1c. Zoning Ordinance Regarding Definition of Density, Wetland Enforcement & Swimming Pool Finces /e.,
C ITY O F P.C. DATE: July 5 , 1989
C.` C.C. DATE: Aug. 14 , 1989
C1111,1111ASSEN
' I , Y CASE N0: 89- ZOA
Prepared by: Olsen/v
I
STAFF REPORT
ii
IPROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendments
a. Section 20-3, regarding definition of density.
Iz b. Section 20-409, regarding wetland setbacks ( 200 '
Qfor commercial dog kennels and stables.
IV c. Section 20-441, regarding enforcement of the
...J wetland section.
d. Section 20-1021, regarding swimming pool fences.
I
94.1 APPLICANT:
II
II
I
II PRESENT ZONING: *�� L` 3r,,srrrer
ACREAGE: - `�st e= r E^?;rsed. '- `
r
111 DENSITY: 1".__.
r7 3.:1011
ADJACENT ZONING
IAND LAND USE: N- ;,ey ,.1 co LA ut 3c1;
s-
I E-
W-
W
} �' WATER AND SEWER:
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : •!:'
I2000 LAND USE PLAN:
kii
EN
•
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19, 1989 ,
Page 2
ANALYSIS
SECTION 1
Section 20-3, Regarding Definition of Density.
When staff reviews any subdivision or planned unit development, '
the net density is what is applied to the calculations. Net den-
sity is defined in the ordinance as "the quotient of the total
number of dwellng units divided by the developable acreage of the
site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways,
and other areas not suitable for building purposes. " Staff is
recommending that Section 20-3 under interpretation of the zoning
be amended to clarify that net density is what is applied for the
total acreage to be used in calculating the density. Therefore,
it would be clear from the beginning to developers that any
wetlands, lakes , steep slopes, etc. , would not be considered in '
their overall density calculations.
Staff is recommending that Section 20-3 of the City Code be
amended as follows :
Section 20-3 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
( 1) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this
chapter are either more or less restrictive than con-
ditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which
is most restrictive shall prevail. When this Chapter
provides both general regulation as well a specific
regulation of a subject, the specific regulation shall
apply.
( 2 ) When the term "density" is used in this chapter without
specifying "net density" or "gross density" it shall be ,
construed to mean "net density" .
SECTION 2 '
Section 20-409 , Regarding Wetland Setbacks ( 200 ' ) for Commercial
Dog Kennels and Stables.
Certain zoning districts of the city require private and commer-
cial dog kennels and stables to receive a conditional use permit. '
The specific conditions for such a conditional use permit
requires that the kennels and stables be located 200 feet from a
wetland. In other districts, a commercial kennel or stable is a
permitted use. In these cases, specific wetland setbacks do not
exist for stables or kennels. Therefore staff is recommending
that Section 20-409, which provides specific regulations for
wetlands, be amended to provide setbacks from a wetland
for private and commercial dog kennels and stables .
I
I-
' Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19, 1989
Page 3
Staff is recommending that Section 20-409 of the Chanhassen City
Code be amended by adding Subparagraph 6 to read as follows:
' ( 6 ) The minimum setback for private and commercial dog
kennels and stables is 200 feet.
' SECTION 3
Section 20-441, Regarding Enforcement of the Wetland Section.
The city has been reviewing several wetland alteration permits
' which have been applied for after the wetland has been altered.
Currently, the section regulating the wetlands does not provide
for an enforcement or penalty section for persons who alter
' wetlands without receiving the wetland alteration permit.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission add
Section 20-441 to the City Code to read as follows:
Section 20-441, Enforcement.
' ( 1) Violation of Article VI , Wetland Protection, or of the
terms of a permit issued thereunder shall be a mis-
demeanor punishable by ninety ( 90) days in jail and a
' $700. 00 fine.
( 2 ) Any person who alters a wetland in violation of Article
VI shall apply for a wetland alteration permit and shall
' Pay a filing fee double the regular fee. The City
Council may require the violator to restore the wetland
or take other mitigative measures.
SECTION 4
Section 20-1021, Regarding Swimming Pool Fences.
