Loading...
1986 12 03 I I I 23 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving and Councilwoman Watson Mayor Hamilton was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy and Jo Ann Olsen PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE, FIRST RFADING. Councilman Geving stated that the purpose of this special meeting was to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Council would welcome input from the public and that input will be taken and included in the record. Councilman Geving stated that after tonight's review, this item will be brought back on December 15th at the regular City Council meeting. They probably will not have any further input that night and will immediately go into a voting session on it and it will become the Zoning Ordinance for the City so the special meeting tonight is the public's chance to speak on the issue. Councilman Horn also stated that the Council has all the comments from the public from past meetings and the input tonight should be limited to information that has not been presented before. Barbara Dacy: It was about a year ago this month that the Planning Commission was conducting informal sessions with the Homeowners Association groups and the Chamber of Commerce and conducted an informational meeting for any of the homeowners in the area to attend the meeting. Prior to that the Planning Commission has been working on this document for two years. Official public hearings were conducted in February and March of this past year and I recognize many of the faces here tonight. As the Acting Mayor noted, submitted written comments have been included in the Council packets as well as the verbatim Minutes from those meetings. Since Planning Commission reviewal, Council has made some general revisions to the map and to the text. I would like to review those briefly. As to the map, the district title names have been changed so that a novice looking at the Zoning Ordinance could easily determine basically what the intent of that district was. I'll start at the beginning. The agricultural districts are two, A-I and A-2. The A-I is the Agricultural Preserve District and the A-2 being Agricultural Estate District. If you look at the map, the A-2 Zone covers primarily the entire southwestern area of the city in the rural service area outside of the MUSA line. The next District that is proposed is the RR, Rural Residential District which is located in the area that the Lake Ann Interceptor will someday serve. It is basically between the north side of TH 5 and the southern boundary of the MUSA line. Then what is proposed is one Single Family District that was known previously as RlB is now known as RSF, Residential Single Family. Minimum lot size if 15,000 square feet. Changes on the map are very few because the RSF mirrors what the existing single family 1 24- City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 development in Chanhassen. The District that was eliminated was what was known as the RlC which is an one acre minimum lot size district abutting Christmas Lake. Multiple Family Districts range from R-4 to R-12. There are three multiple family Districts, R-4, R-8 and R-12. Each being the amount of density allowed in each of those districts. The Planning Commission had proposed a R-15, however, that District was eliminated. Commercial Districts include the Neighborhood Business District, which is proposed at the American Legion site and the strip commercial site that is now under construction in the Hidden Valley development. The Business Highway District, which is located primarily along West 79th Street and TH 5. CED, the Central Business District which is actually the downtown area. BG is the General Business District and is located west of the downtown area to Powers Blvd. on the north and south side of West 78th Street. The Fringe Business District is located down on TH 169 and TH 212 in two locations where the existing SuperAmerica and motel are and then a district has been located adjacent to the Gedney Plant. Finally, there is proposed an Officejlnsitutional District which is located in this area where City Hall and the Post Office is and the school and for example over where St. Hubert's Church is and finally, that district is also proposed in the southwest corner of TH 7 and TH 41 to match the previous office zoning approved there. Industrial Parks have been zoned as lOP, Industrial Office Park. The Business Park, Ward Property as the CPT and The Press. You have seen POD's on the map. 'lhose are zoning districts applied to developments that have already been approved by the Council. The regulations and approvals that were granted as part of that process will govern the development in those particular areas. Changes in the map have been approximately two areas since Planning Commission consideration. On what was once known as the Highpath Farm which is now owned by Eckankar, the frontage of that property was proposed as commercial but it has now been proposed as High Density as R-12 transitioning it to R-4 in the middle and then into the RSF on the northern part of the property. 'lhe second area that has changed is the area south of the Business Park and has been additional multiple family area proposed immediately south to that area and a redistricting of the densities in that area. As to the text and the items that the Acting Mayor referred to, the text includes new regulations regarding the enforcement of the one unit per 10 acre density requirement in the rural area and the Council is aware that many landowners are here tonight regarding determination of when an effective date for plat application should be made. Secondly, the proposed Ordinance contains revised Fence regulations that have not heretofore been instituted. Fence regulations apply to not only boundary fences but also to fences in the lakeshore lots as well as around swimming pools. Again, this is not currently enforced. Next, the Planning Commission has also recommended inclusion of regulations regarding to off premise signage for directional signs to new developments in town and that is included in the Ordinance. The Council will also be looking at the site plan review procedure and tree removal guidelines. As point of general information, the proposed Ordinance contains regulations on satellite dishes. Also contains SPeCific requirements on landscaping which has not been currently enforced. There will be a requirement also for installation of a two car garage for any single family home built in the City. There has been a provisions made for if you wanted to construct an unclosed backyard allowing a certain amount that you can encroach into the setback without needing a variance. In summary, the proposed Ordinance streamlines regulations, resolves a lot of issues that have 2 I I I I I I Qr].O, L-cJ. a '"-. City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 come up in the past three years that the City has had to deal with and more importantly it is heading toward consistency between our Comprehensive plan and Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Geving: Let me repeat what I said earlier, this meeting tonight was really intended to be a second work session for the City Council to discuss the proposed Zoning Ordinance. We had met earlier and we had made a number of recommended changes which we now see before us as the First Reading and we have had a number of public input meetings so we have had an opportunity for all of you to speak at one time or another I'm sure but I'm going to make an opportunity again for you to be brief to state your views and then we will move right on into the Council consideration of these items because I know that each of the Council members also have a number of questions and many notes and we must get through this document tonight. We must have 100 pages of information in front of us and we're not going to go through each page, page by page but we are going to go through the changes to those pages so I want to keep the discussion limited. Also, the map that you see before you tonight, this map, this is the first time we've seen this map. This is a new map as the result of our last planning session so a lot of the items on there are in our minds fairly well fixed because it is a result of a lot of previous discussion. With that I would like to entertain comments from the public at this time. Try to be brief if you can and your notes or anything that you want to present will be turned over to the Staff for consideration on the 15th or for later discussion this evening. Donald Peterson: I'm a single homeowner and I was wondering, did you send out letters to all the Association Presidents about the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes and if so, why not to single family dwelling owners? Councilman Geving: You must understand, we have approximately 2,800 homes in the City of Chanhassen and it has always been our view and it is one that is supported by our City Attorney and others that it is really up to the individual homeowners to know when meetings are taking place at the City Council level and those meetings are posted in the official newspaper which is the South Shore News and that has been done. To provide every individual with a notification of every special meeting would be very difficult. Donald Peterson: I'm just saying anything that pertains to the use of your property, you should be notified if it is going to be changed, the use of your property. Now, when you had a leaf pick-up, you managed to get a flyer to every homeowner in the City, you manage to get a personal postcard to every homeowner in the City and that is really irrelevant compared to some of the dramatic things that are taking place now with. the use of our property and this is the first time a lot of these people that even affects businesses... Councilman Geving: I'll cut you off if you're not germain. Where do you live and what is your statement? Donald Peterson: Well, I'm saying that I haven't been notified. As a haneowner I haven't been notified. As a haneowner I don't feel... 3 250 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I can tell you as a City Council person, you're not ever going to get this kind of notification for a special meeting. I Donald Peterson: Then I guess the only thing that I would like to say is that maybe they should put something in the Ordinance that homeowners should be contacted when anything changes to the usage or the way they have to take care of their property. The City of Minneapolis seems to have no trouble and they have a lot more people to deal with than the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Geving: let's move on to the next individual case. Bill Engelbretson: I'm from the Greenwood Shores Association. This is the first time that we've seen the new proposal and I guess our first impression would be to congratulate you on some improvement in what the first proposal was and we would like to discuss among ourselves some and get back with you on the 15th. Councilman Geving: Okay, remember Bill that we probably will not be doing a lot of discussion on the 15th. What we did with the area adjacent to Greenwood Shores is make a very substantial change in the Zoning for what you now know as the Eckankar property. If that is the property that you are speaking of. Bill Engelbretson: Yes, the area next to Greenwood Shores. That is our primary concern. Councilman Geving: Do you object to the proposed zoning as we are planning it? I Bill Engelbretson: I see it as an improvement over what you wanted before and we will reserve our judgment until after we have talked about it more amongst ourselves. Councilman Geving: I think what we've done there is a substantial improvement for the City. Mary Ann Hanson: I'm not a homeowner here but we do have a business and ,I guess my question pertains to the same thing, why were not all the businesses notified? I shouldn't say businesses, business people notified of this meeting tonight because my feeling is that there is not the representation at this meeting, which is very important, not just for business people but for homeowners. What is the percentage of Chanhassen population that is here tonight and I go along with this gentlemen. 'Ihese people need to be notified by mail. You are not working with your community by not notifying them and I don't live here. I work here and I can see it. Councilman Geving: Let me say this Mary Ann. This is not a public hearing. The public hearings took place over the last year... Mary Ann Hanson: But what percentage of the people... I 4 I I I 210-:1 # -'.' '.' ,-.,;;.-1 ,-i' _~,.;_ City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Very high. This room was filled on several occasions. The people who had attended those meetings. Mary Ann Hansen: How many people fit in this room, 100? Councilman Geving: Probably 150. Mary Ann Hansen: And we're talking a population of how many thousand in Chanhassen? Councilman Geving: What I think you are finding is that most of the people had inti tial comments were at those early meetings and those were publ ic i hearings. We had public hearings on this at least twice and we had a work session on this one previous time. I believe you are a Chamber member and that was also posted in the Chanhassen Post so you would have gotten notification there as a business person. Mary Ann Hanson: I still feel there is not the representation that should be here tonight. people have to be notified. You're not working with them. Barbara Dacy: I would also like to say that I spoke twice at Chamber meetings and we used the Chamber to mail out notifications about meetings. We also did that last year. As a matter of fact, the Planning Commission conducted the specific session for the Chamber and I spoke in front of the Chamber about a week before that meeting. Mary Ann Hanson: I'm still going back to the homeowners of O1anhassen. '!he percentage that are not, they don't know about this. Barbara Dacy: I thought you were speaking about the business people. Mary Ann Hanson: I'm also concerned about the homeowners. Barbara Dacy: May I finish my comment? We used the Homeowners Associations as a primary vehicle to get the word out. It seems that we have a strong group of homeowners associations out there and they did participate throughout the whole process. Mary Ann Hanson: '!hen why wasn't this man sent a notice? I guess this is where I go back to. The South Shore News is something that you pick up if you want it. '!herefore, how many people really are aware of what is going on? There are so many people that won't pick up the paper. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's the citizen's responsibility though. You can't expect the City to mail out a card to every individual citizen. It would cost a fortune to do that as often as we have a public hearing. '!he public hearings are published in the newspaper. The citizens, as the Mayor so frequently says, the citizens of the City and the people who have businesses here have a certain responsibility for their own care and we can't lead everybody by the hand and I sympathize with what you are saying and I think it is unfortunate but the newspaper is free. All anybody has to do is pick it up 5 C])q~ L,J $....... ..."d City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 and scan the page and they can tell when there is going to be a public hearing. I Mary Ann Hanson: w?ll, if they don't pick up the newspaper. Councilwoman Swenson: That really is their responsibility. All they have to do is pick up a newspaper that doesn't cost anything. It is available at at least 8 different establishments in this city. OUr City isn't that big but I'm sure you go into one of these places all the time and it is published. We have public hearings at the Planning Commissin level on everything that effects people in this city and this is more, frankly we do more to notify people than the law requires. Councilman Geving: '!he only other thing I want to say to Mrs. Hansen is that within the last week, in fact probably on Monday of this week you should have received the Chanhassen Post. Every citizen in the City of Chanhassen receives it. Mary Ann Hanson: It came today. Councilman Geving: I received my yesterday so that is almost 3,000 homeowners that were on that mailing list. Councilman Horn: And that was only for this meeting. '!he Chamber publications have continually said you should be notified of what is going on I in the City. A Zoning Ordinance is happening that is going to affect all of you. This has been going on for several years. It's not a last minute thing that has suddenly come about. '!his meeting certainly wasn't arranged two years ago but the fact that this whole process was going on shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. It came through all of the publications. Mary Ann Hanson: This has been going on for over 10 years and don't you think there are a lot of people that have really gotten soured with the idea that is there really something happening? Councilman Geving: I don't believe that. Councilwoman SWenson: The Zoning Ordinance hasn't been for 10 years. Councilman Geving: We make every attempt to do exactly what you are talking about and that is in the form of a publ ic hearing. In fact this meeting tonight is a special meeting which we didn't have to have but we felt that it was important for us to get as much Council input into this before we voted on this before the 15th and that's why we're having this particular meeting. Butch Harvey: Do you have any smaller maps of the new detail map? Barbara Dacy: '!his what you see here tonight is the only size that we have right now. If you want to stop by tomorrow, that's fine we can make you a copy. I Butch Harvey: Can we pick it up then to see if our area has changed? 6 I I I 2' Q, CD,', ~(J0 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: This is the first time we've seen this ourselves Butch. If this becomes a firm document tonight or certainly by the 15th, this will be available to anyone who wants to pick up a copy. Like Barb said, if you want to drop by tomorrow, she will make you a copy and reduce this for you. I don't believe that there is any significant changes in your area. Barbara, do you recall any in the Lake Lucy area that Mr. Harvey lives in? Barbara Dacy: No, the Pleasant Hills area is zoned as a POD. Everything around that remains as RSF and anything outside of the MUSA line is zoned as the RR which is basically single family homes and agricultural uses. Butch Harvey: We were RlA out there. Barbara Dacy: Now you have become the RR. Councilman Geving: What we did is we had about 20 different designations for zones and RlA was merely changed to RR, Rural Residential. It is the same as what you had before. The actual description of that did not change. Butch Harvey: Except you could do different things in Rl that you can't in RR. Barbara Dacy: I'm not sure of your exact location. Councilman Geving: He's on the north side of Lake Lucy Road along CR 17. Councilwoman Watson: He's outside of the MUSA line. Councilman Geving: presentation Butch? Didn't you pick that up when she gave you that I don't think there were any changes there. Butch Harvey: My concern is that the kind of description of what can be done in that area. Councilwoman Watson: All we did when we came to the titles, we felt that the titles should back what they were so if you read the title you would have some concept of what it was. The old titles were just that. You had to look at the titles and then find a description. This way the title in itself is a descri pti on. Councilman Geving: For example, RSF is just Residential Single Family. It is very easy and R4 means that you can have four homes to the acre. Butch Harvey: I'm concerned about having horses up there. I'm not concerned about houses. Barbara Dacy: That hasn't changed. Don Chmiel: '!he only comment I had was on your Table of Contents, under Article V, District Regulations, Section 8. It is designated as R-12, Medium Density and I think that should be changed to High. 7 C', (:) .0 L'J cJ LJi: City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Oh, absolutely. That is the highest density. You are absolutely right. That's a good catch. There will be some of these typos but that is definitely an error. I Brad Johnson: I guess the reason I was here is that as far as the downtown area is concerned, Barb sent me a letter stating that there was some concern that we had in our downtown plan a plan for a gas station. We have since changed that. That was primarily there because we assumed that Loren Anderson wanted to remain downtown and we had a problem. We're not so concerned about having a gas station there. We do know that the dynamics of the convenience business is such that many of the so called convenience stores of the types of the Tom Thumbs, Kennys, not the Super Q, not the Holidays, not SuperAmerica, have in their format one, two or three gas pumps. We would like to see in the downtown that be a Conditional Use if in fact it met the sign cri teria so we do not cause somebody not to be able to come into that area with a convenience store sometime in the future. We don't have one all ready to move in but I'm just saying that is something we are concerned about. Barbara Dacy: What he is requesting, if the Council so desires, is to list a use under the Conditional