Loading...
1991 03 06 CHA~ASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGL~._AR MEETING MARO~ 6, 1991 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings, Sriah Satzli and Jeff Farmakes ). MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens 'I STA~ PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plan~er; and Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner I. Krau~s: Mr. Chairman, if possible, could we jump to 3. Where is that? , Olse:n: It's not even on. We've got Ceil Strauss from the DNR. Kraums: We have a representative from the DNR who's come to talk to you abou~ some of the work that we're doing ongoing and we've had, just been ablef to arrange for her to come and she's got a commitment to go home to her ~on and we said that we would get her on as early as possible. It won'~ take a terribly long amount of time. Emmi~gs: That's fine. Why don't you introduce her and what she's going to talk~about here. Olse~: The purpose is that there's a new shoreland ordinance that we have to adopt and we will have to do it within the next 2 years. So she just want~ to kind of go through it, what the new stuff is and what the -, shoreland ordinance is for. Take it away Ceil. Ceil~Strauss: Is it okay to speak from over here? · Emmi~)gs: Sure. Ceil iStrauss: First I'll hand out some propaganda here. This is an older broc]~ure that talks about protective waters permit program and what I'm talking about here has to do more with our land use management and the shor~land._ rules. First off, I'm Ceil Strauss. I'm the Area Hydrologist within the Division of Waters DNR and I work with actually most of the wate~, related programs including the permits for working in wetlands and lake~ and overseeing the shoreland mangement.., t've got sort of an official presentation. I'm going to try and go through this to give you a littke bit of an overview. Maybe I shouldn't admit it but you're sort of my g~inea pigs here. I haven't given the formal presentation before so hopefully it won't be too bad. Say Division of Waters, Department of Natu~,al Resources and we're talking about, can you all see this? Conrad: Sure. Ceil~Strauss: Okay. Shoreland management program. And what's the purpose of t~e shoreland management program? The goal is to protect and preserve the ~horeland environments in Minnesota and the main areas that the guidelines address are water quality and scenic and visual quality issues~ This~!gives you an idea of the lakes distribution in the state and as you Plan~ing Commission Heeting Hatch' 6, 1991 - Page 2 can ~ee, Chanhassen's right here near a high concentration of the lakes. Wate~-areas as I'm sure you're well aware. There was, the original shor~,land rules came out mid-70's and Chanhassen does have an ordinance, well _.r. in fact you basically adopted, the original guidelines by reference. The ~uidelines were updated and became effective in July of 1989 and that's what~e're working with now. Host of the parts of the new rules are very similar t.o the old. I~ll try to highlight the things that are different. As ir the old rules, what's considered shoreland district is within feet ~f the lakes and within 300 feet or the landward side of the flooc~lain. Designated floodplain, whichever goes out further. I know sometfhing that's been brought to my attention here and some of the other commt'nities is well, do we have to go out 1,000 feet. Well yeah you do becat~se that's what it is in Statute. We can't change that. The situation where, you may be able to change it from 1,000 feet would be if you've got, if tk%e drainage is such that it's draining a different direction. It's drain, lng to another lake or to another area before you hit the 1,000 feet. Say ~_~u get here and you've got a big ridge and all the water flows the other~ way and your engineering department probably has a lot of that kind of icnCormation. /hat would really be the only situation where you cam get any ~maller than the 1,000 foot area. Critical definition is the ordinary high i~ater level. This is basically the line of jurisdiction for all the DNR ~F~ermitting authority and relates to this program also. You probably, I don't, know how familiar you are with that but you probably have heard of that.~ It's essentially the highest known, the point where water's been for a suf.~icient period of time to leave evidence on the landscape~ And we usually give that as an elevation. It's typically where the vegetation chan?~=~s from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation. On a water course or strea~, river, it would be the top of the bank. As part of the shoreland program, the lakes are classified into three main categories~ That's something you've already got in your current ordinance. They're classified into .~atural environment, recreational development and general development. Thes~ classifications were determined back in about '68 and it was based on a numoer of different criteria. If you wanted more details on how your lake~.~ were classified what they were, I could give that to you another time The other thing I'd like to mention is that you're required to include those lakes that were 10 acres and larger. They got classified the first~ time around but we would~ and the rivers too. The rivers that are prot~ted rivers or protected water courses on the DNR protected water ., inver~..cory map but I would encourage the City to consider protecting or havin~ the shoreland management guidelines applied to areas adjacent to some ~f the smaller lakes and additional wetlands. That's aD option you can c'~oose to add. You can call it a separate category if you want. If you ~nt to lump some of them into the other three classifications that are already there. That's an option. Some of the other communities have say a 35 fobt setback I know in Minnetonka from wetlands~ It's something you could~ consider. We'd really encourage you to do that since you've got a wetla~nd ordinance and you're doing some work with the wetlands in the commu~"qity already but we can't force you to. There are minimum lot sizes depending on the classification of the lakes. There's some minimum setbacks, lot widths, that kind of thing. They differ for the sewered versus non-sewered areas. That's almost identical to what the old ones were.-'-. One of the few changes was, and this is a weird one but the general development, non-lakeshore in unsewered areas used to be 20,000 square foot minim:~Jm. It now is 40,000 square foot minimum. Plan~ing Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Paoe 3 Erha~t: Can you put that one back up there again? Ceil 'Strauss: Sure. ? [rha~t: You're saying that near a recreational lake that a minimum lot with"n 1,000 feet of the lake is 20,000 square feet? : Ceil ;'Strauss: The lakeshore lots, right. ': Erha~t: Oh, okay. Ceil :iStrauss: The riparian lots are these combo and then the non-riparian or nSn-lakeshore is the smaller lots. ., Erha~t: What's the object of that? So then what you're saying on a natuPal environment lake, it's 40,000 square feet lakeshore lot It's an acre_~ Sewered, what's the object of that? Ceil i. Strauss: Well it's a combination of the impact you get from the densfty in terms of visual quality and also when people develop lots, they don'~ just leave the lot all in it's natural state. You've got a certain amount of the surface that's impervious. You've got driveways. Impervious surf~'ce from the building itself. Disturbance from the lawn. People fertflize. They put Weed Be Gone on their lawn. Ail these things that go into the development of a lot have an impact on the lake quality both from the .~e, sthetics and from the water quality standpoint. Erha~t: What lake do we have as a natural environment lake? 01 se ¢." St. 3oe. Krau~s: Rice Marsh Lake. Harrison. St. Joe, Rice and Silver. Erhar~,'.: Okay, so we have to adapt these standards or we don't have to? Ceil ~trauss: These are the minimums. Erha~t' That the City has to adopt. Ceil ,%trauss: That you have to adopt. And actually, you already have these,, standards. ! Erhar~: 40,000 square foot lots on Rice Marsh Lake? We don't do we I tel 1 fou. Ceil .~trauss: And these tables are in the booklets that you got there too that ~how this. Emmin~s: Well that's real interesting when you think that that parcel that came bver that's going to be bisected by the new 212~ wasn't that high densi~,y going right over to Rice Marsh Lake? Wasn't that a high density so they Could never have built in there anyway under those standards. Olsen¢~ Well they never would have had riparian lots... ,. Planiing Commission Meeting Marc6 6, 1991 - Page 4 Emmiigs: But that's another good argument when they complain about that beini zoned down like we have, they couldn't have built with that density anyw&y . okay. Krau~s: It does point out a problem with the State legislation. Me'ye been:talking to Ceil and other folks at the DNR about it. The State legislature has a habit of designing a law that, it's a blanket. While it work~ well over most of Minnesota, it doesn't work as well in the Twin cities where within 1,o0o feet of the lake we may have 500 homes. And one of o~r points of discussion is how we rationalized that through variance procadures...we'd like to come up with a way of making this as easy to admiiister as possible. Erha~t: Well I guess, my question is, I just don't understand why you'd take n ~o e lake which is a lake that probably has more capacity to absorb runo"f which would be a weedy lake versus a deep lake and all of a sudden you require a 1 acre lots along that. I just don't understand that. ~Strauss: Well that was something that was discussed at great length Ceils; at t~e time that the original regulations were presented up there. Erha!it: Well again, I Guess I'd agree with Paul. A lot of these things, .. and ~t goes with this net loss thing, t'hat everybody in the legislature tend¢ to look at Minnesota as farmland and rural area and some of these thin~s I'm not sure they apply so well to the city. But go ahead. i Ceil~Strauss: Okay, the rivers and creeks were classified into a number of diff&rent classifications there. The only ones that really apply, it was only]the bigger rivers like the Minnesota River that got separate classifications. Most of those in Chanhassen are the tributary classification. They also have the minimum lot widths, setbacks. Something that's new in these regulations is the idea of a shore impact zone~ You're familiar with setback requirements for structures. The shore impa~t zone is half the structure setback and the idea behind that is that you'~e Got sort of a buffer zone. An area that you don't allow extreme grading. You try to encourage that more natural vegetation is left in that area': That you don't have clearcutting in that area and that's the main thin~ behind it. I think it's a much smaller amount of grading in terms of cubic yards that would require permits say from the city than outside that shor~ impact zone. Okay and that s just showing that shore impact zone as half'the building setback. Another aspect in the new rules is more of a concAntration on building in the areas of bluffs and steep slopes. Now a bluf~ by definition in these regulations is, well we're just talk about bluffs that are steep areas that are within the shoreland district at 1,000 feet~back. It has to Go at least 25 feet above the ordinary high of that basi~ and that it would need a 30~ slope and need to drain toward that basi ~. And it can get real complicated showing how you figure out what's a bluf~ and what's not a bluff but let's just leave it at 30~ there. Then stee¢ slopes we would consider to be the slopes where the average slope is grea';er than 12~ and less than your 30~ that would be a bluff. An alte"native would be if you have all your soils mapped according to Soil Conservation Service type groupings there. You may be able to use that inst.~ad of the strict 12~, 30~. Then there's also a bluff impact zone in addi"ion to shore impact zone where there's a setback from the top of the , PI_arising CommLssion Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 5 ! I L blur~ 20 feet before you would put a structure so you're not putting buil<"ings right at the very edge of the top of the bluff. Krau~s: lhis still only applies to the 1,000 foot because the Planning Comm ssion is lookimg at bluff line preservation ordinance for the Minnesota River and I think that that's... Ceil[Strauss: A lot that may be..further. You could look at these guidelines that are in here and see what would be consistent and I should ment. on at this point too. Now both Jo Ann and Paul brought up the point that i. these are guidelines that are for the entire State and there are areas wher~ they dom't really quite fit your community. They're mot going to. You ~an't come up with a law that's going to be right for every single community and there is room for, there's a couple different categories of what-I'd call flexibility. One is in an actual flexibility definitiom where; if there are extreme circumstance where you just can't meet the minir~ums in your community and you can come up with good reasoning for not. meeting the minimums, then that's a possibility that we could pursue. The othe~ area that I would see being more likely here would be substantial comp.[lance. Now you don't have to necessarily use exactly the same bluff defif, ition we have or exactly the same way of looking at PUD's but if, as I'm ~orking ~ith the community here and the staff, we can see that what you'~e got or what you want to use addresses the same concerns, then we don'¢ care if it's exactly the same words except for the same definition. So tffat may be something you'd want to consider with your bluffing. You don'( necessarily have to use exactly that. You'd probably want to have the same bluff definition in the whole city. Okay, this is showing the setback from the top of the bluffs. I think people can understand why you would want a setback. It's largely for the aesthetics and also for the safe~y concerns if it's a steeper bluff situation. It wasn't too far away from '--here during the super storm where they had that big area fall down. Okay~ another area that the City can choose to be a little more flexible is for ~.ne water oriented accessory structure. Let's go right to the water oriented part. For normally a structure has to meet the building setback whic~i would be typically your 50 foot, 75 foot, whatever and in the rules the ~ity can choose to allow one water oriented accessory structure that only ~needs a 10 foot setback as long as it meets certain conditions such as there's a maximum size, maximum height. You'd want to look at screening. Colo¢,ing types of concerns but that's something that you can think about because that would be how you would handle gazebos, boat houses, some of these4 kinds of structures. You don't have to allow that but you cam. Okay~ now here we get into the idea of land use districts and this is another, one of those areas where it's sort of aimed at your non-metro type community. ~hat we're getting at here is the idea of saying what's going to b~ allowed in what areas. I'm 3ust going to skip right to an example here,_~i That's a river one· Let's go with a lake one. But the idea of havi~g, and you're doing it with your Comp Plan and zoning and I think that ~ gozng to be one of our areas where we talk about substantial compliance. But the idea is that you're deciding what parts of the lake are a~. propriate for residential. What parts are appropriate for high densL~ty, if any. What parts are appropriate for what types of use and that~ something that the Metropolitan communities are very familiar with so I ~on't think that would be too much of a problem here but I do think it's ~going to be a situation where we talk about substantial compliance rath~-r than you using our five categories that we've got in the guidelines. Plan~ing Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 6 i And ~lanned unit developments. That's unfortunately, it's unfortunate that our ~uidelines use that term because our planned unit developments do not, are ~ynonomous with the planned unit developments that are used in the metr6politan area. Essentially we don't consider it a planned unit development until you get up to about a fiveplex. Up to a fourplex, as long!as they're on their own lot and they meet the minimum lot sizes, we don'" consider it a planned unit development. But the idea, I think you're familiar with the idea behind planned unit developments. It allows some clustering of the units. You can try and keep the disturbance of the area concentrated for utilities and for roads and that kind of thing and then try i~nd leave the more sensitive, nicer amenity areas as open space. It's some,:hing that we do again, we've got guidelines for what-kind of things can Be allowed within a planned unit development in terms of density and we get : nrc density multipliers and a whole bunch of stuff that we'll have to look:fat how the city handles their planned unit development analysis or review and see how the end result compares. Olse~: And the City might be getting into this subject also. Things that the ~NR defines as, requires to be...of a PUD which we would not consider to b% a PUD such as, like an apartment complex. You might with high densl~ty, you might not require it to go through the PUD but it would have to g~ through the PUD regulations. i Ceil~Strauss: Right. The multi-unit aspect. Anything that we would diviJe into residential and commercial PUD's and residential is any situation where you've got, we've got minimum lot sizes for up to the four 51ex. Up to four units on the lot but when you get into an apartment situiition or bigger chunks of townhouses there, then we'd consider that a PUD.~i We consider a hotel, a resort, campgrounds, all those kinds of, well prison we're working on. Prison came up in Plymouth that we're discussing. But ;he commercial is transient, usually voluntary, living quarters there. And ~'m not going to go into the detail on how that's analyzed but this is sort]of a schematic of what a PUD might allow. Some concentration of the development. Olse6: With the PUD regulations... The new style isn't because we haven't adopted it but for some reason. .! Ceil~Strauss: And I don't understand why but for some reason the legislature in their wisdom, somewhere along the way said. Olse6: As soon as that was adopted...enforce if a PUD came in with a shor~land district now, we'd have to use these regulations. Ceil~Strauss: Okay, and we get a little bit more into best management prac"~ces. We will be having some brochures made up on best managing ! . practices for the urban areas. Agricultural areas and forestry which probably the urban area best management practiced. That'd be the most usefi~l here. And do you have any unsewered lake? Okay. Another situation that~is in the new rules that is really going to impact some of the counties is that any time someone comes in for a building permit or any kind~'of permit and they're in the shoreland and they're in an unsewered area~ they have to show that their septic system is compliant. Even if ! they~re coming in for an addition on their house that has nothing to do with' the septic system. That it's written in the rules that you're going Plan%lng Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 7 to use that as your time to go ahead and see whether that's compliant or not ~nd then the communities are all supposed to need to come up with some soft,of a monitoring system. A way to get all the non-conforming systems upda'i;ed and replaced. So that, I don't think you have too many to worry abou', here but that's a big workload in some of the other more rural coun';ies. I think the rest of this is just sort of more background info~mation. The administration. Most of that you're pretty familiar withi' Variances, conditional uses, non-conformities so I won't dwell on any Cf the rest of that. You will be getting, or in the process of getting your'~,shoreland grant. It's one of the few situations where you're being told 'you have to adopt something and actually being given some cost sharing money to do the adoption. So the City can get up to $5,000.00 in 50/50 cost.~share grant money. And just as an idea of what the agenda would be. The 'irst thing will be that we'll take a look at the classifications. Make?sure we don't have any disagreements on how you want to classify your lake¢ and rivers and then we would look at some of the bigger areas like how ..