The current section of the City Code which regulates fences,
allowed swimming pools which were inaccessible from adjacent
properties to be exempt from the regulations of having a swimming
pool fence. Staff has had people apply for a swimming pool who
' disagree with staff as to whether they need to have a swimming
pool fence because they felt that their property was inaccessible
from adjacent properties . Upon inspection of these sites it was
found that although they may have a steep slope on one side of
' the pool , it was still accessible from adjacent property, speci-
fically neighborhood children, and that a fence was necessary.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
amend Section 20-1021 of the Chanhassen City Code as follows :
I
I
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19 , 1989
Page 4
Section 20-1021, Swimming Pool Fences
All in-ground swimming- pools shall be protected by a fence
not less than four ( 4 ) feet in height. All gates shall have
the latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All in
ground pools installed prior to February 19, 1987, shall 1
Subsection (a) does not apply to pools inaccessible from
adjacent properties or which are located on property which
are completely enclosed by perimeter fence four feet in
height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION '
The Planning Commission recommended approval as recommended by
staff. Section 20-1021, Swimming Pool Fences was amended to add
definition of type of fence. Staff researched UBC regulations
and recommended that the following be added:
All fences shall be nonclimbable and shall have intermediate
> rails ciR ornamental pattern such that a sphere 4" in diameter
cannot pass through.
Staff is also recommending that the height be increased to 5 ' and '
latches shall be self closing and self latching.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION '
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions :
"The City Council approves the amendments as follows :
Section 20-3 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: i
( 1) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this
chapter are either more or less restrictive than con-
ditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which
is most restrictive shall prevail. When this Chapter
provides both general regulation as well a specific
regulation of a subject, the specific regulation shall
apply.
( 2 ) When the term "density" is used in this chapter without
specifying "net density" or "gross density" it shall be
construed to mean "net density" .
Section 20-409 adding Subparagraph 6 to read as follows : '
( 6 ) The minimum setback for private and commercial dog
kennels and stables is 200 feet.
I
II'
' Zoning Ordinance Amendments
July 19 , 1989
Page 5
Add Section 20-441 to the City Code to read as follows :
' Section 20-441, Enforcement.
( 1) Violation of Article VI, Wetland Protection, or of the
terms of a permit issued thereunder shall be a mis-
demeanor punishable by ninety ( 90) days in jail and a
$700 . 00 fine.
' ( 2) Any person who alters a wetland in violation of Article
VI shall apply for a wetland alteration permit and shall
pay a filing fee double the regular fee. The City
' Council may require the violator to restore the wetland
or take other mitigative measures .
Amend Section 20-1021 as follows :
Section 20-1021, Swimming Pool Fences
' All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence
X less than five ( 5) feet in All gates shall have
self closing and self latching installed on the pool
' side of the fence. All fences shall be nonclimbable and
shall have intermediate rails oK ornamental pattern such that
a sphere 4" in diameter cannot pass through. Subsection (a)
does not apply to pools which are located on property which
are completely enclosed by perimeter fence five feet in
height.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 19 , 1989 .
I
r
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting .1
July 19, 1989 - Page 11
1
Koegler : My only comment would be that convenience store with gas
pumps, I think the assumption has been that that' s self explanatory. That '
the only differential between the two is the existence of pump islands.
If we need to clarify that by adding another one that essentially says the '
same thing except this one has pump islands, we can do that but I think
the assumption, the way the ordinance is drafted right now is that
convenience store and convenience store with gas pumps are the same thing si
as far as the building goes. The only differential is the sale of
petroleum outside.
Emmings : Maybe you just want to add a sentence under convenience store
that would say that if they sell motor fuels too, then it will be
designated as a convenience store with gas pumps or something like that.
I think it should be defined in there someplace.
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 adding provisions
concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations as presented by
staff and directing staff to look into the definition of convenience store
with gas pumps between now and the time it reaches City Council . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: 1
A. SECTION 20-3 REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY.
B. SECTION 20-409 REGARDING WETLAND SETBACKS (200 ' ) FOR COMMERCIAL DOG
KENNELS AND STABLES.
