The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 11 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~NOVEMBER 5, 1986 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla. MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Planning Intern; and George Donnelly, Building Inspector. PUBLIC HEARING: T.F. James Company - Located at the Northwest Corner of West 78th Street and Kerber Bl v~ a. Subdivision of 50.4 acres of property into five commercial lots and one highdensTIy parceT: ~PUblic Present: B.C. BURDICK CHARLIE JAMES Conrad: Staff has had a meeting this afternoon with the interested parties, Mr. Burdick and Mr. James and talking to other referral agencies. The results of that I assume Jo Ann you would like to give us a brief overview of that meeting this afternoon. Olsen: We met with Carver County, MnDot, Mr. Burdick, his engineer, Mr. James and his engineer along with Bill Engelhardt and myself. We went through the different options that were proposed two weeks ago. The first option had existing West 78th Street ending in a cul-de-sac and then having the realignment to the north. The other option was a right-in/right-out only on existing West 78th Street. MnDot and Carver County preferred this alternative as did Staff and the other parties. This would still provide street access to the Burdick property and to the James property. First of all we had this alternative shown as just going straight through here and a straight line downtown. Carver County didn't like that because it was a conflict right here with that intersection so what we did was go back with the James proposal that gave this triangle piece here as all right-of-way and what we would do is pull West 78th Street up here so it would be a "T" intersection so you would have to come to a complete stop and this would Mct more like a local road or even like a driveway and then this would be ~he major thoroughfare. When the realignment is constructed, Burdick and Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 2 e the James property had the option to vacate a portion of West 78th Street or vacate all of it if they choose and the option they have been talking they will pursue they may pursue in the future but this is the option that everyone came to an agreement with. It will work and does work. We are proposing it now as the alternative to go with. As far as everything else with the subdivision case, do you need to review the whole thing again? Conrad: If it is the same, no. Olsen: We're keeping everything the same. Conrad: Have you echoed your past recommendations in this note as of November 5th Jo Ann? Olsen: Yes, everything is the same except for number 2 in the conditions. That is going to change from the cul-de-sac alternative to making it a right-injright-out. Conrad: This is a public hearing? Dacy: You may close the public hearing... Conrad: will take _he Staff the Staff I don't think we will treat it as a public hearing but I think we comments and hear what the interested parties have to say. With Report concluded, are there comments? Mr. Burdick, have you seen Report and are you in concurrence with this alignment? B.C. Burdick: Yes, I am and they were most helpful and cordial and I think this is something that we can get along very well with. It's not quite as good as having the street the way it is but I was willing to give up the bid and lose the farm so to speak. This certainly is acceptable and will work well with it. Conrad: Mr. James, any comments? Mr. James did not have any comments at this point. Siegel: I just have one question. What is the status of that little triangle that could be created? Olsen: That is part of their outlot that would become right-of-way. Exactly where the street will come up hasn't been designated yet. All of that is a possible area for the street, West 78th Street to go into. They propose that all right-of-way for that first driveway, that street would come through to connect down to the Burdick property. Siegel: I'm talking about where you have the slanted lines drawn. Olsen: Yes. This part right here. This is all going to be part of the ~utlot right now. All of this so it is all able to be the street ~lignment will be set aside for West 78th Street. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 3 e Siegel: Alright, but if we redirect that traffic into a "T" onto the realignment, you would have to have some sort of barrier or green space or something in that. Olsen: In the remaining portion? Yes, it will be. In fact some of it is even going to be used for ponding possibly. They won't use all of this for street. Siegel: Who is the proprietor of that piece of property? Olsen: Right now it is James Property. Siegel: And they are going to dedicate that to the City then? Charlie James: May I make a comment here? What our intent is is to plot the right-of-way from the new West 78th Street and that triangle as one outlot. That outlot then will be the subject of the developer's agreement between the City of Chanhassen and ourselves and it will say if and when this street is built, we decree to give that land at no cost to the City of Chanhassen. So we have just left a large triangular area down there as a suggestion of Bill Monk not knowing what potential alignment might be there so we have kind of created about 150 by 150 by 150 foot triangle there and have appended that onto the proposed street right-of-way and will be planning that as an outlot. 4IfSiegel: Okay, but it won't be buildable? Olsen: That would not be buildable. Charlie James: The intent is that that will be used by the City. Siegel: Yes, but you're not doing that at this time? Olsen: They want to get that agreement that he was speaking of to be in place before they give this land over. They would want some reassurance that they aren't going to be assessed for the full value of the street after giving all the property also. It is just a technicality. Charlie James: We just want to know if this is going to get built. I would hate to dedicate that street and then the County or the State won't fund this thing for 10 years and we're sitting here with this weird swath through the middle of our property so we're willing to enter into a legally binding contract with the City of Chanhassen that will provide that upon the time that it is requested by the City, that they have the funding and everything, that we will provide that land to the City with no reimbursement for ourselves. Siegel: Are we still talking about these next two years? ~lsen: Yes, I believe so as far as the City is concerned. When we were ~alking to the County they had to confirm that this wouldn't be, with the Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 4 e State and the County state Aid, it wouldn't be built at least for five years but from the City's standpoint, I believe they are talking 1987-88. Siegel: If we change it to Municipal State Aid? Headla: I have a question for the Park and Recreation Board. Have they seen this now, what's going on and do they have any questions about it? Olsen: They haven't seen this. It has really not changed since what they are concerned with was the street. As far placing the park or bike path higher up, nobody had to be there. They haven't acted on that yet. wildermuth: It seems like we're creating an awfully complicated little intersection here to accommodate the fact that there just happens to be two properties here. If there was one property for the property south of the current West 78th Street and the property north of the current West 78th Street I really wouldn't have any problem. Olsen: That is an option but it just isn't going to work that way. That's why we came up with this realignment which it really simplifies to keep this low traffic. Ideally this will all become vacated once this is in place and I know that is what Mr. James would prefer to do and Mr. Burdick has also said that that is a possibility so there is a possibility that this would be vacated completely if this becomes... -Wildermuth: How is the third lot going to be accessed? The third lot on the lower right corner. Olsen: They would have to have a driveway from here. I'm not exactly sure where the driveway would go. Wildermuth: They would have to share with the second lot. Olsen: It is possible for it to have it's own I guess over here. We did discuss driveway separation also versus the 300 feet and the 200 feet. Again, the County and MnDot agreed that it could go down to 200 feet if it was done like this. That would really slow down any traffic coming through. Wildermuth: I guess I would favor not complicating that intersection and asking the property owners to get together and work something out. Emmings: I would have to follow up on what Jim said because it seems to me that the property owners have gotten together and worked things out and I don't know quite what Jim means. wi ldermu th: ... through there. Uncompl ica te that inter section. I understand landlock three of the current lots. ~iegel: That was part of the problem that we were trying to solve last ~ime when we went around with this. The solution they came up with when Planning November - they got Commission Meeting 5, 1986 - Page 5 together so where we're at right now is sort of a solution. Conrad: It's not the best of all designs. I think it is an issue where it is serving both parties and probably not the worse of solutions but not the best. I think it would be our hope that you could close that entrance and exit off at sometime but there is no guarantee. What we do tonight and if the City Council goes along with it, there will be no guarantee that it will ever be closed down. It does give Mr. Burdick, who has been a property owner in that intersection for a long time, a better alternative. The change in West 78th street is taking away a little bit of the market- ability. The City Council and Planning Commission can basically say, based on the new 78th, that is just the way it is and Mr. Burdick would have other options to pursue legally with Chanhassen and in some cases, issues are settled that way. Here is a case where they settled it between themselves and if the approved road agencies feel comfortable with it but I'm sure they also say it's not the best of design but they can go along with it. Charlie James: I think it would be helpful if we could stop viewing this thing, I guess as some sort of street through there and try to think of it as some sort of driveway. If you can imagine, there are many different shopping areas, business areas in the Twin Cities where usually there is some larger buildings placed, say in this instance, on Mr. Burdick's property and adjacent to TH 5 and then usually on the perimeter there are ~ usually smaller buildings. Sometimes they are banks or you go out to ~ Burnsville or whatever, they have everything out there. They have fast food, they have banks, they have auto repair places, but they are usually in these outlots that are around the periphery. One thing that might happen here, depending on how the properties develop here is that our parcel there, we have a smaller building designed for that which could be an auxilliary to some larger development that Mr. Burdick might do and basically what you could have there, off of CR 17 is, in essence, a driveway entrance into a parking lot and then we may develop our properties in the future at such a time to execute cross easements or whatever such so that people could exit out onto the realigned West 78th Street too so I think if you continue to set this thing up as a model of the streets encircling the site, I can appreciate your concern but if you look at it on the other hand, the potential here. Look at the way the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre is set up and all those shops and everything and look at how much frontage that requires and imagine if Mr. Burdick had a complex like that adjacent to TH 5 and south of there and he would have a parking lot out front and maybe we would have some smaller shops or something free standing out in front and the whole thing could be integrated very nicely and no one would ever know that there was a public street through there. I think Mr. Burdick and I, if I can speak for him at this moment, can both see that potential but I think for Mr. Burdick's sake I think he is relunctant to just come right out and say, oh heck, let's just vacate that street out of there and go with a driveway. At least this way he has some assurance that there is some access there but I'm sure his planning for both of these properties develops there will be an opportunity to address this issue ~ again and see if it wouldn't be to the benefit of both the parties to ~ vacate out 150 foot swath of right-of-way out of the center there and Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 6 e somehow integrate that into more parking and landscaping and this sort of thing. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Subdivision Request #86-11 with the following conditions: 1. The City proceed with the reclassification of CSAH 16 to MSAH 16. 2. Existing West 78th Street will become a right-injright-out only after completion of the realignment of West 78th Street. 3. Any access from CR 17 receive a permit from the County. 4. A building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 cannot be issued until the realignment of West 78th Street is completed. 5. Lot 3, Block 1 shall share an access with Lot 4, Block 1, from Kerber Boulevard and Lot 1, Block 2 shall have only one access from the existing West 78th Street and the new alignment. 6. All driveways must be at least 200 feet from an intersection. e 7. No building permits will be issued until municipal services are available to the property. All voted in favor except James Wildermuth who opposed. The motion carried. Wi ldermuth: I don't want to see over complication of the intersection. Olsen: coming. The next items, 4 and 5, Roger Machmeier and James Anderson are They are not here yet. I tern s 4 and 5 on the Agenda were postponed in the meet i ng unt i 1 Roger Machmeier and James Anderson were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Siegel moved, Headla seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 22, 1986. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 19.03(1) (b), REGULATING FENCES. Olsen: What we did was contact other cities to see what their fence ordinances contained and we were looking for things such as building heights, when did they request Conditional Use Permits, when did they ~equire variances, are there setbacks, do they regulate the type of fences ~r the unfinished side on the interior. Most of the cities we contacted Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 7 e didn't have the specifics that we were looking for. Most of them said when you get something send it to us, we could use it. So what Staff did was kind of merge what the proposed ordinance is saying and then added some other ones that were trying to meet the concerns that were brought up by the Commission. I will just kind of go over what we came up with. I took this from the proposed ordinance and this is pretty much regulating fences, shrubs, anything within the front yard that would block the view from the street. We also had George Donnelly, our Building Inspector, look these over and I got his comments here and he feels that we really shouldn't have any regulations. First of all he wants, he believes that every fence should get a building permit and he is willing to handle that extra work because he thinks each one should be looked at case by case. As far as fences within, away from the right-of-way, he is saying that each case can be different, that you shouldn't have a set height, so we have that option there where if we do it by a building permit, if each one is a corner lot, we can have the building inspector go out and see if there is a specific height it should be at or the ones that they are proposing are okay. Staff might be a little bit more comfortable having some numbers that we can use so if people call we can tell them that if there is a problem we can look back to the Ordinance and say no, you can't have a 6 foot high fence on the corner of your lot in the front yard. Do you want to just run through these and you can make any comments? Conrad: ~l sen : Sure, yes. 2, any fence which exceeds six and one-half feet... Conrad: Go back to 1. Just go through it. Olsen: 1. There is a sentence in there that doesn't read right. Any residential zone on any corner lot, no fence, wall or accessory structure or planting shall rise over two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in height above the level of the street within twenty-five (25) feet of any corner, so as to interfere with traffic visibility across the corner. This is the sentence that doesn't read right. No fence or wall or shrub planting or more then two and one-half, I think it is supposed to be, of more then two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in height above the level of the public street shall be erected on any interior lot within ten (10) feet of the front property line where it will interfere with traffic visibility from a driveway. This is what was in the proposed ordinance. Conrad: Does interior lot mean the same as a corner lot? ~lsen: No, an interior lot is one of the sides is still along a high ~enced area that would still obstruct, people coming out of their driveway. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 8 e Conrad: Okay, so point 1 is literally two sections. One for corner lots and one for interior lots? I think we should break it apart. I wasn't quite sure. No fence or wall or shrub planting within 10 feet of the front property line. Okay. Is that clear? Are people following that? Siegel: I'm just wondering whether it makes sense. You say something about shrub but there may be plenty of lots existing right now in Chanhassen with pine trees on either side of the driveway within ten feet. I'm thinking of my own driveway right now and I'm not sure whether there is 10 feet between our pine trees but as that pine tree grows and grows it probably won't be and does that mean that I would be grandfathered in? Headla: Isn't this kind of a convenience ordinance too? If it doesn't present a problem but if it becomes a problem they have a way of enforcing it so it gets the unique situation. Olsen: Right, and the point you made was the point that George Donnelly made. He said if it should say anything about that it should say when planting the two and one-half, something like a shrub or plant can not grow higher then 2 1/2 feet and then I made the point that Mr. Headla made was that we really did need something that we could point back so if it is a problem, if it is obstructing visibility we can say that it can't be more then 2 1/2 feet. It is just something for us to fall back on. ~onrad: Okay, keep going. Headla: Can we back up? You talk about residential area then excluding the agricultural districts, what about our business district down here? Industrial, can they put up fences or are we including that or is that another exception? Olsen: We usually do that through the site plan process. Headla: Well, we say residential excluding agricultural so as I interpret this, we don't even discuss industrial so we're really excluding those too. Should we be saying that? Olsen: We pointed out agricultural because that can still be, people think of that as residential, agricultural-residential. We can include that, it's no problem. Conrad: We're talking residential and I'm comfortable with the way it's worded and because you can have residential in an agricultural area, I think it is good to have that excluding agricultural in there. Headla: Just a question. I didn't know of what we owned... Olsen: 2. Any fence which exceeds 6 1/2 feet and up to 8 feet must receive a building permit. Any fences over 8 feet must receive a Conditional Use Permit. e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 9 e We chose 6 1/2 feet to give us the difference where they are normally 6 feet and to lift it 3 inches off the ground just to give us some leeway but again the building inspector suggested that any fence receive a building permit. 3. The unfinished side of a one sided fence must face towards the interior of the property. The difficulty here is that most fences either side can look unfinished or finished. Some cedar fences you can't distinquish so I called up some lumber yards and they said you can say a one sided fence. We also got some words from the building department where we can say brackets and use some words that are definite to show that one side is unfinished and I can add those in but again, George Donnelly doesn't think that you can really enforce this. It is really hard to determine which is the unfinished side. Conrad: He thinks it is? Olsen: Yes, he thinks we are starting to get into aesthetics. Conrad: In some cases there is just no doubt. Headla: Those are the cases you are concerned with. ~onrad: And those are the cases we're concerned with. when it is in doubt, then it's not a big deal. In some cases, yes Olsen: The words were framing supports and cross pieces were the words that they used that are used on fences that are definitely one sided. 5. A fence shall be set back to provide adequate area for maintenance. All fences shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition. Conrad: I don't understand that. It says back. Olsen: First we had chosen 2 feet sort of arbitrarily. What can a wall and board go along there and then we kind of just pulled back, not really knowing a good setback to use. The other cities we called didn't really have any. One had five inches and one had five feet. Conrad: So really the situation is you want to stay away from the other person's property line but then basically you have the maintenance responsibility of going around on the neighbors side and maintaining. Olsen: As long as somebody doesn't call and say they are trespassing if you don't get along with that neighbor. Conrad: So you need some guidance from us on that as far as setback? ensen: If you want a setback or if you just want to allow it on the lot planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 10 e line. We mentioned that they could be allowed on the property line if they had the neighbor's approval but that is going to be kind of tough to do. Headla: If we set it back 6 inches and maybe somebody else here knows a lot more about it then I do but if we set it back 6 inches, let's say it's a cement fence, and the neighbor cuts that grass there for 7-10 years, does the fellow who put up the fence lose it through eminent domain? If we set somebody up so they lose that much property. Emmings: That is adverse possession, not eminent domain, and it would be 15 years. Headla: Alright so it's 15 years and that concrete wall and somebody just keeps cutting it and the other fellow doesn't say anything, does he lose it? Emmings: Yes, the guy that was cutting it would certainly have a powerful argument if he wanted it. Headla: I kind of like it right on the line and if the neighbor doesn't allow him to come over there and paint the fence and whatever, he better not complain about the condition of the fence. e Olsen: 5.Fences to be installed on riparian lots shall receive a building permit prior to installation and shall have a maximum fence height of 3 1/2 feet in the rear yard (lake side) to maintain lake views from adjoining properties. We thought 3 1/2 feet would be adequate for whatever purpose they would want with that fence in the rear yard and that then it would also maintain lake view. The problem we have here is the setback from the lake. Can we fence all the way up to the ordinary high water mark, should it be set back certain feet and I guess Staff's position is that if it is only 3 1/2 feet, if they want it all the way to the lake that is fine as long as it's not blocking the view. Conrad: Are beachlots allowed to have fences on the lake? Dacy: Through the Conditional Use Permit. Emmings: We have requirements that you can't do something within 75 feet of the lake. Olsen: Any structure. Emmings: Isn't a fence a structure? Olsen: I don't know if... e Dacy: We can verify it with the DNR. There are several instances, I'm sure out there right now that exist along the lot lines. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 11 e Olsen: I know that their new Shoreland Ordinance, a fence is not a structure. 6. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. That again gives us, it just defines when people say what is the height measured from. 7. These regulations do not apply to tennis courts and swimming pools. When we have somebody call and they have a swimming pool on their lakeside of the property and they were wondering can they only have a fence 3 1/2 feet. Emmings: Do we have separate ordinances regarding fences around tennis courts and swimming pools? Dacy: It is normally done through the Building Code for safety. Emmings: But when you say that these regulations don't apply to these things it sounds like you can just go ahead and build anything you want if 4liou have a tennis court there. Dacy: That's a good point. You might want to set a maximum for a tennis court is 10 feet. Emmings: Do we have any ordinances about what tennis courts can have? Olsen: It is just a Conditional Use Permit. Conrad: You handed out a Shorewood Ordinance and in reviewing it real quickly, it looks real good. It is very impressive in fact and I haven't had a whole lot of time to go through it but... Olsen: Susan Albee picked it up. Conrad: I don't know, maybe the Commission has other ideas but I am thinking because we just got this tonight, I would like to merge the Shorewood with maybe some of the points that we agreed to that Staff brought up in their report tonight and maybe come in with a little bit more comprehensive plan. Again, the Shorewood, I haven't looked for all the details in it but it sure looks like something that we would want to consider. It talks about tennis courts, it talks about lakes, it talks about a lot of things. Maybe it's not all applicable to Chanhassen but I think I would sure like to see it tabled and come back in two weeks and see what we can merge together here using some other verbage. AEmmings: I would move that we do table it and I think this, I too read it ~very quickly, it is just outstanding. It really takes care of a lot of the Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 12 e problems we have been raising and I like their number 2 on location. think that is a great way to handle that problem and I like the idea you can go ahead and pu tit on the 1 i ne if the property owner s agree have something in writing and stick it in our file. They do require building permit for every fence and I think that is a good idea. I that and a Dacy: As long as the building inspector is willing to do it because we try to approach it from two points. Be reasonable and also an ordinance should be enforceable so as long as the enforcing officer is agreeing to that. Conrad: What is the opinion for a building permit for every fence? we force everybody to do it or should we require a building permit? gives you control. Should It Wildermuth: I think if we put a good ordinance in place I don't thinK a building permit is needed. Headla: I tend to uphold the building permit required for every fence and I'm not sure what, you can get to ridiculous what is a fence but we are requiring a resident to pay for building permit, now we're spending taxpayers money by sending somebody out there, like it or not, it's costing us money and as we get bigger and bigger there are going to be more and more fences and it's just another incidental added expense. I think it is ridiculous. e Siegel: I tend to agree that I would like to see us not require a permit. If we have a good ordinance that is enforceable so should a situation arise where we need to enforce it. Conrad: Steve, you like the permit for everyone I take it? Emmings: What does it cost to get a building permit? Olsen: I think it costs $10.00. Conrad: Tim, where are you at on requiring a permit. Erhart: If it's only $10.00 I don't see a problem. Generally, I would 1 i ke to see us subtly discourage fences and that might do it. If it were $150.00 I would be against it. Emmings: Going back to this Shorewood thing, number 11 says that fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction height or length may be permitted in any district of the City by issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. I like that too a lot. It leaves it real open. When people come in with what they want and if it is appropriate for the lot and the building inspector thinks it is inappropriate, then fine, and if the neighbor thinks it is appropriate. He'll get a chance to comment that way. e Conrad: Okay Staff, you have heard a mixture of opinions. split here. It is probably Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 13 e Dacy: I think Mr. Emmings had a motion on the floor. Conrad: I was trying to get out some specifics that I was trying to give guidance but I think you got a mixture of opinion on the Commission so we're going to let you come back and present what you think is the right way to do it. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 19.03 (1) (b), regulation fences until the next Planning Commission meeting to give Staff a chance to come back with some changes per the Commission's comments. All voted in favor of tabling and motion carried. Headla: I would like to say one other thing. If we have to require building permits or not, you still got to put down some guidelines. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: A . S EC T ION 5. 3 ( 6 ) B. SECTION 9.2 (7) PUBLIC PRESENT: George Nelson ~arry VanDeVeire Vern Gagne Olsen: Let me introduce first Roger Machmeier and James Anderson who are also here to answer any questions. The City has a contract with Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson to review the Subdivision Ordinance and the Ordinance l0-A which covers the septic systems. They sent us their recommendations on changing it. First of all for the Subdivision Ordinance. The first part is the second page of the report which is simply showing that it is no longer the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Individual Sewage Treatment Standards. That name has been changed to Minnesota Rural Chapter 7080 Individual Sewage Treatment System Standards and we are just adding that in. The second part, the Subdivision Ordinance is what regulates how many percolation tests and soil borings and what we found from Mr. Anderson and Mr. Machmeier was that soil borings are more important then the percolation tests almost so what we did was to add these regulations: 1. Require the location of two drainfield sites. 2. Have two soil borings on each drainfield site for a total of four soil borings per lot. 3. One percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between 13% and 25%. No percolation tests are required for slopes between 0% and 12%. e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 14 - 4. Areas where the land slope exceeds 25% shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment unit site. 5. The depth of the percolation test should be determined in the field by the site evaluator. So what we did was set up some standards for the number of percolation tests and increased the soil borings to two per site making it four per lot. If you have any questions, Mr. Machmeier or Mr. Anderson can answer them. Chairman Conrad opened up the public hearing for comments as to how the Planning Commission changes the Subdivision Ordinance regulating this particular subject. George Nelson: Before you close the public hearing I would like to let you know that I'm here. I'm George Nelson from George Nelson Associates and we are in the process of bringing in a preliminary plat on the Vern Gagne property on the northeast corner of TH 101 and pioneer Trail. We have done considerble work on the site with a qualified man in the field to do perc tests and borings for us on that site and I just want to bring this to your attention because we're going to be caught someplace here. I don't what we're going to be caught in but we've done all the work once and the rules are changing. This may have considerable effect on our project and we 4ItOUld like to have you stretch... Conrad: We do know you are out with a proposal ready to come in and as you know, because of changes that Chanhassen has undergone there is a fair amount of development in the unsewered area and therefore our attempt here is to make sure that our current standards are State-of-the-Art or at least they are not standards that we were using 15 years ago when it was the last time that we updated these particular ordinances. As to how they impact you, you are probably going to see, the City Council is going to have to review this and whether these particular changes, if these are the ones that we pass along, I'm not sure what would happen in that particular case. It all depends on when this goes in I would assume, right? Olsen: Part of the contract here with Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson is that they review all of the percolation tests that are now submitted and you saw one of those reports from Mr. Nelson so one of the recommendations on that report was the more tests were necessary so I believe they would have to do it under that. Dacy: That is correct. Second of all, the Ordinance Amendment will also, in some cases, it will help the applicant in that we are proposing to include mound systems as a standard system. I can appreciate your concern about the amount of time and investment already spent on the design of the subdivision but with the consultants on hand we are trying to coordinate the two processes at once to accommodate everybody. It Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 15 - Conrad: Bob just brought to my attention that the motion the recommendation, we're not into specifics yet but basically the way you have prepared a motion for us talks about reviewing both the subdivision and the general in that motion so would you want to go ahead and talk about the amendment to 10-A, the individual sewer treatment system ordinance or we could separate them. We could break apart the motion. Okay, the public hearing is closed. Emmings: Was there a motion. Conrad: There was a motion, that's right. Emmings: It hasn't been made has it? I don't think it has. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: slope? What was the purpose of not requiring the perc tests on zero Roger you said we don't need a perc test on a 0-12% slope. Roger Machmeier: I'll let Jim explain. Erhart: We now require a perc test on all. _ames Anderson: The rationale for that is that you can gain more lnformation if you do an adequate job of soil borings in terms of telling you whether there is some type of system that is going to operate in that particular area that you are evaluating just a perc test done at a depth without paying attention to the characteristics of the soils. If the soils are suitable, texture wise or whatever, a site evaluator should be able to be tell that a slope between 0-13%. Since, if you are going to allow mounds in your ordinance, you allow mounds on slopes up to 13% and you allow mounds on soils that have percolation rates as slow as 120 minutes per inch from the surface to the deep. A site evaluator by conducting soil borings out there evaluates soil textures on site should be able to make a determination whether the texture is going to be suitable for that kind of system. The other things that you are evaluating with the soil borings, the two soil borings we would recommend you do on a particular site are things like dense diluting soil layers then things like high water tables, real dense pan layers that would restrict flow. Those types of particular characteristics so if you are going to allow mounds then you know that up to a 13% slope, or 12% slope actually, 12% being the cut-off, up to 12% slope, that the soils suitable for mounds is okay. If need be, in the future, if it is suitable for trenches also, then at the time of design or whatever you can go in and conduct percolation tests to determine what the soil sizing factor is so in terms of making a decision on a subdivision, you don't really need on those slopes to have a percolation test data with you as long as you go down and look at the soil borings properly. Now mounds can't be constructed on slopes greater than ~2%. That would be 13-25% so therefore it becomes much more critical to ~now something about what the percolability of the soil is at certain Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 16 e depths so there we would advise situations that they conduct at least one percolation test to have some knowledge as to whether or not it would be faster then a 60 minutes per inch cut-off which is suitable for the installation of drainfield trenches. Erhart: Okay, so what you are saying is simply that by measuring the depth of any modeling or when you have a water table, that simply tells you what kind of a septic system to put in assuming it is below 12%. James Anderson: Below 12% if you are going to allow mounds then the answer to that basically is yes as long as you know where the layers are. Erhart: Barb, how does this all work? Who again, does the Ordinance specify simply that when you find modeling you have to have so many inches above that or is this a determination by someone in the City or how does that work? Dacy: The next item No. 10-A and this one also adopts the design standards incorporated into the Ordinance so depending where the modeling is showing on the boring, that dictates the set of standards that are used. Erhart: Okay so this is going to be all hard and fast and understandable by developers and anybody coming in? ~acy: And that is why we have the building inspector on Staff to look at the boring tests and so forth. Erhart: There are few judgmental issues involved in this? Dacy: As far as sites are concerned? Erhart: Yes, determining whether it is a mound or a small mound or big mound. These things are all going to be pretty cut and dry when you get the borings? Dacy: Yes, they have to submit the, and somebody jump in if I'm not right, zoning perc test, everything has to be very specific to evaluate it based on the rules. Roger Machmeier: I think it is important to note here that we are talking about evaluating a subdivision in this particular item of discussion. When we talk about data...and point (b) design to handle your system, a perc test may be required. We seem to feel that slopes of 0-12%, if they should be played along ...and someone comes in wi th a scale drawing where here you are...and it shows the place well. The texture itself will tell us really whether or not a mound should be constructed. Remember one, you are talking about evaluation a subdivision and on the other hand, those data that are really necessary to do things. ,aEmmings: I had one thought and that is if we are going to require, both in ~0-A and in this one that people identify two drainfield sites, and part of Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 17 e the reason for that, as I understand it, is that if there is a problem with one we have an alternative. Do we have anything in our ordinance that says that once identified as the alternate site or as a site for a drainfield, that they won't be allowed to put any structures up on that site or anything like that? Dacy: Again, in Ordinance 10-A there is a requirement for submission of a plan showing the house well in two site locations. That would be kept on file with the building permit address. If they come in with an accessory structure permit, we would be able to check the building permit files to determine if they indeed are building over the septic site. Emmings: So we don't have to have in our Ordinance that tells them they are not allowed to do that? Dacy: Well, that's a good point that maybe we should have that in. Emmings: Part of this discussion I didn't follow. Why is there 33 and 10-A? Why are there two things here? Dacy: The Subdivision Ordinance is obviously when you are evaluating a subdivision of land and Ordinance 10-A governs the design and so on and you may have a lot that has already been created out there that is not served by water and sewer that those same standards should be applied to on an 4Itindividual lot basis so the Subdivision Ordinance is applying to newly created lots. Ordinance 10-A is applying to existing lots and also includes regulations for the design standards, etc.. Emmings: So the design standards in 10-A will be used in the subdivision? Dacy: Right, and we are saying in insert number 1, we are referring to the Bible of septic tanks. Emmings: Okay, that's all I had. Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded to amend Section 5.3 (6) and 9.2 (7) of the Subdivision Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: Mr. Gagne, have you reviewed the proposal change in the Subdivision Ordinance? George Nelson: We don't have a sheet. Erhart: If you had, I was just wondering if you had any comments on it. George Nelson: I have a question if I could ask a question. My question is if the slopes are 13-25%, in other words over 12% and you can't use mounds then what? aDacy: If it is unable to have a conventional system or a mound system, "then what the ordinance is saying is that particular area of the lot can Planning commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 18 e not be used for septic system sites. George Nelson: Okay, you can still use the conventional system? Dacy: In some other area of the site. George Nelson: If it peres? Dacy: Right. Machmeier: We should clarify that. For any slopes steeper than 12%, where mounds would not be allowed for construction you must have at least a four foot depth of soil that shows no evidence of seasonal saturation. If you do have a slope that has seasonal saturation at two feet and the slope exceed 12% the soils are not suitable for any septic system. We can excavate as little as one foot into the soil and bring some fill over this so you need about 3 feet of aerated soil under the point at which the sewage meets the soil for hydraulics. Larry VanDeVeire: I have a question for Roger. Where do curtain drains come into play then? Where do the drains stand? e Roger Machmeier: A curtain drain is used if you have a situation where there would be a pan layer or some layer in the soil that would tend to keep the water from moving down and if the upper soil itself were permeable enough so that the water moves along the slope underground, then you could put a drain tile in it and drain it through a separate drain to take that water out. If you have a soil that is very, very dense, such as a clay that is very wet naturally, the curtain drain will do very little good since it will not drain much good under those conditions. Vern Gagne: I did that at my home. I just put in a sump because it was so wet and the water company put it into my drainfield and I put an interceptor between there and what you do... Roger Machmeier: As the soil gets tighter and tighter, you simply cannot drain it out fast enough or it doesn't even pass through that soil. If you have permeable soil and underneath that you have a clay soil then you can intercept the water but if it is clay all the way down the water won't flow to the drain very fast. S. Emmings moved, seconded by R. Siegel to recommend approval of the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 33 as recommended by Staff. All voted in favor and motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10-A, INDIVIDUAL SEWER TREATMENT SYSTEM. - Olsen: Again, these changes reflect Mr. Machmeier's and Mr. Anderson's commen t s. Wha t I will do is go page by page with the changes and if you Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 19 e would like to comment then on these pages. Some are short and some are long. Conrad: We're in a public hearing aren't we? Why don't you make your presentation and we'll come back. e Olsen: Also, George Donnelly our building inspector has joined us and he can offer some input. The first one we are just adding, in addition to those definitions contained in Section D of 6MCAR 4.8040. We just want to make it clear that these aren't the only definitions as far as what the bible has a bunch of definitions. We added a definition for an alternate system. We simply said that it is a system that does not conform with the standards of this ordinance. The next one we deleted part from the definition of repair. Repair shall mean the act or process of restoring or replacing a defective element of any individual sewage treatment system. Before it also said to approximately its original function without altering its original location, capacity or operating characteristics. Number 4, we deleted, perform percolation tests and/or soil evaluation, and added, conduct site evaluations including soil borings, soil evaluations, and percolation tests for any individual sewage treatment system. I just wanted to emphasis soil borings. The next one we added a line saying, to increase tank liquid capacity, two septic tanks in series are permitted. Mr. Machmeier pointed out that two septic tanks in a series can be used and they can get into that I guess later but we added that. We deleted all of this section C. and essentially what it was saying is making the liquid capacity increase for a different type sewer or table already increased the State regulations so we felt that this section was not necessary at all, that it was pretty much covered. Number 7, we increased all beds shall be sized at, it was at 1.25 we increased it to 1.5 times the soil treatment. F. talks about the dosing chamber and it was recommended that where a dosing chamber is used the dosing chamber shall have a liquid tank capacity of 1200 gallons so that in case of dosing device failure there will be storage capacity for three days of use and the dosing chamber shall be put with a warning device to indicate dosing device failure. Again, Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson can get into more detail but they wanted to, the statement "restricted water use" was very vague. Number 11 we deleted the mound systems. Mounds will become now a standard system under State recommendations so we set an alternate system and they are regulated now by State and as he said that we would like those to also be treated as standard systems. We are adding a water monitoring device is required for every new installation and for every new repair or reconstruction of an existing installation of an on-site sewage treatment system. When we were deciding on B.