~ou want to handle your PUD's. How you want to handle your districts arougd the lakes and streams and rivers. Hopefully we'll be to the draft ordi'~ance stage at a minimum by 6 months before your 2 years is up. You = just got your notification, 2 year notification in January here so you do have ~ ~,until ~anuary, 1993 officially to get an adopted ordinance. Z'l~ be, it's'part of my job to be working with the community here. If you have questions, if you things are unrealistic, we can sit down and discuss them. Ther~ are a lot of things in the ru~es to address the kinds of problems that~'~typically come up. There's some additional wording on, for instance some;of the things that used to be variances that were almost always granted as a variance. We've got for instance, you have a number of smal'~er lots. You've got a lot that's undeveloped but the neighbor on eith~-r side and all the other neighbors have non-conforming structures. They;only meet a 40 foot setback instead of a 50 foot setback. There's language in there that you can use that basically says it's not a variance. You ~on't have to go through the variance procedure if that setback is the same las the adjoining neighbors. Some of those kinds of thin~s are included in the rules now because we don't want to have a lot of extra work but ~ou have to look at what's realistic. Olse~: What do you do if the setback is 75 feet and you have a house on one ~ide is 60 and the other one is 50. Do you go 60 feet? Ceili!Strauss: ~ think it talks about the 50~, you basically go halfway between. I'd have to look at the exact wording. Emmilgs: We've got 2 years to get this implemented. Where is it on our work :schedule? Is there any reason it should take that long? Olse~: We haven't really discussed it...get going on it. Now's the time to r~ally get going on it. Emmi~gs: What's got to be done first? What would be the first step? Ceil~Strauss: The first step would be looking at what the classifications are ~nd deciding what you want to include under your management guidelines. Emmi~:gs: And you mentioned including maybe some wetlands under this? Plan~ing Commission Meeting Marc:i 6, 1991 - Page'8 Ceil ~St'rauss' Right. Emmi'lgs: What would be the advantage of' that when we have the wetland ordi'~ance that we have? , Ceil~Strauss: That. I'm not sure of the details of your wetland ordinance. Krau~s: I think that we do a more specific and more appropriate job... Conrad: What do you think about chemical toilets within 100 feet? Ceil~Strauss: I already took a look at that. I saw that you had the : setback there of 75 feet in your proposed ordinance there. It seems like a reasgnable distance. You definitely, I would want to see it meet the stYu~ture setback. I'm assuming these are recreational development lakes. · Olse~' ...accessory structures 10 feet back? Ceil-Strauss:. Oh, I wouldn't want it 10 feet back. Now that's not a water oriented accessory structure because you don't have to have it by the ware{- . Emmi~,gs: First of all you don't have a principle use on those lands so you can'~ have it an accessory structure right? So I don't think it would fit. Ceil~Strauss: Well actually, we would probably not consider it, we may not consf!der it a permanent structure. It hasn't come forward to my attention in t~'e past so I haven't guidance on that but there's a lot of situations whet(~ something's considered temporary and our rules only consider the perm~ nent structures. That happens in our protected water regulations too. We g~t people that will stick boats on blocks and the neighbors complained because they think it looks terrible. It's on the bed of the lake but we have'Ito consider it a temporary structure. You get into some gray areas with lithat kind of thing. Emmi~gs: Anybody else have any questions at this time? Okay. Well, thank you ~ery much. Ceil ~Strauss: Sure. Emmi~gs: We're going to shift the agenda around a little bit because appa~ently there are people here on the zoning ordinance amendment regarding chemical portable toilets on recreational beachlots so we're goin~ to take that item next. ? ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CHEMICAL PORTABLE TOILETS ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS . · SharP, in Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. , Emmi~gs: By way of a little further introduction from me, I drafted what's here tbecause Sharmin called me up and said I had to right then and then I had ~ fax it to hew so it could get on the meeting. I put it off for like 2 mo~ths and then I had to do it in 5 minutes so I've made some changes myself. I've got some things that. Plan¢ing Commission Meeting Ma¥c~: 6, 1991 - Page 9 Conrad: What are you referring to Steve? r Emmi~gs: Ttae last two pages is the draft that we re going to be looking Batz' i' It didn't look like a draft to me. It looked pretty formal and fina' ized. EmmiT, gs: Okay. I guess in some ways when I got done with this I thought gee, ~it's so ha~d ~o do that I ~onder if people a~e going to think it's no~ wor~k doing it and maybe that's okay but the one thing that I added under (a) das Lhat, iL says setbacks from ordinary high ~ater ma~k shall be 75 feet~ And I think maybe we should add that side and f~ont yard setbacks should be maximized to aid and achieving a maximum screening. And in the reason ~ didn't put in side or f~ont yard setbacks there was that I know we have:. I know that on the lake ~here I live, on Minnewashta, there's a beac~lot with a portable chemical toilet and I don't think that beachlot, do y4'u know how, is that 25 feet Dick? Do they have 25 feet of shore there? That's all isn't it? So I couldn't think o~ anyway, and then I know.-there's another one on the other side of Lake Minnewashta, remember whet('' they had several hundred feet of shoreline and I couldn't think o¢ any ~*ay to w~-ite side yard setbacks for 25 foot lot. I mean it just does~ 't make sense so I thought let's leave them out but the more I think abou¢ iL, I just thought maybe we could say that they should be maximized to h~lp achieve those screening. And then I put in another one, I don't know,where iL goes. I put it in as, well it could be a paragraph (e) or wherever you'd put it and that is that a portable chemical toilet should be secufely anchored to the ground. That was in the first one and it wasn't in ~is one. I missed that and that ought to be in here and I asked Shar~in to call them and ask them how they anchor them and apparently they do h~:ve some way to do that. There s something else I wanted to say here and ~ can't remember what it was right now. Oh. On the first page of your star-, report Sharmin it says that the amended version will require applicants to appear before the Planning Commission on an annual basis and that ~,',wasn 't my intent. I put it in here that, under (c) that it would requJ're approval from the City planning department. I thought this would be a~' adminstrative approval by the City planning department. That's why I put ~L bhat way. I don't see any reason for them to come through here. Batz~i: How about annual approval though? Did you just want them to do it o~ce~ Emmi~gs: You know, I didn't think about it. I¢ they're using, I guess t.o some~extent if they can't screen it well enough, then they have to get the neigKbor's consent in writing and that's only good ~or one year. So it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make it annual because other~.~ise the info~.matio isn't going to be fresh on who's responsible for maintaining it and ~ think that's a real important item. So yeah, it probably ought to be an at nual. You may want ~o have a permit ~ee associated with it too to pay for ~he processing cost. Krau~s: Can I clarify something Chairman? Now the initial time this is approved iL ~ould be approved as a CUP through the Planning Commission or not? ~ Planlqing Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 10 Emmi,~gs: I don't know. I saw this as something they'd come to the City for ~ permit for. Krau~s: Well I think from our perspective, we'd prefer that at least the firs2 time through, it came through here with the public hearing process. It adds formal notification. There's an opportunity for people to comment~ I wo~ld be relunctant to approve those things initially at a staff level Emmi%gs: So then it could be renewed on an annual basis? Krau.~s' Renewals sure because we process complaints and we can go out and check( compliance for conditions. Emmiilgs: That'd be alright then. That's fine with me if that works bettlr. And the other thing that was in the staff report that wasn't, it says~the consent of all the residents using the beachlot would have to be submitted to the city in written form and that's just a little wrong. It's neigl,bors that have to consent. In those cases like a 25 foot wide or someplace where they can't screen the thing, that's where you'd need neigibors consent in writing in order to have it at all. I wanted to conv~y the idea that if everything is just right, you can have one of these and ;f everybody doesn't agree, then you can't have one. I don't think they're important enough to give to everybody. They seem to me to be strictly, a convenience. I think they're important when some of the beac~lots, a neighborhood uses them that lives and again I keep, I only know.Tthe specific examples around my lake but there's one I think maybe that~you folks are associated with where everybody lives across Minnewashta ParkWay in an area of homes there and they all come across there and if some~mom comes down in the middle of the afternoon or dad with their kids, and ~.hey've got 2 kids with them and one of them has to go back home, that mean¢ everybody has to go back home to go to the bathroom or whatever and it 3u'st seems to me to be a real reasonable thing to have for people's convenience if you can handle them in some way. ¢%nyhow. Okay. Now we said iwe had a public hearing on this but I'm really wondering if we have because this draft wasn't in front of anybody who got notice of a public hearing. This has never been, is that important? KrauS~s: You did have a public hearing on an earlier version of this. Yes, it w~'s a different version but I think it's fair to say that those who were inte~iested in participating in the discussion had an opportunity and we noti¢¢ied those same people for tonight. If you're comfortable with the ordi~ance, I would feel comfortable with you passing it along to the City Council tonight. EmmiE'gs: ~re there, did you come on this issue? Gene iFhristensen= Yes. Emmi¢~, s: Did you get to look at the ordinance the way it's bee~ drafted? Gene ~hristensen: ~e just got it tonight. ~4e're looking at it Emmi~gs" Do you want to make any comments on what's here? Plan~ing Commission Heeting HaTch 6, 1991 - Page ll Genei. Christensen: I have no objections to anything and I think it sounds reasonable to everything you've got in there. In regards to signatures from'-'people. I mean on a yearly basis is somebody supposed to go to all the louses and get signatures saying is it okay for this year? That kind of s&ems like an issue that should be, I mean I can see it should be done but ~hat's the process for volunteering for something like this. Emmi ~gs: With your application, at least the way I see it. With your appl_cation to the city for your permit for the year, if you don't have any way ~o screen it. from view, you'd have to go to the residential neighbors, in y~ur case, on each side. I know there's plans. You've got houses on both~sides of yours right? Gene ~Chr istensen: Yes. Emmi~gs: Now the house that's on the north side of yours is going to be town'down and that's going to be subdivided. I know that's in the works and fhere's going to be two new houses in there. And to the south of you there's a house so you'd have to go to those two houses and say, if the city~thought you couldn't screen it well enough, you'd have to say. One thin.~- you could say is it was there last year and were there any problems with~.it and otherwise sign this form giving us your consent so we can show the <ity you don't have any objections. Is there anQbody else here who's got c~omments on this? We don't really have a public hearing going I guess. Well :we'll see who's got comments here. Tim? · : Erha~t: Well okay. I absolutely agree that the Planning Commission should not meview this on an annual basis. It should be a staff function. guess' I'm more inclined to have it completely a staff function. Zf it meet¢ the ordinance, on what basis do we deny it anyway if it comes to the Plan'r. ing Commission? I guess going a little bit deeper, I'm bothered with, in t~e first place I think it's a great idea to allow chemical toilets on beac~lots but I'm wondering if we shouldn't specify a little bit about which beachlots are allowed and which shouldn't be. I mean each lot that's 25 f¢ibt wide with residents on either side, I'm not sure we should be in the b~Jsiness of allowing chemical toilets at all. Emmi~s: Well I guess if the neighbors don't care, do you? Ellsc~n: But if the neighbors don't care. Erhar~c' Okay. If the neighbors don't care. I guess what I'm getting to is, l~t's say you've got a 200. What's the current ordinance for beachlot. Is i~ 200 feet or 180 or what? 200 feet. You've got a 200 foot beachlot and Y~ou've got 40,000 square feet. Let's say you've got an acre and one neig~oT is, his house is 200 feet away so he's got 50 foot setback He's 150 f~bet away from the proposed chemical toilet and he's going to say well, I 'm 3'asr not going to let you do it. Therefore, I'm not going to agree. Now t-qat's going to prohibit. Ellsc~: No, read the part about screening. You only get the neighbors conse?t if you can't screen it from them. I think that's the way I look at it. Erbar%' Is that the way it is? Okay. ! Plaont~ng Commission Meeting Mar 6, 1991 - Page 12 . [lls~n: $o if that guy is that far away, you could prove that. Ethan. t: Alright, so we're not saying that one neighbor can disallow putt' ng this on there? Emmi~gs: No. At least I wasn't thinking about it that way. Ells~n: I didn't read it that way. Look at number 5 and see if that's wher~ you get it. Emmiigs: I don't know if it says it that way but the notion was, you've got ko screen it from view because they're ugly. If you can't screen it, you can't have it. But on the other hand, if the neighbors that have to look:at it all the time don't object, and you can get them to consent to it, then why should we object? That 25 foot beachlot on Minnewashta had one last summer and I only think I noticed it once or two times driving by on t~e lake. You can't see it from the road. I don't know what the neighbors thought about it. Erha']it: I guess I was looking at a staff recommendation. Where does it say :!n there? Are we looking at staff recommendation or are we looking at your? EmmiPgs: No. Ells6n: Look at the ordinance. Last page. Erha~t: Maybe I was concentrating on the wrong thing. Well okay. The ques'!ion arises, let's say that that's covered. What happens if you have a 25 f~ot wide beachlot, as someone had mentioned earlier. The other thing, Steve where did you come up with, what was the purpose of the June 15th thru !September 5th? Emmi~gs: Right out of the air. I thought they might want to have it still ther¢ Labor Day but certainly not beyond Labor Day and I just put in a few days~for them to get it off of there. June 15th because that's about when school gets out and I think they start getting heavy use. Honestly I think from:what I've observed, if they were there from June 15th to the middle of AuguSt or the end of July would probably be enough. The area of the heavy use ~f the lake is really very short~ Erha~t: Okay. I guess I would have thought if we were going to do it, I gues~ I would have 3ust picked Memorial Day. Ells~n: Memorial Day to Labor Day. Erha~t: It's not a big deal but I guess I remember the kids swimming befo%e June 15th. Emmi~gs: Well that's fine. We can change it. Erha~t: The other thing. On the chemical toilets that we have at the park; do we have a contract with someone to maintain those? Who empties and ~aintains those? , Plan~ing Commission Meeting Mar~ 6, 1991 - Page 13 ,i A1-J~ff: BFI does. Erha~t: Why not insist that they have a contract with someone to maintain thos'~ as part of the conditional use permit? Emmi ~gs: Can you even rent them without a contract to maintain them? Gene[Christensen: That's an automatic thing. If you rent them, they come and ~lean it. That's part of the rent process. The contract. Erha"t: I guess that was my thought. Gene'Christensen: It's going to be once or even twice a week depending on if i:' ' s used heavy or upon request. Erha~t: We write it as if someone, part of the group that is using it is goin~ to be maintain it. That's the impression I'm left with what I've ready, but then again it wouldn't be the first mistake in reading this. 8atz'i:~ So you'd want as part of the application process a copy of their rental agreement. Erhaf]t: There's got to be a contract to maintain it. That way there's no doub~ left that someone's 9gin9 to leave it unmaintained. Ellsfn: So number 4 doesn't tell you that? Erha~,t' Well I'm trying to, I'm strengthening it I guess. The plan for maintaining it could be that well gee, Nick's son over there, 11 year old Nick 'needs a summer job and he's going to maintain it. 8atz~i: Yeah right. Emmi[gs: We probably wouldn't approve that. ErhaW..t: Okay. In that sense I'm making it easier for the staff to, okay. I gue4ss., I'm also trying to push this over towards the staff approval even thou~C'h Paul doesn't like it. It seems, it's a real good idea but I think a smal~ thing is the ordinance is done correctly. That's all I had. Conrad: Paul would this be, what would apply for a sideyard setback as Stev~'s ordinance is drafted right now? There's not in his ordinance. Kraus~: There's none and that's one of the reasons why I preferred that we didn'i~ have it at a staff level initially. There's a lot of subjective judgm~ent that has to be made here. You run a little bit of a risk when you do th=at in an ordinance but you lessen the risk when you have 7 Planning Commi*asioners deciding subjectively what a proper standard is than you do if I-do it. Cent ~8¢d: I just see that as a gap right now and I'd have to go along with Paul.~ One, I don't like chemical toilets. I think it's just taking a risk and ~ lot of other communities don't. Don't like them. Don't want them. Don't~allow them. Steve, I think you did a nice job of drafting this. I think'~ it got the intent of what. It puts some flexibility in terms of Pla~ming Commission Meeting Mar~ 6, 1991 - Page 14 allo~ing it where there's very, where we're not hurting the neighbors. We'r ~ not hurting the environment. So from the standpoint of the draft, it'sI not too bad except for some, it still is open and in that case I would not 4ant staff to see it. It has to come here unless we put those guid)lines in and I don't know that we're smart enough to put the guidSlines in right now because every situation you've got outlots or beac~lots that are 25 feet wide to thousands of feel wide and that varies the :~ame. The neighbors vary so I don't know. In terms of keeping it flex;~ble, the way it's written, I think we have to review it. At least the firs' time through. On an annual basis, then I think staff can do that but there's just no doubt in my mind the way it's drafted now, we have to see it. i And again, I'm real nervous about chemical toilets. Real, real nervous but I can go along with this if we see it and we protect the neig ~bors and we protect the environment. Emmi%gs: Anything else? Annette? EllsCn: No. I thought it was well written. I guess I can understand Paul~s idea of having it come through the Planning Commission but I'd can't see ~t ongoing but I could go along with that. And I think while they have somei;risk associated with them, I think that some of the alternates that peop.~e are taking advantage of now is probably even worst so I think you ough~ to have those toilets there. Satz'i: I think the benefits of allowing these in certain instances outweighs, the disadvantage of the site. Pollution, if you will. I think the ~isk of not having them, having lived on the lake growing up on Lake Minnetonka is that people tend to use the lake directly as a toilet and especially younger kids or people who have a long walk home. And so I think this is actually an improvement over what you might otherwise see on the lake. Crass as that might sound. So I'm for this. I mean I see these on s~me of the larger lakes and around public lakes in Minneapolis and thin~s~ like that. I actually think they're a good idea and if it's administered properly, and that's the key. That's the key with all of our ordinances is the enforcement aspect and if this isn't enforced, then we're not ~oing a good job and then you're risking the pollution of the lake. If thes~= things fill up, they're not properly emptied and some kids on a joy ride'iwith their Jeep tip it over, you may get something to ~o into the lake,I ~nd so I think we do need the setback to at least minimize that sort of p~oblem because I've seen several instances, and especially on Minn~tonka where, at the Narrows, which is a fishing spot, they put them righ~ next to the Narrows and people push them right in from time to time. It a~so happened at Libb's Lake and some other places where you have to clos~ beaches and you end up in a real sorry state if you don't properly enforce, administer, tie them to the ground. But like when you contacted that)Person, they basically said if you have several adults pushing it or a Jeep~ you're going to be able to knock the thing over. So it's something that ~ight be a problem but like I said, I think the advantages outweigh thos~ negatives. I liked Steve's additions. I would add three things. One is, ~n paragraph (c). I would have-it read, use of a portable chemical toil~ shall require initial approval by the Chanhassen Planning Commission afte~ conducting a public hearing. In each subsequent year, the appl~tation shall be reviewed for approval by the City Planning department. That ~ay, the applicant has to come in. They have a shot. All the neig~oors have a shot. It's a public hearing. ~e can then apply the Plan,~ing Commission Heeting Marc.~ 6, 199_1 - Page 15 stanCards that we feel are appropriate and thereafter the administrative apprevals would follow in subsequent years. Paragraph, as it currently readS, in paragraph (d)(2). I would add at the end, after the word ordi.qance, or if the portable chemical toilet otherwise presents a nuisCnce. And I would also change the word revoked in the first sentence there in paragraph (d), I would have it read denied or revoked. I would actually change that whole paragraph to number (e) and insert a (d) that says portable chemical toilets shall be securely anchored to the ground. I guess Steve already suggested that. Those are my comments. Farm&kes: I live by the park in Greenwood Shores and Z first noticed the need;-for a toilet facility there when I was walking through the trail one day '~nd saw somebody going to the bathroom on a log. There are specific areas where people are channeled for recreation. Either ice fishing on the lakeior in the summertime swimming, where those facilities aren't available and ~.ather than hop in the car and drive into town or drive to a gas stat'on, when nature calls, .they make the decision to do it there. So there are some areas where these things are needed but I would use discretion as to where those are. I would hope that the City would be very care'¢_ul as to how many of those are handed out. In particular if somebody's going to do it privately on their own, whether or not they're goin.~- to maintain it. I'd rather see these as a commercial type structures that ~are maintained commercially and as you said, that they have proof of main~'~enance contract and that they're being emptied properly. About twice a year the one at our park is tipped over and these are 8FI type thing. They,re made out of plastic and there's a vent at the top in the summer and when '.they're tipped over, and it's on a grade, effluent just comes out. They',re not in any particular area or sand or gravel area. They're just on gras~. I think the maintenance truck backs up to it. Lifts up the old one and ~uts down the new one. They don't empty it. I don't know how else, you ~now. if you allow that, even in a park, to get too close to the lake, it's t. gozng to go down the natural slope when it falls over. On 3, on this secti~on here where it says portable toilets be firmly anchored to the grou~. Is there a definition of what firmly anchored is? The reason I ask, jrfor these maintenance things they seem to have a thing where they lift them ~p and drop them off. Or at least the one by our place. Is there, does khat mean a chain to it or that we bolt it to the ground? Emmi4gs: That's why I asked Sharmin to call and see what they did about that ~nd apparently what she found out, at least from 8FI, that they put 2 foot~ong spikes that are driven into the ground to hold the thing down. I'd ~bver heard of that before. Farm~kes: The one on ours is not adhered to the ground at all. EmmirC~s: Maybe you have to ask for it. Ells~n~: I think you probably would. I'm sure they get people that request it bu~ it's probably easier for their guys not to have it down so in some of thbse ballpark areas, they probably don't even do it. Farma,.<es: I think it would be nice if we define what, so that it couldn't be tiCped over if they were allowed. If that's how they do it. And the other: question Z have on 6 is the facility shall be constructed of Plan~,_ing Co~mission Neeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 16 mate¥ials compatible with the materials used in the neighborhood. Does facilities included, does that mean a shelter? Emmimgs: I think you're looking at an. old draft. The new draft is the last ~wo pages in the packet. Batzli: We got rid of the materials. Steve got rid' of the materials requirements from that draft you were looking at Emmi~gs: I don't foresee anybody building their all and maybe we should make ~hat clear. That they come from some commercial vendor and are maintCained by some commercial vendor. That's what I had in mind. ,! Ellsc~n: That's why you'll be able to deny that when you see the plan I Farmqkes: That would keep them from deteriorating or that they're at a particular level of workmanship and performance so you know that they're not ~ing to fail. Emmircgs: Somebody said last time we talked about this that they knew some~ming about whether they leaked if they're tipped over. And now what you'ri=~ saying is very different than what I heard before. I don't know. A1-Ja.~f:_ There's a letter from BFI that addresses that issue. Right befor.~ the ordinance and it says that if this is tipped over, that it usuall{y, doesn't leak but I don't know if there are any safeguards. They also state that they use chemicals that are biodegradable to protect the environment · Emmin?s: Yeah, it says here if the unit is tipped over. Ellsoh: Backwards it cannot spill out forward unless the tank is over half ful 1 -=I Erbar%: That provides the way out is to require that they put a kind of wall ~¢round it. Fence or a wall real close to it and you can't tip it over.i As you suggested in that last paragraph Ellsof~: Then it's not so portable. In and out. · Emmin s: Then how do you get in it? BatzlJ: Nell what they do at some parks to avoid it is they require a fence!be built and basically the fence, or it's a screen. Fence and basically it hinges so in order to tip the toilet, you'd have to run over a prett~ good fence. They do that in Burnsville and some other parks. Farma.~es: The one at our place, or in Greenwood Shores is just a portable unit ~ut the same unit is inside the Carver Beach area over by the skiing area.~ That s ~n some sort of enclosure so they must take that out or drain that ~n a different way. So they must have more than one way of maint~, ining them. Emmin,~s: Have you got anything else Jeff? PlanTing Commission Meeting Marcb 6, 1991 - Page 17 ! Farma. kes: No, that's it. F_mmiCgs: I guess the way I think about this is that it's an experiment. I'm ~ot sure that we ought to have portable chemical toilets in beaohlots but I, know that there are some and I know that there are people who want ~ I guess I regard this strictly as an experiment and if it doesn't them -i work~. I hope it's written such that w.e can prevent them. If we find things that~re wrong with doing it, if we decide to go ahead and do it, we want to b~ sure we've got a tight rope that we can pull it back and' get rid of it he, cause I can foresee that that might 'happen. But because there are people interested in having it, maybe it's worth trying to do it to see if we ca~n do it in a way where we can keep a reasonable handle on it. Is there& anymore discussion on this? If there isn't, I'll ask for a motion. Mike '.~ason: I just want to make a couple of comments. I share some of L~dd's concerns about chemical toilets. I spend a fair amount, I live in CZ-veT Beach and I spend a fair amount of time down there in the summer with Iny kids and I don't care how often it's cleaned, they stink. They're ~ Lake Ann, the ones at Lake Ann and clea¥1y these won't be used very .~.. anywk~ere near as much. I understand that but they do create an odor and I think-, that's a concern. Listening to some of the commissioners, I find mysel~ softening a little bit on that. I do think that if this is approved, it should be done on a yearly basis. You get the approval of all the F~eople in the neighborhood want it. Well, in 3 years the neighbors chang~ and there might be some... Certainly I think some kids are going to go use the lake for a bathroom whether you have a toilet for them or not. My gu~?ss is use by the lake would be lessen. Use of the lake would be less~. I also share some of the concerns that Jeff raises about them bein~~ tipped over. Although the one in Carver Beach, I know they do have some ~ort of fence on one side of it so you really would have, it wouldn't be just a matter of 4 or 5 people coming to knock it over. You really have to wo-k at it to do it. I like what you're saying about the experiment. What ~ see about that is once something like this gets in place, I think it's ~retty hard to remove it. I'm just voicing my opinion on it, that's Emmin~ s: Dick? Dick ~ing: I'd just to mature this thing, it's got a' lot of gray areas, befor~ it sneaks out of here because then it just gets all the more confu~sing. Specifically I guess t don't understand where we wound up here on t~h~ setbacks I look at Pleasant Acres who has no depth at all and they hadzi,, 2 or 3 o¢ them down there as I remember. They exist now. They're in pl,~ce now. Beaches have them now and I think they need to be controlled. I think there needs to be an ordinance to control the fact that £hey are going to exist. So I have two questions I'd like to see clarified before it leaves the Planning Commission and one would be the setbacks. I think that needs to be clarified. Especially this one for Minne~ashta Parkway area. It's a very narrow lot with homes on both sides and new homes going in and that's going to be a real issue because I've had a phoqe call on it. I support the neighbors of the neighborhood and the owners of the property so I'm kind of going back and forth here trying to do what's fair. The other thing is screening. I think these are large structures. I think they're very unsightly structures. They're not compatible...beaches so the screening is a big issue. But to screen that ! Planming Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 18 large' of a bull. ding or structure on some of these smaller lots lsa major undertaking and I think that, I guess for me to support it, the screening has t~o be well defined. And then the neighbors that are requesting it, have ~Co realize that there's going to be quite a bit of inconvenience to them .to properly screen it. Whether it's done with vegetation or done with the Froper fencing. I don't know which would be best. I don't have an opin'.~on but the issues of the setback and screening, I think the Planning Commi~ssion really needs to kind of set those in concrete a little bit here ~ithout those details. Emmi~gs: My comment on that Dick is this. If we're going to specify the screaming and we're going to specify the setbacks, then I don't think we can c-~ it. And the reason I don't think so is this. It's going to have to be r~l site specific because you've got much a va¥iation. If for example you'~ got a situation like the one that Minnewashta Heights has, there's no w~;z. They had one down there last summer and there's no way you could see irt from the road. They're only 25 feet wide so both neighbors on both side.~, could see it and you could see it from the lake. I don't know how you'r~ going to write any kind of a sideyard setback for that place because even r~f yOU put it right in the middle, you're only 12 1/2 feet away from each ~eighbor and that's not far enough really. And I think for someone like ~shem, it's going to depend on the neighbors past experience with that. If th:b~y didn't like it there, this is a chance for them to put the kabosh on itJ~, which I think they ought to have. A right I think they ought to have.f But if it hasn't been offensive to them in the past and they know 'that ~igning a consent is only for one year at a time, they might say fine. Go ahead and do it. As far as screening goes, if I've got again, a beach~[ot like that, there's probably no way I can screen it other than building a structure and again, if the neighbors don't care, I don't know that !~e should care. And there will be some beachlots, I think where because of topography or other things. You know if you've got one that's 300 f~et of lakeshore that's all trees and shrubs, you can probably put one somep.-~ace on there where nobody's going to see it from anywhere. And that one would be real easy to do. But I don't know, other than saying that we regar~ screening as critical and that if you can't screen it you can't have it, I:!don't know if we can go further to say specifically how they're going to sc-een it. There might even be places where you'd prefer not to have them )uild a structure because the structure would be as ugly as the portable toilet itself. Mike _~ason: Could you put something in the ordinance that would strengthen the sr~te specific statement because I can just see hey, there's one there. How c~me I can't have one here. And I know you've got something in here already. Emmin~s: Yeah. That's why when we wrote the, I wrote the intent it says the C_~ty recognizes that maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beach~ots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users. That was sort of the point there. Maybeiit's not strong enough. Batzl~: But then you clearly, you know in paragraph (d) that you say it could!ibe denied or revoked based on violation of the intent of the ordinance. That intent statement does set forth that some lots might be unsui;.able. It depends on if you want it strengthened. Planning Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 -- Page 19 Erha~t: I guess, going back to what my thought was. You know we regulate whetk~er you can have a dock depending on how many feet of shoreline you have ~o we have set precedent for looking at the size of these things and it dc~cermines what you can do with them. I guess when I was reading this, I wasn't thinking of a 25 foot wide beachlot. I guess quite frankly in my mind, the purpose, is not the general purpose of this is to serve a beacklot, that has higher than, fairly high use? And I guess when I think of a ~5 foot wide beachlot, what's the purpose of that? Is it just for the purpcgme for someone to get access to the water but not hang around there? Emmi~gs: No. Erha~: What do they use it for? Emmi~s: It is very heavily used. And I have to say, well. You're closer to i~ than I am Dick but I live what, 4 houses down from it or 5 houses down ~rorn it and it imposes. When I first looked at it I thought boy, that'~ ~ going to be a pain in the neck and it really is not at all. : Erhar~: Okay, but what, do families take their kids down there and picnic? Emmir~s: Oh yeah. Erbar::: Is there a bigger area in the rear? Emmin~s: No, it's just tiny and it's very heavily used. Erhar[: How do you keep the kids off of the neighbors lawns and stuff? EmmirCDs: They have fences on both sides of it. I don't know if they do keep :~he kids off the neighbors lawns but they fences on both sides of it and t~. ey seem to me to be very responsible in their use of it. It's kept prett~ neat. It looks pretty nice all the time as far as I can tell. Ells~" ...the neighbors mind, then they have a chance to say no. ErharS: If you can't, it isn't wide enough, to have this thing so many feet away '~rom the property line, then it isn't big enough to have a Satellite. Conra~:. But the neighbors aren't going to decide. Ellso~: What if they all say no, I'm not going to sign it? Conra~: They can screen it. Batzli~: They can screen it. Conra~: Remember the neighbors don't have control based on the way the ordinance is worded. Only if you can't screen it. Erhar~: I'm all for this. I think it's a good idea but there comes a point I guess where the lot's just not adequate physically to. Ellso~: There's one in all of Chanhassen that we're talking about? I Planf, ing Commission Meeting Marc[ 6, 1991 - Page 20 Emmirgs: Again, I hate to be put in a position of defending this, and I fe~l kind of like I'm doing it but the flip side of that Tim is that litt'e one is getting heavier use. Minnewashta Heights, I don't know how many boats they have out there which is something else we really need to get ~ handle on in the city because that thing grows every year and they're not t, nder the ordinance. I know they're grandfathered in but they've expar'ded the use of that tremendously over the years. But that heavy use may Ge more of an argument to have it than not to have it. I don't know. Mayb~ it is. Batz~i: I think it does. And given the nature of the use with a lot of kids~ I think that's the kind of area that you need one of these. And the fact ~-that it becomes odiferous actually probably means something positive, unfo~unately. Somebody's using that instead of going where they shouldn't. Mike ~ason: It doesn't to the neighbors though. You know if they're gett2ng that whiff through the window all night long. Ellscin: But you know, I've been around some of them and I know that I've been ~around some smelly ones but I've also been around some that are really clea¢. I don't know if maybe those need to just be maintained more often. Mayb~ they need a daily clean-up or whatever it is but isn't it possible to complain about those things and have them improved? Because I've really been mround some and I can't believe that so many people went through it. Dick ..~ing: Again if I could offer an opinion. More than that, just during the F~re Department picnic at my house...the first two years we had one and even ~hough we put it as far off the yard as we could, it was no man's land that :~ay and the next time I said, you know let's just use the house. It's more ~leasant but that's neither here nor there. Specifically Hinnewashta Heights with that narrow lot, what bothers me about these setbacks is that if thee, y put it anywhere in their outlot or their recreational lot, it's so close, to the water that should there be any vandalism, it's in the lake. That'.~ all there is to it. And in 6reenwood Shores, I think they'd be one of th~ worst abusers, the City itself and the City ought to be required to anchc~ these down. Specifically with Minnewashta, should you tip it over, it's .-directly into the drainage directly to the lake. So it's, I'm going back ~nd forth with you Steve. You really can't write any rules. On the otheri hand, without the rules, they really can get kind of carried away. In tbbse little lots 10 feet from the lake abutting the neighbors houses. : Emmings: We do have, you know right now we do have an ordinance that says you can't, have them and we can leave it that way. I mean that's the choice that ~e're talking about here. Dick ~ing: Minnewashta Creek, who I think brought this up, has a good sized~ lot and would adhere to your ordinance which is the main issue and frank~.y I think that's...and then from that point on, I think other lots are going to have to fall in line. They're either going to work or they're not g.~ing to work. lhey're either going to have to go home, and I don't know ~ow much lake useage there actually is...little kids going to go up and use that anyway or is the lake still their primary means? So pollution versu~ convenience, I don't have any idea on that. I'm really worried about, the smaller lots. The one we were discussing that brought this up, PlanTing Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 21 isn't' going to be a problem... On Pleasant Acres there's no setback... Z don't know the other lakes. Z'm not...beachlots or Carver Beach. Are we goinc to, is the ordinance going to be so vague that they're just going to exist-al], over the place or are we going to put in enough controls that are goin~ 'Lo say some lots can't have them? Emmi r~gs ' Anything else? Erharfc: I might offer that there is a way to keep them from tipping them over _.~nd that's attaching them on the bottom. Attaching them to a perm~nent wall on the side at least 4 feet high or something instead of tryir~g to attach them to the base. Require that they have a concrete block wall ~or something which could be part of the screening and attached in the cente~r halfway up. There's no way you're going to tip it over. The only ques _t_~ion is, will the BFI company provide a method of attachment 4 feet up. I don't know. Again, I think we ought to proceed. We have to learn some thin .~ as we go along. I think in general it's a good idea. i Emmirrgs: Do you have a motion? _ Batzl~: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amending Section 20-263 set forth in this packet with the following modit~ications. Paragraph (a), second sentence it says, side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and tJ']e lake. On paragraph (c), the first sentence shall be amended as folldCs. First sentence would read, Use of a portable chemical toilet shall."---require annual approval. The application shall be initially approved by th~ Chanhassen Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing. Each ~ubsequent year the application shall be reviewed for approval by the City ~lanning Department. In subparagraph 4 of (c) I would insert the word comme~, cially before the word maintaining. New paragraph (d) which reads, the portable chemical toilet shall be securely anchored to the ground to minin~ze tipping of the toilet. Letter (d) shall become (e). The words denie~ or shall be inserted before the word revoked in the first sentence. _ In su~)paragraph 2. After the word ordinance, the words or if the portable chemical toilet otherwise presents a nuisance shall be added. 1 Emmin'.~s: Is there a second? Erhar.~: I'll second it. Emmin~s: Alright. As far as discussion goes I think we've got a problem. We can't approve anything can we? We can? Without City Council taking actio~] on it? He said that the Planning Commission is going to approve. 8atzl,~: Well we recommend that the City Council adopts this ordinance. Emmin~s: Is that understood from what he said? i Kraus'.~ ' Sure. Yeah. Batzl~: I meant to say we're recommending that they approve it. He knew what ~ meant. Emmin~3s: Alright. Is there any discussion? Plan~ing Commission Meeting HaTch; 6, 1991 - Page 22 Batz:i moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to apprcve an Ordinance Amending Section 20-263 of the City Code which shall read,as follows: THE E;HANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL. ORDAINS: ~.q.~.%..~..0.......%....~... Section 20-263(2) of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the ~ords "portable chemical toilet". ~.~.~..~..~.0.......~...~.. Section 20-263 of City Code shall be amended by adding the foll~ing Section: Portable chemical toilets may be allowed on recreational beachlots so long as the maintenance and use of these toilets have no u. ndesireable impact on the environment, residential neighbors or lake users. The City recognizes that the maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beachlots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or take users Any use of chemical toilets on recreational beachlots shall be subject to the following minimum standards: a. Setback from ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. The portable chemical toilet may only be used during the period from June 15 through September 5 and shall be removed from the beachlot at all other times. c. Use of a portable chemical toilet shall require annual approval. The application shall be initially approved by the Chanhassen Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing. Each subsequent year the application shall be reviewed for approval by the City Planning Department. All applications shall be accompanied by the following information= 1) Name, address and phone number of applicants. 2) Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3) Name, address and phone number of entity providing chemical toilet. 4) Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5) A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property including views from the lake. The City regards screening as essential and no portable chemical toilet shall be allowed where it cannot be screened unless all residential neighbors consent (in writing) to allow the toilet without screenin~ (any such consent shall be deemed Plan¢ing Commission Meeting Ma¥c~_ 6, 1991 - Page 23 to be given only for the year in which it is given and not for any other future time). d. The portable chemical toilet shall be securel.¥ anchored to the ground to minimize tipping of the toilet. e. Approval for a portable chemical toilet may be denied or revoked upon any of the following grounds: Complaints of residential neighbors; 2) Any violation of the intent of the ordinance or if the portable chemical toilet otherwise presents a nuisance. 3) Any evidence of failure to maintain the toilet to eliminate odors and pollution or to maintain screening. ~.~.G.~.'.~....~.......~...=. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its date of pqJlication. All ~ted in favor of the motion except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the moticn carried with a vote of 5 to 1. [ EmmimtJs: Ladd do you want to state your reasons? ConraCd: I just don't think the benefits outweigh the risks and I do believe that as the ordinance is worded, I would change this and basically my direction if we are to be flexible would be to have some certain minim~Jm standards. 100 yard lot width for sure. 30 yard side yard setback for .s~pire. Anchoring to some permanent structure for sure. And probably a statement, intent statement that we, and this is my own thought and it obviOUsly doesn't reflect anybody elses here but generally discourages the use ,o~ chemical toilets except when certain conditions exist that protect the ~qvironment and the neighborhood. Did I say yards? I meant feet. Than~. for catching me. On those standards I was thinking feet~ PUBL~ HEARING: ZONI~ ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII PERTAINING TO THE PUD, PLANt,ED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Paul ~rauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings calle~ the public hearing to order. Erha .~ moved, 8atzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favo~ and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmin~s: Anybody want to talk about this? Erhar~: Yeah, what was the reason when Mark, let me step one back further. When ~e first redid our PUD ordinance, that was on here a few years ago I guess~, I was always left with the impression that we were talking about a PUD r~lated to residential development in a residential zoning district. It never occurred to me at that time we were talking about anything other than ~hat. Then Market Square came along and all of a sudden we were Planning Commission Meeting Marc~. 6, 1991 -. Page 24 talking about a 100~ commercial area and we were doing it PUD. Where did I go ~rong originally? And secondly why, remind me again why Market Square is a mUD. KrauS~S: Well I think, Tim your perception probably goes back to the fact that ~hanhassen historically has used it more in a residential setting than we h~ve elsewhere. Now that goes against conventional wisdom because the revere is usually true in most communities. In fact arguably, we've had a lot c~f problems with residential PUD's and that's why you got into that because the changes in the PUD ordinance were designed to address the prob ,items that became evident after development in neighborhoods like Pheas~ant Hills took place and you saw that nobody had room for decks and that ~ort of thing. I'm sorry, what was the second question? Erha¢~: What was the purpose in Market Square? Why was that a PUD and what fid we get out of that? Krausis: Well I'd like to think that the end result was that we got a fair '.1~ high quality, fairly high level of design architecturally from a lands~caping standpoint. Olse~: We got setbacks. It was in the CBD where there is no setbacks. Kraus~s: I don't know what the trade off is supposed to be. I mean there was a~. ways, it was an implied. Like I say, conventional wisdome was that there's supposed to be a trade off but it never said that in the ordinance and ~ never gave you any kind of indication as to what we should expect Also ~he rationale for Market Square in part being a PUD is because the development was intense enough that they needed the flexibility. They neede~ to be able to get around things like the hard surface coverage if they ~ere going to make the development work. That's fine if you're gettihg what, if the City gets what they want out of it. And I think that one ~rked out. But it only worked out after literally dozens of meetings with ~he developer saying you know, putting our foot down and we're not goin¢ to take this and trying to work out compromises. And as t recall, the P~anning Commission itself was negotiating architectural detailing at the v~ry end. Erhar~: Were they negotiating or just imparting our wishes? Is one'of the complicating things here is that you're trying to make one ordinance cover multiple zoning districts? Kraus~: I don't think so. PUD is a generic term. It's a generic, administratively functionally it cuts across all the land use categories. We ha~e some specific standards for single family because of our unique experience in using it. Having seen some of the end results here with residential PUD's, I personally wouldn't advocate that we ever do it again. Not f%r single family but I think that if we did it again with the single familY, we'd have better guidelines than we did before. Erhar~: You don't think we got additional open space? I'm not so sure. Well in Pheasant Hills we did get some outlots e protected but we couldn't have probably protected them anyway. Kraus,~ that Plan~ing Commission Meeting Marcki 6, 1991 - Page 25 Olser' That was before the. Kraus~s: Was Lundgren's after? Olser: That wasn't a PUD. Batz]_i: Was Fox Hollow before or after? Olser: Before. Lake Susan Hills was one of the after ones and we did defi mitely get more. Erha¢~c: It was my impression that the whole negotiation there was that we got c~en space out of that. !. Kraus~: Well again, if the City's getting what is meeting it's expecsations. Pheasant Hills was designed apparently on the presumption that jt would lower the cost of housing by going with smaller lots. That clearly didn't happen up there. There are other ways of achieving that. There's another type of housing that I talked about briefly in here but I didn'~ propose standards for it but I was familiar with it from working with ~t in Minnetonka. Is that I found that with several developments over there,, zero lot line or Z type of development. I don't know if you're familiar with it but they're single family detached homes on very small lots ~hat share, you know one wall of the house is virtually on the prop~%ty line and the wall of the house adjoing it is virtually on the property line and then there's common spaces inbetween. I found that you had t~ develop specific standards to deal with that type of development such ~s you already did with single fmaily because you have people living in such close proximity that if somebody sticks their air conditioner compri~ssor under the other person's bedroom window, you've got a major problem. Or you want design flexibility in the house but window, you know one wkndow here shouldn't look into the bathroom over there. Batzl~: In that type of setting, are they physically, are the walls physically attached or is zero just kind of you're a couple feet apart? Kraus~: Usually you're a few feet apart. Emmin~s: Can you put a portable chemical toilet inbetween? Kraus~: Split the difference. Emmin~s: Just enough room in there. Kraus~: I don't know if we're going to have that here. I've got to assume that ~ooner or later somebody's going to propose that. I do have some ways of handling it but I didn't feel like muddying up the issues too much at this ~oint. Conra~: I've just got some thoughts. I think we're going in some good directions. We've talked about some of these things in past years and some of it!may be before Paul's time. Maybe 3o Ann and I were the only ones aroun~ but a lot of what happened. A lot of problems occurred when you get into ~UD. We don't have a clue what we're getting. We don't know what we're~giving up value wise. Therefore, we don't understand the negotiation Planting Commission Neeting March 6, 1991 - Page 26 = proc~s. Strictly city negotiating. There aren't concrete performance stanc~ards which a lot of communities have. Me're not smart enough here or haver't put the time in to develop those performance standards. Ne talk about them but we don't really know what they are. You reduce density by x. 1~3u will increase or you save a wetland, you will actually increase. It will ~ive you.x percent increase in density. Ne have a little bit of that here nut not very much. So it's like'we're bordering on something and to real l~ have good performance standards in one terrific, a whole bunch of work., Otherwise we're back in the same game of well, is staff negotiating? And IL think, Z don't want to discourage what Paul is presenting here becat~e Z think anything that helps define more what we're doing is better but a~ain, I just think for those of you who haven't been around a whole lot, performance standards can be extremely complex. They're great if you'r~ smart enough to figure out what they are. Typically you're smart enoug~q. Don't put enough time into it so you kind of wing it when the developer comes in. But again, the thing that Z need, I don't know that some ~f what we're giving Paul is meaningful. Z don't know that taking a lot f~, om 15,000 square feet down to 12,000 square feet is meanginful. It migh~ be but I don't know what the developers think about that. Ne haven't seen ~hem flocking in and requesting PUD's because of that. On the other hand,¢ because I don't know what that, how meaningful that is economically, I doF~'t know what we can expect from a developer on the other hand. So again, from a commissioner, from a lay person, you almost have to trust the staf~ can figure some of this stuff out. And again, it's a lot of, it's staf~ negotiation. In here Paul, I'm just going to wing a few things about what'~ here. Under the allowed uses, there was a section called specific uses ~nd performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development plan. The performance standards. So you have to make those up everyi time a development plan comes in? Kraus~: Nell you do, but that's part of the flexibility that a PUD gives. I ca~ give you an example of one that, I was kind of pleased with how it turne~ out. The ~innetonka Corporate Center is an industrial office PUD that ~rammel Crow developed. It's off of 494 and the Crosstown. Nhen we worke~ the PUD agreement up for that, it laid out what types of buildings and ~at sizes of buildings and the number of stories where going to go on individual areas. It delineated all the tree preservation areas. It deli n~ated where wetlands were going to be preserved. Where wetlands were going~to be created. ~here major landscaping features were going to go. It la~d out a whole signage package. ~e threw out the sign ordinance and came ~p with a coordinated sign program. Came up with a coordinated lighting program. There were general architectural standards that were approved in there where most of the buildings were going to be glass and brickland there was limited use of tip up panels where truck loading was concealed. ~here there'd be common spaces in some of the buildings. And this ~s a 15 year development program that was laid out and it was a book that ~as developed which was adopted and it was amended from time to time but t%at book has essentially guided that development to where it is right now. ~Now it's not finished to this day but I think, you look at the general level of development in there. The standards that have been adhered to and they're pretty good. That's what I see being adopted when hopefully, when the development group comes in with 160 acres on TH 5 and TH 41~ That would an ideal spot to go through a procedure like this. ~hat Z wou'.d like to avoid like the plague on a site like that is zone the whole thing~IOP. Have it split up into 45 lots and anything that comes over the Planting Commission Meeting Marcl~ 6, 1991 - Page 27 i- next 20 years goes. That seems like we're throwing out any kind of control we c~n exercise over it. Now you do exercise control over if_ through your site clan ordinance and we're trying to get better code requirements in there. But I think you're a lot better off if you can look at the big pictLre on something like that and get those areas preserved that you want to g~. Get the building massing in the right places and get it all to ~ork as an overall concept. Emmir~gs: Now the site that you just mentioned in Minnetonka, was that done on ar ordinance that was similar to what we've got in front of us here now to re~ciew? What were the performance standards in the Minnetonka ordinance that ~chat was developed under? Krau ,s~s: That was developed under an earlier version of the Minnetonka ordinance. I wrote the current version of the Minnetonka ordinance and I took ~ lot of that and kind of changed it a little bit but fit it into this curry, t proposal that you're looking at now. What was in the Minnetonka ordir~nce though were basic expectations, even the old ordinance, as to you know,( protecting the exterior of the PUD as to what the City had a right to expec~t. The current version of the ordinance is more explicit. But Trammel Crow was a good enough developer too that we were able to kind of work ~utually towards this thing and basically the current version of the Minn '_e~. onka ordinance is reflective of my experience working with them on that ~nd what we had a right to expect. Emmin~s: And just for clarifiation for me anybody, to the extent that I've been ~nvolved with PUD's, it was always my understanding that, like you said ~n this one introductory paragraph. It was kind of common wisdom in the °~ty that a development has to earn a PUD zoning but it's not really, that ~xpectation isn't written down anywhere. I know that when I was here thro .u~g: h one revision of the PUD ordinance, everybody said if we don't get sometNing that we want out of this. And it's not preservation of a wetland becau-~e they have to do that anyway. We don't ever, they don't get any point~ for that because they have to do it anyhow. They have to really give ~s something that we want or we deny it and that didn't work over here on La~e, was it Lake Susan Hills? The big development that's west of Lake Susan, what is that? Olsen~ Lake Susan Hills. Emmin~s: Yeah. Because I remember the Planning Commission there felt we weren't getting anything and we recommended denial and the City Council saw it just the other way a~ound. They saw it as a tremendous opportunity to zone ~ tract that was over 300 acres and they said it was a PUD so obvio~, sly in the City we haven't had any concurrence or any agreement on what Ne're doing here so laying this stuff out I think is real important. Conra:d: In that case, they thought they were getting a good park and we didn'~ think we were getting a good park. Or play area or whatever.. There Nas j~st a whole lot of difference of opinion on that and again, it goes back ~o we don't have a clue what we're getting. What is the developer getting value wise for increased density or for something and what are ~e gett~Qg back? I've never had a handle on that one. And most of the times~ most bf the PUn's I feel we're giving up far more than what we're getting but t qat's just. Plant. lng Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 28 £' Emmir~s: And interesting, in that case too, the threat was if we didn't see it as a PUD, then they would come in under the subdivision ordinance and ~st put. in a straight subdivision. And we said, on the Planning CommLssion we said fine. We think we've 9ct a good subdivision ordinance. Go a~ad and do it because we don't think that's what you want but that did scarf the City Council. They didn't want that. Conrad: Yeah. And they have known something we didn't know. Emmir~gs: Right. Conr .~d: Are there cases where we would require a PUD? Kraus~: Well I would like to be in a position to require developments to go PLD because I think we get better product and can work it better. Every time ~ try it, the City Attorney tells me I can't do it. You can almost r kind,~ you can ask somebody to do it. You can be very specific that we're not ~ing to let one variance go through unless. You can really put someb~ody in a position where they wanted it. Also, developers these days are ~re savy than they used to be and they realize that PUD's allow phasibng. They allow the City to look at different standards for streets. They pllow them more flexibility at building clustering. Maybe more dens~y than they would normally get. And the better developers are~ you know ~.hey're typically looking for that. Conr~: I don't know. I like PUD's. I don't think we offer enough in exchange in some cases. I'd like to really encourage things like open space and stuff and I'm not sure ~hat ~e are able to give really does that.