C. SECTION 20-441 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WETLAND SECTION.
D. SECTION 20-1021 REGARDING SWIMMING POOL FENCES.
Conrad : Jo Ann , there aren' t many people in attendance. Do you have a
staff report that you want to go through? ,
Olsen: No , we can just go through each one . . .
Conrad: Anything different than the last time that we talked about it?
Yes, maybe we should go through it . I think for procedural purposes ,
we' ll open up the public hearing for any comments to the amendments
proposed to our zoning ordinance for Section 20-3 , 20-409, 20-441 and
20-1021. Are there any comments? If not, is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Conrad : Let' s go through them one by one . Any comments on 20=3 ,
definition of density? Any comments? How about 20-409? Wetland setbacks II
II, . Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 12
I
for commercial dog kennels and stables .
' Emmings: I have a question. When we say that you ' re going to set back a
kennel or a stable 200 feet , what are we setting back? The building?
' Olsen: Yes. The stable would be what would be set back. The pasture,
no . As far as like a dog kennel , when those come in I also include where
the concrete is and the patio. That gets into the definition of structure
' which we' re still . . .
Headla: What did you say Jo Ann?
' Olsen : I take setbacks from like the concrete area around a kennel
because that' s permanent and I consider that a structure also so it
wouldn' t just be the dog house. I would consider that part of the kennel .
That we' re working on the definition of structure which would help define.
Emmings : Our definitions of kennel under our definition sections of the
' code don' t, relates to the property more than it does to a building but
when you use kennel with stable , that makes me think of something that ' s
built to house the dogs with runways and all of that . What is the
objective of setting back a kennel or a stable from a wetland?
Olsen: The reason I did this was that we already have that control when
they have to go through a conditional use permit. They have to be set
IF: back 200 feet from the wetland but if it' s in an area where you don' t need
the conditional use permit, we don' t have that setback from a wetland so
they could be right up against it. Under the wetland ordinance, they
could be 75 feet but when we reserached the conditional use permit for it,
we felt in working with the Fish and Wildlife and also with Roger
Machmeier and Jim Anderson , that they should be set back. The stables
themselves where a high percentage of they, that they should be set back
farther .
Emmings: Why?
Olsen : Why? The concentration of the manure .
Emmings: Well , I wondered if that was the reason because I supposed if
you had a small pasture and a lot of horses , if you' re worried about
nutrient overloading into the wetland, you may have the same problem with
the pasture that you have with the stable . In fact , the stable is
probably cleaned out and put on a pile where in a pasture it' s not going
to be so I don ' t know, it depends on what the objective is here . If
you' re worry about nutrient overload, I don' t know that this will do it.
' Maybe it will . If the pasture is big enough, it ' s not probably going to
be a problem. If it' s small , it might be. I don' t know that this does
what we want it to do or not .
Conrad: Dave, what do you think?
Headla : I think we' re trying to solve a problem that isn ' t a problem and
trying to fix something that isn' t broken. I don' t agree with the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 13
I
(7 ordinance , the way it is right now. I can cite a particular situation
where I did a horse inspection. You brought up a very good point. Where II
is the pasture? Normally very few places that I inspect that don' t have a
pasture around the barn. The barn invariably stays very neat and that' s
the thing we' re trying to control . Your corral is where the horse will
stay mostly during the winter and you have a manure accumulation but the
people are picking that up in the spring or early summer , during the
summer. They can take that, haul that out in the pasture and leave it and
they can be with the ordinance or conditional use permit . What we' re '
trying to do, and the results that you' re going to accomplish, I think it
might be negative. I 'd like to see this thing thrown out on the
conditional use permit and take another look at it. If you' re really
trying to control nutrients , I think you have to control it probably by
densing and keeping a pasture and that clean. Not just say a stable. And
dog kennels, and I 'm kind of out of a dog era now but the dog kennels that '
I 've known and I know now, they' re spic and span. You go outside and boy
they' re clean. What are we trying to control? I think we' re trying to
control something we think is a problem but where has there ever been a
defined problem? I don' t know. '
Conrad : Are you just saying where the stable' s located is really not the
problem? '
Headla : That ' s right .
