The URL can be used to link to this page

1i. Minutes y 11 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Hor Councilman Johnson n, Councilman Geving and STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Geving to include discussion on zip codes and communications; and by Councilman Boyt to include discussion on ' hunting and shooting zones. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried. _ 1988 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: RULES OF PROCEDURE. Mayor Hamilton: The first item is Rules of Procedure and all of these items, a through j have been outlined in the memo to all of us so we should be able ' to move through these rather quickly. Rules of Procedure are standard ones that we've followed for the past several years. I think Jay had a change he wanted to see made. I; Councilman Johnson: Yes, unfortunately I don't know exactly how to work this change but under Section 8, voting, the intent of what I'd like to see here is ' if somebody verbally removes themselves from a vote versus abstaining from a vote, they say I'm not going to vote upon this issue, that that in effect reduces the size of the Council for that vote to four versus our current rules which counts it as a negative vote on that issue. I believe that that would be more in keeping of what the intent of removing oneself from a vote is. It's that you don't want to vote on that issue at all. There are certain times, it's for conflict of interest or other legal reasons that you're not ' voting on that issue. There are times when you want to abstain. I believe that the State Law on abstention, or a recent Supreme Court ruling said on abstention is that if you abstain, you're voting with the majority so I'd like to see this Section 8 reworded. Mayor Hamilton: There was some discussion about that prior to the meeting I think it would be a good idea is Roger would review hat and perhaps bring it' it back with a suggestion as to how it could be worded so that we can follow it correctly. Is that acceptable Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes. What you have here works in some cases, not in all. It depends on what you're trying to pass. If you would give it to me, I'll get this back to you for your next meeting. Councilman Horn: I had an item on that also. Not on that issue. On 1.06, order of business. Maybe I'm misreading this but it seems to me that something's confusing here. It says in the absence of the Mayor, the Acting Mayor calls the meeting to order or in the absence of both, the City Manager. Then it says, in the absence of the City Manager, the Mayor shall appoint a 1 I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 secretary pro tem. Well, if he's absent and the City Manager's absent, how did we get back to the Mayor being here. Mayor Hamilton: I would think the meeting would have been cancelled by that point. Perhaps you could take a look at 1.06 too Roger and maybe more clearly define what it we're trying to accomplish. Councilman Boyt: While we're at it. I would suggest that we add a 1.10 defining the lenght of our session to be January 1st through December 31st of each year. ' Mayor Hamilton: Don't we know what our year is usually? Councilman Boyt: It just clarifies it. 1 Councilman Johnson: There are some places in here that talk about a session. Councilman Horn: I saw somewhere we stated that our order is Robert's Rules of Order. I didn't see that in here. Councilman Boyt: It's under Section 7. Mayor Hamilton: I have no corrections or additions. However, I would like to call the Council's attention to the area that I do every year and I'll do it again this year, 5.02, 5.03 in Section 5 and Section 9. We all seem to have a habit of just deciding we have something to say and begin talking rather than getting the floor from the Chair. Everybody will have an opportunity to make their comments heard so in the interest of moving along at a little better pace, I think what you would do, that would give us a little more order. If you want to speak, raise your hand or let me know and you'll certainly have a chance to do your talking. Councilman Johnson: One thing that our Planning Commission, the Chair of our Planning Commission does, at the beginning of each meeting he has an extremely ' short thing that he addresses to the audience telling what the basic rules of how the meeting is going to be run. It talks about that we're going to give the people the chance to talk and when they can talk and that type of deal. It is very informative to the audience. We have different people in here almost every night. That might be a similar thing, by yourself at the beginning of the meeting, might be an appropriate thing to do to inform the people who have never spoken before a Council, exactly what the rules are. They're written here but who's got a copy of it. Councilman Boyt: There's a pile of copies right in the back. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's a good point. Councilman Horn: I was a little curious about this question of order. It talks about 5.02 and it also talks about the vote of the Council on order. That wasn't quite clear to me when you would use that or what it was used for or how that would be done. 2 1 I 9 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 IiMayor Hamilton: 5.03, a member once recognized shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to call him to order. Is that what you mean? Councilman Horn: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: That means if you're getting off the subject, the Chair then has the right to call you out of order and get back on the subject. We're talking about oranges and you start talking apples, we can get back on the topic. Councilman Horn: I thought there was also someplace in here where the Council decided on a motion of order. ' Councilman Boyt: I think where that might come in is if you appealed the Chair, the body as a whole would decide. Mayor Hamilton: Right. If we feel for some reason we're out of order, more meaning not out of control but doing something out of sequence, then there can be a question of order on how we're dealing with issues, the meeting would be ' interrupted and then we would get back in order. Take a vote on it, if that's necessary, and then proceed. Councilman Horn: Does this say that anyone at some point in the discussion could say, call it a question? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. ' Roger Hamilton: To call the question, that requires a two-thirds vote. You vote on that and then you vote on the motion. ' Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure we need to be so terribly formal. We seem to get along quite well and doing it informally. .. Councilman Horn: I was just curious how it worked. Mayor Hamilton: I think if we spent all our time following the rules exactly ' as they're by the word, we'd spend all our time doing nothing but trying to follow the rules. Resolution #88-01: Councilman Gevi.ng moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to ' approve the Rules of Procedure as presented with the noted corrections and changes from the Council. All voted in favor and motion carried. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. Mayor Hamilton: We have had in the past two years, South Shore has been our ' official newspaper. Villager newspaper has recently come into town. They have asked to be recommended as the official newspaper. Roger has passed on some comments to us about that. 3 c) 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved that the South Shore be recognized as the City of Chanhassen's official newspaper. There was no second and the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the Herald be designated as the official newspaper for the City of Chanhassen for 1988. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Is that per the agreement before us that it is also published within the Villager? ' Councilman Geving: That's correct. Mayor Hamilton: I'm a little surprised at the Council's willingness to go back to a newspaper who up until this year has never had, or ever been willing to do a darn thing for the City of Chanhassen. The South Shore has and has done what I think is an excellent job in getting the city news out to all of the residents of the City. The Villager will not, as you may be aware or may not be aware. The Villager is not an official newspaper yet. It's a pass through deal. There are several negative things here and I think South Shore certainly deserves to have our support for another year. We don't even know if the Villager is going to remain here. We have no idea. It's a brand new newspaper. It's been here for just a few months. I think we're making a big mistake. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Chanhassen State Bank as the official depository and maintaining the City's investment policy of 1978-87. All voted in favor and motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson be designated as the City Attorney. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' BOND CONSULTANT Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Andy Merry of ' McClees Investments, Inc. as the Bond Consultants for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACTING MAYOR Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Councilman Geving as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor except Councilman Geving who abstained and motion carried. 4 1 1 City Council Meeting January 11 g - y , 1988 WEED INSPECTOR ' Mayor Hamilton: Normally the Mayor is the Weed Inspector. I would move that the Public Works Director be made the Deputy Weed Inspector. Councilman Johnson: I was going to move that Tom become the Weed Inspector. On the deputy, I was thinking of Scott Harr personally. As the Code Enforcement Officer, it makes more sense than the Public Works Director. ' Mayor Hamilton: You don't need to move the Mayor as being Weed Inspector because I already am. It's required but that's fine. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Code Enforcement Officer as the Deputy 4Nbed Inspector. All voted in favor and motion carried. FIRE CHIEF Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Dale Gregory as the Fire Chief. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' HEALTH OFFICER Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Dr. McCollum be designated as the City of Chanhassen's Health Officer. All voted in favor and motion carried. CITY AUDITORS Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Voto, Tautges, ' Redpath and Company be designated as the City Auditor. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Gevi.ng moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: ' a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Auto Service Centers as Conditional Uses in the BH, Business Highway and Business Services ' District, Final Reading. b. Resolution #88-02: Approval of Membership to Regional Mutual Aid Association. ' e. Approval of Plans and Specifications, Lake Susan Hills West, Phase I, Argus Development. ' g. Resolution #88-03: Approval of Resolution Declaring Certain Rents Due the HRA as Uncollectable. h. Ordinance to Rezone Portions of Saddlebrook, Final Reading. ' 5 1 ,0h City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 I/ i. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Contractor's Yards as Conditional Uses in the BF, Business Fringe District, Final Reading. j. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement Amendment, Southwest Metro. k. Approval of Accounts, Final Payments - 1987 and Bills dated January 11, 1988. ' 1. City Council Minutes dated December 7, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 8, 1987 All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to clear up an assumption on point (e) if I might ask Gary a quick question. On (e) Gary, I'm assuming that's the Lake Susan Hills, that we're including the typical building clean-up and road surface clean-up? Gary Warren: Yes. CONSENT AGENDA: (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD SPEED ZONING. Councilman Boyt: My concern here is two fold. This is in regard to the 35 mph speed zone setti.na for Lake Lucy Road. We have, I believe it's a trail on both sides of Lake Lucy Road that basically amounts to a painted line and a widened road. As I was reading the memo, it stated there that we were going to post 35 mph but enforce 45 at the discretion of the officer. I think we should post what we're going to enforce. I guess I don't have a feeling about what we should post but I just don't think we should be posting one speed limit and enforcing something that's considerably higher than that. Councilman Horn: I agree. ' Mayor Hamilton: I agree too. I was surprised when we put up 35 or 30, that's up there now, because you can certainly driver faster on there. As Centex develops, I suspect there will be more traffic and we may want to reduce it at that time but as you go on the western part of the road, there's hardly any homes there. All the homes are off of Lake Lucy so there really isn't any pedestrian traffic. I drive that road 2 or 3 time a day and I have to honestly tell you, I think all fall I saw one person out there walking a dog. I drive it at different times of the day. There just isn't anybody on the road. I think we ought to post the speed limit that we're going to enforce. I think 35, in my opinion, is too slow for there. Councilman Horn: Do we have it up? Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Jim could answer that. Is that a public safety issue? Gary Warren: It's the Commission of Transportation who has ruled on it so Roger, I guess could back me up here as far as the State Statutes, but it says 6 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 II ir- at his discretion based on the speed study that they did. It's basically their designation of 35 mph. ' Roger Knutson: make recommendations, they make decisions. Councilman Boyt: Did we recommend a higher speed limit? ' Gary Warren: No, we did not give them any recommendation. The road is designed, the area around Yosemite is a 30 mph speed—so that's sort of where ' you're running into a little bit of a buffer here from the State on their speed study. If you've got this somewhat bottleneck in the middle, you've got to be careful about how you treat the ends. As you saw on the street study, the speeds were up quite a bit and they would expect those to come down as you ' get more dense development through that area. Councilman Johnson: I had a similar situation in Omaha, Nebraska, where I ' used to live many years ago. We had this beautiful big wide street and everybody did a good 50 mph through there and they posted it 35 one day. The reason was that the development was coming and that it's time to train the people before the roads are there. We had the same problem with Kerber Blvd.. ' It's a big wide boulevard and people speed on it continuously because they're used to doing it. I think now's the time. If that road eventually is going to be 35 mph because of the future traffic, it should be 35 mph now and _not I switched in the future when we'll have a whole mess of residents coming in here complaining because they've gotten used to driving 50 on it and it's no longer safe to do it. I don't see any problem with it being 35 now. Get ' people already used to driving the speed that it's going to have to be. Especially since it's got a 30 mph curve in the middle of it. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask the Public Safety Director, what your ' thoughts are. Jim Chaffee: I think local action and Roger you can correct me if I'm wrong, but local action can go lower because that's designated as a bike trailway. We can go down to 25 mph if we so choose to do so. The reason I put the 10 mph discretionary rule in there is because of the speeds that, if you've ' driven out there, mostly all of the speeds have been upgraded to 35 mph. So it's like Jay was saying, it's a toning down period. Getting the people to slow down and get used to the slower speed limits. An officer has total discretion anyway out there. I think had complaints pro and con. For higher ' speed and for lower speed. One guy is saying the speed is too high, that people are speeding and one who says it's much, much too slow for that roadway so it goes either way. As far as the safety concern, I don't think it's a safety issue right now. This is my best way of getting a handle on it. Councilman Boyt: What you're saying is, you're recommending that we post 35 ' and enforce anywhere from 35 to 45, depending upon what the officer thinks is appropriate? Jim Chaffee: That's pretty much the way it is anywhere though. 7 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I think everybody in this room is probably aware that the City of Chanhassen doesn't do much in the way of screening highway speed so about the best bet we've got is a sign. What I'm saying is, since we're relying upon people to think that the sign is in good judgment, it just doesn't make sense to post a sign that people are going to ignore and you're telling me that people are going to ignore this sign and that we're not going to enforce it. I don't think that's good business. Jim Chaffee: When I said that the officer has discretion, that's just what he has. If the road conditions were such where a 35 mph speed limit is not safe, he can tag. By the same token, if 35 mph is too fast because of weather, he can tag for that too. That's a State Law so I just wanted the officer to be cautionary about enforcing the 35 mph speed limit. A vast majority of the people are exceeding the 35 mph speed limit. It's merely a cautionary statement in my memo. Now, the speed limit is going to stay at 35. There's going to be nothing that's going to say, you can go 45 if you want to because we're not going to enforce it. They'll never know what we're enforcing. I don't even know what an officer's discretion is. If an officer decides that that person going too fast is unsafe, then he can tag them. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the authorization for Lake Lucy Road Speed Zoning as recommended by the City Manager. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson voted in favor, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Horn voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CONSENT AGENDA: (F) APPROVAL OF 1988 POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table this item until a future meeting. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CONSENT AGENDA: (M) ESTABLISH BUDGET, 1988 REFERENDUM EXPENSE. Councilman Johnson: I just wanted to know if staff had looked into the possibility of a mail referendum which I believe has just been approved by the State Legislature and has been tried once in this state so far, and what the success of that was and the cost of it. The $8,000.00 to run this referendum, we might be able to save a few bucks on the mail referendum, especially when we're looking at still somewhat cold weather time. I'd like that looked into. Mayor Hamilton: Did you consider that Don? Don Ashworth: I'm aware of it. I'm not sure under what basis it's allowed. I will be meeting with our bonding attorney Wednesday and so I could present that issue and get a response. Councilman Johnson: I know one city has done it so far. It was on some kind of referendum and maybe we could find out what their turnout was. 8 11 City Council Meetin g - January 11, 1988 ;1 Mayor Hamilton: My only comment would be, I suspect any time you're mailin g, asking people to mail something back your responses, is considerably lower ' than it might be. We have a very good voter response in this community and I would hate to jeopardize something as important as this by letting it go to mailing because people just don't mail things back. But Don can check on ' that. Why don't we then table this. Councilman Geving: I'd like also to have Don consider the possibility of the paper ballot. The expense that we're talking about here, the $8,000.00 is ' essentially to reprogram the County's computer system for this ballot and for the election and it seems to me, that we would accomplish the same thing with a paper ballot for the referendum. I'd like to have that be considered. Roger Knutson: I'm aware of the State. I'm trying to remember. I thought, and I might be wrong, the back of my head something tells me that that can only be used by very, very small cities. I think it was designed for rural areas but I might be wrong. You might not be able to use them. Councilman Horn: -I would have raised this issue but the thought that occurred ' to me as I was reading through here, it appears the City is willing to spend funds to promote the Community Center and the Fire Department but I don't see anything on here about the trail systems. You're spending money on these other two items but not spending money to promote the trails. '1 Don Ashworth: The brochure will handle all three items. Again, will, we ill look to every means possible to reduce that. I would like to have authorization so ' we can start some of the. .. Councilman Johnson: I see no reason to table it. Mayor Hamilton: I agree. I think we should approve it with the condition that Don will look into those items. Councilman Boyt: In regards to the additional flyer, is there anybody who can fill me in on why the Fire Department wants to break out of the brochure ' activity that they were to be included in? Jim Chaffee: We had talked about that at one of the fire meetings, at the ' fire building committee. They weren't aware of this other flyer was coming out at the time and they had gotten in contact with a printer and designer and started to develop a brochure. It was after that they found out that this other brochure was coming out. They had already gotten the gal working on it ' and instead of cancelling her, they decided it might be good to reference in the fire department brochure the community center and parks trails. ' Mayor Hamilton: As long as the expense for making their own brochure comes out of their own expenses, their general fund or whatever they call it. 1 Jim Chaffee: Originally that's what they intended to do but after discussion, they decided if the City would be willing to do it, then fine. 9 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would say no. We already have a brochure that's going to encompass the other ones, there's no reason why we should do a special one just for them. Councilman Horn: I agree. I think they should all be under one. Councilman Geving: My thoughts on that Mr. Mayor are that it would look to me like the fire department is competing against our other issues and we have not decided yet how we're going to box this or package this particular referendum. We may package it as one item which would mean that the firemen's efforts might not be real advantageous for them to go it alone so I'd like to see this all be part of one publication. Resolution #88-04: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to to establish budget for 1988 referendum expense with condition that the City Manager look into the paper ballot and mail referendum issues. All voted in favor and motion carried. • VISITOR PRESENTATION ' Bill Kreiberg, 6444 Murray Hill Road: We came in front of this body in December concerning the decision of the City to build an access road off of Murray Hill to the water tower. It was our understanding that we would be on the agenda following you gentlemen taking under advisement the points that were made and I think you've all received some correspondence and a copy of the petition closing this particular project. I did not see it on the agenda I:- and that's why I came forward. Mayor Hamilton: No, it's not on the agenda. Gary Warren: We just ran out of time to do it properly and we decided that we would handle it on a lighter agenda on the 25th. AWARD OF BIDS: AWARE OF BIDS, PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT. Resolution #88-05: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the bids for the public works equipment as summarized in Attachment #1 including the paint alternate and authorize purchase of this equipment in the total amount of $117,950.39. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: Why didn't we receive the bid sheets? Mayor Hamilton: We did. Councilman Horn: They're summaries. We don't even know what kind of vehicles we're getting here. Gary Warren: All the vehicles were consistent with the specs that we had submitted to the Council. If you'd like to go through some, they're certainly available. It's my judgment that seeing they all met the bids and specs, 10 1 ' City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 III— summarizing it for the Council. Mayor Hamilton: They were all included with how the equipment was speced out. ' Councilman Horn: We didn't see their response to the specs but not that? We had the quote Gary Warren: Right. ' Mayor Hamilton: I guess if they were overbudgeted, I'd be more concerned. REQUEST TO RECONSIDER TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE REAR LOTS IN THE T BAR K ' ESTATES, KAREN SLATHER. — — — Mayor Hamilton: This item was tabled in December. As you can see, the ' Park and Rec Commission has reviewed this and made a couple of recommendations back to us. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear a staff report on this if I could ' because some of these alternatives are something new. Alternative #1 is something new that nobody considered as of yet. From what I'm hearing from some people, Alternative #1 actually runs through the wetlands instead of on ' . the edge of it. Whether that's been walked and stuff, I'd like to know. Lori Sietsema: This is what currently has been approved.three lot split. This being pproved. This is the T Bar K ' _ g the trail going through the back of those lots. This area in here is the wetland area. We did review this further and Tim Erhart who has been working closely with staff on the trails in the southern area, did walk through that area and found that the area actually to ' the west of these lots, it will be difficult to get through and he came up with another alternate plan that will require more easements but will be a better plan in the end. That plan is, instead of going around just one side of the wetland area, just start down at the southwest corner by Powers Blvd. and you would walk along the edge of this wetland area and then up to Lyman Blvd.. At that point in time you'd take the off-street trail along Lyman and the off-street trail along TH 101 and complete the circle going down the south ' side of the wetland area. Again, that requires more easements. The plan as it's shown now is just along the north side of that but again, this area in here would be difficult to traverse so we're recommending that you go straight north. That would accomodate Mrs. Slather's request as well as providing a better trail system. Councilman Boyt: I went out and walked that. I've got some comments but I don't have any questions of Lori. This is a wetland area that extends about an equal distance on the other side of what I gather is a property line. The wetland falls at the bottom of a natural valley, or is a natural valley, ' falling at the bottom of a ridgeli.ne that runs all along here, dips down a bit here and picks up into just a really beautiful natural wetland area. So what we've got here is an opportunity. What I'd like to see eventually is a plan which the plan ran entirely around the wetland. We can certainly deal with this part now but it's a natural walk of probably, I would guess, about a mile 11 11 -Th, City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 back through here and then another mile out the other side and it's the whole way except for a small area over here, is at the bottom of a ridgeline. So we're about 30 feet below this. I can see where the natural building area on this lot is probably going to be back towards this ridgeline. I can imagine the people don't want to build up close to TH 101 here or along Lyman Blvd. in this area, so they're probably going to be building back in here, which is I would guess, maybe 20 feet above the trail. I would think that our plan for this trail would be for it to be some sort of walking trail and not a mechanized trail. There is already a deer trail that runs all along it that would suggest to me that it's a natural flow in that area. I think if we go with this proposal, first this is impossible. This line runs right through the middle of the marsh and it's not the kind of marsh you're going to walk through. It's certainly possible to run the trail, if you were to choose to, right up the edge of this property line or pretty close to it and there's a, it looks like a cowpath that runs up there now. I would question our ability to run a trail along a boundary like this when we don't know how this particular piece of property is going to be subdivided in the future and this may well be in the middle of somebody's lot vertically and no easier to put a trail through than what we're looking at right now. Through walking it, what we're looking at there is a natural flow for that trail, although there are other options. Councilman Horn: My preference would be something like Alternative #1. If that's not feasible, than I'd have trouble picking another alternative that I would vote for. Councilman Geving: I think the Park and Rec took our comments at their meeting and went back and tried to work out an agreement and a solution to the problem and I think that Alternative #1 was better than I had hoped for. I didn't know if they'd be able to come back with any kind of agreement so I was pleased that they came to us with Alternative #1. I think it will satisfy Mrs. Slather and I think it will accomplish what we want and that's the trail system that goes directly north to Lyman Blvd. and comes around back on TH 101. I'm satisfied that that will work. ' Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you were at the Park and Rec, lobbying them, what comments might you have. Councilman Johnson: At the Park and Rec, one of the main things, I tend to agree with Bill on this that the best thing I would like to see, be able to go all the way around the wetlands. Unfortunatey, I think there was, what I would call due process type deal. We made a trail plan in the middle of the platting and also added this at the last minute. I really don't thing it was fair to T Bar, Mrs. Slather, and therefore I'm at this point in favor of Alternative #1 if it can be worked out to where you can put a trail along the western border and the southern border of that wetland. My main reason for voting for reconsideration was that we had not fairly treated the applicant. By the 11th hour nature of bringing in the trail plan, and it wasn't on the preliminary plat, at final platting. If we had had this trail plan prior to preliminary platting, I'd be sticking argently to the trail plan on the north side of this but there are times when we have to bow to the concerns of a single individual when it's their rights. 