Use Section stating convenience stores with gas pumps designed to meet the overall intent and design criteria of the downtown redevelopment plan. CUrrently right now you are allowing convenience, retail stores without gas pumps as a permitted use. Councilman Geving: We'll discuss that. I purposely don't see anything wrong I with that as a Conditional Use because it would have to come before the Council as a condition anyway. Yes, there will be others like that that we can condition so we'll discuss that here but I don't see any problem with that Brad. Bill Boyt: I have a couple of questions. One of them I have is reading through this, is this Ordinance designed to address the situation that we would have of Chan view and Frontier where there is probably 6-7 cars? Are you familiar with that house? Councilman Horn: You mean 76th Street. Councilman Geving: You're talking about Frontier Trail with the house on the corner and how this would clean up that situation? Bill Boyt: No, is this what we would address that situation with or is there a better instrument in the City? There are 6 or 7 cars that are parked on that yard. Councilwoman Swenson: If they are all licensed, there is nothing we can do about it. Councilwoman Watson: '!he Nuisance Ordinance... Councilman Geving: There are severals ways that you can approach that. We know of that particular problem. '!here is a boat there, 5 or 6 vehicles. I don't believe it would be addressed here. That is more of a nuisance problem I 8 I I I Gf,ns ;':..j.",." -' City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 or a health problem. If any of those vehicles are unlicensed, we can attack it. If they pose a health problem with tires or anything else that gather mosquitos but not here. Bill Boyt: Okay, so that was one question. Then in distance, it sort of addresses what these people were talking about but I remember in a Planning Commission session and in one of those there was a discussion about notification. When there is a change, who is going to be notified and one of the changes that you made in the Ordinance, I think it was a change, that every body around a lake would be notified if there was a change in that right? And I think in this recent thing with Frontier Trail where people within 250 feet, is that correct? Barbara Dacy: 350 feet. Bill Boyt: I notice that in this Ordinance you talk about 500 feet. Does that includes things like Frontier Trail and anything within 500 feet? Councilman Geving: Sure. Bill Boyt: Now, it strikes me and the things that we talked about a little bit at the Planning Commission is that there are a lot of areas, it seems in Chanhassen where 500 feet gets you nothing. If somebody comes in and they want to do a 2 1/2 acre something, 500 feet from that, it might run into nothing but corn so how is this addressed? Letting the people know who are going to be impacted? Barbara Dacy: The rationale behind increasing the radius for notification. The 350 was established by State Statute and you are correct, during the Planning Commission process, the Commission had the same concern about who is notified and who is not. During our deliberations I think it was just determined that the people immediately around that area and increasing it to 500 feet was the recommendation of the Planning Commission also. Bill Boyt: Barbara, look at the difference between let's take Lotus Lake. Okay, so somebody is going to put a boat access or dock on Lotus Lake so we now are required by our Ordinance that whoever is doing that has to make an attempt to notify everybody around and we know that is significantly more than 500 feet and there is a good reason for that. I'm just saying that I would like you to address, is that really a magic number or should we be talking about some combination of that in the people? Councilman Geving: What it comes down to many times, when you are talking about cornfields and property, we then apply a little bit of judgment and look at the property owners who are adjacent to the proposed construction project or whatever it is. At that point we expand well beyond the 350 feet or 500 feet. We look at the property owners in the area and that is the only other tool that we use. I'm sure that Sever has been notified many times of property that is going to be buH t on or proposed to be buH t on and it could be half mile from the action so I know that has happened Sever and I'm sure you will agree with that so we do apply some judgmental factors when it gets to the cornfield situation. 9 286 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Bill Boyt: It might be worth a line in the Ordinance to give you that kind of flexibility. If nobody else wants to talk after I'm done... I Councilman Geving: No, I'm going to close this. We've got a lot of things to talk about here Bill. We must move on. Now if you want to make another statement that is fine but I've given you 3 or 4 mintues already. We have over 100 pages of documentation. Bill Boyt: You have got 5-6 pages in which I think there are some serious considerations that maybe the public would like to put input. Counc i lman Gev ing : Let's have it. Bill Boyt: (Xl page 79 you talk about wetland areas. It says that the City Council may exempt land from the wetland regulation if it finds that the land is not in fact a wetland. Does that mean that the five people on the City Council decide if something is a wetland or not? Barbara Dacy: What would happen is that, as a matter of fact there have been cases that wetlands have not, in the Chan vista case, have not been identified as wetlands on the official map. What we would do and what we have done in the past is that we notify the Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers and they come out and inspect it. If their interpretation is that it is useless, it is essentially dying than Staff would require them to submit a letter and Staff would make a recommendation that it be removed. The I wetland regulations are the same regulations that were adopted by the Council a few years ago. No changes have occurred since then. Bill Boyt: Okay, this is real quick. On page 87, you talk about PeOple moving into a new house. The question I have there is do we have, and maybe there is another place for it, a Certificate of Occupancy? You talk about a Certificate of Occupancy several times in here but when it comes to single family dwellings, I see nothing that says that PeOple can't move in there before that Certificate of Occupancy is completed for that dwelling. Barbara Dacy: Okay, that would be on page 27. Applicatin for a.CO shall be made to the City as part of an application for a building permit. The CO shall be issued by the City following completion of the building permit activity and a determination that the building and its prposed use complies with this Ordinance etc., etc.. Bill Boyt: So under single family homes, we don't need to say you have to have it before you can move in? Councilman Geving: Absolutely must have it. Bill Boyt: That what it says on page 27 there. Okay, I won't take more time there. Page 94, having moved here from Florida, it is six feet in Florida, are we convinced that four feet is good enough in Minnesota when where they have pools allover the place it is six feet? Barbara Dacy: Four feet came from use Requirements. I 10 I I I 6l';nr-7 /JUa City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Bill Boyt: page 120, you do a lot of stuff on signage. I found it interesting that a construction sign was the biggest sign you allow, 50 square feet, 5 by 10. You let one go in each major road. Do we really want a construction sign... Councilman Geving: What's your problem with this particular sign? Bill Boyt: I think we do a lot to restrict the size of signs and 50 square feet is a lot of sign. You've got signs down there that are 10 square feet, that are giving significant pieces of information. I'm just saying, do we really want a sign that large in that area? Councilman Geving: Yes. You must remember that when this was built, it was requested by developers who needed the exposure and it is only intended to be there for one year or until a significant number of the units in that development have been sold. For example, in Pheasant Hills. Bill Boyt: But this is not a developer. Councilman Geving: We're talking here about a construction sign. It is exactly what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about and I'm telling you that we built this in to the Ordinance so that a developer who was off the main road and had a development could get exposure on the highway for a period or one year or until a certain percentage of the development is sold and it makes a lot of sense. Developers are asking for that am we granted that on a temporary basis. That's why that's in there. Councilman Horn: Dale, could we have Tim comment on that? I think they reviewed that. Tim Erhart: Yes, several developers came in requesting this and it seemed that there was a lot of interest. We discussed it am we felt that allowing a sign for one year would not pollute the visual environment of streets yet allow those guys to do what they wanted to do in the City. It passed in the Planning Commission and went onto Council and I think it was passed there pretty much. Councilwoman Swenson: For your additional information Bill, we are also incorporating the necessity of a permit on the sign someplace so the Building Inspector or any member of the Staff can determine by looking at a sign when the permit expires to get it off so we don't have a lot of signs that are around for 2-3 years when it is only suppose it be there a year. Bill Boyt: I read 8 on page 120 as a different situation than 9-5-122 (c) where they talk about one sign per intersection per development as far as getting people to the place. My last point is on, it looks like on 9-5- 211(24) that what it's saying is that the guy who is developing Chan vista can put a sign up that is 6 feet by 4 feet on the em of Frontier Trail that says "This is Chan vista". That's a residential neighborhood and I'm not delighted about having a 24 square foot sign 100 feet from my house in a residential neighborhood. Especially not when you said people can only put their name up there on a two foot sign. I really don't care about that one way or another 11 C-.P)0D ..G:IUU City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 but you are saying a developer can put on a residential street a 24 square foot sign saying this is my place and I don't think that is appropriate. I Councilwoman Swenson: I think you've got a point there. The purpose of this section, major entrance shall be defined as the intersection of any local street serving the identified development with any arterial or collector street. Councilwoman Watson: Which would be like off of Kerber Drive but not off of Frontier Trail. Councilwoman Swenson: Well, yes because the major entrance should really come off of Kerber but I think you've got a point there Bill. Do you have any ideas on how we might... Barbara Dacy: Just for point of information, 24 square feet matches the current regulation however the current regulation is not as specific as this as to where it could be located. If you want to reduce it, that is within the Council's.. . Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think it is the sign size Barbara. It is the location. I see no problem wi th the arterial. Councilman Horn: But I don't see the major entrance to Chan vista being on Frontier. Councilwoman Watson: I don't either but I would hate to have to make that determination sometime in the future. I Councilman Geving: But see the problem here, this is a very good point by the way, it could be. We have not specified where the developer could put the sign. I think 9-5-2, we will leave that in the hands of Staff and they can tighten that up or we could discuss it a little bit more this evening. I do bel ieve that there is a good point there. We should tighten this up. It shouldn't be just anywhere in the developer but the location must be more specified. Councilman Horn: Did that come up Tim? Tim Erhart: No. Councilman Geving: 'Ibis is a new problem. Tim Erhart: We were all thinking about TH 5. Councilwoman Swenson: Or Galpin road. An arterial, certainly not a local or internal street. Councilwoman Watson: No, and off of Kerber Drive it wouldn't be such a problem but it doesn't define though that it couldn't be. I 12 I I I 0Q01 .?,fU"('ij ,City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: You have a number now. Fox Chase is off of pleasant View. Maple Ridge has a sign off of Minnewashta Parkway. Councilman Geving: Do you have a recornnendation? Barbara Dacy: About the sign size? Councilman Geving: No, we're not worried about the size. '!he size is okay. I don't any problem with that. I'm more worried about where it could be located. Barbara Dacy: Maybe if it is located along a collector it should be 18 square feet, on an arterial no larger than 24 square feet and if it is on a local street, like Frontier Trail it is prohibited. Councilman Horn: I think our action should be to come back with a recommendation rathern than try and think up one on the spot. Councilwoman Swenson: We're talking about local streets, these are all residential and privately held property. Actually, they can't put a sign on the City right-of-way. Barbara Dacy: Usually what they do, is they create the island in the middle of the street that enters into the subdivision and usually the homeowners will maintain that little island. Councilman Geving: That's what we want. Councilwoman Swenson: I'm thinking about the application of Frontier Trail because if according to this, if Chan vista could get permission from Dick Pearson or the person on the other side, they could put a sign on that intersection of Frontier and Laredo. Barbara Dacy: It says arterial or collector as designated in the Comp Plan and those streets are not designated. Councilman Geving: Here's what I would do with this particular point. We could discuss this for a long time. Thank you Bill for bring it up. Let's leave this as a Staff input item for our next meeting and they will come back to us with a recommendation or alternative recommendation and we will not discuss it any further tonight. Bill Boyt: I was real impressed by the letter of the fellow who had the landscaping background last January. Barbara Dacy: Unfortunately, he didn't sign it. We tried to address as many as we could. Morris Mullin, Minnewashta Heights: I'm a single family owner. I noticed an item indicating some interest in changing the RV requirements, parking requirements. Will that be coming up tonight with some changes? 13 0'. t,~.) fill LJ~"0 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Yes, do you have a specific point Morris that you would like to make. I Morris Mullin: Do you know anything about what the changes might be? Councilwoman Swenson: They haven't been permitted at all in private residential. You will be allowed to have one. Barbara Dacy: Basically, no more than one RV can be parked or stored outside on a residential lot. It has to be maintained in a clean and well kept condi tion. RV shall be mobile and shall not be permanently afixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. It may be stored only on the rear or sideyard behind the required front setback so over in your neighborhood that is 30 feet so they have to be on the side or in back of your house there. Morris Mullin: What's been changed? Councilwoman Swenson: They weren't allowed at all. Barbara Dacy: There is a lot more standards as to maintenance. For example, unmounted, slide in pick-up campers that we have a specific height requirement that they have to be stored up above the ground and so on. Councilman Geving: I think Morris, for your benefit, we didn't allow them officially and we never enforced the provision to remove them if you had them I on your lot. About 1978 or 1979 we attempted to enforce it and we had a number of people who came forward and we realized that it was a losing proposition. That in order to take care of the matter we,put it into the Ordinance so that you could have an RV as long as it was properly stored on these lots and maintained and that's what we did but it really is a gain rather than a loss to you if you are an RV owner because we never really allowed it. Richard Vogel: If you are proceeding with the developing your property on 2 1/2 acre lots but because of the weather or whatever, the snow comes and you don't get the four soil borings per lot done by say January 15th or when the new Ordinance takes effect, is there anything that can be done for that situation? Councilman Geving: Yes, and we will accomodate that tonight. We will try to discuss that for you. Mrs. Swenson has a comment. She has a proposal for that and I believe that we will handle that very nicely for anyone who is in that position. We are going to set some dates but I believe that they will be lenient enough for you to be accomodated under this. I don't see any problem with that. We have to set the dates though Richard to make sure that eventually this becomes the zoning Ordinance law of the City but we do not want to take into account the fact that you can't get in your field to do the soil borings. We are going to give you an opportunity to do that so your point is well taken and we have that covered. I 14 I I I 9: ~.J:; -n .:::.1 fi::...,1''''' JJ. City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Bernie Hanson, Chanhassen Lawn and Sports: I've been trying to study this and figure out where we would fit in. Councilman Geving: To relocate within the City you mean? Bernie Hanson: In what area would we fi t in. I'm trying to study this thing and I don't see anyplace where they are mentioning outside storage unless you are way out and I'm talking decent exposure. Barbara Dacy: Right now in your current location, you would be in the Central Business District. You are correct as to the outdoor storage. The intent of the Ordinance, you could continue to have your outdoor storage, in essence be grandfathered in. However, any redevelopment that would occur would have to meet the terms of the new Ordinance. Bernie Hanson: So if we moved to a new location that grandfather clause would be dropped? Barbara Dacy: Right, wherever you moved to, you would have to abide by that district but right now you can continue as... Bernie Hanson: Yes, I would understand that but I'm looking at BG and BH I think are the two districts and I didn't see outside storage there either. Barbara Dacy: Okay, in the BH, the proposed location, the Hanus property, that would be zoned under the BH and outdoor display of merchandise for sale, which sometimes you have as well as small vehicle sales, that would be a Conditional Use. You would have to go through the permit process. Storage of typical warehouse items or your stock would have to be enclosed. Under the Conditional Use Permit, you could submit a site plan and show exactly what type of merchandise you are going to have outside. Bernie Hanson: I'm referring to garden tractors and snowmobiles that are in for repair. We've got them in a fenced in area. Barbara Dacy: That would be accessory to your main retail use zone on page 49 and 50. It says outdoor display of merchandise for sale and small vehicle sales. Storage of equipment that is being repaired would have to be contained inside. Bernie Hansen: Impossible to operate our business and stay alive. There is not enough profit in it. Barbara Dacy: Then if the Council wishes to consider that item as well, it would be in their perview. Councilman Horn: Whether we want to allow outside storage in that district? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. Councilman Horn: What's done in other cities like Eden Prairie? What do they do? They've got a lawn and sport guy over there. 15 <~~J~ ~~) 2 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Bernie Hanson: It's a fenced in area. I Barbara Dacy: The specific use of outdoor storage even in the Industrial Park you've identified that specific use as a Conditional Use in the Industrial Park. You can establish that type of use for certain zones in the City and he basically is asking whether or not you would allow that in this particular zone in the Highway Business Zone. Counci~an Horn: Could it be a Conditional Use? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I would recomnend that it be a conditional use. Councilman Geving: I think it would make a lot of sense on BH, where you are located on a highway, say you should relocated up on the highway that you would be able to display your lawn tractors and mowers and whatever you have as a Conditional Use. We have to give you that capability. Bernie Hanson: I understand that for new equipment for I'm also concerned about that we can store equipment corning in for repairs because we can not afford to put that under. Councilman Geving: You're talking there about your fencing and things like that. I still thinks there needs to be a provision for us to give you that opportunity as a Conditional Use. I can the reason for that. It's something we haven't got in there now. Where is that covered Barbara? Bernie Hanson: That's what I'm asking. I Barbara Dacy: Screened outdoor storage is permitted... Counci~an Geving: vmere is it here so we can flag it. Councilwoman Swenson: It is permitted, is that what you're saying? Barbara Dacy: Yes, it is permitted Conditional Use in the Industrial Park. Councilwoman Watson: BG too because there are some categories in there that would also, garden centers and things of that nature might also... Barbara Dacy: That would be page 52. Councilwoman Watson: Actually 49 and 510 would be BH and then if you wanted to go over to the BG, that would be 52. Barbara Dacy: The Industrial Park is the only district that specifically allows screened outdoor storage. Even in the BG, like Councilwoman Swenson said, outdoor display of merchandise and so on, in very specific types of uses. Councilwoman Swenson: We allow major auto repair and body shops. I 16 I I I ~G'-< ~~'" V I?