Conrad: It' s the pasture. '
Headla : And the fella that applied here this last year . He jumped
through hoops trying to get his barn at the right spot and he called me
over and wanted me to look at it and we said okay let ' s put it here
because the drainage is away. That kind of decides where the building and
that made a lot more sense than that actual distance from the wetland .
Conrad: Do you see a simple solution to this? I think Jo Ann is trying
to solve some problems , not making it a big deal but maybe the simple
solution for stables , it seems like dog kennels are easy to take care of
this way but stable is probably a different thing . Should we delete
stable from this one and work on it or is there a solution? Is it worth
while? '
Headla : Yes . I think it ' s worth while and the reason I say that , when I
drive around and I hate to see it limited to just residential single
family or anything . When I drive around and I see a horse pastures that
go out into wetlands . I 'm having a hard time with that. I can' t say
anything . That ' s not in an ordinance. I 'm not sure if cattle or horses ,
animals or such domestic animals should be grazing in wetlands. Maybe I
there ' s something , if enough people agree with that thought , maybe there ' s
something there we could use to control the situation. I see animals ,
domestic animals grazing on wetlands, they' re just degrading it
conjunctively.
ti
Wildermuth: But boy, is there going to be a human cry about something
like that. '
• Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 14
lir
Conrad : Yes . This is sort of a low impact way of doing something and
probably not much but do you think there would be a great deal of outcry
Dave from the animal owners?
' Headla : Yes . I think so . They've had their animals out there for a long
time. I 'm sure they look at it as their land. They bought it for that
purpose. They've been using it for that purpose . I think there would be
some very strong opposition.
Erhart: You' re referring to what? Cattle?
' Headla: Cattle. Domestic animals grazing on wetlands .
' Erhart : I didn' t know there was anybody left in Chanhassen that raised
cattle is there?
Olsen : They'd all be grandfathered in. I don ' t think anybody is moving
in.
Conrad : The Kerber ' s used to have cattle out on Lotus Lake up until last
1 year .
Erhart : Did they really?
IF: Conrad : Oh yes . It was kind of neat to go by the cattle swimming in the
water .
' Erhart : I think I agree with Dave that they shouldn ' t be in wetlands . I
was trying to think of anybody in the south part of Chanhassen that has
cattle. There' s one over on 17 that raises cattle over there .
' Conrad : Well should we, Jo Ann what do you think? What ' s your feeling?
I think the point' s valid that Dave' s , teal valid, that he ' s raising .
' Olsen : Right .
Wildermuth: But it' s two separate issues I think.
' Olsen: We could look into controlling that. The ones that it would
really impact would be grandfathered in so it wouldn ' t be changing
anything . The structures we could, I 'd have more control on but if that' s
not what people the problems , then that ' s okay. Maybe it isn' t necessary
and if that' s the case, then we should take it out of the conditional use
permit. The whole initiation of this was just to make the ordinance
' consistent.
Conrad : Dave, tell us what your preference would be on this . Should we
' strike the stables at this point in time and do you want to do any work on
this project just to help Jo Ann or do you feel that , we can leave it in
and there may be little impact. As Jo Ann said, she' s trying -to make it
consistent with Fish and Wildlife , consistent with what?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 15
c
Olsen : No . Right now our ordinance for stables and kennels, when they're'
a conditition use permit, under the specific conditions of that
conditional use required to be 200 feet from the setback.
Conrad: So Jo Ann really is trying to make things consistent. It' s '
almost more housecleaning .
Headla : On the other hand , throw it out of the conditional use permit. I'
think those were the words that were restricted that were not appropriate.
Emmings : What did you just say. I didn' t follow. '
Headla: Remove that from the conditional use permit.
Conrad : Dave would like to change the conditional use guidelines . '
Rather than syncing this up with the conditional use guidelines , he' s
saying hey those are wrong .
Emmings: Well , I don ' t think we know what we' re doing here. I don ' t
think there' s any real , I don' t feel any consensus up here for , maybe we
should look at the whole thing again . Maybe we aren' t doing the right
thing in the conditional use either .
Conrad : Probably a valid , so the question is , we could modify the zoning
ordinance in terms of dog kennels and throw out stables and re-evaluate
stables in context of pasture, corral or whatever .
Emmings : What the compelling reason to have a dog kennel 200 feet from
the wetland?
Erhart : To me that just eliminates a whole lot of people from having a I
dog kennel on their property. If you have a 25, 000 square foot lot , 200
feet deep, 125 foot frontage that backs up against a lake , that guy can' t
have a dog kennel .
Wildermuth Why don' t we let the wetland ordinance control it so you
can' t be closer than 75 feet?
Olsen : That ' s where a structure, it already is controlled by that way.
Emmings: I think maybe that 's enough. Maybe we should table this one and
think about it some more .
Conrad: I think so .
Emmings : We looked at it before and didn' t bring all this stuff up . Our II
comments were based on public comments that we heard.
Conrad : And Dave is as public as we can get. '
Olsen: So you' re tabling of this is what? I guess I 'm not clear on what
you want . Do you want to review just taking out of the conditional use?
II. Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 16
' Conrad : I think we need you to review what the purpose of this is ,
especially for the stables. Also in terms of pasture land:
' Erhart : And dog kennels. ,•,,.
Emmings: Give us a rationale.
' Conrad : And I guess dog kennels too .
Emmings: Both need a conditional use permit now.
' Erhart : Right . I think what Jo Ann is trying to do is good . We' re
trying to make our ordinance consistent but let' s re-evaluate these things
as it relates , what it ought to be.
Conrad: I would hope Dave could help you a little bit.
' Headla : I 'd be glad to work with Jo Ann on that .
Conrad: And maybe what he' s suggesting is the conditional use permit may
' need some modification as well .
Olsen: I ' ll check with our experts and see what they say that stables
should be that far away.
Emmings : I think what Dave said about density. Density would seem, near
a population of horses for a certain size of land and also regulating how
' they dispose of their manure from the stable . Are they putting it out on
the pasture? What are they doing with it? Or from a corral? Those
things may be more important to regulate than where the building is .
Erhart: I agree. Even the density of dogs lies because when you get a
commercial kennel , then I can easily see where the 200 foot makes a lot of
sense but 1 guy and 1 dog, being so restrictive is unreasonable I think.
' Conrad : It says commercial dog kennel .
' Erhart: It also says private though too .
Conrad : Interesting .
Emmings : I wonder , would the Fish and Wildlife people or DNR have any
regulations or information about the effect on wetlands with these kinds
of activities?
Olsen : I can look into that .
Emmings : They might be a good resource.
Conrad : Section 20-441 . Any comments on the penalty?
Planning Commission Meeting •�
July 19 , 1989 - Page 17
Erhart : I think the penalty is fine but I think the real issue here again
is this information about what's a wetland and if we could provide some
way of educating people, both existing Chanhassen citizens and people
moving into the area buying houses , really what is designated wetland
because I don ' t think peopl,g have any foggy idea of where the wetlands
begin, even in a brand new subdivision like this. The first guy that
moves in there won' t have any idea where it is and just off hand I can
think of 2 ways that we could improve the communications in that area. One
would be to , a map that' s important , to put it up in the lobby of the city
hall here someplace so when people walk in, you know how you always have
to wait to get an appointment with staff . They' re always late and things,
and they would browse around and look at these maps. Just kidding of
course but the map and they could see what was designated land . If it was II
on their property, they would know. The second thing is , if we have all
these pamphlets that we have up here and maybe print up a pamphlet. What
are designated wetlands in the City so there' s a higher probability that a II
land owner here in the city and lot owner would know if there ' s an
official wetland and then also include in there the penalties . What' s the
laws and what ' s the penalty. Right now I don ' t think there' s any
convenient way. There is no way that anybody would know that there' s a
wetland on their property.
Emmings : We could go around and paint them all red .
Erhart: Paint them all red. Just some ideas .
Conrad : You ' re right . Nobody knows .
Erhart: Nobody knows. And then there' s always the ones that, there' s
always the people that do do it. They sort of know but the fact that it' s II
not blatantly spelled out for them, they go ahead and do it because they
can always say, well how was I supposed to know.
Olsen: Even the ones that you point it out to them, they' ll still argue.
They' ll say that ' s not a wetland . It doesn ' t have. . .
Erhart: But if it' s on a map.
Emmings: They' ll say it' s not wet . It wasn ' t wet last year . ,
Olsen: There' s never been a duck in that wetland .
Erhart : If it' s on an official map someplace, you can ' t use the argument '
well it's not wet because it' s on the map.
Olsen : We explain then it ' s just soils and vegetation . I
Conrad : Any other comments on this one?
Erhart : Also point out , the map does exists doesn ' t it? ,
Olsen: Well we ' re updating it though. We ' re trying to update it .
II, . • Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 18
i
CConrad : Section 20-1021, the swimming pool fences . Any comments on that?
Jo Ann, it says that you got some comments from people in the City. Is
that right or did I misread that?
' Olsen : No , we' ve had no comments . This came about because we had people
with the wording that if it was inaccessible from adjacent property, what
they felt was inaccessible and what we felt was inaccessible, we didn' t
agree on. Plus the building code would still require them to have a fence
for safety, for people falling out from the pool over the cliff so we took
it out just to make things consistent again. Just make it clearer that
you have to have a fence no matter what.
Wildermuth: Sounds like a good idea.
Emmings : Is 4 feet enough? Is 4 feet what you want? I think that I 'm
aware that there are 6 foot requirements in other cities. I 'm wondering
if , a pool is a very attractive thing and I think it ' s smart to fence it
but I don' t know if 4 feet' s enough and when it talks about perimeter
' fences being 4 feet in height , I was going to check our code on fencing .
Can fences be 4 feet on perimeters in all places on a perimeter of a
yard?
1 Olsen : As far as like on the front or corner?
Emmings: Yes .
IP: Olsen: Yes , we have no restrictions on that . You just can' t block
visibility. That 's why we have site plans like on a permit.
' Emmings : Yes , like on a perimeter or something?
Olsen: Yes. That' s a good point .
Emmings : And I supposed , it says it ' s located on property which is
completely enclosed by perimeter fence and is what you have in mind there
that at least the yard in which the pool is , that ' s what will be enclosed?
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings : Okay. I just don ' t know about 4 feet .
' Conrad: I would think that 4 feet is going to keep your infants and
toddlers out . Anybody that wants , it is an attractive nuisance no matter
what and because it' s so attractive you ' re going to scale, somebody that' s
capable can scale a 6 foot as well as a 4 . My thought there was making
' sure that infants , toddlers and little younger children can ' t easily get
in.
' Emmings : And I 'm quibbling now but if that ' s the goal , do you want to
designate the kind of fence? Should it be chainlink? If you have a
picket fence with the pickets this far apart , it' s not going fits serve that
purpose.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 19 1
Olsen : That ' s true . Everybody just assumes that they always put chain
link.
Conrad : It probably should_be Jo Ann . '
Olsen: I 'm just trying to think if there' s other types of fencing than
chain link that they use but I can check that.
Conrad: Yes , we need your guidance on that but I think the chain link xs'
really the way you want to fly.
Ellson : I ' ve seen people do the slat board right next to each other so
you can' t even see in.
Erhart : Why don' t you define it in terms of someone who can ' t get through "
it somehow as opposed to chain. Just try to find some words that says
can' t be penetratable by children .
Conrad: Any other comments on this?
Headla : I 'd like to ask a question that Steve was pursuing and that he
forgot to ask but he was going to ask. What' s the intent of this?
Ellson : She talked about that .
Olsen: The intent of?
Headla : Of this ordinance. ,
Olsen : We' re deleting certain words from the existing ordinance that were
difficult to define.
Headla : But are we trying to keep out neighborhood children?
Olsen: Right. It's for the protection, yes . '
Headla : Okay, but if I had a swimming pool in my backyard and I got
perimeter fencing all over the place. I 've got probably 3 fences on
different spots , but somebody could come in my front gate or come in the
back and if I had a party, that swimming pool wouldn' t have to be
protected by this ordinance. Are we really trying to protect the swimming II
pool? If we are, then we should put limits on how far away that fence
should be away from the swimming pool .