12 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 II S JMayor Hamilton: Al, you're here representing the applicant. I Al Klingelhutz: I expected Mrs. Slather to be here but she actually lives in Wyoming and her mother broke her hip and she's been staying with her and I'm just wondering if she got notice of this. I like the idea of going to Lyman. I think it very well satisfies her concerns. I have no problem with the 20 foot easement along the road. That's about all I'm going to say. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask a quick clarification point. Dale, when I read this honestly, I wondered where Alternative #1 came from because what I read in the Park and Rec Minutes was a firm commitment on their part to stick to the original alternative which would Alternative #2. ' Councilman Geving: Well, the alternative has changed. Councilman Boyt: But the Park and Rec didn't change that alternative. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Lori can clarify that. Lori Sietsema: You're correct. Park and Recreation Commission did not see Alternative #1. That came to my attention, just a day after your last meeting that the Park and Recreation Commission met. This was what we came up with. ' This line represents the edge of the wetland area which would be high and dry and you would be able to get through there. Between Tim and myself, we felt that getting around that wetland area, around a majority of it, was a good solution even thougn we would have to get onto the main trails along the roads. I did ask Tim to look at my sketch to make sure that it was a fair representation and he thought that it was. Councilman Boyt: What I read here was when Jay took this back to the Park and Rec Commission the next evening, the Park and Rec Commission said, very strongly that they felt that this was a matter that they felt was very important to not set a precedence here and that they wanted to stick with what to them made the most sense which was Alternative #2. The Park and Rec Commission made the comment in here, Jim Mady made the comment on Page 26, last night I got the real distinct impression that a majority of the Council ' may have read what we had done on T Bar K, but they were not basing their consideration on it or anything we had done. Well, on my part, I think that the Park and Rec Commission looked at this twice and both times came up with leaving it the way it was originally on the trail map. Mayor Hamilton: When we were at the National League of Cities conference recently, Bill and his wife and myself were all at the same seminar and I don't recall who the people were who were speaking but we sat in the same room and listened to the same people and heard different things. What I heard was a situation similar to this that they were making examples of one in California. Well, there were three different topics. One was in California where there was a similar type thing where they wanted to put a trail across some people's property except in that case the trail was going to go right j across the beach between the house and the ocean. They said it was a clear violation of a person's rights. That that is their property and you can not put a public trailway across a person's property. It's taking their property. 13 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 So I guess I'd like to see Roger investigate that a little bit. We can find out who the Attorneys were. Roger Knutson: It's Nolan vs. California Coastal Commission. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me, and Bill might disagree on this, but it would seem to me that it was a similar type situation and I guess the guy made the point that when you put a trail across somebody's property, that's their property and you're taking their property when you put a trail across their property. You're inviting people to walk across their property p perty 2P1 feet from their house and that's in violation of their rights. That's what I got out of it and I know Bill herad something different. It was worthwhile listening to however. It was a very good discussion. Roger Knutson: Books have been written about that case. If you want me to go on for a couple of hours, I'd be happy to. Mayor Hamilton: I think that may be part of the problem. We don't know exactly if it's even, personally I don't think it's right to put a trail across somebody's property and divide their property and invite the public to come in and walk virtually through your backyard while you're trying to enjoy your own house on your own property. That seems to be a germane type issue. Is it or am I wrong? Roger Knutson: Nolan vs. California Coastal Commission, the request by Mr. Nolan to basically to rebuild his beach house. He was asking for a building permit. The Supreme Court said in that case, there was no rational nexus between his request for a building permit and the reasons expressed by California Coastal Commission for their easement. They requested that easement because they said the home blocked the view of the ocean and the Supreme Court said, there's no rational connection between that blockage of view and an easement crossing the property. It went on to say that if the Coastal Commission had requested a viewing platform in front of his home, they could have had a viewing platform and that would have been okay. This is a little different in that we are dealing not specifically with a building permit but we're dealing with a plat. Under State Statutes Section 462 you can require reasonable dedications for trails and parkways. The question becomes what is reasonable. Mayor Hamilton: In everybody's mind that seems to be something different. Councilman Horn: I think something that didn't come out while I was reading this was something that I heard from Bill at the conference and that is we talked about property values and whether they increased or decreased. The point has been made as shown in the minutes that trail systems will increase property values. I believe the comment he told me at the convention was that is if they run on the front of the properties and not on the rear property line, that it is in view of backyard living area. I would find it difficult to believe that a trail going through this point in the property would actually add some to the property value in your rear lots. To me that's the issue we're dealing with here. Are we detracting from property values for these lots that we're talking about? What may be the greater good of the 14 1 11 ' City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Igeneral public of Chanhassen but are we depriving these property owners of certain values? To me we are in this case. IICouncilman Johnson: One thing I'd like to do is see that we aggressively go after obtaining the easements for Alternative #1 at this time before waiting for a platting, if we can get some kind of agreements from the existint I property owners. So that's already established. We don't have a fight. I think this needs to get on a trail plan well before preliminary platting and that we'll be in much better shape in the future to get this. I'm saddened I that we're not going to be able to get the T Bar easement on the north side because I agree that it would be great for the City to have but it just, to me, it was too much infringement upon the people to bring it in at the last I minute after we had already gone through preliminary plat and on the final plat add it when the applicant wasn't even here. Councilman Geving: Again, I think it's a reasonableness issue. The fact of I the matter is that the Slather's appealled this to us and they said they just couldn't sell the home with that easement on it and I think in responding to them the way we did, we've given it a second airing and I'm satisfied that the I Staff Report from Lori, who is in fact the Park and Rec Coordinator, representing the staff, maybe not necessarily the Park and Rec Commission in this issue but certainly the staff report, I would move that we choose Alternative #1 in reference to her report of January 5, 1988. I T Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to choose Alternative #1 i in the Staff Report dated January 5, 1988 regarding T Bar K Estates. All s.__ voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. II REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE FROM SINNEN CIRCLE TO MARSH CIRCLE, BILL STREEPY. Mayor Hamilton: Have we heard from the Sinnen's yet? IBarbara Dacy: Yes. Mr. Sinnen contacted me this afternoon and said that he has requested the Council to keep the street as is. A representative from the I Rottlund Company did not follow up with a letter as I indicated in my memo. Mr. Streepy had indicated that he had talked to somebody else in their office recently with a contrary plan regarding the street name change so I really I don't know what to represent to the Council as far as how the Rottlund Company feels about this issue. Mr. Streepy is here this evening. Bill Streepy: I guess my question is, there is a lot of concern about the I worth of changing this and I wondered why there was no concern, I bought my property on the 6th of August and I moved my family here so I changed the name and nobody even asked me what I thought of it. Now, you're checking with I everybody in the world, which I sympathize with a family wanting to carry a name but it's created a real hassle with trying to get to that area, as I say, IL- to my house and now I worry about fire, ambulance and police. Nobody can find my house. It takes 3 or 4 phone calls and they call back and say, you don't live there. The map says that it's Marsh Circle. As I said in my letter, at the time of an emergency I won't think to explain to an ambulance driver why II 15 II City Council Meeting ' g - January 11, 1988 my street name is not the same as it is on the map. I suggested naming a park, the whole development, anything they want but the street name is listed on the map. Councilman Horn: What map are you referring to? Our city map? Generally published map? Bill Streepy: I don't know but all the contractor's, everybody they say on our maps it's listed as Marsh Circle. y y I've called, Barbara Dacy: The plat was approved and the street name change came after the plat was recorded. So all the official maps still have it listed as Marsh Circle. ' Councilman Horn: Isn't there some process where we make a name change, that that gets through to the mapping process? Gary Warren: We update the maps annually. We're in that phase right now. Councilman Horn: So this will straighten itself out next year? Can we assure ' him of that? Gary Warren: We're making the name change right now. .. Don Ashworth: But the problem goes deeper in that, after the plat is approved, we send a copy of that over to the gas company, the telephone company, they use that plat to record their bills. Where they put in the telephone lines. Where they put in the gas, etc.. If someone calls, even if we worked very hard and said please be aware a name has changed, those area offices are still going to go back to that other map. We can't be assured as to everyone who may have had that original map. Bill Streepy: I can site an example of that in trying to get the street light fixed. We're the only house on the cul-de-sac. I called three times to get the street light turned on. I had no results after three days each call. When I called and said, wait a minute, have them look for Marsh Circle, it was on at 2:00 that afternoon. This is what I fear in an emergency. ' Mayor Hamilton: In an emergency Mr. Streepy, all the emergency agencies are notified. The Public Safety Director is here and the Fire Department is notified of changes immediately and it's all changed on their maps so they have correct information so that part of it really is not a problem but I can see if you're having vendors coming to your home which you mentioned that. Do you have vendors coming to your home? Bill Streepy: I was building a new house. I have a number of contractors coming out and no one can find the house. I sent out 70 change of address cards addressed to Marsh Circle when I bought the home. I guess my question is, why wasn't this addressed to me before it happened? We're now going to the other property owners and everybody involved and this happened long after I bought my home. 16 ' ' City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Ii Councilman Johnson: It happened a year before you bought your home. August 18, 1986. Bill Streepy: 1987. Councilman Johnson: That's when you bought your home. ' Bill Streepy: I bought my home August 3rd of this year. ' Councilman Horn: It changed in 1986. Mayor Hamilton: How would the Council like to handle this item? I know that was the Sinnen property for many, many years ago and I guess Barb had a good compromise. If we wanted to change the street names, perhaps we could use the Sinnen name someplace else. However, that is their homestead property I can understand why they would want to leave their name up. ' Bill Streepy: It seemed like a strange selection because there's Rice Marsh Lake and then Marsh Drive and this cul-de-sac is Marsh Circle. It had good ' continuity it seemed like it to me. Councilman Geving: Right about where that circle is is where the old barnyard was. That's the reason for the attachment to that particular area by the ' Sinnen's. Did you say Barb, that the Sinnen's had contacted you and they wanted to retain the name? Mayor Hamilton: Did they have any reason why? If he was so concerned, I ' guess I would think that he would be here. Barbara Dacy: I sent him a letter a week ago and a copy of the staff report ' and for whatever reason he didn't come to tonight's meeting, he fully understood that it was up to the Council. That there would be a chance that it could go back to Marsh Circle but he just wanted to state his preference. ' Mayor Hamilton: What's the signage on the street? Barbara Dacy: The pole is up but there is no sign. Councilman Johnson: Were you the first purchaser? ' Bill Streepy: I'm the only occupant at this time. Councilman Johnson: It seems like several other lots have been sold. I'd like to know if they made the same mistake that the people who sold you yours, Rottlund Company or whoever it was, have given you the wrong address. This is what has happened here because the address was changed a year prior to your buying the lot. Bill Streepy: Yes, my fault, you're right. I thought that was August 18 g 18, 1987 which was ten days after I bought my home. ' 17 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Councilman Johnson: If we've got five other purchasers now who are going through paperwork for Sinnen Street and we change it back to Marsh, we've got five people with the same problem you have. Bill Streepy: Likewise, if they have this, you're going to have a magnified problem with a number of people having contractors running all over. Councilman Johnson: Yes, and if Rottlund still thinks that that's named Marsh, then we've got five people with this problem. I think we should table it. ' Councilman Boyt: It sounds like some of this is taken off the plat that's filed. Is that right Barbara? Would it be appropriate for us to refile the plat with the proper names? Barbara Dacy: The City per se would not be able to refile the plat. We did , send a resolution to Carver County Recorder's Office in August of 1986 for them to change their records. The County offices only update their maps too on an annual basis. What we can do is double check and make sure that the County has done that. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Streepy, how far along are you in having the vendors completed at your house? Bill Streepy: The essential move in vendors like gas, electricians and all those, are pretty much done. Councilman Boyt: So your major concern then was your safety? Bill Streepy: That's my prime concern. The frustration I can deal with. I I just worry about the safety aspect. You're giving me the assurance that it will happen, but I still hesitate because every time I call now, oh yes we know where it's at and I have to explain quite a few times. ' Councilman Boyt: They have a different mapping system than the City has. The City has a current map. I Councilman Geving: I think we can deal with your problem too Mr. Streepy. We have the Public Safety Director here tonight and a motion has been made to make all the notifications. The Fire Department, the Public Safety people will be notified immediately. You can be sure of that. Councilman Johnson: I think there are Hudson Map Company here in the Twin Cities is probably the predominant map company that people rely upon to get information, for vendors like Sears and whoever is trying to deliver something. They have these little flip maps and realtors utilize them. I think we should also put a letter out to Husdon Map Company informing them of this change so they can update their map as they republish it. Mayor Hamilton: They just came out with a new one so it will probably be a year. 18 ' L City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 -r- Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the request for the street name change by Bill Streepy and leave the street name as Sinnen Circle with the stipulation that city staff contact the Rottlund Company, make sure that city maps are changed accordingly and that public safety people are notified. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF PLAT APPROVAL EXTENSION FOR RURAL SUBDIVISION: ' A. SEVER PETERSON AND GILBERT LAURENT B. ROBERT BURESH C. LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH ' Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve plat approval extension for rural subdivision for Sever Peterson and Gilbert Laurent, Robert Buresh and Lake Riley Woods South. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ' Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Barr Engineering Company dated September, 1987 and I 3 that this plan be adopted as a guide to dealing with stormwater mangement within the study area. All voted in favor and motion carried. IlL ACCEPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESIGNATIONS AND APPOINT NEW MEMBERS. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept the ' resignations of Robert Siegel and Howard Noziska from the Planning Commission and to send them a Certificate of Appreciation. All voted in favor and motion carried. ' Councilman Boyt: I think it should be more than a Certificate of Appreciation. I think it should be some sort of a plaque or something. Councilman Geving: I don't know about that Bill. Not for Commission members. Councilman Boyt: They donate a lot of time. ' Mayor Hamilton: It's something that in the past we have always given letters of appreciation. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way. ' Councilman Boyt: It seems to that a plaque is reasonably inexpensive. It's something a person might be more inclined to put on their wall. That's my thought. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's something that we need to have Todd investigate possibly to look into something like that. A plaque and perhaps come back to us with some type of information written on it that we could look at and see if it would be a standard thing for all of our commissions. 19 City Council Meeting - January 11, 198 9 Y 8 Councilman Boyt: The Planning Commission is, as far as time input of the people compared to the rest of the Commissions is by far the most time consuming and these gentlemen have been on it for quite some time and have put in a signficant amount of effort. I really feel a little extra for the !- Planning Commission. Mayor Hamilton: I think if you would investigate that, it certainly is a , reasonable thing to do. Councilman Geving: We have one item to consider ourselves with. There is another member on the Planning Commission who's appointment is coming up. I think we need to determine, first of all, whether or not we're going to make that reappointment to determine whether we have two positions to fill or three positions. Would that be appropriate? Mayor Hamilton: We have two resignations and then we have James Wildermuth who, his term has expired as of the first of the year so there actually are three positions available at the present time. Mr. Wildermuth has reapplied for his position and it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that he be reappointed. There were 20 other applicants, or 21 or 19 or whatever the number ended up being. The largest number that I can ever recall having to review for the appointment for to the Planning Commission or any commission. I suspect that some of the council members have gone through a great deal of analysis in trying to figure out who would be best suited for these positions, when in fact I suspose, with the exception of a couple of those who applied, we could put all the names in a hat and draw out three and we would have three very good commission members who would very fairly represent the city. What I have done is rather simply use the rules that we have followed in the past and that is to look at the distribution of the members on that commission geographically in the community and to also look at the backgrounds of each of the people who are on the Commission currently and those who have applied. Simply because I think it's best to have as many backgrounds as possible and a diverse group of backgrounds so we get as many different inputs into the decision making process as possible. I also think the entire community has a right to be represented on the Planning Commission since it's a commission that is appointed by the Council. So if we have that opportunity, I think we should take advantage of it. Consequently, out of all the people that, it's hard to select from, and I think all of them are really good. There's no question in my mind. The Planning Commission recommended appointment of a couple along with Mr. Wildermuth. I felt that not only were there some duplications of vocations but also locations. If you look at the current planning commission, we have Tim Erhart who is south of TH 5 in the eastern part of town. Ladd Conrad is north of Lotus Lake. Steve Emmings is on the north end of Lake Minnewashta. He's an Attorney. Ladd Conrad is a advertising and marketing person. Dave Headla is on western Lake Minnewashta so we've got kind of an umbrella there around the lake. He's retired and represents quite a large constituency of people. Jim Wildermuth is from the old part of Chanhassen and is in manufacturing. We had several people apply who are either in the real estate or development field which I think is something that's very important for a city to have on a planning commission. They were not the people selected by the Planning Commission but I think we'd 1lb be remiss if we didn't appoint at least one of them. Then we also had a 20 ' 1 City Council Meeting January g - y 11, 1988 person who was a private contractor who lives south of TH 5 in the western part. If you look at it geographically, I just tried to select people geographically again and by their vocations. I guess it would be my recommendation that we appoint James Wildermuth, Grant Johnson and Robert Peterson to give us a very well rounded planning commission to hopefully ' widened the horizons and the scope that the Planning Commission has to deal with. To deal with land issues and there's no one on that Commission right now that knows anything about land or deals with it other than Tim, which I think he gets involved in it some. So that is my recommendation. ' Councilman Geving: What was your second one Tom? ' Mayor Hamilton: Jim Wildermuth to reappoint him. Then Grant Johnson and Robert Peterson. Robert being a contractor and lives in the western part of the community south of TH 5. Grant Johnson is apparently a real estate person who lives up in the Murray Hill area. It's been a long time since we've had a ' representative from that area who's even applied. So with that, let me ask Jay, if we could go around here and get everybody's brief comments and see where we stand. IICouncilman Johnson: I have to agree with you that primarily we could draw some names out of a hat. I've never seen such a large group of highly qualified people. Some of them even, you could say over qualified even. I hope, we can only name three people out of the 16 who applied that were interviewed and I hope that the people who do not get selected continue to work with this city in other capacities. There's going to be plenty of volunteer capabilities coming on with the city in the future and maybe we ought to keep some of these people in our back pockets. I'm going to personally go with Annette Ellson and Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth as my ' three selections along with the Planning Commission. We had the opportunity to read the interviews, they had the opportunity to do the interview. There's a lot of difference. I would like to go with the three people recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman Boyt: I was here and sat in on the first evening of interviews for the Planning Commission. I was impressed with a few of those candidates that ' evening and with the discussion the Planning Commission had after that meeting. What I understood they were going for was what they felt would be the best qualified candidates regardless of location or occupation. I noticed ' that in their recommendations they only had I believe one person who interviewed that night, Mr. Prillaman so I take it by that, that these other candidates were even better. I think, as I've said all along in this, we're making a real mistake when we don't interview these people. We don't at least ' interview the top ones for the opening plus one or two more to give us some flexibility in this and also to establish some contact with those people. I feel that with Jay, I would support the Planning Commission. I think it's ' very important that we include Annette Ellson. She was their number two choice and I think she brings, I believe she was the woman who had recently finished her MBA at St. Thomas. Brings an advertising background and appeared to be very impressive in the interview notes I read in terms of the questions and thoroughness she raised. I had a question about Mr. Wildermuth. In looking at his attendance and seeing that it was below our required standard, ' 21 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 that troubles me. However, I'm aware he had, what I consider to be excellent reasons for being gone in March and April since he was temporarily assigned to Japan by his company making it very difficult to participate in our meetings. And I understand he missed the December meeting because of a broken leg. If I pull out those absences, his record appears to be reasonably good. I think it's very important that people who get on our commissions are committed to being there. I noticed that we have three of the people, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Emmings and Mr. Headla who have 90% attendance. That's what I think they should all shoot for. So given he had some good reasons for being gone, I assume he'll get his record up into the 90% category in the coming year, I would support him along with Annette Ellson. I had a question personally about Brian Batzli in that I remember vividly the Fox Hollow discusszan about putting that road through in Fox Hollow Drive. I remember the night that was presented. There was no one from the neighborhood here to contest that going through and yet I see Mr. Batzli was apparently not happy with it going through. If he wasn't here that night, I'm wondering a bit about his commitment to the issue that he raised at the Planning Commission. However, having said all that, I support the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilman Horn: I think there's one thing that we've missed when we talk about people representation here and I again support Annette Ellson in this case. I think it's important that we have a woman's point of view on our commission. My recommendation would be that we appoint Annette and Carol Watson along with Mr. Wildermuth. Councilman Geving: I did pretty much what Tom and the rest of you have done. I kind of like the geographics of where these people come from. For a long time we never had anyone from the Minnewashta area and now we've got two very good candidates there, people who are on the commission in fact. Ladd, representing his area and Tim. I was looking at Annette Ellson for example representing the Carver Beach area and that area and I felt that the statement's already been made but I really feel that we need to have a woman's point of view on the Planning Commission and all other commissions. I was always pleased when Pat Swenson and Carol Watson had a view that was entirely different than what I had thought of as a council member so I think that was important. In terms of Jim Wildermuth's reappointment, I was not aware of some of the information that was brought out tonight about his attendance. I was basing my particular opinion on the attendance. Now that I know a little bit more about that, I would tend to go back and review that again and say I would go with the Planning Commission recommendation to reappoint Jim. Also, with Mr. Batzli, I think I do remember a case where he did come in here. He is a recommended candidate representing the Fox Hollow area and I think we do need representation from those 100 homeowners in that area as well. I guess the problem that I have is in the procedure. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to look at all of these candidates and all we see is the paperwork and their recommendation. It's kind of had to fit a face with a person and there summary resume. I guess it would be kind of nice just to meet these people. The seven of them. The total number that were recommended to us just to be able to look at them. Get an idea of who they are and maybe a 2 or 3 minute statement from them as to why they want to be on the Planning Commission. I think that would be very important for us to look at. So the procedure is one thing that I have a little bit of problem with. I would say ilb 22 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 II1 that we've got a number of really good candidates because there are people out a AAA there interested in our community. We're a growing community and for the ' first time, we've got a number of people that we are going to be able to draw upon in the future. Even though they might not get selected this time, there are a few out there who I would like to see come back around like, I was very impressed with Mrs. Mancino. I think she would make a good Planning Commission member. I don't know here. I only have read what I know about and I have talked to several people who know her and she would have been my third or fourth candidate if we had a chance to drop on it. In summary, I'm going to go with the Planning Commission's recommendations that we reappoint Jim Wildermuth and appoint Annette Ellson and Brian Batzli. ' Mayor Hamilton: I had talked with Todd Gerhardt and he had been to a session of some kind where you talk about the need for various vocations and people go through different thought processes on commissions. Perhaps you could share ' some of that with us. Todd Gerhardt: I'm taking a class right now at Mankato State and the City Manager from Mankato asked the class what they thought would be a good mix for City Council or Commission. He went around the class, we thought that a good mix would be somebody from all sides, professional, blue collar, white collar and a variety of different professions. '= Mayor Hamilton: I guess it just points out and reinforces what I said. We have an attorney on the Planning Commission now. We have an advertising and marketing person on the Planning Commission now and we're putting more of the same on there. Especially when you have an opportunity like this, to appoint some people who come from different backgrounds. It doesn't really matter to me if Annette Ellson has six degrees, I'm not convinced that that in itself ' means that she's going to be any better decision maker than any of the other people. The only comment I could agree with the rest of the group is, it probably would help to have a woman's point of view on the Planning Commission. We need something on there to give a little different perspective ' to some of the decisions that are being made. You know how I feel and I think it's important that we try to build the Planning Commission up and have a strong Planning Commission and I'm not sure that we're accomplishing that. I ' also would agree with what Bill was saying. I'm not sure how we accomplish that. Perhaps the process isn't right. If we're going to interview these people and to do the appointment, perhaps the Planning Commission shouldn't be doing it. It shouldn't make any difference to those people who are remaining on the Planning Commission who they work with. They're going to have someone to work with and it shouldn't really make any difference who's there as it shouldn't make a whole lot of difference to us as long as we feel we have the ' right mix of people there to work with each other to give the perspective that's needed. Maybe we do need to review that to see if maybe all the interviews ought to be done here. Councilman Geving: I think the reason this has worked in the past is we've never had that many candidates Tom. We've had two candidates for three positions a lot of times so we just make the selection. The interview process is very limited. 23 l City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: It's either that or I think we should go the other way and not even see this and let the Planning Commission select who they want and let them go about and do their work but I think that the decisions and the recommendations that they need to make are too important for us not to have an opportunity to at least review the backgrounds of the people who are going on there to see if hopefully we will find some people who have backgrounds dealing with land and land development and planning and that type of thing. I see now that we're going to appoint some who have none of that background. Barbara Dacy: I think under procedure, this year was a little unusual. ' Besides the number of applicants, that second round of interviews unfortunately conflicted with the Council's trip to Las Vegas. In the December 7th packet we notified Council members of these interviews but unfortunately you were out of town. Maybe next year there will be t gee or four commission terms that will be up again. Maybe the Council can again pursue a joint interview session. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I guess that's a good idea and along with that, just trying to think what•might work better than the current process we have and I understand there was some kind of a point system established with grading and so many points allocated. It seems like for all the Commissions, there ought to be established something that would, criteria that would be number one in all cases. If it's a Planning Commission person and they have development background or an independent business person, it would seem to me to be a very valuable thing to have that would lend good credance to them being on that commission. Maybe that should be number 1 or number 6 or someplace on there but there should be a list of items that are important to us to see in people being appointed to that which would be weighted somehow rather than just pulling things out of the air and you meet a handfull of people and you say, well if we weight it this way we know we're going to get this person so let's go ahead and do that. You can get weight and change your number system any wa you want to accomplish anything you want. Councilman Boyt: You might accomplish what both of us want if the Council were to develop a weighting system and allow the commission to do the interviewing. I'd still like to have a shot at, if there are 3 openings, at the top 4 or 5 candidates. I think that adds some to the process. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to see, Barb and Jo Ann perhaps come back to us with some rough idea or sketch or something about the possibility of doing that type of thing. Either the Council doing the interviewing and appointing and also coming up with the criteria that would be good to have and a weighting system on those so we could review that. That should probably be initially established in a combined meeting with the Planning Commission and the Council and then determine how we'll go about making appointments might be the best. Councilman Geving: Tom, I'd be surprised if Ladd and the Planning Commission didn't do something like that when they took this enormous number of people and broke it down into the final seven people that were recommended to us and then their final three. They must have done something like that. 24 ' yyJ City Council Meeting January g - y 11, 1988 U T Mayor Hamilton: That's possible but they didn't have the Council input is what's missing. ' Ladd Conrad: We probably had different criteria than what you people have and I think that criteria changes every time we interview a candidate depending on the mix of people on the Planning Commission. This time, it's the first time ' we've had choices. I don't recall a whole lot of choices over the last couple of years and this is almost like a luxury. The candidates that we presented you, any one of them, in fact ,there are more, any one in this group, are probably better than candidates that I've seen in the past. They probably don't have the Chanhassen knowledge that we've seen in the past. They don't have any burning issues that we've seen in the past. Generalizing, but I think to a person that we ruled out immediately, they are willing to donate time. They feel it's their civic responsibility is part of living. We're looking, and I'm guiding a little as Chairman, we're looking for folks that listen and aren't up there pounding on the desk. We're really looking for ' people that will pay attention to what's happening and are fair minded and aren't working for one particular issue but also can handle themselves agressively in making motions. Maybe we've been missing some of that. Those are things that's we're looking at and I think you may be looking at other ' things too. To get a balance in our community. Location will do that. Location will recognize that western Chanhassen is not represented a whole lot. Most folks recognize that we don't have any women on the Planning Commission and I think we overly balanced the rating system for favoring a T female candidate. I think we saw three real good female candidates. All are going to contribute. In summarizing, I don't mind if the City Council interviews candidates. I don't have a problem. I think it's just what do you I want to do type of situation. We can be impressed by selecting candidates that look just like us as you can in selecting a candidate. I think what it really came down to when it's up to people that are up for reappointment, it's ' hard to get down on your peers and I think it's really valid that peers, who are peers who are up for reappointment, come in here based on I don't know what kind of a way of review so if they want to come in and talk to you, it is ' terribly difficult to say, Jim you're not coming so we don't want you around. I think that type of scenario is valid. We talked about it on the Planning Commission, we don't mind if you select or we select. Or we weed out and you interview the final candidates. Mayor Hamilton: I guess my personal choice was initially that, having seen all of the Planning Commission members in operation, I've always felt that Jim Wildermuth, although he's a heck of a nice guy and I really like him personally, he's not very forceful and he doesn't speak up enough. When you're going to do this type of thing, I think you do have to bang on the ' table once in a while and I guess I disagree with you, I want people who bang on the table and make themselves heard and will say something and not be afraid to do it. Jim kind of holds back and often times doesn't say, I think, what's on his mind, unfortunately. Councilman Boyt: Following up on this and realizing that we're making a commitment to some people here, I'd like to hear a little bit of discussion about the possibility of taking the Planning Commission's top three ' 25 I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 recommendations, adding the other woman in their top group and Jim Wehrle and interviewing those, I believe that's five people on the 25th. I see one major problem here and that is that I'm not sure that the Planning Commission has a quorum to meet with. You have three members. Mayor Hamilton: Four. Councilman Boyt: So if you can get Howie to show up you're covered, is that it? Ladd Conrad: If Jim can come in, we're okay. Councilman Boyt: Would that seem fitting to the Planning Commission? Ladd Conrad: It could. Barbara, what are we doing next meeting? Barbara Dacy: Your agenda on the 20th, you have five items plus the ' transportation chapter of the Comp Plan. Mayor Hamilton: Didn't you have some items Barb that you specifically wanted the new members to be there for? Barbara Dacy: Yes, there are five regular items and subdivision.. . Mayor Hamilton: Could any of those be put off or is this something that they all have to be done on the 20th? Barbara Dacy: If the Council meeting was held on the 25th, we could look to a week postponement on the 27th. The only drawback to that, that would give the new members a day to read the reports. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's not fair either. Councilman Horn: How about the possibility of appointing Mr. Wildermuth and Annette Ellson and we can interview for the final position. That way they will have a working group. We've got pretty much agreement I think on those people. ' Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that in our City Code the people who have just resigned, continue to serve until they are replaced. That's allowed for. That means Noziska, Siegel and Wildermuth would all be eligible and that's our seasoned verteran crew there then. Let them make the decision and give us a little time to interview the top five candidates. Don Ashworth: I'm worried, even with five candidates, that it's very difficult to hold a 15 minute schedule on interview processes. We're talking about a regular agenda and I'm fearful that you're going to be into a wee hours of the morning if you try to do it on the same night. Councilman Boyt: Can't we do it on a Saturday or something? 26 1 I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 i ' Don Ashworth: You could do it a week from today, a Saturday, whatever you choose. I'm just suggesting that a special would probably be better. Either that or start at 6:30 - 7:00. Councilman Johnson: I think we're getting kind of, we've decided on a process. We went for it and then at the eleventh hour now we're trying to change our process and do it slightly differently. We say we've got a whole handful of candidates that we could, each of them equally well will work out. I believe I'm going to go and say we ought to get this over with, appoint ' these three people and get on with business. I agree the process probably is not the best process we've could have done. I think with the large selection of people, we're going to have good, capable people doing the job. We can get it over with and we can change the process on all the commissions, look at all the commissions and decide on a process. I don't think we should do that tonight. Let's just get this over with and go on with business. ' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to appoint Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth to the- Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's all pretty clear and straight p y forward. We're not deciding on these ;:hi.ngs, it's just discussion right? lit- Barbara Dacy: What staff would desire is direction from the Council either agree or disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendations on the eight ' items so we could go through the public hearing process. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, the first one is the 150 foot lot depth. The Commission agreed that the lot depth should be reduced to 125 feet. What's magic about 125? Barbara Dacy: The 125 requirement was what was originally proposed in the 1 intial discussions of the Zoning Ordinance and was increased during review. Over the past year we've had a number of variance requests to the 150 foot lot depth requirement so the Commission asked that we go back and relook at that ' requirement and based on information from other communities plus a look at various subdivisions, the Commission agreed that the most important requirements are the lot area requirements and the lot width requirements and the lot depth requirements was not as important. The advantage of the reduced depth is that it would allow design flexibility for subdivisions. Councilman Boyt: I disagree. We've got Shadowmere, Saddlebrook, Currey ' Farms, Kurver, they've all conformed with us. I think that the Planning Commission made the comment, although it currently didn't carry the day, that this hasn't been on the books very long. That we have plenty of examples of people being able to live with it and hardly enough time to throw it out. I think that it's very important when we design, when people design layouts of property, that there be distance between them and their neighbors. Most homes 27 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 have the windows on the front and back of their home and that's where we need the greatest distance. We have a setback from the road capability and we need distance from the neighbor who's going to be behind them. 150 feet gives them 25 more feet of distance. Councilman Horn: Just to respond to that, I think you're assuming architectural styles and I think that's the idea of this is to allow some architectural flexibility. You're assuming a traditional house with a front yard and back yard. Some housing has the windows on the sides and I think depending on the type of style used on a particular lot, this gives you some flexibility on doing that. I agree with the concept of having space between. I think that's why we have density. I think this gives people more flexibility. Councilman Johnson: The only comment is we've got a 30 foot rearyard setback which means they can put on a 125 foot lot, they can put it at 95 feet back so they only have 30 feet in their backyard but at 150, it doesn't necessarily guarantee anything more. The 30 feet is the only thing that guarantees it. I wouldn't want anything smaller than 125. Mayor Hamilton: So you're 60 feet away from the neighbors. Councilman Johnson: 30 in the front and 30 in the rear. Yes, there's 60. Minimum, the closest they will ever be is 60 foot to their neighbor. I don't see 125 as that bad of a problem. They'll have to have an awfully wide lot to get the 15,000 at 125. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I've never been afraid to see my neighbors. I don't think 125 is bad. They're just people. Barbara Dacy: The only comment I was going to give was, with the required 90 ' feet of frontage, by necessity to get to the 15,000 square foot area, you're going to have to end up with 167 feet of lot depth anyway. Having a shorter lot depth, again just allows some flexibility in those cases that you still receive a minimum amount of lot depth, or reasonable amount of lot depth but we're going to have to make up for that in the lot width. So again the lot area and the lot width are probably the most important as far as maintaining separation from side to side. Mayor Hamilton: I'll just poll each of us on these items so that will probably give them an idea of how we all feel. Just to give us a yea or nay. Councilman Boyt: I'm against the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Hamilton: So that's a nay, correct? Councilman Boyt: I gather. Councilman Horn: Yea. Councilman Geving: Yea. 28 , City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 IICouncilman Johnson: Yea. Mayor Hamilton: And I'm yea. The next one is the barbed wire fence. Barbed wire fences and fences in general. I just had one question. How about a fence with a barbed wire at the top? ' Jo Ann Olsen: That is prohibited right now to commercial buildings. You can't have the exposed barbed wire... ' Mayor Hamilton: You can't have the barbed wire fence on top? Councilman Johnson: You can't have a 6 foot tall fence with two additional feet of barbed wire? Councilman Geving: Don't we have that over at Hanus' where we've got the flat board up? Mayor Hamilton: I think so. • ' Councilman Boyt: They ought to take it down. Jo Ann Olsen: This again is in the residential. The industrial and commercial it's a conditional use permit. 11''• Councilman Johnson: They can have that in those with a conditional use $ permit? I know there are certain government regulations for certain types of information to be secured behind certain items that we may end up having to do that at some building. Mayor Hamilton: You are yea or nay? Councilman Johnson: Yea. 1 Mayor Hamilton: Yea. Councilman Geving: Yea. Councilman Horn: Yea. Councilman Boyt: Yea. Mayor Hamilton: The next one is accessory buildings not to exceed 1,000 feet. ' Councilman Boyt: I think that we need some sort of sliding scale here. With the 5 foot rear lot setback, which is I think what we have now for accessory buildings, the prospects of an 800 or 1,000 square foot, 5 feet back is frightening. I would suggest that we have something along the lines of 5 foot setback for up to something like 200 square feet which would be a small garage. Maybe 10 feet for something foot setback or something between that It-- and some larger size and 30 feet for 800 feet in building. 29 11 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I think this is a maximum. That's what you're saying isn't it Barb and Jo Ann? This is a max so each one is going to have to be looked at on it's own merit. Aren't they conditional uses anyway? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Mayor Hamilton: So then each one on each piece of property is going to be , looked at though, whether or not it's... Councilman Boyt: No. ' Councilman Johnson: It's permitted use. Jo Ann Olsen: It also has that 30% of the area... 1 Mayor Hamilton: How would you address Bill's concern then? Jo Ann Olsen: Are you talking the sliding setback? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that if you have a certain size outbuilding, that can be within 5 feet. If you have a larger outbuilding, you need to be further away from that end lot line. At 30 feet, which is our existing depth for a house, I would think an outbuilding could be 800 feet or 1,000 feet or whatever but we shouldn't allow a large outbuilding that's any closer than we would allow a house to be of comparable size. Barbara Dacy: I think an opportunity that we could investigate would be looking at typical size, I guess what I would call a Sears Tool Building and get just a rough idea of what the smaller ones are versus a larger garage type and potentially propose something to the Planning Commission for consideration. Anything smaller than 500 square feet, it shall be set back 5 feet from the lot line, is that what you're saying? Councilman Boyt: No, I'm saying if it's smaller than 20 by 10, I don't know that that's magic, I think you're going to find whatever this outbuildings are and a small one of those should be 5 feet and as they get larger they should be further back. Barbara Dacy: The only caveat to that is just trying to make sure that a number that is fairly consistent otherwise you could be getting a number of variance requests with 350 versus 300 and at 4 feet instead of 5 feet. So one drawback of the zoning regulation is trying to make sure that what we're regulating is actually what's out there. Councilman Boyt: That's where your homework will help us. Councilman Geving: I think 1,000 square feet is large. That's a big building for residential outbuilding. Mayor Hamilton: I would guess there probably aren't any. 30 ' . o w 5 5 11 City Council Meeting January g - y 11, 1988 IICouncilman Caving: There might be some but I think 1,000 is way too large. Al's got a farm, maybe he knows. ' Al Klingelhutz: I know there are several of them that have 1,200 on 2 1/2 acre lots but you'll never see 800 on a 15,000 square foot lot. ' Councilman Geving: Staff recommended 800. Councilman Horn: I think too you get into, to understand what Bill was getting ' at, I think if you start getting into something like that, the administration of it becomes very tough and very confusing to know whether they're conforming to it or not. The other thing which might even be a bigger issue than this, ' that we'll be addressing later, is the architectural style. If you have one of these Sears metal buildings, if I were a neighbor I'd object to that 10 feet away from my lot line a lot more than I would object to a 10 by 10 wooden structure of some type that blended in so I don't know that the distance is ' the total criteria here. I think what we're trying to get at is something that won't be obnoxious to the neighbor. This only addresses one potential issue and that can get even stickier. ' Mayor Hamilton: Let's leave this one until staff can bring it back. IIT Barbara Dacy: You would want us to pursue looking at the graduated scale? Mayor Hamilton: Right, and then bring it back. Councilman Horn: And I think look at other criteria relating to how obnoxious it may be in the architectural styling. ' Mayor Hamilton: The next item is treated wood. Yea or nay? Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Commission. Councilman Geving: I agree. Councilman Horn: Yea. ' Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with that. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, that's five. Amateur radio towers. Councilman Boyt: I have a note here that says two towers, one dish. I think that given some of the concerns that we've had earlier, some of the people who ' wanted these antennas, that two might very well be reasonable. I think what the Planning Commission was suggesting was one? We had a fellow who was in here in the last year who talked about how very inconvenient it was and how it would limit his use. If there's one back there, is two that much worse? Councilman Horn: We're talking permitted use. They can still come in under the conditional use. ' 31 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Plus, according to the FCC, can we limit to one? I'm not sure that we even have the right to control. Roger Knutson: The regulations are not tremendously clear. After some analysis of it, I think we have a good argument that we can regulate the number as long as we give them reasonable use of the airways. We've asked them about it, I guess Jo Ann asked them about it, and they will not give you a definitive answer. Mayor Hamilton: Clark, yea or nay or comments? Councilman Horn: I agree with one. Councilman Geving: I agree with one. ' Councilman Johnson: I'll agree with one. Mayor Hamilton: I was wondering if you could clarify your wording here a little bit or maybe that will get worked over but it wasn't clear to me that it was just one per household in all residential areas. It almost seemed like you were saying one house in one residential area could have an antenna. I'm okay with one. Councilman Johnson: If you have a radio tower, can you have multiple antennas ' on that tower? Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. Councilman Horn: It's just massed right? Councilman Johnson: Because the back end of the section says, or one individual antenna in all residential districts. Jo Ann Olsen: You can have a tower with individual antennas throughout the ' large tower. Barbara Dacy: One point of clarification, would the Council also want the dishes? That's one per lot also. Councilman Geving: Let's go with one. Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the demolition debris disposal. Jay, any comments on this one yea or nay? ' Councilman Johnson: I'm totally for it. Councilman Geving: Yea. Councilman Horn: Yea. Councilman Boyt: What's point 2 mean? 01_ 32 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Councilman Johnson: There's a typo in there. It should read from the lowest elevation of the landfill, if I remember the State regulations correctly. ' Instead of the lowest high water elevation. In other words, the bottom of the debris landfill should be 5 feet above the water table. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, then I'm assuming that when they're burying this it's below the frost level. I see nothing that indicates that in here. Councilman Johnson: I thought there was a minimum cover in this State. There ' was a 4 foot cover required. 