[ In other words, instead of putting 8 units on a piece of property, my p~ture and it's really changed over the years. Instead of the 8, if you ~ustered them in a hi~hrise which takes us to a different zonin~ oate~ory but you know, double, triple the number. Leave some open space. In e~enoe what you're doin~ is preservin~ some of that lot for open spaces or w~tever but you're really, you're kind of ohan~in~ what the zoning. You ~ow, my philosophy, I'd be puttin~ in a hi~hrise to do that and I don'~ know that that's what the current ordinances allow. But phil~ophlcally, there s just some neat trade-offs that you can make but a lot ~ people still love large lots and I think there are reasons to chan~e that~ecause it preserves some other thinss out here that are equally as valid~. Couple other questions. I don't want to dominate this but the 5 acre~ sort of bothered me because I don't know if you can have a PUD in 5 acre~. You said you've heard that's a standard that other communities have but I ~ m just sort of you can t have a residential It s though to have a resi~ntial PUD in 5 acres. Maybe you can have some other kind of PUD but that'b a real, I guess that gives us flexibility. The other point I wanted to a~ on. I think in this thing Paul you should be saying Ne ~ould, the City bncoura~es PUD's and maybe ~e can't require it but I think ~ording wise,~ we want to encourage it and at least my opinion is that ~e ~ant to encourage it because ~e do, ~e can get some things that we like in that. But I~ don't know if you want to ~ord that in there. I do like the density transfer stuff but I'm not sure again, I'm not sure ~here that leads us. The ~nsity transfer there, under the required standards Paul and ~o Ann. It sa~s density. The increased density, increased transfer for density may b~ allowed at the sole discretion of the City...but it doesn't give in that ~rea, do Ne have to drop back to the density? The increased density Planring Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 - Page 29 ; coulc possibly go down to 12,00© square feet. Is that where we'd flip back to thle required standards 504? In 505 you said we encourage it but there aren'~ any standards. But then we go back to 504 for residential and is that ~hat would apply? Krau~: For single family. Conra'~: For single family? See in that case, I just don't know that we're going~ to get much and I help put those standards in. Olse~ We aren't turning developers away as far as single family devel¢pments. When we first meet with them, they'll compare what they can get with the PUD versus the straight subdivision and they go straight subdivision. Conra~: I guess I'm sort of mumbling but if we want to encourage stuff, you'vb got to be able to hang a carrot out there. So far the carrot's not big e~ough. Maybe that's okay. Maybe we shouldn't change it. Erhar': What are they looking for? What do they think is reasonable? 10,00~ square feet? Emmin~s: Or more clustered? Olsen~ They all want the single family and they want the small lots. Emmin~s: How small? Olsen) As I was just telling Paul, you know 12,000. That's our minimum but I~don't know how you can go much smaller but some of them like the 11,00~ and 10,000. I don't know because what we do is we do take out the wetla~ds first of all and we do take out the sloped areas so there goes some ~f their net density right there. And then plus we're saying we're going[to take parkland and trails and additional. And when we start taking all o~ that away, their density just goes, you know they're left with maybe 50 lo~s when they might get 52 lots going. It's comparable. Conra~: In the PUD that you're proposing, 25% in this draft, 25% of the origi%al intended zoning can be altered so basically we could move those units~into a multi-family area? Kraus~: Conceiveably yes. Conra~: And therefore we could get some open space. KrausS: Sure. I suppose if you had a large enough site and it could be designed, you could have some townhomes in some section of it. Conra~: And you feel comfortable with 25~ because it keeps the intent of the o~iginal zoning. The 75~ that's basically it Emmin~s: Then you wind up again with a situation where they come in and they ~ay out a plan and over here they've 9ct, what they want is the 12~000 square foot lots and they get some of those and they've got to leave some open ~pace and they get some multi-family. They put that in for you and Planr'ing Commission Neeting March 6, 1991 - Page 30 then they build the homes and they never build the multi-family because there's no market 'For it. I think we've seen that in Lake Susan Hills. They ~ere supposed to,have multi-family there and we wanted that and we haver't seen any and the reason I assume is that there's just no market for it. ~e never will see it. Kraus~: In Lake Susan Hills though, the sites are still being held for town~ome and high density developments. Emmimgs: Yeah. Until they come back and say geez, we just can't sell them., Can we change this and I fully expect that to happen and that was predicted when they were here with their plan. So that's another problem with %hat is we don't have the range in the market out here. When people come ~ut here to buy, they come out to buy a single family home. It seems like.[ At least now. Krau~: I think that's been the traditional. Well, traditionally Chan '_h'_~ssen's been a bedroom community but I think we've all seen that. chan~ in the last 5 years. I've had several people making inquiries about multi, family housing lately which surprises me because there's since 1985 when ~he tax law changed, there hasn't been much multi-family ~uilt anywhere in the Twin Cities and there's a glut on the market in most commu.'~ities. Sut there are some people looking seriously at it here. 5mmin~s: Qo you think it's because of the jobs that have opened up? It's peopl~ moving out to be closer to their job. Kraus%: I think it's because the city's changed and jobs are a big part of it. ~e have a lot of people who have children grown up here and then they have ~o leave town because there's no place to live. Conra~: Let me give you a hypothetical case. I really like density transfer and again it's not anything I've ever seen that would do a whole lot h~re. But let's say we have a 30 acre PUD which under today's ordin]~nce we get 3 lots per acre or something like that. So really they could~have 90 single family residential lots there. Let's say we wanted to put t,~ose on 45, no on 15 of the acres. So we had 30 acres to begin with. We waht to keep 15 open and we're going to drop. We're going to transfer the d~nsity that they could have had in those 15 over to the other 15. Can this ~rdinance handle that situation? Kraus~: Yeah. Ellso.h: By keeping the other one open? Conra~: ~gain I'm just, that seems like something that you'd want to do in certain circumstances. We're going to move just half the lots and we'll doubl~ the density over here. Well see I don't know that Paul is right becau~;e what we did is we took 15,000 square foot lot and we just took it down~,o 7,500 based on what I just said. Kraus~: Well no. The problem is we have separate single family standards. If yo~'re talking about single family detached housing, you're stuck with the 1~,000 square foot minimum. I Planning Commission Meeting March: 6, 1991 - Page 31 Conrad: So we could only transfer a couple acres worth of density to the. We could only open up a few acres basically until we got to that 12,000 squar~ foot minimum. Whatever. So basically density transfer is an inter~sting idea. I don't know if we're using it to the point where we can encourage really some significant benefit. You know, if you open up a litt].~ bit of space, who cares? It might not be that big a deal where if you open up 15 acres for some particular reason, it may be a big deal~ I guess what I'm saying is, I've never seen our ordinance able to really encourage creativity because we barge some restrictions because we, the community are saying hey, we value single family so much out here we want big l~ts. That's why I moved here, and we're not going to sluff that stand%rd So I bring that up. I don't have a solution to that but density trane;er I always .thought was a neat thing to do if we ever figure out how to do it. Some of the ratios Paul, in your hard surface coverage. Boy, I gue%s, and I don't know if they're right or wrong and maybe you robbed them =rom some other place but the one thing that's kind of neat that I alw%ys feel I have control over, even in bad situations. Even let's say in in Justrial/commercial uses, I think some of the neat things about our industrial park is that it does have green space. It does, we're set apart becau%e it's not wall to wall, concrete to concrete, asphalt to asphalt stuff~ I attribute that to one, good planning and some sort of plan. But two, !~ur requirement for impervious surface ratios that kind of gives some bernei out there. Kind of gives some trees. So when I see them, the hard surface, I'm not sure how much that's changed and maybe it hasn't changed at al~. I'm just sort of talking here but that adds to the character of our i)dustrial parks. The greenery in it and as much as I'd like to consouidate those parks, I still like the green. I still think we can make then] Cs pretty as what we've got but I m not sure I like sacrificing some of t. hmt and so, I sure could be persuaded. You know my intent or where I'm comin~ from. I think those are the bulk of my comments on that. Emmin~s: Ladd, can you think of any time we've had a PUD here where it's reall~ given us something? Where it's really worked the way we'd like to see i~ work? I can't. Conra~: I'm having a tough time~ There are PUn's where we're getting some thing3 but as I said. I've never see~ a real creative PUD. Emmin~s: I haven't either. Conra'~: And you know, the smaller the property, the less creative you can be. ~ut I don't think we're really encouraging them either here with what we gi~e~ I don't look at it as a totally what do we get out of this PUD~ I thi~k it's Chanhassen wants this, developer wants this and the developer can save him some money by clustering utilities and things over here and Chanh.'~ssen can add to it's quality of life by doing some other things. So it's ~ give and take but geez, I get real frustrated by what they're giving and t~at's simply because I don't have a clue what we get now in some of thesei negotiations. I just don't know and maybe I never will~ Emmin~s: It's a 'funny thing because it seems to me like a PUD is an ideal way t~ develop any big piece of land. Any big housing development. Any comme.~cial development or industrial development. I'd like to see it all done 'lnder here but if that's right. The reason I like it is because I thinki we get to have a hand in the planning or the design so that we do get Planting Commission Meeting March: 6, 1991 - Page 32 some things we like. Whether it's open space or extra landscaping or whate~er, but. it's never happened. So something is screwed up and I don't know, do you have any idea Paul why it's never. I don't think it's ever work~ here. Lake Susan Hills, we have PUD's but it's just another subdJ, cision really. Krau~: I do think the Market Square is probably the best example, the closest example of where that could work. If that was developed under the CBD ~ning, anything would have gone on that property. I mean there were no setbacks anyplace. You have the 1 per 40 requirement for trees. There's no coordination of access. There's no architectural standard that you ~ally adhere to. On Market Square we felt very comfortable pushing very qard for better than normal design. Remember we had the whole argu~nt about the roof lines and they came back and said it's costly and you ~ere saying, well that's part of the trade off. And we required very larg~ trees and a large number of them, particularly in the back property line '_.~nd through the parking lot. We developed architectural standards for the tJ~o outlets. So we don't know what's going to go on there but we know that Ct's got to be consistent with. Emmin~s:_ Well why in that case didn't they just say, the heck with you, we'll~ just develop it with it CBD zoning? Olse~: The impervious coverage and there were some things that they wante~. Parking. Emmi~s: Okay. So they couldn't go CBD there? Just come in with some~ing that fit. Krau~: Not and have the same project, no. Emminbs: Because what you said just makes it sound like we've got holes i.n our s~andards that we require for development in the CBD really. It would seem ~o me that anything that goes into the CBD ought to be done as a PUD. MaybeS. Kraus~: Well the CBD is sort of a frightening district. Now it's not unlike a lot of communities that have a real old downtown where there was no stbndard and it's tough to begin a standard in that kind of a context. But Iifeel very comfortable that we did a lot better with the PUD over there~than we would have done otherwise. And we got coordination that we would 't have had. I mean we have internal access roads. We had them buildCturn lanes. They're moving bus shelters. There's a lot of stuff that ~oes in there and it's tough to keep, for an accounting of this stuff. I mea~ there's not a balance sheet that says we gave this. They gave this becaube it's an ongoing process. I mean we get something out of them. They ~et something out of us. In the meetings before it comes to the Pkanning Commission, the Planning Commission you went through that project 3 times that I was familiar with. Each time there were more criteria. The City Council did the same thing. Conra~: But you know a lot more than we do Paul. You've done that~ You'v~ gone through it and you know when we see it on a one shot deal, we don't~ know what's been negotiated really. We're really in the dark. Planting Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 33 Krau~: Well one interesting thing with Market Square too that I think poinb~ out why one aspect of why a PUD is a good thing to have. You're all awar~ that from time to time over the last 2 years it seemed' like Market Squa~ was going to wither and die and go away. It now seems as though it's ~eally going to happen but I've had from time to time interest in split, ting up the properties and being .just able to develop, parcel things off a~d people have come in and said, I've got every right to do this. Or MOLt ~w]OW, it's owned by 3 individuals right now. 8u. rdick owns part, Bloo~erg owns part.. Burdick will just take his piece and develop it indep~endentlw. I'm sitting here saying you can't do that. The whole thing is z~ed PUD. The only thing that could go on it is Market Square and anyt ,bong else that you want to do is going to have to go 'For a rezoning and we're not going to recommend approval of a rezoning unless there's a comprehensive plan that we find acceptable. So we haven't gotten Market Square. in the ground yet but we haven't gotten piecemeal stuff that's a probl ~rn. , Emrnin~s: I thought you had to have unity of ownership before you could even Rave a PUD. Krau~' That's fine. Then the partnership agreement does say they would do that. Emmir~s: Oh, okay. So there is a partnership between those three on that propefty? Okay. Well this could go on for a long time and we've got to shorten it up somehow. Annette, have you got anything? Ellso~: Well I like the idea of getting it a little stronger and I was thinking the same as you Steve. It always seems like we're in such a [ react~ve~ mode and I think I say it like every meeting but I really think if we wa~t, to ask something and we think Pun's the answer, then let's go out with !)ur ideas and talk to people and help because by the time a developer likes~ this piece of land, he's already got it in his head and then we're going~in and trying to do whatever. We're so reactive. That's one of the reasops~ I feel we don't always see ourselves getting involved because they'.']e got it all laid out. They had that 100 homes in there or whatever and if we could say, offer people. You know we're taking a look at density swapping. Are you interested because we'd like to keep this grove of oak trees[ Here's a couple ideas any developer, let's talk. I don't know. I'm thinking in terms of something like that but I agree that this is like the most ')eneficial zoning we can have. We really could come out with stuff that ;~e really want and preserve everything that our goals do if we work with %his the right way. I also agree with everybody else saying that so far n)thing too swell has come out of it yet but the potential is there. So I just. think we have to go out and do some of that ourselves and offer the o)portunity to people and the kinds of things that we want to maintain and w]at we're willing to swap for. And you make the good point. Do we have enough of a carrot to say, throw it all on 7 1/2...allowed to do that but w~ could have such potential. It just seems like you want to take advan(age of it but I like what you've done. It's very difficult to fine tune It though. I tried to help but I don't know exactly where. So those are mt comments, as inept as they might be. Emmin~s: Should we vote on how inept they are? Brian? = Planning Commission Meeting Marc½ 6, 1991 - Page 34 8atzl~: Paul was right about one thing and that was that there was a lot in he"e and I think, as I sift through it, I still I don't think have quite figured out what we're really trying to do with this even yet. I guess, like 5arts ef it and parts ef it I don't understand why it's in here. don't know where Paul got some of these things from~ even in the intent secti }n so I think we need to have a lot more discussion on this and what it is we're trying to do. I think it was raised by several commissioners and t qat is, we seem to want this but we don't know why we're not getting anyth'~ng with our current ordinance. And if our current ordinance is vague', by beefing up the intent and demanding more, I don't think we'll get more ~n. So I guess I don't understand what we're hoping to achieve by toughening an ordinance when we're not getting any PUD applications in here now w~th a weak ordinance. That's a philosophical, rhetorical question. I don~t know. FarmaNes: You made the comment that for financial reasons or market reaso'ns that you're not getting a lot of applications for this? Kraus ~' Sure. Olsen~ Most definitely. Farma<es: Do you believe that that's going to change or do you think that it's ,~ust Chanhassen in general? I mean if the ordinance is weak, you say there~are some people who are inquiring about this? Krause: The only thing that we're not getting right now is we're not gettihg applications for residential, single family residential PUD's. And from hy standpoint, that's fine because they cause us more trouble than it's ~orth. Where I think you're going to be seeing this more and more is mixed~'use residential, commercial and industrial. We've reached the stage in ouN growth where I guess for lack of a better word, we've hit the big time ~nd the kinds of development we're going to be getting out here over the n~-xt 10 years require more sophisticated approach that a PUD can offer. The iildustrial park. Chanhassen Industrial Park should have been a PUD~ ~ . I'm f!..rmly convinced that as good as it is, we could have done better had that _~rdinance existed at that point in time. Now we have tracts of land south!of the railway tracks. You know, assuming the MUSA. line gets approved. We've got a 90 acre chunk south of there. We've got 160 acre chunk~on~ TH 5. We've got some commercial development around new TH 101. I mean ~here are lots of sites where this is going to come into play. And I t. hink~you really need to change gears for a moment and project forward as to wh~re this is going to be used in the next decade because I think our past ~xperience of, in this isn't really going to be very relevant. Batzli: Do you think we should go in and rezone areas that we want PUD PUD right, now with the new ordinance in effect and to basically demand that they' -~e developed PUD? Kraus~-~: Well that's an option Commissioner Batzli. In fact, I don't like to ke~p referring back to Minnetonka but when we developed the 394 ordinance which is a corridor ordinance, we rezoned everything to PUD up there,.and then developed corridor standards that applied in those PUD's. i: Conra~J: That really makes a lot of sense. Planr'ing Commission Meeting Marc~ 6, 1991 -~ Page 35 Ellsc-n: That's not a bad idea at all. i Batzli: That would be the only thing that would make sense to me because otherwise you're going to, I think get exactly what we've had in the past and t~nat's somebody's going to come in. They're going to look at our PUD and then they're going to say, well I don't want to give you that much. I'm ~st going to develop it to your loner standards that you've got in your lOP district standards or your BF or your CBD. Whatever else Mow'ye got.' I don't see that they'll use this unless we rezone it. Erhar:: Aren't you missing though, you don't get anything because they're not bcig enough? A PUD works when you have a large piece of land under singl~ ownership. Whether you zone an area PUD or not that's not under singl~ ownership, you're not going to get anything. The key to getting something is a large parcel of land under single ownership. Isn't that Yeall¥ the crux of it? i- Kraus~: That's a lot of it. That's the easiest, that's the best place to get t]e most bang for the buck. But those are the same tracts of land. Those are the tracts of land that we have out there. We do have massive ownership. I mean the whole TH 5 frontage is probably in 15 property owner~ hands. And they've already formed a development consortions. Ellso]: Yeah, I was going to say. Those people were all signing off on t hese~ things. Erhark:,~ And we if can get them to do a PUD and collectively work together, it will be great. What is a real thing here, if we want to get some neat stuff('.done here, is to focus on emcouraging massive developments where you can g~ in and look at it from a broad point of view. I'm not sure we can, this ~s going to do that much. : Conra~: Let's say we zoned the entire TH 5 corridor PUD. Does that encoui-age the current owners to consolidate ownership? Kraus~: Not necessarily. What it does do though is give you more design latit)de to require what you think is appropriate. Emmin~s: Now we .just went through a process for the Comprehensive Plan where[we fussed around specifically laying out zoning. Conra~' We could have gotten out of all of that Steve by just zoning it PUD a~d telling the residents that we didn't know what was going to go in there~ Batzl[" But you can do PUD and it would just have to be developed underlying in accordance with the comprehenisve plan. Krauss: Which is land use. And in fact, one of the things that the City Council did that I informed you about was when they talked about the 137 acres~in front of Timberwood. The City Council approved language that basically left that residential but stated conditions under which non- residential may be considered. One of the requirements was that it be devel.~ped as a coordinated PUD. You know, along with the design standards. In fa~t that brings to mind one thing too. John Shardlow in all his i Planting Commission Meeting MarcN 6, lee1 - PaGe 36 presc-ntations. Remember John Shardlow wasn't only a planning consultant, he's a member of a consortion that owns that 160 acres out there. He's already stated a couple of times that it's their intent to come in with an overall development plan. A PUD development plan. Batzl~: For the whole corridor? Kraus~: No. For their 160 acres. 8atzli: Well they had some sort of plan already that they tried to show us didn'- they? Krau~: Well yeah. 8atzl~: Well it was a plan. Krau~: Yeah. Emmi~s: Jeff, did you get a chance to finish? Farma<es: No, I have no further comments. I think it's a good thing. Ellsc~: How about you Steve? Emmin~s: I guess everybody's, I don't have anything to add really. think-, it's important to do. I don't know how we get from where we are to ~etti~8 a better ordinance that will 8et something done. And the only specific thing, while somebody was talking here about open space~ I don~t know ~f any of our ordinances or anything we have ever mentions open space as something. You know we talk about trees and other things but the PUD ordin~ince doesn't mention open space and I think maybe somehow we ought to specifically reference it. That that's something that we would consider an asseti. Preserving open space is something~ 8atzl~: That brings a smile to my heart you guys talking about open spaces in a bositive way. I like that. Emmin}s: Very Zen. We're into Zen. But how can we get any further down the tWail? Conra~i: The one thin8 I'd like Paul to say, I'd like Paul to tell us some thing% about, to do some criticisms of some of our standards. The 12,000. He basically left some things in place not wanting to really attack them but jist sort of an analysis to say, hey do we have enough flexibility? Densi~y transfer's a neat word but is it really going to be useful? Or do we hawe to change somethins. And maybe there's some other things. Lot sizesp Is the 25~ that he's now putting in to a particular PUD where we can c%ange it from the original intent, is that enough? I guess I'm just curioS]s, I'd like him to come back or staff to come back with some ratio~ale for changing certain of our guidelines. Standards. · Emmin~s: The other thing too I think, under the intent section~ all the thing~ that are listed there are specific and somehow to me there ousht to be so~e kind of a general statement of intent. A general statement that we'd .ike to encourase this kind of development. That we expect somehow to · Plann".ng Commission HeeLing h' , Marc 6 19c)1 - Page 37 get s)mething and we expect to give something. Maybe it would be a good idea, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have somebody like 3ohn Shard.ow or other developers who you know, or have worked with in the past., come 'n and tell us what they want to get from us in order to give us some of th~. things that we're interested in getting. Do you think that that would be useful? Krausm: I think that kind of dialogue might help. Somebody like Bob Worthington possibly might be willing to do that. 3ohn Shardlow might too. Emmin~s: Well maybe you ought to get 2 or 3. Shardlow's obviously got a specific thing in mind when he talks to us and that detracts from it's value to some extent or you've got to be aware of it. But maybe if you can get s~mebody who's more neutral. Batzl~: I'd like to see like the guy from Lundgren, from an RSF standmoint. , Emmin~s: Yeah. Those guys know what they're doing. They seem to be very knowledgeable. I don't know if they ever developed PUn's but. Maybe that would[help us get us to figure out what's going on. Ellso]: Yeah, because we don't know what incentive items at this point. , Conra~: And then maybe Paul can also tell us some things about zoning. The o)tions of going back and zoning PUO's right now. If that makes sense or we~shouldn't do it or should. Erhar~' You know how you can get open space in residential area? You increase your minimum lot size and then you offer the 12,000 foot... I think! we've all agreed that 12,000 is getting pretty close to the absolute minim In. If you really want open space, you increase your average lot size or your minimum standard lot size in the subdivision to a bigger number like ~0,000 square feet. Emmin~s: Then you've got all open space between houses. Erbar~' Because when you do that, then the developer's going to come in and s~y, gee whiz. ~lright now I've got some incentive to go to PUD becau~e I can save. I can go from 20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet and I~m giving you up that density in terms of open space. But the problem is, w~'ve got our standard lot now so small that the spread between the 12,50~ and 15,000 isn't adequate to incentivize a developer to come in and develr)p open spaces. Batzl~: I would agree. But I think that's the problem in each one of our distr~cts. If you looked at it district by district, you could go through and S~y, this is why they don't use PUD more. Erbar'' I don't know if anybody's ready to increase our lot size 'from :ts,00b. Satzl~'~.: I ~ould be. Planting Cornrnission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 38 Krau~: If the focus is on the single family and I guess I would have pref~red to stay away from that but I think you can actually go with a smaller lot. size in residential PUn's as long as there's a commensurate requi-ement that architectural design is known ahead of time and approved and oesigned to match. The problems we've had is we let somebody build on a smaller lot and they put the same, if not a larger house than they were goin~ to do before. Didn't tell the property owner anything and put this big p~tio door over looking the backyard that really is illegal to use becauce if you build a deck out there, it's in the neighbor's lot. Those thin~ can be, I mean they're design problems. You can go with much t. ight~r lots. You can almost go down to the zero lot line situation as long ~s you lay out the design parameters ahead of time. They're filed agai~t the property. The owner, the purchaser of the lot understands them. The developer is obligated to build to that standard and you know what /ou're getting ahead of time. It just doesn't work when you give somebody carte blanche to do whatever they want to do after the lots are cYeat%d and that's the problem we've had. ConraJ: You know why we focus on residential Paul is because usually when we lc~k at commercial or industrial, it is one building going in on one parce.. It's not where you have 20 acres and somebody's coming in to, we don't[see that much of that. Ellso~: That's why he's saying, this is a potential in the future. Conra~: Paul, he's going to have to educate us in that area because we reall~ don't see much of it and we don't know. ! Kraus.~: One other example you might want, if you're tooling past there. If you wmnt to see a monolithic one building PUD that I think worked real well is lo~k at the Fingerhut headquarters on 494 and Baker Road. We did that as a 5UD because it encroaches into a single family neighborhood and we wantefJ to be able to give assurances to the neighbors that what we saw is what ~e got. We bought a package and we wanted to keep it that way and we wante~ to incorporate high levels of design and a lot of site buffering and we wa~ted to make sure that that was permanently required. That somebody 5 yearsifrom now couldn't cut down all the trees just because 'they felt like it, w.~ich they could do under normal zoning. So that was done as a PUD and I thi~k if you look at that, you'll see how it's designed to set into there with Lolling land and wetlands and ponds and trees. Batzl~ p: But the issue Z think we re having problems with, how did you forceithem to go PUD rather than develop it some other way? Did they request a zoning change? Kraus~: We couldn't sell it to the neighborhood unless we did it that way. Emmin~s: What was it zoned? Kraus~: There was an office zoning for the older part of the building and they ~wned some lots south of 'there that still had residential zoning on t. hem.~ Even though they were guided for office use in the plan that we had because we knew that Fingerhut bought it and had sat on it for a number of years~ But we told them that there was no way we could work it through the neigh )orhood in good conscience unless they went PUD. · ! Planning Commission Meeting March[_ 6, 1991 - Page 39 Farma<es: The residential looking building by the water tower, was that also ~art of the PUD? Krauss: No. That's owned by Bob Naegele. Emmin-gs' What's in that building? Conrad: Yeah, what does he do there? Krauss: It was supposed to be his restaurant empire which he has since sold ~ff. Emmings: Is it just offices in there? Kraus%: It's offices and he fought us. He wanted to build a billboard into Che side that faces the interchange. Emmin~s: Okay, we've got to close this off. We're going to be here forevbr unless somebody's got some burning issue but I think, unless someb.)dy's got another idea, let's get some people talking to us about what this ~eans to them and you can address some of the things that Ladd brought up because I think they're important. Whatever they were. Conra~: I can't remember them myself. Emmin~s: Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUIES: Chairman Emmings so noted the Minutes of the Planning CommiSsion" dated February 6, 1991 as presented. CIIY ~OUNCIL UPDAIE: Emmin~s: Let's assume that everybody's read it. Does anybody have any questions for Paul? Ellso~: I have a question on that Teton Lane thing. 3ust a quick question. I didn't understand it. I can't remember. I remember I wanted that ~oad to go through. I can't remember how it actually got. They don't have ~o~ build it through and now the guy wants to subdivide? I remember this ~ut I don't remember what City Council ended up passing on that. You'r~ looking at upgrading that but was it a condition for them? Kraus's: It was conditioned for the developer to acquire easements so that we could deed the road to us but that it be barricaded so nobody could ever use i~ because the property owners, well the property owners along side Teton~swore~ that they'd never develop their property and that they didn't need ~t and they didn't want the traffic to go through there. So the Council approved barricading of Teton even though it is a public street now. ~Now since that time Donovan split off the corner in a one acre lot and h'~'s now talking to a developer about platting out another 10 acres of it an~ he owns more ~and in there There's another lot that's for sale and otber~ lots have deve opment poten~ial~ The Council was put in a tough posit~on on that one. I mean here they basically believed people that said they 4ould never develop property and now, a year and a half later, it's being[developed. Planting Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 40 Ellso~: Isn't that surprising? Krau~: The first time this was heard by the Council the same neighbors got u: and said that they spoke to Donovan and Donovan denied that he was talkijg to a developer. Nell, the second meeting we presented a copy of the ~velopment agreement. Ellso~: Okay. Well that was the question I had. Satzl~: The wildlife, protection expansion of the wildlife refuge. What's the next step on that? Do we just kind of sit and wait for the U.S. Fish and N~ldlife and those kinds of people to get back to us? Kraus~: Yeah. Fish and Wildlife was making an appropriation request to Congress this month and they agreed to include us in there. Basically expanding the boundaries of the park. Now what that means is if it's approzed that acquisition of those lands in Chanhassen would be eligible for fJnding but it's based on a prioritization and Tom Larson understandably said that they have higher priorities for more envir)nmentally sensitive areas that are threatened. And my position on that '~as that's fine. This is a long term commitment and as long as we get our fbot in the door, at this point we're okay. Satzl%: They don't think the auto salvage yard would qualify as. i Kraus~: A sensitive environmental, a nesting site for something. At some point, we might want to become active with our Congressional delegation you know )asically supporting funding for the refuge so that they're in a posit~on to acquire those properties. Batzl~: I say it kiddingly but I think that area, it would be a good thing to ge~ rid of some of those uses on that side of the road. Kraus~: No question. _ Batzli: And I think it is kind of an environmentally sensitive areas and those!are~ some of the wrong uses to have in that area. Kraus%: Well I'm glad that, since we discussed it here last fall I had the opportunity to go down and talk to Tom Larson and found out that when they drew ~he park boundaries, they just drew boxes around any existing use that was t'~ere figuring that it might as well stay there. We weren't consulted at the time and I don't know if the City had the same sensitivity to it but thoseiuses include the motel, the junk yard, the SuperAmerica, the burned out drive-in. Conra~: It's sort of a garden spot isn't it? Kraus~: Yeah. Emmin~s: Anything else on the City Council update? Anybody got any other questions? ! Conra~: Good report. Plann4ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 41 OPEN )ISCUSSION: A. Di~FINITION OF STRUCTURES. Olsen: We've been having a lot of discussions from residents lately and through the Planning Commission and City Council what a structure actually is an~ how do we define it and how do we control it. Ne have gone through the d~finition before and it just never got through to the Council so I put that )ack in here. The Planning Commission recently did go through the definltion. Ne kind of combined the two sections into one saying, including but not limited to what structures are. So that kind of helps the situation but what we're really having the problem with is where the building code doesn't require permits. So then we don't know that a struc;ure is going up which should technically meet the setbacks and we don't~ have the control over it. The only way we have control over it is if a neighbor calls or if that person by chance calls and asks if that dog kenne~ actually has to meet a setback. So in writing this, it's easy to point~ out the problems but there's really no good solution. In talking with ,~oger, you know there's really nothing we can do. It's like if we come ~p with a solution, there's lots of other cities that would like to know it too. So I don't really have resolution on that. We can amend the building code. It's a real difficult process. So what we're just going to try tm go with is just education with our new city newsletter. Try to make peopl~ understand that you might not have to have a building permit for a dog kennel but you do have to still meet setbacks and try to enforce it that Nay, if you have some good ideas on that. Batzl~: If we go with the new definition that's tougher, is it a situation wherel the people that have the existing structures, accessory structures, are t%ose people grandfathered in? Olsen~ Nell the problem is that they call up and say I'm putting in a 100 squar,~ foot storage building. Do I need a building permit? Well, they're told Ko. The building permit is really where we catch the site plan and tell %hem where they have to meet certain setbacks. So even though the definltion is stricter. i, Batzl~: If you're going to put up a dog kennel let's say and you were going~to do it tomorrow and then you called the City and said I'm going to puti~ 5 feet from my rear lot line. What would the City tell them today? Olsen~ Well it depends on who they talk to. Again, if it's the Building Department, usually what they ask is do we need a building permit for that. They ~ill probably, they'll be told no. And we've been trying to work the communication where they'll say but, you need to talk to the Planning Depar%ment because you still do need to meet setbacks. Most people just don't~even call in the first place. They just assume they can have a dog kenne..r Or play structures. We get lots of complaints. You know they're not j)st the swing sets anymore. They're the huge things with the bridges and people putting those right on other people's property lines and yes. That'~ a structure and yes, that does need to meet the setbacks but does it need. You know people don't even call to get the building permit so it gets '.nto more of an enforcement issue. Plann.ng Commission Meeting March' 6, 1991 - Page 42 Batzl ~: But what are we doing, I Guess I'm confused. I thought currently it wasn't clear that playground equipment and those things were structures and required to meet the setback today. Olsen I think we were thinking that that might be the solution to define what "eally is a structure but then it went one step further than that as to whmt we define as a structure versus what the USC requires. Wood strucmures, they require to Get a building permit which is really again where, we enforce setbacks. Batzl": Okay but, I guess I'm still confused because I thought, this originally came up because we were trying to define structure better to include things that weren't currently included like playground equipment, things like that. ! Olsen~ Right. 8atzl~: But you're telling me now today that if somebody asked you, you would, say that you can't put your swing set within whatever number of feet of th~ rear yard? Olsen~ I would, if they talked to me or anyone within the Planning Depar-ment, would say yes. That's a structure and it does need to meet setbacks. But normally when people call to find out the regulations on buildings or structures, they go through like the building department and usualky the first question is do I need a building permit and it usually ends ~t that point. Batzlt: But how does this. Olsen~ What we're doing really doesn't change the situation. That's what I 'm s~ying. Ellso~: All you can do is depend on complaints. Olsen~ And education and you know communicating between the building depar'~ment to always say, and they're the ones. They're doing a really good ~ob of catching the ones that aren't. Kraus~: There's a couple of other anomalies too. For example, if you build!a retaining wall over 5 feet high, over 4 feet high, it requires a building permit. You cannot have a retaining wall within 75 feet of a lake because it's a structure yet we have a lot of people who need to, you know they nave a fairly steep bank and if they want a rear yard, they need to have ¢ retaining wall. I mean it puts us in a tough position. Should we look ~he other way because it's really not a structure? Technically it is a stricture and it requires a building permit. Another area where I have a bit o~ difficulty is if you have a deck attached to your house and there's a 25 Foot rear yard setback, if you take the same deck. Separate it from the h~use and maybe not make it as tall. Because it's physically separated from ;he house it becomes a patio. Olsen'~ It becomes an accessory structure. Kraus~: Which only has a 5 foot setback. .