(l) we are adding that it must be a certified survey of property and then they must also include location of septic tanks and pump tank and they also must show the location of distribution boxes or drop boxes. Just adding some more required details. We said the copies could be on scale no smaller than 1" = 30' and in 17, 18 and 19 they are just adding some clarification. Number 20, we moved this section because it is being taken care of in another section so it is pretty much just B. that was... On 21 Mr. Machmeier wanted to emphasis the cleaning of the tanks about once every three years rather then waiting for the sewage level to that the sludge to reach a certain level so what we did was to turn it e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 20 e around and say clean the second tank or tanks at least once every three years or sooner if necessary in order to prevent the sludge from reaching any point closer than 12" from the bottom of the outlet baffle or the scum from reaching a point closer than 3" above the bottom of the outlet baffle. We also added, they suggested that we add a section where people could have the tank inspected to determine if it is reaching that point and if not then you could get away with not having to have it cleaned every three years so we stated that an owner of an individual sewage treatment system could request to delay cleaning of the septic tank if a certified individual measures accumulated solids in the septic tank to determine whether or not the cleaning frequency of every three years is necessary. A certified report must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Wildermuth: Is that going to be monitored? e Olsen: I'm sure we will be keeping records and they will have to submit reports that that has been cleaned. Number 23 is again just clarifying that soil borings, soil evaluations and percolation tests. Number 24, I guess there is no longer an Agency Advisory Committee on Individual Sewage Treatment Systems so we deleted that. We just added some more cIa r i f i cat ion for 2 5 and s cum. For 2 6 we add e d a s c ale 0 f I" to 3 0' . Then finally we just added certified as an Individual Septic Treatment System Inspector for more clarification. I guess before we open it up for more questions, George Donnelly is here and has not had a chance to add in his comments and he does have quite a few and I guess before any motion is made on this we would like to see that it is tabled until we can go over it again with George all these changes and bring them back to you. Conrad: Okay, this is a public hearing. Do you want George to talk? I guess it is wise George that you bring up your points so that those that are in here can hear what you are suggesting as additions to the Ordinance. Do you want to run us through what you've got? George Donnelly: First of all I didn't make many technical changes. We have Mr. Machmeier and he knows a lot more about it then I do. The changes I made were just changes that I felt that perhaps the wording was wrong or I felt that some of the things should be eliminated. Some of the language could be eliminated to make it more readable and more enforceable. That's all the changes I made but we really didn't get through it is what she's saying. We really needed a little more time to polish it. It has nothing to do with the textbook part of it or changing any numbers. It is merely kind of cleaning it up. As far as I'm concerned and I use it, some of the things, there were a lot of redundancies in here and I just felt that some of this language should be cleaned up and I did make quite a few of those type of changes. Conrad: Okay, let's continue on with the public hearing and if there is a motion to table this, we will carryon with the public hearing when it is brought back. Are there any other comments through the public hearing to the changes that Jo Ann has suggested at the advice of our consultants? e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 21 - There was no response from the public. Conrad: As far as public input, because more then likely we are going to table this why don't we, I don't want to close the public hearing do I? Siegel: Didn't Mr. Machmeier have something to say? Roger Machmeier: Yes, I am looking at this alternate system and if the system does not conform with the standards of this ordinance and apparently an alternate system would be referred to on page 4 in 2.03(A). Alternate systems may be used only for repair or replacement of existing non- conforming systems. I think I would like to take a look at that with respect to having an alternative system section and to use one of these sytems for example. A liner system in tight soi1s...The way it is stated now I would like to take a look at it. It might not necessarily block you in. It now calls for a viable alternative that should be considered even on new systems. If we entered it in the alternative category in mounds, or had it in... but you still want to leave the alternative systems open for drainage procedure or something like that so not all the alternatives are necessarily bad. Conrad: Let me suggest that we close public hearing and then dialogue a little bit about the direction the Staff from what we've heard and then bring it back up in two weeks. Reopen the public hearing then you all will have a chance to read the ord i nance if you 1 i ke as suggested and we will take your comments at that time. - Dacy: For your information, we did notify all the licensed installers, designers and perc testers about this meeting so that they would be aware of it. Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: If we do suggest, which it seems important to do is to send it back for two weeks and we'll expect his comments and maybe clean up the language. Any direction from what you've heard though? Any comments on some of this stuff that they may want to regurgitate during the next two weeks? Headla: I think Jim touched a little on part of this, this maintenance paragraph and we talk about a certified individual. How do we determine a certified individual? Dacy: It is somebody that receives a license. Headla: How do you determine that? A certified individual? e Donnelly: Well they are certified by, what's the title of that State Agency? Roger you would know, what is the State Agency that certifies us on these various workshops and whatever? Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 22 e Machmeier: The Pollution Control Agency does the certification. Donnelly: Don't they have another title or whatever? It seems like I saw this today as I was going through here. Machmeier: At one time, which page are you referring to? Donnelly: I'm not referring to any page. I just know that in here and they talk about this agency that is under the certification. Headla: I'm on page 8 right in the middle. Item No. 22. e Donnelly: Okay, I didn't know which particular paragraph you were referring to. I got some comments on that paragraph too but I thought you were just referring to certified because all the way through here we talk about certified individuals. We attend these workshops and we take tests and then the PCA gives us certain certifications for this. We have it for inspectors. They do certify us. I have a certificate on my desk. That's how we determine who is licensed but you know, can I throw out just a couple of remarks about some of this? One is the pumpers. Now our Ordinance calls for certification of pumpers. We never see a pumper. Pumpers are like sneak around at night or something. You need a pumper, you call a pumper. They don't come here. We don't know they are out there so we have never licensed a pumper. As far as we know there are no pumpers. I'm being facetious but it's the truth. It is very hard to control that pumping aspect of this and I guess that is something that I want to talk about too and I wanted to talk about it with Staff before I brought it up but the pumping is a tough one. That particular paragraph 22 by the way, which says instead of pumping it you could have a certified person come out. Personally I don't think that that would be cost effective. I don't think you could get anybody to come out and look at it for any less then you could get somebody to pump it which I think is $30.00 or $40.00. If you are going to hire somebody to come out and dig out all the dirt off the top and get down to the inspection cover and crawl in there and look and see, it is going to cost a lot more then the $30.00 or $40.00 so I don't see why we need that in our Ordinance. Why would you want to do that? Why wouldn't you just hire somebody to come out and flush it out and be done with it instead of hiring somebody to look in there to see if you need to be flushed? That's my point. Okay, did I answer your question on the certification? Headla: Yes and I think you covered the pumping. Apparently you want to go back and really look at how that should be worded. Donnelly: Right. I just don't think we need this paragraph in our Ordinance because I don't think we would ever use it. I don't think anybody would ever hire somebody to do that. I don't know who you would hire. Who would want to do it? Who would you get? I don't know. Maybe a pumper. He's probably the guy who would probably want to do that but you could clean it out for same money. e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 23 e Roger Machmeier: I would respond to that from the standpoint that as the septic tanks get bigger, we may be economically forcing some people to pump tanks that don't need to be pumped. Let's say there is a 1,500 gallon tank or a couple of 1,500 gallon tanks for a big home with just two people living in it. As far as a certified person, it could be as simple as some counties have done. They have simply held a workshop for homeowners so if you want to measure the solids in your septic tank, they will give you a two hour workshop and show you how to work the equipment to do it and you can be the certified individual to do this. In other words, I think people like to have the option of not being forced to do something that isn't necessary. The rate of accumulation is about 50 gallons of solid accumula- tion per person per year so you have two people using a septic tank, roughly 100 gallons of that tank will be occupied by solids after the first year and so on. If you start out with a very big tank we shouldn't have to clean it in three years. I would agree with George that people are going to say "I'm not having any problems". Let them at least have that option of measuring solids rather than say they have to do something that they may not really need to. Donnelly: See, I have a question on that. How would you do that? Machmeier: Do what? e Donnelly: If you are going to corne out and look at my tank and tell me if I needed it, what would be the procedure? Now the tank is covered with dirt and you have maybe two inspection pipes if you are lucky and they didn't get bowled over when they excavated or when they back filled and whenever. How would you check by looking down in there how much... Machmeier: You would have to open up the tank and a manhole cover should be within 6 inches from the ground surface. Donnelly: Right, you have to take dirt off the top of the tank. Machmeier: No, you open a manhole cover within 6 inches of ground surface. Donnelly: See, the trouble is and I know I'm putting my foot in my mouth here but when we inspect them we tell them to cover it up. Okay, it looks good. We really don't know how much dirt actually got mounded on top of there. I know when we did mine, there was over two feet and it is tough digging in clay to get down to the manhole cover, take all of that out, check to see if there is how much sludge. That was my point. It is just a lot easier to call the guy and say hey, pump it out. $40.00 every three years. If we have to have it in