2 foot cover? Councilman Boyt: It needs to be below the frost level. ' Mayor Hamilton: Why? Councilman Boyt: Because eventually you'll see it on top of the ground if ' it's not below the frost level. It seems like a simple thing to add. Mayor Hamilton: I disagree. When you do berming, one of the best things to ' do in berming to make the berms work and to make the trees that you plant on berms grow, is to bury some debris in there. Specifically boards, because that retains water. Otherwise, your trees are all going to die. You can ask ' builders and developers, they all say the same thing. You can require them to put all the berm and all the trees and when they get done, the trees will all be dead because it does not retain water. I Councilman Boyt: I don't know exactly how a frost heave works on a berm but when you take a flat piece of ground and you put something above the frostine, eventually it works out to the ground level. Just go and pick up rocks in the field in the springtime. Mayor Hamilton: I think boards and things are going to decay. I don't know if concrete would work it's wa up. I suppose like a rock. Councilman Johnson: Concrete will work it's way back up. Councilman Boyt: We're talking 2 feet deeper here. It would seem to me, given what they're going to use to bury this stuff, that another 2 feet that keeps it below the ground is worth the effort to do that. ' Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with that as long as we put in a section that says when you're berming, they're allowed to put some demolition debris, or however we want to term it, in the berm to make the berm liveable for the trees. Councilman Geving: As long as the debris can decay. ' Mayor Hamilton: So could you bring that one back to us too. I think we're all in favor, it just needs to have a few adjustments. The next one was the architectural exterior standards. Councilman Boyt: No comment. Yea. ' 33 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Councilman Horn: Yea. Councilman Geving: Yea. Councilman Johnson: Yea. Mayor Hamilton: I'm okay with it as long as it states here, the provision 1 eliminates the construction of metal buildings, pole barns and encourages a better appearance and we don't start getting into the architectural exterior design of homes and other things we don't need to have anything to do with. The next one is lot width requirement for cul-de-sacs and flag lots. Councilman Johnson: There are some occasions where I am for some flag lots and we've got some very unique circumstances here. The Centex circumstances would be a couple of lots nestled in behind the pond, the wetland and the top of the hill there. I sometimes see that the flag lot used in very small moderation, I'm not sure if it should be totally permitted but I don't think it should be totally excluded. I guess in the cases I've seen and have been able to justify in my-mind enough of a hardship that, I guess here they say have a hardship. The first part of it sounds real strict. It should not be permitted and I'm personally for permitting a flag lot under shown hardship. It has to be a topographical reason for it. The reason can't be to save concrete and put in smaller streets and be able to put a whole bunch of houses out back with only having one circle. That's not a hardship. That's my comment there. Councilman Geving: I agree. I think the only thing we need to do here is change the wording a little bit on the line here. Flag lots shall not be permitted unless there is a hardship that exists and I think that's fine, so I agree. ' Councilman Horn: I agree. I think flag lots should stay in. Councilman Boyt: I liked Option 3 on page 7. It leaves some things to be ' worked out about arc length but I think what we've done in fact is to approve homes that have a 90 foot width at their building setback line. We've done that all year, so that would be the option that I would support. ' Mayor Hamilton: Personally, I think there are instances where flaglots are necessary and so long as we can still handle that issue, I'm comfortable with it. Is that all you need? COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Geving: I think Todd should handle the zip code issue. You're more familiar with it and you're ready to give us some information. Todd Gerhardt: Don and I have been working with getting all the people outside the Chanhassen zip code district and have come up with 934 addresses. I've given Dale a copy of those. What I'd like to do is go through here, I briefly printed it tonight and I'd like to make some corrections and we will mail that out to you, the Councilmembers tomorrow. You have a meeting here 34 1 City Council Meeting January g - y 1 1, 1988 next week on the 14th with the Minnewashta Creek Association that lives up by the Fire Station. Roy Leach is a homeowner in the Red Cedar Point Townhomes and that is at 3:00 on Sunday, the 17th. Councilman Geving: The only thing I'd like to request is that there be some council members at the meeting on the 14th at the Minnewashta Creek ' Association, and specifically Jim. I'd like to have you there. You had some very good insight on some of the public safety issues and Al, could you make it on tht 14th? That's an evening meeting at what time? Todd Gerhardt: On the 14th at 7:00 at the Minnewashta Fire Station. ' Al Klingelhutz: I'll sure try to make it. Councilman Geving: This is a real important area to hit and I don't know who the president of that homeowners association is. I haven't met them. ' Todd Gerhardt: I know it's the daughter-in-law of Mr. Brose. Councilman Geving: Then Todd, you're going to hand out to all the people who ' attended our first meeting, the postcards and mailing address, name, address and mailing address. ITodd Gerhardt: That will go out with tomorrow's mail, and I've also drafted, Jay recommended at our last meeting to establish a telephone log. You would phone people and what you would do is date it, time it, name and address of the person you talked to and write down their yes/no vote and then again write ' down who the caller was. ' Councilman Geving: Can you send out one of those in each of the packets because we're going to have people that we'll be telelphoning. One of the problems that I have with the groups, I thought we had a really good meeting the last time we met with, there were several councilmembers there, Tom was ' there, we're fairly well organized in the south. I think the Chaska area we've got fairly well covered with personnel making a lot of personal commitments and going out and knocking on doors and so forth. I'm not as convinced that we've got that good of a team arrangement with the northern area. I guess that's what we need to strengthen on. ' Todd Gerhardt: From our conversation, we wanted to try and establish another meeting time here within this week to try and get that group together and the same type of situation we did with Chaska. Get them motivated to go out and solicit votes. Councilman Geving: What day would that be on Todd? Todd Gerhardt: Anytime during the week. The 13th would be a good one. Councilman Geving: I'd sure like to have the councilmembers attend that if they could. What time would you set it up for? Todd Gerhardt: It sounds like around 6:30 is the best time. ' 35 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 Councilman Geving: Let's plan 6:30 on Wednesday evening to try and organize our Excelsior area. We hope to have 5 or 6 people. It's going to be tough. This is a tough sale. I'll admit that to anyone but we have to really work at it. If we're going to go for it, we have to go for it all. !- Mayor Hamilton: Have you considered talking to the Rotary and the Chamber? Councilman Geving: You know we haven't and I think that's a good idea. Mayor Hamilton: The Rotary meets every Wednesday morning. The Chamber meets the 26th this month. Councilman Geving: Let's see if we can't get on the Chamber agenda Todd. I think that's a good idea. Jim, would you make that presentation if you can get on the schedule? Jim Chaffee: Sure. , Todd Gerhardt: We're going to go for a public hearing on the 19th of January. Surveys are going out on the 20th. I'm expecting their return, everybody to return their survey by January 29th and then after the 29th there will be a second survey to hit our 70% response rate if we didn't hit our 70% by the first survey, and that will be a phone survey. Then we'll bring our committees into City Hall to go through a phone survey and I'll have a list of phone numbers. Then from there, on February 13th, I will be tabulating results from the survey. We will have a presentation to the Post Office by the 14th of February. Councilman Geving: The 14th is on a Sunday, so you mean the following week, like the 15th? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Councilman Boyt: Didn't I hear something about a February meeting with the 1 Council and staff? What weekend was that? Todd Gerhardt: The 6th and the 7th. Here's a copy of the preliminary agenda for that meeting. Mayor Hamilton: You had a communications comment also. Councilman Geving: This here is just an informal comment. I don't want to sound like I'm gripping or complaining about a lot of things but one of the things that we're hearing a lot of at the homeowner's meetings, I've been to several of them now over the Christmas holidays we had several meetings, and there's a lot of communications going on in the community. There's a lot of discussion about what's happening downtown and a lot of people think that some of the things we've done with the streets are not real wise. What's happened with our planned community park, the Heritage Park is causing a lot of interesting concerns and comments. Of course, I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions. They're not seeing the end product and they can't visualize the end product but my comment is specifically the removal of the 36 , 1� City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 IIstreet signs, the stop and the A si n g yield sign approximately a week ago. I can tell you honestly that I almost had an accident that day that the street ' signs were pulled. I pulled up in front of Kenny's at 78th Street and a car whizzed by me and I looked and I said, gee that car didn't stop. Pretty soon a car from the left and that car didn't stop and the bus was sitting to the left of me in front of St. Hubert's and I couldn't see around that bus and ' there was another car coming. That's when I realized that the stop signs had been pulled. I've heard a lot of discussion about maybe we could have done that a little bit better and phased it in over a several week period of time. I've got a letter here, in fact several letters that I've received, since we're on the correspondence trail of this. I have not seen the response to Family of Christ Lutheran Church. This is a letter dated December 31st to Don ' and Todd. One of the things that we're failing to do, is to effectively do some correspondence return. I know that you've called them but I think they have some concerns that they would like put in a newsletter or a bulletin so they can show it to their parrishers about what's going to happen there in ' front of the church. The stop signs and no parking signs so I think our correspondence control could be a little bit better. Then I received a letter today, and I'll share it with you. I won't mention any names however but this ' letter was sent to the City Hall on November 4th and the individual hadn't received a response of any kind. Finally, he called me several times and I said talk to the City Manager, so he finally did. His comment that came back to me was, attached is a copy of the letter our Attorney sent to Don on November 4th. I talked to the Manager yesterday and he said he misplaced the 1 letter so we have not received an answer yet. Now that's two months ago. This is a very important letter because it's from the developer who says in I 1-__ fact, I want to buy all the land on 79th Street and make a development out of it and I want to pay cash. Ten years ago, if we had gotten a letter like this, we would have walked down there and graced the fellow and said, let's go with it. Give us your money and you can start building, but I can't understand why we haven't responded to a letter that I think is very important that was received two months ago. So again, I think it's just a matter of communications and correspondence. Maybe we need to set up a correspondence ' control mechanism of some sort so we do respond to these. These are the only two that I have but I think I had two letters from Pastor Nate and this one that I received today. ' Todd Gerhardt: I did respond to Mr. Zamour's letter. I did call him. Don called him and he did send a letter back thanking both Don and myself for ' responding to his concerns and we will be getting back to him as soon as we hear back from MnDot on the situation of the no parking signs on West 79th Street. Councilman Geving: I think too, even a Stratavarias can be fine tuned. What I see at the intersection of our new downtown street as we come west in front of the bar there, Pony Express, people are turning left. It just seems like there should be more from an engineering standpoint that could be done there. Maybe we need to put another island in. In fact, I looked at it again yesterday, the people they way they've been driving now over the last several weeks, have almost outlined a physical and visible island there now. The wa they're turning and the way they're forcing themselves to turn. I would really like to suggest to the staff to take another look at that or give us 37 p? City Council Meetin g - Januar y 11, 1988 some input as to what's going to happen there. To my knowledge we've not had any accidents there but there might have been. There has been Jim? I can see some real potentials for problems there so maybe, if you will, if I could just spend a couple minutes more on this. I'd like to have the staff look at this and maybe come back to us again about some improvements that could be done to fine tune that area. Gary Warren: We are, what I would call under temporary construction and again, with signage and some of those things that do help in that regard. That particular intersection did have a small median proposed in the original plan that you actually asked us to eliminate. I personally have not set my own mind that it shouldn't be there. It's specifically to address that turning movement. Gary Ehret and I have talked several times, as recently as today, about that whole intersection and what we want as a final design there so we certainly are not satisfied yet ourselves. Mayor Hamilton: Just to respond to some of those, all of your concerns I guess. Those are the types of concerns I don't like to wait for a council meeting to bring up .and I was just as concerned as you are and the other council members. I talked with Don at some length and with Jim about the stop signs and about how that whole thing occurred because I wasn't satisfied that it was done the way it should have been done. There were other ways to accomplish that without having cars piling into each other all of a sudden because the signs were done, so I think the staff knows my frustration and I think that type of thing won't happen again, hopefully, anyway. Larry Zamour has been responded to. I talked to Larry several times about that property. I've talked to Don about his proposal and I've talked to Larry about his proposal and he knows very well where the City stands. Larry is a nice guy but he likes to stick a thorn underneath your saddle every once in a while just to find out what goes on but he knows exactly where the City stands on that at this point. That doesn't mean that won't change. We have some options coming up that Larry is aware of and he knows what process has to be followed so he's the kind of guy if he doesn't get the answer he wants from one person, he'll keep going on to someone else until he finds the answer he ' wants or thinks he's going to get. Councilman Geving: But has he received a letter in response to his inquiry on November 4th? Mayor Hamilton: That I don't know. What I'm saying is he knows the answer to his question very well. I've talked to him several times and Don has also. Then the Family of Christ Church, Don and I talked at some length about that and talked about the options that we could make available to Family of Christ. Such things as on the morning of their service, could they have temporary stop signs put out in the street. Could they have a patrol like a school patrol type of thing where they have a person out there to hold a flag so their parrishers can cross the street more safely. Striping of the intersections, very clearly, that's what we've done in the past. We need to have a good professional job done of striping the intersection. Just a lot of options like that. I know Don has passed those onto the staff and they're considering it so I'm sure you'll be seeing some recommendations back on that soon. Just so you know I do try to keep up on those things because I think they're 38 ' yy � City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 important. I try to talk to Don or the staff all the time on those things. 3 ' Councilman Horn: I guess my frustration is not so much with staff on this issue as it is with who I consider to be our hired consultants who supposedly are putting the plan together for us. I don't think we're getting our money's ' worth. Don Ashworth: We do have BRW coming in right now. They are scheduled for the 25th. Every issue that you've brought out this evening, they have been made ' aware of as far as issues which we need to have answers to and I'm confident that on the 25th they will respond to each of the issues such as the striping across the street. The pulling of the stop sign, I consider that an error. ' That was the State Highway Department dropped off a listing to us saying that sign is to be removed. Yes we should have caught it. It could or should have been handled better than it was but they will be here on the 25th. ' Councilman Horn: BRW was at the HRA meeting and all of these issues were addressed at the HRA meeting. BRW was aware that MnDot was requesting that sign be put down.— They knew it was coming. They could have instructed our ' staff as to the proper procedure when it came down. We grilled them. I asked them specifically, would you consider having a hotline for citizens of Chanhassen to deal with the calls that we're getting and they didn't think ' that was such a good idea. I think all of these things that we've talked about tonight, were addressed to BRW at the HRA meeting. I frankly was not 1 comfortable with the answers we got. I don't think that it's our staff's function to try to uection together all the things that our professional lit— consultant should be doing. Don Ashworth: I don't think he had the answers that evening though. Some of ' those answers could have come from the State. The number of no parking signs that we can eliminate by the church to meet Nate's questions, is a question that has to be responded to by the State Highway Department. Whether we can ' put the median in, and I totally agree with you Dale. I've driven that intersection. I look and say there really should be a median there to define the left turn lane. That was MnDot's design. I think that they heard what the HRA was saying that night. I believe that Gary Ehret will be in a position to respond to those questions on the 25th. Mayor Hamilton: Next is hunting and shooting zones. Bill, you wanted to ' comment on that. Councilman Boyt: We had a couple of letters in our administrative packet on the problems around Hesse Farm. I think we've talked about this a month or so ' ago and I would like to see on a future agenda the position that we would establish no hunting, no shooting zones around Hesse Farms and other residential areas in Chanhassen. Don Ashworth: I believe that modifications are already underway by Roger's office and he'll be prepared to have that on for the 25th. Jim Chaffee: I haven't talked to Roger yet. I was waiting to get some feedback from the Council but I don't think I see any problem with that. All ' 39 1 City Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 we're talking about is designating the no shooting zones that are already designated as no hunting zones. Don Ashworth: Right, that will be on the 25th. It's solely a sematic issue. A definition problem and Roger can have that prepared for the 25th. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: a. Enforcement Action Plan. b. Light Rail Transit. c. Highway 5 Upgrade, Private/Public Partnerships. d. League of Minnesota Cities 1988 Legislative Conference. Barbara Dacy: On item a, there will be more information coming back to the council on the agenda and there's a brief memo in the Admin Section... Item b, that was brought to your attention to follow up on that whole Light Rail Transit process. I had the County Commissioner explain it and any of the Council who have specific questions about the memorandum or about the process. .. , Councilman Johnson: Mine goes almost more to Al in that the southern route primarily goes through the city of Chanhassen for a large portion of the route and I see that the County Commissioners have named themselves as the Carver County Rail Authority for acquiring that land. Al Klingelhutz: I guess that's one of the reasons, I saw this on the agenda for tonight and I did want to talk about it a little bit. We are preparing at this time to acquire that right-of-way through Chanhassen into Chaska. We feel that it's a very good corridor. Especially for Chaska and southern Chanhassen to utilize for Light Rail Transit. ...to acquire land all the way out to Norwood that would make an excellent two land addition to TH 5. It lays side by side all the way out and it just would be something that if we present it to the State at this time and say, we've got the corridor for you to put in four lanes all the way to Norwood. Councilman Johnson: I'm wondering if there's any possibility of getting some Chanhassen representation on the Rail Authority. Councilman Geving: Right there. Al Klingelhutz: If the thing ever materializes, we will set up a committee of people in the areas that it affects the most and I think that's pretty important. One other thing, the Excelsior/Victoria line will probably be first along that to be reserved. That does not affect Chanhassen. I think it's most important to designate these lines as future rapid transit because I understand we've been getting a lot of feedback right now protesting the new rapid transit line on that corridor. Councilman Geving: Someone apparently has attended some of these meetings. 40 ' IICity Council Meeting - January 11, 1988 II4 Barbara Dacy: I just attended one and that was on December 14th and that was 3 a public hearing conducted by the Southwest Advisory Committee. ICouncilman Geving: I guess what I'd like to see if that you continue to do that. IMayor Hamilton: Or that we ask someone on the Council or Planning Commission so if you can't make it or Jo Ann. I Barbara Dacy: Mike Krause was on the Southwest Advisory Committee process. They're process has now concluded. Now the remaining corridor committees of the other 6 or 7 corridors are still finishing up and with there's another I finance committee... It's just a matter of finishing up the process and the Board will make a decision near the end of March. IIMayor Hamilton: Next item, Highway 5. Councilman Horn: I think Barb put a fairly complete statement of where we are. Al mentioned one of the meetings that's coming up. What's happening I here and thought we should talk about as a Council, is that we're furthering our process with the city contributing to try and make things happen. What we're trying to do is accelerate the schedule for widening TH 5 to move it out Ito TH 41 before 1991. In fact, 1990 and we think there are ways that can be done. The meeting that Al was talking about is to work with the private sector to raise some funds to contribute to this. What we, as a Council need 1 to address is we're going to be looking at the public contribution to this III effort also. I would think that our contribution would be arranged as Barb described here and I'll get more detailed on that. In fact there's another coalition meeting on Wednesday. What I would like to get this evening is some I type of consensus on going along with this concept. I feel that we are finally making some progress on this issue and as a matter of fact, we do have a meeting schedule with Governor Perpich on February 2nd. It's the first time he's agreed to talk with the Coalition. That's something we've been working Ion for a number of months now and it's finally happened, which in my mind is just another small indication that we as a coalition are beginning to be heard and make some effort in this thing. Which in my mind helps me justify II spending some of our money to try to include the progress of TH 5. It's something that's frustrating because you can't clearly see that our efforts will be rewarded. On the other hand, I'm totally convinced that if we don't II do something like this, we're absolutely guaranteeing ourselves that nothing will happen. Councilman Johnson: I think this, I almost want to use bribery or whatever, I this payment we're looking to make to MnDot, is a fairly new thing and will work at this point in time. Five years from now, this will be so commonplace that you're going to be required to pitch in to be on the regular schedule I instead of on the accelerated schedule, so I'm for doing it at this time. I think we're on the leading edge of something that I think is not real good li-- precedent in the first place but it will be to the benefit of our citizens. TH 5 has to have something done to it. II41 II City Council Meetin g - January 11, 1988 Councilman Geving: Clark, you mentioned TH 41. This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything beyond CR 17. Were you correct in your statement? Councilman Horn: That's what we're shooting for. Mayor Hamilton: Then the League of Minnesota Cities 1988 Legislative Conference. If anybody is interested in going, I'm sure the staff would like to know so we can make reservations. Anybody is welcome to go to the conference if you wish. What we've done in past years, which we didn't do last year, there is a cocktail party after the day's sessions are over, there is a cocktail party at one of the hotels and we have usually gone. The legislators do show up but sometimes during that time you have opportunities to discuss any issue you want with your legislator and meeting other people from other communities if you wish to talk to them about what's happening. Then we have with other communities in our legislative district, taken legislators out for dinner so we could on a more serious basis and more ' personal basis talk to them more one on one or ten on one. If that's something the Council is interested in attempting to do again this year, I think it's a good idea. The legislators like it. They do like to get to know who's on the Council and get to meet you personally and find out a little bit more about each one of us and it's good to find out more about them. From my standpoint I am in favor of attempting to do that again this year. Don, if we can put together with the other communities, if they're interested in joining us, or if they're not, we'll do it on our own. Councilman Geving: I think there was some confusion last year Tom. We didn't get together with the people we thought we were going to. Councilman Horn: I think what happen is that Shakopee was involved last year. Typically they're the ones who have strong supporters along with us.. . Mayor Hamilton: They have three new council people this year so they may be wanting to do something. I have just two brief announcements to tell you about. You received a letter from Roger, actually from Tim Berg but from Roger's firm, about what's happening downtown. I would suggest that if you have any questions about things that are taking place, that you talk to Roger. These are all things that have been approved but if you have any questions about the process that's going on, grab Roger and find out what's happening. Then on a personal basis, just so you can all sleep easier from now on, I want you to know that I no longer am affiliated with Brad Johnson or Lotus or CHADDA or Bloomberg or anybody else having to do with that whole thing. I'm with Realty World/Streeter Andrus. They have nothing to do with the downtown. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 42 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order n d r at 7: 35 p.m. . ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel , Howard Noziska and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHANNEL AND BOAT TURNAROUND IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS, ERIC RIVKIN, APPLICANT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit request. Erhart: On Lake Minnewashta we allowed docks to go through an existing wetland there recently? A boardwalk and docks. How wide was that wetland or how far from the high water mark? Olsen: I don't have the exact number but it wasn't this long... Erhart : Do you have a better map that shows the whole area of the surround lots with you? Show where the wetland, is it the black line there? Olsen: Yes . He has this -high land . Erhart: Okay, so the colored area is the wetland. Okay, so all the lots in that area essentially have the same problem of getting through to water? Olsen: These are existing lots. These are not part of the subdivision. Erhart : Part of what subdivision? Olsen: Part of Lake Lucy Highlands . Erhart: And all the letters that we received or that were submitted with this in favor of it, can you mark those lots on there. ' Olsen: I believe those are mostly from Lake Lucy Highlands. The only other one have the wetlands is Lot 4. . . IL Erhart: And all the other lot owners on the right there and on the east and south were notified? I I ' r Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 2 Olsen: Yes. A few of them were going to come tonight. I don't know if they did. Erhart : We ' re not having a public hearing for what reason? Conrad: It ' s not a public hearing but I plan on entertaining comments. Erhart: Wouldn't it be a little more interesting to have any comments first and then handle our discussion? Conrad : I kind of thought that we may bring up some issues that the public would like to hear and they can react to so I was going through the Commission first . Erhart: Okay, that's one thing I'd like to hear what anybody here on the shoreline, what their thoughts were. Much more so than the people not on the lake. I don't know if that has a significant influence on what my opinion would be on this. Joe Monnens : I live on the lake and I did in fact submit one of the letters in favor of the proposed channel. I guess my reason for that is I think a channel would be less of an impact on the aesthetics of the area than would a boardwalk. I can see a 400 foot dock deteriorating over not too many years plus the dangers to deer and other kind of wildlife and snowmobiles and cross country skiers, people that use the area. So that was my reason for supporting the proposed alteration. Erhart: Joe, it appears from the letters that all the comments were comparing a dock versus a channel and given the question of anything at all , what would be your response? I think you have to have a permit to do a dock or a channel . Joe Monnens : It seems a person with lakeshore has a right to access 1 the lake so one way or the other something has to be approved . Erhart: I don't know if that's true is it? Something has to be approved? Conrad: Legally a person has the riparian right to get to the water. Roger do you want to help me on that? Roger Knutson: Generally speaking if you own a abutting lot, you have certain rights but you have the right to regulate that to not damage the wetland. Joe Monnens: I don't know if there's any legal rationale but I felt in the sense of justice that a person should have access and either be a boardwalk or a channel so I thought a channel would be better . L 1 I rPlanning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 3 Erhart : So this whole issue then, is it comin g down to we either approve the channel or dock? Is that what you're saying because that isn' t the way I remember this discussion the last time? Conrad: We can actually reject all options and say that the wetland ' and the ordinance is to maintain a Class A wetland and no degregati.on to it at all. Options to that are as requested by the applicant. ' Erhart: I think what I'm hearing though is that if it comes to it and Eric wants to build a dock out here across 400 feet of this, he can do that? ' Conrad: I don't think we have to grant that but I think we're finding technical support to say that it's not that detrimental to a wetland and we also have precedent saying we have granted docks over wetlands ' in the past. We haven't granted any dredging to a wetland yet since our ordinance went in so what this is, it's really a precedent on how we want to treat wetlands in Chanhassen. Obviously, the applicant has some cause for requesting it. It's a unique situation. We've never ' seen one like this before and applied the ordinance to it but it would set a precedent and I think that ' s really what the issue is Tim. ' Emmings: Can I just ask as a follow up, because this is right on the same subject, has he asked us to consider a boardwalk if we're not willing to give him the channel? IOlsen: No, that was staff's option for providing some means of access. He ' s always wanted a channel and not necessarily a boardwalk. ' Conrad : Mr . Rivkin , do you want to talk about that? Eric Rivkin: This is a copy of a letter from a neighbor to the west. ' He was unable to attend but he had some comments about the issue. Last time we met the Planning Commission concurred that I was going to have to bring something up to give me a permit so that there was no argument as to which had an impact, which was detrimental and which was minimal ' and so forth. I was told that I had to give one plan that was approved that settled the technical issues and I did. There is a permit. We shouldn't have to stand here and argue whether fish and wildlife and ' plantlife are endangered. We shouldn't have to argue whether which construction method, erosion control methods are better. We shouldn't have to argue whether loosestri.fe is going to run rampant. We shouldn't argue whether a channel has less or more detrimental impact than the dock or which method is more reasonable under my rightful access to the lake. Because the DNR and the Watershed have reviewed these issues and settled those arguments which conform with the permit and special provisions. Between the two agencies there were 6 to 10, maybe even 12 experts in fish and wildlife and plants and hydrology and engineering that reviewed my proposal. I myself would not IL_ recommend a channel if I had thought this project or subsequents projects under the precedent would cause any major environmental loses. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 4 If I had a short distance to go, a dock would be no uestion. It would uld be certainly more reasonable but planning staff had only one opinion. One person. Dr. Rockwell, in opposition to the opinion of many, many other experts. I'm not at all in agreement with her comments. If you look at her letter, I believe it's page 1-B or item 1-B in the package, she states, "The proposed channel would destroy a substantial portion of emergent wetland associated with Lake Lucy at the project site." She also states that a single access channel would probably not significantly reduce resources for fish and wildlife who's reproduction depends on the wetland. However, the cumulative effect from more than one such project could cause major losses that cannot be replaced or mitigated. Her key words here are significant and major. I'd like to look at the scenario on the overhead here. As the plan stated, this is the designated wetlands around Lake Lucy. The area is approximately 60 acres. My lot is right here. I believe she is incorrect in saying that all the lots would have the same problem of access. That is not true. I superimposed the lot lines, existing lot lines on the wetland area map to show exactly, and I went door to door at each one of these lots talking about this proposal and asking their opinions of a dock versus a channel and soliciting opinions and I asked them if they had access or not. Out of all the lots that have solid lines around here, are existing lots that either have access, either with clean lakeshore or an existing channel which is grandfathered in before the wetlands ordinance was passed, or they have, in this case, let's say of this lot here that hasn't sold yet, this outlot, it has such a short distance to go that there's no question, it's only about 50 feet to open water, that a dock is obviously the solution for them. All these residents around here, except this one, all of them around here have access. Even if this island were divided into lots , that would have access so there's no option for them. If there's no residence there now, there's ' no reason why they wouldn't need a dock or a channel in some cases. The lots that are starred, existing lots that are starred, are lots with potential access with channels because there is a long way to go. Lot 4, Lot 5, have the longest to go, roughly 400 feet. The other potential lots, let's say if Prince subdivides and with the 10 acre minimum rule in effect, I drew in dotted lines here to simulate proposed lots. Okay, let's take that scenario. Let's add up all the channels. If every one of these lots had a channel, worse case, we added them all up. The wetland area is 60 acres, there's 2 1/2 million square feet. If we add up all the lenghts of the channels multiplied by the width of my proposed channel which is 16 feet, that's 20,000 square feet. That's 8/10th's on 1 percent of the total of the designated area. I hardly call that major or substantial impact. If you're talking about my lot, which is only 7,600 square feet and nobody else puts in channels, we're only talking about 3/10th's of 1 percent. That's not even close to being substantial or major. Now I confronted Dr. Rockwell at the lot. She came and visited the lot and I was supposed to meet her. I confronted her with this information. I didn't have the numbers but I had the same opinion and she said that's for the DNR to decide. Whether that's minimal or detrimental. It's not my jurisdiction. She says I've been just asked to come out here I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 5 and give my opinion. So the DNR has decided and they decided it i Y is minimal. She also states in reference to concern over pollution from treated wood docks from boardwalks. She submitted Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol, Inorganic Arsenicals. These are hazardous chemicals that are found in treated wood. I also ' submitted the same type of information from the EPA in my report and she says available information suggests that pollution from pressure treated wood material for docks and boardwalks is minimal. This is like saying that the available information on DDT and aebestos was safe ' at the time the information was available but now we know better and have learned from the past before it's too late. There is no safe level of any hazardous substance. It just depends on the various ' levels of harm. So I believe that with the DNR, with their staff, we're in an excellent position to assess the environmental impact of this plan. That the opinion of the planning staff doesn't carry much weight and I think that a channel should be allowed to proceed. Any questions? I have some direct comments about the dock itself but I submitted some reports, comments about the dock and if you have questions about those directly I can answer those . ' Erhart: Explain the materials that you are removing here? Can you walk on this in the summertime now or you can't? You can't. Is it cattails? Eric Rivkin: It's cattails and soft grass. There are little mounds of dirt and I took a core sample in the summertime. The soil gradually ' goes down and slopes off at about 4 feet at the water , 4 to 6 feet at the waterline, and starts from 0 at the high water mark. It's roughly 80% water . All these spoils would be removed upland . Erhart: Okay, so this is really a process of nutrification? ' Eric Rivkin: That issue is kind of moot now. Erhart: Why? ' Eric Rivkin: Last time we argued about nutrification and fate of the lake and we were not in any position to argue that because we said we're not experts so we had to get the DNR experts to decide this. So I took the arguments to the DNR, they got a copy of the city's reports and the Minutes of the last meeting , it was all put in and . . . Erhart: That's not the reason I'm questioning it. I'm not trying to ' get into a technical discussion. Eric Rivkin: I don't want to be put in the awkward position of trying to defend . . . Erhart: I'm just trying to understand what this area is like. To me IL this whole question is one of more practical things like aesthetics and if you're going to allow channels or if you're going to allow Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 6 essentially landscaping, which you have there, as opposed to a dock, than you're dealing, I think with aesthetic issues and to me, exchanging this nutrification area for open water, who's going to argue whether that's better or worse for wildlife. My opinion, in that particular area you could use a little more open water. So from a wildlife standpoint, I'd favor the proposal. What I'm trying to understand is, are you really removing nutrification or are you going in and creating a new pond here? Eric Rivkin: I'm creating more open water by virtue of the fact that I'm taking out solid materials and adding material and taking it away. But that end of the lake is so choked with vegetation...if you want to get into that kind of argument. . . ' Erhart: What you're proposing isn't a whole lot different than a guy coming along and saying I want clean lakeshore which I think, is that not a common practice? If someone buys a lot on the lake, they can get approval to go in there. Olsen: Clearing ' s not allowed unless you have a permit . , Erhart: What's the issue when a guy goes in and buys a lot and essentially it's real swampy and he wants to put in a beach. Can he do that today in the City of Chanhassen? Olsen : Not in the wetlands . Erhart: What happens if it's just a lake and it's got a weedy shore? Can he do that then? Olsen: He has to get permission from the DNR. There's a difference between a weedy shore and wetland. Erhart: You might find this case, a weedy shore supports more wildlife ' than this . It' s a different type of wildlife. Eric Rivkin: The issue of supporting wildlife, was addressed at the DNR and I had to remove some pond in this cases because the Fisheries Department feared that because the pond was maybe better than the lake, in terms of oxygen and cleanliness , that the fish would want to go there, spawn, stay all winter and die. So they said, you've got to keep things real shallow and you've got to keep them unliveable . . . Erhart: I guess I question in this particular thing that perhaps it is a better alternative. Perhaps it is a better alternative than a dock. My concern is probably, if we're going to look at this as an alternative to a dock in these situations, is to review what the worse case would be if these things, if we start seeing a lot of these. Do we need to sit down and perhaps write up a guideline? If there are some real bad ramifications that happen, not Eric's by himself, but let's say the next guy who wants to do it and the next guy and think Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 7 17 that process through. I think that's the question in my mind here. e. I'm not opposed to this project because I think it's potentially better ' than a dock. The concern would be, where do we go from here. Maybe after talking some more, it might be a question. ' Emmings: I'm opposed to the channel and I'm going to try and explain my reasons why. This, like last time, is a very difficult issue in my mind. I had a hard time coming to a decision on this one. Mr. Rivkin has done a lot of work preparing his case. Mobilizing neighborhood ' support, making graphics and everything else and in a way I almost feel like rewarding him for his effort alone because it's impressive. On the other hand, I'm totally not persuaded by his arguments that there ' are many experts on the one hand and one expert on the other because we can choose to believe whichever expert we think makes the most sense no matter how many there are on one side or the other. I'm also not persuaded by the fact that there have been other agency approvals ' because I think we have the right to be stricter than those agencies in our own backyard. I don't really like a dock going over 400 feet. It seems like it's too darn long to me. I think it may be a liability hazard. May be a hazard to snowmobiles, deer, whatever. I don't really like the dock. In a way I like the canal, in this particular case maybe better than a dock but I'm against a canal for the sole ' reason that we've got a wetland policy that says we're going to protect the wetland and we're not going to allow dredging. We never have allowed dredging and I don't think we ought to open it up. I think what we did on Lake Minnewashta on the subdivision right across from the entrance to the Arboretum and it would seem to me that if we give Mr. Rivkin his canal on this case, we would have no way to defend not giving it to a developer there. It seemed very clear I think, there ' was nobody on the commission who supported allowing any dredging on Lake Minnewashta in a cattail area where they were going to have 4 or 5 openings. The Commission was very unified in not wanting them to do ' dredging in that type of an area. I can see no distinction between that case and this one. I think given the statement on intent of the wetland protection regulation, given our past actions, we simply have no choice here but to deny the channel. If that means that his only ' access then is by dock, then I'm in favor of that because I think he should have access to the lake. That's basically my position and rationale for it. Headla : I see so many people taking wetlands away from us and not putting anything back. Why is it you want to put in a channel but you didn't create like donut that we see in so many slews for like geese or an isolated island? Only if you were really interested in wildlife, that would have been an ideal setup with a channel . ' Eric Rivkin: My first proposal . . . Headla : That wasn ' t your first proposal . Eric Rivkin: Not to have an island in the middle but . . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 8 c 1 Headla : That ' s what I 'm talking about. An island there for wildlife . Eric Rivkin: It's extremely costly. The DNR said that I had to go a minimum of 150 feet in diameter to do that... I have the right to reasonable access. If I have to pay $8,000.00 to dig.—it would be about 3 acres plus the channel according to department standards to create an island . . . Headla : I see you are using economics as one of your rationales why it should be a channel. $22.00 a foot for the mucking and $44.00 per foot for the dock. Why did you have the dock almost twice as long as the channel? Eric Rivkin : I had a bid , I was amazed at how high it was myself but I didn't want to fool around. I wanted to present valid information so I sent the letter out with a sketch of the plan and had those. 1 Headla: As I understand the bids, you asked for 430 foot dock but a 230 foot channel . Eric Rivkin : ...and with a dock I don' t want to go straight out. I want it to sidestep over a bit so you have to pull back a little bit plus you have to have some out in the water to put a boat. So the 1 equivalent of 430 feet. Headla : So that mucking cost estimate is for 400 feet? Eric Rivkin : That ' s because there ' s 400 feet of swamp. Headla: There you're getting down to roughly $10.00 a foot to muck 1 that out but it costs $44 . 00 a foot to put in a dock. Eric Rivkin : I got a solid bid. . . 1 Headla: I couldn't get ahold of Sery-a-Dock but I did talk to two other dock builders who thought that was an extremely high cost. Eric Rivkin : Sery-a-Dock did not give me a bid. Headla : I think they gave you the bid and Bill Niccum was the one who refused . Eric Rivkin: Bill Niccum refused and Waterfree did not, they gave me an estimate but they would not give me a written estimate so it was invalid. Headla: It just seems awfully strange to me that you could do mucking 1 for one-fourth the cost of putting in a dock. Eric Rivkin: It's about 3 days worth of work and at these rates, I had a professional who's been doing dredging and has the product for many, 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 9 ' many years. Is very well qualified to do this and has done work with Carver County. I have all the confidence in the world that he was right with these figures . Headla: You were concerned about putting in some treated wood into the wetlands? Eric Rivkin: I said, with the $19,000.00 dock, it would be a dock without poisoning. . . ' Headla: We've talked about putting treated wood into the wetlands and we've had concerns about it. There's no documented data to say it is not safe. We have not been able to substantiate to say you can't do it ' and until that becomes available we've got to say, hey, it is permissible. Eric Rivkin: I realize that if you want to have a dock. I care for ' the environment. I don't want to put arsenicals in the lake. That's my choice. I 'd rather put galvanized metal posts in. ' Headla: We're all for that. Everyone on the commission, I think that's why we're here, partly, because we do support that type of thing. Anyway, I look at that classy dock, 42 inches wide and I think ' you went first class on that. I have a hard time doing that. Overall , I support the dock over the channel. If we put in one channel, how in the world can we deny it to other people? We've laid the baseline, I think it ' s reasonable and I think we 've got to stick with it. Conrad: Roger, let me put you on the spot a little bit with Larry, and advise us on that. I'm concerned, as others are, about the precedent. ' How we've stayed away from channels and we've guided most people to use docks. Here we have an extended situation. Mr. Rivkin really has a long wetland to go through and I think we all empathize with him . I ' don't think we're trying to say don't use the lake and you can't get there but what kind of advice can you offer? Maybe it's not advice but do you see any rationale based on our ordinance that would allow an exception in this case and allow us to not grant the same right to t others on that lake or others who want to dredge? Is there any rationale? ' Roger Knutson: You talked about precedent and treating similarly situated people similarly. When you really get down to it, it's a matter of argument as much as anything else. Everything is similar but everything is dissimilar. When you try drawing lines, you could draw ' a line and say anything over a 200 foot dock is unreasonable or 100 or 300 or whatever you have. My own druthers, if you're going to do something like that, I'd prefer an ordinance amendment. If you've got a rule, put it in an ordinance. If you want to allow docks of a certain length or open channels if it goes too far, put it down in the ordinance and say it. Then you've protected yourself. On this situation, my own judgment would be, if your conclusion is that Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 10 1 allowing an open channel is going to have significant adverse affect on 11 that wetland, than you ought to turn it down. On the other hand, if you think it will not have a significant adverse affect on that wetland, then by all means approve the open channel . Erhart: Dave, you hit on a line of thought there that I'd like to pursue and that is, the concept of improving wetlands. Say given a situation where there's a small pond and it's been almost totally nutrified and all that's left is just the tiniest little spot in the center where there's a little open water and somebody comes in here with a proposal to essentially go in with a dragline and clean it all out and make it into an area now, and puts an island in the middle and has the DNR okayed it and approved the plan and I'm sure Elizabeth Rockwell would approve it. Make it big enough so ducks and geese would nest in it yet it started out as a Class A wetland. Are we going to turn that down just because we've got an ordinance that says you can't disturb cattails? Olsen: The difference would be determining the condition of that ' wetland. And the one that you just described, even though that would be a Class A wetland, it's in a detriorating state and needs to be improved. Where this wetland, it might be a little cattail clogged and some of it could be cleared out, Dr. Rockwell felt that it was a good wetland and that dredging it out for a channel . . . Erhart: The one I'm talking about is 200 feet in diameter. The wetland he's got is 400 feet. What I'm getting to here, I'm not trying to get anybody, but what I'm trying to get to here is maybe the rule that we're looking for, rather than Eric coming in here or anybody else coming in with a plan to get access to a lot , maybe what we ought to look at or seek out people to come in with plans for improving wetland areas . Headla: We visited one this fall and that's why I asked Jo Ann to speak. Now I don't remember it being that big. Do you remember the dimensions of that? Olsen: That was a wetland in a poor state where the duck pond they were proposing was going to improve it. Whereas this wetland is already in a good state and altering it might harm it . Erhart: I guess what I'm having a hard time with is you're saying that continuous 400 feet of cattails is better than a broken up area where you have some open water and some cattails and some islands and I don't think that ' s correct . Olsen : The dredging out of that wetland . Erhart: I'm not talking about Eric's proposal anymore. I'm talking about a fictions issue. If you were to go in and say, we have 400 feet of cattails here and we have 600 feet of width to work with and we L I 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 11 wanted to come in and just simply� mp y zmprove the wetlands for wildlife. This is designed to be an access rather than a wetland improvement and maybe the thing , as a Commission, is that what we would like to see or invite people in these types of situations to come in with wetland improvement proposals that had Rockwell's support. And yes, if it could be used as an access , that ' s great too. Conrad: I think you're right. Theoretically, the things that we have ' approved and wetland modification, at least the way I've tried to direct them, have been improvements. That's got to be the attitude to playing around with the wetland and there are ways to improve them. There are ways to fill in a wetland and make another one. So just ' preserving for the sake of preserving, I think that's why we have Rockwell going out. I don't think, at least I'm not trying to preserve just to preserve. I think I'm trying, in my attitude is to maintain and to improve and if there's a better alternative, to take a look at that and not to administer it, no tampering. That's why there's a permit process. If we felt that wetlands should never be gotten into, ' we wouldn't have a permit process. We'd simply say don't go into a Class A wetland but because there are ways of improving it, that's one of the rationales for the permit. Just two points Tim, for your consideration and my memory is giving way up here trying to remember certain elements about the wetlands and how we drafted the ordinance and what we were trying to do and preserve. You heard a lot of testimony and a lot of reports several years ago when the ordinance went in. Two things, however, were extremely critical. The Class A wetlands are typically an extremely good filter. One of the things we heard is when you tamper with a little bit, it can make an entire wetland ineffective. Therefore, that whole wetland can be negated. Even though we're only dealing, and I assume that's what Rockwell's, Eric brings up some good points here in Dr. Rockwell's comments about a substantial. Well, it's obviously not areawise, a substantial impact, ' but I think if I were to read between the lines and I haven't talked to her , but I think her point could have been that by tampering with a little bit, you can really make a lot more ineffective than just that ' little bit. The other side of the thing is, as you tamper with wetlands it's real evident, as you take a look at the purple loosestrife takeover, it's not just where you tamper with the wetland, it's that purple loosestrife all of a sudden choke out the entire wetland. They keep going and going and one of the things that I heard years ago that as you do disturb the wetland, you have a great tendency for encouraging purple loosestrife and there's really not a real ' effective way of keeping the loosestrife from taking over. The chemicals have not been, unless on a spot basis with over and over again, been able to control that. Those were just two technical things that I recall about why the wetlands , we didn't want dredging in the wetlands. Going back to your point, I think the improvement to the wetland is what we're always been looking for. Especially in a Class A. In a Class B we've been pretty liberal in how those have been treated and I think overall Dr. Rockwell , I haven't found her to be real unreasonable. She takes a look at a wetland and if it's not good, I I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 12 1 she will tell us that and we have been a lot less stringent, a lot less trict on what goes on based on how valuable she feels that wetland is. Before we wrap things up here, there are others of you that maybe haven't said anything tonight and if you've got a comment on what we've said or what Mr. Rivkin has said, I'd sure entertain your comments right now. If it's something that pertinent that we can mull into our decision making . Eric Rivkin: I don't know if anybody else wants to go first but I I think I ' ve got to say some things . Conrad : Alright , go ahead . , Eric Rivkin: Regarding the issue of aesthetics. I designed it to be a natural benefit. If they have to put in a channel, design it to be a natural looking channel. Not a straight shot. When you're on the lake you will not be able to see through. When you're on the shore you won't be able to see through so it will be like a weaving in... Other benefits are, regarding the purple loosestrife issue, there is some purple loosestrife on Lake Lucy and whether you dredge the channel or not, purple loosestrife may take over the whole lake. Without a channel, I wouldn't have access to go pick purple loosestrife. If everybody else doesn't have channels, they wouldn't have access to the purple loosestrife either. ...and you've got long access channels, it would be easier to pick the stuff rather than harmful herbacides to poison the fish and downstream the beach at Lake Ann where our kids aim. As far as the minimal impact is concerned, doing absolutely 1...J-thing to the wetland, as in Mrs. Rockwell's words, may be intellectually.—but I don't believe that. ...which is my lawful right of water access. I agree that, and I tried last time to try and convince you that the pond and the channel would be a benefit instead of just providing the access but you saw it more as just for my benefit and I pulled back on the second go around with the DNR and said, look, let's just go minimal here. You tell me what's minimal and they told me and gave me a permit. Now, if you're willing to fund me going to hire an engineering expertise and hiring Dr. Rockwell and getting all kinds of approvals and going to landscape designers and wetland designers and coming up with one plan to improve Lake Lucy and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to do a bang up job on my lot, on my 8 acres of wetland, okay but if I have to fund it, it's unreasonable access. I have lawful rights to reasonable access to open water on Lake Lucy. You have to grant me that. It's state law. It's the law. Now, a dock versus a channel, let's talk about a dock for a minute here. Aesthetically, a ribbon of plastic or wood going out on the dock, the wood is very high maintenance. Anybody that tells you a dock does not require maintenance is blowing smoke. There are floating dock systems that may be cheaper but have no less liability than a wooden dock in which people can fall off, drown off of, run into and deer trip over so I don't think that a dock from that standpoint and because, addressing the issue about why it's so expensive. You've got dozens and dozens of posts to pound down. Many of them have to go 20 I I Planning Commission Meeting ranuary 6 , 1988 - Page 13 IP:feet or more just to hit solid ground in order to support it. You 'nit take the posts out for 400 feet of dock. You can't even take he docks out. It's not a seasonal dock. That's going to stay there year around. It's not practical to remove 400 feet of dock every year. You're forcing, through some of your provisions, that they have to work in the wintertime. That's why it's so expensive. You've got to go pound 100 posts out there. The access problems. These guys are not I going to want to work. They work by the hour and it's very expensive to put a dock in the winter that long. So me and residents around the lake feel it's going to be a piece of junk on the wetland. Now that has an impact. Regarding the City's comments, this Attorney said that I ti.f the applicant is concerned with liability, he can choose to leave he property alone and not do anything. I'm not concerned with liability as I am with my right for reasonable access. You say that Istaff can not base recommendations on the cost of the outcome. Cost to the applicant is an element because access, denial of access, would be in effect denial of my rights to open water and denying me because I resources are beyond my reach. That's true in cases where I can design a big fancy improvement to the wetland too. If it's my expense, it's unreasonable. I can't afford it. No way. That's in violation of state law. Reasonable access to open water. You say that Item C states that the size of the dredged area should be the minimum requirement of the proposed action. The purpose of the channel is to provide the property owner with his access to Lake Lucy. You have to Iqualify the word access to reasonable access. Taking out acres and adding my own ponds and lakes and there's no way that I'm going to put jn a $19,000.00 dock. The other question I had for all of you is, the ' 4R has addressed all of these issues. We've got experts, like Mrs. Rockwell but broader because they have crossed all boundaries besides Fish and Wildlife which Mrs. Rockwell is an expert in. But they are in contrary opinions to Mrs. Rockwell. Now, the DNR has already spoken to I these issues and considered the dock proposal. They considered the impact. They considered all the issues. They have experience on thousands of channels dredged on hundreds of lakes and ponds around LMinnesota and they've given their opinion. They've given me a permit. ou said I had to go back and get a permit. I got a permit. That should have settled all the arguments . onrad: Not true and that's why we have an ordinance. We have an rdinance that we're looking at that we spent, you keep talking about that and the DNR is one of the things. The last time you were in, here were a lot of missing pieces and we got confused. We didn't say, ' f you get those missing pieces back to us you're automatically granted he permit. There were a lot of missing pieces in what we saw and we asked you and staff to go back and collect some comments. You came IL ack with this. You've done a nice job of coming back but we have an rdinance. Mr. Rivkin you don't understand that there is a wetland ordinance in this town and we are looking at that. It's more strict han the DNR. That's why we have that ordinance and we had a group of even people construct that ordinance over 3 or 4 years a couple years back so that's what we're looking at now. We're not looking at the I I 11 Planning Commission Meeting . January 6, 1988 - Page 14 1 DNR. They've given you their opinion. They've granted the permit but have to take a look at our ordinance and that's what we're kind of s II truggling over right now. That's why we have a legal staff here to kind of guide that. So the DNR is one piece of the pie. We wanted them to be in concurrence with the things that they look at, and they I only look at a few of the things. They are not the most strict body when it gets to wetlands. They just aren't. That's why Chanhassen took a look at it and said we have a lot of wetlands in Chanhassen, it II covers a lot of territority and we wanted to take a look at it ourselves and put in an ordinance ourselves and that's what we're struggling with . IIEmmings: In addition Ladd, I'd like to point out that his permit from the DNR is specifically conditioned upon complying with all rules, regulations, requirements and standards of the Minnesota Pollution I Control Agency and other applicable federal, state and local agencies and that ' s us . We' re a local agency. Conrad: I just didn't want you to keep drumming in that fact because I we're looking at other things, just not that. Did you have any other concluding things? Eric Rivkin: Yes, I don't hear any expert, I mean everybody has the II right to their opinions but you brought up issues that were left unanswered about the fact about the quality of life in the wetlands. II There is no conclusive evidence by you in favor of the channel.—just ,ppositions . t Conrad: The Wetland Ordinance does say that it's up to the applicant II to persuade us, not the staff. It's up to the applicant to persuade us that there is minimal or no impact to the wetland alteration so it's on your shoulders to do that and you've presented information that we have II to review. If we believe that there is zero degregation or minimal impact, then I think you'll have easy sailing in this regard through us or through City Council . II Eric Rivkin: ...What expert testimony do you have that it's going to degrade the wetland? Conrad: Simply by dredging is taking part of the wetland away and II that' s what we' re looking at. Eric Rivkin : But how do you know taking some of the wetland is II detrimental in this case? Conrad: I guess, and I'm answering for myself, at this point in time II you haven't persuaded me that it's not and our technical expert is saying that she can see no rationale for harming that wetland at this time that wouldn't be detrimental. Those are the two things that I'm II looking at. L I II I IIPlanning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 15 Eric Rivkin : I could put in a dock and you could say the same thing . IIJoe Monnens: I really appreciate the problem you guys are struggling with here in your efforts to want to enforce a stricter ordinance than II most communities. I really applaud that and I also share your concern about not wanting developers to come in and dredge up the wetlands in this area but my gosh, this is just a guy that wants to get a canoe out on the lake. He's just asking for a little channel. You got to find a Iway to let that happen. Conrad: Roger, you wanted to talk a few seconds ago. Do you remember Iwhat you were going to say? Roger Knutson: Yes, but you said it. I was just going to ask if you had discussed, I haven't been participating in the discussions earlier, I the fact the purpose of wetlands, nutrient stripping and all that good stuff. Apparently you had gone over that. Obviously it's a lot more than just wildlife nesting areas . IConrad: Generally, here's my opinion, I think Mr. Rivkin has done a nice job of revising his plan and giving us more information. As Steve I said, I'd like to find a way of solving a problem. I really do like and agree with access to the lake for any riparian homeowner. The plan is a lot more reasonable than it was before but I see on the other side, I still see some technical advice telling me that it is negative I and this technical advice typically is not looking at letter of the laws. In the past has always been real reasonable on how they've advised us so I feel sensitive to the technical advice. I think I'm I still concerned with impact on that wetland as you disturb it. The comments that I said about making a small change could impact the entire wetland and the impact of loosestrife. It's not just this one. It's other channels and I think the whole precedent issue is the one I that I'm struggling with the most. I think Mr. Rivkin has a real valid argument to get out there but I don' t know how to control it in other issues just like this one. I think when we have other accesses on Lake I Lucy that we'll have to look at, and I think every dock that we've look at so far that we've asked every access to a wetland, will be back here wanting to channel. Not everyone, that's an overstatement but many I will. Many wanted to and we tended to keep the rules pretty strict in that regard. I think a dock might be a reasonable alternative. I don't know that the costs are that different as you are suspecting Dave. I think maintenance on both issues might be a long term , whether Iit be redredging or reworking the dock but I don't know that the costs are that prohibited. I guess in my mind the only alternative right now that I see, the only recommendation I can make is to turn down the I channel and possibly to review, as Roger said, the wetland ordinance. I'd be real apprehensive about granting a variance because of the impact. I would have a tendency to want to take a look at the ILordinance. It doesn't help Mr. Rivkin right now. He wants to go out and do the thing in the winter based on ordinance but I think revising the ordinance is the only thing that I could do and I think if the City I I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 16 Council wanted to take a look at that again, we certainly could have a, I don't know if you call it a blue ribbon, but we could have some kind of a group take a look at it. Maybe there is a way to review this issue in situations when you've got 400 feet to get to the lake. I emphathize with what you're trying to do. I just really do but I also feel that I don't have a good enough way to grant that at this time other than taking a look at the ordinance itself and saying, is there any possible way of altering that so we still don't impact that wetland but give you that right and that ' s the only thing I can see right now. Eric Rivkin: Maybe the ordinance does need a change but I would suggest that you have all lakeshore owners notified and this blue ribbon panel or whatever it is should include select homeowners or maybe representatives of homeowners could form lake homeowners associations to represent that way. But the ordinance does need changing. If you're saying that it's on the burden of a mere homeowner to provide a convincing argument that we have staffs and state agencies for , that's a hell of a burden. I've got to convince you that the wetland's not to be touched. That's ridiculous. I went to seek the opinions of others and I'm of the position that I probably could have done 10 times more than the next guy out there but take the average guy coming in here trying to get a dock or channel, he hasn't got a chance in front of you guys. Emmings : Dr. Rockwell has come back to us on several times when she's ' gone out to review wetlands , she comes back and says I think what hey're proposing to do is an improvement to the wetland. She gives us that information. She didn't in your case but she's done that on lots of them. 111 Eric Rivkin: It seems a little inconsistent here. First, she made an opinion...and it is very choked out with these weeds and stuff. The last time I came here, I wanted to dredge I think more , there were more members up here than before, but three of them are on record in favor of the channel upon thinking that it was an improvement. I didn' t bring up those arguments again here because they were mentioned before and I had the DNR backing me now saying that okay, it would be less than minimal. It's a very awkward position for a homeowner to come in and defend . . .maybe it ' s a problem the ordinance like you' re saying . Conrad: In fact, when the ordinance went in, I sure knew where there were going to be problems. When we had wetlands that were as big as the ones that are in front of your house and the committee, 2 to 3 years ago did look at that and at that time they couldn't find a solution for us. It's a real problem but I think the point was that we were really trying to make it hard for somebody to modify a Class A wetland. They are so valuable. They are eaten up, in Minnesota more are eaten up proportionally than should be. Water is such an important asset to Minnesota but we have really, the State's done a really bad job of preserving wetlands. Not only for habitat but for water control and runoff and all that. They've really done a miserable job. That's 1 Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 17 why we don't have a whole lot of respect for what the DNR is out there Joing. They can do certain things but they're not doing a real good job in terms of some of these things that we think are important. IEric Rivkin: If you wanted to table this so I don't feel like you're denying my right to lawful access . II Conrad: I think what you should do is go to City Council. I think you have to hear what they have to say. I think you have a presentable proposal at this time and because we turn it down, which you may have Igotten the drift but that doesn't mean that you can't come back later on and bring it back up. What is the limit? If it does get turned down by us and City Council, Mr. Rivkin certainly has the opportunity to bring back a different scenario at any time he'd like right? But I Ithink it's really worthwhile that you hear City Council on this one because if they want us to look at the wetland ordinance, I'd like to have their direction to do that. Then we get some kind of concurrence Ibetween them and us . Eric Rivkin : You' ll point out this report to them? IConrad : They' re going to hear everything that I just said. IEmmings: Before we make a motion, are we just going to vote on the proposal for the channel or are we also going to consider the III alternative for the boardwalk? r- Conrad: I didn't hear Mr. Rivkin ask for the boardwalk. He's asking for the channel. I think that's the one he wants to pursue to City Council and I think we should just react to that . IHeadla: I would prefer to table it and see if he couldn't come back. Work with the different groups where it's a benefit to the wetland as well as to himself. Apparently the feeling is that he's better off Igoing right to the Council. I think he can win if he sits down and talks and how can the wetlands benefit besides him. I find it hard to believe there is no way to do it. That's why I would prefer tabling Iit. If you feel time is of the essence and you want to gamble that way because it ' s . . . Conrad : Do you want to make a motion to table it? IHeadla moved, Erhart seconded to table the wetland alteration permit request and ask Mr. Rivkin to work with the City Staff and the Iappropriate people to see can be done to benefit the wetlands as well as himself. The motion was later withdrawn. IErhart: I guess I'd like to ask a question before we vote on that. Are you interested in coming back here once again with a proposal to improve the wetland? You've sat there now and said it doesn't hurt and doesn't hurt and the DNR says it hasn't hurt the wetland. You're not IL- I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 18 1 oing to sell that in the City right and I think what you have to sell s how you're going to come in here and show us how you're going to improve the wetlands and then I think you'll get it through. There's no sense tabling it if you don't want to come back but I think I agree with Dave, if you want to come back with a proposal and have Dr. Rockwell review, perhaps put an island and make the pond bigger, that sounds really funny at this point I know, and put an island in it. . . Eric Rivkin: Who' s going to pay for it? Erhart: Well, we're not going to pay for it. Reasonable access is to put a dock. You basically heard the argument. You can put a dock in. Eric Rivkin : You haven ' t convinced me that a dock is cheaper. Erhart: We don't have to. That's irrelevant. We don't have 7..o give you a channel . You can put a dock in. Joe Monnens : I hope if he comes back with a proposal for a dock, that you deny that. I 'd much rather see a channel than a dock. Erhart: I'm not sure we can though because we've allowed it in other , similar situations . Joe Monnens: A 400 foot dock. . . ' ('chart : We don ' t have an ordinance that prohibits a 400 foot dock. Joe Monnens: That would be a good mofidication to your existing ordinance then . Erhart: Maybe, if a dock is over 400 feet, then look at a channel or , something but. . . Eric Rivkin : I would want to come back year and do this if the ordinance is improved but it's not within my means to go back and hire people and find out why an affordable channel is going to improve the wetlands . ' Erhart: I don' t think you' re that far away. Eric Rivkin: With who? I Erhart : Rockwell . Eric Rivkin : She was very adamant about doing anything . Emmi.ngs: Is she available anymore? Olsen: She moved to New Jersey. There's another person in her office that is available. Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6 , 1988 - Page 19 V--leadla : Does the staff feel that we can work something out? Olsen: At this time, again just interpretting the ordinance, we interpret it as minimal impact or alteration—with the channel but there are other alternatives. Just from hearing, even people from the I DNR, it is a good wetland and I don't know if it needs to be improved with a channel and a pond. IConrad: I think it sure should go to City Council. Although you've made a motion that it's being tabled. I think Mr. Rivkin should take Iit to them and get their opinion. He'll be there in two weeks and he'll hear what they have to say. If they believe what we're saying or if they don't. If nothing else, if they believe that the ordinance, I Ihave to believe that they're going to reinforce what we're saying. But they may be interested in other alternatives like changing the ordinance and that's the most reasonable way of solving of the problem. So I think it's really to his benefit to get it up there rather than Ispinning around with us and coming back. Headla: Maybe you're right. Mr. Rivkin isn't that interested in Ipursuing it. Conrad : Costwise it ' s going to be more . A different solution I think. IHeadla: Okay, how do we withdraw that motion? onrad : You can withdraw it. IHeadla: Okay, I withdraw my motion. Conrad : Do you withdraw your second? IErhart: Sure. Headla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the wetland alteration permit to construct a channel and turnaround . All voted in favor and motion carried . " Conrad: Do we any special instructions as we send this forward? I think our comments as they get to City Council will be, the last few Iminutes of discussion will be clear for them as they read our Minutes . Emmings : Maybe if they want us to look at the ordinance , and it seems Ito me maybe we should, they should give us some clear indication of how we cna fit this particular case into the general thing with the ordinance because I can't see how we're going to do it. I think I'd like some direction . L I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 20 , (GTRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON r�OPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 9. 04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. — — — Larry Brown presented the engineering department's staff report on the ' Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Headla: That sedimentation basin, when I was looking at it, it looked ' like it would be 6 feet below the street level . Is that right? Brown: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and the elevation of the roadway is approximately 972. This invert of the storm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, well it's 966.5 above this. During the 100 year storm, the maximum capacity that it's expected to maintain, the elevation would be 968. This is well below the provisions of the roadway so we won't be creating a problem there. The one problem that does exist is the Park and Recreation Commission had proposed for a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. During the normal storm , say 10 year frequency storm , you can fit a trail (`trough here fairly readily. There's not many obstacles through there. N.t will be up out of the ponding area and won't be a problem. The problem does come in if a 100 year storm does occur , we may start encroaching upon the trail but I seriously doubt that many people are going to be using the trail during a 100 year storm. Headla: How do you get the water from the sedimentation basin out? Just a culvert under the road? Brown: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and with a baffle structure here, it will flow into Lake Minnewashta. Certain provisions can be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but I don't think that would be very advantageous. The sedimentation is trapped in the basin and there won' t be anything . . . Headla: Is all the water coming out of there going to stay on the ' Pierce property? The grade in the land kind of makes it keep on going south. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. You see it's headed southeast. Why didn't it go more east? If you head southeast, it ' s going to continue flowing to the south when it gets past the road . Brown: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes from here is trapped through the roadway system and storm sewer system. It flows into the sedimentation basin and then goes out here . Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 21 ' eadla: Okay, right there. It doesn't get to the lake. It gets to ne east side of the road but then the grade tends to make it flow to the south . Are they going to pipe it right down to the lake? " Brown: That was my understanding. Is that correct? Ted : Yes . " Conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around there and I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. Not only for this project but for others to the north and to the west. Why not? Is the elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drain to the rear to a pond and how come that ' s not an alternative? IBrown: Basicly the initial submittal had the pond in this area and we made them relocate it to facilitate some of the natural drainage path. This area over here, BRW had analyzed that in their report. On their sketch they had picked out specific areas, low lying areas, that a pond could be facilitated. Unfortunately, I don't have an overhead of that but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they had picked. Because they met the 100 year frequency, it worked in with the Iside slopes of these lots and the existing drainage patterns, I felt that it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that could be explored but I felt that this pond . . . "Conrad: Tell me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like t can't hold , what would you do with the pond that was there? Would ne assumption be that it could hold a lot of water or would you still have the same type of outlet into Minnewashta? Without looking at the site I have no idea what the holding capacity would be back there but would you potentially have to have the same type of outlet that you Icurrently have on the holding pond that you planned in this particular map or could a pond be self contained? It flows in and it just stays there. Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually that pond is going to reach capacity. I know that the neighboring properties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one of 'the major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not only that, obviously we're limited by the property boundary and the slopes in the ditch area now. Like I said, I haven't got it down to brass I tacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be some shifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet it someplace and I'm afraid that that alternative would be bad for Lake Minnewashta . 11Conrad : How does a study, like BRW, how did this get funded? The BRW portion of alternatives. What prompted a study and who funded that? IBrown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explore this, we used .BRW because we're concerned with Minnewashta Parkway I I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 22 I being a collector street. We're worried about the aspects of access ito Minnewashta Parkway. There are certain problems, as you're I robably more than aware of, of sight distance and speed on Minnewashta Parkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictions we needed for Stratford Ridge such as this entrance and also to I facilitate future development. If this piece goes, it's fairly inevitable that the surrounding pieces will do that so we had to look at once these pieces start coming in, how are we going to facilitate I utilities through there, the roadway patterns . Conrad: Did that come from your office or did the City Council direct you to do that? I Brown: Yes , it came from our office. Conrad: Okay, and then how does that get funded? Who pays BRW for I doing that? Is that just a budget that the city has? Brown: That ' s a budgeted item, yes. We often use consultants . I Conrad: You're just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann, you're going to be talking about other things. Anything else for I Larry? Jo Ann Olsen presented the planning department's staff report on the I Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Conrad : Would the applicant like to talk to us on what was just presented and any other comments? I Ted Kenner , Schoell and Madsen: The two questions that Jo Ann specifically brought up were the area of the property and we have I calculated the area of the property to be 9.04 acres. This apparently disagrees with the tax area which is substantially less. Something in the 5 acre area. I have not seen the tax statement, but it is actually I a 9 acre parcel. As to Lot 1, Block 2 I understand by looking at it , it does not appear to have the 15,000. If you take the dimensions that are shown out of the plat, that does not calculate out but those are the dimensions to the curves. If you take the length of the lot times I the width of the lot, which is 140 feet long by 108 feet wide, it calculates out to be 15,120. So when the plat is finally calculated, that lot will be made to be a 15,000 or larger and it will be based I with that configuration. I guess I don't have any other issues unless you have questions . Headla: On the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember early this fall when we had I that Halla's property and I asked the question, the area they stated, did that include the highway. We were talking about TH 101, and you said no, that's not normally included. When I look at the arithmetic I on this property, if I measure strictly the envelope , I come up with 9.04 acres. That includes Minnewashta Parkway. If I take off I Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 6 , 1988 - Page 23 Minnewashta Parkway and the lakeshore, I come up with 7.56 acres which what the taxable property was and that's really what you're trying o develop. If you take away the outlot, it's really 7 acres that you ' re developing. Do you agree with that? 1 Ted Kenner : It depends on how you figure it. I would say that the developable property is the entire parcel less the area that is in IMinnewashta Parkway. The area in Minnewashta Parkway is about three- quarters of an acre so you still have 8.3 acres of land area. Headla : So the 9. 04 did include the highway? ITed Kenner: That is correct. You've got three-quarters of an acre between the road and the lake in there or about seven-tenths of an IIacre and that is not within the plat itself but it's still land area that is developable and is taxed . Headla: I give you credit for a little bit more area than that. Okay, I wanted to make that point. Can I see your arithmetic on Lot 1? I've tried and tried and tried and I can not come up with the, if you could just sketch it. Give me the overall dimensions and then let me go on 1t0 something else . Ted Kenner : Overall , the length is 140 feet . IIHeadla: I get 130. If I take this 100 and this 15 and this 15, that's ( 30. IlTed Kenner : All I 'm using is the scale. Headla : I 'm using dimensions right off the print. " Ted Kenner: Okay, that's the way I've based it and that's the way the lot was set up is based on scale. Headla: I don't believe it's 15,000. Until I can see dimensions on the print that says that, I think you're way under. It does not meet the minimum of 15, 000. Ted Kenner: I guess I'm confident that it does just based on my calculations . IlHeadla : What does preliminary plat mean? Ted Kenner: This is a preliminary plat. This has not been calculated at this point . Headla : But if we approve this , what are we really approving? Can you (slide anything around like you want or are we approving this as it is? IL II I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 24 1 Olsen: They haven't made the final calculations but we check the lot 'mensions with the final plat to match the two. You can' t change. 1 Headla: What do you really change on here? I'm not sure I really understand preliminary. ' Olsen: The preliminary you'll establish the lot layout and the lot dimensions and the square footage. The final plat, it just comes in with just the lot lines. That's when you've done the final calculations. So with a preliminary plat sometimes you'll get a lot that's 110 wide and then the final will come in and it might be actually 112. ' Headla: So you're really just fine tuning some of the dimensions but these lots aren't going to slide around anymore. I guess I want to make very sure that does meet the minimum requirements. I don't know how they're going to achieve it. That's all I had on that. On the driveway, on the outlot that you're suggesting, are you going to be doing any grading on that driveway? Are you changing the level of that at all? Olsen: Right along here. There is concern that this driveway not be blocked at all . Ted Kenner: The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leave it as is. lr =adla: So you won't be doing any grading in there and you aren't changing water flow at all then? ' Ted Kenner: No. It will only be constructed from Minnewashta Parkway up to Stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That will be finished, the roadway up to there. Beyond that will remain the gravel driveway that presently exists there. Headla: Fine, there was some concern and I just wanted clarification on that. When you're doing this, and this is kind of a question that comes up at different times, there's only one way into that house, what happens if there is an emergency up there? Is there always going to be an access to that place? When you're putting in that 50 foot road, how is that person, in case there's an emergency, how does that house get served? ' Ted Kenner : When you say that house , which are you talking about? Headla : The one directly to the west. 1 Ted Kenner : Hallgren' s? Headla: Yes . I I I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 25 Ted Kenner: They would maintain the driveway through there so they Iuld get through at all times. Headla : Even when you' re building that 50 foot road? ITed Kenner : Yes . I Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I think it's Mrs. Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and I think that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. What happens to her? Is she just out of luck now or maybe the builder can 'tell me, how is that handled? Robert Pierce: That's been addressed. There is an easement for ,driveway purposes. Ted Kenner : Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn, we have I gotten additional information on the exterior boundaries and they will be shifting a little further from her house on the north side anyway and possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may not go into our property. ,Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going along Minnewashta Parkway and then that 6 foot drop-off there? Then you've I of a 6 foot water pond along the parkway and then you're going to have omes there. Is that going to be a problem for people on the bike fail or the homes that are right there that have small children? obert Pierce: At this point, I guess I don't really know. It's a ittle hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until I really see where it's going to go. I do know that with the proper "landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and made to ook very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trail to use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a speed that Fthey can't stay on the trail or whatever, I guess that's where problems ould come in but that could be anywhere along the trail . Headla: Do they grate that thing or what do they do? Crown: There is plenty of room for the 8 foot trail. Where the problem comes in is actually the 20 foot easement area that's normally equired. There's a problem with overlapping the drainage easement ith the trail easement and that was my major concern. There is more han enough room to get an 8 foot trail in there. That obviously doesn't alleviate the possibility of reaching maximum capacity of the IIand and occasionally running over the top of that trail. I think hat's the problem at this point. As far as the question we were getting at before about the pond being close to the residential Ieighborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all the evelopments. One classic example is over here on the Saddlebrook. That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is L I r Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 26 , adjacent to the rearyard so I really don' t foresee any direct problem. Headla: So if we set a precedent, it isn't going to be any different than what we' ve done other places? Brown: That' s correct. Headla : I was looking at that hoping to have the water go back the other way. The other one, I'm concerned about the wetland to the northwest, but we can talk about that. My only other comment is , I was really disappointed in the BRW maps. They just blatantly went right through the wetlands and they are suggesting these are where the roads should go. I'm not going to belabor the point except that I thought it was inappropriate to do. You heard the discussion tonight. We're very concerned about wetlands and then something that the village will sponsor , we blast a road right on through. Brown: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann can confirm this, initially we didn't think that area was a wetland. As I stated before, when the applicant submitted this at first, that was when we ordered the overview by BRW. Shortly thereafterwards, the area back there in the northwest corner was analyzed as a low class wetland. So it's not a real obvious factor when you're out there tromping through the site, that it is a wetland. Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Ann it says Lots 1 through 5 and I assume that's Block 2 that you're talking about there so I guess I'd like to, whoever makes the motion, I think we ought to include Block 2 in there so we're sure we know which Lots 1 through 5 we're talking about. Then, going to condition 1, we're talking about the right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 will be designated as an outlot. Do I understand the reason that's being done ' is to avoid the double frontage question? Olsen: Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain a double frontage. It ' s indicated as street right-of-way right now. . . Emmings: Why aren't we doing the same things then at least Lots 8 , 9 and 10 of Block 1 that we're doing on Lot 2 for the double frontage lots? Olsen : Technically right now it ' s not actually a double frontage lot . , Emmings : We are creating double frontage lots right? Olsen: It's possible that when streets are approved there that it will just go straight down from Stratford to this driveway but . . . Emmings: As far as the double frontage lots, I don't have a problem ' with that. I don't think the plan is a bad plan at all for the property. I'm glad that they looked to see how it would fit with the r I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 27 development of the neighboring properties. I think that's been looked rat. I guess I don't have any trouble thinking about a variance for those because we've already said we want lot depth to be 125 feet and in fact they may not need a variance at all if the City Council goes ' along with that. I do however like the idea of having additional landscaping when there are double frontage lots. The only thing I have trouble really conceptualizing in this plan is four of those lots ' in Block 2, such as 2, 3 , 4 and 5 really, it would seem to me there is some kind of mushy language in there that we recommend that the houses face the internal streets but I would think as a matter of fact, you'd want to build those houses to look at the lake. Olsen: What that means is that it emphasizes is they must be cleared for a driveway. What we would consider the rear of the house they Iwould consider the front. Emmings: That makes it perfectly clear. Now I understand. I don't I care which way they go but as long as they have the access off the internal street and they've got some additional, when we say they're going to have additional screening, that's on the Parkway side right? I don ' t have anymore questions . IErhart: On that BRW plan, on Option A, how are they going to get access from Minnewashta Parkway? Olsen : Option A is showing it to be accessed from the north. Erhart: And that street exists? IOlsen: No. I think what they would probably do is put a service road where this dotted line is. IErhart: And that not being such a good idea, for that purpose we end up with double frontage lots gives us Option B. Option B gives us with ' double frontage lots . Olsen : But they' re building this already. I Erhart: Really, the BRW plan is the one that gives us the variance. Possibly you could have drawn up a street plan and prevented any double frontage lots. IBrown: If I could interrupt, I think as pointed out in the BRW report, that there is a large number of possibilities that one could lay this ' out. Again, one of the other points that was brought out in the report is the ability to develop this area is going to rely on a developer to package several parcels of land together. That may not happen. Some of the homeowners have already expressed that no, my land will never be ' developed. That may in fact happen but the object of this was not to lay out the specific lots or force anyone into developing, it was just such that we can address Stratford Ridge to accomodate that development I I Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 28 1 if it were to occur . Erhart : I think what you did in putting together a master plan for the area was just great. I think that's super. Whether they did a good job or not, that one I won't make a judgment on. Obviously, if any company should do this, I agree with Dave, they should go in and find out, before they lay any pen to paper they ought to find out what's wetland in the area because that's just as important as the existing streets. In my mind, I'm just trying to understand the double fronted lots to some degree comes about as putting pressure on the developer to try to stick to our master plan so I guess I don't have a problem with the variance from that standpoint. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, they have 70 foot frontage on one side. That's below the minimum allowed. Olsen: There's 90 foot street frontage and including the radius, that comes out to 85. Ted Kenner : It ' s 90 at the building setback line. Olsen: That ' s for cul-de-sacs. Ted Kenner : Then we should make that lot 90 on the front then . Erhart: Lot 1 should be 90. Lot 2, that one being on an outside curve, you could argue that it would be on the setback, but Lot 1, I think you've got to look at that number. And the extra 10 feet is 4 included in Lots 7 through 10 of Block 1 right, because it's double frontage? It is included? Olsen: Not right now but it will be. Right now it's not. The position right is for Lots 1 through 5. . . Erhart: If the plan is for them to be double fronted, of course the thing is in this case the developer is not, there is no assurance that that street will ever continue to go through there. Robert Pierce: There's the possibility too that at a future date,, depending on how land would develop around there, that that access may never be used or it might shift over 30 feet. Erhart : So I guess it really isn ' t an issue. No more questions . Conrad: The size of the properties on either side Jo Ann, are large parcels on either side? North and south? Olsen: Yes, they are also narrow to where, as Larry mentioned, they are going to have to work together. i think the properties to the north is probably coming in for a subdivision. They are all large parcels but they are also narrow. ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 29 It7Erhart: Are you talking about the Charles Anderson property is coming in for a subdivision? And they would get access from where your blue line is? IOlsen: I haven' t seen the plans . Ted Kenner : I have talked to them and they are more interested in Ideveloping the property to the north. They are looking at the Charles Anderson property and the one just to the west of there which is owned by the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. They are looking at developing those two parcels together tying both of those off of IPleasant Acres. Conrad: I still have a problem. It still looks to me like we're Iputting a whole lot of stuff on a few acres here. I know that our legal consultants say it meets the minimum as long as they all do but when I see the bike trail and I see the holding pond and I see some Ivariances and double frontages, it always means, usually when we have a lot of stuff like that it means we're putting too much on a piece of property. IErhart: Jo Ann are we asking for a variances for double frontage on Lot 7 through 10? How can we do that when there's no street there? We' re not asking for a variance? IConrad : We ' re not? Olsen : What you need right now is a variance to that additional feet Irequired on Lots 1 through 5. Headla : What did you say Jo Ann? I didn ' t follow. Olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additional 10 feet . Erhart : And the reason for justification of a variance was what? Olsen: Is that that 10 feet could not be provided without altering. IThey can shift the street up here , that would provide more lot depth but to provide that additional 10 feet, there is no alternative. They would possibly have to remove this lot and shift it up. Again, we were Ijust working with the location of this street for accessing the property to the north. We felt this was a good street configuration . IErhart: And the 10 feet is added to what? Olsen : The lot depth . Right now they would have to have 160 feet. Erhart: And we've sent on to the Council to change that to 125? IL II II Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 30 , Olsen: Yes, and if that does get approved, then all of these lots could meet without the additional 10 feet. Headla : Does it look like that ' s going to fly? Don ' t know. Larry Wenzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel of property in respect to the other pieces of property with this master layout, that plan, how much of this is cast in stone? It appears that we're pretty well constricted individually, or even as a group, according to the road systems that have been laid out as far as the lots. You've got some variances on this piece of property. How many built in variances have they laid in for the rest of us that we're going to have to get compliance to even to think of the economics of whether this thing is going to be developed in 1989 or the year 3000 subject to the value of what we can sell our piece of land and therefore a house for. Is this the plan that's going to be maintained subject to whether that' s approved or not approved? Olsen: No, the only plan that would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this is altering the impact of the surrounding properties is that it is designating where future roads will be provided to the north and then it will be providing this whole length along here and a road that goes straight to the south and west. That's the only thing that's dictating at this time. These plans are just going to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what the street layouts could possibly have. Staff is concerned with a lot ir-of separate accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. We were trying to look tat a way to provide service to all those lots along here without necessarily having separate accesses. Larry Wenzel: Are they assuming that most of the existing homes will be moved out of there? That 's the way it appears . ' Olsen: There's really no assumption, it was just kind of an overall plan just to lay it on top. This was like if everybody would want to subdivide. There are many possibilities . Larry Wenzel: Can I get a copy of those variances that you have listed? The easement for the trail that's going to run, as I perceived it, along Minnewashta Parkway, running the whole way. That's going to be taken on what , the west side of Minnewashta Parkway? Olsen: At this point it will be on the west side. ' Larry Wenzel : And what are they going to do , just cut another swath in there? Another 8 foot swath west of the road? Olsen : Off of the right-of-way. Larry Wenzel: If they do that, this is the third time they've taken our stuff. Along here you've got a major hill and when you cut this L Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 31 IKaway I lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from ack of water. Then they put the new street in and they pitched it wrong and you've got all the water coming down this road at 90 mph going right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in after it washed the whole bank out once and out into the lake. Are they going to put some kind of a storm sewer on this side of the street then along with that so handle that kind of a problem? Because you're increasing that Igrade dramatically. Olsen: We have not looked at it at this point. Those sort of issues would be reviewed at that time. IEmmings: Jo Ann, aren't they just reserving an easement on this plat for a possible future trailway. There' s no plan to build it. ILarry Wenzel: It's not connected to whatever, you approved this development, it doesn't cast that into stone and it is there and setting a precedent? IEmmings : Just reserving an easement for a possible future trail . IOlsen: The Park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and Minnewashta Parkway is designated to have a trail so as developments come in, we reserve easements for that. When it will be built, I ' couldn ' t tell you. r,arry Wenzel : I guess I get a little nervous when I see, and our I .eighbor John Ziegler of course isn't here, but I see something like that and I 'm wondering how much thought process went into that thing . Olsen: This doesn't show everything. That might have been a ponding I area . Larry Wenzel : That ' s all high ground . " Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the proposed plat has really nothing to do with the approval of this. Like I said, a number of these plans could have been drawn up. You could have come in with five of these. The only thing about this plan is that if Stratford Ridge is approved, if Mr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary sewer if he wanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the sanitary sewer and Iwater from the Stratford Ridge development. That was the only reason that this report was even looked at. To figure out how we can put in piece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plan, as far as the lot layouts, as far as even these parcels are developed, is Istrictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide to develop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout, each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the 15, 000 Isquare foot minimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this layout is arbitrary. It's just so future development can be made to facilitate if the need should occur . IL,' I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 32 ' Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we're oming from, none of us had seen this. We didn't even know it was going on. All of a sudden there's two options. What we're going to possibly do with g P y your home, with your property, so it's a little shocking. You can look at it objectively but for us, it's more of an emotional thing the first shot. Brown: I think also, as pointed out in the report before, some of these parcels will have trouble meeting the requirements as far as lot area by themselves and this report was a way of informing the neighbors that if they so choose, they can get together and develop this or have somebody develop it for them if they have a smaller parcel. It's just another method of learning, if they want to develop, they should be informed as to what ' s out there. Larry Wenzel : I think you're right and I'm not disagreeing. It is a ' shock. When you see your name up there and all these lots chopped up and your house doesn ' t exist . Mrs. Wenzel : And no road access. Larry Wenzel: Each one of us, even though our piece is 10.5 acres, after Dave's explanation, I'm not sure what we've got after listening to what Lawson's might or might not. I don't know who the devil it comes from but in my particular case which is inmaterial to this, we've got a house here and a house here, which is fine because of your lake rules. You'd probably get it blocked off and get two front water lots .nd the rest of it you develop or whatever the case may be but there you've got access that exists from the main street now. The way this appears, all of a sudden that's changed, even though it's there. It might not be and I guess that' s what makes you a little nervous . Erhart: Well, it may not be because the ordinance, I believe on collectors, it's 300 feet separation for street access. So the whole purpose of putting together this master plan is a plan that everybody has future access and still meet the ordinance. You do that by preventing situations like this developer coming in and putting two cul-de-sacs with no future extension of the street. So what the plan allowed us to do here is to work with the developer to allow future access of the one street to go up to the Mildred Kirkson property, if that person so chooses to develop without having a direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway. ' Larry Wenzel : Yes, but many of the driveways already exist and they are two distinct and separate pieces of property, how can you tell me now that this is going to change. Erhart: No it doesn' t, but if you wanted to develop, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can put in a street outlet to Minnewashta . 1 Planning Commission Meeting " January 6, 1988 - Page 33 FLarry Wenzel : I didn't say anything about street outlet, I said two rive outlets that are already there. Jo Ann Hallgren: I was the one that had the driveway. My property is Ilandlocked as you can see. The x on the map there, that is probably what you would consider a wetland. I have a wetland on the north of my property. There's a huge ravine that runs to the western part of my property and all the way to the railroad tracks. What I'm getting at is, on the lot selection, the driveway easement, the one that's not going to be developed into a public street, is considered an outlot. That's what the staff has stated. To me, that is my only access to my Iproperty. But the property owners property goes down further than a public street would give more square footage than what would exist with the existing easement. I'm wondering if that would be a problem there I If a public street were to be continued back. Can you take acreage from the lots? I1101sen : You 'd have to work with that property owner . Jo Ann Hallgren: What if he's the one that says no? IOlsen: I think what we were looking at when the additional right-of- way would be required, that it would also be working with the property with this house . 11Jo Ann Hallgren: Finally, I would like a condition to serve my Yoblem. 'Erhart : You ' ve got 33 feet there . Olsen: You 've got 33 feet but not the 50 feet. "Ted Kenner : We have shown on the preliminary plat reserving 17 foot of additional right-of-way along Lots 7 through 10 for future street 'expansion in there so it would be 50 feet wide. Conrad: You' ve never talked about burning the house Dave. IHeadla: Oh yes, I wanted to thank you. I wanted to discuss that. What happens if they can't come up with 15,000 square feet on Lot 1, Block 2? What happens to all the work that' s done here? 'Olsen: To get approval, they would have to receive a lot area variance. What you could probably do, what you probably should do, is Iestablish a condition that Lot 1, Block 2 . . . Emmings: Why do we have to do that? We've approved this plat. This plat says it has 15,000. If it doesn't, than they haven't told us the 'truth and then they've got a problem so we'll just assume they're going to and it will be up to staff to check and make sure they do. I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 34 eadla : They have to come back again? Emmings : No. Headla : If they don' t make it 15, 000. 1 Emmings: Dave, look at the lot next door is 17,500. They can steal enough over there to make that one 15,000 I would think without any trouble at all . If they do need it. Headla : I just want to see it at 15,000. Emmings: Well, that's what the plan says. Staff has to make sure that happens . That ' s what we' re approving. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14, 1987" and subject to the following conditions : 1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be designated as an outlot. 2. Lots 1-5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing screening from Minnewashta Parkway. ' 3. The existing building and debris shall be removed from the site upon approval of the appropriate permits. 4 . Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. 5. Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10. 6. A typical detail for Type II erosion control, staked hay ' bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan . 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize ' all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 8. All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the City's standards for urban construction. 9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed. 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Planning Commission Meeting "January 6, 1988 - Page 35 Ir11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . I 12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and DNR permit . I 13. The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum possible elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated . I14. Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary. I 15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4. I(11 voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried . onrad: The reason for my opposition is I still think there are too 1[many pieces of land on this piece of property. I would recommend that ne parcel be eliminated and I think that would solve a lot of my oncerns with the subdivision . Ieadla: On the building on the property, the Fire Department talked to e and said they were interested in burning it. Did Dick Winger (ally get a hold of you? obert Pierce: I guess I hadn't contacted anybody at this point ecause I wanted to get to this point before I made any other arrangements . Ileadla : Can we tell them to get in touch with you then? Ilobert Pierce: Sure. ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. o Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot . 'rhart : What ' s happened here in the procedural changes? lsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ordinance. . . rhart: We've been voting on the zoning ordinance since I've been on ,the Commission. Now all of a sudden that's not the way it is anymore r have we been doing it wrong? II- I II Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 36 Zsiethn: No, you've been voting on variances to subdivisions and the lot. As far as the recreational beachlot, the zoning ordinance states that variances should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments . Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the. . . ' Olsen: Under the zoning ordinance. Roger Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoning ordinance. Recreational beachlots are in the zoning ordinance. The requirements with a dock is 100 foot depth. If you want to get around that requirement, it needs a variance and the zoning ordinance says that goes to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The subdivision is a separate ordinance. It doesn't have to go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . You can decide that . Erhart: We're not chaning anything, we're just following the rules on this one. It's a lot easier for us. The only thing we're dealing with here is just simply approving or disapproving the beachlot as it fits our beachlot ordinance? Simply that. The only issue we have to deal with is essentially the plan of the beachlot. Then the only question I have is, in proposing the change from steps to a ramp, are you not inviting 3-wheelers to come driving down that to our nice beach? Ted Kenner: That's always a problem when you have a ramp. At the same I time, I can see what the staff is suggesting for safety, if you need to c down there in case of emergency. Erhart: But in case of emergency, then don't they put the guy on a 1 stretcher and they can carry him up the steps just as well as they can carry him. . . Olsen : Stretchers have wheels on them. Erhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on either one but I'd sure I favor the steps over the ramp. I don't know if it's worth getting into a big discussion. That ' s the only thing I 've got. Headla: Who looks at the tree plantings? There are some beautiful ' oaks there and I just want to make sure that the oaks stay. Well , you 'd have every reason to want to keep them too . Olsen: That will be approved by the DNR forester, Allan Olsen. Conrad: The Planning Commission looks at a conditional use permit, what are we looking at? What are the conditions that we're measuring this against? It seems like the conditions that we're measuring against are not in our power to measure but the Board of Adjustments is measuring . I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 37 IT Olsen: We looked at it meeting the conditions of the recreational ' beachlot. . . Conrad : But not the depth. We' re not looking at area size. ' Olsen: You look at whether it meets the conditions. Conrad : And it doesn ' t. rOlsen: When it doesn't, that's when you want it to go to the Board of Adjustments. Conrad : So, what are the conditions that we ' re looking at? Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot without a dock. Erhart: The depth is required for the dock but that's out of our jurisdiction. Let me correct this, it does meet all of the conditions for just a standard beachlot? ' Olsen: Yes. You have the lake frontage. Conrad: And 80% of the houses are located within 1,000 feet? Okay. We asked the Public Safety Director to review the safety of this lot, crossing Minnewashta Parkway. Did he ever do that for us? Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be ' crossing the street . . . He felt that the bigger issue was . . . Conrad: And the steps simply just for access, emergencies and handicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. And we're not concerned with where the beach is placed? Headla : Does the builder feel he has to have a ramp? ' Robert Pierce: No, I guess it ' s really up to you. ' Erhart : Ladd , I think it is within our duties to make comments about the plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the few things we do have input on. Olsen : In the report I did review that we did want more detailed plans if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condition. ' Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condition here. What's staff's opinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think the concern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance between the lake and the road is 40 feet and is that acceptable in terms of how people are handled? If you get 13 lots, or whatever it is, more than that, 15 lots, can that 40 feet of depth, which we're not looking at, I I 1 in P ann g Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 38 C 1 handle that many people? Originally, I think the 100 feet is simply to separate, give people room away from property and I think with the road there and everything, I have no problem with that. I'm sure the Board of Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clear separation between the outlot and people's land and therefore it's not going to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. My concern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed the right amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet is really not a whole lot for a beach. Especially, I'm don't know how much of that is useable for a beach. Robert Pierce: Maybe I can take this a step back, about the steps or the ramp. I guess, if I had my way I'd rather probably put steps in because of ease of maintenance and I think they can just make it nicer looking but again, it's not anything one way or the other. It would proably just make it look a little nicer with those steps. Then going to the 40 foot, we have a major length of shoreline there and the kind of beaches that I take my kids to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lot of times where we go we are probably, the sand beach depth and there would be quite a few other boats , a lot of time that beach is not more than just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus we would make it 80 to 100 feet. . . Conrad: You're comfortable you can solve the problem that these N homeowners are going to put on the beachlot? Robert Pierce: We want to make an attractive situation for everybody. It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to have something that will be desirable and that they can see they're going to enjoy. Headla : Did you want to fit the point there, Jo Ann? Olsen: About the more detailed plans? Headla : Yes . ' Olsen: Sure. Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions : 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council . i 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustment and City Council . Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 39 r 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational ' beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. 5. The applicant must submit a more detailed plan of the recreational beachlot. ' All voted in favor and motion carried . ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit. Conrad: Can you build on a Class B wetland? Can you build a house? A Class B wetland is not buildable, isn't that right and therefore is not part of area that we use to calculate densities . ' Olsen: We' ve always used that. Headla : You' ve always included wetlands in your density calculations? Conrad: Wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann. Erhart : Yes , but you still include them in your overall acreage. Olsen: Yes, I think we do. The developer has done it. I'm trying to ' think, like for Hidden Valley. When we had that large wetland in that marsh area down there, I believe that went into the net density, we did not include that. ' Conrad: But in terms of individual lot size, not the overall plat or subdivision, but in terms of the overall lot size. A wetland will help make up the 15,000 square foot minimum? ' Erhart : The only rule we have is the setback from the building. Robert Pierce: You have in the past because I know of one other subdivision here and they included the wetlands. It wasn't this, it was a Class A wetland and they were included in the calculations of the lots . ' Olsen: With the Lake Riley Woods subdivision, it was then. Even with that open ponding area in the Lake Riley Woods , we included that. ILErhart: I'm not sure it's appropriate for 15,000 square foot lots but it is for the 2 1/2 acre. That' s how I know I 've studied it. r Planning Commission Meeting I January 6, 1988 - Page 40 Olsen : Now we have the 2 1/2 acre lot, a minimum of 1 acre buildable. If it wasn' t shown as a wetland, we wouldn' t have known. , Erhart: What you have is a 6 inch dip there is what it really is on the side of the hill . Headla: There are pretty good swales up there. Jo Ann, Rockwell and I walked through it and she looked at it and boy, she locked on that right away. ' Conrad : What's it like off this property? How much more is a Class B wetland? , Olsen: It does continue to drain over here to the northwest. There is a large, and it shows on this map. I think I might have covered it up with this but there is a larger , better wetland to the northwest . Conrad : I don't know how closely related to the permit, what are we communicating here as we allow filling of the Bin terms of the 1 adjacent properties? Are we saying that we don't care for the B's in that area? We've got an alternative, which is acceptable, for another holding pond that Rockwell feels is a substitute but does that communicate anything about the neighboring part of that wetland? What are we thinking Jo Ann? Olsen : When we visited the site she felt that it is important to the drainage and that other wetland was the important wetland. As stated that was our optimum place to provide the ponds and you could maintain the drainage. I Headla : We were dumping a lot of water in there that wasn't affecting , a little bit on the northwest corner but affecting the adjoining properties. You're getting faster runoff into the adjoining properties. Olsen: Now we are? Actually they're bringing over the drainage the ' other way. So what they're actually doing is taking natural drainage and going to that wetland pond. We did look at that , we walked over there and looked at that other wetland and that was the important one that she would not want to see filled or altered . Conrad: Okay, I'm comfortable with the exchange but I guess I'm still a little bit not sure. I haven ' t seen the property. Erhart: Addressing your thoughts there, I guess in the Riley Lake subdivision we had a Class B wetland there and that was even marginal , , Class E, but what we made them do was essentially move it over a little bit and turn it into a Class A essentially. Now there we moved it over a little bit. Here we're moving it across. I think it would be preferable also to take that little dip and move it down to the edge of ' that lot. I think that would have been also a nicety. To maintain, ' Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 41 Jain reduce the amount of runoff on that lot and also to maintain that Kittle Class B or even the small little pond down there into a Class A. It certainly would not have hurt that lot because you know that house Iis not going to be built right there. Headla: How big is this basin going to be? I don't see anything here Ion the area. Robert Pierce: I don ' t have it with me at this time . IlHeadla : What would you guess it would be? Erhart: Yes, compared to the old one. Was that area an existing Class IA wetland where that basin is? Headla : Class B. 'Erhart : That was B by Minnewashta Parkway? Conrad: No, that ' s nothing . 'Olsen : That never was a wetland . I Headla : That would be a quarter of an acre basin in the northwest corner of that property? Is that what we're talking about? That whole Fwale goes up between 5 and 6 but where would this .26 acres be? onrad : The drainage pond is right on the Parkway. Brown: That .26 encompasses this area here that I have yellowed . 1eadla : Okay, I don ' t have any problem with it. Itrhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend pproval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-16 to permit the alteration II of a Class B wetland with the following conditions: 1. The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the following six criteria so that it will also be as a wetland I area: a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to I increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and nesting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of I 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 300 of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. I II II Planning Commission Meeting ' January 6, 1988 - Page 42 c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for ' variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation . e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. ' f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . 2. The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers . All voted in favor and motion carried . Ce-irad: I guess the only discussion I have is, in concept I wish we cald have figured out a way to enhance the wetland that we're filling in and use that as a drainage area and also as an asset. Headla: One of the things I think, there's a subtle thing, we're preventing a lot of water from going into that real wetlands into the northwest and we've never talked about , what is the real impact on that wetland? I don't know if it's 1% of the water that normally goes in there or is it 25% or 40% . ' Conrad: I think as that area develops, that wetland's going to be taxed. I think the other wetlands will be used to drain runoff through. It will have it's chance to do it's job sooner or later but there was a potential case of using a wetland as an asset. We didn't do it but this is an alternative that ' s acceptable . PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, NORDQUIST SIGNS (DATASERV) . This item was tabled per the applicant' s request . ' 1 1 I 1 P anning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 43 I PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 1591 PARK ROAD, CITY OF ICHANHASSEN. — — Barbara Dacy waived the staff report given the hour of the meeting. IChairman Conrad opened the public hearing. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in Ifavor and motion carried . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends Iapproval of Conditional Use Permit #87-19 to expand the existing public works facility as shown on the site plan stamped "Received December 15, 1987. " All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 9, 1987 as I amended by Dave Headla on Page 7, and Ladd Conrad on pages 3, 4 and 9. All voted in favor and motion carried. IORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS . Conrad: Any changes to our By-laws? IEmmings: Yes, right at the bottom, 2.1. It says regular meetings will be the second and fourth weeks of each month and we're doing it on the Ifirst and third . Erhart : Can we change it from Wednesdays? IEmmings: Not me. Erhart: I'd prefer Monday. Opposite Mondays. Any person that Itravels, Wednesday's the worse day of the week. You can't travel anyplace. You never travel for one day. You always travel for 2 or 3 . IDacy: Monday's you're limited to first and third Mondays because the Council is meeting the second and fourth Mondays. The first and third Mondays are traditionally falling on all the Monday holidays. Tuesdays are Park and Rec. Thursdays is the HRA. They only meet once a month lon the third Thursday of the month so the available days are either Wednesday or Thursday. itErhart: I wouldn't ask you to change it for me. If you had one of the other members here who had the same problem with traveling and he agreed , then I think it would be worth discussing . I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 44 ' Conrad: Monday's are okay with me as long as they work for staff. Monday and Wednesdays are equally good. I have problems on other days but why don't we wait and see what the new commissioners have in terms of their schedules. I think we're adopting these right now but that doesn ' t mean we can' t change that any time we want to . ' Emmings: I have a suggestion too on the By-laws. There's a sentence that carries over from page 1 to page 2 and then the next sentence says, regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11:30 and that's mandatory language. I just wonder if we shouldn't say, I would like to end our meetings by 11:00. On the other hand, if we feel like we've got a half hour more of business or in the middle of something , I think it's dumb to say, we've got to go home now. Maybe it should say regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11: 00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the chairman. That's what we do anyway so why shouldn't it say that because you're the chairman and you'd like to exercise your discretion. Conrad : Absolutely and I like 11: 00. Emmings: Also, I read Section 1 and I don't know, I guess I've been here long enough now so that what it said kind of put into focus what we're supposed to be doing here a little bit. I sort of came away with a clearer idea . I just recommend it to your reading . Headla moved, Erhart seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as amended . All voted in favor and motion carried . ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN. Dacy: I had three phone nominations. They are unanimous for Ladd as Chairman and Steve as Vice-Chairman. I have ballots here if you want to use them for nominations . Erhart moved, Headla seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman and Steven Emmings as Vice-Chairman. All voted in favor and motion carried . ' PLANNING COMMISSION 1988 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. ' Headla: I hear something I really can't get my hands on and say this is it, but apparently there is becoming a problem of uncapped wells. Like us, we had our own wells and then the sewer went in and then that well lays dormant. I'm hearing that it's gradually becoming a problem but we don't know how to cap them and make them full proof. Is that part of our concern? I think it probably should be. Should we be looking at that? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 45 Dacy: Maybe not necessarily the Planning Commission but the Public IISafety Commissioner could. Headla: I wanted to bring it up. I didn't know where we fit in but Iyou hear it and it' s hard to get information on it. Erhart : Are we going to be finished with the upgrading of the Comp IPlan this year? Dacy: Yes . IErhart : What issues are remaining? Dacy: We still have the Transportation Chapter and Implementation IChapter and there will be another chapter that staff will be adding . Erhart: Mark' s coming back again. IIDacy: Yes , Mark will be at the next meeting in January. Emmings: But when do you thing we ' ll be done with it? IDacy: Mark is going to be bringing a detailed, a general schedule to ( '-he next meeting. What we're looking at is January, February and March IIfinishing up the chapter reviews and possibly looking at an information meeting and public hearings at the beginning of the summer . IIEmmings : How many public hearings? Is there more than one? Dacy: Only one is required by State Law but given the immensity of the project . " Erhart : Is anybody interested in it? IDacy: Yes. The Transportation Chapter will be the most controversial because of the proposed intersection of TH 101. The bigger issue of the Comp Plan is going to get narrowed down to that. Emmings: What about the northern alignment of TH 212? Is that going to be a big issue? IDacy: That may be diverted from the Comp Plan to some extent because MnDot is almost through with the official map. Erhart: You're saying the Comp Plan, one of the focus points is going 'to be that TH 101 interchange on TH 5? Dacy: We're including those recommendations into the proposed Transportation Chapter . Erhart : We 've not seen that yet? I . 1 Planning Commission Meeting anuary 6, 1988 - Page 46 ' Dacy: You will be seeing that next time. Even though it occupies one sentence on a piece of paper, it represents 9 months of work. Erhart : What does it look like this year as far as the number of subdivisions coming in? Is it going to be as busy as last year do you I think? Dacy: I think obviously it will not be as large subdivisions as Lake Susan Hills West. I think you'll see a number of smaller subdivisions like you saw this evening . Conrad: I can't think of any major things. The trail system is pretty ' well completed . Erhart : Just long range planning . , Dacy: There's another issue kind of hidden in goal 3 that staff is just beginning to look at, some sign ordinance change. Especially in the downtown area. Now that we're finalizing the street and landscaping plans here, we're going to bring to the Commission some discussion items on signage in the downtown and commercial districts. That hasn't been fully covered. Along with the on-going housekeeping stuff , that always seems to come up with other issues . Conrad: The sign ordinance is that at your impetus because you're seeing variances or you're seeing needs that are not going to be accomodated with the sign ordinance? Dacy: It really started with the whole downtown redevelopment effort. , Remember when the Planning Commission talked about entrance signs into the community? Where they should be placed and what they should look like? We kind of started from that discussion and looked at, how do we want an entrance on TH 5 to look and how do we want the downtown to look? Do we want 10 large AMOCO signs or a big Brooke's Superette sign on the main street. ' Headla : If I come in from my place and turn down here on Powers Blvd. and I see a sign you're entering Chanhassen, I'll burn the damm thing down. Dacy: These are the issues that we want to start looking at. Emmings: Downtown Chanhassen. Conrad : You know, that cockeyed building. Emmings: I looked at it from the other side tonight though, coming up from TH 5 and it looks fine. (._ onrad : It does? You see, I don't think it does at all. I think it looks real out of place. It's not parallel to anything. It looks II Planning Commission Meeting nuary 6, 1988 - Page 47 ILterrible. It really does . acy: You' re talking to the wrong people. onrad: I realize that. Who should we talk to? As a citizen Barbara, Who should we talk to, to get that changed? I(acy: You should talk to Don. onrad: I can' t imagine what you can do to make that. . . Irhart : We can make a resolution of the Planning Commission. Conrad: To do what? 1rhart : Change it. I(onrad : I don ' t think that ' s a planning issue is it? eadla: Bill Boyt took a straw vote at one of our Rec Center meetings, $10,000.00 to move it. Whatever , just to turn it around. Those lecisions are easy to me, you leave it. grad : Dave, it ' s a real mistake. lkeadla: When you come in, you see it right away and I've been assured ime and again that it ' s going to work out alright. 'Fart : After we get the trees in place? Conrad: I can't imagine how you can make it, I bought the argument Barbara, that we're going to make it look good off of TH 5 but then When I took a look at it coming in from TH 5, it's not parelle to anything. All it does is contrast against the back of Pauly's. Is here any landscaping that ' s going to occur at the back of Pauly' s? acy: Right. The downtown project is half done. We're waiting for the spring thaw. lonrad : But that ' s going to be a parking lot back there right? I acy: Right, and there will be landscaping around, and park benches in ont and it will be a part of the whole design. Ionrad: So when you say you think it's going to be good, is that your ersonal opinion or is that the public line? Dacy: That ' s my opinion. 1nrad: You get into aesthetics like that, and it's individual but I'm just amazed. . . 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting zuary 6 , 1988 - Page 48 1 Emmings: But you can conceive of several places to put the building that you know are going to provoke a large number of people. You can also consider places to put it where it isn't going to provoke anybody. I think that I could design that little area, I'm not a designer and I could do a better job. Dacy: I think what we're happy about is the amount of comment that it has generated. ' Emmings : Yes , it ' s wonderful . A lot of negative comments . Dacy: Well, it is because if that's the only thing that we have to worry about. Emmings: Has anyone said they really think it was a stroke of just a , beautiful way to put the building there? Dacy: Yes, there is a faction of people that do like it. And we saw those people when you were interviewing. There were people who said, I really like what you guys did with the location of the City Hall. Then the other half said, this really stinks so I think it's split. It's 50-50. The north side of TH 5, who can see it from the north side, are against it but I think coming from the south, it looks good . Conrad: Does it really? It doesn't even look perpendicular to the road. I think it's a definite reflection on the downtown. The downtown is a really nice project in my mind and this is a surface deal. It's a real Mickey Mouse deal and people say, hey, they can't even line up a building. Then the roads are too narrow and we're going to have traffic. I've heard all the comments about downtown and there ' s a lot of negative about downtown. A whole bunch of negative. Dacy: It ' s half done. Erhart : Is the street wide enough so in two years when we want to remove the center curbs, are we going to have a four lane road going through the downtown. Dacy: You guys, you're going to drive me crazy. Jim Lasher stood in I here and he showed you two boards. Roadway alignment A and B. A was the one with the median and B was the one without the median. Everybody said go with the median because you have the trees , you have the landscaping . . . Conrad: Yes, I did. I still like it and I think people are going to change. Erhart: I think it's not going to work. If you take a poll two years Com now, more than 50% will say it' s a mistake. I I . Planning Commission Meeting Vary 6, 1988 - Page 49 k nrad: Okay, finalizing our goals. The third point, continue aluation of development ordinances. That's really, you're just doing t at because you want more than two right? That's sort of like a job 1(sponsibility. Unless it's real specific, it doesn't mean much right w. We will do that. I guess what I'd like to do, are there any her specific things that anybody here thinks we should be addressing? Do we want to put the sign ordinance review as a fact or should we just It that come in as a housekeeping? Headla : Have it come in as housekeeping . II nrad: I don't see it as a major activity and I'd rather have these eing major. Obviously the Comprehensive Plan is a major thing. I'd like to have some dates on it however so we can get it through. hart: I had an idea to develop a landscaping plan for the arterials i.n the City. In other words, to take TH 101 and like TH 41 and the one I nning up here. On the new developments, they're nice. They're nging in those big pine trees and stuff and putting berms along like Powers Blvd.. It's real nice but in the old developments where they Jt i 'dn't do that, it's just hodge podge of dirt piled up here and there. e worse being TH 101 going north. I'd like to see us spend some ney, maybe this year, to have a master plan by one of the consultants ti._ t we use all the time. If we could somehow find monies to go back IId plant larger trees and try and clean up on all these arterials. us when we do new ones, that there's a plan because I think that's one of the major niceties about a city when you drive on the arterials ilit's aesthetically nice. Right now the developers, I think we're ternally sort of done it because we know the problems and they are oing a good job on each development but I think it'd be good to have a 1.1 ster plan. adla: That might be appropriate the way we're looking at putting in a trail system too. That may go right along with that. icy: So a landscaping program for major streets? hart: I'm thinking definitely the aterials, even TH 5. I don't know you want to include collectors yet. Maybe collectors. Mostly I'm inking of TH 101, Powers Blvd. , CR 17 . Imi.ngs : TH 41 sure has a flavor all it's own with all these pine ees . hart: If we could start doing some plantings now, even on a limited ale every year, along TH 101, it would be just a matter of 10-15 years . I think it ' s money well spent. jrad: Whatever happened to Arbor Day that you were going to rdinate last year? I . 1 Planning Commission Meeting J iary 6, 1988 - Page 50 1 Erhart : We had a tree giveaway. We gave away trees out in front of Kenny' s, about 2, 000 seedlings . Conrad: Any zoning ordinance that we want to look at? Any ordinance for that matter. Emmings : One thing that came up tonight. I think we should just keep alert to opportunities. When questions come up. One that came up ' tonight is this beachlot thing. You were worried about the 40 feet in depth of that one and I was sitting here thinking, isn't it better, since you've got the area, to spread out those 15 households over that... It seems better to me. Maybe we could kick some of that around . Maybe we could trade some depth for some extra width . Headla: Go on an area basis? ' Emmings: Well do it on an area basis but if you're not going to have the 100 feep in depth, first of all that only applies to a dock I guess, but if you're not going to have the 100 feet in depth, maybe if you've got over the 200 feet in width. Maybe that should make a difference. I don' t know. Cy-rad: That one we'll probaby be looking at. I don't know what the C y Council's going to do with that. If they're going to ask us to look at the beachlot. Do you want to force that to happen Steve? Do you want us to put that down as an agenda item for us? Emmings: I don't think it's a goal. The other thing that came up tonight, is we could be looking at the wetlands thing again. Both of those tonight, we hit situations where on the beachlot thing it seemed right to let them have a beachlot there. To me it sure did and in a lot of ways it seemed right to let Rivkin have his channel . Erhart: I guess my feeling on that deal is , anybody who comes in here with a wetland improvement proposal, he'll get through. Therefore, I I don' t think we need a change in the wetland. Conrad: I don't think we do either. I think with Rockwell's guidance, we've been really pretty, she's really been very fair I think as things have come through. Real fair. Not just sticking to the letter of the law but really looking at the wetland. I have a great deal of confidence in her . Emmings: What are we going to do in her absence? Olsen: She has somebody else in the office that we can deal with who will come out. tart: I think we've gotten a lot more educated in the last year. I I kTrow I have. Would it have been unreasonable to ask that developer to put a walkway underneath Minnewashta Parkway to get to that? 1 I(anning Commission Meeting Cary 6, 1988 - Page 51 'ken : We discussed it with the developer and there is a cost . ifmings: Just put a culvert under there like they used to, to put ttle through. Olsen : Even that, there ' s a safety issue. liadla: That'd be a tough one to do there because you've got the two sewer lines and the water line and the gas line just at the right level "ere you'd like to put a walkway through. That could be real costly. Erhart: On this landscaping thing, I assume we have access to funds to t studies done? cy:: We can look at that. Each department does have a certain amount of funds available for consulting fees. ]hart : If we want to do something like that, spend some money on that, does the City Council approve spending that? Icy: Are you saying that they have to approve the spending of the mr-ey? hart : Yes , let' s say we want BRW to come back with a plan on terial landscaping study. acy: If it's a fairly major project, in excess of say $10,000.00 or 115, the Council would have to. . . mings: BRW would already have all the maps of the City and erything so they wouldn ' t have to come out and survey or anything . Dacy: I don't know that we would look to them specifically. Yes, they live done a lot of Chanhassen projects but Mark's firm has done the ail plan so I would think that he would be the logical choice. He's also a landscape architect. So the four goals are what the Commission JInts to adopt? Em m i. ngs : Do you think we ought have down as a goal that we keep alert lir opportunities to reviewing the zoning ordinance or is that just . . . nrad: I think that goes without saying. I don't think that's really a goal . That ' s our job. I Dacy: We've got a coule more things here. Who do you want to have as 11 e representative at the HRA meeting? And the HRA is important :ause if you want to talk about where the city halls are going to be d how wide the roads are going to be. I II PJ nning Commission Meeting J nary 6, 1988 - Page 52 II Emmings : Maybe one of the new commissioners . I Conrad: I think Jim would be a good member of the HRA. Let's put him on it. I Erhart : How often do they meet? Dacy: Once a month . I Conrad : Tim, do you want to do it? Erhart: I have a tough time meeting up with this schedule. I Emmings : Me too. There are going to be two new members , maybe one of Ithem will be. Dacy: Do you want to postpone this until next meeting then? Conrad: Let's do that and I think Jim would be a good potential for 1 that . Dacy: Then the last thing is, we put together a little calendar of all I I— meetings and the question is, whether or not you want to have the sc:ond meeting in December changed or only schedule one? Conrad: I think one. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in I favor and motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy I City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim I I II I (..-' 1 I I