It's on two propel: ties so tha t 's why it's a 1 i ttle
difficult. Plus we wel:e tl:ying to work thl:ough the pel:son who was applying
to put the contaminated fill.
Conl:ad: What's the contaminated fill?
Olsen:
I'm not exactly SUl:e. Gasoline.
Batzli: Thel:e was a lot of that sitting thel:e in Tanka Bay.
e Olsen: I think that's where it was coming from. Minnetonka. Lake
Minnetonka.
Batzli: There was an underground tank that had leaked and they had just
mounds of this contaminated fill and they couldn't find anyplace to dump
it. They put tarps over it and it just sat there for about a year.
Olsen: That's why they wanted to move it.
Ernrllings: Where was this?
Batzli: County Road 19. Right where it takes the cornet at Tonka Plaza
there.
EIlIIllings: Where they put in that new gas station?
Batzli: Yep. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the nursery on
78th street. Lotus? Is that the new one there? Is that all they're going
to do for landscaping and berming? They've been open for almost a year
now. They've got 2 little sickly pine trees in front.
Eilmtings: He can't get a hold of any.
e
Olsen: I bel ieve he did submi t a letter. of credi t to cover for that and he
was in this fall requesting an extension. I'll have to double check on
that one but we do have the letter. of credit covering that.
e
e-
e
Planning Comruission Meeting
October 18, 1989 - Page 40
Batzli: It just seems to me that that kind of company, if they can't have
that in there in a week, it's just beyond me how they can stay in business.
Olsen: He's conling in. He canle in again this fall claiming that what he
has out there is plant material and he'd be screening plant material with
plant material. It's not a done deal but I'll look into that. Also I
think that one of the reasons is that the City is still working on the
ponding area back there and we're still trying to plat it and go through a
wetland alteration permit. He might be waiting for that. For those final
inlprovenlents.
Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m..
Subnti tted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim