The URL can be used to link to this page

1k. Minutes .w IL "It' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL I REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1988 IActing Mayor Horn called the meeting to order . COUNCILMEN PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, and Councilman - ' Johnson COUNCILMAN ABSENT: Councilman Geving ISTAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Larry Brown, and Todd Gerhardt - - - APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman -Johnson moved,. Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Johnson who wanted to I discuss the Council ' s position on private roads accessing arterials. All voted in favor and motion carried . I CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager 's recommendations: Ia. Riley Lake Meadows , Richard Vogel : 1. Approval of Plans and Specifications II"I_ b. Final Plat Approval , CHADDA 2nd Addition d. Accounts Payable dated February 8, 1988 IIe. City Council Minutes dated January 25, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated January -20, 1988 IAll voted in favor and motion carried . IVISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no visitor ' s presentations . 1 - WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHANNEL AND BOAT TURNAROUND IN IA 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. I (Mayor Hamilton arrived during discussion of this item. ) It_ Jo Ann Olsen: The staff has a decision that we do not have jurisdiction below the ordinary high water mark which is the 956 . 1 contour elevation. Therefore, all of the proposed alteration below that ordinary high water 1 mark is just under the DNR jurisdiction which the applicant already has received approval for. The applicant stated that he is going to amend I 42 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 2 4IFrt his plan so that all of the construction is below the ordinary high water mark. We are requesting that he submit a registered survey to show exactly where the 956 ..1 _e.levati.on _.i..s ,..in _relationship.:.to his ' proposed alteration. Then we can determine if he will be completely~in open, -pu,bl,ic . water . .0Thera ,sti,l�..._will.. be ,a ,.por,t,jon of we tl.and that. he will have to cross that will be under city jurisdiction. Determi:rie,. e II amount of that. We are also, since we will not be able to have a wetland alteration permit for the channel and the proposed turn around, I would think, if Council would like for staff to petition the DNR to II add the conditions that we had to the DNR standard permit. They had said that we could petition them to do that. As far as tonight, there' s really no action to be taken except for any alteration that will occur beyond the ordinary high water mark again, which we don' t know the exact I extent of that and the applicant has again stated that he is going to have only the channel below the ordinary high water mark. Councilman Horn: So there will be no dredging or alteration above the 1 high water mark? Jo Ann Olsen: That ' s what he claims . We just need a plan to verify I that. Councilman Horn: You indicated that you would have to cross the wetlands. Could you expand on that a little? Jo Ann Olsen: This is the original proposal and since that, this has [Il been reduced in size but whenever we've been out to the site, and when Mr. Rivkin has shown where the ponding area and turnaround is going to be, that has always been within .the ,wetland area. , He i.s._.now stating that he is going to be moving this down even further so it ' s just an assumption that this will still, where he ' s removing. &t will still be, if where it is proposed now is .wi.th.in the wetland , he ,will ,move it back towards the lake. I 'm assuming that will still remain wetland area but II will be under State control . Again, .we ' re going to _have . to ,have .a , f5 registered survey showing exactly where that 956. 1 contour is. Councilman Horn : If I understand you right , really there' s no action 1 that we take this evening except to request that we get a plan for what will be done and you' re asking us if you want us to have you petition the DNR to include your recommendations in theirs? 1 Jo Ann Olsen : If the applicant was going to maintain the proposal , than he would still have to receive a wetland alteration permit for that part II of the dredging that would be above the ordinary high water mark. If we do determine that there still is wetland above, he will still have to receive a wetland alteration permit just for the traffic across to dredge out the channel within the public waters . So he will most likely still have to receive some sort of a wetland alteration permit . Councilman Horn: But at this point we don ' t know what that plan is? Do 0 you have any questions Jay? r J;:,; , l ' , ff. V Councilman Johnson : Yes, several . 956. 1, do you know how-lorig ago �it was that that was determined as the ordinary high water mark and is it I 11 City Council Meeting `"' February 8, 1988 - Page 3 I - . still the ordinary high water mark? Jo Ann Olsen: It was just determined. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so that' s good. If I saw it in the 1952, the ' lake's probably changed since then. I think from some of the provisions I 've seen from the other people, the work has to be done by March 1 of 1988. If we have to give him a wetlands alteration permit and we don' t act upon it tonight, the next meeting is the 22nd , he ' s going to have one heck of a schedule to get the construction done the last week of February because he' s going to be disposing of the spoils within 200 ' foot of a wetlands. He' s going to be crossing a wetlands and driving through a wetlands and' we have to protect that wetlands. - If the plan is still to do this this year, and if the Watershed District is going to hold firm on their March 1st deadline of getting this accomplished and ' he doesn 't get a wetland alteration approval from us tonight, will it be possible for him to meet the March 1st deadline if we wait 2 weeks until the next meeting? tEric Rivkin: To answer all your questions . I got the plan, I was only notified I think, last Friday that the meeting I was supposed to be at was tonight so I didn ' t have time to get these to you to get into the packet. As you can see, the channel has been moved forward about 20 feet so there is no excavation required in the upland area. These numbers over here are pretty meaningless right now because they were taken from a Federal Survey that was done back when the land was first , the topography was described. There is a stake here but we don' t know where it really is . I will do a survey to find out where the 956. 1 exactly resides but I know for sure that the terrain suddenly drops from primarily terrestrial to primarily aquatic quite rapidly right here. I 'm going to draw for you a section of what it looks like right through here. Councilman Johnson: Actually the question was , if we don' t do this tonight, are you in trouble and won' t be able to do it this year? Eric Rivkin : I don ' t think so because I ' ll show you that I don' t think there is any jursidiction that you have. There' s no wetlands that I have to tresspass here. I called the Watershed District this morning ' and they gave me the figures , the average level of the lake, where the lake is in relation to 956. 1. I ' ll draw where the lake level is, say that' s 955 and the average during the last year from January to January ' 29th of this year'. They measure every month. So let ' s assume this is the lake level right now, the ordinary high water mark is right here. That ' s 956. 1. The terrain pretty much looks like this . It goes from primarily aquatic to primarily terrestrial right here. From here forward is the line from your designated wetlands, according to your own maps. This is the lot and this line right here, I don' t know whether this light area is Class B or whether it' s Class A or what, but this line right here is this line right here. Councilman Johnson: You can tell that from that drawing? Eric Rivkin : Your definition of wetlands is from primarily terrestrial 11 f 4 City Council Meeting y, February 8, 1988 - Page 4 to primarily aquatic vegetation. Okay, that' s in your own ordinance. That occurs here. It doesn ' t occur up here. It doesn' t occur up here. It doesn ' t occur down here. It occurs here. Okay? That is still below, that is in DNR jurisdiction. It is not under the control of the City. Therefore, there is no trespassing across any wetland in your control . There' s no dredging under your control so I feel it is possible to get it in this year if I don ' t have to keep finding anymore big surprises . Councilman Johnson: Will your spoil area be within 200 feet of a controlled wetland? Eric Rivkin:- - It will be right here but that ' s not a wetland. ' Councilman Johnson: Is it within 200 feet of a controlled wetland? Eric Rivkin: It ' s within 200 feet of the construction site and the wetland? Councilman Johnson: You need a wetland alteration permit if it ' s within 200 feet. If you build a house within 200 feet, you need a wetland alteration permit. If you put a road within 200 feet. If you make a change within 200 feet of the wetland, the oridnance says you need a wetland alteration permit. This project is going to require a wetland alteration permit unless you' re going to haul all of that completely off. Eric Rivkin: I didn' t understand your wetland alteration permit in that sense. , Councilman Johnson: I think I 'm correct. Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: That' s true. Any development within 200 feet requires a wetland alteration permit . Councilman Johnson : When do you plan on building on this lot? I notice this is a vacant lot. That we' re putting access to a vacant lot . Eric Rivkin: I 'm going to be building this spring. My down payment is with the builder right now and it' s one of those things. Councilman Johnson: So you plan to put a dock or anything into this ' pond? Eric Rivkin: There' s no need to . I don ' t have to walk through the slosh to get there. Councilman Johnson : What if your survey comes out and you' re another 30 foot out? [!! Eric Rivkin: I don' t believe it will . The water right now is almost a foot below the high water mark and from here, this blue line out here is about level . I 'm not going down any further and it' s not aquatic r City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 5 lli vegetation at all . The area was heavily farmed up until 2 years ago . I Right up to this line. It made a barrier up there and it ' s kind of sudden . I also want to so through some other issues that were flushed out here besides just the survey. I Councilman Johnson : That ' s what I 'm trying to do because if we does require a permit and you don ' t have one, it' s just not going to be proceed . I want to make sure that you realize that you may still need a 1 wetlands alteration permit even though the dredging won' t be in a wetland that we control which we have the power to give you tonight . I Eric Rivkin: That' s all I had right now. Any questions about where the lines are? Councilman Horne - Do"you have any ' othier questions Jay? ICouncilman Johnson: I 'm trying to figure out a motion. - - `" ICouncilman Horn: I think we should find out i.f Bil'1 has any questions . Councilman Boyt: I think the applicant and Jo Ann have both been very 1 clear to tell us that the 956. 1 line is where the City' s responsibility ends depending on which diretion you' re moving . In terms of where our impact starts and stops , I would think that up to the 956 line, you might like to have some sort of wooden dock. Are you just planning to Ilt- step off there? Eric Rivkin : It' s a jump. It ' s possible that I might put a dock in I here but right now all I ' ve got is a canoe and possibly later a sailboat but those can be beached there. When we had the floods last July, I went out there to see how high the water came up and it didn' t even reach up to about here. This stayed pretty dry. ICouncilman Boyt: I guess my concern is, I don' t think we' re setting any precedence by giving you the ability to put a dock in over a certain I reasonable distance so steps or something might make sense. I think we' ve really gone through the issues pretty thoroughly. The applicant seems to be well prepared. I, like Jay, would like to see an elevation. would also like to request that when we get around to considering some II sort of motion here, it would be my intent to make a motion that yes, the staff petition the DNR to include our conditions . I suspect that they wouldrdo that: _I would propose that the City go -ion record as being I opposed t6 the DNR permit. That isn' t going to keep them from approving the permit. It just happens to reflect what I think we' re doing . II Mayor Hamilton: I ' ve been in favor of it right from the beginning . The only comment I had and question perhaps was, on the dates when he could do the work seemed to be in conflict. December 1 through March II 1st, 1988. That' s condition 8. Councilman Johnson: It ' s a Watershed District requirement being repeated. Mayor Hamilton : I just think the dates are wrong. It says during the r 2,0.1 -City Council Meeting ,. di February 8, 1988 - Page 6 period of time, the permit shall be issued for a restricted period of time for the months of December 1 through March 1 of 1988 . I don' t think that ' s correct . It must be December 1, 1987 through March 1, 1988. But I don' t know that we can restrict it to one year. If Mr . Rivkin doesn' t do it right now, I think the permit runs for a longer period of time than one year. If he can't accomplish it this year, he II can do it next year . So that ' s why I was kind of questioning that whole item 8. The time. Councilman Boyt : The DNR is the one that ' s regulating the dredging. 1 Didn ' t they set the dates? Eric Rivkin: To June 1st. _ I Councilman Boyt : - They set it from December through June? Jo Ann Olsen: No, they said December 1, 1987 to March 1, 1988 . II Eric Rivkin: Oh, for the dredging? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Condition 5, excavated materials shall be removed I above the ordinary high water mark. I guess just to be clearly noted where that was or where they were going to be removed to I guess is what I was concerned about. That area where those materials would be put. I guess I 'd like to know where that is so that we know exactly where ill they' re going to be put. Councilman Horn : That will be part of your plan? Where the dredging I materials will be placed? Eric Rivkin: Yes , it' s on the map there. It ' s been there since day II one. . . .there ' s a note there about, since there is loosestrife and he indicated that there is loosestrife in the spoils, that the Department of Agriculture has to give me a permit. Their regulations about how to II dispose of that are in the recommendations of that permit . They've given me a number of . . . They've given me verbal approval and he says the written permit is on it' s way. I described the situation to him and he didn' t see any problems with it. Basically what we end up doing is II we mix up the dirt and top soil and spread it around and kill all the dead vegetation, the seeds still remain and grow back and plant grasses. Not tall grasses and maintain it for a while through mowing and it keeps II the plant from coming up. We do that for a couple of years and it should establish itself. I could pull the young plans. He said he would teach me how to spot them. II Councilman Horn: I had no more questions either . The only issue before us is whether we want to make a recommendation to the DNR. Other than that, we can instruct staff to monitor the plan and the progress. 0 Does anyone wish to make such a motion? Councilman Johnson: My motion is going to be much broader than that II because we have to issue him a wetland alteration permit or he can' t do II City Council Meeting I , February 8 , 1988 - Page 7 Ithe project . ICouncilman Horn : Not until we have the plan . Councilman Johnson: This isn ' t the plan? IEric Rivkin : The DNR has to review that and issue me a new permit based on this new information. That has to come back with their provisions. ICouncilman Johnson: What would happen to you if your wetland alteration permit is not approved until February 22nd? Two weeks from today. Will you be able to complete your project, your dredging this Iyear? Is that a concern to you? Eric Rivkin : It' s a concern to me, yes . It' s kind of tight but I 'm I confident it can be done. You' re saying that March 1st you don' t allow things on the lake? - Councilman Johnson: The permit restriction in here from the Watershed IDistrict is that you do all your dredging by March 1st. Eric Rivkin : I ' ll comply with that. ICouncilman Johnson: But if you can' t start until February 23rd, that gives you 5 week days . I don' t know if you' re going to work Saturday and Sunday. I don ' t know how long it' s going to take and whatever. 111- Eric Rivkin : I have a contractor and the contrator has already signed . All I have to do is sign it and send it back. ICouncilman Johnson : So he ' s available to do this? IEric Rivkin: He's aware of all the conditions of the permit. Councilman Johnson: So if we table this waiting for the survey and the DNR permit, we ' re not going to be delaying you? IEric Rivkin : I don ' t know. There seems to be a surprise I come to this meeting. I don' t know what it will be this time. . ICouncilman Horn : I think the question you get , what we' ve heard is , because you' re dredging within 200 feet of a wetland, you do need a I wetland alteration permit. Apparently you weren ' t aware of that if that 's what you ' re talking about for a surprise. Councilman Johnson: If we put that to bed tonight , there won ' t‘ be I anymore. If we wait two weeks, I can ' t guarantee you there won' t be anymore. I guarantee I won ' t give you much more because I won ' t be here two weeks from tonight but Dale will and Dale was more opposed to this li__ project than I was . Councilman Boyt : I 'd like to suggest something . I 'd like to propose I that we submit a letter to the DNR requesting that they include our conditions in their permit and further , that we recommend that they deny r Ltd City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 8 the permit. I fully believe they won ' t deny the permit but I want to be on record as opposed to it as a city. Councilman Boyt moved , Councilman Johnson seconded to submit a letter to the DNR requesting that they include the City' s conditions in their permit and recommend to the DNR that they deny the permit. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor, Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Councilman Horn : Is there an alternate motion anyone would like to propose? Councilman Johnson: Yes , I 've got about 9 conditions going here. Because it looks like the DNR is going to approve this and there' s nothing we can do about that part of it , I don ' t see any necessity for us to further delay the applicant if we can. If we do it by approving a wetlands alteration permit tonight. Councilman Johnson : Is this the only plan you plan on submitting to the DNR? Eric Rivkin : I 've already submitted it. Councilman Johnson: So the area of where you' re going to place this is this plan? Councilman Horn : Is that your motion? Councilman Johnson: Do we need a performance security bond? I don' t think so, for this one. Councilman Boyt : What about conditions of the staff? ' Eric Rivkin: The provisions of the DNR permit spell out the erosion control plan. I have to get the Watershed recommended 3 or 4 provisions in there. They are in the permit and they are covered. Councilman Johnson: Does staff have any problem with erosion control? , Jo Ann Olsen: We haven ' t really looked at it yet. This is the first time I ' ve seen this . Mayor Hamilton : He' s not doing anything in an area that we control , how can we require. . . Jo Ann Olsen : One of the conditions of the Fish and Wildlife was also to stabilize where the spoils are going to be placed. Councilman Johnson: We have control of that area. ' 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 9 IFMayor Hamilton: : Right , I realize that. IICouncilman Johnson: He has erosion control around the side of that with our standard Type II erosion control detail . IEric Rivkin: I got that from Larry Brown. P.' Co--unc._.ilman 'Horn . Do ,Xo'u have 'anythlh g efise to -add tc your m otion Jay?r; . r;' `, '4 C(;11% .:1,1 Jo.,-1,1.-;on -?Ut u ) .ti - _(' Councilman Johnson:' ' Advice` from staff.' , Anything e'l'se tb 'add to that? Councilman Boyt : What about the other points of staff' s conditions? IYou've selected a couple. _ .- Eric Rivkin: Can I have further discussion about this? ICouncilman Boyt: Not yet. I Councilman Horn: We have a motion- on the floor . Is there further discussion about it. Councilman Boyt : I have a question about it and the question is , in I regard to the disposal . Jay brought up earlier, material is being disposed that is in our control that does require a wetland alteration 1 permit because it 's within 200 feet of the wetland. That' s not part of your motion. I didn ' t see anything in the motion about approving a ' — -wetland alteration permit. Councilman Johnson: That was the very first part of what I said then I started listing the conditions. Councilman Boyt : What you' re proposing then is to basically allow this to go forward as proposed to the DNR? Councilman Johnson: The DNR controls all dredging, no dredging within I our area. I think our hands are tied. I think we would be somewhat arbitrary and capricious , or whatever those $2. 00 lawyer words work out to say that I feel we' re hard pressed to deny. It' s going to be there -whether he has to haul it totally off site or not. At this point we Ihave to be reasonable. I don ' t like it. _ Councilman Boyt : You make a good point about being reasonable and on I '"this particular issue I 'm -going to be -unreasonable and vote against this simply because I think by voting against it we would actually make - - it impossible to do. I 'm not for the canal being dredged whether the - DNR supports it -or not. ICouncilman Johnson moved , Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve pp a Wetlands Alterations Permit for dredging a channel within DNR controlled space It_ with the following conditions :. :f _ _ _ _ - /1 S- - - _ -1. The only dredging will be outside of the jurisdiction of II , _ Chanhassen controlled wetlands , on other side of the 956. 1 contour line. 50 City Council Meeting II February 8, 1988 - Page 10 2. The applicant submit a certified survey showing where the 956. 1 contour is located . 3 . The spoils area and the equipment movement area staked and marked and approved by the City Staff prior to any II construction. The purpose of this is to assure that the equipment is not driving throughout the wetlands. The adjacent wetlands and throughout the area . I 4. Have a new plan submitted to the City that includes the information that the DNR wants . II 5. The applicant will follow all conditions of the DNR permit, the Wateshed District permit, the Department of Agriculture I permit and any other applicable permit. 6. The dredged material will be removed and placed -as shown on II the plan dated "Revised February 5, 1988" and submitted to the City Council tonight. 7. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and erosion I control plan for City approval prior to construction of the site. il8. The applicant shall notify the city 48 hours prior to commencement of excavation and shall provide written notice to the City Engineer prior to completion of the project and shall receive approval by the City Engineer. II All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. I Eric Rivkin: I don ' t think it ' s necessary to have a wetland alteration II permit at this point because I already need everything outlined. I meet city standards as far as erosion control is concerned , which also, by the way, meets the DNR conditions that the Wateshed set on for erosion control . The way in which the spoils are going to be handled . II Roger Knutson: If you don 't want the permit, you ' re not putting the spoils there. Do you want to put the spoils there? I Eric Rivkin: You' re saying, I have to. . . Roger Knutson: Without the permit , you can ' t do it. II Councilman Johnson: We just passed the permit for you. Eric Rivkin : Alright . Sorry, it ' s hard to follow this . As far as the 0! points, did you vote no for the performance security? Roger Knutson: You don' t need it. �` ' II II ' City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 11 Eric Rivkin : Point 7, this additional erosion barriers , you don ' t have control over that. Point 10, the deed restriction. Councilman Johnson: That wasn ' t inlcuded . Councilman Horn: 7 through 11 are not in our motion. The only thing it is is the wetland alteration permit which we just granted . That' s to store the spoils within 200 feet of the wetland. NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, ZONED BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR' S YARD ON 13 ACRES . ' B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. Barbara Dacy: The property is zoned BF, Business Fringe. A contractor ' s yard was recently put into the ordinance to be allowed as ' conditional uses . The hash mark on the transparency here shows the location of the entire 13 acre parcel . The location of the proposed building is in the upper northwest corner of the site adjacent to TH I 101. The Planning Commission considered this item and recommended approval to the Council with 20 some conditions and out of their discussion they amended four of those conditions. Condition 4 ' clarifying the pumping contract provision with the city. Number 25 , they specified that any expansion of this activity beyond 12 vehicles would require a conditional use permit . Number 26 , that the site plan be revised to shift the building 20 feet to the east and finally, if the site is to be subdivided in the future, that the City would look to requiring the necessary right-of-way for frontage road to make connections to the properties to the east . To summarize the Planning ' Commission ' s discussion would be to basically say that their discussion centered around traffic issues and access to the site. A couple of issues that I 'd like to talk about further, beyond the Planning Commission consideration. One of those items was that the Commission spent a good deal of time on whether or not they should add on a condition about restricting access coming into and out of this site and primarily requiring access to proceed south on TH 101 to prevent access ' going north. As you' ll note in the Minutes , the Commission asked about another application at the Merle Volk site and that conditional use permit and a condition indeed was placed in that permit to restrict ' access to CR 18 . However , I think that the Planning Commission , at that meeting, it was decided that that condition was not necessary in this case . Secondly, another major issued discussed by the Commission at their meeting was access to the site from TH 101. Again, collectively the Commission decided that the access proposed in the proposed site plan was adequate. A couple of the members did have a lot of reservations about this access so staff went further to research this issue as to whether or not access could be gained from the east. In order to do that , there is an intermediate property on the east side City Council Meeting II February 8, 1988 - Page 12 owned by Mr . Jack Brambilla . There is a vacant building at this location right now. It ' s approximately across from the SuperAmerica site which is located right here. Mr . Brambilla indicated that although he would opposed to getting an easement for road access through his property, he is interested in selling the property.y. The property , adjacent to his property has been approved for a cold storage site and was granted a driveway access permit by MnDot . That property owner would also have to grant an easement to connect into his driveway. Upon discussing this issue with MnDot , they gave me the following guidelines . II They would not like to see this driveway access at this point because of it' s location to the traffic light which is at the Shakopee light approximately here. They said if the City is to encourage a frontage II road , they would be more than happy to assist us in that effort and they would encourage a frontage road to relieve TH 212. However, they said the best place for a frontage road intersection would be 1,000 feet to the east of this stop light which would put it approximately in this II area. They- said that a by-pass lane would also have to be added in both diretions and that some of the access points where the motel and the SuperAmerica would have to be reoriented . In sum, to create an I intersection there and meet MnDot' s guidelines , they said would cost approximately $500, 000. 00. The question was put to MnDot that they' re still satisfied with the access onto TH 101. They said because the II grading plan is proposing increasing the level of the property so that the driveway is entering TH 101 at a consistent elevation, that would improve the access as well as making a "T" of this driveway as opposed to what is currently existing at this time. Secondly, they felt that Ell the traffic volumes on TH 101 are right at this time at approximately 3,250. The traffic volumes on TH 212 are 20, 000. MnDot does not want to encourage additional traffic interruptions on such a busy major II arterial. They recognize that this is located approximately 250 feet or so south of the railroad crossing over TH 101 which I think we can all agree is not the best. However , they stated that this is an adequate distance for sight distance as well . I should also point out to the II Council that the bridge to the south of this property over the creek, does have a 5 ton restriction and the applicant , through the MnDot permit process would have to comply with that tonage restriction. II Finally, one final comment for Council consideration tonight is that the applicant has been reviewing their building plans for cost and potential construction yet this year . In so doing , as was required by the II Commisison, they have found that they do have to sprinkler the building because Appendix C of the Building Code says that if you' re over 3 , 000 square feet in this type of use, you have to provide for sprinklering. As we are aware, there is no city water in this location. In order to II sprinkler a building of this size, they would have to install a reservoir sufficient in size and with the appropriate equipment to sprinkler this building. At a minimum, this would cost approximately I $5,000. 00 to $6 , 000. 00. The applicant indicated to me today that they are going to reduce the size of the building so it goes below the 3 , 000 square foot threshhold . Given that the building is constructed of ' concrete block, as long as the Council imposes the other conditions 0 recommended by the Fire Department as listed in the staff report, staff is willing to withdraw that requirement. So staff recommendation is based on the Planning Commission' s review, their recommended conditions II minus the condition sprinklering the building. 1 I. City Council Meeting , February 8 , 1988 - Page 13 Mayor Hamilton : Patrick or Nancy, anything additional you want to add? Patrick Blood: I think everything in the last few meetings has been brought up. ' Councilman Johnson : Once again , similar to the last issue which I really was probably one of my more gut wrenching ones I 've ever had, the State is controlling us again here on this one. I 'd much rather see access down to TH 212 than onto TH 101 right next to that railroad bridge. I went out there and stopped and looked at that yesterday and the cars, I don' t know how the people pass underneath that bridge coming ' down that hill as fast as they do. It just amazed me the speed some people were going through there. Your drivers are going to need some real good training for them to get going . Coming south and stopping and turning left there could be a real safety hazard. Coming underneath that bridge, the people going as fast as some people do on there, if there's a truck sitting there turning left, it' s going to get rear ' ended . They' re not expecting to see stopped vehicles there. I don' t know what to do about that other than what I talked to Barb today about getting caution signs up there or whatever . Stopped vehicles ahead or trucks entering. I guess another point to be made is the times within our ordinance says that a contractor ' s yard shall not start until 7: 00 a.m. and go until 6 : 00 p.m. or something like that. What this in effect 1 does at this location is requires trucks to be going out into traffic at rush hour . Right at the 7: 00 rush hour . I don ' t know if it might be even better to get them out earlier or what here. Of course, there are so few trucks, really I don' t know if that ' s that huge of a thing. I 've not sat there at 7 : 00 in the morning to see what kind of traffic we get ' through there. That 's a concern of mine. I don' t know how to address it. The other one was capping of the wells that ' s discussed in the staff report. I 'd like to have a condition that the capping of the wells be with the proper permits with the Department of Health as coordinated through the Public Safety Department. Whether that' s an additional item added to it or worked into 18 or 24 . I want to make ' sure that that well is properly capped so nothing gets down into the ground water there through an easy channel . Is the 5 ton weight limit going to cause you a problem? ' Patrick Blood : For the most part , we are keeping our residential trucks under 2,000 pound trucks . They are small retriever garbage trucks. A majority of the trucks will be them. Right now we have two big ones and like I say, the rest of them are small . For the most part I don ' t foresee getting too many more big ones . Possibly one more big one within a year or so, maybe two years but for the most part it would be these smaller trucks . That ' s the basis of our company and that ' s what we are paying the state for . Councilman Johnson : When you say big one, or the full sized? Patrick Blood: The biggest we have is the 20 yard. They are both 20 yard rearend loaders and the other ones , we' ll be running up to 17 , 000 GW. They won' t even reach that on some occasions . City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 14 Nancy Lee: They are nothing more than a full sized pick up truck with a small load garbage packer on the back. Councilman Johnson : 20 yards is a lot more than a small load garbage packer. What's the empty weight of the big ones? Patrick Blood : Right in the neighborhood of, just guessing,J g I think it ' s between 20 and 23. Something like that. Maybe 25. Councilman Johnson : So about 10 tons? Patrick Blood: Yes, about 10 tons . ' Councilman Johnson: So you can' t go south out of there with your big trucks. You have to go north. Nancy Lee : 5 tons per axle? Councilman Johnson : It just says 5 tons . I 'm not sure if it ' s 5 tons ' per axle. Nancy Lee : It is per axle. ' Councilman Johnson: The sign does not say per axle. Roger Knutson : That ' s how they weigh things . Patrick Blood: If that ' s the case, these trucks are illegal empty. Councilman Johnson : Because that ' s a very important bridge to the City of Chanhassen. Patrick Blood : They couldn ' t really limit that to strictly 5 tons because that is a major highway up through there and I know there are a lot of company semis that go up through there, they have to weigh approximately that much. ' Councilman Johnson : As long as it ' s 5 ton per axle we' re okay. I really appreciate the good job they' re doing on, it looks like they' re being very cooperative with the City. I think staff ' s enjoyed working with you. The berming and the nice building and stuff, I 'd like to compliment you on that even though I was giving you a hard time there for a while. Councilman Horn : I just had one question . Isn ' t that bridge that we' re concerned about, the overpass, isn' t that on a section of railroad that ' will be abandoned? Councilman Johnson : It' s the creek bridge. Barbara Dacy: Yes, that railroad. He's talking about the creek bridge and the railroad bridge is the railroad that is currently under application for abandonment. ' is City Council Meeting <-: ,.0 February 8 , 1988 - Page 15 ICouncilman Horn : So at that point , there would be an option to eliminate that one lane section through there? IBarbara Dacy: Yes , there is potential for that expanding . g I Councilman Horn: Which appears to me to be the biggest traffic problem. It ' s hard to justify sight distance problems when you 've got a one lane road going through TH 101. That's really to me critical in this issue, I the fact that that will be able to be corrected . I can ' t believe that ,22 trips aday is _going, to make a huge difference to TH 101 so I have no problem with this "request. Councilman Boyt : I would like staff to point out where the 3 foot berming is. I see berm written down here but I 'd like to know how far that extends. IBarbara Dacy: From here to here. I Councilman Boyt: I gather, from trying to get some feel from the elevation, that this building is fairly well , and the parking area is screened from TH 101? Is it tucked back in there to that extent? I Barbara Dacy: Yes sir , that' s correct . The elevation of TH 101 is higher than the floor elevation here and you can see by the contours in here that they are pushing the rear of the buildings into that slope, Ill— into the back. By the time you make this curve here, a drive, number one you'd be concentrating on the road but you would really have to look over your shoulder to the left to see this building. ICouncilman Boyt : How about from the other side , from the south? Barbara Dacy: From the south, you would have more of the vista into the I site . That ' s where we noted that the additional evergreen trees will need to be planted. Not only along the TH 212 side but along the TH 101 side as well . There are 8 deciduous trees out there which help somewhat but the evergreens will help . I .Councilman Boyt : On that excavation line there to the southwest, is that going to be blocked from view? I _ ` Barbara Dacy: There is an existing stand of woods here along the _ g __ „.creekbed here. To answer your question, you are going to see the site when you approach the driveway here and then you will see another shot I of it just because of the openness of the driveway but then you ' re going . uphill so fast. I ` Councilman Boyt : Coming from the south , about what kind of a' distance am I dealing with in terms of being screened off that ' s going to affect that view? Barbara Dacy: If you had a tree line here and the rise in the elevation of TH 101 here, this probably wouldn ' t. . . ICouncilman Boyt : ' I guess my related question is not only how long is �rC3 City Council Meeting 1 February 8, 1988 - Page 16 that stretch right along TH 101 but is there any reasonable way to screen that off and you have said we can put pines in there which is acceptable. What kind of density are we proposing on these pines? I noticed they were 6 feet tall , which is a reasonable tree. Barbara Dacy: There is about 100 feet between the center line of the driveway up to the 780 contour. Even a little bit before that, you' re way beyond seeing that. The landscaping ordinance requires that you have to have opaque screening on a continuous basis on the ratio of 1 tree for every 40 feet and what we did to calculate that was actually to use the distance of here so we are requiring more than is adequate to be placed along here. , Councilman Boyt : Did I understand it was 5 or 6 trees? Barbara Dacy: Right. ' Councilman Boyt : On the 3 foot high berm, does that mean that someone walking by, sitting in a car is going to be screened from the parking area on TH 212? Barbara Dacy: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt : Because of the lay of the land , that' s high enough to be adquately screened. If I understand this correctly, the location you' ve chosen and the way you've landscaped it is , has screened it from sight from all practical purposes? It certainly is a needed service but it' s a nice one to have screened . I noticed that the only person on the Planning Commission who seemed to be opposed to this was Tim Erhart who lives kind of down in that area and I would expect him to be sensitive to these sorts of things. The only concern I have remaining, and I think this was also one of Tim' s concerns , was the area that Clark I think also mentioned, that bridge that all of us who have driven through there know that ' s a problem. I was thinking about possibly a way of solving that is if we could establish a right-out/left-in commitment. We wouldn ' t have to alter the roadway at all but just simply approve this basis, that there would be that condition. I would say to them, even though other trucks go through, at least at this point we' re not adding additional traffic through that. We can still give them access . , Councilman Johnson : Left-out/right-in. Councilman Boyt: Okay, excuse me. Left-out/right-in. It' s my ' understanding that the sprinklering of the building is State controlled so if the building goes over 3 , 000 square feet it has a sprinkler and if it' s under , it doesn ' t. So I 'm comfortable with that but I would ask that we consider the possibility of controlling the entrance and exit. Mayor Hamilton : Is there a possibility of having a right-in as Bill was saying? That was my thought too because simply so it would make traffic going up that hill easier to pass a truck turning into the site. If there was a right-in lane. Gary Warren : Turn lane? City Council Meeting '. . February 8 , 1988 - Page 17 I _ -Mayor Hamilton : Yes . Just a right-in lane into their driveway so that Iit just makes the traffic flow more easily past that site. -- Gary Warren : MnDot has the final say on that. I -I Mayor Hamilton: I think that' s a good thing_ to. do anytime we have an Ill pportunity -to put in right turn -lanes in: -It just helps traffic a lot. Actually, even if there was enough right-of-way in that stretch right I - there to put a left turn lane also so that traffic could go by on the — right, I wouldn' t be opposed to that either . I Gary Warrens` I think you' ll have a problem because of the sharp turn radius there where you can get into some reverse curve problems with somebody coming up and having to really crank hard on the right to get Iinto the other lane. Mayor Hamilton: There' s probably some drainage problems right there too. IGary Warren : We have solve the storm sewer all along there, what we call the TH 101 drainage project, so we do have a collector down the I road so we can get the water into it so drainage wouldn ' t that big of a problem. I Mayor Hamilton : Those were the only comments I had . I think they've done a nice job in laying it out on the land and if we could get a right turn lane in there, I 'd be satisfied . I 'm not sure that we ought to restrict your movement to the north. It ' s a 9 ton road and I think they I have the right to use it. I know the bridge is dangerous and I would like to first, before we restricted them, to attempt to put like a stop sign either on the north side or the south side. Whichever would be best so the traffic has to stop in one direction. Clearly one side has to stop and the other one has the right-of-way. - ,- Councilman Boyt: A yield sign maybe. Mayor Hamilton : Whatever would work there. It' s a similar type bridge g that you have in Eden Prairie by the golf course over there and they put I stop signs on there so traffic only flows one direction. The other diretion stops. That would work fine here except in the wintertime when you've got a day like today where it ' s icier than heck and you hate to have somebody slide into the side of the bridge trying to stop or trying ' to get up the hill when it' s icy and they stop and can ' t get going again. I Gary Warren : I think the advisory signs mentioned earlier would be a good comment. Caution, trucks turning or something of that nature. ii___ Councilman Horn : I think we ought to explore too the possibility of widening that spot- once that railroad is abandoned . - I Gary Warren : The Light Rail Transit Corridor may have an impact on that also. ra+ .. City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 18 Barbara Dacy: They could function at grade though. Patrick Blood: I have two things to say. I 'm sure the City is well aware of the . . . if we put a right hand turn lane in there, it ' s fairly hollow down through the tree area there. It will make it pretty hard to put in a right hand lane to be in there. But to restrict us , and what you' re worried about is traffic control under the bridge, in order to do this, first of all , we don' t have that many trucks but if you gave us the right to go out like at 6: 30, that would put us a half an hour before the rush hour and it would limit the traffic that way rather than going into a lot of expense. The earlier you can get up before the traffic , naturally, the safer it will be. That' s a way of making it safer. Mayor Hamilton: I 'm sure that Jay has a legitimate concern but I 'm just not convinced that there' s a real traffic problem there at 7 : 00 in the morning . There are very few residents in that area either going north or south on TH 101. I don 't think it's going to cause traffic congestion at 7 : 00 in the morning on that area of TH 101. Councilman Boyt: What about the evening when they come back? Mayor Hamilton : I just don' t see that much traffic down there. I drive that quite a bit and I just don' t see that much traffic. Councilman Johnson: That was brought up to a point by Pat Swenson who is a resident down that way that does drive that a lot . Mayor Hamilton : She lives on Lake Riley and it ' s a long ways from there. Nancy Lee : In reference to the evening, they are usually in before rush hour traffic because of when they start in the morning, when they come back in the afternoon, they will beat rush hour traffic . Mayor Hamilton: Usually you guys are done by 3 : 00 or 4 : 00 in the afternoon aren' t you? Councilman Boyt : Your operation time is from 7 : 00 to 4 : 00 roughly? ' Patrick Blood: Right in that area with residential. Construction might last a little longer especially in the summer months . ' Councilman Boyt: You mentioned, I think it was at the Planning Commission , at one point in there I saw something about returning for lunch and at another point no. Patrick Blood : No, one of the staff had brought that up and the answer is no . Most of the drivers , once they' re out , they' re out for the day. They only come to pick up their truck and then they come in and they go home. They don ' t come in for lunch. On a rare occasion they might have to come in and pick up a route sheet or something like that but that' s the extent of it. _r ' City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 19 ' _ Councilman Boyt : You' re suggesting then Tom, you' re comfortable based on being there, that this isn' t a high traffic area and yet when we talk about Canterbury Downs season, this gets to be pretty busy. Mayor Hamilton: Even then, I 've made many trips to the track and I 've never run into a problem until you get down to the stop light on TH 212 and whatever the turn off road is there. I don' t think I 've ever even had one car in front of me sitting at that intersection. There just doesn't seem to be that much traffic there. Maybe that will change as we continue to grow and we' ll have to keep looking at it. I just haven't run into a problem. Councilman Boyt : When you have an oncoming car coming at you as you' re going through that bridge, it's tight. ' Councilman Horn: You have to stop. It' s a one lane road . I would like to see the City Staff pursue a reasonable way of controlling tha, as you mentioned . If it doesn' t make sense to restrict their way in and way out, at least let' s do that. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think even if this wasn ' t before us , we should do that. It' s not a good spot. Councilman Horn : I just wanted to respond to something Bill said about Tim Erhart living in the area and opposing this . If I interpret Tim' s t concern, it has nothing to do with this particular development. He has reconsidered his position on contractor ' s yards in general and would vote against any contractor ' s yard that came before that group so I don' t think it has anything to do with his proximity to this project. It has to do with his feeling about contractor ' s yards in general . As a matter of fact, when this came to the Planning Commission on May 13 , 1987 , they unanimously approved the request to include contractor ' s yards as a conditional use permit. ' Councilman Boyt : In that zoning , business fringe area but not in that specific location. ' Councilman Horn : Right . But as a concept and it isn ' t being refused because of this specific location, as I read Tim's minutes this time. It' s being refused because it' s a contractor ' s yard . t Councilman Boyt: I agree that Tim' s basic position appeared to be one of being against contractor ' s yards in Chanhassen . It was my understanding that he made a few more specific comments about this ' particular location but I 'm not basing my opinion on his . Simply that I noticed he was the lone person opposed to it . Councilman Horn: Headla also. Barbara Dacy: One of the Planning Commissioners is here this evening . Some of you may not recognize him as Brian Batzli in the white sweater. If you wanted to ask him a question. J 'City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 20 ' Councilman Horn : I ' ll second the motion but I did have one question about number 6. Is 6 related to area also or is that required of any new? ' Barbara Dacy: That' s required of any building . Mayor Hamilton: Condition 10, have we in the past had this surmountable ' concrete curb and gutters in these areas or have we had the removable barrier type things? I think we've had some of each and I just want to consistent as to what we' re requiring here. This is certainly more expensive than if you have those block things that you put in place but I think we allowed them in the rural area. Barbara Dacy: Because the site is zoned commercial in the business ' fringe, the ordinance does require concrete curb. I ' ll yield to the City Engineer as to the type of concrete curb. Gary Warren: With trucks of this nature, barrier curb really is preferred just because surmountable curb is too easily violated with the larger trucks . ' Councilman Johnson: I think you just said the opposite . Number 10, doesn' t this way we want the surmountable curb and you just said you want the other kind . So is 10 what the engineering staff wants? Gary Warren: I ' ll defer to Larry I guess . Larry Brown: The concrete curb should be barrier type curb. Specifically B-618 curb. Mayor Hamilton : And not the permanent surmountable. ' Larry Brown: That is the permanent barrier curb construction. Councilman Johnson : I 'd like to modify number 24 list the Minnesota Department of Health for capping of the well rather than just have it listed as an appropriate agency. I just want to point out that capping a well is a very important detail . Some people just run over it with a bulldozer and forget about it and that leads to some significant ground water pollution. Mayor Hamilton : I think there are some specific requirements that they need to follow for capping wells and whoever gives those approvals should be, I think rather as a 27th or 28th , Jayy I 'd rather say that as a separate item. That those regulations are followed in capping all the wells . Mayor Hamilton : I had one additional question on the holding tank. Should there be a schedule maintained so we know when that should be pumped or how often it' s pumped? I don' t think we want to get into a situation where it' s running over. That's going to cause some problems so when you' ve got a holding tank, I guess I 'd feel more comfortable if � . City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 21 II I— they had some type of schedule or something so we can go and look at it ' and say you haven' t pumped this thing for 6 months. It ought to be getting full about now. ' Gary Warren : Could that be incorporated in the pumper contract? We' re asking to be supplied with a pumper contract and that just specifies - ---some frequency of pumping . - _ 111 _Mayor Hamilton: .=Somethi-ng so „if you wanted "to- go down there and look -0,-;-and see if it' s being taken_ -care o-f,., you would have something to -look at. ' Councilman Johnson: They' re going to have to get some history before they need to know how often it' s going to be done. Mayor Hamilton: But I think we should have something to review what' s going on and inspect it and saying pumping it every month or every 3 months , or whatever it might be. Anything else? Councilman Boyt: Gary, daily clean-up is covered somewhere in here right? I didn ' t see it as a specific condition. Gary Warren: Daily clean-up? Councilman Boyt : During construction. Gary Warren: We don' t have a development contract called for in here. Councilman Boyt : Well , then let ' s add something that would be typical language to the sort of thing we put in other development contracts s - since they' re going to be -doing a building . Does that meet with general ' approval to add a point 29. Councilman Horn : Put it where 5 was . ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, put it where 5 is. Then on 18, existing _ , -_.structures will be disposed of, I gather we' re talking about any kind of _ -,, debris in the area as well so existing structures and debris. Barbara Dacy: The intent of the condition was for the barn and the single family home and the garage area. If you want to specify other items on the property, then you should add existing structures and ' debris . Councilman Boyt : That ' s what I 'd like us to add . It would be very I y,,; li-ttle more ,that would need to be cleaned up and they' re going to do it ,anyway. Mayor Hamilton : That ' s fine. Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Horn seconded to approve a Conditional Use Permit Request #87-18 to operate a contractor ' s yard located north of and adjacent to TH 212 and east of and adjacent to TH 101 based on I City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 22 the site plan stamped "Received December 29 , 1987" and subject to the II following conditions : I 1. Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and Holidays not permitted) . 2. There shall be no outside speaker system. 3. Any light sources shall be shielded from adjacent public road 1 right-of-ways . 4. A holding tank shall be installed to receive the waste water from the garage area. A copy of the pumper contract shall also be provided prior to issuance of a buliding permit. 5. Daily clean-up the building site debris . I 6. The building must have a heat and smoke detector system with a central dispatch. ' 7. Lighted exit signs must be installed at all exits . 8. A plan for storage of flammable and/or combustible material must be submitted to the Public Safety Office for approval . 9. Emergency lighting must be installed. 10. The driveway and parking lot shall have a permanent barrier B-618 concrete curb and gutter . ' 11. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating installation of 20 six foot evergreen trees between the vehicular use areas and the public right-of-ways . 12. All spetic system sites shall be staked and roped off prior to the commencement of any construction. Any traffic over these sites will require reevaluation of the sites. 13. The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. 14. The approach onto TH 101 shall be a maximum of 0. 5% grade for a minimum distance of 50 feet. 15. Catch basins shall be provided at the low point of the driveway along the proper spillways in the parking lot. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . 16. Calculations verifying the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate for the site and ponding calculations for a 100-year frequency storm event shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval . I IF • City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 23 ' 17 . Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) shall be placed at 100 foot intervals along all drainage swales . 18. Existing structures and debris shall be disposed of properly. If debris is to be burned, the applicant shall obtain a burning permit from the Department of Public Safety and the Pollution Control Agency. On-site burial of debris is prohibited. 19. Additional erosion control shall be placed along the north side of the site. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . 20. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to make periodic reviews of the erosion control and make any ' necessary repairs promptly. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . ' 21. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. I22 . Seeding shall be disc-anchored and shall commence no later than two weeks after slopes have been established . ' 23 . All detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and operational which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have the ponds functional prior to any other construction on the project . ' 24. The applicant shall apply for an dobtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval . 25. Any expansion of the building or parking areas or expansion beyond 12 vehicles shall require a conditional use permit review. ' 26. The site plan shall be revised to shift the building 20 feet to the east. 27. Should the subject site be subdivided , the City would look to requiring the necessary right-of-way for a frontage road to make connections to the east . ' 28 . The applicant shall comply with all regulations set forth by the Minnesota Department of Health and any other appropriate agencies when capping the wells. All voted in favor and motion carried . I 34 • City Council Meeting ' February 8, 1988 - Page 24 Mayor Hamilton : I was going to ask you a question Mr . Blood , don ' t you generally, the haulers, don' t you normally, during the summertime or warmer hours , start earlier? Wouldn' t it be more advantageous to you to start at an earlier time? Patrick Blood : It does help. The earlier you can get out there, I residentially, our company specifies that nobody start at a residential house until 7 : 00 and construction wise, it would be nice if we could get out a little earlier to the construction sites but that 's one of our II stipulations . Mayor Hamilton : I know some haulers and they like to start early in the II summer when it' s really hot so they are finished before it' s really cooking out there. Patrick Blood : I 've been working this for 10 years and a lot of people 1 don't like the garbage trucks coming by at 4 : 00 or 5: 00 in the morning . Councilman Horn: How long does it take you to get from your location to II your first residence? What's the longest distance it takes you to get to your first stop in the morning? Nancy Lee: We ' re in different suburbs different days . We service II Chanhassen so that would be close and then we do Bloomington and Edina . Patrick Blood: And Eden Prairie. [111 Councilman Horn : The way this is written, if I interpret it right , is you can ' t start your operation until 7 : 00 a .m. . That would mean it I would take you longer than to get to the first house. Patrick Blood : Our men actually start at 6 :45 a.m. . They come in and warm up their trucks and pick up their routes or things like that and II that gives them sufficient time. The only two areas that we fail to make real early is like Bloomington and Edina . Councilman Horn: So 7: 00 is not a problem? II Patrick Blood : It ' s no problem. i Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Horn seconded to approve a Wetland Alteration Permit #87-14 to locate a contractor 's yard within the II watershed of a Class A wetland subject to the following conditions : 1. Compliance with the standards of Article V, Section 24 (a) (4) . II 2. Compliance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #87-18. 0!All voted in favor and motion carried . Councilman Boyt: Is there anyway we can control oil runoff from the I trucks? II City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 25 I Larry Brown: One of the things we can do is getting a garage space and putting in flammable trap in there, some sort of tank and leak in oils in the stalls would in fact be washed down to that holding tank. Councilman Boyt: Okay. They' re going to be, as I understand it, parking these vehicles out in the parking lot? Barbara Dacy: Yes, some of them will be parked in the lot. Councilman Boyt: And I would think there is going to be a certain amoun ' to various oil , grease and what not dripping off those vehicles. I 'm just wondering, is there any reasonable way to control that or do we run that down into Bluff Creek? ' Mayor Hamilton: Isn ' t part of that proposed , it ' s going to be in the yard and they are going to be washing off trucks and that' s going to be going into the holding tank. That' s my understanding on how most of ' that will be. Most of it is going to be in the yard and as they wash the trucks and clean up, that ' s going to run into their holding tank and then that' s going to be pumped out. ' Councilman Boyt: I 'm just wondering. We have this in every parking lot and this one happens to be within 200 feet of Bluff Creek so I 'm just wondering if there' s anyway to control it off the parking lot. It ' s not just their trucks . It' s employee ' s vehicles . If it ' s impossible, it' s impossible but if there is some reasonable means . Councilman Horn: Do you think there will be more there than the cars _ driving by on TH 101? Councilman Boyt : I understand we need to be practical , I 'm just asking that question. Larry, are you aware of any way of controlling it running off the parking lot? ' Larry Brown : Off the parking lot , no . Not to my knowledge. Councilman Johnson: Where will the water off the parking lot go? To the holding basin? Larry Brown: To the sedimentation basin , yes . Councilman Johnson: In a submerged outlet that will prevent oils from leaving the basin. 11 Larry Brown: Something we can work out is , through the Watershed approval , they will be requiring some sort of skimmer on the pond outlet so that more or less would take care of a great percentage of the oil I(-- that might occur or happen into this sedimentation pond. Councilman Johnson : One interesting thing I noticed when I went out ' there. I never noticed those buildings there. As many times as I 've driven that , I 'm so concentrating on that railroad underpass as you drive up that hill. That big farm. That big red barn, until I went out r City Council Meeting 11 February 8, 1988 - Page 26 there and stopped there yesterday, I have never noticed that huge red (I! barn sitting there that you drive by. ' STRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 9. 04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. ' C. VARIANCE TO THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE FOR LOT DEPTH AND NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS. ' D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Jo Ann Olsen: The variance has been tabled until February 22nd so the Board of Adjustments can act on it . There was not a quorom for tonight . The first one is for a preliminary plat. It is 15 single family lots in the RSF district . The property will be serviced from, there is an existing private drive right now on the southern portion of the property which will be improved to a public street and will be served by a cul-de-sac. The applicant is also providing future access to the north with this cul-de-sac . All the lots have 15 ,000 square feet. The lots along Minnewashta Parkway are double frontage lots and therefore require an additional 10 feet to the lot depth requirement for additional landscaping. Since we are in the process of amending the lot depth from 150 to 125, by the time we go through the final plan, that will not be an issue. They are proposing to provide a drainage basin in approximatley this location. Currently it flows to the west and now it will be coming to the east. The Planning Commission did approve of the subdivision with all of staff ' s conditions . We are recommending approval of the subdivision' s preliminary plat. Mayor Hamilton: Do the applicant ' s have any comments? Robert Pierce: Not at this time. Councilman Boyt : I gathered from the discussion at the Planning Commission, that all these lots would come in at 15, 000 square feet or larger so if there seems to be some small discrepency one place or another in this, that that will be worked out. There' s enough area . The other point I had was , I would think in a period in which we' ve got some uncertainity about how the trail along Minnewashta Parkway would be laid out, that it would be nice if we could have an easement on both sides until we get the trail located and then abandon whichever easement wasn ' t used . Councilman Johnson: It' s a cliff. 1 c IF City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 27 I Councilman Boyt : Well , it ' s pretty darn steep and I 'm suggesting that that keeps our options open although it ' s a far fetched option. Whereas , as the subdivision goes , it seems to fall within our guidelines and that's what we ask for . I - Councilman Johnson: On the subdivision , I ' ve talked with Larry Brown earlier today on the height and the lack of, erosion control for the I A. construction that's going' to be done on Outlot A. -' Larry, did you get a chance to look at that? I Larry Brown: Yes I did. Right now the applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval . The matters of erosion control will be handled when they come in for approval of grading and erosion control and plans and specifications. ICouncilman Johnson: I just wanted to point out that where that' s located, that's a miniature Lotus Lake. A very steep area that' s going Ito be totally stripped . We want to keep a very close eye on that one. Mayor Hamilton: I was surprised to see that Charles Lawson changed his I name to Charles Larson. I actually liked Option A better than Option B. It' s hard to say how it ' s going to develop back there. If it connects up with the Charles Anderson property, that will lay out nicely. I -think all of Mrs. Hallgren' s concerns have been answered. '- She' s going to have free access to her property on the easement - that she ' s had for a number of years . Since there' s going to be a lot more traffic on that road , once it starts under construction, is the applicant going to do I anything to prevent that traffic from going back to the Hallgren property because I know they horses back there and they probably don' t like a lot of disturbance. IRobert Pierce : You mean plowing down their driveway? - Mayor Hamilton: Right. - IRobert Pierce : I can ' t see any real reason why they would have to go in there. It' s pretty far removed. You mean the construction of the I _ 'roadway? Gary Warren : There will be a visible tapered section into the driveway from the regular city road section so there will be a definite visual I mpact to anyone who would want to continue on so it will look like a driveway and not a city street. I Mayor Hamilton : Okay, so once you get past the entrance into where you' re going to turn into the property, then the road will go . . . It - - 'Gary Warren: It wilt =neck -down- to the driveway section. "And 'we will — —I-lave curb and gutter up to that point also . '= - Mayor Hamilton: Other than that, I don' t have any problems with the subdivision. I think it looks nice. It lays out nicely. It will be nice subdivision. I 1' City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 28 Councilman Horn : I was curious about the church property there. It looks like it' s subdivided. Mayor Hamilton : I don' t know where this plan came from but I know the church is there. Gary Warren : That ' s a concept plan we had just to see how this piece would fit in with the rest of that area. Councilman Horn moved , Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the 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. 1 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 watermai.n shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch 1 diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed. 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading . 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial surities as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and DNR permit . • ;J City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 29 13. The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to it ' s minimum possible elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated . ' 14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary. , 15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by sa ' __curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4. All voted in favor and motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Jo Ann Olsen : Real briefly, the wetland is located approximately along this line and it' s just a sloped hill where it goes into a larger ' wetland to the northwest. It acts mostly as a drainageway. It' s a low Class B wetland. Again, the applicant is proposing a ponding area in this location. We are requiring that that ponding area be designed to the Fish and Wildlife ' s standards so that it will also act a wetland. ' They will be filling in a portion of the wetland and will therefore have to also receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers. The Planning Commission recommended approval and staff is recommending approval . I -- Mayor Hamilton: When I walked back there this fall , there didn' t seem to be any different grasses or weeds in there than there were on most of the rest of the property. There weren ' t any trees is all where there ' were some trees on the rest of the property. It' s got to be such a marginal type wetland, it' s hard to believe they even need a permit to do anything there. When you can see the deer had nested in there , sleep in there occasionaly but other than that, there wasn' t anything there. There wasn' t any water there . There was nothing there . ' Jo Ann Olsen: It was marginal . There was wetland vegetation, sparse. Mayor Hamilton : You 'd have to - look awful hard to find it. So you' re comfortable that what they' re proposing is then satisfatory for the ' area . The area to the north , actually from there, is that going to be altered because of this? It is low in that corner and it drains to the north. Doesn ' t it or where does it drain to? ' Jo Ann Olsen: The drainage will still flow from the rear of this lot. Some of the water will be directed away from that wetland but that wetland basically receives from all directions. Mayor Hamilton : It' s not going to be directed towards the Hallgren ' s property I hope. Gary Warren : It' s not being altered in that area . The concept plan shows a drainage in a little better perspective as far as the whole area ' is concerned . 1 F City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 30 Councilman Boyt : Has it been determined that that wetland can ' t be saved? That we can' t use that as a holding pond? Gary Warren : Which wetland? Councilman Boyt : The wetland that we' re filling in. We can' t use that as a holding pond? Jo Ann Olsen : The way that this was designed again was to bring the drainage to the east where it would enter into Lake Minnewashta. The only way for it to really act as a wetland would be to direct drainage back and forth to continue to direct it to the west. Councilman Boyt : What areas are leading to that being a Class B wetland at this time? Where does it drain from? Jo Ann Olsen: Right now it drains here but once they put in the street, it will be directing most of the drainage from here on, will be directed , to Minnewashta Parkway. It could be used as a ponding area . No question about it. That' s typically where we do locate the ponding areas. , Councilman Boyt : So we' re recontouring the land? I guess I didn ' t gather on here that that was very substantial . What kind of recontouring were you proposing? Jo Ann Olsen : I believe the street drains in the storm sewers. Councilman Boyt: Gary or Larry, can you tell me how deep the cut is running on this property? Larry Brown: At which point? Councilman Boyt : I 'm kind of interested at the end there by the natural marsh. How much of that we' re having to cut to change the flow. Jo Ann Olsen : It' s being filled . Larry Brown: It' s being filled at that point. , Jo Ann Olsen: The existing slope is down. This is being filled . So the drainage, rather than naturally going like this , will be directed to the street which will take it this way. Larry Brown: Bill , if I could address one more of your concerns. When I attended the Planning Commission meeting I was asked the same question, about using this area as a ponding area. The elevation is quite a 'bit lower at that point than the rest of the site so to the ultimate runoff point to Lake Minnewashta is how feasible to drain water to a ponding area , not worry about this site and have it go into Lake Minnewashta. The storm sewer systems and elevations just would not facilitate that. Mrs. Hallgren was quite concerned about directing any more drainage back towards her property and that's one of the prime 4i City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 31 reasons the pond was proposed away from her property and on this corner over there. Councilman Boyt : Let me ask a question Larry. Maybe it will shorten i things up a little bit here. What you' re telling me is, if we kept the current marsh as the ponding area , we'd be running water away from the lake and it would basically have no place to go from there? ' Larry Brown: Correct me if I 'm wrong Jo Ann , but this area has very little runoff down to here. In the springtime it tends to need more or ' less a holding until a majority of it can evaporate off. Jo Ann Olsen: It doesn' t even hold. It runs itself out of water. ' Councilman Boyt : What runs into the other wetland? Jo Ann Olsen: Nothing . ' Councilman Johnson : I was going to say Bill , the fill is going to be 8 feet at that location. Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Horn seconded to approve a Wetland tland Alteration Permit #87-16 to permit the alteration 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 area : a . The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds . b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10: 1 to 20: 1 for at least 300 of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. ' c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0 . 5 to 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow ' water and thereby increase interspesion 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 shurbs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . i City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 32 2. The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers . All voted in favor and motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The recreational beachlot will be located on Outlot A. A meets all the requirements for a recreational beachlot but does not have the depth required for a dock. The applicant is still requesting a conditional use permit conditioned upon receiving the variance for a dock and for the additional boat slips . Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot with the conditions that they do provide us with a more detailed plan of what in fact will be located on the beachlot and with an erosion control and tree removal plan. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the conditional use permit. ' Mayor Hamilton : I suspect we could handle (c) and (d) together when (c) comes back if you wanted or if nobody has a problem with it. It might give us an opportunity to discuss them both at the same time. I think probably since it' s not something they need to have tonight, you wouldn' t have a problem with that I suspect . I don ' t see that it ' s going to hold you up in anyway by not having your conditional use. ' Robert Pierce : I guess not in one sense but in the other sense, it kind of leaves of hanging on a ledge there because it' s a real important part of the whole project . I don ' t know about procedures but I 'm wondering if it's possible. I know it' s a little backwards but we've had several delays that have been somewhat unforeseen and nothing I guess that we could do about it. To go ahead and proceed with these and make a conditional on the Board of Adjustments granting the variance . Is that possible or am I out of line? Mayor Hamilton : No , I guess if the Board of Adjustments approves it , ' it's approved unless a councilmember wants to discuss it further, if I remember correctly. I guess I 'd like to ask the council what their pleasure is? Councilman Johnson : I was intending on trying to table this one because I thought that asking for this information after we approve a permit is ' like closing the gate after the horses have left. I want to see more details about what's going to go on there. How deep is the sand? How many trees . . . I 'm not ready to approve the conditional use permit as is . I want to see more detail . I 'd like to see the whole thing moved up north were they have more room. Mayor Hamilton: Are you making a motion then? Councilman Johnson: You asked us just for an opinion. I was telling you what I was planning on doing. , City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 33 IMayor Hamilton : I was hoping maybe you were going to make a motion . Councilman Johnson: I will and I was telling you some of the reasons I why I ' ll make this motion. I don ' t like where the walkway is . He wants some feedback so I 'm giving him some feedback too. There' s a natural trail already running down there. I see no reason to cut another trail . There' s a trail that' s leading to the old dock. That ' s where his trail should be. There' s no use in cutting out and making more disturbance of - -the soils in- a very-sensitive area so -until some of these types of problems . We get the increased detail that staff wants. ' -The tree I program. This time of year there' s also a tough problem, you go there and look at it and try to visualize because you can' t tell where the shoreline -is. That' s not the applicant' s problem but I 'd like to table this until the applicant brings in. . . Robert Pierce: Might I suggest though, the fact that the beach area is not something , we' re willing to move and try to work with the City as we have done and try to address most the problems but what I need from the City is not to get pushed off , come back and say maybe I ' ll move this and again. What I 'd really like to see is some action. Maybe if you I have some suggestions , to run that through your planning department. I 'd be more than happy to sit down and talk to them. - More than happy to try and alleviate the problems . We want to do a nice job but we' re running out of time too. We need to continue on from our aspect. We've been pushed off for months now. Councilman Horn : Can I ask a question of the attorney? Do we have any basis to deny the conditional use permit without variances? Roger Knutson : I 'm not sure what you mean by without variances . I Councilman Horn: We' re not allowing any variances by approving the conditional use permit . IRoger Knutson: That' s correct . Councilman Horn: They' re asking for variances for other portions of the Ibeachlot. Roger Knutson : You could theoretically allow the conditional use permit without variances. - Councilman Horn : That ' s the only way I would allow it this evening . That would be final . You wouldn' t have variances . Otherwise, if we I treat them together , then you can go for it but I 'm not really prone to variances on beachlots anyway. Robert Pierce : So what are you saying? I guess , before I leave here, if you' re going to table (c) and (d) , give me some guidance of what you want me to come back. I Mayor Hamilton: (c) is going to be tabled automatically because it has not gone before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals so I don' t really I A e# 4. City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 34 think it' s appropriate for us to comment on that at this time. The 1111 conditional use permit, I guess I 'd like to consider them both together but if you want some comments , Jay has given his and perhaps Bill you could give comments. Councilman Boyt : Okay. I noticed Jay' s not done. Councilman Johnson: I 'd say mostly cut off . ' Councilman Boyt : Well Jay, I suspect you' ll get another change here and I' ll be real quick and you can have my time. I 'm against (c) and I 'm against (c) because you don' t have one of the three basic things we say you need. I 'm not going to corrupt our ordinance by voting to give a variance to it. That' s all I need to say. I 'm okay with (d) but not with (c) . Councilman Horn: That' s my sentiment exactly. Councilman Johnson: I believe that without the variances, in other words , I didn' t see the dock, the conditional use permit, we have no choice but to approve it. But, we do have the choice to ask for additional details on grading , tree removal , etc . and that' s why I want to see those before I approve it rather than putting the staff into the position of having to negotiate in our name. I 'd rather be letting them negotiate and then let us approve it. I do believe you will get the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot and I too am against the dock. Robert Pierce: Are you aware that at the present time you would have to have a variance to have a single family home on 9 acres with 500 feet of lakeshore to have one dock. The way it ' s set up right now, you can ' t even have one dock on a single family home and 550 feet of lakeshore. Mayor Hamiltonn : That' s not the issue . I 'm in favor of both of them. I see no reason why they shouldn' t be passed. If anybody' s familiar with the outlot, it ' s a large outlot. It ' s a nice piece of property and can accomodate everything that the applicant is asking for without any undue effects or bad effects to the property itself or to the lake surface or to the lake water quality or anything else. I think it ' s a good use of the land . It' s a nice piece of property and I think if you do it properly, you' re going to have a very nice outlot and allowing 4 boats on there is certainly not going to cause any problem to the lake or to the shoreline or to anything else. I 'm in favor of both. Councilman Johnson moved , Councilman Boyt seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot until the detailed information, i .e. tree removal plan , etc . that the staff has asked for , is brought in. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried . ICity Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 35 lir ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 3, TO PERMIT VIDEO GOLD AND INDOOR GOLF COURSE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, JOHN PRYZMUS. I Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council need any further staff report on this item? We' ve seen it several times . Does the applicant have any -comments you wish to make? John, do you have anything you want to Ipresent to us? _ John Pryzmus : If we could just go over the location a little bit and just run through a couple things. The site here that we' re looking at, I I own this property right here, is zoned Agricultural Estate and just for some of the council people that don' t know some of my neighbors, Ted owns this which is a contractor ' s yard to the north of me. There ' s a I group home to the west of me. Another contractor ' s yard to the southwest of me. Another contractor ' s yard , whatever they' re doing on the dirt farm right to the south of me and Larry VanDeVeire owns this - piece of property which he says he won ' t sell until it' s zoned Icommercial and then the Hennessey' s to the southeast. I don' t know for sure what, they have the residence there but I guess they also do woodworking out of their garage. So basically all my neighbors are I semi-commercial . If you have any questions about that. The highways that run to the south, TH 5 which is 20, 000 some cars drive by there and then Galpin Blvd . comes from the south and the north and I don' t know I how many cars, I didn' t get that count so we' re talking about a piece of property that' s in the agricultural estate area but yet it' s not really an estate type use for that property. If you want to talk about that a little bit, if I can answer any questions or anything you have as far as Ithat goes . Mayor Hamilton : Does anyone have anything to ask John? IJohn Pryzmus: As far as the community support, I have, I think in your packet some time ago I gave you a list of all the people that signed _petitions from the community that want a recreational sight out there. I I got a letter from Gary Gaetti , that ' s a neighbor over here, that whole heartedly endorses indoor practice facilities for John Pryzmus is attempting to construct. We visited the site and feel it would be I _ _^ ''Ibeneficial to the community. He says that our neighborhood, with as many children of Little League age that would use an entertainment ''-' facility such as this, including my own children and those of my neighbors. I do not profess to be a councilman or politician however I feel a facility such as this would be in the best interest of the Chanhassen community as well as the . . . Thank you for your consideration. This endorsement, this is Gary Gaetti . IMayor Hamilton : Is the one building that you' re planning on putting up where you said you had video golf in there. ILJohn Pryzmus : And batting cages . I Mayor Hamilton : That' s what I was wondering . It didn' t say that on the application but you would have, it would be softball batting cages? I MIA City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 36 John Pryzmus : On the original application the building . . . Mayor Hamilton: That didn' t appear in our report Barb. I know I heard that before , I 'm just wondering why that wasn ' t listed . Barbara Dacy: One of the attachments is the application, Attachment #13 . Councilman Horn: But it doesn ' t say that at the title. Councilman Johnson: It doesn' t list them in the application either. , Councilman Horn : It just says indoor golf driving and video golf as a conditional use. Mayor Hamilton : I know the last time John was here he had said he intended to have batting in there also and that was one the major things he wanted to do in there. I remember in talking about that. ' Councilman Horn: I thought that was the only thing at that time. That ' s why when I read this. ' Barbara Dacy: If I can clarify. Attachment #13 was the first application in 1987. Attachment #15 was the most recent one and that' s where I got the indoor golf driving and the video golf. The indoor batting was not on the most recent application. Mayor Hamilton : Can you show us on there, point to where what things would be happening John and perhaps give us the dimension of the building . John Pryzmus : The building itself, in the way the whole landscaping is already agreed on by the City with the berming. All the trees for the whole site, including the building here. We did all the berming . All the trees except the evergreens which we' re going to plant this fall and I ' ll have these throughout the whole thing . But the indoor batting activity building is situated right here on the site which is on the northeast corner . The building , all it is , the building itself is completely open. All you have is nets . You have a pitching machine down here and all you have is nets . The whole building is just one big open expanse except for garage where they are storing the equipment. I wanted to get into the building itself a little later on. Some of the community support that I have, getting back to the petitions that we had signed and some of the jobs we were creating . We've got one of the neighbors up there, Mr. Hayes is going to work there. Mr. Winchell . Two retired people. We have the kids coming home from college and the high school kids with summer jobs and jobs on weekends. I think, 100% of the business community and everybody I ask, as far as the neighborhoods, anybody that understood it, so I got about 90% of the i!! people that are in favor of the project. If anybody wants to say anything. Do you want to hear from them? Mayor Hamilton : I know they' re here in support of you John and it' s not b It ' City Council y Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 37 a public hearing . Perhaps if there was one person that you wanted to have be a spokesperson to just give us some comments , that would be acceptable. ' Chuck Dimler : I 'm a neighbor and I 'm familiar with John ' s area out there because I hear you have some concern about the building and I know I 'm a little familiar with the landscape and I know John has berms . ' It' s a pretty straight forward structure that' s going to be put up temporarily and can be taken down temporarily, if the temporary use ever changed. I think that would lend itself more than a lot of permanent ' structures that might be a home or such other type of facility. I think if you' re aware of some of the other properties out there, even the property that John is building his project on, it ' s in pretty rough shape right now and I 'm hoping it' s going to be a much more useful project when John has his facility on it and it' s useful for us in the community. Particularly for our children and ourselves for recreation. I 'm a little familiar with the demand for recreation. That ' s a big ' industry anyway and we could use it in Chanhassen. I know there' s a lot of support right now for the community center . We' ve heard a lot about the demand for those activities . A lot of these activities come forward ' with a lot of public support . You' re looking for , if not industrial revenue bonds , you' re looking for housing and redevelopment and tax increment districts . As far as I know, John ' s project is really self supporting . It ' s a free enterprise project and that encourages me and I some of the people that I ' ve spoken to . I would summarize, just general support for it and I think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood that it' s in right now. ' John Pryzmus: If you want to discuss a little bit more about the building . It' s a low profile buffer building and like Chuck said, I bought it. It used to be a truck terminal in St. Paul in Roseville. ' The man I bought it from, him and two other guys took it down in a week. It's like taking an erector set apart. Take it down, like I say, it was a truck terminal so it had all garage walls. Now, with the City of ' Chan, I 'm going to put cedar siding on it so it would be all bolted to the steel so at some point , if I sell the property, I could take the building down and move it to some other site. There are 12 foot sidewalls and it ' s very low profile. Like I say, it only goes up to 18 feet. It sits in completely bermed from the CR 117. It will fit in with all the ordinances as far as that area . We meet all the criteria for building in that area. Other than indoor, Jay I think you had commented earlier to the staff , what ' s inside? It' s just nets except for where the garage is to put equipment in. Mayor Hamilton : Barbara , has John met all the permit requirements and everything? He' s paid his fees . It_ Barbara Dacy: Yes , for the clubhouse and miniature golf and the driving range. He has not been able to complete the bituminous parking area yet, obviously, but we have retained a letter of credit from him that is valid through, I believe it ' s June 15th so at this point in time he is in compliance. 1 / C,) City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 38 Mayor Hamilton : At this time I would just like to appeal to the Council to consider this project on it' s merits. We've certainly had difficulty 11 dealing with John in the past and sometimes he didn' t follow the rules but I know that John' s heart is in the right place and he' s trying to do a good thing -for the community. I think this would be a good facility for the community. For everyone in the community to use. Adults and youngsters alike. So, the building , the indoor batting and indoor golf, the outdoor putting, they are all assets to the community and they are things that make the town a town. It' s a recreational facility. It' s for everyone to use and it just attracts more people to our community. I hope that everybody considers this on the merits of the project and not on the applicant which, sometimes we have a problem doing. With that, are there any other questions that anyone would like to ask of John? John Pryzmus : I was just going to read the letter that I got from the ' Lt. Governor. This project is being financed by the SBA so I got a letter and it says , please accept my congratulations on having received a Small Business Administration loan. As a former small business owner I know the importance of a SBA loan. Countless jobs have been created as a result of the SBA in fostering the development of small business. As Lt. Governor , one of my top priorities has been to work to create an environment where entrepreneurship is encouraged. If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact my office. Once again, congratulations and best wishes in your future endeavors. And if the whole financial feasibility of the project hinges on this loan and I [Il don' t get the loan without the building . Councilman Horn : I ' ll second for discussion purposes . The purpose that we set up for this type of use was for uses that would provide an interim basis but they were for uses that couldn ' t be put in a commercial area. I think what we' re asking for here are extensions to that in uses that can be put into a commercial area . My feeling on this position is that the only exceptions we make in an agricultural area are to the land intensive types of uses . Hence , we allowed the driving range and I think we stretched it somewhat for a putting course but I don' t see these as other uses that require land intensive area and that 's my criteria for this piece of property. It has nothing to do with the applicant or anything else. It' s strictly to do with what the intent was of creating this type of a district . Councilman Boyt: As I look at this, I jotted down probably four reasons I I thought it was a good idea . One of them is , it increases our tax base. The last one about the building being required to get the loan ties that into a package. Willingness to berm. The temporary nature of the building. Making good progress on what he' s recently undertaken. I 've got two areas that stand out as sort of opposed to these positive points. One of them Clark just mentioned so I won' t go over that one again . The other one is , being new to the Council I 've got to reflect back on the history that was provided in the staff notes and note things are looking reasonably good as of 1987 . Prior to 1987 it seems as though there was sort of a rocky relationship with the City. I 'd like Asa II O-„, City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 39 I to see Mr. Pryzmus develop his land as we've already approved it to be developed. I think that' s an addition to the community that we' ve needed . We changed our zoning ordinance to give it to you and I think I it's only a matter of time until that section of property probably allows you to do what you want to do but at this point , I 'd say it ' s a little early. - I would rather see us rezone that- section- than change the `=Yc'svA-2 zoning to include ' this type of business: - I :1- ,-- - L_-, .- :- ri._ , -- _ , -_ - - -_ -,.-._.1 o - - - - :.. . : 1r.- Councilman Johnson: - 'I have to agree with 'most of what' Bill and Clark have said except I 'm not totally sure that 1987 has -been that"gieat of a I - -year. We had a building show up all of a sudden. Get laid out without any berming . Became an eyesore to the community and all of a sudden - it's just laying there. Never asked for a conditional 'use permit for a I construction yard to do that. I think that City contines to have problems. I agree that this should not be in the A-2 district and I 'm not sure that this property should be in the A-2. Something closer or similar to the business fringe down on the south side. This highway I corridor , in my opinion, A-2 is not quite, I guess I 've made this known a few times and our consultants looked at future uses but what' s that interim use between now and then? That is something to wrestle with but I right now it is A-2 and I totally agree. This is not a land intensive use. The driving range was land intensive. That makes sense to me. The mini-putt area, as an accessory use for driving range makes sense 7 because the two are compatible with each other . Then putting up the building as a further extension there and then all of a sudden adding batting back, we don ' t have batting in front of us . This is the first we've heard of batting . The application doesn' t list batting. I think I what we've got here is somebody has bought a building and he wants to find a use for it. I 've been talking about maybe putting up an inflatable structure that' s not so permanent or stuff like this but even that may be. I know I ' ve seen those at Braemar for golf driving so you I have indoor golf driving but I don ' t think the batting cages and stuff are appropriate. We've denied that before. All of -a sudden this is right back to what we denied earlier last year . There' s no change. The I :-) --application is slightly different but I don ' t even know where the indoor driving range part of that is . It ' s all batting cages . That ' s what we - ''saw last year. I think we' re looking at mirrors here. I 'm not for it. I —1The A-2 is just the wrong place. - -Mayor Hamilton : My comments still stand . I think it 's a good thing to ' have in the community and I certainly don' t see how it' s going to hurt I anything being in the area where it ' s at . Perhaps it would be a better use to rezone the property. However, that' s now what we've been asked '-to do . I 'm still in favor of this . IMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article V, Section 3 to include Video Golf, it- Indoor Golf and Indoor Batting as a conditional use in the A-2, Agricultural Estates District . Mayor Hamilton voted in favor and Councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 3. I -; - - - -- I C)4") City Council Meetin g February 8, 1988 - Page 40 Mayor Hamilton : I guess all I can say John is , based on what I 'm hearing this evening, there might be some sentiment for rezoning the property to something other than A-2. You may want to talk to Barb about the possibility of doing that. Councilman Horn : I would disagree with Jay on business fringe though. Councilman Johnson: Similar to business fringe. Business fringe is specific down to that area but I see a similarity between the two areas that it's an agricultural area yet it' s on a major highway. I don' t see that this is going to eventually become housing . This is eventually, probably this particular area is eventually going to be commercial . Councilman Boyt: What would you propose Clark? Councilman Horn: I 'm not sure what would be appropriate but as I see the areas that we' re looking at, that they would be lower traffic generators. When you put them right next to a major road, in a business fringe that at least was the intent . It would be for very low traffic generators. Councilman Johnson: This particular proposal is not going to generate 1 much traffic. The mini-putt is going to generate a lot more traffic than the indoor batting cages or the indoor driving range. How many Ell people can put in there at once? Mayor Hamilton: Even at that , it ' s a low traffic generator all the way around. If you have everything there. The golf and batting building, it ' s a low generator of traffic . There just aren' t going to be hundreds of people out there. You' re going to have some cars , of course. Councilman Johnson : I 'm kind of opposed , the whole concept of taking this, this is something that you could put the building in and be a part of another facility that ' s indoors . We had something like this in Omaha that I 've gone to that' s totally indoors in a very retail area. Very high buck area . Mayor Hamilton : John' s purpose of doing this was to make it a temporary use of the land so as that area develops he would be able to, as he did with his driving range down on West 79th Street. He had it there until the land was going to be developed and then he moved out further west. I suspect he would probably want to do the same thing here. Move it to a different location once the property is proposed to be developed into something else. John Pryzmus : The whole idea of the building , when you look at the driving range and the miniature golf, that' s when it' s nice outside. That ' s for about a 3 to 4 month period of the year . The indoor range, made it financially feasible to make a class operation. Make it a good recreational facility. By you denying this , I lose it all and there' s no reason for you to deny it because it didn' t generate more traffic. When it' s nice outside, they' re playing outside. When it 's bad outside, they' re inside but you only have maybe 30 people inside. You' ve got '1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 41 ' parking for about 75 cars . It absolutely doesn' t expand the site to draw in more traffic. It expands the days of operation is what it does. That' s why I lose the financing because it don ' t make it financially ' feasible. Councilman Boyt : John, are you saying you can' t run the golf course now because you don' t have the building? Mayor Hamilton: Right . His financing was based on having the entire project, the driving range, the miniature putt and the indoor batting and golfing facility. Councilman Horn: Why would it be unfeasible there when it' s feasible on a higher buck area that we had downtown? ' John Pryzmus : I lost money every year and I didn' t put a quarter of a million dollars into that project. I bought the land solely for the ' purpose of reselling it. There I 'm putting in a quarter of a million dollars to run this operation for 10 years . ' Councilman Johnson : I can' t see that there ' s going to be enough revenue generation from this building that you own, by putting this building up, 4 that ' s going to increase your revenue enough to do that. Sell the building. Mayor Hamilton: Apparently the lenders felt that it would and they' re the ones that have to make that decision I guess. Councilman Boyt : How long is your application open for the SBA loan? John Pryzmus : March 5th is my deadline. They've approved it, the bank has approved it . If I don ' t use the funds by March 5th . Mayor Hamilton: I encourage you to meet with Barbara as soon as ' possible and at least consider rezoning it . I think what I 'm hearing the Council say is it might be something they might consider . ' Councilman Johnson : It isn ' t going to happen by March 5th . Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps John can get an extension if he knows, if he can go to his lender and say it ' s underway and in the process , if that ' is to occur, it may give you some extended money. I guess that' s something you' ll have to talk to your lender about and see if they' ll go along with. ' Councilman Boyt : I have no sense about how other council people are going to vote on this but to me it seems like somewhere in here there' s probably a common ground but there are a lot of issues around this thing . Clearly, look at the size of the packet related to this one item. We' re halfway down the road. I guess the question is, how far do we go down before we get off . Tonight I hear us saying we got off . Mayor Hamilton: Just to respond to that, I guess how far down the road I City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 42 do we go . I guess I ' ll drive to the end of the road with John anytime. Elf However far I have to go with him or any other resident if it means the future of a business in the community or a future loss to an applicant or resident, I 'm willing to work with them and see if we can' t work it out. We do have a packet of information on it because it ' s been going on for a couple of years but hopefully, as we've gone along we've gotten things straighten out that have caused the problem and I still feel that if I can help John, if we can somehow resolve this issue and get it past, I think it 's a good facility for the community. Not because it ' s John, because I think it' s a good thing for the town. I think it will be a really good facility. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we need to find a location where we :an put it. We've got the Planning Commission unanimously recommending to deny it. We've got the staff recommending to deny it. I don' t know what to do . Mayor Hamilton: John knows what his choices are I guess. If I can help, I 'd be glad to do it. ' UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, GARY EHRET, BRW. Don Ashworth : Both Gary Ehret and Jim Lasher have been invited this evening and we have not had an opportunity really to discuss what has occurred this past summer and what ' s proposed for this next year . I asked both Gary and Jim to attend tonight ' s meeting to give us an update on what it is that has occurred and what we will be doing . Gary Ehret: Don was maybe a little briefer than I might be in why we ' re here tonight . We worked with you now for a year and a half, almost two years on the downtown project. We've accomplished an awful lot. There' s a lot more to go and we' re coming up to the next construction season. We felt it was very appropriate to discuss what we've accomplished to date and what we have left to do . We ' re also aware of some of the concerns and problems that have come up that we'd also like to address and take you through. We 'd also like to present some ideas that we've been working with staff on for your consideration. What I 'd like to do is just briefly outline our agenda . The first item I 'd like to talk about is just where we are on the construction of the project . The second is update on some of the problem areas on TH 101. We 'd like" to talk a little bit about Heritage Park and then make some presentations of some schematic drawings that we've brought with us tonight. What I 'd like to do, if I can, is cover each of the items. The construction update . Talk a little about TH 101 and ask for any questions you might have after each section just so we can move quickly through. This illustrates the street program in the downtown area. The burnt orange represents all of the street work that I can find as essentially done. By that I mean that curb and gutter is in. All of the base course bituminous is in. The utilities are completely done in these areas . All of the burnt orange area has yet to have the final wear course. We have yet to do any of the landscaping elements. Also, there are some private NSP, Northwestern Bell and Minnegasco work. Some that does have to take place but in general , the majority of the very City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 43 ' difficult work, the very difficult of the project is basically complete. The tan areas are the segments that we have yet to either start or complete. Getting you orientated , West 78th Street, TH 101. Moving ' around this is Market Blvd . . We have the entry drive, this is the bowling center yet to complete. We have work into the City Hall area yet to complete. - Laredo- Drive, Great Plains Blvd. We have curb and gutter , the bituminous and the landscaping beyond the Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus ' j , -facilities and we have some edge treatment to; complete :along: the Dinner -Theater , Furniture Gallery, etc . . But as a whole, on the street improvements, I think we accomplished about 80% to 90% o,f, what we had ' hoped to have done last fall . These I think can be better highlighted . Basically the utility work in the downtown area is in a condition very similar to the roadways . Sewer and water we have left to complete on Laredo Drive and water on Great Plains Blvd. . That is it. All of the ' other sewer and water facilities in the downtown area are complete. Storm sewer again, the burnt orange represents what has been completed . The tan is what is remaining to be done. Essentially, we have to ' complete the storm sewer on Great Plains Blvd. . Complete the storm sewer on Laredo Drive and the storm sewer work is complete. The next item I just wanted to talk about briefly is the work schedule. If there are specifics of any areas that you want to talk about what is done or what is not done, feel free to ask me but what we' re shooting for is a schedule which would have a start up again , in those areas where work remains, Laredo Drive, Great Plains and I believe the public parking facility here will probably be the areas we focus on first. Particularly Great Plains and Laredo because of the need to finish the utilities and because of the use that occurs on the Pony/Pauly' s public ' lot. We' ll try to get that blacktopped right away. We' ll then move into the finishing of this area , the bowling center drive and all of the landscaping elements. The schedule we ' ve got set up right now is somewhat dependent on the weather but we' re hoping that we can get back at it, get things underway, roughly the first of April . The date that is currently scheduled. for completion of the work is June 1st. We have about two months of work in the spring . The June 1st date, I caution a ' little bit. -We ' re not sure how closely we'-re going to hit that. We' re going to try very hard . We have a meeting set up with the contractor, Schaefer , and all of their subcontractor ' s at BRW' s offices next ' Wednesday with the _sole intent of talking about schedule. How we ' re going to phase in the rest of the work and how we' re going to complete it as quickly as possible in the spring. ,I want to just mention to you tonight that we' re trying to finalize the cost to date. I do not have ' them yet. We' ve gone through all of the partial payment quantities. We' re working on any change order items_ that _may have occurred . We have another meeting. We ' ve had two meetings with the contractor. We have a ' third scheduled to discuss things further and what I 'm hoping is. that on February 22nd, two weeks from tonight, I can be back and give you a complete update on the cost estimate and where we stand on the job so far. I think with that I ' ll just ask if there are any questions on what is or is not completed . The schedule. Any comments . Anything you might have relative to the work that has taken place or the work that has yet to be done. 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 44 Councilman Johnson : I have some concerns and several of our citizens have talked to me and a lot of the Fire Department has some real concerns . I guess we still have work to be done on the Laredo intersection as far as making the right hand turn and we' re going to have the island extended to the west which will affect the left hand off of Laredo going east. That' s our main firetruck route. Currently they have a hard time making the right hand turn there and I want to make sure that the extension of the island and the new improvements will definitely allow for that right hand turn and we don' t want to have to stop the firetruck, back up and try again because seconds count. Gary Ehret: The concern you' re expressing is the movement as they come out of the Fire Station and wants to make this right hand turn or the left hand turn, either way. The primary is the right hand . Councilman Johnson: Right now they' re having problems on the right hand turn with our present vehicles and we are looking to get larger vehicles. In the referendum later this month we' re looking at an aerial platform truck that' s 10 or 15 feet longer than our present vehicles. I wanted to be sure that we don' t waste precious seconds maneuvering that corner . The other corner that I have a very large concern on, and hopefully we can borrow the aerial platform truck from Eden Prairie or something and come test it, is taking a left turn here. Making that left turn. Especially with the way some of the people are currently utilizing that intersection where sometimes you have more than one car . You get too many cars in the one lane and you just can' t make the turn even. Whether after the changes are made there, I want to be sure that we can take that platform truck, the aerial platform truck, and make that left hand turn so assuming the referendum passes , because I would hate to have to see them go out to TH 5, over and back and around. That wastes way too much time if we' re heading to a fire up TH 101. Gary Ehret: Unquestionably, a very good concern. Let me just take them one at a time. On Laredo Drive, the current radius on that street are a little hard to find simply because there is no curb and gutter but I think as they are currently built, essentially they are about 15 foot radius. I agree with you, it' s going to be very difficult for the firetruck to make. I 'm going to have to check, unless it happens to be on here, but I believe these are designed for 25 or 30 foot radius ' and I don' t know right off the top of my head but I do know that what we tried to do on all of this was use curbs and radius' that would accomodate up to a semi . Now there are tight spots , unquestionably, movements that you' re not going to take at very high speed and with a firetruck, again, seconds count but I think it ' s a very valid point . Before we finish the construction of this area, extend this road and put in the radius ' , I will go back and attempt to make sure that those accomodate either directional movements of the firetruck. Councilman Johnson: It would be nice for them to know how far , if we could go set a stake where that island' s going to come. You could go stand there, by the way and he could come driving by and see how close he gets to you. ' r City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 45 Gary Ehret : We can go out and mark these noses as they are supposed to be constructed on the pavement before we build them and I would happily work with Mr . Chaffee and the fire crews to make sure that they do work. The second intersection, what I 'd ask is if I could defer that for a ' moment because that is a second part of what I want to talk about. Councilman Boyt: By June 1 are you going to be finished? Is that what I heard? Gary Ehret: That' s currently the way the contract states . However , we do have to sit down with the contractor and negotiate on that date some U because we put some very difficult restrictions on him which did cause him some specific delays in constructing part of this project last year . To be quite honest, it took us out of a legal position, in my opinion, ' of being able to say, this is a firm date. If we went to him and said, you have no choice but to be done by June 1, I think he could make a reasonable case that says no way. Councilman Boyt: When we are completed , is the landscaping in? Gary Ehret: We hope, definitely, all the landscaping will be in and ' completed this spring . I hope everything is done by June 1 but I 'm just cautioning the Council is that when I think of, is it going to go on, I would hope that I could safety say by July 1 there will be nothing left to do. I 'm just not sure if the June 1 date is realistic (a) because of ' _ some of the work that we did not get done last fall , and (b) because of the unpredictability of the weather and I don' t know when we' re going to get started . Let me just finishe with the statement that it is our goal ' that all of the plant materials are in this spring rather than carry it over to the fall . The second area I want to talk about is what Councilman Johnson referred to and that' s specifically the West 78th ' Street/TH 101 intersection and also I have a board a little bit later that also talked about the continuation of West 78th Street. Correct me if I 'm wrong but I have now talked with staff, I ' ve talked with the HRA, they had several comments. We've talked to MnDot. We' re aware of the problems that are occurring in this intersection. To kind of refresh the Council briefly, from TH 5, up and around, through this intersection and out on West 78th Street is TH 101 and is in MnDot jurisdiction. ' What I 've attempted to do is over the last couple of months , meet out there with MnDot. I ' ve sent correspondence to them and I 've tried to work with them on identifying some of the problems that we have experienced . Some of the questions that have come up. Try to come up with some alternative solutions identifying exactly what their position is on the issue. What this board is attempting to represent is what my ' understanding both from what I ' ve observed myself and have received from HRA members or staff , as the problems that you' ve seen occurring out there. Number one is the fellow moving westbound and tucks into the lane directly adjacent to the island and all of a sudden there' s no lane for the person coming to the east. The second I think is fairly related . Either the person westbound is really encroaching on the movement to the south or he is in that lane and all of a sudden, the ' person moving east has nowhere to go or is trying to cut the corner and there' s a guy' s frontend in the way. I have not seen it myself but I I inn City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 46 was told that a few people have observed a guy who goes all the way • around and I can believe that would occur if a person were parked in this lane, the driver is going to make that turn and he becomes very confused and what do I do, what do I do. I don' t think this is as much of a concern but I have had somebody mention to me the rolling stops occurring here. Councilman Horn : That' s all over town. , Gary Ehret: What I have done, hopefully the information was in your packet. It may not have been too clear because you didn ' t have a diagram to work off of but if you recall , the information and response from MnDot, it was referring to these items here. I ' ll try to kind of take you through them briefly. This picture, what I just wanted to represent with this picture, the intersection as originally designed by ourselves, was a lot more compact and tighter. The area in the red represents expansion that was made by MnDot. I don ' t think they are necessarily incorrect in what they asked us to change. The problem in my mind that partly has occurred is that we' ve made such a big, wide open intersection that there' s no definition of where a driver is supposed to go and that has somewhat led into what I think is the problem here. We've met with MnDot. We ' ve looked at this intersection. We 've said what can we do . We've got to do something to improve this situation. I 'd like to offer one footnote and that is, part of what we ultimately wanted to do in this intersection, we did not get done prior to shutting down for the winter. Also, some of the striping and things that we even did do , with the snow, etc, you can ' t tell . What we talked about with MnDot, to improve the situation, they feel comfortable with it, I think it will work, is basically looking at three elements . I 've got to go back and take a firm look at it, of what we' re talking about is the construction of a 2 foot wide concrete median that would run from the pc of this curb to the pt in this fashion. It would designate that movement lane for the eastbound driver . It would give the westbound driver that left turn than he' s looking for, that comfort zone median on his left. I think it would just help clarify the entire intersection. The next item we' re looking at doing, this small island here was in the original construction plans . We made a decision , I think at this point it's proven to be wrong, but we made a decision this fall not to build that island and see how the intersection worked because we were concerned that that island might cause a problem in itself. As it turns out, I think it would have added some definition to the intersection that might have helped. We think that it might be very appropriate to define the intersection by putting that in . We would then mark the left turn movements , put in a stop bar , mark the right turn movements with a stop bar . We would also have a number of signs that would be going in here such as keep right and all the appropriate signs that would define the intersection. The other thing we 've looked at , and this comes into the fire department issue, is extending this left turn nose. Now the difficulty there is , the further we extend that, the sharper it makes that eastbound movement. If we can extend that even 5 to 10 feet and still accomplish getting the firetruck around the corner, and semis , I think what it will help is it will slow the normal eastbound driver down to make this more of a right hand turn. Part of the problem that 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 47 -. I observed right now is because it ' s so open , the eastbound traffic, south to eastbound, is taking that corner at 20-25 mph, at a fairly high rate of speed . This is intended to be similar to any intersection at a right angle that we have in town other than it' s a larger intersection. ' The intent is , that this driver slows down and and makes a slow speed , left hand turn. I think that' s maybe part of the problem. At this point, these items are what we have reviewed with MnDot. What we hope will solve the problems, define the intersection better for the driver and clean up all of the turn movements . Mayor Hamilton: It's going to make it awfully difficult for plowing ' snow I would think. There' s no sense in putting in islands that we' re just going to smash up our equipment on. They' re going to hit those things. Gary Ehret: In terms of defining for the driver who is moving westbound or the driver who is moving south to east, the only two options that ' both myself, other people in our company or the people at MnDot can see, is the construction of a raised median or the painting, stainmark lettering or whatever just will be of little value in the winter . This island may not be necessary. Part of the reason we came up with that ' little island was , we don' t have a place where you can put a sign that is physically out there and driver ' s eyes, when he comes to that intersection. That' s why I think we' re getting some of the leaning also I to the southern side of the intersection because you can ' t get your keep right sign where it belongs where a guy is used to seeing it. We talked, Gary and I, earlier as we kicked this around, the median, the longer red line there , it could be a low profile type median. At least ' to give you kind of rumble to get to the edge there but it wouldn ' t have to be like a jersey barrier , sticking up that high so it would also be a little more durable on equipment and such. What we would be talking ' about here is either a 6 inch median, just a barrier curb or we could even look at the mountable curb that you have in all the residential areas. I personally don ' t believe that would be a snowplowing problem ' whatsoever . Mayor Hamilton : If it was just a curb , just a plain old curb it might not be. ' Gary Ehret : We' re not talking about anything more than either a barrier curb with the typical 6 inch curb or a mountable. The kind you have on ' all your residential subdivisions . Mayor Hamilton : It ' s just a matter of how are you going to clear the ' snow off of there Gary? If they run the auger down there with a snowblower thing , how are they going . . . Gary Warren: In this area, it takes more care, even now, for them to get and quite honestly, the Bobcat with the snowblower attachment that we just acquired this year, has become very useful in these types of situations because it is a more mobile piece of equipment. ' Mayor Hamilton: I think extending that thing for the left turn, I don't . 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 48 think we want to just be able to say the firetruck can make the turn but they have to be able to make it comfortably and semis . That' s really pushing it , extending that 6 to 8 to 10 feet . Gary Ehret: We certainly aren ' t going to do it if it will inhibit the movement of those vehicles . Mayor Hamilton : Like I say, it' s got to be turning comfortably. They , can' t be wasting time. If they' re in a hurry, they' re going to turn and they can' t be dinging around there trying to maneuver it so they can get around, even though all the experts say you can do it. I 'm sure they can probably do it but they need to be able to turn. The same with semis. A lot of times they don' t care if they run over curbs and things so they' ll do that and there go your shurbs and your lights and everything else. Gary Ehret : That' s a good point . That' s an argument that we got into with MnDot. MnDot' s standard on new construction such as this is to be all mountable curb. The specific reason is because they want the truck that doesn' t make the curve, to have his wheels just run right up and into the boulevard , whatever it takes and we felt that that was highly inappropriate for what we were trying to accomplish down there and we fought fairly significantly with MnDot on allowing even down in these areas, the barrier curb as compared to the mountable because we don' t want to encourage people to drive their wheels up on these boulevards . Relative to this movement, I definitely agree and understand your concern. I personally believe, and we will look at this , but I personally believe that that movement, once they've done it a time or two, will not be any more difficult than some of the tight movements they have in some of the residential areas. They have some pretty sharp curves to make in residential areas . Don ' t you think if that intersection stays kind of the way it is, it' s marked through a season when everybody has gone through to see what they' re doing without snow being all over the place, that 90% of your people who drive there would get used to it and have a good understand of what they' re supposed to do? Gary Ehret : I think that there is unquestionably a learning factor associated with this intersection. In fact, the entire downtown area and it would get better . However , I don ' t know what the exact background of TH 101 traffic is but you ' re always , until TH 101 changes it' s route at some point in the future, if ever , we ' re always going to have some background traffic who are not familiar with the intersection. In my opinion, I think there are some movement problems here that we need to address for those kinds of motorists . Councilman Boyt : Would you tell me the purpose of this intersection. We went over this a year ago but maybe you can remind me why we designed it like that, in general . Gary Ehret : There were two basic alternatives that were studied anywhere from a year to 3 years ago. One alternative was bring this intersection from the south up into a "T" intersection where the driver i ) ,, City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 49 IF . I who will coming north would have to stop and turn left . Councilman Boyt: What were we trying to accomplish when we did this? I 'm sure we had several alternatives but we chose this one because it Idid something better than the others. Can you tell me what that was? Gary Ehret : What we are trying to accomplish is ultimately TH 101 south I and north is designated to have a different route. Now if that occurs , I 'm not sure but what we were hoping to accomplish is focusing traffic into the downtown area from TH 5/TH 101 intersection, moving north into the downtown and not encountering any stop type conditions . Traffic I would flow freely through this area. That would be the focal point for movement of traffic into the downtown. I Councilman Boyt: Given that that was our objective, that triangle that' s sort of in the middle, tell me, what was the purpose of putting that in there? I Gary Ehret : The purpose of this is specifically to separate the south to eastbound traffic with the free right traffic that' s occurring north bound to eastbound . ICouncilman Boyt: That' s great if you ' ve got a one-way but with two way traffic it seems to me that what you' re doing is you' re taking two lanes of traffic and dumping them in on that road at the point of your triangle. So we've basically got the people who are coming from the east swimming up river . IGary Ehret : I 'm not sure I understand what you' re saying . Councilman Boyt: What I 'm saying is you' re turning two lanes of traffic I in on one. You' re turning the one from the south and you' re taking the one from the west. My point is , I think you could accomplish what you want to accomplish if you take that triangle and move it . The location it' s at is contributing to your problem so why does it have to be there? IGary Ehret : Which way are you suggesting moving it? I Councilman Boyt: You want to put something up there where the red line is, why don ' t you take that triangle out and see if we can ' t figure out something to put where your red line is that ' s substantial enough so I everybody can see it and get ' s the traffic to go the direction you want it to. I just don' t see that it' s contributing a great deal . Gary Ehret : What the concerns are is two lanes move north in this I direction. One of those two lanes is designated as a right turn and a free lane condition moving this way. This is a very common application on any trunk highway where you install an island to sort out your north to eastbound movement with the movement that ' s occurring in this direction. We can look at your idea. I think I understand what you' re saying . It' s basically eliminate this island , somehow reconfigure that it 's sorting out your westbound movement from your eastbound movement. City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 50 Councilman Boyt : What I 'm saying is , you 've got a natural flow from the south to the west. No problems as long as nobody else gets in the way but unfortunately we have cars from come in from the east and they don' t fit in that diagram. You do great with the cars coming from the south and as long as they don ' t want to turn, you do okay with the ones that come from the west but with the other cars , they don' t have a chance. They' re out there like little bowling balls. Councilman Horn: Isn' t the purpose of that green island to give people some separation until they can adequately merge? Gary Ehret: Yes. The southbound to eastbound and the northbound to ' eastbound . Councilman Horn : If you pull that out of there, they' re going to start ' merging clear back just as you come off the road. By putting that in there, you've given them some separation until they can get themselves organized. ' Gary Ehret : Part of what we' re trying to accomplish is that these two movements, the south to east and north to east, those drivers have 11 basically come close to being parallel before they' re forced together . That they've gotten around the corners and whichever way they' re moving and they' re now going in the same direction. That is one of the Ell purposes of this island. Otherwise, these two movements come together in this area and they' re not sure what they' re supposed to do . Mayor Hamilton: You probably should have a yeild sign there. , Councilman Boyt : . . . it ' s not the guy who ' s making the right turn because he' s slowed down. The big threat is the guy who is trying to make the left turn and get across that rapid lane of traffic . Councilman Horn: He' s got the right-of-way. Councilman Boyt : But he' s being confronted by people who are coming from the east and they haven ' t got it figured out. Councilman Horn : The road accomodates them. It' s just that they can ' t ' see where their markings are. Gary Ehret : The problem with the westbound guy, which I think is what ' you' re trying to say or are saying, and that he' s kind of lost in here and he ' s head-on with the guy who ' s trying to move east. That ' s what we hope to accomplish or should accomplish with the installation of this piece. Councilman Boyt : You' re doing that but what you' re doing is you' re just putting more stuff out into that intersection and it would seem to be that less is better than more. If you can get less by taking it all out and starting over, I think you ought to do that. Mayor Hamilton : Whatever makes it work is best . L7\--4 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 51 Councilman Johnson : I think the lack of stuff in that intersection has people going everywhere. They don ' t know where they' re supposed to be. One thing , what Bill ' s got me thinking about is to widened what you've ' got in red there by making the big green island a little narrower. In other words, take the northern side of the big green island . If you' re going to extend the point a little, you can actually give yourself a ' bigger separation if you could move over so your little thin red curve could actually be a little bigger by narrowing the island a little bit so down here you' ll have a bigger . . . Pull that side in a little and widened it that way a little where they can see the separation. They' ll ' have distinct traffic lanes to travel in and also , if you ' re going to be extending that top turning point, that gives you a better. Is there any benefit in extending the southern or the bottom turning point up to better channelize it? Gary Ehret : The problem with doing that comes into your left turn. ' Councilman Johnson: We definitely have to slow those people down there. Councilman Boyt : The whole idea is not to slow them down. ' Councilman Johnson: The people making the left turn we have to slow down. Councilman Boyt : I ' ll buy that but it' s designed so the people coming from the south go to the west and they get there with a smooth flow. No stopping . Just slide right on through. Councilman Johnson : But the people coming from the west turning to the east aren ' t slowing down because it ' s just a wide open shot for them, ' they' re just shooting right across there so we need something to slow them down. If they don' t slow down for the railroad bridge on TH 101 down on the south side, you know the people around here need something to slow them down . Mayor Hamilton : Maybe you can take those ideas and bring them back. We' ll be on this all night. ' Gary Ehret : I guess what ' s important is that it ' s a very difficult intersection because of the way of the movements and we' re trying to ' accomodate MnDot but more specifically the traffic that they want to accomodate. We will work with staff and MnDot again to see if there are any other approaches that we can try to come up with here. Councilman Horn : I think the only thing to keep in mind is the ease of the snowplow, trying to get trucks that can turn and to make it as simple as possible without putting more garbage into the street. ' Gary Ehret: This one I 'm not sure, the no parking and the stop signs. I 'm not sure how much of a concern those are to the Council . Maybe I ' could just briefly go through those. This again illustrates the TH 101 route. We've reviewed this also with MnDot at considerable length. nyA.A •, City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 52 What they are trying to accomplish on this stretch of roadway is taking 1111111 the north to eastbound traffic and the south to eastbound traffic. At two lanes that accomodate that traffic , through the Great Plains intersection and at that point merging them into one eastbound lane which this condition is basically what you have today. One lane each direction. I believe you have parking on the south side. They have taken a very clear position on the stop signs on that corner that they will not permit them. If that is of concern, the Council , or the HRA or whoever , if would advise us as such, I can let you know what it is we have to do to pursue that further but they had to this point taken a very clear stand on that. There will not be stop signs there. Another concern that we've been made aware are the pedestrian movements in that area. What you have right now, we were not able to stripe any crosswalks in there at all. We don' t have any pedestrian marking signs. What we will be doing in the spring is clearly marking on the pavement, crosswalks on both sides of the street. We have talked to MnDot, they will permit pedestrian crossing signs both at the crossing and in advance on each direction. We can do that for the pedestrian crossing movements . Mayor Hamilton: It needs to be east/west on Great Plains also. Gary Ehret: Oh yes. We've got some signage yet to go up that I think will help a little bit. Somebody I saw had tacked a homemade sign up Ell relative to the cross traffic not stopping. If that' s no problem, that ' s something I can address . Mayor Hamilton : It' s certainly a problem when you take the signs down and you don' t tell anybody you' re doing it. That ' s something you'd think MnDot would have enough brains to figure that out in advance. That if you take down the stop signs and you don't tell anybody that you' re taking them down, pretty soon everybody is banging into each other. That was the dumbest thing I ever saw. Gary Ehret : I 'm not sure how that could have been handled better but I have no doubt it could have been handled better. Mayor Hamilton : I 've seen other places when you do something like that you put a flag up with a sign saying that cross traffic does not stop any longer . YOu've got to call people' s attention to it . Councilman Horn: The homemade sign was obviously the answer to that. ' Councilman Johnson : I think almost everybody that uses that intersection almost got clobbered there until the first couple times they did that. In fact , I even came to a stop and then the guy behind me, hey there ain' t no stop sign there. Mayor Hamilton : Where you' ve got your two lanes coming in there, it would seem to me that you would want to merge them sooner. Where you 've got the yield sign down on the turn, where you' re going southeast. Let them merge immediately and then you've got a lane for making a left hand turn. There ' s a lot of left hand turn traffic going onto Great Plains. I ' , City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page �z I It would make a lot more sense to make left hand turn traffic and have one lane continuing east. Gary Ehret : We wouldn' t accomplish that if we moved these two together into one lane. Mayor Hamilton : Why not? Councilman Johnson: You merge to the right. Gary Ehret: Oh, designating this as a left turn lane and merge everybody. That' s a possibility. In fact, our original submittal to MnDot, that is what we did before they pulled markers and everything. They came back and said they didn' t want that but that' s something , if you' re interested in, I 'd be happy to pursue that with them again. Mayor Hamilton: That' s a big traffic. You've got Kenny's over there. ' You've got 3 or 4 stores over there that people turn to go into . They park in there to go across the street to Pauly' s so there ' s a lot of traffic . Gary Ehret : I think that' s a good idea and that' s something we. . . Councilman Horn: I 'd sure like to hear MnDot' s logic for not doing it that way. Gary Ehret : I 'm not sure other than I guess in the way they look at things, they' re not necessarily looking at or are concerned with movements in other areas . What they' re looking at is the person who wants to get onto eastbound TH 101 and move or the guy who' s coming north and wants to go through. As far as they' re concerned , everybody ' is heading east on TH 101. I guess I 'm not going to speak for them other than to say, I 'd be happy to go back and talk to them about the idea of a left turn lane. ' Harry Pauly: I 'd just like to make a comment . I think speed is the big factor on that stretch of TH 101 there. Those cars are going near 40 mph and some of them even faster . I think you' re going to have to make a survey or something to slow that traffic down. YOu talk about not having these stop signs . To let that traffic go but that ' s one way of cutting down the speed if you have a stop sign. It is really excessive ' in that interchange. But they did have, like you were saying on that marking that for a left turn onto Great Plains , there was a similar mark on the other side coming west . It merges to one lane there and a double lane on the north side of that intersection. That' s the way it was marked last fall . Now I don ' t know why that couldn ' t be done the same thing on the west side of that intersection. Merging that into one lane like that. That sounds like a sensible solution, at least to turning traffic. Another thing that possibly could be put up there to slow the traffic would be a blinking amber . That would be some kind of a warning device at least that there' s a crosswalk there. These people going by, it' s unbelieveable the speed that they' re traveling at . I tell you, just stand there and watch them for a while. 94 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 54 Mayor Hamilton : I agree with you Harry. I 've noticed that too . They' re going by there like crazy and we probably need to get the deputies out there to do a little radar patrol to get them to slow down. , Harry Pauly: At least if they weren' t issuing tickets but at least find out how fast some of those cars are going by. Of course, if there' s a squad car sitting there, they won ' t do it. Gary Ehret: I think Mr. Pauly has a very valid concern. I 've had several people tell me that. We pursued with MnDot the idea of a couple ' different things . Just the pedestrian crossing markings. The school crossing markings and a blinking school light or flashing amber . When you get into any kind of signalized blinking situation here, they have very specific warrant criteria that they apply to that and they have again, made it very clear that this intersection does not meet the warrants for flashing signals. It doesn' t mean they can' t be there if we attempt to pursue it but they've taken a very firm position on it. I think we would be very hard pressed to get them even though they may be warranted . The criteria that MnDot sets up for those kinds of issues will not be met here, I can tell you that. ' Councilman Horn : I think we should wait to get any tougher until we get our plans in place for TH 5. Then we' ll get them out to talk about it. Gary Ehret : Any other questions? I think if there are no other questions, what I 'd like to do is have Jim Lasher briefly go into the last couple of items on our agenda . , Jim Lasher : I 've got the short end of the agenda here. I 'm here to talk a little bit about Heritage Park update. A couple of things that we've been drawing and looking at with that and a presentation of some ideas that we've come up . Purely ideas generated by discussions with ourselves and staff concerning a possible look at the rear facade of the Pony' s/Pauly' s/Pryzmus building . I think this spring we' re going to start into about $250, 000. 00 to $300,000. 00 worth of urban design elements . Landscaping , lighting and as you know, we've got two months to do it in. It's going to go very fast. Apparently landscaping crews bring on 3 or 4 separate crews . They' re going to try and work a couple of different shifts. It ' s just fly in and fly out. I 'm supposedly going to start flying around the country and approving vegetation prior to it's shipment here so when the trees do get to this point, there will be no approval process based on that. Eveything will be preapproved once it's brought in. I will be in Indiana and Illinois , all at the contractor ' s expense. He knows that it costs him a lot of money to ship trees to here and have me say I want this one, I ' ll take this one so we' re going to get that all out of the way this winter and try to expediate this as much as possible. One of the other things that we'd like to talk about and present Heritage Park as it appears now is not a good scenario of what it will look like when it' s completely done. Councilman Horn : While you' re on the tree issue, do we have a species � of tree that won 't be killed by all the road salt? ' City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 55 Jim Lasher : Yes , generally the species that we' ve picked out are all salt tolerant. We are having some mendents put into the soil which is ' just generally an acidic process they' re using in most cities now in California that helps the first couple years of getting itself acclimated because there will be some salt put on and it ' s highly susceptible at the beginning . We' re going to put some sulphur in the ' ground to make it a little bit more of an acidic soil process when they go in and then after a certain period of time, once it gets established in it' s own soil , that will help it out but we have picked , hopefully, ' the most salt tolerant species we can in shurbs and trees. Councilman Horn: It seems we plant them in the summer and kill them in the winter. ' Councilman Johnson : I 'd like to ask a question that' s sort of re-laced to the trees. At the recent League of Cities conferences , several people had the items showing a root guard system that protects streets, sidewalks and stuff, from the roots. Where you sink this in. It usually has a watering system designed around it and things like that. ' Are some of those speced for here too? Jim Lasher : No. There is nothing speced in that scenario. What the guarding system works real well in an urban condition where we don' t have infiltration from the top. We've got this completely sodded so we have to do protection literally 360 degrees all the way around it in order to have it. That is a wonderful system for an urban scenario ' where they've got concrete all the way around the trees. It works fantasticly. In this scenario , it would be an extremely expensive process that probaby wouldn' t do us an awful lot of good in our scenario ' right now but it is a good point . This is a drawing that I prepared this past week to show final design of construction as Heritage Park will be built and hopefully completed in the early spring/late fall . As you can see, we' re showing off the whole scenario with the building to ' show off the side facade as well as the face. The associated materials will be 6 wooden benches and a series of planters for annuals and a series of areas for annual plantings along the entry wall . There is a ' detailed ornamental fence that will be going in along the entries into the plaza that mirror the existing metal that is going along next to the existing St. Hubert ' s church. It' s kind of a copy detail . Then there is light fixtures, three which are located within the plaza itself. One ' in the front and two in the back here. Other associated elements are up lighting to light the wall and vegetation as is presently planned . Two small spotlights that are going to light the base of this building here and two spotlights that go shooting up and lighting just the face of St. Hubert' s church. The whole area is basically going to glow from the outside in in the evening . We purposedly did not light any of the interior spaces but lit all of the surrounding areas to create more of an ambient light in a center with task lighting on the edges . One thing that has come up in discussions with staff and some local townspeople is the possibility of doing a mural on the side of this existing building ' that's next to Hertiage Park. At this time I 'd like to introduce Herb and hear some of his thoughts on this mural . He originally had some C City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 56 conversations about it . Herb Bloomberg : I don' t know if you know that Chanhassen Dinner Theater had a London Theater Tour three times last fall . We made the third trip over there and it happened that we went up to York and off to Edinburgh, Scotland and everytime we get to London we also go to Copengarden. I think most people know that Copengarden , of course where Lize Doolittle and My Fair Lady come from. But in the previous year they had torn down the building and there' s a big stone, brick wall , bare. Last year I came back and I was so surprised to see this mural on that plain wall . In the upper right hand corner this pink structure in there is strictly a mural . It' s so real . I thought, as I 've driven in town and looked at the side of the Pauly building and was thinking what a place for a mural because there's a lot of history in that building. When we moved out ' here 30 years ago, Dutch Pauly was operating, he was Post Master and the Post Office was in the back end of the building and some of that would be an interesting mural design could show the entrance to the Post Office and Dutch Pauly in the years and so forth. The front was a grocery store and I think it would really be interesting to see what we could do with that with just an interesting paint job but I 'm not sure it' s possible. ' Councilman Horn : I like the idea of incorporating some Chanhassen history in this. Jim Lasher : As we take a look at this , obviously I 'm not trying to present any specific idea here, only to show you that the options are very great to pain a mural . It' s approximately 1,000 square feet. The building right now is about 70 by 12 1/2. It would run pretty much the length of the entire building . One thing that it would help do is help to create another sense of dimension in this somewhat small area. If we could provide a one point perspective that receeded into this building and possible show some old building areas and signage and maybe some people, it could create a whole other animated dimension that would really help the whole area take off. So that was the few things I wanted to talk about in the Hertiage Park area . Don Ashworth: If I could make a quick point because we' re talking about the Pauly building . One of the issues again was the turning of the building and the question as to how that may lay out as far as the exposed aggragate and the parking area and all the rest . We have not had an opportunity to meet with the property owners , Harry Pauly, John Pryzmus , Kallsted regarding what we may do and work with them as a part of their buildings in this whole area but it became quite obvious in looking at this that we in fact have changed their front door to their backside or their backside now becomes their front door. So as a part of some of the questions regarding the turning of that building , which by the way is in perspective in this drawing. Jim in fact has turned it as a part of what you see there. He' s trying to relay some design concepts for that whole area. Again, we have not talked with Harry and we do need to do that before we would look at anything more specific. , Jim Lasher: If I could give everybody a copy of some of the ideas that ICity Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 57 lir- /we just generated in-staff, in-house, to just take a quick look at the back of the Pauly' s/Pony' s/Pryzmus building. The first page that you' re looking at inside is the existing conditions board . A couple of things I that already exist. The existing conditions right now of the buildings and we' ve basically got a scenario of irregular heights which adds to -the somewhat complex nature of the look of it. We've got an - " =incons'istent-surface treatment with some woods and concrete and some I h =3tieta1- _stai'rs:' :_A'�coupIs facilities that possibly'aia not -needed anymore, the incinerator area . Some of the inappropriate facilities would be =1_c eiiis"'vv'4rhead =Z}z-ne which -apparently- is- going to'be -removed coma I --springtime when NSP does their work in this area. Just the general area as it stands right now is kind of a hodge podge, not necessarily all -tied together and now we've really made this a center focal point of driving into the downtown. The first concept that we looked at roughly Iwas the scenario of providing a trellis , an enclosure that would consistently run all the way along the tops of the buildings. What this does is it provides a 'consistent height and makes the whole structure I seem uniform. If you look at the section in this area, you can see that it ' s just a standard post construction with a trellis area going over the top. This could be a weather proof scenario that would provide for I walking underneath this canopy. There could be lighting up in this area that would provide somewhat of a glow in the evening . We could have some plant material located in the base. Just a quick general idea to see what one concept would look like with a covering. From that point I we go to another concept called false facades . It kind of plays off what Herb was talking about. What we do is go through and build two or three canopy areas overtopping the existing doorways as they exist now I and then go back through and detail a design, certain pieces like an additional group structure which is presently on the front of the building like this , we'd put it on the back. An additional piece here I that kind of creates a small overhange as it exists now. Possibly adding a little bit more of a story to this. What we ' re doing is just kind of creating an old western kind of a theme here with building faces and windows and all of this would be painted with the exception of 2 or I ` -3--canopy areas that are located on the plan in this area . One thing that the stairs do provide, you can look at them as a positive element just by saying it provides a vertical circulation. We could paint some Ipeople on the side of the wall next to the stairs as if they were walking up all the time. These open up a lot of different scenarios for possibilities of use. We call that one a false facade. The last one is a pure mural where we take the entire building and put a stain coat of I .: White stucco" over the top of it and go through and do an elaborate - perspective sketch that would go from A to Z as far as what we could _: .have. Ranging ftom the historic into some kind of modernistic I statement.' -It could literally be anything and 'I and it 'just goes to show that just a series of repainting of an area and giving it a series - --of similar colors that stretch from one side to the other can really unify something that appears to be adhoc right now. I 'm here to present 14— these- ideas -just as ideas but I 'm also here to solicit- any kind of - comments or ideas that you folks may have about what could happen to this area if we do continue to work on this type of design. ICouncilman Horn: I would say it should look consistent with our model. 98 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 58 Jim Lasher : So that leads us back to more of a constructed element of a trellis possibly where we would stick with the wood materials, the soft elements . Councilman Horn : I think a good place for the mural , the corner where you've got a bare wall and if you look at it you should see some impact and that makes sense but I can' t imagine a mural with people walking up the stairs. Mayor Hamilton: I think before we do much else, we' re going to have to talk to the property owners to see what they'd like to do. I 'm not going to sit here and comment without knowing what they would like to do. ' Jim Lasher : We' re here just to broach the topic and let people know that this is something that as a group, we thought of. Councilman Horn : Has Harry seen these before? Don Ashworth: I don' t think that he 's seen any of them. Do you want to give a first impression Harry? Harry Pauly: Just a first impression. . . John Pryzmus : I 'd like to comment that you made the front of our buildings the back and the back the front, so now do you propose to put our garbage in the front or where do we put our garbage if we' re going to make our front the back? Jim Lasher : We 've got some detailed areas in the parking lot layout. ' John Pryzmus: And with the addition of all the building that goes on, we don' t have any parking back there now so that will be one problem but just a little food for thought. Being that you cost me $267, 000. 00 tonight when you voted me down, possibly you could give me that much money to fix up my building and I ' ll be happy to go along with you guys. Councilman Boyt : I would like some assurance that whatever we agree to designwise, if there's a change that it will be clearly highlighted . What sort of things are you doing to insure that that will happen in the future? Jim Lasher : They will be clearly highlighted as far as what elements are actually going to be built? Councilman Boyt : We ' re provided with a great deal of information and it turns out that any one part of it that changes can have a surprising impact on the rest of it . There have been changes that I didn ' t know were changes until I saw them. I 'm wanting to know, what are we going to do to prevent that in the future. ' Jim Lasher : I think during the construction phase, honestly in what 1 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 59 ' we' ve done already, changes sometimes have to occur immediately to finish the project. Other times changes occur at a staff level directing us to make a change based on other input . Sometimes changes ' occur from design development to construction documents . Councilman Boyt : Let ' s go to the old Town Hall since that ' s the change that caught many people's attention. You tell me what was it that were the objectives that turned that Town Hall? Jim Lasher: The four main objectives to turn the Town Hall are one, to ' create a sense of depth for the building. If you put the building on a flush condition, the building is a front without a side or a back. The pretense of moving the building on it' s edge now gives the building an entire body. When you walk into the plaza from generally any angle, you ' will perceive a minimum of two sides of the building. This being the building right here. Allowing entry from the front, we are not only seeing the face of the building from this edge, we are now seeing the ' depth. One of the more interesting aspects of this building as with most of these buildings is their proportion and how intimate their proportion is from front to side. This is a two-thirds/one-thirds scenario which is usually the way it works . That is something that generally does not occur any longer. They just don' t build buildings in this scale so that was one of the elements that we tried to bring out of the building. The other access is along the backs of these buildings. Now, by turning the building on it ' s edge, we allow a glimpse of the front facade as well as the side so now we have a two side view from this and a two side view from this . That was the main point for ' turning the building. To try and express it ' s volume as much as possible and create a sense of depth in this area . Councilman Boyt: To give a two side perspective? ' Jim Lasher : Right, and not just a frontal view or a side view which you would have had here with no sense at all of what the face of the ' building looked like. The face of the building is truly one of the most beautiful aspects of the building and by pushing it up and just showing you the side, we' re really not giving people a sense of what this is all ' about here. By twisting it now and you can walk back there and look at it, you can actually see the front of the building from this sidewalk in the back. First scenario. Gary Ehret: I think the key element that you' re after is that we've become more sensitive to aesthetical issues , in particular a change the Council is not made aware of. I think the key to that is that we try to ' work more closely with staff or to come back maybe a little bit more often just to let you know what it is we' re doing and where we' re going . At least that ' s my sense. Councilman Boyt : I'm not sure what the answer is . That' s what I 'm asking you for. I can tell you that this was a surprise to me and I only have myself to blame. Now what I want to know is , how can I avoid ' that in the future? So far, I haven' t got a lot of confidence that I 'm going to avoid it in the future and if I don' t have confidence, then I 'm A 00 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 60 not going to spend money to have somebody do something for me. That ' s what it all comes down to. So you've given me three objectives. You said the depth for the building . You wanted to show that. You wanted to show the design features of the building and you wanted to provide a two sided perspective. Because of that , you put the building on an angle to what had historically been the main street. Jim Lasher : There are two more scenarios after that. Do you want me to continue with this? Councilman Boyt : I really do. This is helpful to me to know what ' objectives. - Jim Lasher : By turning the building on an angle as well , we've number one been able to push the building farther back to create a larger volume here and we have not had such an encroachment which is now a driving lane to the edge of this building. If we straighten the building, this edge would have been quite close to this roadway condition. When we originally did the design, the parking lot actually has changed in design twice since we did the original concept. We've added much more parking in the back than we originally had and so now we 've had to do something with this space that' s gotten smaller . Originally this space extended all the way down. So those are the three basic reasons why we turned the building at an angle. Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question to follow up on that. What you' re saying to is that you never had that building facing West 78th Street? 1 Jim Lasher : No , what I said is we moved it because of those three reasons. The building was straight at a point when the parking lot was in a different scenario of design. Once we decided that this parking lot was going to change in configuration, we' re going to have a driving lane here, we came out and reviewed the structure and the historics of this building, at that point in time the decision was made to move it. Presentation was made twice with the tilted building on a drawing that I think presently is up in Don Ashworth's office that showed the building at an angle as well as the construction documents . ' Councilman Boyt: So then originally all this business about depth and showing two sides didn ' t play a factor but when the parking lot changed , these now became factors and we ended up with this? Jim Lasher : I supposed . Councilman Boyt : I mean originally you had it fronting on the street , right? Jim Lasher : Yes , originally I had it pulled much farther back. What happened is, once it was pulled back you could make this view and see the front side of the building. Once the parking lot changed , we had to slide the building up this way farther to create space here. 1 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 61 1 [ - I Councilman Boyt : So the parking lot was the driving force behind this change? ' Jim Lasher : The parking lot was the driving force behind , this driving lane specifically right here was the driving force. We had to get enough space between the edge of that curb and the edge of the building to make this a safe area. Councilman Boyt : I know it much sound like I 'm berating you. I 'm not trying to do that. I just want to know what your objectives were and to ' say that I hope we figure out a way so I can be smarter next time. Don Ashworth: For all of us to learn more out of this, you had a preliminary design that was in a rough stage. After that you authorized plans and specifications . The error that was made is in the preparation ' of plans and specifications , the change was not highlighted as it came back to City Council . Therein lies the crux of the problem. I think we had a couple of chances to catch it and to the best of my knowledge it ' was really never highlighted to City Council , in defense of the architects and engineers . There were a lot of things that we were doing during that whole timeframe as far as making the whole project area work. I think that this one is one that did catch everyone' s eye and definitely should have been brought to the Council ' s attention saying this has changed as we move from the preliminary design into specific design. L Councilman Boyt : I think it ' s especially pertinent given how much time we spent discussing the clock tower and how little we spent on this. It ' would seem to me, and this is the last thing I ' ve got to say, but it would seem to me that you would want some parallel lines with your building in there and I only see one . What I see there is like a conflict. I 've got those circular sorts of things coming through Hertiage Park and then they run into the rectangular building. Is that the best we can do? Jim Lasher : Based on our interpretation of the area, we wanted to provide number one, by turning the building on this angle we've allowed entrance into the plaza and more of an opening in that spirit along the edge of the church so we do have an angle that ' s consistent and runs straight out to this area . The entire paving pattern was based on the concept that this building sat here for quite a long period of time and this paving is going to be designed to be as if it was there for years ' and years and years. It will not be a new looking scenario. It will be an old looking scenario so these patterns could be a part of a larger picture. That ' s what we tried to emulate in this whole scenario is that this is a much bigger picture here and we' re trying to make this building look as if it has maintained it ' s original site and all the rest was added in after it. Councilman Boyt : You've got a church there that must be 100 years old. Thank you, Jim. Bernie : I have one comment . Where are all the people coming from that are going into the park? You have no crosswalk from the north side and I +`3 City Council Meeting .1 February 8, 1988 - Page 62 people that are going to come into the park apparently will have to come in the back end. It' s the only place they can enter . Mayor Hamilton: Why can' t they cross the street from the north? 1 Bernie: There' s no crosswalk. Mayor Hamilton : There will be a marked crosswalk on both sides . ' Anything else Jim or Gary? Gary Ehret : No. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: I hope we have an early thaw so we can get started early. Gary Ehret : What we hope to accomplish is to touch base ' P ase with the Council and saw we are aware of some problems and your concerns. We' re your consultant so if you have problems , we ' re more than willing to come and talk to you and we wanted to stress that. What we' re trying to do is give you the product you' re looking for . Mayor Hamilton: I think what Bill is saying, he 'd like to have you talk to him before the fact rather than after next time. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS : [I Mayor Hamilton : The Board of Adjustments , all three members expired at the same time I guess. This is an annual appointment. They have all expressed interest in being reappointed . Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to hold all appointments to the Commissions until a unified method of appointment to the Commissions is worked out. That the terms be extended until that can be worked out. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2-2. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I 'm not sure what that ' s going to accomplish. I will not continue to go to meetings. Councilman Boyt: In your particular one, I 'm willin g exclude to ex that but these others , I think what it will accomplish is we've talked about having objectives that our Commissions and Commissioners would qualify under . We haven' t worked those out . I think that we've got some really important commission appointments and to do those, we could extend the current terms. We could extend the current terms until we have that worked out and then we could complete the appointments. I think the commissioners need to know what the objectives are and expectations are of the Council . I think we've got to work those out. Mayor Hamilton : i guess I 'm not convinced that we' re oin to have that going �9 rq City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page E3 ' worked out soon. We have volunteer people who are willing to do the work on the commissions and I guess if you ' re saying you think they' re doing a bad job, then perhaps we should consider not reappointing them. ' However, I don' t feel that' s the case on any of the commissions and I would be more inclined to want to reappoint or appoint the people whose names appear here this evening and continue on with the process of trying to find the best way to handle appointments to the commissions . I guess I 'm still not sure that the way we' re doing it now is not the best. These commissions , some of them at least , I think the way we' re handling them is fine. I think we need to review the whole process. I ' don't disagree with that but I think we need to review it but I 'm not sure how long that's going to take and when it' s going to get started. Then once that ' s complete, we can continue on from that point. ' Councilman Boyt: One of these, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals , that ' s annual . I can understand that one easier than I can understand the ones where we' re appointing people for three years such as the Park and Rec Commission. I think both of those commissioners have done a fine job. I wouldn' t vote against their reappointment but I don' t see the need to do that right away. They both indicated they wanted to ' continue to serve and I think we can tell them this was not intended to reflect on their performances as on our desire to make appointments given some better criteria that we now have. Mayor Hamilton : The Park and Rec is by ordinance I can appoint them with the Council ' s concurrence and I guess those two people have both done a good job and I 'd like to see them continue on there. I see no reason not to do that. Councilman Horn : I ' ve heard two alternatives and I 'd like to propose a third. One of the things that we have to do in business , is we always ' have to post positions when it ' s available and it seems to me we've taken that position for Planning Commission. Whether a term expires or not, we always post it for the position. I think we should be ' consistent in that policy and I would suggest that while people who have been on there would certainly get a very favorable rating, we shouldn' t rule out the possibility of giving others a chance to show interest for these positions. Who knows, we may be able to stock them into another position where we can' t get candidates . I would be in favor of advertising for all of the positions , all of the appointments and then making our selection from all of the interested people but I don ' t think ' we should delay the selection process before we set our criteria because, as Tom said , that will take too long . Councilman Boyt: I think we have another issue here about sort of confidence with the community. If we have two people that we think are doing a good job, to go out and turn up a list of 18 people who are interested in that job is doing a disservice to those 18 people. They are going through the application/interview process when they' re probability of being appointed is very low. I don' t know that we' re helping ourselves or them by doing that. Councilman Horn: Are we masking that? Are we masking the fact that I City Council Meeting � - February 8, 1988 - Page 64 three of the encumbants are also applying? Councilman Boyt: I don' t know that we' re including that in our advertisement but maybe we should . Say there are two openings and both encumbants are reapplying. i Mayor Hamilton : The openings for the Park and Rec were advertised in all the local newspapers and there were no responses. Councilman Boyt : One time. Mayor Hamilton: How many times do we need to do it? ' Councilman Boyt : I can recall not long ago when we ran it for a couple of months. So I don 't know what the limit is but I 'm not convinced that there aren ' t people in the community that wouldn ' t be interested in serving on that commission. Mayor Hamilton : As I recall the Planning Commission was run more than once because no one applied the first time and we were going to have two vacancies. They were commission members who ' s terms expired and they did not wish to be reappointed so we needed to find someone to take those vacancies . So the first time there were no applicants , the next time we expanded our horizons to get into the Post and the Villager I think was in operation at that time so we put it into all the newspapers and did have some response. i suspect some of the councilmembers were out asking people to apply as well and that generated more people. Councilman Horn: We run it as many times as it takes to get the 1 positions filled . If we run it the first time and all we get are the incumbents, we've done our job. The incumbents get reappointed . Councilman Boyt : In this particular case, I think the feeling was that the incumbents were doing a good job and I don' t think we made a sincere effort to turning up candidates . I couldn ' t justify making an effort to turn up candidates . Councilman Horn : I think that you've suggest when we do advertise we spell out how many positions we' re looking for and how many incumbents are reapplying . Then we at least haven ' t misled anyone. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's fine. It' s important that we go through the review process . We' re kind of starting at midstream if we attempt to do it now. We start the process and then we are going to need to sit down and figure out exactly how we want to do this . How many times do you advertise? If one isn' t enough for you, than we' re going to have to spell that out clearly so staff can have something to follow. I think we just talked about that here about 24 hours ago. We need to give them some clear direction as to how many times should they advertise. ,Lori has followed what has been done previously in advertising once so now we' re saying we should advertise more than that . I think to follow some procedures and find out what papers we should advertise in. How many times we should do it. How many applicants do you have to have before City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page E5 ' it ' s enough. We need to spell all those things out . Councilman Boyt: Let me follow up once more. The other thing that I can consistently say at this time is we ought to interview these people. ' Before we appoint them, even when they' re incumbents , we ought to bring them in here and discuss with them the job as they see it and we see it. Mayor Hamilton: I 'm not going to disagree with you but that' s part of the process that we've been talking about doing and putting in place. It ' s not in place now. It's like having an ordinance. If you don' t have an ordinance in place, you' re just going to fish around and say let's try this for right now and see how that works until we get our ordinance in place. It ' s the same thing . ' Councilman Boyt: We have a precedence of interviewing people for these positions and not interviewing people for these positions . Mayor Hamilton: So there isn ' t any precedence then is there? Councilman Horn moved , Councilman Boyt seconded to advertise for all of the positions for all of the commissions and as soon as we have received enough candidates to fill the vacant positions , we choose the candidates in the manner that we 've done in the past until we have a new procedure in place excluding the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. ' Councilman Boyt : I would like to consider amending this to remove the Park and Rec from that particular process . ' Councilman Horn : Why should they be any different? Councilman Boyt: Because we 've advertised that one but we haven' t advertised the others and we have two incumbents we ' re happy with . Mayor Hamilton: Then I guess it becomes a question of how many times do you advertise which we don' t have a policy to follow. Councilman Johnson: After we approve his motion, we could assign Park and Rec because it has been advertised and we have enough candidates . Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Mayor ' Hamilton ' s recommendation to appoint Jim Mady and Larry Schroers to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and motion carried . Mayor Hamilton : Seeing how your motion covered all of the other three, I will state again that I will not be attending Southwest Metro Transit Commission meetings so if one of you would like to attend those in my 1 place, you' re welcome to do so but I won' t be there. 106 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 66 Councilman Boyt : Do we need a councilmember on there? I Mayor Hamilton: Dale is on there. Currently we have two people. They do not both need to be councilpeople . An at-large person . It could be anybody. Councilman Boyt : Do we have anybody that would off-hand be active and involved in that kind of issue. Councilman Horn: I' ll sit in on it until we get somebody, before we advertise. ' Jo Ann Olsen : It' s the same night as the HRA. Councilman Horn: That could be a little tough. Barbara Dacy: Except this March it would be different because the HRA' s meeting is on the 24th. , Councilman Horn: Are you willing to do that Jay? Councilman Johnson: Sure. I think we have one councilmember on and I 'd , like to see an at-large person on there. Somebody who rides the bus . The other thing that I 'd like to bring up is the option of the Boards of Adjustment and Appeals of making the Board of Adjustments and Appeals the City Council which I believe is a legal action to do. Have us as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Horn: We 've talked about being the HRA. We've talked about being the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. This weekend we talked about not having time to review our packets. Councilman Johnson : We review all of these anyway because they' re in our packets already. What we' re doing is having two groups going out and studying the same issue. As soon as they make their decision, if it comes to us a half hour later and we have to be able to make a decision also so we' re already going out and doing all the research and doing everything else and coming to our own opinion. Sometimes that' s wasted because they vote unanimously and it goes on by if no councilmember objects. Councilman Horn: But you shouldn' t have to do that because they always 1 stick around for our part of the meeting and tell us what their criteria was and give us that information. In fact , with one of the councilmembers on there, we get the benefit of everything that they've done. I don ' t think we need to research those as thoroughly as the Board people do. Mayor Hamilton : All three of those members are to be councilmembers , ' then we might just as well not have it. What' s the sense? Councilman Johnson: In some cities , the Board of Adjustments and ' Appeals is the City Council . 11 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 67 Ir IMayor Hamilton : That ' s fine . In a lot of cities , the HRA is the Council also. I 'm just saying, it makes no sense to me to have the ' councilmembers be on the Board of Adjustments . We have three people, one councilmember is on that board and the other two are independent outside people and I think that gives a different perspective to some of those issues. That's probaby one of the basic things that we should get ' ironed out . Councilman Boyt : I guess as long as we've worked out, and I think we ' have, a councilmember can take anything the Board of Adjustment and Appeals passes and put it on the agenda . I 'm pleased to have 3 other people involved in the process. I gather we've worked out the ability ' to do that. Mayor Hamilton: I 'm not sure if we have or not. Maybe Roger can answer that. ' Roger Knutson: Your ordinance says that anyone that has agreed to a decision. . . ' Councilman Boyt : I think it ' s important that we get the word to the people who we' re advertising the positions for, who are currently in those positions , that we would like them to not interpret this as a vote of no confidence. Is that okay with the rest of the Council? I think we need to tell them something . ' Councilman Johnson: I totally agree with that. That it' s more of procedural thing and that we felt that advertising the positions should be routinely done and those positions that haven ' t been advertised as of ' yet should be advertised and has no reflection upon them. Councilman Boyt: The other point that I 'd like to ask Tom about , because I expect you basically are the driving force behind the Public ' Safety Commission . I 'd like to see that commission expanded . What do you think? I ' ll give you some reasons for why I think it' s a good idea but I 'd really like to know what you think about the possibility. I ' think they have a tremendously big job. We 've got some seasoned veterans on there but I 'd like to see a bigger group . Mayor Hamilton: Any of them can get bigger but no matter how big you make any commission or group that' s trying to accomplish something , the more people you have the harder it is to get anything done. Councilman Boyt: More chance for input . Mayor Hamilton : And the longer it takes to accomplish anything. It just keeps getting longer and longer and more and more. You could have 30 people on there if you wanted. We'd just sit there forever and try to decide something or you can have 5 or 6, whatever ' s on there now. I think it' s an effective group. I could see going to maybe 7 at the very ' most. Very most . 108 City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page 68 Councilman Boyt : How about 7? This would be a good opportunity if we wanted to do that. Councilman Johnson : Would that take an ordinance amendment? Don Ashworth: If you want to pursue that, staff should be directed to. . . Councilman Boyt moved , Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to consider an ordinance amendment to increase the number on the Public Safety Commission to seven. All voted in favor and motion carried . Mayor Hamilton: Why do you think that needs to be done? Councilman Johnson : I 'm just saying consider . Mayor Hamilton: I 'm asking Bill why he thinks it needs to be done. ' Councilman Boyt : I think when we look at issues like everything from the no hunting zone to whether or not we need a fire truck. We've asked the Public Safety Commission to do a great deal of research for us and they've done it. The possibility to have 1 or 2 more people working on that, I think is a good opportunity for those people and I think it ' s sort of a gain with no loss. Maybe we lose a little efficiency. Maybe. I guess that ' s basically it. I 'd just like the opportunity to get some more people working on those issues. Something to think about. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS : Councilman Johnson: There was a point in our Subdivision Ordinance as a proposed recodified version. It reads the same way but I 'm reading out of there. It talks about private driveways accessing highways , arterials , or collector streets. Where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway, arterial or collector street , there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such highways or streets . The intent of this is not terribly clear when it says individual lots. Does this mean that if you combine a driveway and have two lots and you have one private driveway onto a collector or arterial, that that is acceptable by this because two driveways are shared or does that driveway still say we have an access from those two individual lots? So this means when we subdivision TH 101, as an example , when we subdivide any of these places , just on Kerber Blvd . , that if they want a private driveway onto the street, they need a variance. If there ' s a hardship, they get the variance. They get the driveway. In the past, we've been trying to get them to put the driveways together . I really think if there isn ' t a hardship and they could possibly put a private street, the intent of this is to limit driveways and to put streets . My feeling of the intent. What I want to get is the feeling of the other councilmembers of what they thought the intent here was . Was that to limit driveways and only allow private City Council Meeting February 8 , 1988 - Page E9 streets or if you combine the driveway into two of them? To me it seems ' that we could either way. It ' s very poorly worded. ' Roger Knutson : Just to point out by definition. When you have two houses sharing a drive way to the street, that is to a public street, that shared driveway is by definition a private street under your ordinance. ' Councilman Johnson : Okay. The ordinance only says direct vehicular access from individual lots. ' Councilman Horn: I can tell you where the response to that came from. It was to not have what happened in Eden Prairie along TH 101. ' Barbara Dacy: I think the issue you' re trying to approach the Council on, unfortunately some of the other members have not seen the specific case that this issue came up on . ' Councilman Johnson: That' s why I wanted to get their opinion before the specific came up. ' Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission did note to staff that they wanted to look at that section in a little more detail based on the action on that case . That case will be brought to the attention of the Council on the February 22nd meeting. Councilman Johnson : Which I won ' t be at . Anyway, there is a specific ' case on Lake Minnewashta Blvd. that has prompted me to be researching this where it could be theoretically feasible. I think the intent of it is to try and limit the drives. Somehow this should get reworded to where it' s clear . That ' s my intent. I don ' t think we should have ' people who are individuals, their driveway, whether their driveway happens to be shared with somebody else, it ' s still that individual ' s driveway or however you want to say it, there should be a street ' accessing a collector or arterial not a driveway. Mayor Hamilton: I think if you want to pursue this you ought to get ' your information up. Councilman Johnson : I wanted to get everybody' s opinion. ' Mayor Hamilton: I can' t give you it tonight. I don' t know what you' re talking about. I want to see something that I can deal with. Councilman Johnson: What do you think the intent of this paragraph is? Mayor Hamilton : I don ' t know. I haven ' t even read the paragraph. Councilman Johnson: Would you like to? Mayor Hamilton : No, not right now. Not at 20 minutes to 12:00. If you ' want to put that on as an agenda item for the next meeting or for whenever you' re here the next time, then we can give you an answer . i City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 70 Councilman Johnson : i guess I 'm popping it too quickly on you. Mayor Hamilton: You' re doing the same thing we ask developers and other people not to do and that' s to give us information at the last minute and ask our opinion. Councilman Johnson: This part was written before I was here, I thought you guys may have had some experience in writing it. Councilman Boyt : I think what you've done is you've said you'd like ' further consideration on this item and I 'd certainly be willing to look at it and we can get together and talk about it. Councilman Johnson: Another one would be to ask staff to look into the background of it and if the intent is to limit access to arterials to be streets only, then state that. Access shall be by public streets or private streets up to public street standards. A private street being one gravel driveway, I don' t think should be counted as a private street. Don Ashworth: YOu' re going to be writing this up anyway, I heard you say Barbara, for that February 22nd meeting? ki Barbara Dacy: It is in relation to a Planning Commission matter that will be at the City Council meeting . MAILING DISTRICT UPDATE/SURVEY RESULTS TO DATE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. ' Todd Gerhardt: I think it ' s pretty laid out here on what is attached . Everybody that has responded with a yes/no vote. Not attached to those are the people that have not responded . It is open until Friday for people to respond to this survey. It's stated in the letter so the next City Council meeting we' ll have the final results . These are preliminary results. , Councilman Johnson : I think it 's fairly obvious and I want the Council to take a fairly good stand here that the people up on the north side don ' t want anything to do with this and we should convey that to the postal service. Also, it seems that they can do this without asking permission. They could just do this without asking permission . They just do it if they wanted to. I think our people have spoken and I 'd like to show them our appreciation for them to speak to the issue and tell us exactly where they stand. It's pretty darn obvious exactly where they stand . 78% to 22%. Todd Gerhardt: There will be a mailing sent to each individual on the results of the survey. ' Councilman Johnson : On the Chaska side, were there any areas or have we 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 71 done an aerial look at , were any areas near 90%? Todd Gerhardt: In the Minnewashta area? ' Councilman Johnson : In either area . Todd Gerhardt: Red Cedar Point area came in with a high number of ' people who were for it . The Chaska area , the south of Lake Minnewashta area . . .there were 4 people against it out of like 30. You don' t have any real high concentrated . It' s mixed . Councilman Boyt: What' s your next step? Todd Gerhardt: Is to get the results again with Mr . Richter and meet ' with him to show him the results and see how receptive he is with changing the Chaska area percentages . If not , then we come in and try to get some representatives, both from the State and Federal level to ' write letters and see what we can do basically with TH 5. Those people that responded yes, put some pressure on the people at the post office. ' Councilman Johnson: We 've been going around telling these people we needed 90%. We didn' t even come close to that and we' re going to continue pushing this? I Todd Gerhardt: In the Chaska area. Councilman Johnson : In the Chaska area we ' re still 70-30. We ' re still 20% short. Todd Gerhardt : But you have 116 people for it and I think it ' s a pretty diverse group. It wasn ' t a high concentrated in one area that was against it. It was pretty spread out. Councilman Johnson: What I 'm saying is , ethics and what we 've been ' saying , we've published in the paper and we 've said here are the game rules. We don' t meet those criterias . The 30% won and now we' re going to go around behind them and say that , we ' re trying to change the rules ' now. Mayor Hamilton : It depends on what the Post Office says . They may be willing to accept 70%. If they do, then we can go with it. ' Todd Gerhardt : If you remember at that meeting , Commissioner Richter had some flexibility in that 90% afterwards . Al Nelson, the Post Master for ' the Chanhassen , asked him several times , are you flexible and he said , well, let' s see what the results are. At the next meeting we' ll do that. Councilman Johnson : This is better than a 2 to 1 rate. Councilman Boyt: To interpret how I thought how we got into this, was ' we seemed to feel this was an opportunity we wanted the people to decide. They have decided in a sense and now we' re going to the post �ad2 s City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 72 office and saying here ' s our data , what decision do you make? Which is just carrying through in the process we started. Mayor Hamilton : I 've noticed we've had several letters from people in the Minnewashta area saying that they live in Excelsior and don' t want anything to with Chanhassen so I think the next time they have sewer back up or a water break, they ought to call the Excelsior City Hall and see how far they get . ' Councilman Johnson : I think that' s a problem. I really feel bad when somebody tells me that but I think it' s something we need to work on to get them to feel more a part of the city. I don ' t know how to do it though. Mayor Hamilton: I think it' s one of those things we need to talk about ' this weekend. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR TH 5 IMPROVEMENT, CITY PLANNER. Barbara Dacy: I 'm going to yield to Councilman Horn. ' Councilman Horn: Considering the lateness of the hour, the only update that I will add is that the City of Eden Prairie has approved their allocation. Allocations were set up between Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska. Both Chaska and Eden Prairie have approved their allocations. As a matter of fact, Waconia is also contributing . ' Mayor Hamilton : What did Eden Prairie, what was their ' s? Councilman Horn: $50, 000. 00. ' Mayor Hamilton : Why did Chaska only have $20,000.00. Councilman Horn: Because this study really only addresses TH 5 which we' re a direct recepient of that. Mayor Hamilton : But their residents probably use it as much as ours do. Their industrial park certainly uses it as much as anybody in Chanhassen. To double the amount that we were supposed to contribute, all of a sudden, didn 't sit well with me. Councilman Horn : I think I wasn ' t sure of the number when I presented it the last time. I was making an estimate. It wasn' t an allocation , change. It was just a guess estimate on my part. Councilman Johnson: Clark, do you feel that us giving the same as Eden Prairie, a town of 35,000 versus a town of 8, 000, is appropriate? WE have more highway I guess. Councilman Horn : There's a lot of different ways to look at this thing . ' That's one way to look at it. The other way is to who needs it more. City Council Meeting February 8, 1988 - Page 73 We obviously need it more than they do. We' re in the same position on TH 101. Eden Prairie has a need to fix up TH 101 like we do because we have more of our people that use it. Now you could say Waconia needs it ' more than we do because they' re farther out but in effect, they don' t have the same kind of development incentives that we' re looking for right now. To do the kind of things we' re looking to do right now, we need it more than either Eden Prairie or Chaska. That' s a perspective I ' think we need to look at. Councilman Johnson: Unfortunately, I think this is the wave of the ' future of cooperative financing of what in the past has been state and federal workings . Mayor Hamilton: Intergovernmental cooperation. Councilman Horn: I think it' s also interesting the method that Don has approved . Resolution #88-12 : Councilman Horn moved , Mayor Hamilton seconded to ' approve the resolution authorizing $50, 000. 00 to accelerate the studies on TH 5 that would be paid over a two year period of time. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt : It comes out to about $6 . 50 per resident . I can ' t think of thing that we could spend $50, 000.00 on that would be better. Councilman Johnson moved , Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 50 p.m. . Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION x' REGULAR MEETING > FEBRUARY 3, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli. and David Headla 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and James Wildermuth I STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS : ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE CODIFICATION OF ' ORDINANCE NO. 80, THE CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, AND TO CONSIDER REVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 80. Emmings: We ' ll just go through these one at a time, I assume. Headla : Do you have to have a public hearing on each one of these items or how do you work that? Dacy: How about if you just open the public hearing and ask if there is any member present that would like to speak on any of the items 1 (a) through 1 (h) . Emmings: The publing hearing is open and we have one member of the public who is just here to listen. 1 Ellson: From the press . ' Emmings: I think what we should do is let ' s just go through them one by one and we' ll ask if there' s any comments after each one if anybody else shows up. Then we will close the public hearing at the end of all the items . ' Dacy: The first issue that staff would like to present is the codification issue. Enclosed in your packet ' s list, this black book that pulls together all of the City' s ordinances . Your action tonight is concentrating on Chapter 20 or the Zoning Ordinance. It is, in a couple of ways , different than the newspaper version that was originally ' published and approved in February of 1987. I have noted those changes in the report . Tim, before the meeting just brought up an error on page 1174 and I found one on page 1270. Did the Commi.sison find any other of those types of errors or organization or duplication? ' Erhart: Barb, why don' t you assume that there are probably hundreds of errors in a document this large and that those will be cleaned up. Emmings: Is there going to be another draft printed? Dacy: Yes , after the Planning Commission public hearing and the Council 's final approval , there will be correction pages of certain i I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 2 pages that had to be changed. You will receive a supplement probably sometime at the end of March that you will have to remove your old pages and insert the new ones . Emmings: So if we have an opportunity, then we should all try to read through for those kinds of errors and just phone them in to staff. That ' s the best thing to do rather than take time in the meeting . I 'd rather do it that way. Dacy: Maybe in the motion, we' ve suggested a motion there, maybe you would want to add the phrase, something to the effect to correct any oversights that may be detected prior to the Council meeting or something to that effect so we don' t have to go back. Headla : What' s your idea of an oversight? Dacy: I would say those items that are either duplications , misspellings, or typing errors or placement of sections in the wrong place in the ordinance. Headla : Okay, no rewording or anything like that? Dacy: Right. So that' s the first motion that' s proposed. Emmings : There' s no one here from the public to comment , so are there any commissioners here that want to comment? Erhart : Essentially in the past , everything was single, separate pieces of paper? There was nothing tied together in sequence? I Dacy: That ' s correct . We had a series of ordinances from Ordinance No. 1 through Ordinance No . 80. 1 Erhart : So this is the first time it' s been pulled together in a single book. The intention is to constantly update this book as changes are made. Who will have copies of the book? Dacy: These are your permanent copies and if there are any changes, you will be sent corrected pages for you to insert. ' Erhart: Can citizens purchase copies of the book? Is that what it is , a purchasing? Headla : The general public would have to purchase a copy? Ellson: Would there be one for their review like at the library or something? Dacy: Sure, they could always stop upstairs or that ' s a good idea , we should probably keep one on file. Batzli : I think you' re going to have a heck of a time trying to keep II track of what pages are the current pages in the current format. Unless I f Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 3 you start putting revising dates on it or something on the pages , I don't know how you' re going to be able to tell if you ' re looking at the most recent page or not . ' Dacy: From what I understand from the Municipal Code Corporation, when they print the corrected page, sometimes they may have to do, for example, 1221A, B or C and then they will correct the reference that ' s on each page. You' re right, it 's going to be. . . Batzli : What they normally do in a looseleaf book like this though is to keep track of it by year and then the number of amendments that have ' come out. For instance, the first amendment would be labeled right on page 88. 1 or something and I think unless you go to that kind of system, you' re going to have a heck of a time trying to decide if the book is complete or not. That 's not even really relevant to the Planning Commission but I think it' s something you might want to consider . Emmings: He' s absolutely right and we all deal with these in our ' libraries , both Brian and I deal with looseleaf services all the time and it 's a constant struggle to know and be sure that you 've got the latest materials , the up-to-date materials. It ' s not even easy a lot of times when the replacements come in to sort it out. It can be one of the most confusing things known to man. But that ' s part of this anyway. I feel like you did this just because I was finally getting used to using the other set so you wanted, I didn ' t have to ask if things were in the Code anymore or not. Dacy: I appreciate your input because we can relay that to our office ' manager who is going to be in charge of working with this process . Batzli. moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed codification of the Zoning Ordinance as Chapter 20 in the proposed Chanhassen City Code subject to correction of ' typographical errors, duplications and other corrections found by Planning Commissioners . All voted in favor and motion carried . REVISE ARTICLE V, SECTION 5 (5) ( 3) AND ARTICLE V, SECTION 6 (5) (3) TO STATE 125 FEET. Erhart : I thought this went to City Council already? Dacy: It did for discussion purposes just to make sure that they agreed with the Planning Commission . Erhart: So we never actually recommended it? t Emmings: This is to hold the public hearing . Again, for the record , we have no one from the public to comment so we' ll just ask if there are any comments or questions of staff from the commissioners . r Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 4 Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise the lot depth II requirement for single family lots from 150 feet to 125 feet . [Article V, Section 5 (5) (3) and Article V, Section 6 (5) (3) in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XII , Section 20-615 (3) and Article XIII , Section 20-635 (3) ] II in the proposed ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 5, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE FOR ' SETBACKS FOR VARIOUS SIZES OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Emmings : It appears that the City Council had something of a different II idea than we had when we sent it up there. You might just hit that quick for our new commissioners . Olsen: One of the councilmembers felt that if we' re allowing larger I buildings , right now the ordinance allows accessory structures 5 feet from the rear lot line and they felt that the larger accessory buildings shouldn' t be permitted to be only 5 feet away so they asked us to look into a graduated setback. We called around and reviewed what the different sized accessory structures there were and we found that they were either the small accessory structure or the larger 3 car garage and the pole barns. We felt that if we permitted the 5 foot setback for the smaller buildings, that that would be adequate and then increase the setback to 15 feet for the larger buildings . That would satisfy it. To have setbacks for each different size of building would be real confusing to enforce and we felt that this would still satisfy keeping the larger buildings back from the rear lot line and would still be easy to enforce. Emmings : It seems to me that when we had it , before we sent it up to the City Council , that we were concerned about height. Building height II on the accessory buildings . Am I remembering that right? Erhart: We talked about it. Emmings : Did the City Council , were they concerned? Olsen: No , they didn' t discuss it. I think there ' s a 40 foot limit to II the buildings . Dacy: Right now the accessory structure limit is the same as the principle structure and I think that was based on the fact that if you did have a detached garage or something , the same style or manner that the principle building was and I remember when we were going through, that was the basis . Erhart : You ' re saying that the accessory building can not be higher than the principle structure? 1 Dacy: Right. Erhart : So is that in there? , I Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 5 Dacy: Yes. In each of the zoning districts , the accessory structure height limit is the same as the principle structure. ' Emmings : You can ' t build an accessory structure without the principle structure being there. Erhart : You can be higher . You can have a 20 foot high house and a 40 foot high accessory structure. Dacy: Oh yes, okay. Headla : . . . the sheet metal barn on the north side of TH 7? ' Erhart: You've got a 1, 01001 square foot limit here. Headla : You can put a big truck in there. What' s it for , A-2 buffering? Erhart: It ' s 30 by 33 , that ' s not as big as this room. That ' s not real big. I think that fellow was talking about a much bigger building. 1,000 square feet would be approximately the size of this whole room without that portion of it. Wouldn ' t you say Dave? I think a guy should be able to build a 3 stall or 4 stall garage and that ought to be the limit and isn ' t that about where we came up with this 1, 000 square ' feet? Olsen: The 3 car garage was approximately 800. Headla: That wasn' t consistent with the existing . . .height? Is that why they used the same height for like a 3 or 4 stall garage? ' Dacy: You mean the height restrictions for the accessory buildings? Headla : Yes . Dacy: Yes , that ' s what I recall . Erhart : What conceivably could be an accessory building 3 stories high that you'd want in the RSF district? Dacy: If we' re limiting accessory buildings to 1, 000 square feet , that would pretty much exclude the pole barns. Usually they range from 12 to 14 feet . The only time I ' ve seen second stories in a detached structure is over in the Red Cedar Point area where they have proposed a little storage space . Erhart : Is the object here to prevent metal buildings in the RSF district? Is that what they' re trying to do? Dacy: No , the object is to provide a sense of scale and separation between an accessory structure and adjacent property. Most of those Sears buildings are metal so to prohibit that , I ' d feel real uncomfortable saying they can' t have metal . I Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 6 Erhart : I wouldn' t suggest that . It gets back to this think that we've discussed many times and that' s about architectural regulations and you could say that buildings over 200 square feet , which gets bigger than the Sears stuff, is it has to be architecturally similar to the 111 principle structure. Then the question is , do we want to get into architectural regulations and for some reason in the past, we 've always said no . I don' t know why. Emmings : I just wonder if there ' s ever any reason to have accessory structures, I wonder if there ought to be a limit that they could be 3 stories or not taller than the principle structure . If you' re talking about keeping things in proportion on a residential block. Erhart : I think a minimum, that makes sense. At least to include a sentence that says it can' t be taller than the principle structure. Batzli : Then you ' re going to start conflicting with a lot of other stuff. We' re going to have to go back in and clean it up. In each Article, for different residential single family, R-4 , they go through maximum heights. Erhart : That ' s not conflicting with that . All it is is adding another ' restriction. Batzli : But it says , the maximum heights is as follows : for accessory ' structures , 3 stories , 40 feet. Then you ' re going to say later on that an accessory structure can' t be higher than the house. Erhart: That ' s not in conflict. Batzli : I think you' re just trying to put it in the wrong place . II There ' s a lot of redundancy in this new codification. It would probably be a lot easier to actually define what an accessory structure is because I don' t know that I know what one is. They talk about accessory uses throughout the code but I don ' t know that they ever define what an accessory structure is , although that' s what we' re currently talking about now. Dacy: It should be defined. ' Batzli : Is that first Article 1, in general , page 1142? Erhart: It combines them. Accessory use or structure means the use or structures subordinate to and serving principle use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. ' Batzli : Is structure and use mutually exclusive although they' re defined the same way? 1 Erhart : The way this is written it is . I think what they've done is combine two separate thoughts in the same sentence. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 7 Batzli : So you ' re not talking about, for instance , a 1, 000 square foot ' tennis court having a setback requirement but you are a structure? Dacy: Correct . It says a detached accessory structure, except a dock, ' it excludes that, as accessory uses in some of the districts, parking lot, signs , home occupations , tennis courts , swimming pool , garages . I ' ll have to take that back. They are mutually exclusive. A use of an ' accessory structure as a garage. It can be the same thing but. . . Erhart: That's a good point Brian. I don ' t see a reason why a guy would have to put a tennis court 15 feet away from his property line, if ' that 's what you' re suggesting. I don' t see any reason for that. So you could exclude that just like we did for docks here . Do we have a current problem or do we anticipate a problem? ' Emmings: We got talking about this because we were talking about buildings right? That 's what we' re concerned about here is people building garages , storage sheds and things of that nature. Maybe we' re ' not saying it the best way here. I see under definition of structure, it even includes a hard surface parking area . How is that different than a tennis court? I don ' t know. In fact it says, anything ' constructed having a permanent location in the ground . That would include a swimming pool or tennis court or anything else and I don ' t think that ' s what we' re talking about . I don' t think that ' s what we meant to talk about. Erhart : We' re talking about the first sentence under structures , we' re talking the first term there. Dacy: You ' re talking about storage buildings . Emmings : I think we' re talking about garages too though. If you look under permitted accessory uses, just for example in the RSF, you 've got a list of things on page 1208 . The first one is a garage. The second one is a storage building. I think we are talking those two and then ' way at the bottom is a private kennel . Maybe that involves a building . Maybe we' re talking about that one too but all the rest of them in the middle , I don ' t think a home occupation is clearly just a use and does not involve a structure. At least, according to our own definitions , the rest could be structures . ' Dacy: First of all we' re just talking about the RSF district because I just noticed the way (b) is written, you could interpret that to mean in any district . Emmings : We ' re only talking about amending the RSF section? Dacy: That ' s what I 'm asking for clarification. That ' s what we ' interpretted as the commission ' s intent . Emmings : What this says we' re doing is amending Section 20-904 in the proposed ordinance which is not the RSF. Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 8 Batzli : That ' s the general regulations section. Olsen: We can clarify that it' s just the RSF though. Dacy: (a) and (c) currently say in any residential district but (b) does not say that . Ellson: So at the end of the first sentence just add , in residential single family. Is that what you 're saying? Dacy: Right. Batzli : I don ' t think you want to say that there. You don' t want to amend all of that paragraph do you? Dacy: That ' s what we need to find out . If that ' s what the Commission ' wants. Batzli : I would think that you still want to maintain paragraph (b) for II all districts . Dacy: The way that we have it proposed for the 200 and 1, 000 in a commercial or industrial district, that could be limiting especially in the industrial district if they did want a 2, 000 or 3 , 000 square foot building in the back of their principle building. That' s what I 'm saying. These 200 ' s and 1, 000 ' s are based on our research. Erhart: It ' s only really the last sentence in that paragraph that you want to limit to a district , isn ' t it? Isn ' t it only the last sentence, II the 1, 000 square feet, you want to limit that to RSF? Dacy: What I was thinking is adding that to before the second sentence . II In the single family residential district the detached accessory structure, etc . . Maybe to really clarify it , we add (d) for the RSF requirements and leave (b) as a detached accessory structure may occupy not more than 30o area of the rear yard . Emmings: I like that better . Let' s go through the proposed motion here . (a) would stay the same. (b) would be just the present first sentence of (b) . The present first sentence of (b) , that ' s all there would be of (b) . Then (c) would speak of any residential district , just as it is and (d) would say in the single family residential district and then pick up all the rest of the language in (b) . Erhart: Yes , except why wouldn' t you want to have setback graduations apply to RR and A-2 as well? If a guy' s got a 2 1/2 lot , he' s got no reason to put a 1,000 square foot building up 5 feet away from his lot line . He has less reason than anybody. Emmings : It' s tough to coordinate through all exceptions. Can you , think of something to do here Barb or do you think we ought to table this? Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 9 Dacy: Number one , the original intent came out of that David Obie conditional use permit. You wanted to prohibit big buildings in the RSF district . As far as in the RR and the A-2 area , in the current regulations, someone could put an accessory building 5 feet from their ' rear lot line . Do you want to limit not only the setback but the size of an accessory building in the RR and the A-2 districts? This is beyond the original purpose. Erhart : Just change the last sentence in paragraph (b) to say, a detached accessory structure shall not exceed 1, 000 square feet in the RSF district. ' Dacy: So you want to keep the graduating setbacks for RSF, A-2 and RR. ' Erhart: The other districts, in the multiple family and we don' t want to get into that because sometimes you have multiple garages for apartment buildings . ' Dacy: This is getting to a point where I think the Commission should give us direction on what they want to do and then we' ll come back. We' ll rework this . ' Headla : Let me ask a question. Why did you say rear yard? Dacy: I was saying, under current regulations you can ' t place a ' structure 5 feet from the rear lot line. Headla: If you go along Minnewashta Heights there are some beautiful homes there and as far as I know, their living rooms are facing the lake which means the front of the house. What' s your definition of a rear yard? Ellson : The one facing the road is the front yard . Headla : What happens in the. . .the property that you were going to ' develop at Lawson' s . . .and you ' ve got lots on Minnewashta Parkway and on the main road on the other side. ' Dacy: A double frontage lot? Headla : Yes . Is it clear in your minds what a rear yard is and a front ' yard? I 'm not sure I know. Dacy: In a double frontage situation, technically you have two front yards . Headla : I look at Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway and people live facing the lakes and that' s the front yard. That' s one thing I want to make sure we. . . Dacy: We can add that too . What it would be if it ' s a double frontage lot. That' s one item. The next item is , just for the RSF district, is ' what (b) says there, is that what you want for the RSF? Just limit it II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 10 II to the RSF? Emmings : That' s what I recall us sending up. That ' s what I remember we II were in agreement on, at least at one time. Batzli : You need to add , or equal to, in there somewhere because I somebody is going to come in with a 200 square foot job and you ' re not going to know what to do with it. Your first , structure less than or equal to 200 square feet. I Ellson : The only other thing I noticed was if it' s greater than 200 square feet, they will be located 15 feet. No closer than 15 feet. II Isn' t that basically what we wanted? They can have the garage next to the house if they wanted could they? Erhart : What' s the side yard setback in this case? 10 feet? Does that II make sense. Dacy: Yes . II Erhart : So it ' s okay to put 1, 000 square foot building 10 feet from the sideyard? I Dacy: You can put your house 10 feet away. So, then what do you want to do on A-2 and RR districts? II Ellson : I don' t think that there ' s a problem. Maybe you ' re thinking of the future and maybe possible problems so I can understand that but. . . Erhart : I think you have to allow bigger buildings in the A-2 district . II Ellson: Right. I don ' t think we should combine it all with this thing . II It sounds like what you wanted to do was accomplish this for the residential single family. I think trying to combine it with the other is just going to make it more confusing . Erhart: My thinking was that the graduated setbacks though could have II some merits in the larger lots as well . You' re proposing this to go into the accessory structure, isn' t that what you ' re proposing this goes in? Into the definition of accessory structure? Your whole proposal is based on this being wording for the accessory structure. So it can apply to all districts . II Dacy: Right , and I wanted to get direction on what you want for residential districts so then we can say that and also say what you originally said for commercial and industrial . I Emmings: You still have us confused over uses and structures I think too? I Erhart : The question I 'm getting to , in an apartment complex in the high density area, an apartment complex where they have a garage of 47 garages in it , basically if we do this , we' re saying that garage has to II II Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 11 be 15 feet away from the lot line . Do we understand that? ' Ellson: That will say that. ' Erhart : Is that okay? Dacy: That' s up to you. It would be best , from an administration standpoint, if we had one consistent set of rules for all rural ' districts . That ' s why we weren ' t really happy about the graduated idea because it just adds one more quirk into the scheme of things. You need to decide . Does this apply to multiple areas? . . . ' Erhart: If you ' re looking at me as to what I would recommend for the rural , I think I like the graduated . If it ' s good for the RSF, I think it ' s good for 2 1/2 acre lots too. The only thing is that I don ' t think you can limit it to 1, 000 square foot buildings. Dave, don ' t you agree? There' s a lot of 2 1/2 acre lots that have large buildings. Headla : We were talking before, just in our area , and there ' s lot of open land. . . ' Erhart : I don' t think you can limit the size of the accessory building in the RR or A-2 area. ' Headla : People who have got 10, 15 to 20 acres and beaucoup land out back. Erhart : I think we can limit them to not put these buildings 5 feet ' from the property line and that' s happened to me and it seems silly for a guy with 2 1/2 acres , in fact we encourage that , to put his house 10 feet from the property line even though his lot was 200 feet wide. ' Thank goodness today we' re not doing that anymore . Dacy: Then what we get from that, first of all you were saying you don ' t want to limit the size in the RR and A-2 area but you do want to impose a stricter setback? Erhart : Yes . Dacy: We' ve got direction on that and we can come back with revised language because I think you ' re right, you ' re going to end up going t back to each individual district . Emmings: And clear up this accessory use business too. I think basically what you have here is what we wanted and not all of a sudden it ' s gotten broader. I suppose you might as well go and reword it all at once . ' Dacy: Do you want us to look at the height issue? Headla: I think that should be a consideration to look at. See what you' re comfortable with . Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 12 I Ellson: What is a pole barn, or whatever you were saying , and the height of those. I Erhart : The height thing , I was thinking of just the RSF district . I 'm thinking of third acre lots . I think that' s where we' re trying . . . I Emmings : There , couldn' t we limit it? Headla: How many places do we have, like around Lake Minnewashta where I you have 10-15-20 acres that are RSF? Is that just a unique thing? Dacy: Primarily around in your area and some land of Mrs. Anderson and I the Carison ' s lot . Erhart : I think those are the areas we' re trying to prevent someone Iputting in a 5,000 square foot building because we anticipate in the next five years , because if it ' s within the MUSA line and RSF, somebody is going to subdivide this land and what you don' t want is selling 5 year old , 5,000 square foot steel building right in the middle of this I now subdivision. So I think that' s what we ' re trying to prevent. Even though it may seem restrictive to Dave. Headla: Could I put up a 5, 000 square foot pole barn on my property? I Dacy: He ' s zoned RSF now and whatever 30% of your rearyard is , is acceptable. Again, that was the whole basis . . . I Headla : That shouldn' t be right because alot of that land is going to be developed and that would be an imposing structure for the whole I neighborhood . I don' t think that ' s right . Dacy: At the next meeting we' re going to get a request for a 12, 000 II square foot building. Erhart : Are you understanding that this is creating limitations on your land, do you still agree with what we ' re talking about? I Headla : Our area is just a unique area . If it was general , I 'd say we should take a much better look at it but if it ' s just in our area, and I II think that ' s going to be developed very shortly, I just don ' t think it ' s right that we should allow one building . . .like another barn like I 've got . Put up another one that size. . . II Emmings: First of all, we' re talking RSF. Can someone on a 15, 000 square foot lot come in with a pole barn? Dacy: Our current ordinance says that he can build a detached accessory II structure up to the maximum area 30% of the rear yard . So they have to meet that. If it' s a pole barn and it meets that, then we have to issue II a permit . Erhart : The rear yard is half of 15,000 is 7,000 times 30 , it could be a 2, 100 square foot building. I think this is pretty good here. I II II Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 13 think it does what we wants it to do. The only other issue is if you want to tie it in architecturally and I just can' t imagine someone building a house and putting an accessory structure of 200 to 1,000 square feet and not making it architecturally similar. Headla : If we would say you couldn' t build over 800 or 1,000 square foot building, it can not be sheet metal pole barn construction. If we ' knock that out, wouldn' t that make it more compatible with, if somebody is going to invest that kind of money, I can ' t imagine somebody giving up an accessory structure. . . Dacy: You have a point there, once they are building a building, you would assume that they would probably put a garage and we would assume that they would use the same materials or wood or brick or something . ' It 's a matter of desire on the community' s standpoint as to how far do you want to go to regulate what a private property owner can do and what materials that you want to use for an out building . It' s an option. What I thought , in the past we have not regulated it because sometimes ' development can have private covenants address that. So far Chanhassen hasn' t taken that extra step to go that far in regulating aesthetics on accessory buildings. It ' s not unusual though for commercial and industrial districts . Headla : How about if we say, anything around 1, 000 square feet has to be. . . Erhart : I think we' re all agreed that we want them up to 1,000 square feet. There seems to be a hesitance to put an architectural limit on ' this thing . What is the adverse effect of us to start dealing with architectural controls? ' Emmings : . . .the public health, safety and welfare and aesthetics, legally we can control things that effect the public health, safety and welfare . I would say, if you said something like it has to be architecturally, and I don't know what the language should be. Architecturally consistent . . . Erhart : I was thinking in an area from 200 feet up to 1, 000, building ' the structure so it' s aesthetically or architecturally matches the principle structure. Later on this evening we' re talking about controlling architecture in the industrial area aren ' t we? ' Dacy: In the commercial and industrial . Erhart: How is that any different? ' Dacy: It' s different because cities have more say as far as design in the industrial parks and commercial and industrial acreage. I think it ' is important , the single family detached home , that' s at the top of the pyramid. That ' s the highest use and that ' s kind of like traditionally accepted that your home is your castle. With commercial and industrial uses , there are more impacts as far as water use, traffic and lights , ' building separation and aesthetics comes in. . . To me there is a Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 14 difference. Emmings : I can see if you want to go higher . If you want a garage separate from your house or a second story or something like that and you' ve got a house . I don' t see any reason to want to limit that. ' Erhart: What' s the highest conceivable? 20 feet? Dacy: Again , the height issue , we can come back with some facts on that. I hate to make a statment on that now. Headla : Why don' t you make a recommendation on that. What I 'm thinking about is, our in our area, if that gets developed, you' ve got one building 40 feet high, that ' s going to stick up like a sore thumb so why don't you take a look at that and give us something. ' Erhart : Also look at your wording in paragraph 2. Dacy: That' s the way it' s written now. ' Erhart : I think it could be a little better if it was broken down into two sentences . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to table the item revising Article VI , Section 5, Accessory Structures until staff can come back with additional information and suggestions regarding the setbacks and building sizes. All voted in favor and motion carried . REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 12, FENCES AND WALLS , TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF BARBED WIRE FENCES. ' Emmings : Again, there' s no one here from the public. Are there any questions or comments from the Commissioners? Headla : The fences that are in now, that are barbed wire, they can stay there right? Olsen : Yes . ' Headla : Can they repair them and update them? Olsen: Yes. Batzli : I guess I 'd like to propose that we reword the proposed sentence to make it consistent with the paragraph that it 's going to be joining . I would propose that rather than the way it' s worded , I propose that we say, fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit , to make it consistent with the rest of the paragraph. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 15 Batzli moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Fences and Wall section of the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Article VI, Section 12 in Ordinance No . 80 and Article XXIII , Division ' 5 in the proposed ordinance) as follows : Section 20-1024. Barbed Wire Fences : Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all residential districts . Barbed wire fences are permitted in the agricultural districts. ' Add the following sentence at the end of the section (Section 20-1018) regulating commercial and industrial fences : ' Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and motion carried . I DELETE ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES. Dacy: I don' t have any comments other than what was presented . However, we did receive an application last week for location of a temporary use on the Natural Green property. So we accepted the application and because this ordinance was not approved, we had to accept application for it . So at the next meeting, you will see an application for a temporary use. ' Emmings : What is the temporary use they' re proposing? Dacy: They want to put a mobile home on the Natural Green site for temporary office space . Erhart: An office for what? Dacy: For the Natural Green offices . Erhart: I thought Natural Green was moving . Dacy: Yes , they did find another site in Chaska but they are currently using the existing home for office space and supposedly according to the owner , it' s very cramped in there and they wanted some extra space for another year . In March of 1989, they will be completely out of Chanhassen . Headla : Did you have any restrictions on locations? Dacy: No. Again, we' re in the process of writing the staff report and it will be at your next meeting . Emmings : Are there any comments on this proposal , to delete this section? 1 la in Commission P nn g Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 16 Batzli : I 'm just curious as to what other cities do around Chanhassen. Do they have this type of use permit? Dacy: Not to my knowledge. For example, we have Eden Prairie ' s , Minnetonka' s and Plymouth' s ordinances on file and I think this temporary conditional uses did exist in our 1972 ordinance. It was just a carryover into the new one. The City Attorney wrote that in but not to my knowledge have I seen it in adjacent communities . 1 Batzli : But the Attorney' s opinion didn' t necessarily say it was improper as it would be costly to fight it out in court , if I read that right? Dacy: Right . I think it' s really way, in some cases , to circumvent the ordinance. If you look at temporary conditional uses and under this request then , you could propose almost any type of use in any zoning district and then it becomes an enforcement problem and sometimes temporary becomes permanent and maybe the property owner can claim investment into the property and go after us on that. So I guess that' s where the counsel comes in. Erhart: Why are you recommending this? Dacy: We' re recommending to delete this section. Erhart: You' re recommending to delete the entire section that allows . . . You' re saying that a guy can put a temporary. . Ellson: No, we' re saying they can ' t do it . Erhart : They just can ' t do it at all . Oh, okay. Dacy: We' re saying either the community looks at the use and includes it as a conditional use or a permitted use . It ' s either permanent or it' s not. ' Emmings: We don' t want temporary uses . It ' s just like that book store . I don' t think anybody saw any benefits for retaining this section, as I recall . Batzli : The only benefit is flexibility but perhaps at the cost of mucho denario for the City. Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to delete the section rgarding Temporary Structures and Uses (Article V, Section 4 , in Ordinance No. 80 and Article XXIII , Section 20-903 in the proposed ordinance) . All voted in favor and motion carried . I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 17 ' ADD SECTION 26 TO ARTICLE VI , SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS TO REGULATE CONSTRUCTION OF METAL BUILDINGS. Dacy: The language that' s proposed , I 'm not particularly happy with, to be honest with you and the City Attorney said that he was going to suggest some alternative language. I talked to Jim Wildermuth today on the phone and he alerted me to the fact that Eaton Companies are now making wall materials whereby you could have a masonary facia , sheet metal , insulation and sheet metal again so he ' s saying that there is a form of construction out there that does use some type of sheet metal . ' Then it is hung on steel frames and so on. That provides better insulation qualities to the building . His opinion was , the City should not go so far as to prohibit the use of metal or sheet metal in actual ' construction but merely limit the facia or the exposed material . In my comments I addressed that second alternative. The recommendation was based on the first alternative prohibiting utilization of metal construction completely but given Jim' s comments today, it seems like the state-of-the-art building , that may change so it may be best to go with option 2 and just address what the building looks like. ' Emmings : So now you' re basically proposing to allow use of metal construction without exposed metal . Is that correct? Dacy: Right . Emmings : Do we have any buildings in the commercial or industrial area that have exposed metal? Dacy: No , not to my knowledge. We do have buildings that have metal construction that different facia. ' Headla : Exposed metals , you' re talking like walls? Dacy: Right. I 'm sorry, the only one that we would have is Gary Brown' s mini-storage. This would , if Gary Brown walked in after this was approved, he would not be able to build his metal buildings . Headla : I thought of that and I didn ' t understand that . How would this knock his off? ' Dacy: It would knock out Gary Brown ' s proposal because he basically, all his building ' s were, were pole barns . Headla : But isn' t he on the fringe area? ' Dacy: Yes, but he 's zoned business fringe. He is commercial . ' Erhart : Isn' t his approved already? Dacy: Yes . I 'm just saying , as an example, if he never requested . . . Ellson: They' re saying if he wants additional , could do it because he I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 18 already some either . Dacy: Right . If he came in for expansion beyond what he has approved. Headla: I like your intent but I tried to think of other wording too. Batzli : Again, just echoing that sentiment , I started thinking , what about conceivably aluminum siding that really doesn' t look like metal? Or the metal around windows? Or metal fire door? Your wording doesn' t allow any exposed metal but you ' re going to have a lot of exposed metal in things like that . Emmings : You can think of somebody designing a building that ' s not just an ordinary building where they want to have structural components exposed or something like that where it would be consistent with the design or whatever we want to allow. Dacy: Which option? Ellson : We like Option 2 I think. To allow metal but just so somehow, with some exceptions, especially the face. I don' t think we' re going to prohibit all metal construction, especially after what you said about Eaton and things that are certainly being done in building . Dacy: With that direction, we could come back with a better sentence . Erhart: There are a lot of buildings that are just glass and metal . Beautiful office buildings. Dacy: Maybe the sentence should read , there shall be no construction of pole barns in the commercial or industrial area. Erhart : That' s it . How do you say that . ' Dacy: That' s the intent. Emmings : Maybe that' s the way you do it . Maybe you say something like, the intent of this is to avoid pole barn type construction and not to limit the use of things like aluminum siding that don ' t appear to be metal . Dacy: Right, so that will give us flexibility in interpretation. I Emmings : And I 'd specifically put in pole barns. Just go right ahead and say it. That' s what we' re talking about . Headla moved, Ellson seconded to table action on Section 26 to Article VI , Supplementary Regulations to regulate construction of metal buildings. All voted in favor and motion carried. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 19 ADD SUBPARAGRAPH 20 TO ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2, GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SIGNS TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CEMETERY SIGNS. Emmings : There is still no one present from the public . Are there any ' questions? Batzli : I have a question . Are you holding cemetaries to a higher ' standard than anyone else in the entire City by making them go through a conditional use permit if their sign in fact complies with all the requirements for the district in which they are located so they would only need a permit? ' Dacy: Actually, cemetery signage isn ' t provided for anywhere right now. The location of the two cemetaries are in, one is in the A-2 district and the other one is in the RSF district . Under the signage regulations, the only thing that' s permitted are development identification signs and house numbers . ' Emmings: I think it' s quite the contrary. The cemetery down here came in with a sign proposal and we all sat here and said gee, cemetaries really are different and they really ought to be allowed more latitude ' with their signs . Our whole focus has been to restrict the use of signs everywhere and here it was a place where we felt like they ought to have a little more latitude. We thought the only way we can keep our finger on what they' re doing is to require a conditional use permit. It really was to give them more latitude , not less . Batzli_ : That answers my question. I was curious if for instance, I didn' t know where they were located but if they were in a business district. They' re a sign and they comply with the rules for that area . Emmings : They don ' t need directional signs . Batzli : If all they had was a little 2 x 2 square foot sign that said cemetery. I imagine that would be permissible in a business district to have a sign advertising who you are. So if that ' s all they were going to put up, they would still require a conditional use permit? Dacy: Right, because most cemetaries have the entrance and the gates and they' re more extravagant . Emmings : That ' s not really his question. His question is , if they comply with the sign ordinance. If the sign ordinance applied and they met the conditions of the sign ordinance , would they still have to come in for a conditional use permit, is what he' s saying . Dacy: As written , if it was located anywhere , yes , they would have to come in for a conditional use permit . Emmings : But the fact is . . . Ellson: We'd let them have a nice one like, I think I was reading the Minutes, engrave it or rout it. I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 20 Emmings : That isn' t the problem that we face. The problem we face is they wanted more than the sign ordinance would ever allow anybody else to do and they aren ' t in the commercial area . Dacy: I think they' re only permitted as a permitted use in the A-2 district . That one next to St. Hubert' s may be non-conforming . I think that' s the only place where we allow them as a permitted use. Batzli : If that ' s not a problem, I guess I would just propose that we again reword the proposed new section to read, signage for cemetaries , in all districts , shall require a conditional use permit. ' Emmings: Why don' t you go ahead and make a motion. Does anybody else have any other comments? Batzli moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordina;nce Amendment to include Signage Regulations for Cemeteries as follows (Section XXVI , Division 1 in the proposed ordinance) . Section 20-1277 , Cemetery Signage. Signage for cemeteries , in all districts , shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and motion carried. ADD AN ARTICLE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REGULATE BURIAL OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS. Emmings : You' ve asked us to table this item. First of all , do you want any comments from us at this point in time? Olsen : Sure . ' Emmings : Why don' t you tell us a little bit more about what ' s going on here because this thing has gotten bigger too. Olsen : It began again , at the request of the City Council to look at construction where there' s an existing building or whatever and they want to bury it on-sight. There' s no requirements or regulations for that so they want the City to have some control on that. That list that ' s on the back page of the report is the State ' s regulations and we transferred the ones that are applicable that could also be used within the City. Right now we still have to work with the other departments to figure out who' s going to enforce this . What the permits are going to II be. Definitions . Things like that so we still have some cleaning up to do. Erhart : Where do you think we' re going with this? Right now anybody can bury anything? Where do you think we' re heading on this? Olsen : To keep a little bit more control on it. To make them so they have to receive a permit. So we will know what it is there. Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3 , 1988 - Page 21 ' Erhart : Right now I can bury wood . Ellson: Concrete , you name it . Somebody else could buy that property and not really know what' s under there. Erhart : You' re certainly not thinking about eliminating burying of ' concrete and boulders? Olsen : We don ' t want to eliminate it. We just want to tell them where they can put it. Just so we know where. Erhart : Have we had some trouble? Olsen: Not too much that we know of . Emmings : What about things like, I know when I built my house, they ' took down some real big trees and everything, and had great big stumps left . I think they buried , this talks a little about demolition. I think that meant of existing buildings . Do you care about other stuff that might be there that they buried? Olsen: That' s when we get into that definition and we' ll look at that a little bit closer . Dacy: What ' s exempt? Burying your pet dog? The key word here is demolition. Erhart moved , Headla seconded to table adding an Article to the Zoning Oridnance regulating Burial of Demolition Debris. All voted in favor and motion carried . REVISE ARTICLE VI , SECTION 21, ANTENNAS AND SATELLITE DISHES TO LIMIT A SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO ONE ANTENNA AND ONE SATELLITE DISH. Olsen : Staff already has some changes to this . Mr . Headla pointed that the way it reads , right now you could put a car antenna, radio antenna on the house so what we actually meant there was the radio antenna tower . That' s what we meant to restrict to one per lot. ' Emmings : So you want to insert the word "tower" after antenna . Olsen : Then satellite dish , that can remain the same . Also , a question ' was the ground mount . You may recall the ground mounted vertical antenna, the Roy Barke' s proposal . It wasn ' t the large tower that the antenna was placed on but it' s just a pole that' s stuck in the ground that acts as just an antenna. I was speaking with somebody in the town who has all these and he was saying , they' re temporary. You just stick them out there and they' re usually no higher than 20-23 feet but I just ' wanted to get the Planning Commission' s feeling that they wanted that also to be -limited to one. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 22 II Emmings : Has that been a problem here at all? I Olsen: The first time I ever saw them was when we visited Roy Barke' s site and he had one . Again, they' re temporary. We have to come up with I a definition also. Headla : I 'd like to see you wait on that one . I 'd like to see , reworded, forget radio antenna and just say antenna tower and put a maximum square foot area of the antennas they can have. Olsen: Yes, he requested that before and we tried to come_ up with some I numbers . Headla : Who did you ask? I Olsen : I called all the different antenna places and people who use the radio antennas because it depends on where you want your signal to go. I Your antenna could be a million different combinations . Headla: But as you drive down, like Powers Blvd. and you consider the antenna over there, I think the real intent is to control , put a maximum I square footage and how many antennas can you stick on this tower . Right now it' s unlimited . You could put up 15-20 square feet of antenna and I don' t think that' s what we want. II Olsen : The tower itself, if you limit it to one tower , there ' s only a certain amount of antennas that you can put on. II Yes , you can put up 20-30-40 square feet on that one tower . Olsen: I have not been able to come up with a good number . Headla : Have you talked to any hams? Olsen: I 've talked to several and then I also talked to the companies I that manufacture them. Headla : Those probably aren ' t the hams but I would think, how did they II respond? Olsen : They agreed that you could limit it to the towers but that the II antenna would be very difficult to regulate because they' re all different . They' re all different sizes . n Headla: The only one thing we' re regulating is maximum cross section I area . II Olsen : Again , I could not come with a definite number . It was a number that we could pick and then next week we could get somebody who had 5 square feet more and they need that because they want to speak to Russia. I can still look at it again. II 11 Planning Commission Meeting IFebruary 3 , 1988 - Page 23 Headla : I think it' s incomplete without putting a maximum cross section Iarea on the antenna . Emmings : I think what Jo Ann is saying , any number she would come up Iwith would be arbitrary. Ellson : Maybe you should say, in relation to the house it' s on or I something like that. You don' t want it to be huge and ugly is what you' re really concerned about , right? Headla: To me antennas aren' t particularly good. In consideration of I other people, on TH 101, remember there we had where he wanted to put two. They were quite concerned there about how that would look, the aesthetics of it . I just think that ' s a parameter that should be controlled with a maximum. Maximum only. Emmings : Part of the history here , and maybe it was in here and I just I don' t remember right now but we keep getting these requests for towers and then we' re told everytime that we can ' t deny it . Although we have a conditional use process to go through, the area has been pre-empted by FCC regulations and we don' t really have any control over it at all . I This was an attempt to start to get some control on it. If we can' t say no to an antenna or tower , maybe at least we can say no to two. To there being two towers on a lot. I think that ' s how this all kind of I came about . We ' re not sure that we can even do this . It' s kind of a gray area. Olsen: I think by giving them that one tower is giving them reasonable Iuse. I guess the question again is , do you also want to regulate those ground mounted vertical? I Ellson: Just say the towers plus the ground mounted will just be one. They use them basically the same way. I Olsen : Those are temporary and the satellite dish and antenna tower are permanent. They have the concrete base. Headla : Until we see it as a problem, why would we even want to get our Ihands into it? Batzli : It would be a way to circumvent the ordinance . Just put in Itemporary ones and they can use temporary ones permanently. Headla : It becomes a problem with any control . IBatzli : Then it' s too late . Emmings : Now these temporary ones , what do they do with them? Do they Igo out and put them out for one day? Olsen : The people I was talking to , they were saying they put it up I during the winter because in the summer there' s too much static and it' s just an additional antenna rather than having to mount an antenna tower . I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 24 It works as an antenna without having the tower . Erhart: It' s an antenna field. You can achieve the same goal as having one long , high antenna . You can achieve the same goal by having the multiple, small antennas as having a high tall one. Emmings: Would we want to say something like if you have a tower , all your antennas have to be located on the tower? Olsen : It might be the same if they used the ground . ' Emmings: What do you want to do? Olsen : I could look into them a little bit more and maybe we could say , two ground. Two antennas aren' t that bad. Ellson: I think you should say a number too so they don ' t go down and someone has 5 in their yard. One probably isn' t very obtrusive but. . . Batzli : I 'd rather limit it to one , whether it ' s temporary or permanent ' myself. Olsen : They can always go through the variance process if they want . ' Emmings : So basically, you want to go ahead with what ' s proposed here. Are there any other comments or discussion? Batzli : I guess I 'm under the impression that the word radio is deleted and the word tower is inserted after antenna . Olsen: I think that we should separate antenna towers and also specify ground mounted antennas . , Ellson: That would allow them to have one on their house and then put one on. Emmings : I don' t think so . Ellson: You' re saying you want one and let it be the house or the ground? Olsen : You want either one tower or the ground? Batzli : That' s right. That' s what I 'm proposing. Ellson : I think you should let them. Especially if in the winter they can get more Chicago stations or something like that. You do pick up a lot more in the winter and they probably can just put it out there for the winter and enjoy it a little bit more. ' Batzli : We just got rid of our temporary use permit and here you' re trying to do temporary things again. I IPlanning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 25 I Ellson: I 'm saying they can have one of them. They can ' t have 5 of ' them in their yard. Headla : Does this include TV antennas? IOlsen: That wouldn' t include TV antennas . Batzli : Do you want to reinsert the word radio? Radio antenna tower to I differeniate from TV? It appears that ' s how the section does it. It deals with satellite dishes , television antennas and radio antennas as three separate entities . 1 Headla : Then you could put a facsimile tower and microwave tower? Batzli : It sure looks like it according to this ordinance. Well , we Ican exclude television antennas specifically. I would say antenna tower, permanent or temporary and excluding television antennas, would be a friendly amendment . IErhart: I ' ll second that amendment . IEmmings : Any more discussion? Ellson: Read it again. I 'd like to hear what it is again. I Emmings: As I understand it, it will say there shall be no more than one satellite dish and one antenna tower , permanent or temporary and excluding television antennas , per lot in residential districts . Batzli moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to revise the section regarding antennas and satellite dishes (Article VI , Section 21 in Ordinance No . 80 and Article XXIII , Section 20-915 in the proposed ordinance) as follows : IAdd the following and renumber the existing six paragraphs : I 1. There shall be no more than one satellite dish and one antenna tower , permanent or temporary, excluding television antennas , per lot in residential districts . IIAll voted in favor except Headla who opposed and motion carried . Headla: I think they should put a maximum number and/or sizes of Iantennas on the tower . I Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance Amendments. All voted in favor and motion carried . I Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1988 - Page 26 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler : We' ve got a few items to discuss tonight on the ' transportation section of the Comp Plan . They are fairly brief . In the memo I outlined essentially there' s going to ten major components of the transportation section , just to give you a little idea of what we ' re working on now and what we' re working towards . They are largely either pulled together or information is coming together on literally every one of them. At our last meeting we talked about item 7, functional classification. Tonight we' re going to review items 1 through 3 and then the next time the balance of the items will be incorporated in the draft. Prior to going to talk about some of the new text that ' s been generated for the Plan, Barb and I talked about it might be adviseable to real quickly give you another chance to review the goals and policy statements as they exist right now for transportation in the transportation section of the plan. Being that this is the first section of the plan , I know just a couple of you have gone through, I don' t know what chance you've had to look at the draft as it exists today but there are goals and policies pertaining to each section of the Plan. Land Use, Housing, Recreation and so forth. These are the ones , obviously, for the transportation section. We thought we would simply put those in the packet and give you a chance to look at those again to see if there are any additional comments or modifications that you would like to see. I don' t think it' s necessary for me to read through those by any means . Perhaps any comments that anybody might have, this would be an appropriate time to make those known. To be honest you, we looked at these so long ago , I don' t really recall what modifications the Commission made initially, if any, to the transportation items. There were changes that were made to some of the other goals and policy statements pertaining to other sections of the Plan. Do you remember Barb? Dacy: In my notes , I didn' t note any particular ones . Mark Koegler : I suspect it may be possible that when we get into talking about some of the plan sections tonight , and again next time, that may spark interest you might have and if we missed something . Particularly on this topical area that you had interest in or if some policy on some type of use of facility, that may really come to light in further discussions so again, this like everything else, is not a dead issue after tonight. Feel free at any time to make any comments you want. Moving along , if we can then into the new text that' s been prepared for discussion this evening. The transportation chapter is going to be completely reworked so you can literally take all of the old pages and toss them aside and replace them now with material that you get in a chronological sequence. The part that ' s before you tonight , as I indicated earlier, is the first three sections dealing with just some simple introductory text. Some straight forward descriptions of the existing system. Then, laying what we think is a fairly important component of the transportation plan and that is , an outline of some of the system' s deficiencies and major issues that are present. The intent obviously being plan , through a variety of measures , both in text and IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 27 IIgraphics , we ' ll address each of those points and be posing in the long term and short term, various solutions that are appropriate. In terms I of introduction, the only comment that I think I want to impress upon the Commission, so that you' re aware of it, which is somewhat an interesting point , is that again , this plan has to be prepared in I accordance with the overall framework that the Metrpolitan Council establishes . That regional framework says that the goal is to maintain the same level of accessibility that is present right now in the entire transporation system. That ' s not to say that there aren ' t targeted I areas that are going to try and get through but I think it ' s important to realize the congestion that exists now, to some degree, will be a factor in the future as well as a part of the design of the system. I They' ve done that for a variety of reasons . First of all , I think I referenced there isn' t enough money you can throw at the problems to solve it . . . . in order to keep transit systems viable in the area for I those segments of the population that rely on that. They don' t want to make it too convenient for too many people to have easy private accessibility without mass transit . For a variety of reasons, that is part of the regional policy. It' s clearly delineated in all of the I Metrpolitan Council 's plans . That they plan to have congestion as a part of the future system because they don ' t think it can be eliminated . I Emmings: I saw Commissioner Keefe spoke to some group, that was about the light rail transit , and said the same thing . It was the same message. Focus on everything inside the MUSA and I think is what he was saying if I heard it right . I was wondering what it meant , when you ' ve I got that overall policy that they' re going to maintain approximately the same level of regional accessibility and then you' ve got this data over here. On T-9, that on TH 5 you ' ve got 7, 000 to 7, 500 vehicles per day. I To justify a 4-lane facility, they aim for TH 5 at 20, 000. Almost three times that. I know they do plan to upgrade TH 5, but when they say you have the same level of accessibility as you did when? Or as things Ichange from this year to 5 years from now? Mark Koegler : That a real general , regionally oriented statement. It' s like any large parameter. You can ' t take it and focus it on TH 5. TH 5 Iis an example of that . There will be situations like TH 5 that will be improved and hopefully we' ll have better accessibility. I think if you read in the text, without TH 212, TH 5 isn ' t going to be a lot better I off 10 years from now than it is right now. Despite the construction that will hopefully obviously is going to occur . So I don' t think it ' s fair to focus on an individual little spot. Yes, there will be improvements but overall , the regional perspective is that as a whole , I the system will be operating essentially the way it is now. When you compare the Twin Cities to a lot of major metropolitan areas , it ' s pretty favorable. You look at the maps of where the significant traffic I delays occurs , metroareawide, and how extensive those area and how much they probably are, there might be 70 miles of congested roads, sounds like a lot but when you compare it to other areas , it' s not that severe. IEmmings: Under the description of existing systems, it starts out on page 2 there, this may be trivial but that first sentence says that Chanhassen' s existing street system consistents of a series of local I Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1988 - Page 28 streets , collectors , minor arterials. Is there a different between intermediate arterial and major arterials? Mark Koegler : The new verbage that' s being used goes to minor and major arterials. Emmings : We've got intermediate . Mark Koegler : Yes , we' re going to update that language. We' re in a period of time right now when there is a draft, which was just prepared which is not even fully circulated yet, of the Metropolitan Council ' s Transportation Chapter of the Development Guide. So they are revising their transportation section of their Comp Plan, if you will . That has some different language in it than the 1985 draft, which is the most recent one to date. The current now is prefacing major and minor arterials and the highest category will either be a freeway or expressway. What used to be principle is now either intermediate or expressway and what used to be intermediate arterials is now major arterials , essentially. Just some renaming . Emmings : TH 7 is the only major arterial? Mark Koegler : Correct . Emmings : And then I didn' t understand at all , the comment on T-5 and under issues and system deficiencies in the second paragraph. General problems . You' ve got north/south access deficiencies and then the last half of that I didn' t understand. The last half of that paragraph. What does it mean? Mark Koegler : That ' s an example which comes from the previous plan. , That ' s language really that was modified slightly from the 1980 plan and that ' s simply pointing out that when you look at the standards that the Metropolitan Council or anybody else puts out, say you' ve got a collector route or if you have any minor arterial routes, ideally those have design standards. They are spaced 1 mile in frequency, 1 1/2 mile in frequency. You have controlled intersections . You have no private driveways. The list goes on and on and on and it focus ' s on speed limits and ADT numbers and so forth . What that ' s essentially saying is, if you look at those kind of ideal situations , there are areas in Chanhassen where that physically is not going to be possible. That ' s an example. Normally you would have major facilities spaced roughly a mile apart and here we' ve got a space that ' s 3 1/2 to 4 miles where literally because of topography and because of the lakes, and because of existing development patterns , that' s as good as it ' s going to get . The area that I guess would like as much comment on tonight as anything, particularly if there are things that have been left out because as I was pointed out in the text, as residents and as people who drive to and from work each day or to and from events in other parts of the metro area, you experience the road system. We' ve gone through and essentially identified and kind of combined to a certain degree, some of the deficiencies and issues that were presented in the last plan that has really kind of surfaced since then and have categorized them with IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 29 Ithree major headings. Either intersections , access problems, road capacity or connection problems and jurisdictional continuity. I Starting on page 5 then, there ' s an outline of some of the really prime examples of existing problems or existing deficiencies or existing areas that fall under each of those three categories . Again, I don ' t know Ithat I need to go through all of them. I think you ' re familiar with many of them. You' re probably familiar with some of them in greater detail as a result of the broaden study area report that was done a year and a half ago . Particularly some of the intersections like TH 5 and IWest 79th, TH 101, West 78th and Dakota and so forth. I guess as a primary interest , are there other items that you' re aware of that should be included in some of those categories that have not been covered in I the text that ' s been put together right now. Or are there specific problems there that you don' t think have been identified enough. Certain aspects of intersections or streets or whatever that aren' t Icovered there and if so, we would certainly like to include those. Emmings : I don ' t know what criteria you used . To me one of the worse things in Chanhassen is getting of TH 7 into the roads that I have to I use to get access to my house. It ' s dangerous and there ' s screeching tires and collisions up there all the time and that 's TH 7 going into Minnewashta Heights and Lows and Shores and that whole stretch . Some of I that is actually in Shorewood I think. That 's a real problem. That ' s a problem that I experience everyday but I don ' t know if it rises to the level of being a problem that needs to be identified in the Comprehensive Plan . IIMark Koegler : I think it does and I think that ' s an example of one that, quite honestly, I overlooked. You' re aware that the TH 7 corridor I study took place 2 years ago now, maybe plus a little bit, and that has some definite recommendations on some intersection closures and some things up in that area to help remedy that . It ' s our intent , I think 1 I had one of the items, the outline item 5, is actually talking about some of what are the existing deficiencies . The text will move into a section that' s going to talk about some of the planned improvements and I that would be an example of the reference to the TH 7 corridor study. I think that is a point that we need to identify in the deficiency section . Right now it only identifies one or two intersections with TH 7 and it doesn' t really focus on the corridor . IIEmmings : I found out just recently, and I was tempted to get it, the State does keep, you get a computer printout for an intersection and the Inumber and types of accidents that occur at the intersection . I didn' t know that until about 3 or 4 months ago but I was kind of curious, I was thinking about getting one for our area up there just to see what the record shows. I always feel , the pile of bodies has to be so high Ibefore they do anything and I was wondering how high it is already. Mark Koegler: We' ll add some text on that. TH 7 corridor and IMinnewashta area . One of the things, again to give credit where credit is due, the assembly process of putting some text together, the graphic that ' s on page 10 that shows some of the growth along TH 5 corridor, which I thought really laid out very nicely what has taken place over I Planning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 30 the last 6 year period in terms of the volumes that have increased and for each of those segments, what kind of percentage increase has been happening on an annual basis . It drives home the need for those improvements. It is particularly important to reference that in terms of the development as commercial and industrial expansion and residential growth continues to happen in Chanhassen regardless of, hopefully the TH 212 construction occurs , TH 5 soon will be a very heavily used route and therefore it ' s importance in the City' s role in monitoring what Eden Prairie is doing . I think it ' s extremely important and there are jurisdictions probably to the west of here that feel the same way about Chanhassen. TH 5 obviously is vital as you head on out to Victoria and Waconia. Are there any other items that anybody noted that were not addressed at all or not addressed thoroughly enough in terms of problem identification? Emmings : I 'm just looking at this arrow, the black arrow that appears on the map on T-6, it extends CR 17? Maybe I didn' t connect that to the text. Mark Koegler : The intent of the graphics is simply to indicate that CR 17 has the potential to be extended to Pioneer Trail and there is specific reference in the text. That essentially is as far south as reasonably that road is going to go. Therefore, if Chanhassen has interest in making sure it has at least one north/south minor arterial that has some hope of being functional , it is TH 101 rather than CR 17. What we' re trying to stress TH 101 for a variety of reasons . One of them is the interchange aspect with the proposed TH 212. Under Metropolitan Council ' s criteria , interchanges occur with at least minor arterials or better , in terms of their functional classification so that ' s to some degree in support of that also. ' Emmings: Does anybody else have any questions? Mark Koegler : The only other item, and I don ' t know that it ' s really ' necessary to go through it. I think all of you probably have had copies or currently have copies of the broaden study area which did focus on some detailed recommendations for intersections. Specifically, a reworking of the interchange at TH 101 and West 79th and TH 5, I think is probably the most major item and Dakota. Dakota is probably the major one with 78th Street. There ' s TH 101 as a part of that also and the new interchange west of TH 101 that will go into kind of a middle of downtown area . Those will all be a part of this plan and that text is being worked into this. I think you probably, at least most of you, had a chance to go through that in the past . If you haven' t you' ll see that in two forms. You' ll see it in the plan of material that you get next time, or you can read about it, perhaps in more detail , in the broaden study area' s report. I Emmings : What does that come under? For example, that interchange of TH 101 and West 79th Street. Does that come under recommended systems? I Mark Koegler : It would come under two things. I think that ' s going to be primarily opened ended to what ' s now considered planned improvements . 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 31 Planned improvements is going to really look at the improvements that have essentially been generally agreed upon or generally planned by a Ivariety of jurisdictions . The City, County and State . Certainly this is one that the City now has had planned. Interestingly enough though, the way that process worked , I don' t believe that has gone to public II hearing yet. It will do that as a part of the Comprehensive Plan so I don ' t know that the general public has had the chance to critique some of these things to the degree that they will have when this document is pulled together . It will be clearly identified in there that this is Iwhat 's being planned, in general, for that area. Emmi.ngs : What is the status of that? Is that intersection, that weird Iintersection with the railroad running through the middle of it. Dacy: That will be part , as Mark mentioned , of the planned system section on the transportation chapter and that will probably be the most Icontroversial part of your public hearing process to adopt the plan . You will hear from Chanhassen Estates. You will hear from McDonalds . You will hear from Ivan Sinclair . You will hear from the people in IHidden Valley. Emmings : And several Planning Commissioners . Erhart: For or opposed? Dacy: McDonalds will be opposed . Staff is planning to conduct some Ineighborhood informational meetings prior to an official public hearing on this matter but the first step is getting it considered by the community as a planned improvement. You recall a year and a half ago we IIhad joint meetings with the Council and we looked at that year 2005 transportation plan. You really looked over that intersection quite closely. We have had BRW look at that alignment and make some Irefinements so that there isn' t such a curve coming south on TH 101 so we are getting to the point that we are refining the geometrics of that intersection and getting down to specific distances , right-of-ways , widths, etc . . IEmmi.ngs : One of the interesting things about that intersection is that a railroad goes right through there. IEllson: Do we have a picture of this somewhere in this packet? Dacy: In your orientation packet, I put the year 2005 study in there. IIt ' s figure 17. Mark Koegler : There ' s a lof of detailed background material in there 1 also which I think will give you more of an overview to see what the thinking was behind that . Quite honestly, the transportation element, to be one of the focal points of the public hearing on the Comp Plan. I Idon ' t think any of you were on the Commission back around 1980 but when the Plan went to hearing in 1982, it was hard to muster anybody to have any interest in the thing and I suspect some of these kinds of things will generate a little more enthusiam this time around. Whether that be II Planning Commission Meeting I February 3 , 1988 - Page 32 good or bad , we' ll see. That ' s all I had . We' ll be back next time with the rest of the material . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to approve the first half of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 20, 1988 as amended by David Headla on pages 2 and 15. All voted in favor and motion carried . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - DISCUSSION. Dacy: I wrote this primarily to try and keep track. Make sure that we have everything and a couple of new things have come up from other members of city staff. For example, regulations for fences in the front yard and concerns about wood storage and outdoor storage. A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting . Emmings : PUD philosophy is on here. That ' s kind of big . I don ' t know what it meant. You've got landfills and and hazardous waste disposal . Treated wood, we' ve talked about that . Architectural exterior metal buildings. We are talking about that. Radio antennas, cemetery signs, temporary conditional uses , center islands in cul-de-sacs . The only other one is acreage left in MUSA. Dacy: I did answer that at one meeting . Emmings: Maybe I wasn't here. Dacy: It was another Comp Plan meeting and the answer was 1, 200 acres . Erhart: How much do they allow you to have? What' s the goal? Dacy: We have 1, 200 acres of vacant developable land left in the MUSA area. Once we eat up the 1,200 acres, then the City can consider petitioning Met Council . ' Erhart : And they expect you to bring that down to zero? Dacy: Correct. Erhart : What happens if Dave Headla just doesn ' t want to subdivide his land? We have to wait for the next 50 years until Dave dies . Dacy: I think if it comes down to 95% or 98% , I 'm sure they will consider that but. . . Erhart : That just seems unreasonable . At some point you have to say, it's like unemployment. You can ' t get it down to zero. At some point there ' s got to be a certain number of acreage that these people just aren ' t going to want to subdivide for any reason and you will start restricting , more and more restricting the growth of the City. IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 3 , 1988 - Page 33 II Emmings : This issue on fences in front yards. Do you want to talk Iabout that tonight? Dacy: If you want to . If you'd rather wait until next time, that ' s up to you. II Emmings : This came up either from the City Council or by other city staff it says . Dacy: Yes , the fence one was initiated from a councilmember and II contacted Jim Chaffee about it and I received a memo from Jim Chaffee. II agreed that I would bring it to the Commission ' s attention to see whether or not they wanted to pursue it. IHeadla : When people come up with stuff like that, it just seems like they've got tunnel vision. The one area they' re looking at, the whole world is like that , and it' s not . Take a look in our area , and Tim' s area. If you want to put a fence in your front yard . I don ' t know why II you can ' t. Sometimes I like to have flowers and sometimes I like to ll keep my dog in my yard. I don' t want a 2 1/2 foot fence that he' ll step over . I really think when they look at the stuff , and the next subject Itoo, don' t look at just one small area of the City. It 's a big city with a lot of diverse things going on and there' s a lot of different interest in this city. IDacy: How about if I do this . Maybe I ' ll invite the councilmember that was concerned about this issue, to come to a meeting to discuss it more unless you have a strong feeling now that it ' s not appropriate . IEmmings: It seems to me when something like this comes up, it ' s good to know why. What specific thing has gone haywire that brought it up. Do Iyou know what it is? Dacy: I think it was just a general aesthetic issue that must have occurred in his neighborhood because we just talked briefly about it. IIt' s just the aesthetics of having a 6 foot fence in the front yard along the road . IEmmings : And you do see , I think of my neighborhood and I know my neighbor has, the spot I live in is completely enclosed with a chain linked because it was all in the hands of one person at one time. Now we tore it down along the lake but it ' s still there up along Greenbriar , Iand that looks real bad , in my opinion . Across the street , on the corner , there' s a woman that has a split rail fence in her front yard and it looks just fine . It ' s just two rails and very unoffensive. It ' s just a variety. Then you get into hedges and hedges being fences . We' ve been in this before . It ' s a real complicated issue and not only would I like to know what went wrong that brought it people' s attention Ibut it might be a good idea just for people to drive around for a while and look and see. There' s a variety and I don ' t think we want to restrict people too much. I I • Planning Commission Meeting ' February 3, 1988 - Page 34 Batzli : Currently, if someone was going to install a 6 foot fence in their front yard, what would be their limitations on doing that? Is there a setback from the road? A right-of-way that they couldn' t put it on or can they put it right up to the road? Dacy: They would have to put it at the property line, at the right-of-way line. They couldn' t put it within the right-of-way. Olsen : We also require a plan. Dacy: Okay, we' ll come back with specifics on this issue and maybe pictures. Emmings : Did we define that hedge as a fence, when we were doing that ' stuff on the sliding lot line? We talked about it. Dacy: A landscaped hedge? Shurbery? ' Emmings: Yes . Dacy: No , the ordinance is just fences or walls . I recall now that you mention it that we talked about it, but the way it' s written. Emmings : Alright, so that will come back. ' Dacy: As well as these other 8 items. I would like to get most of the ordinance amendment issues wrapped up soon . I 'd like to have it as kind of annual issue. Kind of a housekeeping process . Headla : What about the wood storage? ' Dacy: I just included that for informational purposes . I haven' t had a chance to sit down with them to really discuss the intent here because I think we have some problems with the suggestion of number 2, from an enforcement standpoint . It was just for informational purposes . Headla: I 'd like to know what costs are involved because once you do ' that, you need an elmologist to go out and look at a woodpile and that ' s going to require so much education and training and travel and what are you going to get out of that? Where Steve lives and I live, are two vastly different areas. What are we going to accomplish for it? If I go on TH 5, TH 101, TH 7 and look at all the elms standings , there are so many of them compared to what' s going to be in a wood pile. Emmings: I didn ' t know about the importance of removing oak bark. I knew about it with elm. Headla : That' s becoming more serious all the time and I 've got a lot of good oaks there that boy, I want to save. A lot of nice oaks in my area . ' i 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1988 - Page 35 IErhart moved , Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. . I Submitted by Barbara Dacy ICity Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I