-'~ City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: And home improvement centers and building supply centers. Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, but we're talking about repair stuff Carol as opposed to new. Barbara Dacy: So you are saying include screened outdoor storage as a Conditional Use in the BH? Counci lman Geving: Yes. For sure on BH but let's look at BG. Councilwoman Watson: On BG we have major auto repair and body shops. Heaven knows that's not going to be new. Bernie Hanson:" If it is not designated for outside, they can set it outside? Councilman Horn: It's part of that business. Bernie Hanson: I know it is but I'm just trying to make sure that it's in that. Barbara Dacy: If you will look under page 58 under the standards for those uses for automotive service stations, repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within the buildings. Councilwoman Swenson: The repair, assembly, disassembly, maintenance is inside but there is no reference to storage. Councilwoman ~atson: To keeping it while it's waiting or to be picked up or right after it's been dropped off. Barbara Dacy: Maybe I misunderstand. I thought his intent is working in the outdoor areas. Councilman Geving: He's got business that is waiting to be worked on in the shop. Are you talking now about the amendment to BH and BG, are you all willing to go along with that? Councilman Horn: As part of a conditional use. Councilwoman Swenson: I've got a note here to make regular auto repair and body shops a conditional use in the BG. Councilman Geving: let's just take this one item right now. I think Bernie has a good point. He's been here for many years and there will be other opportunities for businesses like that and I think we must allow that kind of activity to take place in both the BH and BG districts. I would like to add to flag those areas for us Barbara and we will add those as Conditional Use items. Councilwoman Swenson: Does that cover 5-13-4, outdoor display of merchandise for sale or rent? 17 00/j L~uq:: City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: No, that would be different. I Councilman Geving: I would like to have you read back to us now how that is going to be stated. Barbara Dacy: It is going to be stated as screened outdoor storage. Councilman Geving: Screened outdoor storage will be a Conditional Use. Bernie Hanson: (Xl signs here, I didn't really know what area to spot on here but as I can figure out, we're limited in square footage and a total of two sides. Now, as an example, I sell for business carrying many products lines. Simplisity, Toro, Polaris, Steel, I must display an outside, lighted sign or I can't have the franchise. '!hat is in writing and I'm not different than any other person in this type of small engine business so I'm saying, I'm not asking for anything different, I'm just trying to make that point aware to you people. Councilman Geving: individual signs. one of your signs? I don't know how we would provide for all of those Couldn't you put all of those individual franchise items on Bernie Hanson: You see the signs, if you are thinking of the ones that we have now. That are the size they are. We have no choice and I don't have all of them up because I don't have anyplace to put them. I battle with them all I the time. They come around and take pictures and then they wri te you a report. Again, it is just like this outside storage, you people aren't aware of it and you are inventing these rules. Councilman Geving: We generally are aware of it. Your situation is probably more unique than any that I know of throughout the community. Councilman Horn: '!he question that we really have to ask is if we want that kind of business in there, we have to accommodate what they have to do to stay in business so the question we are asking is do we want that business in that area? Councilman Geving: I would say yes. Councilman Horn: Then that dictates to us what we have to do. Tim Erhart: If you are doing it now you are grand fathered in but to point out what the Planning Commission has done, the Planning Commission at least twice went to the Chamber of Commerce and I don't know if you remember, asking for input on the sign ordinance and if I remember right, we never got any input back from the Chamber so Ladd Conrad at the time, with the Staff developed the Ordinance as you see it tonight so we went well out of our way to try and get input from the business community and really did not receive any. I think we obviously should try and accomodate you and you are grand fathered in but I think you have to keep that in mind. I 18 I I I 295 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: We had an ordinance in 1979 that was passed onto the Chamber of Commerce and it was a perfectly magnificent ordinance. It had taken people infini te hours to put the thing together and that never came back. I guess the idea is that we're working on this downtown redevelopment and trying to work it all together and I think there is going to have to be a lot of consideration as to what is going to happen. If we have 78th Street which is our "main drag", I think we are going to have to stop and think about how it is going to look and if we have nothing but innumerable signs sticking up, we're not really going to be making much of an improvement over what we have. I understand your situation and we're going to have to try and figure out how we can handle isolated cases such as yours but if we have just a hodge podge of signs allover the city and allover 78th STreet, then all the money and intent that we are trying to put into it, it is going to be down the drain. Councilman Horn: But I don't even hear that Pat. What Bernie is saying, if that's not the place you want me, where in the District is there a place where I can put my kind of business in? Where can we establish that? Councilwoman Watson: So we make that outdoor storage provision for the BH and the BG districts, then perhaps in those same kind of districts we would maybe allow some kind of signage that would give that specific district where we allow that specific kind of business. Whereas in Bernie's case, if he sells steel chainsaws and has to put up a sign that says he sells steel chainsaws. It isn't good enough just to have the building that maybe the provision would be to have that kind of signage in a specific district. Not everywhere but in specific districts where you would have businesses that might fall under that. Bernie Hanson: Up to a few years ago they allowed us to have a few just flat faced signs but they've gotten so tough about it. I also understand. It has to be something that halfway conforms. You can't have something standing out like a sore thumb. Councilman Geving: I personally don't have any solution to this tonight. Bernie Hanson: Just so there is someway to address it. Councilman Horn: I think our recommendation to Staff should be take into account the type of area where Bernie's type of business would fit in. Make sure that there is a zoning provision for that and make sure that it reflects the type of signage that he would need for that business and other businesses like it. Councilwoman Watson: And if signage should be part of Conditional Use process along with the outside storage so that you would have a handle on what occurs. Councilman Geving: You've got an unusual situation there. I understand. Councilman Horn: I don't think it's that unusual. 19 296 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 COuncilman Geving: It's unusual because we sent the attorney down, and all these people and there have been a lot of sign problems. I Councilman Horn: I think what is unusual here is that we really don't understand businesses and what it takes to run them and we have trouble writing an Ordinance that describes them properly. Just as Tim said, they have trouble getting input for it so they made an attempt to do it and there are probably going to be some flaws in it and we will have to figure them out and change them. Brad Johnson: I'm in the franchising business, one thing you might do is get a hold of a couple guys in the sign business like Nordquist and someone like that. Have them review the Ordinance and solve this problem. '!here probably is a way of designing a sign ordinance that fits Bernie's needs. They've got to run into this all the time. Bernie Hanson: Under 9-2-8, page 118, dealing with banners and special promotions, they've got here that anything over the right-of-way, of course a person doesn't know that if it is a newer building. I'm specifically referring to the one we have right now. OUr building sits right on the street and the thing is, what this would say if this went through, all our banners that we put up are illegal. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hey are now. I Councilman Geving: '!hey shall require a permit less than 10 consecutive days for some special promotion. Bernie Hanson: And you are not allowed anymore than three in a calendar year. Councilwoman Swenson: Bernie, the Ordinance that we've been using up until now is the same one that the City has had since before 1979 because it has always been there. Bernie Hanson: '!he only comment I'll make is I'm the only person to my knowledge who was issued the number one sign permit in the City of Chanhassen and the check was never cashed. Councilwoman Swenson: '!his is the first one that has ever been changed. Bernie Hanson: I was wondering about the Dinner Theater because they are lining them along the roof all the time and I'm not aware of all the permits going for that. I'm addressing what's future here because that's what we're talking about. Councilman Horn: Again, I think we should clarify what we are attempting to do with this Ordinance. We recognize in the past there were a lot of things going on in the City, and we have a lot of Ordinances and the two didn't mesh at all. The attempt here is to try to make them mesh and fit in the kind of uses that will go and hopefully we will do that but there are a lot of anomalies I'm sure. I 20 I City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 I Councilman Geving: There are 138 pages in this document and every paragraph is a separate issue and within every paragraph there is 10 lines of information and on any given line there could be a problem for someone, just like you've pointed out here on 9-2-8. Councilman Horn: It is very obvious that this is not going to be cast in concrete the first passing. We're going to find things that are wrong with this things for years that we are going to fix. Councilman Geving: Let's have one more opportunity for someone else to speak am then we'll move onto our own discussion. I know we've allowed a lot of time but I think it is well worth it. Jeff Hanson, Chanhassen Lawn and Sport: The question that comes up in my mind is the fact that the different areas like BH and BG of being able to have two like businesses in the same area. Meaning that can another lawn and garden business come in to the same area? Councilman Geving: I don't know why not. We can't restrict that. Look at what happened to the Cleaners down at the end of the block. They are back to back. Councilman Horn: But the City doesn't control that. I Councilman Geving: We have no way of controling nor would we want to. That's just the power of the capitalistic system. Those that make it make it and those that don't compete, lose out but no, I don't think we can address that issue Jeff. It's a good question but if you redeveloped and moved to a new area, nothing would prevent another lawn and garden sports type of operation from moving next door. Councilman Horn: I think there is enough government intervention in free enterprise, we don't want to carry it any further. Jeff Hanson: The other question I've got is that up until yesterday, I didn't . know that TH 101 was going to be moved. Councilman Geving: TH 101 is being discussed to be moved slightly to the north, approximately 600 feet on the corner of TH 17 and West 78th Street. Jeff Hanson: Because that would affect us dramatically if we would decided to move to a new location and I understand that there is a Q Gas station that went up all of a sudden with upteen different pumps there and then I heard TH 101 was going to be moved. Barbara Dacy: The hearings on that particular transportation plan and realignment will probably be conducted this winter as part of our Comprehensive Plan review so that will be coming up. I Jeff Hanson: I wonder if the Q-Superette knows that TIl 101 is going there. Councilman Horn: No, nobody knows that. That's only a proposal. 21 2; City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: There are a lot of things that will have to go under the I bridge before that happens. That has never been presented to us, the Council. We have no idea where TH 101 is going to be relocated. Councilman Horn: Is this whole street plan ever been presented at a Chamber meeting? Barbara Dacy: No, because it is still receiving comments from the affected agencies of Eden prairie, MnDot, Carver County arrl then it will go back to the HRA for review and then to the Planning Commission to conduct the hearings as part of the Camp plan review. Councilman Horn: I don't think there is a highway in this whole area that isn't up for discussion right now. TH 7 has plans going on and TH 5, hopefully something will happen in our lifetimes. TH 169 and TH 212 is under scrutiny right now. With the racetrack coming in, TH 101 certainly is not adequate. We're in a very tough situation for transportation. We're looking at all of them trying to make them work. I think we have plans now that look as promising in the transportation area as any I've ever seen in the last 8-10 years but you can expect a lot of changes in a lot of the traffic patterns throughout the whole area. Jeff Hanson: There is a new street that will be running adjacent from TH 101 through Dakota Avenue, right? Councilman Geving: We just put that in. I believe they just paved it within I the last week or so. Councilman Horn: That's one of the proposal to move the overall transportation problem. Councilman Geving: Eventually there will be a frontage road between CPT and Audubon Road all the way along the frontage of TH 5 but that's a long ways off. The first leg of it is in and that was paved just within the last few days arrl the next one will be coming up arrl that will be the section between the Legion Club and TH 101 and CR 17. That is the next one that we will be considering, Lake Drive East. Jeff Hanson: Now the other question I've got, which doesn't pertain to any business is has anybody thought about a snowmobile club arrl parklarrl arrl if you have trails in the area, maintained areas that a club can have the availability of an access or entrance. Councilman Geving: I think the answer is yes. We've done an extensive amount of work on the trails. I know that for snowmobiles it probably appears like the accesses and the number of areas that you can use them now are being condensed all the time arrl restricted. Barbara Dacy: The Park and Rec Commission is also looking at establishing an overall trail plan. I would suggest that you call Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Director and give her the contact names because I'm sure the Park and Rec Commission would appreciate your input. I 22 I I I OJ i..~ City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Jeff Hanson: I'm the current President of Southwest Trails Association. Of course, we do the grooming for the other clubs, Snow Scoopers in Eden prairie, we do the whole area. Councilman Geving: I think there Jeff you are going to have to get close to the Park and Recreation Commission. They will be working on that over the next several months. Jeff Hanson: It's not something that has to be brought up in the Ordinance at all? Councilman Geving: No, I think Barbara gave you the right information. Call Lori at City Hall here and she will give you the contact. Councilman Horn: I haven't seen anything on our street alignment that would cut off any of the trails. I suspect development is going to cut them off more than anything else. Jeff Hanson: That's why we are hoping to get some area designated. Councilman Geving: At this point then, it's 9:1313 and we've discussed this for hour and half and we will look to closing the public input section of this. We will move into the Council discussion of this. Again, the items that we will be discussing tonight are basically just changes. Only the changes that each of the Council members would like to discuss at this time and we'll try to tie those down and I would like to have Mrs. Swenson make her proposal for the developments and you can work that into your presentation Pat as it fits. Councilman Horn: Some of mine may not be just changes that were put in here. Councilman Geving: That's fine. Anything that you want to bring up in addi tion to the changes. Let's discuss the changes first and then anything that you want to include we will pick up. Barbara Dacy: The first item in the memorandum was regarding the application deadline for rural landowners. Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have this in our book at all? Barbara Dacy: What I suggest is that in the Ordinance on page 89 that if the Council is going to establish a series of dates for one, you establish an application deadline and two, a date by when preliminary plat approval should be given then I would suggest that we insert (j). That those specific dates be included specifically in the Ordinance and this was recommended by our City Attorney as well. Councilman Geving: So this is all we need to do with Section 7? Barbara Dacy: Right, with the rural lot building eligibilities and applications. 23 Ll .,c City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: In order to accommodate those landowners that have been I interested and expressed an interest in development, having brought up the problem with soil borings at this time of the year and running into conflict with the Ordinance time, I would propose that we do something on this type of approach. By the 1st of January that they secure the appl ications from the Planning Department, submit a list of adjacent property owners for a public hearing and have drawings showing at least the bordering survey showing that the proposed number of lots and the lot pattern. If that is submitted to the Planning Department prior to the 1st of January and subject to the more complete application, the toppel, the preliminary plat, the soil borings and the application fees be accomplished by the 1st of July, 1987 so that means you can get your bid in by the 1st of January but the more complicated things you have the additional 6 months to submit your application. Sever Peterson: Could you just repeat what you need by January 1st? Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, you need the application from the Planning Department. The list of adjacent property owners are those that are required, Barb maybe you could give him a breakdown of that, for the public hearing. At least a bordering survey showing the proposed lot pattern and number of units. Councilman Geving: We need to know that you are out there am that you are going to make an application to the City. What Pat has proposed here, I want to ask any of the developers if they think that the 1st of January is too restricti ve? It shouldn't be much of a requirement for you to come in an<;1 I make your application. Councilwoman Swenson: This is pretty basic. Councilman Horn: Would there be people who would be somewhere else that wouldn't be aware of it? Councilwoman Swenson: They would have the same opportunity to hear about it as the rest of these people. Barbara Dacy: We notified a majority of the rural landowners in regards to that workshop on November 20th and I had spoken to a number of applicants here about this whole situation and about 4 or 5 others so we're pretty confident. Councilwoman Swenson: This establishes the firm intent but it leaves the things we understand you couldn't possibly get done right now so it gives you six months to get that done. Barbara Dacy: One point of clarification, the City Attorney did advise that the Council set a date by which plat approval should be issued. Councilwoman Swenson: The plat approval would be July 1, 1987. Councilman Horn: What you said was to submit these by July 1st then we would I have approval as of a certain date which would mean that we would have to follow through on it and we would have to keep the application going. Otherwise we withdraw it. 24 5 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 III Councilman Geving: I believe the Attorney suggested six months later. Barbara Dacy: So that gives them the spring to do the borings and get their application and that gives them additional time to get to the Planning Commission so that by the time they get to the Council, that should be done by July 1, 1987. Councilman Geving: We need to set a date. Now, Dick are you satisfied with that because it is people like you that are going to be most effected. The Voge1s, Vern Gagne, Sever, Wally Otto. Dick: Those first points by January 1 are easy to do or simple to do, then I'm okay. Councilman Geving: The only problem is we are getting into the Christmas season here. Councilwoman Swenson: The more difficult ones are going to be your toppe1 and your preliminary plat and your soil borings and those things, you've got plenty of time to get that done. Councilman Geving: We're interested in the number of units. III Counci lman Horn: ~t 's go to the 15th. Councilman Geving: ~t's change the January 1st to January 15th and leave the July 1, 1987 date as target, that would be a firm date and I don't expect to see a lot of waivering on that date because we need to do this. George Nelson: One point I would like to suggest, are you saying the July 1st is the time that you have the preliminary plat in with all the borings and everything or are you saying, as I hear you, that you are saying the plat would have to be approved by July 1st. Councilman Geving: The final plat would be approved by July 1st. George Nelson: That seems to me that is a very hard thing to set. Councilman Geving: We need to set a firm date in which this can happen. Councilwoman Swenson: You can get your soil borings certainly by the middle of April. The thaw is out of the ground by then. It shouldn't take more than six weeks to go through the process should it? III George Nelson: I'm not thinking of myself. I'm working on the Gagne property. What I'm thinking about is the fact that you come in with all your materials and you go through the Planning process and it comes to the Council and there is some whatever thing that you turn down and it is not approved, 1ayed over. This can happen. Councilman Geving: We would handle that on a case by case basis. I wouldn't worry about that. 25 6 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: The point is that all of the people that we are actually addressing this to are people who have already made an indication that they are interested in moving ahead with some property development. Actually, by and large the date of your Ordinance should be your cut-off but we're trying to make provision here so those of you who have approached the Planning Department are accommodated. I Councilman Geving: We're aware of just about anyone who is done that to this date. I know that you have appeared before the Planning Commission. Councilman Horn: I think the point there is that they don't want to have a target put on there that is out of their control to reach. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't believe it is. Councilman Geving: I think it is reasonable. Councilman Horn: He can't get it approved if we find something wrong with it. Councilwoman Swenson: That's right but in a situation like that you could make an adjustment. Barbara Dacy: If the Council acts to table it beyond the July 1st, then the Council has made that decision. I Counc i lman Gev ing : Let's go to I tern 2. Barbara Dacy: Item 2 in the Memorandum regarded the elimination of the R1C District and we notified those folks. I didn't hear from any homeowners. Bill Gullickson talked to Don Ashworth and we notified everybody in that area. Councilman Geving: I think they understand. Councilwoman Watson: We didn't hear a great outcry of what are you doing. Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, just in case somebody did come in, Frank Beddor submitted a subdivision plan for two 30,000 square foot lots. Item 3 was in regards to the Fence Regulations. During our work session the Planning Commission was still considering the whole fence issue. This is a result of the Planning Commission review and you initiated the whole ordinance amendment process so this is a result of that. Councilwoman Swenson: On the required fences for a swimming pool, if you have a fenced yard, do you still have to fence in your pool? I know you shouldn't but does it say that? Barbara Dacy: No, the intent is to fence the pool in addition to the yard. It is more for the protection of toddlers 1 or 2 years old. Councilman Geving: In your own household? I 26 I I I 21 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: They can easily fall into the pool but if you have a four foot fence that primarily prevents them from falling in. Councilman Horn: I think the intent is to protect neighbors, not the one property owner. Councilwoman Swenson: What you have legally with an unfenced swimming pool, is what the insurance companies refer to as an attractive nuisance and it seems to me that if your yard is fenced, that you shouldn't have to fence your pool. Roman Roos: It has to do with existing pools that are in the ground. There are a lot of situations, I know my own for example, is on the edge of a bluff and three sides of the pool have a deck around it along with a...to put a four fence around the remainder of that pool because in isolated situations where we don't have a lot of houses around us. You should categorically require a fence in all situations but really that falls on the homeowner also. I don't know'if that is really a City function. Councilwoman Swenson: Fences around swimming pools are required in 99 out of 100%of the neighborhoods in the Metropolitan Area. Roman Roos: I guess my only comment, there are a lot of situations where pools go where you can't get a fence around it if you wanted to. That's what I'm saying and I don't know if you can take it on a case by case basis. The idea of a fence in an area of high density, I understand that but in a situation where you have something that is nature... Councilman Geving: Is this a new provision, this item? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Geving: We had a problem like this on Chaska Road several years ago and I don't believe the City pursued that. I don't recall exactly what happened but I do know that they did not get a fence. Councilwoman Swenson: The existing Ordinance does refer to fencing swimming pools. There was a lawsuit. We required one of the, Mansey, to put in a fencing and there was a protest and the point was that the Ordinance was not definitive and this is why it is being made definitive so we have a specific intent. I don't know what you would do in a case like that. Roman Roes: I don't want to take a lot of time, I think another person I know, Don Miller over in Estates, the big house just down the road has like 200 feet from the back of the house to the water, on either side of the property is a chainlinked fence 4 foot high. That basically is a controlled area so to speak but it's not a fence around the perimeter of the pool. Councilwoman Swenson: This is what I was saying that if you have a fenced yard, does it mean that you have to also have a fenced pool? 27 22 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: I don't think we need to have a separate fence around the pool if the yard is fenced and I don't think we should limit this to just saying that the yard is fenced. I think what we need to do is to go and look at the intent of what they is for and it is to keep the pool inaccesible from neighbors and that is the way it can be worded. If the PeOple can't climb up a drop-off behind Roman's house they are not going to get to the pool that way, it is inaccessible. I think the purpose is to make it inaccessible to neighbors. I Councilman Geving: Let's make a statement in the body of the text here that that is the intent of this portion of the Ordinance and I do agree with you. If one part of the yard is fenced that there is no reason to have a double fencing. Barbara Dacy: Something to the effect that if the property is fenced around the perimeter in it's entirity then a fence around the pool is not necessary. Councilman Geving: Then also include what Clark had to say that the intent. Barbara Dacy: So that the pool is inaccessible. Councilwoman Swenson: You might check that out with George Donnelly because we had a long talk about that because he was the one who approached me originally on this problem and that is how we got started. Barbara Dacy: The primary intent was to prevent small children. I Roman Roos: I think the intent is fine and it sounds good on new construction. Do we have some verbage in there that we could use some isolated situations where those that are constructed already, is that possible? Councilman Geving: I think most of those would be grand fathered in on an existing pool. Counci lman Horn: No . Barbara Dacy: The intent of the proposed Ordinance says that all inground pools shall be required to abide by these regulations. We notified as many of the people that we could. If they contact us after we contact them to upgrade or install a fence, if they want some tyPe of relief from the Ordinance that they would have to corne back to the Council for a variance if we felt that their situation was different. Councilwoman Watson: Provided that the pool, as Clark said, is inaccessible then the fence isn't necessary but otherwise, we're writing the Ordinance has to stand. The Ordinance has to do what it's intended to do which is make the pool inacessible. Councilman Geving: Okay and here's how we'll do it with the variance approach. They can appeal through the variance procedure and we can handle that here. I 28 I I I 9 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: Otherwise the Ordinance, if we're going to put it in there.. . Councilman Geving: If a person has a particular problem with their pool, they can come before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, we'll look at the situation and either grant it or deny it. If we deny it, they have to build a fence. If it gets approved, the Board can make that determination. Let's move on then to Item 4. Barbara Dacy: This was discussed a little bit earlier in the evening and that's about the off-premise directional signage am that's on page 122 under (c), Off-Premise Directional Signs and the intent being, as we state, to allow short term signage for residential development to familiarize the.public with a new development. . Councilwoman Swenson: !!hat's the one you're. going. . . Barbara Dacy: That was the recorrmendation out "of the Planning Coirmission. Councilwoman Swenson: But that's the situation of where it's put. Are you going to tie that in with 9-5-2 right or is that a different type of sign? Development identification sign? Councilman Horn: That's different. The entrance to Fox Hollow or whatever. Councilman Geving: This is the short term signage for a residential development. The 60 day deal. I don't see any problem with that one. Couhcilman Horn: Is 60 days enough? Councilman Geving: I guess I would agree with that. 60 days is really nothing in terms of development. Is that how we worded that before, 60 days? Barbara Dacy: This was the recorrmendation from the Planning Corrmission. Councilman Geving: Tim, do you remember that? Councilwoman Swenson: Is that the one we gave Tom Klingelhutz 60 days on? Barbara Dacy: Right. Tim Erhart: I thought it was 6 months. Councilman Geving: What we did with'Tom was give him until New Years am it was in the Fall like in September at the time. We gave him like 90 or 120 days. I would say- it should be six months'. Councilman Horn: I would say a year on a new development. Councilman Geving: It's to familiarize the public with a new development. Councilman Horn: It's to attract people for buying is what it's for. 29 10 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councibnan Geving: What's the Council's wish? Carol? I Councilwoman Watson: What about having it the same way that of the substantially built part, having that sign kind of fall into that same category. <nce so much percent of the development is built. up that that sign should be down or reviewed on a conditional use. Barbara Dacy: These are the ones that are off-premise and not on the site and we felt that it might be easier for Staff to enforce. Instead of keeping track of lots, if we just had a time deadline that they are going to be along TH 5 and so on that they would take them down in a certain period of time. Councilman Geving: This is one that Pat mentioned that you have a date stamped on there and it would be. valid. up:through a certain date. ~ -:.- :;J , Councilwoman Swenson: Let's leave it at six months and then if they come in and request an extension.and. they'can:show:that theyhave.less-.,j:han,,80%...:o:r' Councilman Geving: Tom Klingelhutz didn~t:~eem"that:_uncomfor_table::with:,w.e i gave him which was like 120 days. Councilwoman Swenson: Oh, he was furious. You should have seen him at the candidates meeting. .':: :::r: :', Councilman Geving: I would be in favor of making it six months. Barbara, let's make it six months and then take it from there. I Barbara Dacy: Item 5, back in the beginning of the Ordinance on page 29 regarding site plan procedures, we never really had a set format for site plan review of commercial and industrial buildings and multiple family dwellings. Basically what this section does is establish those procedures and I should not that on page 31, I think the typist left out a number of items that Staff wanted to be included as to what was going to be indicated on the site plan so that will be increased as to the type of information that a developer is going to submit to us. page 29-31, Section 6. Councilwoman Swenson: The site plan that you're saying they will have to show.. . Barbara Dacy: '!hat's for any permitted use in the commercial or industrial or multiple family districts, the Council said that they still,wanted to have site plan review procedures through the Planning Commission and so on. All of this just establishes a basic. Councibnan Horn: I thought we were talkingr about clear cutting.:,c n _ . w _ ~ .1 .:. _ ~ :. Barbara Dacy: That's number 2. .~. I , . 1 -f ; ~ ~ J .. ~ That:'s.Hcoming- af.ter:this. ':': i 11:'''' . ::"'",'; Councibnan Horn: We're on section 5 right? Barbara Dacy: Right, but Section 5 deals both with the site plan review and I tree removal. 30 I I I 1'1 ."...~ ....- City Council Special Meeting' ~ December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Where is that specific item on the clear cutting? Barbara Dacy: Okay, on the clear cutting is on page 116, Section 7. To be very honest with the Council, this is very brief. Honestly, I just ran out of time and I asked the City Attorney to assist us in developing some tree removal regulations and I did not get a chance to confer with him on what he came up with there so I feel that it needs some more work. Councilman Horn: I agree. Counci lman Geving: I agree. It's very brief. Councilman Horn: Except as necessary for constructing roads is not going to buy it. Councilman Geving: I thought we had a pretty good section written on 'this caliper by caliper in those cases. Councilwoman Watson: What they had ~to :tep1ace' (i''f 'they took sOmethi'ng'doWn. Councilwoman Swenson:. That's in the . POD. ~ ;". ' - '. . ~ Councilman Geving: But you had it covered. Barbara Dacy: That was in the POD Ordinance and I just didn't have the" time to confer with the Attorney. Councilman Geving: Okay, but you are going to rework this area and we will leave it. Councilwoman Watson: Maybe that POD part can be kind of moved over. Councilman Horn: There was an ordinance that was drafted at one point on clear cutting. You might dig that out of your file. That was my recorrmendation that none of you wanted to go along with. Councilman Geving: Okay, we're going to rework this because I think it's pretty skinny. It needs a lot of beefing up on clear cutting. We just can't allow, we can't have another Chan vista or Tripe Crown Estates or any of those other places that are going to be hacking our trees down. Councilwoman Watson: We just can't leave much leeway for their discretion because their discretion just seems to be really poor. . Councilman Horn:, As long as we're ta1k:j.ng about tree cutting, I had some thoughtS. 'abOut having some preserv~{ areas, forest preserve i:lreas an:l areai; where we have some of the original o~d ~oods because' we d~' have' those'kreas here in Chanhassen that is something unique. ' " , ' Councilman Geving: Why do you think that is such an original idea? Councilwoman Swenson: That is part of the POD. 31 12 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: I don't see it in here. I Councilman Geving: we've been trying to do that for a long time. Councilwoman Swenson: That's one of the things that we're trying to induce for a credit. Instead of having manicured parks all the time, where are the kids going to play in Buttercups and stuff like that. Councilman Horn: That assumes that these will fall in PUD subdivisions. There are other areas that will not fall into POD subdivisions where we have original woods. Councilwoman Watson: That's why we said pick up that portion of the POD Ordinance and transplant it to here. Councilman Geving: Good. Item 6. Barbara Dacy: Would the Council mind if we skipped to Item 7 because nobody is here regarding 6 and Brad Johnson}s here on 7? : -\': ~ . \. i..:." Councilman Geving: 6 is not going to ~ke very long. Nq" 6 is not a b!ggy. It's a half a page in length and verhage but I think you can get through'that quickly. Barbara Dacy: Okay, it pertains to the Business Fringe District and the unsewered area and we went back and looked at that from the last Council consideration. There are no restaurant uses down there at this time. Those are probably some of the highest... I Councilwoman Swenson: Isn't that A & W still down there? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Geving: '!here is a gas station there. Barbara Dacy: There is a gas station and a motel. We would recommend that you eliminate those two particular uses from the BF. What that leaves is the auto service station, motels, truck and trailer rental, outdoor display of merchandise for sale and the cold storage and warehouse. Councilwoman Watson: We just want to avoid the high water users because of septic systems so as long as theY,are~'t apt..to use a lot of water and tax an on-si te septic system. II - ~ ",: I ; I' 1 J " Barbara, Dacy: If you wanted to even,go a step, further, if for example .that service'station down 'there and motei'w6'dldburri,down~ if you '~iimiria.t:e those two uses in that district, if they ~ourd burn:down or cease' opeiation~;[those types of uses coulli not reoccur at those" si tes.' < ." I . " :',' , _~ I. .." , Councilman Geving: I think that would be wrong. I think that BF, Business I Fringe is appropriate for that area down there. We're always going to have a 32 I I I 13 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 need for gas stations in that area. I think that is just a natural business for along the highway. Councilwoman Watson: They would be non-conforming then between here and there. Councilman Geving: But if that burned down and somebody wanted to rebuild on that, they would be grand fathered in. Barbara Dacy: I thought that issue should be brought up for the Council. Councilman Horn: I think we should limit them so they can't have a carwash for instance which more gas stations have and I don't see why a motel is a small user of water. What's the difference between a motel and a restaurant? What's she saying is if it burns down we can eliminate it. We have to be consistent with our philosphy here. Councilman Geving: So the three things we have now are the auto service stations without car washing facilities, motels and Barbara Dacy: Truck and trailer rental, outdoor display of merchandise for sale- and cold storage and warehouse. ,- ( Councilwoman Watson: We're okay until we hit motel. - . Councilman Geving: Any comments from the public on this? This is a whole new area of the City that we haven't done much work with but we wanted to expand so at least we had an opportunity to put cold storage, vehicle ,storage, whatever in that area. Roman Roos: I think one of the concerns down there, of course that is a highway traffic area, probably as high as TH 5. It sort of is on a time basis so when the Interceptor might be tied in down there and that could happen 10 years in the future, would this be conditioned to plumb that effluent. Is that what your intent is on the Ordinance or to totally eliminate high water users? Barbara Dacy: Right, basically this district is set up for uses in areas that do not have water and sewer. If water and sewer would be installed in that area, then the City could look at amending the Ordinance to allow different types of uses and a different pattern down there. Roman Roos: There's not that much land to build on for one and two, according to modern septic standards in the State of Minnesota, I would think that would curtail business down there. " i i Councilman Geving: It's still allowed as a Conditional Use Permit. In other words, if you had a good potential business that you wanted to put in that area, you could corne to the CounciL:as a Conditional Use and if we agreed that it was suitable we would allow it. Councilwoman Swenson: That's where your mini-storage should have gone., 33 14 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: I wouldn't hold my breath on sewer down there. Councilman Horn: OUr only intent is to curtail the high water use. Councilman Geving: Okay, any other comments on that? If not, let's go to the 7, CHADDA. Barbara Dacy: We're leaving in the service station? Councilman Geving: without the wash facility. Councilman Horn: r-btels? Councilwoman Watson: Can you run that motel by me one more time. Is it because it would be non-conforming? Barbara Dacy: Yes, if we eliminted motel then that one would be non- conforming. Councilwoman Watson: In your thinking when you set this up and considering low water generators, how did the motel fit? Was it because it was there already? Barbara Dacy: Yes. They inclusion of these uses was primarily to allow those uses to conform but you're right. Each motel unit has a bathroom. Councilman Horn: some even have Coffee Shops. Councilman Geving: I still think as long as we kept it open as a Conditional Use, we could eliminate the motel and make it an item that we could bring in or any other business as a Conditional Use. Councilwoman Watson: Because that little motel that we have down there is one situation and there are other situations that are motels which would be completely different than that. Councilman Geving: It is possible with all the activity with the racetrack and so forth that it could attract a nice motel. Councilman Horn: It would be a great spot if we had sewer. Councilwoman Watson: sewer down there. Like I said to Dale, I wouldn't hold my breath over Councilman Geving: Let's eliminate as a permitted use the motel. It would be a Conditional Use. Councilwoman Watson: Then they can come and if they can present a proposal that looks like it... Councilman Geving: Or any other business that wants to locate there would have to come before the Council, we review it, get all the input from Staff 34 I I I I I I 15 .-.~ City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 and make a decision so it could happen. The Planning Commission could recomnend it we could go along with it. Barbara Dacy: Okay, so we will have five Conditional Uses then in the BF District. Automotive Service Stations with Car Washes, Truck and Trailer Rentals, Utility Services, Outdoor Display of Merchandise for Sale and Cold Storage and Warehouse. Jo Ann Olsen: And motels as a Conditional Use. Councilman Geving: The motel would be a non-conforming use. Okay, let's go on then to number 7. CHADDA has proposed a gas station use at the northeast corner and we talked about that earlier. As proposed, the CBD District does not provide for auto service work and Brad said that he would like to see it as a Conditional Use. Councilwoman Watson: really be something. Boy, if that corner right at this minute, it would You can't get on and off that street now. Councilman Geving: I doubt if they will ever build a service station there. Brad Johnson: Not a service station. I'm saying convenience store with pumps at it. I think that could be conditional and attack it later. Councilman Geving: We haven't gotten. anything in here. Where would that fit in? Barbara Dacy: '!hat would fit on Page 52 under 5-12-4 as a Conditional Use. It could read Convenience Stores with Gas Pumps and then maybe if the Council wanted to add a phrase stating, to be in compliance with intent of Downtown Redevelopment Plan. That has already been stated in the intent. Councilman Geving: How does the Council feel? Councilman Horn: I like that. Councilwoman Swenson: I'm not ecstatic about it. Councilman Geving: I don't think it will happen but it's just the idea that it's a conditional use and we could look at it if it's a good proposal. Councilman Horn: Let me tell you why I think you should have that. First of all, we set up as a contract that we would go with CHADDA for a downtown redevelopment plan. We can not set up an Ordinance that is going to conflict with that plan otherwise we ~ave violated our agreement. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't believe that that was part of the plan. I can't conceive of a gas station on that corner. Councilman Horn: I know it's part 'of the plan from a long time ago. Remember when we had Dave in here, he was concerned about that and that was before we ever saw the model. 35 16 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I know one time Loren talked to me about the possibility of moving somewhere. I Brad Johnson: OUr position is simply that you're going to have 40,000-60,000 of convenience space. Forget that corner, but all the way along that street and the normal kind of convenience store that attracts traffic to the rest of the retail is some type of PDQ. I think of a Q Store as a gas station with convenience. We are reversing that. We're saying that should be just permitted conditionally if it is aesthetically okay and I think that in todays world, the retail is being built generally the anchor of a small convenience center, even 25,000 square feet. Councilman Geving: That's such valuable property right there and the way we are developing our downtown, I sure wouldn't want to see it happen. Councilwoman Watson: You're thinking of a store with accessory gas rather than a gas station with a store as an accessory use. Councilman Horn: I think the point is this whole downtown plan is under the perview of the HRA Development and we should not have a Zoning Ordinance that conflicts and ties the hands of the HRA. Councilwoman Watson: I agree. Councilman Geving: I agree with you there. I think we should make it a conditional use. I Councilwoman Swenson: I'm going to be the most surprised person in the world if we have considered a Tom Thumb or a Q or something for that corner because we've talked about a major grocery store in this city and you talk about a conflict of interest. You've got a Kennys at one end and we're talking about a Tom Thumb with gas pumps at the other end of that section. Councilman Horn: My point though is that that's not part of this Ordinance. That is part of the HRA discussion. Councilwoman SWenson: They have to coincide. Councilman Geving: Actually, I don't think it is ever going to happen personally because, like I said, it is a valuable piece of property but I see Clark's point. Councilman Horn: Dale's point though with what he said earlier here is to put what fi ts into the downtown plan. I think that is the verhage that we should have in this section. Barbara Dacy: I did forget that that verbage is in the intent statement on 5-12-1. Councilwoman Swenson: If we put it in here as a conditional use and the HRA is going to be forced to consider it as part of it's design. We are not in agreement that that was part of the design. I 36 17 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 I Barbara Dacy: It is:to be a proposed use. The Zoning District in which the property lays must have it as a listed permitted or conditional use so that the Council agrees to include it. If it is not included, then it could not be contemplated in the future. You would have to come back and amend the District to allow it. Councilwoman Swenson: It's a Catch-22 because if you allow the zoning and you can't deny it on the downtown redevelopment plan because it has already been approved by the Council. Barbara Dacy: I think the redevelopment plan can be structured if you wanted to establish certain types of guidelines and standards and so on. Councilman Geving: I personally think we should include it. '!hat's the thing. We get something and we have an opportunity to put it and you have to go back and amend this thing. It takes a lot of time. Let's put it in now. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that and that's why I'll go along with it now. It certainly would not be my choice. Councilman Horn: I don't think that is anybody's choice for the downtown plan but I don't think we are going to develop that in this Ordinance. I Councilman Geving: We've completed all of the seven individual items. Let's go now to the Councilmember's pet projects and pick through the items that you have specifically wanted to comment on. Councilman Horn: My first one is not a change, it's just a typo on Page 87. First sentence is "transmission". Since we're cleaning this up. Page 89, Section 6-8-2, home occupations and you probably have already reviewed this while I missed that night but I have a little trouble with physicians as a home occupation. I'm wondering what the discussion was around that. . Councilwoman SWenson: I don't remember that being in there. Barbara Dacy: Yes, it was in there. Councilman Horn: Some guy could set up a practice in his house? Then I saw Attorney's and is that that much different? Councilman Geving: I could see people working as architects, engineers, insurance agents, programers. Councilman Horn: An Attorney too if he weren't having clients come to him. If he were a corporate Attorney under a private... Councilman Geving: For example, Craig works out his home a lot of the time as a second office. III Councilman Horn: I think that's the key here. Physicians, I can't imagine. 37 18 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I think we should strike that. That is just a traffic generator. I Councilman Horn: en that same page, I was a little concerned when I saw this. Maybe you already discussed this but the nameplate on a home occupation. I can't imagine why we would need to give signage to a home occupation. The last sentence on 89 and starting on 90. Councilwanan Swenson: I had trouble with that too. Councilwoman Watson: we did talk about that. Councilwanan Swenson: It was four feet. I at least got it down to two. Councilman Horn: Tim, did you guys discuss that at all? Tim Erhart: I don't remember that we did. Councilman Geving: How would you like to live next door to someone who has a two square foot sign on the house advertising their real estate agency. Tim Erhart: I guess if it's small enough. Councilwoman Watson: It's not going to be very much different than the Beware of the Dog sign. Councilman Geving: Do you have any problems with that Jay? I Jay Johnson: I would vote against it. Councilman Horn: The intent is the size of the sign. The intent is what you're doing to a residential area. Councilman Geving: I think we ought to eliminate the sign. Bernie Hanson: I think as a man that has to go out and try and find somebody's house and you're trying to look for something, this is a two foot sign on the house, that's plenty big. Don Chmiel: You have address numbers on the house. Same way with us. We have a horne occupation and I don't see the need for a sign. Councilman Geving: we're going to eliminate the sign entirely. Bernie Hanson: I would like to make a comment on Section 6-8-2 on line 4, cabinet making, how does that fall in there? Councilwoman Swenson: You can make cabinets in your basement. Nobody comes into your house. The object, what we are trying to eliminate is the people caning to your house. Counc i lman Horn: The reta il sales. I 38 I I I 19 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Bernie Hanson: You sure could pick a lot of other things that would be in the same.. . Counci~an Geving: The list could go on and on. Somebody just picked it out. Councilwoman Watson: It is such as. Councilman Geving: If you could put etc. on the end and then we could pick up all the rest of them. I think officially we never really allowed home occupations but we couldn't stop them so we made it legal now. Councilman Horn: I think this is a little vague. It says no mechanical or electrical equipment in the conduct of the home occuption except such as normally used for purely domestic or professional purposes. What couldn't be construed in that area? To me welders, electric staple guns, all that stuff should be able to be used. Barbara Dacy: I think the major intent, and maybe it should be reworded, the major equipment that could cause of lot of noise. Councilwoman Swenson: Static and interferring. I know that that is in here too. Counci~an Geving: Can you rework that Barbara, 6-8-5? Councilman Horn: OUtdoor storage on page 95. Where do you put your wood pile. You can't put your wood pile within five feet of the property line and you can't have chipmunks in it. 6-13-5 (b) and (c). Most people put wood piles on the property line and I don't know how you're going to keep chipmunks our of them. Councilman Geving: Clark, (c) is in there so that if your wood pile has attracted rodents, you have a way of going in with your inspector and making them clean it up. That's the only reason that's in there. Bernie knows what attracts wood piles. Bernie Hanson: There are some people who will have wood piles and leave it for 10 years. -1- Counci~an Geving: I think that's why you have to have it. Counci~an Horn: But it says neat and secure. Bernie Hanson: I happen to agree with that five feet of the property because a lot of people try to pile it on the back of their property especially. Counci~an Geving: I don't know where that five feet came from. Councilwoman Watson: I think the intent was to keep it from literally from becoming a fence that isn't called a fence but it still ends up being one. 39 20 City Council Special Meeting ~ December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I think we ought to eliminate (b). Just delete it: It it's offensive to your neighbor then he can talk to you about it but I do believe that (c) is important that we have a way of getting in and cleaning up somebody's problem if they have rodents in there. I Councilman Horn: Maybe we need to change it somehow to say if it is a problem. I think to say it's inhabited by them is not necessarily a problem or maybe what we need on here, which we don't have and we probably should have is a height restriction on it. Councilwoman Swenson: Maybe infested would be better than inhabited. Councilman Geving: If you're going to use it as a fence, which a lot of people do, you wouldn't want it 7-8 feet. Councilwoman Watson: We don't let fences go forever. I don't see why we should let wood piles go on forever. Councilman Horn: I think we should put just as a matter of safety, we should have a height restriction. Councilman Geving: In a neat and secure stack not greater than four feet high. Councilwoman Swenson: I think it ought to be fenced. I Councilman Geving: How about a neat and secure stack not exceeding four feet in height? Jeff Hanson: That's not high enough. I think make it five. Bill Boyt: This is kind of amusing but I think of my 6 and 8 year old who I tell to stay away from the wood pile. Maybe I don't stack a real secure wood pile but I think it is a hazard. Councilwoman Watson: It is an attractive nuisance. Councilman Geving: They will climb on it. They'll try to crawl on it. Bill Boyt: And from 5 feet they can get hit on the head, 4 feet, maybe that foot does make a difference. I know the other side of it is, if we make the wood pile longer which makes it more a potential eyesore. Councilman Geving: Okay, let's go with that. In a neat and secure stack not to exceed 4 feet in height. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we going to eliminate inhabitant and just leave infested? Councilwoman Watson: Yes, because inhabited is okay. Infested is a whole different matter. I 40 I I I 25 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: Page 96, 6-14-6, are we referring to this screening just for the unmounted slide campers or any camper and why would we particularly screen an unmounted camper and not another camper? Barbara Dacy: The way this section is written, it would apply to just the unmounted camper that slides on a pick-up. Councilman Horn: 'Ihat's what I thought. Why would we differentiate those from say a IDJ? Barbara Dacy: I remember that we talked about this section a lot. Councilwoman Swenson: I think the reason for that is because people take them off of pick-ups, put them on cement blocks or wood and the grass grows under them and they get very ungodly looking. I think the purpose of that is to screen an unsightly area. Councilman Horn: I'm wondering if we shouldn't screen them all if they want to store them outside. Councilwoman Swenson: I think that's alright but I think you will trouble screening a 33 foot motorhome. Councilman Geving: D:m't you think that is unreasonable? Campers must also be screened? Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think so, not campers because I think they are ugly. You drive down the street and you see alongside, they look awful. They're on blocks or pieces of wood and the grass grows and junk gets underneath them. I don't think they are particularly sightly myself. I wouldn't like to have one. Tim Erhart: I remember that conversation. I think we talked about a RV is a licensed vehicle. Somebody has to renew the license to keep it on the lot. With a camper, essentially what happens is they stack it on there and keep it for 4-5 years and the weeds grow up. Councilman Geving: So you are in favor of the fencing? Tim Erhart: Yes. Councilman Horn: But there's also old trailers too. Trailer houses that are not licensed but they are licensed now aren't they. I think the key is if it is something that has a license or if it is currently licensed. Councilwoman Watson: Like cars. Councilman Horn: Or trailers, any trailer. Of course, somebody might have utility trailers that they just use around the house. That gets into this other section 6-14-8 about maintenance. That's the wrong one. We had something in here about lawn equipment and that type of thing was exempted from this. Where was that? 41 26 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: We tried to not restrict garden equipment for people. We said that during the summer months you kept gardening equipment outside because you are using it perhaps on a daily basis. I Barbara Dacy: Section 6-13-4. Councilman Horn: Now you get into the fine line between a utility trailer, is it part of the gardening equipment? Bernie Hanson: If you haul it around your yard, isn't that gardening equipment? Councilman Horn: Or a garden tractor that you might use it both. Hook it up behirrl your pick-up or hook it up behirrl your tractor. Do you screen that? Bill Boyt: Wouldn't the easier way out to do what Pat said was the intent of what you are trying to do? It says that you want a neat, clean whatever it is whether it is licensed or unlicensed, you want it so that it's not an eyesore. Can't you say that? Councilman Horn: But then you get into the Gabbert thing over here in the corner. If you get something like this neat arrl clean, that's in the eye of the beholder. That's where we get into trouble. Councilman Horn: What we think is neat and clean is not the same as what he thinks is neat arrl clean. I Councilwoman Watson: You have a variety of ideas of neat, organized. Bill Boyt: Yet there is some sort of definition area. Like she said, you don't want weeds. Well, weeds I think are pretty clearly defined. We don't want excessive grass growth above 6 inches or whatever it is. Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem with the way this is worded. Councilwoman Swenson: Unless you wanted to add campers and trailers. Councilman Horn: I'd like trailers in there. Barbara Dacy: Campers and trailers must also be fenced or screened. Councilwoman Watson: All campers arrl trailers? Councilman Horn: utility trailers or trailer houses? Councilman Geving: What's good term Bernie? Councilwoman Watson: You can't screen all trailers. Bernie Hanson: It's like you say, trailer to me is a snowmobile trailer. You could define a trailer that is for highway usage because you've got your different bearings for the wheels so you can go down the highway. I 42 27 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 I Councilman Horn: Camping trailers, there you go. Counci~an Geving: Campers and trailers for highway use. Bernie Hanson: If you have a lawn and garden trailer, that is designed for low speed operation. Counci~an Horn: But we don't want to put screens around snowmobile trailers. Councilwoman SWenson: I don't think that is the intent. Councilwoman Watson: Then when you say trailers, you are going to have to define it. Counci~an Geving: In that case, camping trailers. Councilman Horn: Section 15, accessory fuel storage tanks. It says here that they must be in the backyard and it says also they must be fenced. Well, if they are in the backyard and they are out of sight, why do they have to be fenced? Counci~an Geving: Is there a Fire Code on that? I Barbara Dacy: I don't know what the Fire Code specifics are but the way that this was written, I guess there does have to be some type of protection around them in accordance with the Fire Code. I do not know what the specifics are. Councilwoman Swenson: Are we talking about a propane tank? Councilman Horn: Yes, like if a guys oil tank is out in his yard he has to put a fence around it? Barbara Dacy: I can get the Public Safety Director to clarify that. Councilman Horn: I think that's a little ridiculous unless we have to do it. Ground mounted dishes, Page 101, shall not exceed 15 feet in height above the ground. You're differentiating there something different from getting mounted on a building right? Barbara Dacy: Right. As a matter of fact, the Council did ask us to go back and check that and we did have access to a national ordinance survey that was done and some communities allow anywhere from 12-20 feet. Counci~an Horn: Some of these things are 12 feet in diameter. Barbara Dacy: And they are more wide than they are... I Councilman Horn: They angle back somewhat but depending on the angle, that would dictate height. Barbara Dacy: The survey measurement that we got indicated that this requirement would be able to accommodate a ground satellite. 