Emmings: My thinking would be there Dave that if you have guests , you ' re
aware of it and if you don ' t have your swimming pool fenced , you ' ll be
watching it. I think this is more to prevent the situation where somebody
wanders onto the property or is attracted to the pool from off the
property where you ' re not aware of it.
Headla : See that' s what I was questioning . What is the real intent? Is
it from people who reside outside the property? Are they protecting the II
pool from them?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 20
Emmings : I think so.
Headla : If that ' s the intent , then I think the wording is appropriate .
Emmings: You let the people have that choice. You can either fence your
pool to protect everybody who might be on the property or you can fence
' your whole yard if you want to have a more open feeling around your pool
and I think that ' s an appropriate thing .
Headla: But I 've seen patio fences in the immediate area of the pool .
Ellson : I know people who have a big patio area and their yard and
everything too so they've got all the lounge chairs . I 've seen it both
ways but I think more the other way.
Conrad : Any other comments?
' Erhart : What if the closest property is 1, 000 feet away?
' Conrad: That' s okay.
Ellson : But you don ' t want that split rail kind of fence . There' s that
one part about what the intent is .
Conrad : A toddler can go 1, 000 feet .
' Emmings: Okay, maybe I ' ve got an idea . We can just add language to the
swimming pool fence section that says the fence shall be chainlink or
something else approved by the City which will prevent children from
' entering the area of the pool . Maybe people want to design something that
doesn' t look as cold as chainlink and if they do , fine but let' s say
you' re going to use chainlink unless you come up with something else that
we approve. I think that 'd be a good way to do it .
' Conrad : Barbed wire , does that work?
Headla: That works . That will keep a kid away. I use a lot of . . .
fencing and it looks good and you can put wood up on it on top of it .
Aesthetically I like it better than chainlink. I 'm trying to think, do I
want to support the wording of chainlink. Appropriate fencing but by
who ' s definition.
Wildermuth : We want it to limit access . That ' s what we should put .
' Fencing that effectively limits access .
Emmings : I think by saying chainlink though, you get the idea across real
clear. Put the burden on them to come up with something else that works.
Conrad : Is chainlink a brand name? 0
3 _
Emmings: No. How' s that for a simple answer . I have no idea .
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 21
f
Erhart : Are you looking for a motion? '
Conrad: I 'm looking for a motion on all of them.
Ellson : What about the one we wanted to leave out? ,
Erhart: I move that we recommend to the City Council the ordinance
changes as outlined by staff for Section 20-3, regarding definition of
density with the changes they recommend. Section 20-409, we' ll not
include that one I guess . Section 20-441, as recommended by staff . And
Section 20-1021 as recommended by staff with the addition of definition of "
a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. With the
addition of those words in that recommendation.
Conrad : Is there a second? '
Emmings: Your motion includes chainlink?
Wildermuth : I don' t think we should use the word chainlink. I think we
should say fencing that effectively limits accessibility.
Emmings : Well let ' s second it. I ' ll second it for purposes of '
discussion.
Erhart : Okay, then I ' ve just left item 2 off in my motion.
Conrad: Jim's comment is not too specified. Chainlink, in your motion
Tim, did you specify chainlink? ,
Erhart : I specified chainlink unless otherwise approved by the City.
That' s the words I used .
Conrad : Then let ' s get consensus on that wording . Steve, ou' re
comfortable with that. Annette? y
Ellson : I- like it.
Conrad: Jim, you' re not. Dave , where are you? '
Headla: I think Steve made the point that it should say chainlink is
getting the point across . With that , I guess I 'd support that .
Conrad: I think I 'd go along with that too. I think your comment is
valid Jim.
Ellson: We' re still giving him other options . Just because you might get II
the interpretation that to me this is not accessible.
Emmings : I like the idea of shoving the people all the way over here and II then have them show you why you should let them out. se
Conrad : Jo Ann , I trust you can specify what we' re trying to get at?
Typically insurance really dictates what goes around a pool . I don' t
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19 , 1989 - Page 22
' know, I struggle with why we' re doing this because typically you don' t
have a pool unless you've got insurance and insurance tells you exactly
what they want around that pool .