% Planr-~n9 Commission Heeting March 6, 1991 - Page 43 Olsen: It can be off the ground. But that's when we get into accessory strut(utes which is the next discussion. That's where we just talked about those deck variances and that's another. So anyway, I just wanted to point out t ~e. Conrad: What's the setback for a fence Jo Ann? Olsen: We have specific regulations in the ordinance for that. Emminss: It's lot line unless you agree with your neighbor and if you don't', then it's a foot off isn't it? Olse~ Right. Well technically it just says it can't be on the lot line . unles~ you have the neighbor's permission. Conra~: What's the setback for a dog kennel? Olsen~ A dog kennel would come under, we would consider that a structure. An accessory structure and so that would be 10 feet from the side, 5 feet from ~he rear. Conra~: That's an accessory structure. Olsen~ Or a structure. . Emmin~s: It is a structure but it's used as an accessory structure~ Olsen% But it's not required by the building code to get a building permit so most people would never even think to contact the city to see if there's any s'2ecific location that it has to be in. So anyway that's, i think that we should still go with the new definition that we had worked on. I think that 4ould make it a little bit clearer. Conra~: Is that the one that you got in the first page? Olsen~ Yes. And that's with your addition to it. Emmin~: Yeah. That was so long ago, I don't even remember doing it. Olsen~ I almost forgot that we had done this. It's got the legal, including but not limited to. So I guess there's nothing really any more to do~ I guess it's just to kind of let you know what the situation is. Emmin~s: Well but now what is the status, did we? Olsen~ You recommended approval of that definition but it never got in front[of the City Council. Emmin~s: ~nd it's back here? Olsen~ lo update you on the whole structure because people have been questSoning what is a structure and how we define structure. Emmin~s: How do people feel? You know when I read this over this time, how d% people feel about there being no setback requirements for driveways? Plann"ng Commission Heeting Hatch 6, 199i - Page 44 Or siJewalks? Driveways in particular. And whether there should be a side yard setback for. Obviously I don't think you need a front yard, you can't have a front or rear but a. side yard setback for a driveway kind of makes sense to me· Kraus~: We don't have a driveway permit in the ordinance period. Olsen: How would you enforce it? Kraus~: Well some cities require driveway permits, the same as MnDot requi"es that you get a permit if you're coming out onto a State road. Olsen: Access permit? Kraus%: Yeah, an access permit and a lot of cities have regulations on how steep a driveway can be and where it has to enter. How far from a corner and t~at kind of stuff. We don't have that at all. Olsen~ Especially next to a wetland. Emmin~s: But I guess if we had a setback requirement, presumably develepers would know it and if somebody was unhappy with someone driving right! down the lot line, they could do something about it. Right? Because it was always shocking to me that when people put in roads into developments, they can butt that road right up next door to, right up to the nSxt door neighbor and I always, that just seemed so wrong to me. That I cou¢d be living on a lot and it's been next door to me for, if he owns a big p~rcel, he could develop that and he can put the 'entry road to that development right down the property line with no setback at all from my property and that's always seemed just horrible to me. Ellsol: Did you ever see it done? Emmin~s: They talked about doing it up on, off of Lake Lucy Road on a piece~ That's where it first came to my attention. Batzl~: Vine Forest? Olsen~ Vineland on Pleasant View? Emmin~s: No. Batzl : Yeah. Yeah, because that was the guy that was renting. Emmin~s: Oh yeah, there too. That's another one. That was off of Pleasant View. On the other hand, in that case if you're going to bring in a big~long road into a subdivision you know, and that guy had a long skinny lot a~d there was another long skinny lot and he was going to bring the road -ight down one side of it because he said that was the only way he could~build houses over here and I don't know that we necessarily want to creat~ a long narrow strip for nothing. Batzl~: Open space. Emmin~s: Open space. Plann'ng Commission Meeting March, G, 1991 - Page 45 Kraus~: But then nobody maintains them. Earnings' That's right. Well that's okay too actually with Conrad: It's all real confusing Steve. Emmin)s: If nobody maintains it, we call it a natural area. And that's okay. By the way, it's kind of on the subject. If a person wants to let areas' of their yard go back to nature, is that alright? Olsen~ Unless the weed inspector gets you. Emmin~s: What if we plant a few wild flowers there and call it? Olsen~ I'd tell them to do it and... Emmin~s: That's what I'm planning to do. Conra~' Is that to hide the portable toilet that you've got? Emmin~s: When you come to my house, you won't be allowed to use it. But anywa/, I think there ought to be side yard setbacks for driveways and sidewalks. I don't know what sidewalks mean in this town and for roads. If itl. makes sense, you know I just, I don't know. So this doesn't require any a~tion Is there anybody else that has any comments either on the structure ~efinition or the accessory structure discussion in here? Olsen~ Will you follow the accessory structure one? Emmings: Huh? Olse~ Would you follow the accessory structure? Again, that's one that was t~bled. Batzl~: But there's no action is there? Olsen~ No, there's no action but it kept ~etting tabled at the Council. Do yo~ agree with the most recent amendments to the ordinance.and do you want ne to bring that back to the Council again? The most recent amenc~ents now say the maximum is 1,000 square feet or...principle structure. That's what you passed onto the Council. Then the Council wante~J to change that to 80~ of the principle structure. That was their most ~ecent... Then the other one is the gradual setbacks. So 5 foot for i. yard setback up to 140 square feet for accessory structures 10 a r fcc or 141 to 400 square feet and then 30 foot rear yard setback for any ng over 400 square feet. So that's the most recent one that's been propo~sed by the Council... Emmi~s: I have a question on that. That's Attachment ~4 right? Olse~.: Well Attachment ~4 has been changed with 80% principle and then the principle structure too. That was taken out. . Emmin~s: Alright. Now has B, under that 20-904, was S changed? The is g~e? Plann,'ng Commission Meeting Marchi'6, 1991 - Page 46 Olsen 20-904? No, that's still there. There's still 30~. Emmin~s: Okay. Let me tell you what I think might be a problem there. I don't know why it says rear yard. Olsen_ It's always said rear yard. Emmin~s: Well it isn't always the rear yard. Olsen~ Accessory structures. Emmines: Not riparian lots. And I think, why doesn't it say 30~ of the area mf the yard in which it's built? Krausm: Do you want an accessory structure in the front yard? Emmings: I live on the lake. I don't want to build a garage or have peoplb building garages between their houses and the lake. So if I built a garage, it's probably going to go in the front yard. Kraus~: Or side. Emmin~s: Front or side. That's why I say, why not change it to the yard in which it's built rather than just saying rear yard. Usually it's 9oing to be your rear yard but. now always. Olsent Is that number 2? I'm sorry. Kraus~' But if you did that though, you need to add a front yard requi ement and the accessory building should be no closer to the street than ~ principle building would be. Emmin)s' Well sure you've got setbacks. Right? You've ~ot the setback to take }are of that don't you? Kraus~: Well you wouldn't unless you adopted it with this because these are t. Ae only setbacks that apply to accessory structures. EmminDs: Well what does a person do that wants to build a, does this thing as it's written No I know it says on riparian lots you can build it in the fpont or rear yard. I don't know why you'd build it in the rear yard but mlst comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water marks. That '~' ~ fine but you don't have your percentage requirement applying there. Don't~you want it to? Olsen~ Yes. So we'll just somehow tie those two together. , Emmin_~s: The other thing, the other question I had on that one is, it says,} in (c) it says in any residential district and then it says or agriclltural district, parcels with less than 3 acres. I take it that parcei.s with less than 3 acres goes with agricultural districts there? Olsen~ That one we kept changing. I lost track on it. Batzl~: I thought that went with both. i Plann'ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 47 Ernmin~s: Well that's what I'm wondering. Olsen: I think we went with both too. Emmin~s: Okay, I thought maybe it just went with agricultural. That's fine %hen if it goes with principle. Olsen~ That's new. The adding of or agricultural district, parcels with less ~han 3 acres was one of the things that the Planning Commission added. Emrnin~s' $o is it your understanding does parcels with less than 3 acres go wi.:h both residential and agricultural? Olsen: Well it's not real clear. Maybe we should make it. In any parcels with .ess than 3 acres and any residential district. Put that at the start? Emmin~s: Whatever. It wasn't clear when I read it today. Erhar%: Well it was supposed to also include agricultural districts. Olsen~ Right. It says, well. Erhar': You have to say any lot less than 3 acres period. OlsenF But do we need to specify residential and agricultural? Where it says :ommercial? Erhar : Well what does this apply. The ordinance is the what? Olsen] It's any. Erhar~: Well, I guess leave it what you've ~ot. Residential or agric ]ltural district. Olsen6 I'll make sure they're tied in together. Emmin~s: Does anybody else got anything on this? Conra~: It's tough to reflect back. [mmin)s: It's impossible~ Batzl~: I read the Minutes and I couldn't recall any of it. I really c ou 1 d'h ' t. Conra~: Yeah, it's really tough. I feel kind of uncomfortable sending something to the City Council. Erhar~: Even after reading all of the old Minutes? Batzl&' Yeah, I read them and I was looking at my own comments going, I sai} that? My only comment was, and I don't know where this came from and i' may have come from me because I seem to have been talking about swimming pools and tennis courts but the detached accessory structure may r Plann.ng Commission Meeting March! 6, 1991 - Page 48 occup~ not more than 30~ of the area. How realistic is it to assumethat a person's going to have a tennis court that doesn't take up 80% of their back¥~rd? I mean a tennis court is huge. Emmines: They can't have it. Batzl': Is that what we were really trying to do? Basically we're banning tenni~ courts. Ellso~: You need to have a huge yard. · Batzl,'' Because we say it only has to be 10 feet from back yard and side yard ~ut boy, in other words. If you have a huge yard, you can locate it right' next to the guy but it can't take up more than 30%. That seems silly.. I don't know. Ellso)' That's the way it is. . Conra~: So what's happening on this? Emmin~s: Nothing. Olser/~ I just wanted...what I'd like to do is to take it back to the Council and finally get it through. _ Conra_~' What are you going to take through? You're going to take through the c~finition? Olser~: Or we can bring it back and hold a public hearing on it. Conra'~: Don't bring it back to us. I thought we made some good decisions back ~hen but I just can't remember why. Emmi s: I think we ought to stick with what we did before, whatever it was. ~ Confetti: Boy, the City Council could rip you apart with what you're brining to them. Emmir~Js: I think the last time it was there the Council had two different membe~_ s so it should be fun to take it back again. Conr ~a~: I wouldn't do it. Olse~: But we need it. Ells+: Go ahead. They might send it back but we'll let them decide. Emmi~s: The definition of structure and then what's on the Attachment ~4 is md~dified. _ Contend: Yeah, and that's one. And sidewalks is out Steve. You don't want anybc~iy to revie~ sidewalks even though Jo Ann said she was going to review side~2alks for setbacks. Were we dropping sidewalks and driveways? 1 Plann'ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 49 Emmin~s: I don't know anybody that's got a sidewalk. Conraq: No. Ne don't allow those in Chanhassen. Emmin~s: I love sidewalks. I'm a sidewalk lover frankly but nevertheless, I wou~d want. I think there ought to be setbacks. Sideyard setbacks. Conrad: Basically Steve you don't care because we don't have any so we're okay? Emmin~s: I care about driveways but I don't know if sidewalks is, talking about' sidewalks is meaningful. Conrad: Yeah. Driveways would be. Emmin~s: Let's abandon this interesting issue and go on to the landscape ordin-~nce. Batzl~: What are we doing with it? Emmin~s: Nothing. We're not doing anything. i' Batzl,~: Are we giving it back to Council? Emminbs: Do you want it back here? Who wants it back here? Who wants to look mt this again? Accessory structure. Olsen~ I could hold Ells~: For an anniversary party. Conra~: An annual review. Emmi~s: I think you should take it to the City Council and if they want ~lo us t ok at it again, because it's been so long, we will Otherwise they can ~al with it any way they see fit. Batzl~: I have one more question. Does Section 20-615 which provides a 20 foot ~etback for accessory structures in RSF district, does that mean that peopl~ are going to have to put everything 20 feet from all side yards, back ~ards, everything? Olse~ I think that might be referring to height. Batzl~: Is that height? Okay. That's in the height section there? Okay. Conra~J: Do we have to send City Council Minutes of our discussion o~ this last ~tem? I'd just sort of like to pretend it's now getting to City Coun~l after we reviewed it. Emmi~s: I think somehow 3o Ann is going to blame us for the delay. That'~ really why she brought it back here. Plant-lng Commission Meeting MarcP 6, 1991 - Page 50 LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE. Emmi~s: Next we've got the landscape ordinance issue paper. Another thin~ we could spend most of the rest of the night on. Paul, do you want to talk about this? Kraus~s: Well Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if you want to, I mean I'd like to g~ into this but I wonder if you want to pay. Ellso~: Let's do this another time? Kraus~: Yeah. We don't have a whole lot on our next agenda. Ellso~: This would be really worth discussing when we're not in this state of m i.,~d. Batzli: I move that we defer this issue to our next meeting. Conra~: The only reason Richard has stayed with us this late. Dick Ming: Not at all. I just know that there's a moratorium on building until~ we do something. Krau .s~: As I say, we need to carry some stuff across to our next meeting. Emmi _p~Js: Let's do that. Does anybody disagree? We'll bump this over to the r~xt meeting. Alright. Considered it bumped. Kraus~s: I do have a fen things I'd like to go through and I think Mr. Chairman you also mentioned that you'd like to go through the. Emmi~gs: You and I will do that and then we'I1 present it for their appr ~c~al. That can't be done by committee. , Kraus~: Can I then touch on? 5mmi~. s: There's still. PENDtG WETLAND LEGISLATION: Krau~_: The State is very serious about adopting no net loss legislation for ~tlands which we applaud. I think it's about time that they did more than Fecognize the DNR wetlands which is a good program but didn't go far enou~a as we all know. Now Chanhassen has been, we've played a leadership role ~n wetlands protection and we have a lot of fundamental problems with some ~f the bills that are out now for no net loss. There's two bills pendimg. One is the Munger Bill which is in the State House of Repre~entatives. The other is the Davis Bill in the Senate. The Munger Bill ~s the one I was led to believe that has the inside track. It's got a bette~ coalition behind it. Willard Munger's been an environmentalist for many ~ears and this is I guess his last term and his crowning achievement. Yeah.i~ The problems we see with the bill are not the no net loss provision or e~n the 2 to 1 conversion. Now you're supposed to seek to avoid wetlands but if you do need to damage a wetland, to get something done. It's~pproved. You have a mitigation plans approved. That every acre of Plann'ng Commission Meeting Hatch' 6, 1991 -, Page 51 wetland that you lose you have to create 2 new acres elsewhere. I don't think we even have a beef with that. Our concern is the administration of the p*ogram. Basically what it does it sets up a whole new bureaucracy. Ellso'~: The County? Krauss: Well, they changed that. That was the, we had the earlier version of th~ bill. Now it's the local water management organizations which are the 3 or 4 watershed districts that we deal with. But there's oversight revie~ by this board, the Bowser Board. Board of Soil and Water Conservation something or other, which nobody's quite sure exactly who they are o- what they do but they're looking for work apparently. But the exist'ng infrastructure, the existing bureaucracy we use with Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife and DNR, aren't going to go away. It's just .~ whole new layer on top of that and there are things in there like you have to have a mitigation plan developed which is fine. We'd do that but tL~en you have to get it approved by the Watershed Management organ'.zation. They don't have the staff or the time or the money to do these~things. Kind of confused. Then the Plan gets passed along to the Bowse~ Board which is completely removed from our local sphere and they haveI ~20 days to review it. Then it s got to be published in the EQB Monitor so anybody can protest it and if they protest it, it's got to go through another review. Once the mitigation plan is approved, the law now requi-es, the draft now requires that you go do the mitigation and let it sit f)r an entire growing season, an entire year so you've got a 2 year delay before you turn the first shovel full of dirt on the project. And we've~ obviously, we've got some real concerns with it because (a) we think we do!a good job. (b), under the storm water management plan, we're going to do~ a better job. (c), we don't think we're the only community in the Twin %ities doing this. I mean there are good communities. Bad commu~qities relative to wetlands but we think we've got a good relationship established with all these agencies and we do more typically than anybody's ever ~sked us to do and we want to be in a position to continue to do that. The b~ll was drafted, both bills in fact were drafted largely with ag inter%sts at the sole root of it plus environmental interests. Counties have .._.Peen allowed to participate in the drafting of the bill. They pretty much :ompletely left out local units of government. Either intentionally or unintentionally and, they completely overlooked the fact that we're in the m~tro area and we re somewhat different. One of the other problems I have ¢~ith the bill, and I was talking to Commissioner Emmings about this, is that the bill very heavily stresses payment to farmers for wetland protection. I have a personal bias that if I'm going to, well first of all. [ It's more than that because we're telling developers we're going to take -hat wetland and protect it for free yet the farmer across the street is go.