43 2~ City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Counciilnan Horn: Okay, you can't have it in the sideyard? I Barbara Dacy: Correct. Councilman Horn: Is that a problem for people if they have to have access to this thing? Barbara Dacy: If it is in their rearyard, I guess it could be presumed that they could use the sideyard to get to that. If there is a situation where they feel that they can't do that then they can apply for a variance. Councilman Horn: The other one, did you guys talk about satellite dishes at the Planning Commission? We need a building permit to put up a satellite dish? Barbara Dacy: Yes, just to make sure we know where it is and make sure that it is secured firmly to the ground so that we can have an inspection that occurs on that. Councilman Horn: Why don't we talk about other antennas then? Do I need a building permit to put up my TV antenna? Barbara Dacy: Satellite dishes, television antennas and radio antennas shall be permitted accessory uses in all the zoning districts. Number 4 says that a building permit shall be required for the installation of any, maybe that I should be clarified to say any dish or satellite antenna. I don't think the intent is that if you put your TV antenna up. Councilman Horn: Then what's the difference? Why do I need a building permit to put up a satellite dish and I don't for a TV antenna or a ham radio antenna? Barbara Dacy: I think the size of a radio antenna can be 30-40 feet and a satelli te dish is much larger. We have more concern about weighting and being able to be attached to the roof more than we would the standard TV antenna. Counciilnan Horn: Have you seen same of these ham radio antennas? Councilwoman Swenson: I think a satellite dish is really a structure and I think it is also terribly important that we have a building permit so that the last paragraph or last sentence in 3 is covered that the location shall not adversely obstruct the views from adjacent property. Leave that to the discretion of the homeowner and he's going to put it up anyplace he wants to and we're going to run up with the same problems that we have with these fences going up discriminately. Jeff Hanson: How about a ground mounted antenna? That would classify ham radio, satellite dish, ground mounted antenna. Councilman Horn: satellite dish. I have a trouble having a building permit to put up a I think that is overly restrictive. I 44 I I I 2B City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Jeff Hanson: I was up north fishing and I saw a guy's satellite antenna mounted on top of a camper. Councilman Horn: Some of these are 6 foot dishes, some are 12 foot dishes. There is a big difference. We're differentiating a dish from a TV antenna. You can get big TV antennas too. Jay Johnson: What's the cost for a building permit? Barbara Dacy: It depends on the types and cost of improvement. I would think in these types of application that it would be a minimal fee of $10.00. Councilman Horn: As I understood it, we need a building permit to do anything over $300.00. Barbara Dacy: That's according to the Building Code but in the Zoning Ordinance you can require a building permit for anything that you wanted in the Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Horn: But does the $300.00 also apply? Barbara Dacy: No, because in this case we would be specifying that we would have to come in for a permit. Councilman Horn: I disagree with that one. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't have any problem with it because I think it is necessary to make darn sure that it doesn't effect the people alongside of you. I'm very protective. Councilman Horn: I have a CB antenna that is taller than this. Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, but it doesn't take up the visual area that a satellite dish does. Councilman Horn: Some of these satellite dishes you can see right through. Councilwoman SWenson: Yes, but you can them look see through. Barbara Dacy: I think your point is well taken though to differentiate between the standard TV antenna which I think should be clarified. Councilman Horn: On page 102, Section 5, I'm not sure that there is an "e" in lightning strike. It's just a spelling typo. Then we already talked about my tree cutting problem. Councilman Geving: I hate to take a lot of time on this but on Page 101, Item 4 you had a problem with that item Clark? Councilman Horn: Yes, I do. I disagree with that. 45 30 City Council Special Meeting ~ December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Building permits shall be required for the installation of I any dish or antenna. Councilman Horn: It goes even further than that. You have to have plans and structural components to the City Building office displaying how you are going to secure it to the roof. Councilman Geving: '!bat's none of their business. I don't believe that's any of the City's business. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't want one blowing over in a tornado. Councilman Geving: The only problem I see is if a person puts an ungodly height to their antenna and it is a danger to a next door neighbor's home. Councilwoman Swenson: I think we've already agreed to eliminate TV antenna. Councilwoman Watson: But ground mounted antennas are a different matter. Councilman Geving: Why don't we just eliminate that whole paragraph? Councilwoman Swenson: Because I think you have to have a building permit for anything that is going to go on top of a building am it has to be taken care of. Not the TV antennas. I'm talking about these satellite dishes. If I had a neighbor of mine put one of those... I Councilman Geving: Okay, so the clarification was that this excludes TV antennas, fine. Barbara Dacy: If you just wanted to require a building permit for those on the roofs, I think that is minimum protection for the City as well. If something happens and those are big. Councilman Horn: Some are. Jay Johnson: In one area you talk 15 feet above the ground. Like we're just talking ham radio or amateur radio operators, their towers are going to be much above 15 feet. Councilman Geving: '!hat's right. ~ have several. Councilman Horn: 1 rules that out. It says you can't have a ham radio tower over 15 feet. Jay Johnson: You can't go past your house with 15 feet. Barbara Dacy: I think maybe the differentiation should be made between a dish height and a ham radio antenna height. Councilwoman Swenson: Do we not have in the Zoning Ordinance, we refer to window ordinances and the transmission poles and all that type of thing requiring being self collapsing. Actually, I think if you get over 15 feet, I 46 I I I e) ""If ,-)) J1- Ci\y Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 it really came out as I recall, we discussed this many times is that nothing should fall beyond the lot line. Councilman Geving: That's right. Councilwoman Swenson: So if you put something up, if you have a 15 foot pole, you've got to have that doggone thing at least 15 feet onto your property. Councilman Geving: Carol, let's take your comments. Councilwoman Watson: One was one Barbara already mentioned. Most of mine have been mentioned and that is the two car garage. The requirement for two car garages. Barbara Dacy: That's in there. Councilwoman Watson: Okay, so that's done. I unfortunately want to go back to Page 96 and discuss the screening of camper trailers. I have less problem with those than I do with these great big RV's which are like having a Greyhound bus parked next to your house. You want to screen something that doesn't stick up off the ground any higher than this probably when it is folded down and yet all we say to someone who has something like the bus is just park it on the side of your house. It doesn't make any sense. Councilman Geving: On the other hand, the bus must be currently licenses. Councilwoman Watson: But so must the camper. Campers have to be licensed to be on the road so a camper trailer could also be required to have a current license but it seems dumb to say we're going to screen this little thing but a another guy can come and park his 80 foot Greyhound bus thing next to his house and he doesn't have to make attempt to hide it. Councilwoman SWenson: How could you possibly fence a 36 foot motorhome? Councilwoman Watson: Why would you tell the guy who had the capability of fencing it because it is small, that he should fence it but because that is too big to seem logical to fence, we'll leave it out. That doesn't make any sense to me. Councilwoman Swenson: I agree with that. Councilwoman Watson: It just seems dumb. If it is currently licensed, then it is currently in use and if they are bothering to license it, it costs to license them regardless. Councilwoman Swenson: Carol, I think actually this fencing started out, this 6-14-6 starts out with the word unmounted. Councilwoman Watson: Right and back in there is saying that those are not licensed. . . 47 32 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: We're talking about campers and camping trailers, isn't I that right? Councilman Geving: I think it got beyond us really. left it with the unmounted, slide pick-up camper top. started out with. I think if we had just That's really what we Councilman Horn: But then Carol's point is still valid. Because they don't have a license plate on, you want to screen from the visual point of view. Councilwoman Watson: You can't discriminately decide you are going to fence this, you're not going to fence that and if there is no logic to fencing that 25 foot, great big monster then there could be a lot of logic to requiring someone to fence something that doesn't take up anymore space. Councilman Geving: Let's try this approach and eliminate the entire last sentence because I think what we were really after in 6-14-6 was to handle the unmounted, slide pick-up campers. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hey should be fenced or screened. '!he unmounted ones because that's where... Councilman Horn: Because they look ugly? Councilwoman SWenson: Well, yes because they are storage. I Councilman Horn: WOat if they maintain them? Councilman Geving: Well, we need to make a decision of this. take a poll of the Council. I'm going to Councilman Horn: Eliminate it. Councilwoman Watson: Eliminate it because it is discrimnatory. You can't fence one, you can't fence the other. Councilwoman Swenson: Leave it in because it's not licensed. Councilman Geving: I vote to take it out. It's three to one. We move to eliminate the last sentence entirely. Councilwoman Swenson: Maybe we should eliminate the storage of campers, camping trailers and Recreational Vehicles in all yards. Councilman Geving: It is a difficult situation. Councilwoman Watson: Where are they going to go? Well, basically most of mine have been taken up. With regards to the signs, we cleared up a bunch of stuff about signs, the garages. I think basically all of my stuff is taken care of. I had problems with that camper issue. I 48 I I I 33 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question. A pick-up camper would be considered a recreational vehicle wouldn't it so it has to follow being parked in the rear or sideyard? At least we have to keep it out of the front yard? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilwoman Watson: Can I go back a minute? In our fencing ordinance we have not covered who gets the finished side? Counci lman Geving: Yes, we have resolved that. Councilwoman Swenson: Some of these are nitpicking. Page 3, Church, the last sentence. The church includes living quarters. The church may include living quarters. Councilman Geving: It does say that. Barbara Dacy: It is duplicated in the middle so. Councilwoman Swenson: The last Conference/Convention Center. The last page, explain this to me please. The development is characterized by architecturally integrated buildings, common use of parking areas and incorporation of passes recreational amenities into overall site design. Barbara Dacy: Clerical error. Councilwoman SWenson: Is it suppose to be passive? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: I've seen Ordinances pass with things like that. Page 4, Dwelling. A building or portion therefor designed, occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, nursing homes, travel trailers or bed and breakfast tourist homes and motor homes. Page 6, Floor Area, the floor area of a building shall include basement floor area. Do we incorporate in here someplace Barbara, I wasn't able to find it, the minimum of 900 square feet per floor as we discussed? Barbara Dacy: A minimum square footage for a single family home is not specified in the Ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: This was brought up the last time we discussed this and we agreed that 900 feet was to be the minimum floor area. Barbara Dacy: Okay, if Council wants to include that, I would recommend that be included under Section 6 on Page 87 and 88. Councilwoman Swenson: That's per floor not including the basement. You can't have 450 feet there and 450 feet in the basement. Barbara Dacy: If you just say 900 square feet on the ground floor area. 49 34 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: You have to be careful because sometimes you get a four level home that may only have like 600 feet. Councilman Horn: I'm thinking of the one about 20 houses down from Pat's. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's probably an error. '!hat doesn't mean that we have to continually compound the problem. Councilman Geving: Let's take a look at 87. Councilwoman Watson: We have in fact approved houses that were less than 900 square feet. Councilwoman Swenson: I'm going to repeat myself. '!his doesn't mean that we have to continually compound it. In the Metropolitan Survey of Ordinances that I have and 900 feet is an average single floor level. I had it with me the last time we discussed this and I don't have it with me now. Actually, 960 is common. '!here are a few with 750 but most of them are 900. I think it is between 900 and 1,000. We're talking about single family residence. Councilman Geving: en page 87, 6-6-2 the home may not be less than 30 feet in length and not less than 22 feet in width over the entire minimum length. Councilwoman Swenson: Also there have a minimum of 900 square foot floor space on one floor and this was discussed the last time we kicked this around. Barbara Dacy: '!he current regulation is 700 square feet and that requirement is in the similar type of section in the current Zoning Ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: So we can just plug in the 900? Councilman Geving: Let's change it then to the 900. Councilman Horn: Should this 30 by 22 then be changed? Councilman Geving: No, you have to be careful there because that's why we put in the 30 by 22 to exclude trailer homes. Councilwoman Swenson: And nothing less than that. It can be more but it can't be less. Councilman Horn: I'm wondering if we should increase it. Councilwoman Swenson: You could have a house 22 foot wide and 40 feet, 50 feet long I suppose. Councilman Horn: If you look at what this said. It looked like it accommodated our 700 number. Councilman Geving: I think the 22 is the one that is the short one so why don't you reword that one Barbara to give us a 900 square foot on the ground floor. 50 I I I 35 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 I Jay Johnson: I think you just made my house illegal an::] a few other our block. I'm 22 feet in width and about 62 in length in my case. me way over the 1,200. If you make that 900, I'm still safe but you talking about increasing the width then. people on That puts are Councilwoman Watson: We can leave the 22 feet. Jay Johnson: Yes, because that's a minimum. Councilman Geving: You see, you have to have a minimum in there Jay otherwise we could go down to... Councilwoman Watson: All he was saying is if we raise the 22 feet, we made his house illegal because it is 22 feet wide. Jay Johnson: If you made that to where those numbers made 900, it would be 30 by 30. Councilwoman Swenson: I kind of look at this like lot sizes. We say the minimum lot with... I Jay Johnson: I just want to make sure that the minimum stays 22. On this 900, what about these houses that have five levels. The Kubitz', one of my neighbors, have exactly that. The bedrooms are up here and then half a floor down is the living room. Bedrooms aren't 900 an::] the living room an::] kitchen area is not 900 and underneath the bedrooms is the family room. Councilman Horn: He talking about split levels. Jay Johnson: It's a five way split. There is none that are 900. Barbara Dacy: I think the basic intent, correct me if I'm wrong, is just a minimum living area requirement. Councilman Horn: I think Pat, foundation is what you are really looking for. Councilwoman Swenson: When you say to include the basement, now you see I object to that. I don't consider the basement a living area. I recognize that there are basements that are turned into recreational rooms an::] they are perfectly beautiful but when you do that, that means according to this, you could build a house that was 450 on the main floor and 450 in the basement. Councilman Horn: We're looking at the pad size. Jay Johnson: The pad size. The total area covered by the house must be 900 square feet. Councilwoman Swenson: Not including the garage. I Councilman Geving: The living area. 51 36 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: Page 28, 3-5-2. A single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record on the effective date. On or after? May be erected after, right? Would that be correct? I Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Same page, 3-5-3, in the event that the use of a non- conforming advertising sign structure is discontinued or it's normal operation stopped for a period of six months, whatever happened to the requirement that they became conforming within a year of the date of the Ordinance? Barbara Dacy: If we were to do that, the Sign Ordinance is specifically set up basically on an attrition basis. As signs are removed or discontinued or whatever, the new regulations take effect. If you want it retroactive or that's probably not the right term but if you require that all signs conform to the new sign regulations within a certain period of time, that would literally take a real large amount of effort. Councilman Geving: I see nothing wrong with that statement. Councilwoman Swenson: Next page on 3-5-9. I know that this is one that we've had for years and I've still never really gotten clear. If a Conditional Use Permit variance of Planned Unit Development has not been granted by the City, the use or structure shall not be deemed nonconforming but shall be deemed allowed in such district. Now, I think this is vague. Does this mean that that building and all such buildings of the same thing become conforming. I Barbara Dacy: What it is saying is that if a particular house has been issued a specific variance or some type of use under a Conditional Use Permit or whatever, if it is officially on record and granted before the effective date of the Ordinance, it is not to be deemed nonconforming just because it received a prior approval. Councilman Horn: It still is nonconforming even though prior to this it was? Councilwoman Swenson: No, it says it shall be deemed allowed in such district even if it's nonconforming, but does that mean just that one structure? Barbara Dacy: Just that one structure. Councilwoman Swenson: I think that is very vague. I think exception could be taken to that. Councilwoman Watson: You think it should state very clearly that those granted, that that one... Councilwoman Swenson: That specific right because otherwise, and I've had problems with that sentence in our existing Ordinance because I think it could be translated into meaning that this is no longer a nonconforming situation. That once the Council said that's okay then that becomes a conforming structure. I 52 37 City Council Special Meeting ~ December 3, 1986 I Councilman Geving: Can you change that? Reword it: Councilwoman Swenson: Let's go back up a little bit farther. '!here's a tyPe on 3-5-6, last sentence. Notwithstanding Section 5-2 above, I believe it should say a single family residence may be restored to it's original location. Councibnan Horn: Single family residences. Councilman Geving: Single family residence, one. Councilman Horn: No, you are talking about any. Councilwoman Swenson: The whole paragraph is referring to a single and all of a sudden the last... Counci lman Horn: ~'re talking gramatical things. Councibnan Geving: Yes, but a single family residence may be... I Councilwoman Swenson: I have a note here Barb and I don't know quite where it would go. In reading some of these permitted uses, I found that in some instances a permitted use is allowed in a less restricted area and then not allowed in a more restricted area. I think that should be reversed. If you allow something in a most restricted area that it certainly should be allowed in those that are not so restricted. Barbara Dacy: Do you have a specific situation? Councilwoman Swenson: I'll have to find it. In general context, let me put it this way and then I'll have to dig through rather than finding it tonight but if we would agree that it is allowed in a most restricted area, it certainly should be allowed in any area that is not as restricted. Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, then I'll go through and find out. '!he school should be a permitted usage in any district and that is not the case. Barbara Dacy: If the school property would be proposed, we would rezone that to the 01, Office Institutional. Councilwoman Swenson: Why would you have to do that? I'm sure that the day is going to come quasi distance when we are going to want a school down somewhere along TH 101 between here and Chaska and then you're going to have to rezone the whole district? I Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that it would be done on the site, specific basis but if you want the school as a listed permitted use then that's fine. Councilman Horn: I don't think we have to worry about it. 53 38 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: I say it's not necessary. I just don't think that's going to happen and if it does, then we'll just change it. That's what plans are for. Change it when the proposal comes in. I Councilwoman Swenson: I assume that you have communication, transmission towers and electrical substation towers as Conditional Uses in the A-2 District to accommodate those which are to come? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson: On Page 5-3-5, is this correct that we have lot frontage at 200 and lot depth at 150 or should that be reversed? Barbara Dacy: The lot frontage is correct. That is 200 feet. Councilman Geving: Lot depth, I think that would be wrong. Barbara Dacy: Yes, it is minimum requirement. Councilwoman Swenson: I mentioned one to you Barb today but I can't remember which one it was now where we had 100 for depth instead of 150. Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's in the R-8. Councilwoman Swenson: And we haven't gotten that far? This is one that I'm a I little bit concerned about, Page 38, 5-5-4. I'm a little concerned about having a private stable on a 15,000 square foot lot. Barbara Dacy: That's why we put them in as a conditional use. Councilwoman Swenson: You have item 2, private stable subject to the provisions of the Horse Ordinance. 4 is a commercial stable with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. Barbara Dacy: Right because the Horse Ordinance for a private stable, you need at least an acre before you can have a horse so you wouldn't have a situation where you have a horse on a 15,000 square foot lot and the Horse Ordinance does not apply to a commercial stable. It does but it doesn't. It bases it on the number of horses. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 38, Section 6. I believe that should be R-2, Mixed Low Residential instead of R-4. Barbara Dacy: No, the R-4 was because it was allowing a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, then let's go down to 5-6-2 and change that to R-4. We must be consistent. On the next page, Lot Depth, that should be 150 feet to be consistent with everybody elses. Top of Page 40, we have public utilities down here as a permitted use in a R-8 District. It doesn't show up in the RSF or a R-4 and what did he mean by public utilities? I 54 I I I 3~j) City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: I think that would be covered by number 4 under utility services so I would eliminate that. Councilman Geving: Eliminate 2? Councilwoman Swenson: Should that be in all of them? Barbara Dacy: Originally, 4 was essential services and the Council wanted that as utilities. Councilwoman Watson: Because we felt that essential services didn't really describe what it was we were talking about. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess my question is, we talk about utility services everyplace else but here we say public utilities. Barbara Dacy: I think that is just terminology. Councilwoman Swenson: Eliminate 2. Page 44, Communication Transmission Tower, what are we talking about? Like transmitting towers and this type of thing. Councilwoman Watson: That M:I tower that we proposed. Councilman Horn: Yes, I know but if she reads this right, the ham radio is a transmission tower. A CB tower is. For commercial? Would it have to be Commercial Communication Transmission? Councilman Geving: Maybe we have to redefine this a little? Councilman Horn: I don't see the definition. Councilman Geving: The telephone in the car transmission type communication tower, was that proposed at one time. Bill Boyt: I think what you are really addressing here is safety and if it doesn't collapse in parts, which is what you are saying there, then you want it set back far enough so it collapses on that person's property and not your neighbor right? How could you rewrite it any other way? Councilman Geving: Well, we want to possibly include the ham radio towers. Barbara Dacy: We can take that language and use it in that other section and also, I had thought that it was defined but it's not in here and I think it deserves special definition because it is a different intensity than a ham radio. Councilman Horn: If we do what Bill is saying, most ham radios towers wouldn't fall on their own property. They are tall enough, they're going to go outside your lot line. Councilwoman Swenson: They're not permitted then. 55 40 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: The intent is if it is 40 feet tall, then it should be set back 4~ feet from the property line. I Councilman Geving: I have to believe this Clark. If we allowed that to exist on a private home in the backyard, that tower should not collapse beyom the extent of his property line. It should not or we shouldn't allow it. Councilman Horn: I don't know how you are going to prevent that. What you're really saying here then is that a guy with a small lot can't have a harn radio. An apartment dweller can't have one. Councilman Geving: We've only got one or two in the whole city. Councilwoman Watson: We've got one in our neighborhood am he certainly isn't causing any trouble for anybody but if it should fall. Councilwoman SWenson: It seems to me that we put some restrictions in there. Barbara Dacy: Unless they corne in for a Conditional Use Permit they can't and shouldn't. Jay Johnson: There are some design things that you could do to prevent, your guide wiring am stuff like that where if it collapses it doesn't always just fall sideways. Councilwoman Swenson: The liability problem obviously and I recognize that but I just don't want somebody getting killed when the darn thing falls down. I Councilman Geving: Is this where you wanted to add carrmercial? Councilman Horn: Yes, I think that would be okay. Commercial transmission as opposed to the ham radio operator. Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara, we do address from a nuisance standpoint the problem with interference with someone elses television or operation of appliances and that type of thing. I think we have that on the nuisance regulations. Councilwoman Watson: (Xl the Conditional Use Permit, they come in if there are any problems with that. He has to correct the problem for you if he causes it. Councilwoman Swenson: Same page, Wholesale Nursery. I have a little problem wi th one that we permitted on TH 101 am I've been meaning to get out the Development Contract and the Agreements on that because I know it's being violated. We should have perimeter berming aroum a wholesale nursery or some type of, well we do have the opague fencing for outdoor storage areas but northwest down there, I'm sure that the whole north side of that is suppose to be trees and it's wide open and it's ugly as all get out. Councilman Geving: All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. This is what we asked the last time. I 56 I I I 41 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: I think that covers it. On Churches, do we have Parking Regulations elsewhere in here Barbara for the number of cars per church because I wasn't able to find it. Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's on Page 105. Councilwoman Swenson: Neighborhood Business District, Page 48, I'm a little bit concerned about having veterinary clinics in a neighborhood business district because this is the type of a business that is going to very likely abut a residential area and veterinary clinics can be a little bit disturbing in the middle of the night. I think a business highway or general business district might be a little bit better than a neighborhood business district for a veterinary clinic. Councilwoman Watson: I think that's a good place for them. Councilman Geving: We're talking about a neighborhood business district. A little shopping center in the middle of a residential area. I don't see anything wrong. Councilman Horn: What's the concern? Councilwoman SWenson: The noise. Barking dogs. Jay Johnson: OUtdoor kennels. Councilwoman Watson: They don't allow outdoor kennels. Councilman Geving: The kennels would be on the inside. They might have a running track or something like that. Jay Johnson: So if the dogs aren't outside at night, they shouldn't be bothering anyone. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 49, this minimum lot area. Is that 15,000 square feet per unit? Per store unit? Barbara Dacy: No, that's for a building site. If you had a multiple tenant situation, the lot that the building is on has to be at least 15,000 square feet. Councilman Geving: You could have several businesses in there. Councilwoman Swenson: Let's go to 6 there please. I believe if you have a minimum rear yard to be 50 feet directly abutting any residential district, I think we should require a six foot berming or opaque fencing abutting the residential area. Separating a neighborhood business with the residential area. The back of those stores can look pretty ugly. Barbara Dacy: I think that should go into the Fence Regulation. As a matter of fact, we tried to address that. 57 42 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: It becomes an alley type of atmosphere in the back of commercial buildings. I Councilman Geving: I like berming or screening. Barbara Dacy: I think the screening requirement between the commercial and residential is a good idea and I would suggest that it be placed in the Fence Regulation. Councilwoman Swenson: '!he same thing on Page 50 on 5. Anything abutting a residential area separating a business area. Councilman Geving: This is a little different though. This is BH now. We're talking about highway. Councilwoman Watson: But still where it abuts a residential area. Councilman Geving: That's fine. Barbara Dacy: And the language that we would put in the fence would apply to any commercial or industrial district. Councilwoman Swenson: On Page 52 I would like to see this major auto repair and body shop either out of the general business district or with a conditional use. I Councilwoman Watson: Where would you prefer to see them, in the Industrial Park kinds of places? The only reason I kind of give them a break is because this is a fringe business area. Councilwoman Swenson: I suppose we have to have them someplace. Councilman Geving: Where would this be? Let's talk about the BG district. Where would that be? Councilwoman Swenson: On the west end of 78th Street. Councilman Geving: Right down in the corner? Barbara Dacy: Right and body shops are permitted in the lOP District. Councilwoman SWenson: lOP is fine. Councilwoman Watson: We're talking about the Burdick's property and the James property. Councilwoman Swenson: I see this downtown growing to the west because it's the only place we can grow and I guess I would hate to see a bunch of wrecked cars sitting at a garage when we're trying so hard to update and upgrade our 78th Street. It just hurts me. I 58 I I I Lt.'> .;.,..~j) City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Horn: There are ways to run body shops and there are ways to run body shops. Councilwoman Watson: If it was on a Conditional Use Permit, because I agree with Pat. You're never going to get anybody to your CBD if they go by a really lousy looking fringe to get to there. Councilman Geving: How do you feel about that Bernie? Bernie Hanson: I think it would fall back to what I was talking about in ours~ If you get a Conditional Use and you've got proper fencing and screening. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's what I said, if i~'s as a Conditional Use. It's listed as a Permitted Use. Councilman Geving: Okay, let's put it that way then. Good catch there. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 59, F, No outside storage of tires. I think that this should be all over every district and everywhere. In fact it is now included in our Nuisance Ordinance. It is a health hazard. We know that encephalitis is contacted through mosquitoes that breed in unmounted tires. Councilman Geving: This pertains primarily to automotive service stations. Councilwoman Swenson: I think it should be absolutely across the board. In fact it is. It is in the Nuisance. Counci lman Horn: It is. I think all you have to do is take it out of here. because it's a general thing. Councilwoman Swenson: It's got to be in here someplace. It should be in the Zoning Ordinance and it should be emphasized. Barbara Dacy: en Page 95 we could do that. Jay Johnson: It's a City Ordinance. Councilman Horn: '!hat's my point. It doesn't need to be in here. It's not zoning, it's a nuisance ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: It's under the Nuisance Ordinance which practically nobody reads. I want it in here. I'm a real fanatic about this. Counci lman Horn: I know but I don't think it's appropriate for the zoning. Barbara Dacy: Page 95, Section 13 we could add a number 7. Councilwoman Watson: No outside storage of tires. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 61, F, is there any better place to put this no test driving of vehicles on local residential streets? Someplace where it's 59 44 City Council Special Meeting ~ December 3, 1986 really going to stick out: Down at the bottom on F, it says no test driving of vehicles on local residential streets. I Councilwoman Watson: How are you going to know whether someone is test driving a car or driving a truck. Councilman Geving: What do you say about that Tim. Tim Erhart: I don't know how you would enforce it. Councilman Geving: If you are going to drive a car or truck, you're going to get in it and you are going to drive down the street a few blocks and you're not going to know whether you are test driving it and if you drive through our residential area you'll get a good test on our potholes. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 63, Parks and Open Space. If the area is not located in a park deficient area, private open space may be created. Why does it only have to be in a non-park deficient area? Why do we have to restrict this? I think we ought to be able to put private open space anywhere we jolly well we want to whether it's in an area that is located in a park deficient area or not. This is what we've been trying to get at. Councilman Geving: Let's kill that because you are absolutely right. Let's just get rid of that whole statement. The first statement on 6 is okay. I Barbara Dacy: Maybe we should note that about 4 or 5 sentences was not printed under item A in that POD Ordinance on Page 64 but those will be included. Councilman Geving: Take out item 2 in that second paragraph of 6. Councilwoman Swenson: On page 65, top of the page, here we've got the no clear cutting and that should include also, I think we should probably put in any POD no clear cutting of woodland area and something about erosion control so that it covers. Councilwoman Watson: So they can't just scrape the ground then go away and leave it. Councilwoman Swenson: we do have an Ordinance that enforces it. Councilman Geving: We've had 2 in there for a lont time. That's been in our existing Ordinance. That isn't a very big change. Bernie Hanson: When you start getting 3 and 4 inch, they get pretty expensive. Councilman Geving: That's why 2 inches is appropriate. It's a minimal. A developer can put in anything he wants as long as he gets one tree. I Councilwoman Swenson: I have a problem with Page 85, Number 3. I think the septic and soil absorption system setbacks, isn't that going to changed now 60 I I I 45 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 with this new Ordinance? That should be 200 feet instead of 150 feet. When you're talking about getting pretty close to a lake with 150 feet there. Councilwoman Watson: What will the new Ordinance say? Barbara 'Dacy: The Ordinance does not pertain to the setback. I think the 150 matches Shoreland regulations. Councilwoman Watson: We can be more restrictive though. We could go to 200 feet. Councilman Geving: Let's make it 200 feet. Councilwoman Swenson: Now here's now that I don't remember ever having seen before, General Development Regulations which is on page 85 also at 6. These regulations may be changed as part of a planned unit development. Barbara Dacy: That's been in there. Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, why do we do that because these restrictions are for the benefit, the minimum lot area I can see but your minimum structure setbacks of 75 feet from the water mark, the lowest ground floor elevation and no development which may result in the unusual road maintenance and these types of things. These are all things that should apply to everything so if these are restrictions for the benefit of the lakes, protection of the lakes and our streets, I don't see anytime when those things should be permitted to be changed. Councilman Horn: Just one. I think the problem is separating one from the rest. Councilwoman Swenson: The minimum lot area I know on the POD. Councilman Horn: That's my point. Councilwoman Swenson: But I think the rest of them are not... Councilman Horn: If you didn't have that statement in there you wouldn't be able to go below 15,000 square feet in the POD. Councilman Geving: It gives us some discretion. Councilman Swenson: What I'm saying Dale is that these are specific things that are for the protection of the PeOple and our lakes and I don't think that tha t should be changed. Councilman Geving: These regulations, with the exception of Items 2, 3 and 4 can be changed as a part, I think that's what we need to say in here. These regulations with the exclusion of Items 2, 3 and 4. Councilwoman SWenson: Why not take out 2, 3 and 4? 61 46 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: No, leave them in. I Jay Johnson: Pipeline breakage. I don't want someplace just because they are a PUD to have a pipeline break, sewer line break. Councilman Horn: I would just put that as an asterick behind 6. Jay Johnson: Chan vista everything abutting the wetland is a minimum of 15,000. Councilman Geving: I think we're really talking about item 1. We can reduce the minimum lot area but all the rest of them are pretty solid. Jay Johnson: Do we still have a minimum of 15,000 abutting the wetlands? Councilwoman Swenson: It depends on what the wetlands are. Councilman Horn: I would just put except for PUD behind the first one and cross out 6. Councilwoman Swenson: Actuall, what is the Shoreland? Don't you have to have 15,000 square feet if we're next to a wetland. Barbara Dacy: . That pertains only to the lakes. I Councilman Geving: What the heck, maybe they can be granted a variance anyway, part of that same page. Councilwoman Swenson: I think 6 should be taken out all together because these are here for the health, welfare and all that kind of stuff. Councilman Horn: That's probably a good point. General Development does require 15,000. Councilman Geving: Let's just kill 6. Councilwoman Swenson: Then the overhead transmission lines, on Page 87, you did say in the Subdivision Ordinance we do have the requirement for underground utili ties. Is that correct? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I have it here. Councilwoman Swenson: en page 89 we have a typo I believe. (H), I believe that should be each site. It says east site, I think it should be each. Now we have the coverage of the hazardous and solid waste landfills porhibited in all districts, right? Page 102. This is just sort of added at Page 102. Hazardous and solid waste landfills are prohibited I believe in all districts showing the intent that we do not welcome these in this community. We went through this before and the reason that we're almost in trouble is because we I did not have a clearly defined intent in the Ordinance. 62 I I I 47 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Wait a minute. What are you doing? You are reading from something. Councilwoman Swenson: No, I'm just making mine own up here. I'm suggesting that this ought to be in here. Councilman Geving: Read it to us. Councilwoman SWenson: It isn't in there Dale. Councilman Horn: You are referring to something on Page 102. Councilman Geving: What's the title? So you are proposing a new Underground utilities? Section 24 called what? Councilwoman Swenson: No, that's already in the subdivision. Hazardous and solid waste landfills are prohibited in all districts. Jay Johnson: What about low level radioactive containment sites in the State of Minnesota here recently? If you really want to argue, hazardous is EPA hazardous, low level rad is not by definition, by those terminologies a hazardous waste. Councilman Geving: If you have some better language. Jay Johnson: Low level radioactive waste containment sites. Councilwoman Swenson: And that's not hazardous? Jay Johnson: It's hazardous as all get out but not by normal definition of hazardous waste. Councilman Geving: I would like to use that language in for our amendment. Jay Johnson: Low level radioactive waste containment sites I guess is what they are trying to call them. They are not going to bury it, they're going to build a building and keep it in the building for a million years. Councilman Geving: Are prohibited in all districts throughout the City. Councilwoman Swenson: And (b) sludge ash distribution is also prohibited. We went through the same problem with that. Someplace Barb in Power lines you have power lines as a Conditional Use Permit. I would like to point out that a Conditional Use Permit permits revocation if certain conditions aren't met, which is the purpose. Councilman Geving: If any conditions aren't met. Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I would ask how you could make the power company take down power lines once they were up if they didn't conform to the Conditional Use? You would have a little difficulty taking them down once they're up. 63 45 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Take them to Court like anybody else. I Councilwoman Watson: But once they're up they're up aren't they? Councilman Geving: What kind of conditions are you talking about here? The conditions are generally fairly reasonable and once they put them up they have met those conditions. I think it would be an unusual set of circumstances. Councilwoman Swenson: I'm only bring it up for discussion purposes. Councilman Geving: That would be written into the Conditional Use Permit Pat. We could pull that conditional use. Councilwoman Swenson: Once it's up it's up. Councilman Geving: We could disable them though. Councilman Horn: It's a nonconforming use you can tell if it were damaged and couldn't be put back up. Like ice storms, other natural disasters. Councilwoman Swenson: Page 121, F, sign display area shall not exceed 64 square feet and the height of such sign shall not exceed 15 feet. I wander down to 13 which is a temporary real estate sign and we have only 10 feet in overall height and I'm not sure I know why a temporary development project sign and temporary real estate sign. Councilman Geving: Let's make them the same. It's much easier to administer. I Councilwoman SWenson: I think 64 feet is too big. I think it should be 32. Barbara Dacy: I think the intent of 13 (A) was for the residential property. Unfortunately, it did not say that. Councilman Geving: Temporary real estate signs for what did you say Barb? Councilman Horn: Is this a single house versus a development or what are we getting at here? Councilman Geving: I don't understand what these temporary real estate signs are. Is it just a sign that you put in front of your house? Barbara Dacy: I beg your pardon. I'll take that back. (A) is for on premise, (B) is for off-premise and 12 is the temporary development project sign for example Lundgren Brothers had their project sign up there. Councilwoman Swenson: What's the size of Lundgren's? That's not 64 feet. That's about 32 isn't it? Barbara Dacy: It's closer to 50. They are really large. I Councilwoman Swenson: I don't know. If it doesn't bother anybody, it just seemed to me that you had 15 feet in one place and 10 in another. 64 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 III Barbara Dacy: 12 and 13 pretty much mirror what the current regulations are. Councilman Swenson: The last one, Page 132, Explosives. The hours of operation of Excavating Operating Standards is the title are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. I don't know about anybody else but I know we have a lot of people in this city that work nightshifts and stuff like that and a lot of PeOple with babies and if somebody started blasting around my house at 7:00 in the morning, I wouldn't be very happy. It seems to me that excavation is one thing but blasting is another. I think that's much too early. Jay Johnson: You also put the times on the Extraction Permit so you look at it on a case by case basis. Depending on where it is. If you're out in the boonies, 7:00 is not a problem. If you are right near somebody, then it may be. Councilman Geving: Olances are by the time they get ready to blast, they have to go in and set it all up and it is probably 8:00 or 9:00 before they are ever capable to perform that anyway so I doubt if 7:00 a.m. is real valid. Councilwoman Watson: They could set up the night before. Councilman Horn: The key is that you don't have to have 7:00 a.m. on the Extraction Permit. You can set that for any time you want. III Councilman Geving: I think we're okay. Now, before we leave this issue, we want to make sure that our map is absolutely correct because this is the way it's going to be published. It has taken a long time to get to this point. I don't know of any changes that we made tonight or suggested that would change the map. Is everybody satisfied with the map because this is the key to everything? Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have provisions for proposed sales? Jeff Hanson: I was going to bring up, like for a person living in the area, where are the trails? Councilman Geving: That is all going to come out when we do our trails and parkland and we have a group of PeOple working on that now as part of our Comprehensive Planning process. That will all be available to you. Are you a citizen of Chanhassen? Jeff Hanson: No. Councilman Geving: Even if you're not, if you're interested in this aspect of the City, you can be a very good resource to help Lori and the rest of the Park and Rec people in giving them your ideas of where some of these things should be so call Lori and we'll get you fixed up on a committee. III Councilman Horn: I can tell you when this City thinks about trails, they aren't thinking about snowmobile trails. Jeff Hanson: Right, we know that. 65 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilman Geving: Are we satisfied. with the map? Is everybody satisfied. that that is the way the new zoning ordinance map will be presented on the 15th? One other comment Pat just mentioned to me, sidewalks. We have not faced this issue squarely. In the past we have let developers develop them. We have pretty much decided up to now that people walking the streets, it's not a healthy situation and I'm sure that as our city grows we're going to have to anticipate that sidewalks be a part of the way we develop. I can see right now from Western Hills to the elementary school, there should always have been a sidewalk. I Councilwoman Watson: I know but there have not been sidewalks deliberately. It has been a deliberate intent. Sidewalks are urban. Councilman Geving: I know. They are costly to build and costly to maintain. Councilwoman Watson: I don't even care about maintaining them or building them, I don't want them. Councilwoman Swenson: Well, Carol I think we're going to have to think about it because I think Chanhassen is growing, obviously becoming more populated. I can think of half a dozen instances, and that's very conservative when we have had problems. people are concerned about their children and themselves, older people, kids, whatever, riding bicycles, walking down the streets. I don't think that a four foot strip alongside a highway is adequate. I think it is equally dangerous because you have some characters out driving I automobiles. I think as a protection for our people who want to walk, the people who want to jog. '!here is a six foot section along TH 4 in E:len Prairie that is supposed to be a walking path, bike path and I would be petrified if I was walking down that. It's not clearly delineated for one thing. We do need sidewalks and I think our situation on Frontier Trail is an excellent example. I think as traffic begins to intesify between neighborhoods, and it's going to, we can only stall it so long, it's going to be there and it's hazardous. '!he area where you are, probably will not have to go in obviously because you're almost an island. The only time I could see a problem there would be if the southern section is developed. A bike path down to Lake Ann along the lake but people are going to have to think about it. Councilman Geving: I think it's a good thought Pat. I don't know where it fits into the Zoning Ordinance. Councilwoman Swenson: Probably in the Subdivision Ordinance. Barbara Dacy: You do have the power to require them. Councilwoman Watson: It should be somewhat optional. Obviously we're not going to build sidewalks along TH 101 and in some less populated areas. Councilman Horn: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that when we were going through the Comp Plan in the Planning Commission back in 1976, we talked about sidewalks and it seemed like one of our City planners at that time said that that's not a current thing that city's are putting in. I 66 I I I 51 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Barbara Dacy: They were probably referring to the additional development costs and so on. I think the way the Commission now is headed is that on collectors or major subdivision streets that at least one side have a sidewalk. Maybe not on every street but on main streets that could be connected overall. Councilman Horn: But then it comes into the City is going to have to maintain it because if you put sidewalks along here, and you talk about senior citizens, the last thing in the world they want to do is to have to maintain their sidewalk. We would get more complaints if we told everybody they had to maintain their sidewalks. Councilman Geving: We made a conscious effort to avoid it but that's sanething. Councilwoman Swenson: You're gOIng to have to address it from a safety standpoint. Councilman Geving: But it doesn't fit here tonight. There's just a couple more questions and the hour is getting late, we're going to button it up. Jay Johnson: Back when you were discussing R-2 and R-4, putting the minimum lot depth from 100 to 150, Page 39, when you get 80 by 150 and you are requiring 15,000, it doesn't leave if you require 150 depth, it doesn't leave much creativity. You are telling them we want your lot to be deeper than it is wide and there are going to be situations where it would be best to have a lot that is wider than deep. Councilwanan Swenson: These are only minimums. Jay Johnson: But it's a minimum depth so if you had a lot that would work out very fine to be 100 foot deep but 150 wide, you have two large sideyards and a smaller backyard but with 100 foot deep you have a pretty good lot still and that's backed up to a creek or something. Councilman Geving: Don't forget, you can always get a variance for this. This is why we had to put in some minimums. 80 feet on the front and 150 deep. Now, if your lot doesn't exactly meet that, you can get a variance for it and that's why these are recommended and now will be Ordinance minimums. This is a common situation. I understand there will be circumstances when they don't meet this and you'll want to flip flop it and go the other way. Councilwoman Swenson: It also makes it consistent because everything else is 150. Councilwoman Watson: Not only that, they never seem to make them bigger than we want. Jay Johnson: Right which means they will probably all be 80 feet wide and 170 foot deep and that canes out to exactly 15,000. 67 52 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson: You're talking about R-4 District too which is four homes per acre. Jay Johnson: R-2 district I would think should be similar too. I almost think that 150 as a minimum is too deep in R-2. Councilman Geving: It could be for R-2. Councilwoman Swenson: You want roam in your backyard for your kids to play. One of the biggest problems we've got, everyone is saying my kids are playing in the street. Let's get these lots deep enough so the kids can play in the backyard. Tim Erhart: The definition of the arterials and collectors and what streets are, is that going to be in place consistent with the adoption of the Ordinance? Barbara Dacy: Isn't that in there? Tim Erhart: We don't define is TH 101 an arterial or collector? In the Comp Plan, is that going to be done consistent with the acceptance of this Zoning Ordinance? Barbara Dacy: No, we're going through the process with the Comp Plan. Tim Erhart: Okay, so when we put this in place, we're not going to be able to enforce the 1,250 feet between driveways on arterials unless we make provisions for it. Barbara Dacy: The ones that we change would possible be pioneer Trail and TH 101 as a collector, that's right. Until we get that Comp Plan done, that's correct. Tim Erhart: I'm suggesting that we do something so that is enforceable at the time. Barbara Dacy: The Transportation Chapter will be coming up in January. Councilwoman Swenson: What's Lyman? Is that going to be a collector? Barbara Dacy: No, Lyman is an Arterial. Councilwoman Watson: Is TH 5 still a minor arterial? It has been with the Metropolitan Council. Barbara Dacy: The main concern and Tim's got an excellent point is that pioneer Trail is not even a collector on the existing plan. Councilman Geving: It should be. It should have the same status as Lyman. Barbara Dacy: TH 101, you saw the result of that transportation study, is 68 I I I I I I 53 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 recommended to go to minor arterial because it is going to be getting more and more traffic. Tim Erhart: Somehow you need a mechanism to get that stated so we can enforce this as part of the Zoning Ordinance. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, so the streets are defined enough so when we talk about thus and thus as a minor arterial we can define it. Tim Erhart: On Page 43, I specifically remember talking about the Contractor's Yard and we made some changes. I do not recall on item 4 (B) where we included that last phrase, including a home on the subject property. I think that is unreasonable. The fact is that contractor's yards, in most cases, do live on the home on the property. I don't recall us talking about adding that phrase. Councilwoman Swenson: What was the purpose of including the home on the subj ect property, do you remember? Barbara Dacy: All that I recall is that was the direction from the Council. Councilwoman Swenson: I have to agree with that. I'm not sure that I would know why. Barbara Dacy: Okay, we'll zip it. Tim Erhart: I can agree 500 feet from somebody's elses house but a guy lives there. Councilman Geving: He's right on his own property. let's make a period at the end of residence and kill the rest of the statement. Tim Erhart: Then over on page 44, 7(C) and 7(F), we didn't have any items listed on wholesale nurseries. We started talking about that and we just said let's just take some of these from the Contractor's Yard and apply them to the Wholesale Nursery except I don't think that is right. (F) should be removed. Councilman Geving: (F) is wrong. That's exactly what Jeff was talking about. Barbara Dacy: You've got to careful though. They are contracting yards. Tim Erhart: The problem is though, when you plant trees on your 80 acre area and you got four years into these trees and then some guy comes next to you with his wholesale nursery and all of a sudden you're not going to be able to sell those trees. Councilman Geving: I think (F) should be deleted. Councilwoman Swenson: You lost me. Why would you want that? You want more than one contractor's yard within a mile. 69 54 City Council Special Meeting ~ December 3, 1986 Tim Erhart: Wholesale nursery. Right, the contractor's yard. Leave that as is. Go over to Wholesale Nursery on page 44, it says that no contractor's yard shall be located within one mile of each other. I Councilman Horn: So put Wholesale Nursery in. Tim Erhart: The problem in, let's say that I've got 80 acres and I've planted 50,000 trees on there. Now I've got $50,000.00 invested in that with the intention that 10 years from now selling those trees and having a wholesale nursery there. All of a sudden, the guy next door to me decides to come in and he gets a Conditional Use Permit for a Wholesale Nursery so I can't sell my trees now. Councilman Horn: It's a question of who is there first but so is this contractor's yard. Tim Erhart: But a contractor's yard is not committed to that piece of land. He doesn't have the investment in trees growing on the property. Jeff Hanson: It's like the lawn and garden dealer that's been there for 14 years and the next guy brings Toro and develops a lawn and garden shop. That's what I was getting at. Not only that but if you've got the clientele, that's where you get into that fine line. Councilman Horn: I think it's a whole different issue because here you're talking about an area that really is not even supposed to have a business in it. What you're talking about is an area where you are allowed businesses. This is the exception to a farming type use. I Councilman Geving: I think we should eliminate 7(F). Councilman Horn: Do you want two wholesale nurseries or more? Councilman Geving: I don't know if we can control it. Councilwoman Swenson: We have a wholesale nursery and the reason that Northwest got in there was because Alan is retail. They are not the same though because this guy is not allowed to sell retail. Northwest is not allowed to sell retail. Halla can do either one so there was a definite difference because I had quite a talk with Don about that and he wasn't too happy about it obviously but there was definitely a distinctive difference between them. Councilman Horn: customers to it. This is totally different because you're not attracting This is like growing a crop really. Tim Erhart: The last one, connected with that, under your definitions you say nursery but everywhere else in the document you term wholesale nursery and I think you ought to use that term wholesale nursery. I Councilman Geving: we only allow wholesale nursery. 70 I I I 55 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 Tim Erhart: Right, but you ought to use that term in the definition in the front rather than just nursery. On Page 112 under landscaping materials concerning walls to be constructed of natural stone, brick or artificial materials. I guess I don't understand that. I'm just asking you to look at that one Barbara. Councilwoman Watson: It's just an odd statement. Councilman Horn: I suppose they mean like these organic things or whatever. Could be fiberglass. Tim Erhart: On page 114, the list of trees. Barbara Dacy: I was going to ask you, does that include the 1 ist that you sutmitted? Tim Erhart: No. list of trees. The issue on this, I question why we even need to put in a Are we recommending builders to use cedar siding versus brick? Councilman Geving: No, but sometimes when they corne in with their landscaping plan, it's kind of nice to know. Tim Erhart: Okay, then if we are going to put in a list I think we left out some very important trees for instance: Red Oak, White Oak, White pine, Colorado Blue Spruce. Barbara Dacy: Are those on the list that you provided? Tim Erhart: Yes, and I provided a list of trees that I thought were left out. Councilman Geving: Okay, if you've got a list, let's include them because every once in a while we look at landscaping plans and I like to see what trees. Barbara Dacy: I thought we had it in there. Jay Johnson: I see this is recommended and not something that you have to do. You could also have a recommended list of trees that is available from the City Planner or shall be available from the City and have the list outside of the Ordinance. Councilman Horn: Wait a minute. We put in a minimum diameter in this thing. There's no way you're going to move an oak tree that is bigger than 2 inches in diameter. You can't put in an oak tree. Tim Erhart: Nursery grown trees. Councilman Horn: You're talking ball tree. You can grow them in the nursery but if you don't keep moving them, you're not going to do that either. Tim Erhart: On page 116, I saved this for last for a reason, clear cutting. I don't think we need to allow clear cutting in the farming areas. You're 71 56 City Council Special Meeting - December 3, 1986 going to rewrite that one anyway. Barbara Dacy: You're saying exclude the agricultural areas from the clear cutting provision? Tim Erhart: Should not allow clear cutting in the agricultural area. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't we are allowing clear cutting of anything. Tim Erhart: Right but you made an exception there that you could do for farming and I don't think we need to do that. Councilman Geving: I didn't see that. Councilwoman Swenson: I didn't see that farming. I agree. Leave the trees up. Counci lman Horn: I agree. Councilman Geving: Alright, if there are no other points. Barbara Dacy: Do you want us to respond to Mr. Boyt's two points on the signs and Mr. Hanson's point on the sign? Councilman Geving: Yes. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 72 I I I