' Emmings : I didn' t think about that.
Conrad : I always wonder why we mucky mucking around with this particular
one when private industry is typically taking care of i.t .
Erhart: When people come in, aren ' t they responding to an insurance
' requirement? What do they tell you?
Olsen: There are quite a few pools out there without fences .
' Conrad: They don' t need to carry the insurance so this will take care of,
you could go out and dig your own pool and put it in and basically I don' t
think you'd have to have. . .
' Erhart : You' re right . My insurance company wouldn ' t even know. They
don't even ask that question.
IEmmings : Do you know what any of those insurance standards are? What
they do require? That would be a real interesting thing to know.
IF: Conrad : Barbed wire to the height of 15 feet . I really don ' t know.
Ellson: I think it has to be a locked fence. I think I knew somebody
' that was looking into that and they had to have a lock. It ' s not just
that they have to have a fence but it has to be locked .
' Emmings : No kidding .
Olsen: Yes , that ' s in here. That it has to be latched .
' Emmings: Latched on the inside, yes . But actually a lock.
Ellson : Someway that yes , not just any old person could figure out how to
do your latch and turn it and lift it up .
Conrad : Having a latch doesn ' t mean it' s locked .
' Ellson: Really. It could be just a lift up kind of thing . I recall it
being pretty tough .
' Erhart: If we didn' t have this and some neighbor kid fell in the pool and
drown, the City would be in a position of receiving quite a bit of
criticism for not having such an ordinance .
Erhart moved, seconded Emmings g nde that the Planning Commission regommend
approval of Section 20-3 , definition of density as recommended by staff ;
ISection 20-441, enforcement of the wetland section as recommended by• staff ; and Section 20-1021, swimming pool fences amended to include the
II
Planning Commission Meeting
July 19, 1989 - Page 23 '
C
addition of the definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved I
by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad : Everything passes Jo Ann except the one that we need you to do a II
little bit more work on and bring it back to us and see how we think.
NEW BUSINESS: '
Erhart: I've got some new business . Can I introduce an idea here or do II
you want to wait until the end?
Conrad : Sure . Go ahead .
Erhart: Just a quick one. Is there any interest on , a couple meetings
ago we heard a horror story about the utilities company, and I don' t
believe it was NSP, I believe think it was Minnesota Valley Electric came II
in and clearcut a 50 foot wide path under a power line. I started
thinking about that because I have a Minnesota Valley Electric powerline
quite a few hundred feet through my property and I ' ve been trying to
reforest this area . As I ' ve been planting trees every year and I started
realizing this year for the first time, since they came out and did the
same thing on my property, now since they did it on my property every 10
years , it hadn' t grown up to mature trees and what had grown, a lot had
been box elders so I was a little bit upset about it but didn ' t say
anything and yeah, go ahead and I was too busy to leave the office and
find out what they really wanted to do but once I really started looking
at where I 'm planting these trees so I don' t get them under the power line
and I don ' t think it' s wide enough to give them 50 feet so I probably have
some of the trees that I 've planted are closer in than that but then I
heard this horror story about this property out here where they came
through and did that. I 'm just wondering if that' s something, it so goes
against the effort we made in preserving trees and so forth. Obviously
you have to maintain power line clearances and so forth but I wonder if
there isn ' t some happy median that we ought to be looking at or is it
something that we just don't want to deal with.
Emmings : I went out and looked at that . I was out at Camp Tanadoona and II
saw where they came through there and it' s just ridiculous. It' s just
incredible overkill for the purpose that they' re trying to reach as far as II
I can tell. I don' t see why they should be able to do that.
Wildermuth : Is that the width of their easement, 55 feet?
Emmings: I 'm sure it must be and I think they should be able to take
reasonable measures to make sure that in storms , that trees don ' t fall ont
he lines but it looks like ground zero at Nakisaki . ,
Conrad : It' s just devastating . It' s just such an overkill . ,
Erhart: One of the things we could do is we could get NSP's policy for
this and find out if Minnesota Valley' s approach to this kind of thing is
,w