~ng to get paid by the State for doing something that he maybe should be do'ng anyway. Be that as it may, we don't want to get into a shouting match~ with rural versus metro interests and we think that there's ways of wor ki:~g these things out. 3o ~nn and I have been active in spreading the word ~bout these bills. There's been very little said about it to date. We'veibeen active. Jo ~nn's going to be speaking before the Sensible Land Use Cbalition. They're developing a meeting on this. Me're working throu'~h the Planning Association. We called ~4unger up and met with him and his s~aff yesterday and he was very receptive to the changes that we had proposed and in fact, we have Roger Knutson right non drafting an alter,3ative language bill that basically, it's not an exemption but it Planning Commission Meeting March~ 6, 199& - Page 52 treats metro area communities differently. If you adopt a wetland protection plan that meets the DNR guidelines, they'i1 develop guidelines, it me,ts their guidelines, it allows us to continue the program pretty much as we've laid out today. And we're comfortable that we have the desire and the w~arwithall to do that and we don't mind having DNR looking over our shoulJers to make sure that we do it correctly. And if communities get these plans approved and then don't do what they're asked to do, the DNR can r~voke that local authority. It's the carrot and the stick approach~ Ellson' He's saying that that's something .... need this Bowser Board? Olsen: We wouldn't have to deal with that. Emmings: Or delay development for 2 years. Krauss' Right. That's what we're hoping. Ellso%: So it looks like he's going to be changing that or he seemed to be receptive to looking at our ideas? Kraus~" He was receptive. Ellso~: He doesn't need votes anymore so maybe... Kraus~: But we've never, I've never gotten into the legislative arena befor~ and it's kind of a new area for us and Jo Ann and I find ourselves in the unusual position of this is that we got out in front of the entire metro!area on this somehow and I think it was because we found out about it earlier than most. Yeah by chance because they really, well they really did n~t try to make anybody aware of this thing so Jo Ann's on every wetla%ds group and Board in the Twin Cities and we happened to catch wind of it~ Some wildlife biologists people we know told us about it and some DNR pDople so we got involved. We'll keep you posted on it. We're very hopefl]l that the final bill will give us the teeth that we need to back up what ~hanhassen's been doing. Chanhassen's been, we've gone out on a limb because we feel that wetland protection is worthwhile in it's own right. And t~e City Council has backed that up. City Council can always change their;mind if pressure were brought to bear and this is not a criticism against them but there's no overriding State law to say that we have to do what Ne do. Plus somebody could tell us, well I can move down the road to Chask~. Maybe that's not fair but, or Rapid City or wherever, that doesn't requi'~e us to have the same level of concern for wetlands so there's a compe¢2itiveness aspect of it. When you have an overriding State law that requikes no net loss of everybody, you eliminate that and I think that's a good ~dea too. It gives us more back bone to work with. Emmin~s: Now that takes care of the bill in the House side. The Senate bill ~ou said was different and worse? Krausm: Yeah. It completely turns on it's head every way of looking at wetlands. The DNR's very uncomfortable with it. The DNR favors the Munger bill .i Olsen~ They also warns us to get active with that one. Plann ng Commission Meeting Hatch 6, :1.991 - Page 53 ,,faust: We ll be participating in that as well Smmin~s: I thought your letter was a good one. Kraus~: Two more things. Well, actually three. Relative to that last one, ''m going to be meeting with Gary Warren on Saturday morning so~ he and I aye going to develop the request for proposals for consultant assis:ance for the storm water utility program. So now that we've got the Comp >lan out of the way, I've got a little bit of time so hopefully we'll get t~is going in the next month and start getting some responses back and can start doing work with that. Related to that, there's an item in your packet. Metro Council Analysis of Water Quality in Area Lakes. Emmin. js: I wanted to bring that up because I see that Lotus Lake got a C to a ) where Lake Minnewashta got an A. I just thought I'd mention that. Ellso'~: I thought it was disappointing because of that. Kraus~: There's some scarey information in here. I would ask you to use some caution. This is Dick Osgood's work. Dick Osgood is a reputable scientist but he also has a personal agenda. He's got 10 or 12 years of research and he's got a mind set of how things work. There are hydro~.ogists out there who dispute some of his findings. So take it with a grain~ of salt. I'm not a scientist. I can't critique this in any more detai~ but I wanted you to have this report card aspect of it because I thought it was important. Yeah, Minnewashta is a good clean, deep lake and doesn, t seem to have any problems and they did not survey. I mean these are vjry few lakes that they're surveying in the Twin Cities. It gets kind of interesting. You pick three lakes in Chanhassen to look at but Riley is a C-'~hich doesn't bold well for it and Lotus is a C or a D which is really kind of worrisome. Olsen~ You can't get much worse than Riley. Kraus',~: I don't know but there's been antidotal evidence and I know Ladd's mentioned over a period. Conra~: It's terrible. Krauss: But it's hard. It's like watching a child grow you know. You don't~see it over time but if you go away for a year or 2 and there's obvio]sly differences in the quality. So we've given a copy of this to the Council. I think that this substantiates or helps to substantiate why we've?gotten into this whole water quality arena at all and hopefully we can t']rn these grades around and we'll be working on that. The last thing I Nan:ed to touch on and it's kind of an informational item. This may be breaking in the press on Friday. We've been talking to the U.S. Weather Servi~e about locating the Twin Cities Meteorological Station in Chanh.~ssen. At first I was not terribly excited with the idea. I had heard diffe'ent sites that they were looking at and they weren't consistent with the C6mprehensive Plan. I assumed that as a federal institution they don't _ pay p~operty taxes. And of course, a weather statement has a weather radar which~always causes problems. 8ut they came out here. They flew some folks! out from Kansas City and also had Jim Campbell along who's the Twit, Cities Meteorologist. He's a high profile guy. In fact, later that Plann'ng Cornmission Meeting March' 6, 1991 - Page 54 after soon I heard him talking on WCCO and whenever they have weather quest(ohs, he's the person they always ask. What they're looking to, well first of all, the site that they're looking at is in an area that you've guide J for industrial office use in the new MUSA expansion area. It's the area lust north of Rod Gram's farm on the corner of Audubon. How big an area? Kraus%: Well they need a 10 acre site and that's part of one of the things I fouad out that I'd like about .it. They need a 10 acre site. They're lookiag with a 15,000 square foot building~ office building that is a pretty, high quality brick structure. They gave me an illustration of what it wo~ld probably look like. The reason they need a 10 acre site is one of the t aings they do from this station is release weather balloons twice a day a~d in a high wind, they need enough acreage so that the weather ballomn gets up high enough before it clears the fence line that it doesn't bump .'nto the house across the street or whatever it's going to do. But part .~f the beauty of that is when you have a 10 acre site and a relatively small~i'building, most of it is going to permanently be green space !. Ellso,~' There's our open space right there. Kraus~' Well it. sits on the buffer yard area and I've explained that to them..,. Found out that they will be paying property taxes because in all likelihood they're going to have a private developer build this for them and t aey'll lease it. It does have a weather radar. Ellso~h: How tall does that thing go up? Kraus~: The weather radar is 130 feet high from ground to top. Now we appro'/ed the cellular tower which is admittedly a smaller diameter tower and doesn't }nave the golf ball on the top. It was approved for 185 feet. just pot word back from the FAA that they made them lower it to 130 feet. This 4ill be a high profile facility. It not only has the meteorological station but it would also have the River Flood Forecast Center for most of the nfrthern states and it also has this remote sensing group that uses satel~.ite photographs to interrupt snowpack and what not. Ellso'%' Where are they now? Kraus~: Well a few of them aren't in the Twin Cities and the rest. are at the A~rport and they're in very crowded environs there and they really wante'd to be in Chanhassen. Well our location is ideal for them since most of th? severe weather approaches from the southwest and west. Emmin~s: You right now they always say the snow is measured at the airport. Well, they'd be saying the snow, the official snow as measured in our C~aanhassen. Kraus~: I specifically asked them that and they said, yes they would. Emmin~s: We'd have lots of PR. Krauss: They're going to keep the rain gauge and the temperature thing at the aKrport but they'll also have one out here so a lot of the radio Plann ? ng Commission Meeting March, 6, 1991 - Page 55 stati.~ns will say, you know out in Chanhassen or when they call the Meteorologist, it will be out in Chanhassen. They're white collar jobs. They'-e good jobs. I mean they're research scientist type of facility. The a~tenna tower itself, I had questions about the health effects and they'-e going to provide some documentation on that. Apparently this is even .ower powered than the cellular antenna was and Jim Campbell pointed out t%at if there was any health effects, he wouldn't be putting his office right underneath the thing because this is manned 24 hours a day. But they will ~e providing substantial data on any kind of health effects. I've asked them to provide a legitimate site plan for that site. , Ellso'~' How many people will be working there? ,Kraus~' I think it's about 60. Emmin~s: Does the site go all the way down to the railroad tracks? Krauss' No. It's just the 10 acres on the corner. There's a 92 acre piece over Ahere that's zoned IOP or would be zoned IOP. Emmin~s' That goes further up the hill? Kraus~: Yeah. It's just the other side. Where the fence line is with the, hot the willow's but the trees along Rod Grams north fence line. Erhar~: Are you talking about accessing this directly from Powers Blvd.? Kraus~: What I talked to them about is I want this to come in as a component of an overall plan for the 92 acres. And the way I see it is they'~e probably going to have an access road coming in closer to the railway tracks. Bring an internal road up to this thing. Now the reason this (~ay come out in the press on Friday, they've been real cooperative with hs. I've told them I want them to work with the neighborhood. Hold a lot o? meetings and they're going to do that. But there's an Assistant SecYe~ary from the Department of Commerce corning into town for an Emergency Preparedness Governor's Conference Thursday and Friday and NOAH the W~ather Service is a part of the Department of Commerce. Jim Campbell believes that this guy may be coming to announce that they've got a site for a~ new facility in Chanhassen and he was very concerned that he let us know ~ecause he's talked to us about it, that it doesn't come as a surprise to yo~ or to the City Council and I've explained this to most of the City Counc~l~ Nobody's given them any assurances and there's no approvals of cours~ for anything yet but it's at an early sta~e but I'm ~etting kind of hopef~l that this might turn out to be a valid project for the City and I just. wanted you to know about it ahead of time~ Emmin~s: Anybody got any comments? Sounds interesting. Erhar~: You might want to let the Met Council in on it too since they're renewing our Comp Plan. Ellso~: Do they have stations like this probably all over the country? KYatis~: This is going to be one of the three largest meteorological stations in the country. They are redoin~ their weather radar system Plann.ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 56 natio.~ally and this is Going to have a new weather radar but this is going to be one of the three largest stations. You knew when you mentioned the Metro Council though and I can recall when the tornadoes came through the Twin }ities in '82, there was a tornado that sat down on the roof of Mike Munso.~'s house which I thought was devine retribution for, he's the demog-apher for the Metro Council. I recall his being on TV and being interviewed. Ellso~: What's the significance of dropping off the Comprehensive Plan at 4:28., It's like that's when the clicker starts or you were .lust so glad te get i'~ over with you wanted to document it to the minute? _. Kraus.m: I wanted to know it got there and I thought they closed at 4:30. I later found out they closed at 5:00. I had Sharmin run down there. I pre lised then] at the State of the Region, I bumped into a let ef Metro Council people there. Told them we would get it into them on Monday so we just lake it under the wire. Emminls: Realistically, when would you think you'd get any kind of feedback on it? Kraus~: Well they're supposed to be sending us a letter on the compl ~teness of it, meaning that they've accept, ed it. ;. Ellso~: Accepted it to look a.t it. Kraus~: For review and that the clock is ticking. I spoke to Rick ThompSon over there. He didn't see a problem with it at this point and I thouglt I'd have his letter already. I should call him tomorrow but every}calM I've contacted over there says that you'd better expect it's goingito take the full 90 days. Emmin~s: le review or to get the letter? Kraus.¢: Ne, to review it. Conra~: Do they pay taxes, the National Weather Service? : Krauss: They don't but if it's done through a developer building it and · i leasing it back to them, they will. Farma~es: What would happen if there's no longer a tenant there? Kraus]s: If they were no longer a tenant, if they left, we would have a decen~ office building and a tower that somebody would have to knock down and t,?e rest. Farma~es: Good radio reception. Can you tell me, the 300 foot radius that these~ two buildings require. These out buildings. Is that just flat grounS? I mean does that have to be non-obstructive or can that be landscaped er with trees? Kraus~: Apparently the balloon releasing facility, they don't want real large' trees right around that. I've told them they have to have large trees' in the buffer area and they're going to design accordingly. I think =. Plann'ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 57 we're looking at a lot of open space. Possibly that might be aT, area for prairFe grass or some lower vegetation. Farma<es: So we'd do something pretty serious out side of the 350? Batzl'' That would be nice. Otherwise you'd end up with prairie grass and build~ngs which, so you'd have a lot of open space but I don't know if the ' ballocn launching building is all that attractive. Krauss' That's a small building. That can be concealed. They also said that ;he balloon launching facility itself is not a permanent structure. That. ~he technology already exists. The doppler radar can see wind flow which'is why they say it can see where the torandoes are coming. Well~ i'F they jake a doppler radar and they shoot it straight up, it can see the wind speed at different altitudes so the technology is there but the machi]ery isn't available yet so they see this being phased out over the next .0 years. Farma,~es' How many people employed here? Kraus~' 60. Emmin~s: Why, because it's around the clock? Kraus~: Yeah. Farma~es: These cars are a little too big then huh? How come the tower is not i~) that sketch, I'm just curious? Kraus~' Well they have a series of CAD. If you flip through there, there, s a series of CAD drawings that do show the perspective. £ Emmin~s: The same reason whenever you see an eleveation on a building~ they ~on't put the rooftop equipment on there. They always forget. They just -orget. Farma~es: Is there any safety benefit of this facility here? Kraus~: I don't think so. I mean the entire Twin Cities is on the same notif~cation~ network. If a tornado pops out, by nature of the fact that that'~ here, we're not going to get any better warning than somebody in Maple'~ood would get. But by nature of the fact that the facility is in Chanh~ssen and not the airport, the entire Twin Cities benefits. Emmin~s: Brian wants to talk about the golf course. Satzl~' I enjoyed the fact that it was a positive editorial. How did this come %bout? How'd he get involved? Kraus~' Peterson? 8atzl2: Yeah. Kraus~: I think he just sits at all the council meetings. Plann'ng Commission Meeting March' 6, 1991 - Page 58 Ellso]' They were talking about it at the Council meeting probably. 8atzl.: What's the next step on that? Anything? Anything we can do to push 't?. . Krauss: At this point, I think the best thing that can be done is if there's support for it at the Council. To have the Council appoint a worki%g group on this. Ideally it would be a couple of Council people. A COL/pl~ of Planning Commissioners. A couple of Park Board people to work together and see if they can flush out a concept better. Unless there's a groupipushing this. Batzl~' It will die. Krausm: It will die. Emmin~)s: Appropos of that or nothing, in talking about study Groups and so forth, we've talked about doing that for the TH 5 corridor study and 1995 study~ area, the north one. Now are we Going to wait to start anything on that lntil we see what happens with the Comp Plan? Kraus%: We were not. planning on working on the study until the Comp Plan came 'brough. It may be useful to get a group assembled you know to sit down .~nd knock out some goals. By the time a Group gets assembled, hope'filly it will be later in the spring anyway and getting close to the time the Metro Council hopefully will be finished~ Emmin~s' How will this group be formed? I guess I have, I've talked to you a)out it but I have a pitch to make on how that group is formed. Will the C'ty Council wind up appointing that group? Kraus:~: I think they'll have to the way they structured that recom~endation with the approval of the Comp Plan. Emmin'~s: Then maybe what we should do is let them know, I don't know who sitti:ag here is interested but I think we should let them know who would like ~o do it and maybe, so they don't just, we wouldn't want them to appoint people from here if they're planning to have Planning Commission membe:-s on it who aren't interested in doing it. You know I want to be sure }hey vote 'For those most interested and want to put in the time. But beyon~ that, I know there's been some talk about appointing developers and I think that's a real mistake. I think it should be run like, I think it shoul~ just be people from the city who sit on that commission and that they ~hould get input from developers. But to have somebody on the body itsel~ with a built in bias, I mean having somebody on there like Shardl. ow comesi to mind as an example. Not that I want to pick on him but I think he shoulN come in and make a pitch because I think he has things to offer. Same ~oes with Olin from the Landscape Arboretum. I wouldn't particularly like~o R~ee him on the Commission but I think he ought t.o be invited to come ~nd give testimony and that stuff should be taken into consideration bp' ot~er people. That's what they do with legislative committees who propo%e legislation. You know, they set up a certain number of the, I don't~ know. Maybe they're some City Council members. Maybe they're some Planning Commission members. Maybe HRA. Maybe Park and Rec. Whatever. Maybei just citizens at large. I wouldn't mind seeing that but I don't Plann.ng Commission Meeting March 6, 1991 - Page 59 thlnk you should go around putting people with built in interest on that grou. p, I don't think you'd get anything for it except... So anyway~ That's what I think. Anybody else. Satzl.' I agree with you. E'¢har-' Are we talking about what? ~ special group just to talk about the TH 5 corridor and the 1995 study area? ...are you looking for people to volun"eer for it? I Emmin~s: Well I don't know. I don't know what the City Council wants us to do. Maybe you can find out. If they want us maybe to recommend a coupl~ people from here. I don't know how many members they want. I think there, are a lot of people here who are interested in being on it. Dick 'Jing: ...just reference Council. I just made a comment, it was something in passing, that I was not willing to sit on the Council and have west ~f Powers Blvd. look anythin~ like the east side of Powers Blvd~ I kind 6f put them through this little ride through town making fun of it and it's ~ot very impressive and that ~ot...I really would like to see a corridor study done or a community task force. Corridor study...but a citizens task force from the people you're talking about. Citizen task force.to determine what do we want our city to look like. Not a developer~ Not a~ybody involved in commercial~ What do ~ge as residents want that sectign of road to look like and everybody went.. ~and that's the end of it~ The cerements were that it would include Park and Rec, Planning~ Staff and City 3ouncil and then some citizen input. That's where it was left~ Emmin~s: Can it 8o on the City Council's agenda as an item to take action on to, appoint? Dick ~ing: ...has to brin~ it up again. I think the ~oals session is comin?~ up with the Council and I'm waiting for the goals. Emmin~s' Yeah, but that's not until April. That's been put off until like Aprili 6th. Kraus~: I don't know when it's put off til. Is it April 6th? _ Emmin~s: Yeah. Erhar~: Well the same with the golf course. I mean is that back on the, is that going to come back on the agenda for discussion? Kraus%: It's not scheduled to which is why I think some, if it's going to go, s>rnebody's got to carry the ball. Erhar~' Somebody on the Council? Kraus~: Ideally. Emmin~s: Can't a City Council member who's interested in an item have it put o~ the agenda for action? Plann' ng Commission Meeting March~6, 1991 - Page 60 Dick Wing: Us new guys...admit that we're not really City Council... although this is an issue that I think has to be dealt with. I just don't know ~o~J to get things moving properly so it does get through. Ellsol: Well these guys can help you. Emminms: Well let's close the meeting. We don't need to talk about this on th~ regular. Anybody got anything else? Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and tle motion carried. The meeting was ad3ourned at 11:10 p.m.. i Submi'.ted by Paul Krauss Plannl.ng Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 ! I