there, fine. I just don't like to see anything extra in these ordinances, that's all. Conrad: Anything else George that you wanted to bring up? Donnelly: No, that's it. e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 24 e Emmings: On the application for the 3.02 (B), shouldn't that survey of the property include location of an alternate drainfield site? Among A through K there, shouldn't we have something that says location of alternate drainfield site? Dacy: You are correct. I think maybe E should be amended too and say location of two drainfield sites. Emmings: The only other thing I had was in Roger's cover letter to the City, on page 7 in the paragraph where he talked about typographical errors in our report and I noticed that he misspelled the word line and I was just overjoyed. You left the "en off of line when you were pointing out the typographical errors in our ordinance and I want to thank you for that. Machmeier: The point that you raise with respect to the ordinance alternate site be identified is very good. If you are going to present an alternative site in your plan, it should be done when they come in for the sewage system permit, there should be some identification on the map of the lot and that should be saved for future reference for future owners. Emmings: And to protect that site, like I said more to protect it from structures being built on it because if you only have two spots that you can do it, you better protect the alternate. e Erhart: Regarding the pumping every three years and inspection, we aren't really changing the Ordinance. Olsen: No, we're just kind of emphasizing. Dacy: We're just reversing the sentence. Taking the last part of the original sentence. Olsen: We did require three years before. Erhart: Right now we don't enforce it anyway. Dacy: It creates what Mr. Donnelly is saying is that we don't have any way of keeping track. Donnelly: You call up the pumpers like they were an electrician or something. I shouldn't say electrician, they have to be licensed but just like they would hire a guy to come out and trim the trees. We don't know where they do that and the homeowners aren't apt to tell us. They are always afraid that there is a fee that goes with that. Erhart: What typically happens when things get above 12 inches and above 3 inches and all that? e Machmeier: Well, the top of the sludge layer on the bottom is really light and fluffy. In other words, it is going to be moving along as the velocity of the water in the tank increases. You have three zones in Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 25 e a septic tank. You have the scum on the top, the sludge on the bottom and the clear zone in between. As that clear zone gets thinner and thinner, the velocity increases causing the solids to flow through so by the time your sewage system backs up, sufficient solids have carried through to plug up your drainfield. At that point in time there is no sense in pumping your septic tank. It needs to be cleaned but after you clean it the whole system will fill up with liquid again. Erhart: So what happens? Machmeier: What happens is that you need a whole new sewage system to replace your drainfield. You go to site two or you can dig up and replace the existing trenches or you can replace the mound which is filled up with solids. So the number one item on the longevity of an on-site system is maintenance of the septic tank. Erhart: But you don't necessarily get what you term here as a failure by the definition of the term failure in this ordinance which is a discharge of sewage or sewage tank effulent or seepage from the soil treatment system to the ground surface. That isn't what happens? e Machmeier: Well, no. One of the failures could be, if the elevation was such, sewage could back up into the basement so you would see that sewage in the basement. Of course, that situation would be rectified very quickly. If the sewage system plugs up or the mound plugs up because there are solids going through, you will get sewage forced out of the side of that mound, or the drainfield trenches if they are lower than the elevation where the sewage is generated. The sewage will corne to the surface at that point in time, too, so you will get a classic failure by this definition. The only thing that would not be included is sewage on basement floor. Erhart: Again, emphasizing the concern of the City is failures in terms at the final year, really what we are saying here is if we concern ourselves with the mottling and you stay above that, then we can avoid the problems of West 65th Street and West 96th Street. I see the underlying issue of everything we're doing here is staying above this temporary water line. Is that correct? Dacy: Soil saturation. Erhart: We're not making that many changes to this. What is a water monitoring device? Is that perfectly clear to everyone just by using those terms on page 5? Dacy: Is that your design term or the term water monitoring device? Machmeier: It would be a water meter or cycle counter attached onto the pump. It is a very generic term. e Erhart: As an engineer I would ask does that measure the temperature or what? Do we need to be a little bit more definitive in that? Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 26 ft Machmeier: We use the term monitoring as a daily measurement of the water used by the family. The term "monitoring" is very general. You want to measure the volume of what really goes into the system on a daily basis. It is a continuous measurement. You have meters on everything that goes into the system. If there is an electrical event counter on the pump that tells every time the pumps starts and stops and tells how many doses went into the mound... e Conrad: I'll wrap it up. I'm surprised how few things got changed in the Ordinance. I actually thought there would be more. My concern is with procedure. We talk about a water monitoring device but I don't know what that does and I don't know when we are using it and how are we using it? We talk about building inspection or making sure something happens every three year s bu t I don't know how tha t happens so wha t I see is an ord i nance that has been kind of updated. Not a whole lot of changes but some good ones and I think you are going to look at it in the next two weeks if we table this but I'm concermd with the thing that we are talking about that makes these work over a long period of time is a term that is maintenance and I don't know how that works. I don't know how we monitor that. I don't know what George is going to do. I don't know what that water monitoring device is going to be used for other then requiring somebody to have it and I don't know how somebody stays on top of a once every three years when the homeowners are going to clean it when they want to. I guess that is my concern. I don't know if that is a procedure that goes into this ordinance or if it is an administrative function but I would like to see how we are going to do it and how the City plans on executing this and making sure that these systems don't fail. Dacy: What you are asking is to address the implementation issues of how this is going to be enforced? Conrad: I would like to see that and whether that is in here or where. Dacy: That is a concern of ours as well that we need to address. Donnelly: I just want to throw something out quickly. On that same business of this pumping every three years. People move out here from the city. They buy a used house. They don't even know they have a septic system. They think they have sewer. The last thing in the world to think about is pumping a tank so a lot of our concerns are not with the new stuff but for the old stuff that we have. I deal with failing systems all the time. I had one yesterday that was running into the street. What about that feasibility of the computers and everything of identifying all our septic systems in the City, put them on the computer and make sure that people, I'm talking and I don't know if you can do this, but wouldn't it be nice if we had them and we could notify those people to do it every three years. All the problems we have are from, I think are caused by those 'tanks not getting pumped. I don't think those tanks ever get pumped. They e ,Planning Commission Meeting 'November 5, 1986 - Page 27 e don't even kno w they are suppose to pump them and I don't kno w if we can do that. I was going to throw that out. Conrad: I think however it happens it has got to happen and if that just means that you visit every septic system once every three years, something is got to happen and I don't know what it is. I think you have to tell us what the administrative, the easiest way to carry that out but as George said, that is the issue. How do we do it and if we have the standards here it doesn't make any difference if there is not a way of making sure that they are adhered to so I guess between now and two weeks from now it would be interesting to hear how that would be done. Emmings: The City doesn't seem to have any trouble remembering to send me a bill for sewer every three months with a little card to tear off to send back. Maybe it could be a system that is set up once every three years to send to them and maybe it is a reminder to tell them when the last time is that it was pumped or have it signed by a certified individual, whatever that means. Erhart: I brought you the ordinance for North Oaks which requires periodic documented inspection. Dacy: I think our problem is just figuring out how to do it, who is responsible and then what is the most efficient... e Erhart: act. I expected to see that in this ordinance. To see some kind of Dacy: In the ordinance? Erhart: In 10-A, yes or something. Maybe it's not in the ordinance, maybe it's a procedural thing. Dacy: Yes, it would be an administrative procedure that you would not necessarily put in here. Headla: Why are we then considering three years? Why are we looking out for the individual? Is it really a village problem? Donnelly: It is a problem as far as leeching out of the ground and if it is getting into the walkways. Headla: Okay, we can cover that, they have to take immediate action but it sounds like we are trying to solve the individual's problem. What if we tell them they can't smoke in their house. I can't see the difference. Donnelly: It is so important to pump that tank and I think there are so many people that are going to realize they need to pump their tank. e Headla: Giving them warnings, I think that is fine but for us to insist on it. Why can't they make that decision when they want to do it? Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 28 e Dacy: We can talk about this more maybe next time but the City is responsible for the public health, safety and welfare and if the septic tank systems are not properly maintained there could be a threat to public health so you also have to remember that in the rural area in Chanhassen sanitary sewer may not be available to that area for 20-25 or maybe even 50 years so we really have to take an active maintenance program. I understand your point. There is always a conflict in government. How far do we go in regulations of the individual property owner but Staff feels in this case since it is a public health issue that we feel that maybe we should take a stronger stand. That is the rationale. Conrad: I think also, when I had a septic system, that was the last thing I wanted to pay attention to. I did not know how often to pump it. You just get rumors of when you should do it and I tell you, I'm not monitoring it. I never did. The only time I monitored it was when I had a backup so I don't know. I think we can relate to don't let government get into telling you when to do everything but on the other hand, this issue it gives the people in the unsewered areas some alternatives to work with their land and put housing on it and to give them that liberty of doing that, I think there has to be some kind of a system that we can put in there to make sure that we don't have septic problems. Erhart: I would like to see us work on this alternate system where we have some procedure for some developer or lot owner to come in and make a 4Itegitimate proposal based on some history or something so we don't end up Intimidating people who have fresh ideas. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to table to amend Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Ordinance for two weeks to allow Staff to take the Commission's comments along with the Building Inspector's and come back and present a revised ordinance through a public hearing format. All voted in favor of tabling and motion carried. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 36, SECTION 3.13 FOR OFF-PREMISE TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. Dacy: We brought this back to your attention. Maybe some of the new members were not here when we originally considered this but we brought it back under this item because you had tabled it this summer until you got a full commission. As you recall, the Sign Ordinance request for Tom Klingelhutz has spurred us to think about maybe the community should be providing for off-premise signage for subdivisions in the community and so on and maybe for example at major intersections and we put together some specific standards. Since that time I guess I wanted to update you with what is occurring in conjunction with our downtown work and streetscape proposals that BRW is responsible for doing the feasibility study for downtown and so on, has come up with some alternative sign proposals for major entry points into the community which could accommodate this type of use in a more consistent sign fashion so we don't have six different types ~f signs pointing to Pheasant Hills and Hidden Valley and the other. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 29 e Conrad: Except Tom Klingelhutz' proposal was turned down, right? Dacy: No it wasn't. It was approved by the Council. You did recommend to deny it but you said Staff could go back and look at a possible ordinance amendment and we came back at that point and you didn't have a full commission and had some different views. I would just like to hand out what BRW is thinking of. This is not final. Even the HRA or City Council hasn't seen this. The idea is three types of entry signs into Chanhassen. The first one of which could function as a directory for subdivisions. On the one tha t you have no wit lis ts bus i nesses and tha t obv i ous ly would be located as you enter into the downtown so Staff's point is that again, instead of maybe a sign ordinance amendment that Staff commented that we wanted to carry out a consistent sign program in the community and that maybe this proposal that will be under review by the HRA and the City Council should be used in amending the sign ordinance for individuals. This would give the community more design control. I just want to bring this to your attention and see if you have any comments. See if you think we are off the wall, agree or... wildermuth: How would this replace the sign ordinance? Dacy: It is not that it would replace the sign ordinance. All I'm saying is that the sign ordinance amendment would not be necessary to allow for to have a sign saying pheasant Hills subdivision, arrow, another subdivision, ~rrow and so on. This could be a city project. We would be installing ~hese signs around various spots in the community. wildermuth: Who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer? Dacy: Everything is related through the downtown development project which will be partially financed by tax increment financing which is the original intent of that district is to take the increments generated by the development of the business park to pay for improvements in the downtown and a portion of those costs would be paid through special assessments and so on. Primarily we are paying for this through the tax increment, HRA district so I think you can thank Instant Web, united Mailing and so on because they are providing... wildermuth: It seems like the people whose businesses are being advertised ought to be paying for it. Dacy: We have had a lot of businesses come to us and a lot of developers say, people don't know where to get to our subdivisions and this is just a way to provide that community function and provide signage to better acquaint people that go through to where these various places are in Chanhassen. It gets back to design control. The major thing is sign control. Conrad: When Klingelhutz came in, just history when you weren't around, he .asicallY had a development that he wanted directional signage and the rdinance says that you can not have a off-premise sign telling me how to Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 ~ Page 30 - get to his new development and many developments have that need. This is a real one so at that time we, as a body, whoever was here and I don't know who was anymore, but anyway Staff came up with a solution for his problem which would like totem pole the signs at an intersection of a development so you could have several developments. Instead of having chaotic signs at a corner off-premise, you have some kind of organization to them. We turned that spot down even though we understood the need, the City Council accepted that thought. Staff is back to say that maybe there is a way to orchestrate this for others. If that is a need in the community, maybe there is a way to orchestrate this through the ordinance. However, as I understand your proposal, you still do not like it. Dacy: What we are saying is that we do not recommend amending the sign ordinance. What the City is saying though is that we prefer to have a city designed consistent program of sign control for major entrances points instead of having a 24 square foot sign 10 feet down on Galpin Blvd. that is green with black letters, 18 square feet... Conrad: What you are presenting will not solve Klingelhutz' problem? Dacy: I'm saying it could. The community would have to decide whether or not to locate a sign at CR 17 and TH 41. We really have to look at that. How many signs do we want to have on TH 5? I can sympathize with some of the locations. A lot of their work has to come through marketing too. ~hey are working with maps and so on. Conrad: Chamber of Commerce by the way has this on the drawing board. The Chamber of Commerce wants something like that. I think it is going to fail. I think when you get down to it you have so many positions on a sign and we're going to have 500 people that want that and we're going to exclude 494 and 6 are going to be there. It just seems in the long run it is going to be a real hassle. In the short run probably not a problem becuase we don't have that many businesses but in the long run how do you determine which 6? The first ones in. There is some logic for coordinating this. There is some logic for having coordinated signs and there is nothing worse then having signage allover. That is just real visual garbage and that forces nothing to work. Dacy: You don't necessarily have to take action on this. It was out there hanging on a table and we just wanted to bring it back to kind of wrap the file up so to speak. Conrad: Well, where do we go? Does anybody know where they want to go with this thing? I don't. I see negatives. The intent is terrific because it is something that we should continue to play around with or get it off of Staff's desk. Siegel: What are we waiting for Barbara? Are we waiting for the HRA and somebody else to take action on this? e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 31 e Dacy: Yes. The sign program, streetscape proposal will be considered by the HRA through their consideration of the feasibility study which estimates the cost of providing the street, sewer, water, drainage and streetscape improvements for the downtown area. The HRA is about to embark on that whole public hearing process and these type of costs will be incorporated into that overall project. Siegel: I could see that working for the downtown area if we are set on having a central downtown district, it should be signed properly. I agree that a directory is probably the least effective way of going about it and these other ones are probably in contention to be winners or losers. I don't think we should take a standard like this and say we are going to advertise Torn Klingelhutz' property by building a brick monument out on CR 17 and TH 5 and say pheasant Hill this direction. I just think we should probably. . . Dacy: I thought the Commission's intent was to have it on a permanent basis though. Was to have these directional signs permanently pointing direction to... Emmings: It says the sign will be removed six months after it has been erected. Dacy: That was our recommendation. ~. h Emmlngs: 0 no. Erhart: I thought that was your idea. Emmings: We said six months. That's what I remember from our previous conversation. Dacy: Then what's the point of all this. Never mind. I'm sorry I brought it up. Erhart: I think it is an unfortunate situation here really. Staff got off on a tangent here and the way I always thought the discussion was going because I was in on all of these was that the developer's, at their own expense, as long as they made a nice looking sign, could put a sign out, one sign for six months directing people to their development. At the end of six months they take it down. We don't bear any expense other then we get to review the sign and it has to be in accordance with the ordinance. I know we discussed sharing a sign and I never saw how that could work because as soon as you had six, a seventh guy would come along. We could make that real complicated here. Dacy: If that is the case, then you should amend the ordinance. What we are saying is that we felt that there was an alternative to doing it instead of amending the sign ordinance. What you are saying is, no Staff 4Irou blew it, we're only talking about temporary situations. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 32 e Emmings: You didn't blow it because the way you wrote your thing here in the materials you gave us, it seems to me exactly what we had in mind. The whole point seemed to me was when Klingelhutz was sitting here he said it is the initial phase of the subdivision to get people to us and by six months you have enough people in so that word of mouth, they know where we are and it's not a problem anymore. That is what I recall. Dacy: Okay, if that is the case and if you feel strongly about it then you can direct us to advertise for a public hearing based on what you have here. Emmings: I have a couple of points I would like to bring up about it but I don't know where we are. The signs are supposed to be designed so three developments can be displayed on anyone sign and I would say, I think we should think about how many of these signs they can have. I think there should be a limit on the number they should have for each subdivision. Let them have two of these. No more then two for each subdivision or something like that. I don't care what the number is but they shouldn't be putting up 100 of these things so I think it would be a good idea to have a limit and I don't think there should be any more then one sign per intersection. The first three to get there get on the sign and when one of them gets off the next one can get on and I don't think that will really be a problem because I don't think there will be three subdivisions that will want the same intersection and if there are they will just have to wait their turn. ~conrad: So you are in favor of the off-premise sign? Emmings: I wasn't, I thought the ordinance was fine very frankly but Torn Klingelhutz convinced me that it is a real problem initially getting people there. The way we're developing out here with these subdivisions, if we're going to let him build a subdivision we have to let him get people to him. I was persuaded by him in that regard. Erhart: I just think you are making an emotional, complicated, potential problem by requiring that they have space for three developments on one sign. It is just a whole lot cleaner and simpler if each developer puts in his own sign as long as they meet the ordinance and he takes his own sign down. Conrad: But do you agree with what Steve was saying? Erhart: About him? I agreed at the meeting with Tom. I wholeheartedly agree with what Steve had, I just think you ought to keep one sign per developer and like Steve said, limit the total number of signs to two or one. Siegel: I'm just going to go 180 or 360 degrees on this because I'm not for off-premise signing anymore. I just think we should be as strict as Eden priaire, Minnetonka, Plymouth and many other communites have been and ~disallow that. I think if they have a development of any kind of "'substance, there are many, many marketing methods to achieve getting people Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 33 e to attend their development's promotion and whatever. They can put a map in the newspaper and pay for it. They can put any number of types of promotional pieces out to get Parade of Homes participation. If we're talking about residential development, I don't know of anybody in the building trade who has a problem utilizing the Parade of Homes promotion every year to get people to find their locations. They put a detailed map in there with street intersections and if Tom Klingelhutz wants to participate in the Parade of Homes, let him. It is part of the presidential marketing effort but I think we are getting too trashy and we have the potential of getting trashier on the highways and biways here. Wildermuth: I agree with Tim's comment. I don't see any reason to put a number three or at least three signs to be displayed. I want individual signs for their property and I like the attitude of having it expire in six months, the sign has to come down. Headla: Any decision we make isn't forever. It can be changed. I think the problem has been identified and I like the idea of just the builder putting up a sign off-premise and it has to be taken down in six months and let him advertise his own but only one of these signs on any arterial highway. If someone is coming on TH 5, point it one direction and then that is it. Conrad: Chaska Development was in asking for a sign. what would this do ~o their request if this went through? Would they be granted a sign? Dacy: No, this only applies to residential which reminds me that South Storage place in Chaska has installed another one at that same location so we have to go out and tell them to take it down. It seems to be a popular corner. Conrad: My feeling is generally I agree with you Bob, I think in this case if we put some limits on signage and because the signs really are fairly small, I think to help the developer for six months with the restrictions probably can be sold. I think we can help the developer a little bit in funneling traffic around and I think in this case I am going to beg some of the philosophies that I have had in the past and swing with it. At least swing with it to vote for it and send it up to Council and see how they react to it. Is there a motion? Emmings: Do we have to have a public hearing on this? Dacy: Right. Emmings: So what is the appropriate motion? Conrad: Maybe we don't need a motion. Maybe we just instruct you to make the changes as you have heard. I think most of us, other then Bob agree with Steve's additions and deletions and if you could refine the changes tlfor his comments and we'll conduct a public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 34 e Dacy: Also in 82, I don't think it is a real burning issue right at this point but if I take this report to the Council with a copy of your Minutes, let's say this month or next month and have them incorporate it into the Sign Ordinance which I think will be passed with the new Zoning Ordinance. We could eliminate a potential item on a future agenda. It is not that critical. Conrad: By incorporating it into the Sign Ordinance for a public hearing. When would the public have a chance to react to it? Dacy: In December. Conrad: But they would have a chance. Okay, then don't schedule a public hearing but I think you should bring it back to us so we can vote on it. Erhart: Do you feel that you have direction on this number of signs per sign? Dacy: Yes, I have the direction that we should not require that and instead require a number per subdivision and a number per intersection. BROADENED STUDY AREA UPDATE - DOWNTOWN ROAD SYSTEM. Dacy: I put this into a little more understandable language. I did ~oOf though. The one arrow on this one should have been pointing to Lack of Street Continuity. It is true in both cases but I had the arrow in the wrong direction. In any case and I have to apologize the third paragraph, that second sentence doesn't make sense. Your original comment, Mr. Chairman was should we ease the severity of the angle coming into downtown. The consultant came back and said, yes this could split to the north and this is a conceptual design that Staff felt really had to be looked at in detail. Conrad: What is going to be in that little triangle Barbara? There's not going to be a house right? Dacy: No. Here? Conrad: Right here. Why don't we just slide a street going there because this way nothing can be here? Dacy: When you do that you are always looking at different trade-offs. If we move it to the north then you have to acquire one more. Conrad: I'm adding a new road. Dacy: That's Schlenk's house. Conrad: Oh there is a house there? e Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 35 e Dacy: Yes, so you are talking about additional. It might have to be acquired anyway and probably will. Also, when you shift it to the north you may be skewing away from a 90 degree geometric design and there may be a lesser amount of an angle. The railroad may have some comment as far as they don't seem to appear to object to having the railroad going through the intersection but having cars potentially being stacked over the railroad, they may have some type of design comments. What the consultant is saying is that yes, we can look at it in more detail and try to eliminate this curve up here as much as possible or dampen the severity of it. He was more strong however on the other idea of connecting West 78th Street into TH 5. His reasons for that were that as local traffic from TH 5, where we have a significant amount of flow through volumes already, it breaks up the turning movement activity that is done up in this location. They are going to be going into the right turn lane anyway if they are corning through on TH 5 and it disrupts the street contintuity between the industrial area on the east and into downtown. What the consultant is saying is that he feels that you have to separate the local traffic from the major arterial which is the intent of West 78th Street. It acts as a frontage road and provides an east/west connection. That is what he was talking about in his report. Headla: I was wondering why he had XiS over that? Dacy: This was to illustrate what would happen if you eliminated this ~egment and had West 78th Street coming here. Headla: Oh, you're not proposing that? Dacy: No. I was just trying to show what would happen if that were to occur. Those are the techical traffic design leaflets. What happens now is that we're having a meeting with MnDot, Carver County, Met Council next Thursday. They are going to be formally responding to the whole plan. HRA is going to consider those comments at the December meeting. Accept the plan and forward it back to the Planning Commission to have it inserted into our Comp Plan process through the Transportation Chapter because that Plan in essence updates all of the traffic data, it proposes a new traffic system for not only the downtown area but the entire city as well so you will be seeing this again. Erhart: What is the status on the downtown redevelopment? Anything? Siegel: Where it is. really heard. I don't think there is any action taken. I haven't Dacy: There are a lot of upcoming meetings that are going to be scheduled. That reminds me since you are representatives of the Planning Commission, as I said earlier, they are embarking on the pupJ~9 hearing process for the downtown feas i bi I i ty study to do the bas ic ~ITl::<:tEo'-r--structure improvements and the Council and HRA are having a joint meeting on November 24th to ~review what BRW has proposed. From there they will initiate a public ~improvement process. Council will order a public improvement project, Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 36 e assessment role, prepare special assessments, etc. Our auditor's and consultants feel that the tax increment financing of a portion of it and analyzing what primary costs should be paid through our tax increment credits so it is progressing in that we getting done basic and construction improvements. Our storm sewer system downtown, there is none. It is a terrible situation and this feasibility study shows us ways to correct it. Pipes in the ground are 20 years old and leaking. Those will be replaced. New streets. The north/south street on the west side of the bowling center. That is going to be going in. The r~~n why they are trying to push it along this year is because of the Shr r's Bill. It can't hamper what a municipality can do with it's money matters it receives through the districts. We are trying to get the project in the process so that new bill will not hamper our ability to do this. Siegel: Has there been any decision or activities as far as tenants, new tenants? Dacy: New tenants where? Siegel: Like the motel, grocery, stores. Dacy: ~is still making specific proposals to the HRA. We are in negotiation with them as to the apartment project and the commercial retail lease on the north side of the street. What is happening is that CHADDA is Aequesting a certain amount of HRA participation cost and so on and the HRA ~as got to look at, we've got public improvements going on and that cost x dollars and we have tax increment monies and special assessments to pay those, how much are we going to have left over to help a development for specific projects and also payoff the original bonds that initiated the tax increment by 1994 so they are looking at the economics as to how much financial participation they are willing to make. CHADDA and the HRA are still in negotiation and they hope to have at least the apartment project proposed by next spring. It just comes down to that. Siegel: Is that that area where the dry cleaners is? Dacy: Right so we may be seeing site plans and subdivision plans for that area this spring. Siegel: Did they decide to buy that land? Dacy: They do have an option on the property. Siegel: But it was continued. Dacy: One final thing. The final public hearing on the TH 7 Corridor Study is next Wednesday at Minnetonka City Hall at 7:00. Clark Horn from the Council will be attending the meeting so anybody from the Planning Commission that would like to attend I would certainly encourage it. We ~ave been trying to keep you up to date. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 37 e Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim - e