The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 11 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~NOVEMBER 19, 1986 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; George Donnelly, Building Inspector PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.3 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONEDIR-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE~L~ LESLIE HEUER. Conrad: The first item, a public hearing, has been withdrawn and that is planning case 86-29 Subdivision so that item is not on our agenda tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE ~~ENDMENT TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10-A, INDIVIDUAL SEWER TREATMENT SYSTEMS. PUBLIC PRESENT: _Jay Johnson Olsen: Real quickly, I called Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson and told them not to come in this weather. If there are any questions that I can't answer I will get in touch with them tomorrow. What we did, Barb and I sat down with George and went through and really cleaned it up. Took out definitions of like the Community Development which there is no longer and things like that. The major things that we added were on page 5 and on page 6 we added (n) and (0). (n) is about the inspection pipes and (0) covers a pressure system in the mounds. Those were two of the items, if you remember you got the proposed amendments to the Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and what we took out of here were the relevant ones for the Ordinance. What we are planning on doing with the rest of these amendments is to make a resolution adopting these. It may be a couple of years before the State actually amends these and Mr. Machmeier was saying that they are important to have now so we will do it through a resolution and kind of use it as our own technical appendix. It is not more for the public, it is more for us. When they come in for us to say that this is what you should do. That is really the major changes we've done. As far as the maintenance, again we emphasize the 3 year cleaning and then what we are going to do is we've been budgeted for a computer in the Planning Department and what we are going to try and do then is to set up and put all of this into the data base. Who has septic systems and also get public education pamphlets and send them ou t to people just to rem i nd them to c lean and then to do it ~very 3 years to notify people. That is about all we can do right now. We .....eel it is good. Planning _November Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 2 Headla: I was really unhappy with this ordinance. I am very concerned about the government coming in and telling people what they ought to do and not give the individual much leeway on it. Telling people what and when they have to do it. Talking outside there with George I think I got the wrong impression. There is an alternative purpose of the Ordinance to make, as I understand this is what we want to do is tell the people be it original or another owner that you've got to get in there occasionally and monitor your system and all you are doing is alerting them to go monitor your system so you do not affect the public health. George Donnelly: That's right. That's the way you want to do it Dave. I don't know if we want to take it that final step and say you will do it. I guess that's what really concerns you. What we want to do is notify everybody every 3 years so in case the property is sold and somebody comes in there that isn't aware of what could happen. I think Dave kind of feels like I do. I have kind of mixed feelings. I don't like the idea either of telling people but at the same time I'm afraid if we don't make them do it they won't do it. That's what I'm afraid of. Olsen: We allow on page 8 under Maintenance 5.01, on the second paragraph A.;inder that section we allow the individual to show us that it doesn't need Wt 0 be c 1 e a n e d . I k now t hat wed i s c u sse d t hat i two u 1 d co s t as m u c h to h a v e that done then to have it cleaned but they have the option. Headla: I was concerned that if we had affulent on the surface we could go a long time before the government could step in and stop that health hazard. On the very last page, how soon that there is affulent on the ground can the government step in and take corrective action? Donnelly: Do you want me to tell you how long it has been on some of them? Headla: I'm concerned about that. We should be able to take quick action. Is that a realistic question George? Donnelly: I don't know how long it would take. I've been trying on some of them for 2 years to get this thing but that is another issue. We've got to get it to the City Attorney and then there is regular procedure that they have to go through in order to allow us, the City, to come in and do this and put it on their taxes. I'm not an attorney so I don't know exactly what that is but it takes time to do it. Several months I would guess. Headla: What can we do to expedite that? Donnelly: I think the preventive part is the best part. That's why I feel ~ind of strongly about it. Let's just say it leaks out and the neighbor ~alls me. I go out there and look at it. On something like that I've got to give them at least 30-45 days. Planning _November Headla: Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 3 Why? Donnelly: To get it done. It takes a while to get it done. while to line it up. What if it's in the wintertime? It takes a Headla: But not if they have had three years to work on it. Donnelly: What do you mean? Headla: To monitor the system and make sure it is good. This isn't something that develops in 30 seconds. It evolves over three years and people should have been monitoring their systems. Donnelly: I'm just saying that if we have a failing system and somebody fails to report it and their neighbor comes in, I end up giving them at least 30 days and then they never answer. By the end of the 30 days I don't hear anything so I have to write them a citation and then I have to give them another time, probably two weeks on that. When I give them that they have to report to Court in two weeks to get my two week notice. Then they have to go to the Judge and explain and he in turn I suppose would turn around, we haven't gotten an answer so I don't know but I would guess he would say, well, do you promise Mr. Jones that you will do this within the next month. They always give the people plenty of time. I can't see ~he thing getting done before 3-4 months and then if they don't do it, then ~hat do we do? Then we have to take the legal process. The Attorney explained it to me one day and I hate to even try to explain it to you but there is quite a bit of paperwork that has to be done in order to get that done. In order for the City to go in and do it. It takes quite a few months so it is leaking out for a long time. Headla: I guess I would like to see us pursue how we can improve on...so we can start the process of corrective action. If we've got affulent on the surface then the City can go ahead. I don't think we should have to wait 3-5 months. I want it to show that we can take corrective action as quick as possible. Donnelly: You would have to talk to the Attorney and find out what the timeframe would be. Headla: What I'm saying is the first time you give out the citation right off the bat. If there is affulent on the ground, you have violated the law already. Donnelly: They would have to say that they didn't know it. The Judge doesn't allow us to do that. We've gotten into problems with that before where we issued a citation without giving warning on it. Headla: That's what I say. I would include that in their permit. e>onnellY: You see you have to give them a letter and tell them that there is a problem and if they don't take care of it within the next number of Planning Commission Meeting 4ItNovember 19, 1986 - Page 4 days then they will receive a citation that will require their appearance in Court. That is the process that you have to use so you are looking at a minimum there of a month and a half before you can have action. Then if they don't show up for, I write tickets to people and they are suppose to be in Court and they don't show up half of them and the Judge just slaps them on the wrist and says well you come next time. It is just not real tough. Headla: Did this happen when effluent runs in a creek or Lotus Lake, could that happen? Donnelly: It could happen anywhere. I don't know how we could get that process speeded up. Olsen: Could I interject here? On page 4, and this was a mistake that I was suppose to take out on letter (d), it reads it shall be the responsibilty of any person utilizing, it should say a sewage treatment system to report to the department office of the malfunctioning sewage treatment system as soon as possible but no later then 18 hours upon knowledge of this discharge and further, date of discharge as soon as possible but no later then 48 hours. Right there we have a two day limit and I feel we should be able to immediately act on. 4Ifiegel: Did you say you shouldn't remove alternative? Olsen: Yes, we meant to remove alternative because that should be for any system not just the alternative system. That was one mistake that I forgot. I missed that one. Conrad: Dave, what are you thinking about? George is talking practicality of the system and it takes a while to fix it. Are you talking about penalties? Do you want a penalty on there? What do you want? Headla: Immediate corrective action. If George deems it necessary to need corrective action, I would like to make it so he could go in and take corrective action. Conrad: George said it is going to take 30 days to 45 days to correct the situation regardless of the Court system, he is going to give them that much time. Donnelly: First of all, don't forget, if I told you you needed to get a new system you would have to get a perc test, you have to get a hold of a guy to come out. Everything takes time to get things done and then you have to get a hold of a guy that is going to design it for you and he has to design it then you've got to hire and get some bids on the construction end of it. All this stuff takes time so I have to give them a reasonable amount of time. I can't just say 10 days you have to have a new system. ~The fact is, I give them 30 days usually and if they just get started on ,.,something I give them credit. Great, you've got a perc test within 30 days or something. Planning fliovember Headla: Would it help if we penalized them so many dollars a day until corrective action is taken after the problem is identified? Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 5 Donnelly: I don't know if we could do that. Headla: I would like to see the system expedited someway and then I would like to see George identify a couple alternatives. I kind of like that penal ty after the problem has been identi fied that people have to pay a penalty everyday until it is corrected. Donnelly: The City can not impose the fines. Only the Court can do that. It is just like when I give them a ticket. They don't get a fine. The Judge does. I think only once or twice, and I have written quite a few tickets that there has actually been a fine and that is because the guy just deliberately wouldn't do it time after time and finally, $100.00 fine but really the Court sets down the fine so we can't do that. Conrad: Section 9.04 says that if they don't do something that the Ci ty can step in and contract to do it in the new Ordinance here George. Is that an alternative? Donnelly: Yes, if we can do it. .iegel: Donnelly: out there process. If it is a threat to public health? Yes, but I think there is a legal process. You can't just run and do it I don't think without giving some kind of legal Conrad: Basically you are saying that after time we can do that but for that first 30-60 days nothing is going to happen because they do have that. Siegel: I want to thank Staff and George for making this much more readable. I didn't have anything other then that to comment on. In regards to Dave's comments about putting something in here that would make it more conducive to being followed through from the part of the citizens, is everybody might consider the many varied applications that might exist. The property owner might have bought this property within the past year or it is two years old, and the new property owner is just learning now about this problem and that it exists. I think the Court is going to look on all these kind of things when it considers penalties and what the City is going to do about it so I think we are sort of restricted to putting some of these things into some kind of generalities and leaving it up to the City to pursue things based on the Ordinance from a legal standpoint. If our City Attorney and our City legal authorities do not feel that it is worthy of pursuing, I don't know if we can say that it is as a Commission or a Council. We have to rely on the legalities and the proper restraints accorded the municipalities in enforcing these ordinances. I think we've got strength in this ordinance as worded but we've got to rely on the Aystem and I don't necessarily agree that the system is as clean as I would ~ike to see it but I don't know how much stronger we can make it. Planning eNovember Especially in consideration of the many possibilities that might exist to the persons who are going to be sued or are forced to payor the constraints that are dealing with the individuals. Every circumstance could be different and I'm sure that's what the legal system is looking at and that's what our attorney's are looking at so I don't know how much stronger we could make this and still stay within the boundaries that are practical. I liked everything about this. I read it through and I actually understood it. Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - page 6 Emmings: How many times in 1986 have we had a situation where there has been sewage on the ground? Donnelly: There is a lot of times that it's on the ground. A lot of them. You probably know about that West 65th Street and Crestview Drive and there were quite a few of them that were running out of the ground there. Emmings: How many? What is a lot? Donnelly: What is a lot? Right now I can think of three of them that I'm working on where it is running out of the ground. Just come to my head I can think of three but there are probably half a dozen. Emmings: Is there anyway to correct them once they are in the winter? ~OnnellY: It is just impractical in the winter to do it. I suppose the only way you could do it would be to put charcoal down and heat the soil. Emmings: What happens then? You just let it run out all winter? Donnelly: It just runs right out on the ground. I shouldn't say that because I think we could force them to pump it but I say we could force them. I think the mechanism is there through the Court system to make them pump it. Let's say every 313 days you will pump this tank from now until spring because otherwise it is going to run right down here into this creek. I think we could probably do it but getting it done. It isn't always easy to get these things corrected as much as I would like to. Emmings: What this really underlines, despite maybe Dave's and George's relunctance to tell people what to do, I don't have any hesitation at all because the way to stop this problem from getting bigger in the future is to have good maintenance from here on out on all new systems then we've only got the old ones to worry about. What if, and I can't imagine why you ha ve to give somebody 313 days? I don't know why once there sewage is running out on the ground that you can't say to them there has to be a plan in my office in a week? Donnelly: It just takes longer then that, first of all they need to find somebody to do it. ~mmings: That would take 15 minutes to half an hour. out on the ground that is how long it would take me. If mine was running Planning fliovember Donnelly: People always want things the cheapest, they want bids on everyth i ng, they wan t to check a round to see who is go i ng to be the cheapest perc test... Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 7 Emmings: We're not talking about corn flakes here, we're talking about sewage. Is it a health hazard or am I over estimating the seriousness of this stuff? Donnelly: It can very well be a health hazard. Emmings: It would seem to me that another way to stop it is if they haven't got something done in a couple of weeks, why don't we shut the water off to their house until they get something done? Then they are not going to be adding to the problem. Donnelly: Most of those people have wells. Emmings: Well, I don't know. If this represents a health hazard I think we are taking an awfully lazy approach to this. If it is not a health hazard, then I think we are wasting a bunch of time here but if it is, I don't see why anyone should have more then a week to tell us exactly what they are going to do to correct the problem. Maybe your suggestion that they have to pump the tank... 4ItonnellY: That is an immediate answer because if you pump the tank it's not going to be running into the field and then it is not going to drain out on the surface. Emmings: Why couldn't the City hire someone, as soon as the problem is identified to go right in and pump that tank? Donnelly: did. I don't know that we have that authority to do that. I wish we Emmings: In the situation where it is a health hazard we don't have the authority to do that. I think that should be run by the attorneys because that is an immediate solution. We're going to nip it where we find it and then they should come in with a plan within a week. Siegel: The problem Steve is don't you have to prove it is a health hazard? Emmings: Okay, is that hard to prove? Either you see it or you don't. Donnelly: We've gone out, we take samples, that's another thing that takes some time. We go out there and get a sample of it, if you can. Sometimes if there's no puddles it is hard to get a sample of it. If there is a puddle we have taken samples and sent it down to Hopkins and have the water tested. That takes 2-3 days. Everything takes a little time to get it done and get it back. We usually know if there is affulent in it. They 4Iran find that out quick by it's smell. The proof is in the water test. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - page 8 e I wish we did have the authority to immediatey start pumping that tank. It should be pumped right then because it is running out right then. Siegel: If it is affecting the immediately property owner or human being, wouldn't that necessitate legal action? Donnelly: But I don't even know who the health officer is. We always get into this, I don't think we even know who the health officer is here in town. We don't ever use him as far as I know. Presumably you have to have a health officer to decide it is a health problem. I don't know who it is. Noziska: If it was in the middle of a hill somewhere where there wasn't any kids and it wasn't running into a pond or a stream but there are a lot of cases where it is in the proximity of children and also there are a lot of cases where ponds or streams where it is very definitely. Every summer they are dumping raw sewage in the Mississippi and every now and then Minnesota and Wisconsin go at it for the things that go into the water and the same sort of thing on the politcal scale. When you are talking raw sewage into the drainage system so it is not good for a variety of reasons. If there are too many instances of that then it can definitely effect the quality of the water. Whatever it does, it definitely effects the quality of the water in our streams. aonrad: I agree with the comments. I also am a little bit nervous about _hat I talked about last time and that is the execution of the three year cycle. I heard Jo Ann you said you are going to get a computer and we're going to send out notices but it's not in print and it's not policy. I think the point of the Ordinance is to make sure, based on what I've heard from our consultants is to make sure that things happen and if we're going to allow the rural area to develop, which it will based on our smaller lot size, I guess I just feel I have to see the way we enforce things and the way we monitor things. It is going to be costly. There is just no doubt in my mind that it is going to cost somebody, the average citizen with the government looking over their shoulder but I think it is worth it and I think in this particular case, I would like to see those procedures in place before I can say that I like this ordinance. I think the ordinance is well written as it stands but I'm looking for some of the penalties or procedures that will make it work so I guess my druthers right now is to table it again and have Staff tell us if there is a way to, George what I would really like to see if you see a violation, I would like somebody to have 7 days to give you a plan. Noziska: Or 10. Conrad: Whatever the right timing is and you've got to approve that. You say that makes sense. In the winter time I'm not going to make you rip up, I'm giving you the option of interpreting a health hazard, risk to the neighborhood, whatever. 4IfonnellY: A plan this time of the year being I'll pump it immediately. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 9 e Conrad: An immediate solution to the problem is I'll pump it and maybe I'll pump it every 45 days. It is up to you. I don't want to detail exactly what it has to be because I think we can't figure out all the different alternatives but you may be able to see it based on the inspection and based on the individual problem. Then I would like to see a penalty built in and I guess I would like to hear if there is an easy way to evoke that penalty. If it is difficult and it takes 9 months, we don't need a penalty. Then we don't need to build that into the Ordinance but right now I would like to see those two things. A method of solving a problem after it happens and I would also like to see, have Jo Ann respond to how to pump every three years. I'm still uncomfortable and I guess I would like reaction from the Planning Commission as to what they would like to see. I think Barbara said that we'll work that out and we have an option to have Staff work this out. We have an ordinance here that says they should but we don't know how that is going to happen. I guess I'm interested in what people would like us to... Noziska: Are we on the discussion of this pump every 3 years? Conrad: Yes, that is my second thing. Pump every 3 years which is a real key thing as far as what the consultants have said Howie. You have to pump every 3 years. There is a way out of that if you don't need it. It might be a costly way but there is way out of that but the consultants say that .as got to happen. The problem is, as George will say, how do we mon i tor hat? How do we force them to do it? People aren't motivated to do it to begin with and a tracking system is difficult. People change residents. It is a complicated problem but from I can see, the key in the future for making septic systems workable in this community is just that. Is just maintaining that system and I don't see how we're going to do it yet. I see the Ordinance says things that they have to but I don't see how they are going to do it. Noziska: Obviously you don't do it by name, you do it by address so keeping track whether they move or not. Donnelly: I don't know why we couldn't do that without a computer. I'm just guessing, would you say that we maybe have 200. Olsen: We can get it going. I was planning on getting it started. Donnelly: I think it would be nice to get it on the computer but I think we could handle it without a computer right now easily enough. Noziska: So the consultants are convinced that they will not work unless it is pumped every 3 years? Conrad: They are just saying that they don't know. Siegel: A single person house verus a six person house has a lot to do ~ith whether it should be pumped every 3 yers should be enforced. Planning November e Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 10 Noziska: They are concerned about sludge build-up? Donnelly: The sludge gets into the trenches and once the sludge gets into the trenches, that is the end of the road. It is just a matter of time and pretty soon they are plugged up and there is no place for the affulent to go anymore. That's why it is important to pump them. In fact, some people go 10 years maybe when others should have it pumped every year but we are coming up with this 3 year thing. Hopefully, we'll get a majority of them. Headla: George, could we control it on those people that get a building permit and defining their septic system, can you at that time say it looks like we should pump it every year or every five years? Donnelly: If the only thing we know about them is how many bedrooms they've got, we know they have a garbage disposal, all the people have that now so I guess it just depends on what you throw down there. It is just impossible to know that. Noziska: The organic stuff really doesn't do much. It kind of decomposes and it is gone but it's the crud that doesn't go away is what matters. Donnelly: There is no way of knowing but if we get them every 3 years, I've got a feeling that we'll control the problem. ~onrad: Jo Ann, what is your druthers? As I said last time, I would like a procedure and it is not a part of the Ordinance and typically procedures are not part of the ordinance. Olsen: I guess that's why we didn't put it in there again. Conrad: Let me give you another instance. On page 5 (L) where the construction of additional bedrooms, the installation of mechanical equipment or other factors that are likely to effect the operation of individual sewage treatment system...we're talking about a change in the building there so what is going to trigger, I guess building permit there is going to trigger something to happen. Donnelly: I guess to give you a real good example. Part of that was in the old ordinance, most of it was but the only part that I really see there is this. Let's say you get a house, a two bedroom split entry which we have tons of right now, two unfinished bedrooms in the basement, roughed in. Immed i a tely when we see those we know tha t those are go i ng to be bedrooms so what the Ordinance is saying is then we will size it to four bedrooms. If you are going to have two roughed in bedrooms in the basement, now you have a four bedroom house here. Once they move in and the system is made, they come and get another bedroom two years from now, we're not likely to have them tear up their backyard to add drainfields or whatever. The thing of it is, if we see that then we immediately are going to tell them that they need a larger system designed for four bedrooms. 4Itconrad: And will they do that? Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 11 e Donnelly: They have to. We won't give them a permit. Conrad: Is there a timing on that? You say they have to or you won't give them a permit. If they charge we're going to do it and if you give them the permit, what is to make them to do it? Siegel: That's new construction. Donnelly: I'm talking about new construction permit but if they don't design it we won't give them the permit. Conrad: What about an addition to your house? Siegel: You've got to get a building permit. Donnelly: If it is an addition, then we would make them tear up their backyard and add on. They wouldn't even know where to find the trenches. Do you realize what a mess that would be to dig up trying to find the old trench and digging that up. Forget it. It just wouldn't be practical. What we're trying to do here is catch this on the new construction. If they show 10 bedrooms in there but only two are going to be finished, if eight are coming up, we're going to make them put in a system for ten bedrooms. That's what we're trying to do here. _onrad: (L) is for new stuff. Donnelly: That's it because there's nothing we can do on the additions. Conrad: Why not? Donnelly: Let's be practical again. How are we going to do this? I don't know. If we tried to do it, if they caught us, I think we would be hard pressed in the Courts to back ourselves on it. You just don't get out there and find those trenches. First of all it is hard to find the old trench and you've got to get the wires out, but then finding it and adding on to it would be a nightmare. I just don't think it would be practical. I don't think anyone would make them add onto an existing system. Siegel: Really it could be punitive in nature too from a legal standpoint if you attempted to add onto an existing house because the people who bought the house had no idea that there was any kind of trouble with the existing... Donnelly: All of them, except our new ones, we wouldn't know what the system was in there. They could say that our system is designed for ten bedrooms already. On the new ones that we have records of, we know but we're just talking here in doing this. I just don't think it would be practical to do that. ~onrad: Jo Ann what do you want to do as far as procedure is concerned? Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 12 e Olsen: As far as the penalty part, I guess I would like to talk to the Attorney and find out exactly how long it really does take because that is important. We want to get this through though. We kind of wanted it to be in front of the Council December 1st. It would just really be nice to have this because of a lot of subdivisions coming in now, rural subdivisions and to be able to have this and require them. I guess we could table it to get it really clean. Conrad: As Planning Commissioners we have some options of tabling it tonight or passing it with some conditions that Staff review certain alternatives, amendments or additions as we have talked about. I guess those are two different approaches. Jo Ann has a point of getting it through yet on the other hand, the only time that we have control over it is right now. It will not come back. Headla: Can't we also amend it? Conrad: We certainly can. If you remember to bring up the issue and direct Staff to start that task which doesn't happen too often. That doesn't say that you won't do it. The best time is when we're talking about the issue but we could. That is another solution. We could also direct Staff to come back to us. We could approve the Ordinance as drafted and direct Staff to come back to us with the procedure in hand. _mmings: I think that is what we ought to do. I think worrying about the penalties, I don't think that is going to be productive because I think what is going to happen, under Section 9, there are criminal penalties in 9.01, there are various types of civil penalties in 9.02, 9.03 and 9.04 and I think it is an exhaustive list. I don't think the attorney is going to come back with any more kinds of penalties. It would seem to me that I would be a lot more interested, I think this could pass through but I think where it needs work is on his ability to get after a problem once a problem is identified and I would, after I listened a little more here, it would seem to me, I don't know. Where does that procedure go? I don't know why that's not in here that if a problem is identified as sewage out on the ground that that homeowner could be ordered to do two things. Pump within three days of the notice and get a plan in within seven days of how they are going to handle it in the future and if they don't do either of those then we get to come in with a truck and pump it and tell them wha t they are going to do until they do come up with a plan. I don1t see why we couldn't do that but where would that procedure be? Olsen: I'm thinking that maybe I could add on to (d) but that's additional standards but... Conrad: Jo Ann, I'm going to interrupt, in our Subdivision Ordinance that we processed and passed a couple years ago that the City Council is reviewing right now, I do believe that we1ve got procedures in that new Subdivision Ordinance. There is a section for procedures. This is how we ~andle a subdivision. This is how we handle a PUD. I think we started Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 13 e that. It was recommended and then filled that in so I think we can have that in our ordinances procedures. Olsen: Yes, I agree and then we can set some days, a certain limit that they would have to pump and a certain time they have to have a plan and if not, put it in writing that we will go in and do that. Emmings: You might even be able to make it, as far as new construction goes, presumably that's not where the problem is going to be, but as far as new construction goes, when they come in and apply for their building perm i t par t 0 f tha t could be a cons en t form wh i ch says tha t if they are ever identifed as a person having sewage out on the ground, they give their consen t to the Ci ty to come in and pump the i r tank and cha rge it to them. That would really be kind of a slick way of taking care of it. It wouldn't help us on the old ones. The other thing that I guess I had was as far as the every 3 years, how we do that procedure, it seems to me that they ought to get a notice every 3 years again. Maybe on the same system that we get our sewage bills. Something like that and what they have to do is we could have a list of approved people who are in this business and they would have to produce a paid receipt from a company that does that kind of work showing that they tank was pumped. Just mail it in. That seems to be a real simple way of handling that. ~onnelly: I can foresee all kinds of problems with that. A lot of these "'ystems that are buried in peoples backyards and we have to tear down two of their evergreens and run over their garden and through their tomatoe plants, I just have a feeling that it is not going to be that easy just to say we'll just come in and do that then if you won't do it. I wish we would talk to the Attorney on that. We will talk to him. Olsen: I will confirm exactly what we can do. Emmings: I think we should identify what we want and let the Attorneys figure out a way that we can do it. We don't have to sit up here and think like attorneys. He should find a way that we can do it or tell us we can't and why but I think he can. Siegel: Under that same Section 8(e) where it says Issue Orders, isn't that sort of covered in there? All we need now is the ability to back up the inspector. We can't get in this a,b,c,d section of Part e to eight. In there, I read it as everything that Steve just said except the follow through which is the legal authority to enforce it and I think that is where the problem arises is that you are not getting the kind of cooperation that you probably should or could and I guess another point that you brought up was putting it into the building permit really when you consider that most of these properties that do come up that do turn out to be problems are not owners who have had the land or the property for 5-10 years. They are new owners and you can't go back and transfer that kind of restriction on the sale of the property. 4Ilmmings: I don't know why not. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 14 e Siegel: I don't know but I don't think you can without that buyer being aware and of course the buyer can always plead ignorance. Those are the kinds of problems that you would get into by putting it into the original building permit but I think the strength is in this ordinance as proposed. All we have to do is really get the legal authority to back up the enforcement officer and I don't know if we can legislate that. Headla: I don't think it is working if I hear George. Donnelly: It's not working the way it is. Noziska: Would you have to hear from the health officer to confirm the condition that would make or not make a health hazard? Emmings: Would you mean like before you could go in there and do something, the City could just go ahead...That's probably a good idea. Noziska: I think we need to get that official thing is to have them be a part of this. I guess I would have no problem in passing this... Headla moved to approve the Ordinance Amendment to Amend Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewer Treatment Systems with the condition that time constraints in Section 9.04 would be at the discretion of the Building Discretion. 4Ifhere was no second and motion failed for lack of second. Emmings: Can I ask a question? I think what Dave said just confused me from the standpoint that it seems to do this as a condition. Basically I agree with him but I think it just seems funny to me that it should be a condition. Maybe just procedurally how can we do the same thing. What it really sounds like he is proposing is an amendment to the Ordinance which is not the same thing. Headla: What we've got right now doesn't work and I'm asking to let the Building Inspector to work out some time constraints that he is satisfied that he can make it. Five months is too long. Siegel: Is this what we have right now and it's not working? Didn't we make some changes in here to strengthen it? Donnelly: First of all, we have never gone at it from the standpoint of pumping the tank which I think might be a good idea. We have never done that in a problem. If we had something that would give us the authority to say that within ten (10) days pump that tank ourselves if they didn't take action within ten days, then it doesn't matter so much if they take five months because we're in there pumping every month and we're going to put it on their taxes. Siegel: What are we basically changing here? What is the purpose of this Ordinance if we're not changing something from like Dave said. You're not _ble to work with what we have right now. Well, if you're not working with exactly in this form right now. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 15 e Donnelly: I'm sure it will work. It's just 1 i ke all of these Court things, it just takes forever. It will work but it is just going to take time to work. Siegel: I think we have to consider that fact that every case is going to be an individual case. Donnelly: Let's say it goes to Court. How long does that take? Don't they set up... Emmings: You can shortcircuit that. There is a thing in here for injunctive relief, you can get temporary restraining orders and get something done just about as quick as you want to. If you told me you wanted it today and I was your attorney, I can go to Court and get an Order today. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to recommend to the City Council that they approve the Ordinance Amendment to amend Ordinance 10-A, Individual Sewer Treatment Systems with the following directions to Staff: 1. That Staff work in coordination with the City Attorney to find some effective enforcement procedures, particularly with respect to what happens when a problem is identified hopefully it can be taken care of within a matter of days and have the person come up with something within a week. e 2. What procedures could be implemented to make sure that systems are being maintained properly under the Ordinance. All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried. Noziska: Could we go over the conditions with direction to Staff to work the City Attorney, Steve, and come up with something where they can enforce action within 7 days or 10 days? Emmings: Yes. My motion is that they should be able to within a matter of days, everyone should know how this problem is going to be addressed. What are we going to do in the short run to make sure that it doesn't keep seeping out onto the ground and what is going to be done in the long run to fix the system so it works properly. That's one thing. Then the other one is what procedures do we have to be sure that people are maintaining their systems so we are including the pumping ordinance so it is really two separate questions I guess. Noziska: So maintenance procedures which would include either an analysis of the system or pumping at three year intervals or something? Emmings: Whatever the Ordinance says. That's what it says. eoziska: Then the other would be if we did have raw sewage or whatever Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 16 e creating a health hazard then a plan of action needs to be developed within 7 working days? Emmings: I would think that would be a maximum because even George says it takes a couple of days to identify the problem. I assume those couple days have already gone by when you give notice to the homeowner so it would seem to me that homeowner coming up with a plan within seven days and maybe getting it pumped within just a couple of days is not unreasonable. Donnelly: I think if we give them 72 hours to pump it and then if they don't pump it, we will but I don't think seven days is enough time to get the perc and the design back but if they would pump it within 72 hours it wouldn't matter if it took 10 days or 15 days to do it. The corrective action immediately would be the pumping. Noziska: It would sure stop it from seeping out of the ground. Donnelly: You know you've got three people involved here to get bids from and I just don't think seven days maybe would be enough but if they pump it we wouldn't care that much. Emmings: Why don't you care? I guess it seems to me if you are going to give them 14 days it is going to take them 13 to get going and if you give .hem 7 they are going to start at 6. Even if they call on the seventh day nd say this is what I've done so far and let them call you next week and tell you where they are then. Donnelly: period. As long as they show some course of action during that time Noziska: Okay, so you are saying from the time of identification of the problem and notification saying Mr. Homeowner you have a problem you've got to get it fixed, from that time they have 72 hours before, if he doesn't have it pumped in 72 hours, the 73rd hour we pump it for him and charge him right? That's what you are looking for and then beyond that you are saying that if they have 2 or 3 weeks to come up with a plan but if that plan isn't executed they are still going to have to be pumping it on a 30 day, 40 day, 50 day, 60 day basis? Donnelly: Right. What I think we should do is give them the 72 hours to pump it, give them 15 working days to make application because when they make the application they have to have all these things. The perc, design, if we give them 15 days that is three weeks to round everybody up, get bids and in the meantime they have already pumped it so the problem has been alleviated on the strong term anyway. Noziska: Okay, let's say this is in the wintertime if some action is not taken then you also need to have somebody recommend where they should be forced to pump it every 30 days? e Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 17 e Donnelly: I don't know. I guess I would have to talk to some of these pumpers. It's only 1,250 gallons, somewhere around 1,000 gallon tanks and we're figuring 450 gallons per day for a three bedroom house. At that rate we would have somebody pumping every 3-4 days. Noziska: So they would have to pump once a week at the very worse. Donnelly: It would be very expensive. Noziska: That sure would encourage them to get busy and... Donnelly: What about the wintertime and they can't get the system in. Right now, it's November and we've got until when we can put it in, May? Noziska: Well, right now you could. Donnelly: Going in is the problem right now. Emmings: What is the choice George? Letting it out of the ground? Donnelly: That's it. Noziska: No kidding, 450 gallons per day. ~OnnellY: That's what our designs on a three bedroom house are. 450 gallons per day. 150 gallons per bedroom per day. Typically right now we're using 1,250 gallon tanks but the older ones I'm sure are 1,000 or maybe less. Siegel: ...one instance where you have a problem for two years running and can't get the problem solved, is that the same ownership? Donnelly: problem. No, that's the one where it sold and that presented another We couldn't find the new owner. Siegel: I think those are the kinds of situations that we should probably try to avoid against somehow. I don't know how. Donnelly: There would be a case where it would be nice to be able come in and pump it but I'm just afraid that the practical end of it is it's not going to be that easy to pump some of these. Some of them, sure you can drive right up to them. Some of them may be difficult to get to and may have to wreck some personal property and I don't know if the City Council is ready for that. I don't know what the answer to that is. Conrad: Jo Ann, based on Steve's motion, what do you envision doing? Olsen: Come up with some procedures that we could stick into the Ordinance. ~onrad: What are you going to do with those procedures? Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 18 e Olsen: Follow them. Conrad: Would your attempt be to incorporate them into the Ordinance? Would they be separate? Would they be presented to the City Council when they saw the Ordinance? Olsen: If they weren't part of the Ordinance, they would be part of a resolution. Something that Staff has that is on record for us to follow. Those are good points because we could really use that to say okay, we're going to come in and pump etc. so what I'm going to do is work on procedures for enforcement and then procedures for maintenance. Conrad: And you will bundle that in for City Council to review? Olsen: Yes, unless you want to table everything and bring it back. Conrad: I'm just making that real clear and that's the other option to table it and have them bring it back so I think Steve's motion now says let Jo Ann develop these with George's input, legal input and present them to the City Council along with this Ordinance. Emmings: To promote my motion here a little more, those seem more legislative to me. That doesn't seem so much like planning, like the stuff we do as the kind of things they do and I think that is appropriate that ~hey decide that. Head1a: The rationale for opposing being that I want to see a timeframe. I didn't hear Jo Ann mention about a timeframe. I think it would be effective and.. Conrad: Jo Ann you just might bundle that into your procedure. Olsen: I was going to. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 5, 1986 as amended by Steven Emmings and Ladd Conrad. All voted in favor except Howard Noziska who abstained and motion carried. Olsen: If it is okay, can we go over the fence first because George wants to participate in that and then he can leave. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 19.03(1) (b), REGULATING FENCES. Olsen: I'll just run over real quick what we did. We went back and added some of Shorewood's regulations and just cleaned it up. Real quick, the first one again requires a permit for any fence other then agricultural ~fence. Two, requires a site plan. Three, allows the building official to ~equire a registered survey if he feels one is necessary. Four really gets Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 19 _ into the construction and maintenance. That is new and if you have any comments on that. Five, we just kind of added on to the inground swimming pools. We added that they had to be four feet in height and that the latches had to be on the pool side and we also made it retroactive so that all pools would have to have this fence within 180 days. Shoreline fences would remain the same. We stuck in the recreational fences, we set a limit of 10 feet and anything over 10 feet would require a Conditional Use Permit. 10 feet is the standard tennis court. The fence height remains the same and we added a commercial and industrial fence section allowing them to have a maximum height of 8 feet. Anything over 8 feet would have a Conditional Use Permit. Conrad: Did we have the public hearing on this last time? Olsen: No. Conrad: We didn't, so we will have the public hearing next time. Let's open it up for comments to what you see in front of you. Emmings: There is nothing in here about setback and where it is located in relation to the lot line. Olsen: We hashed that out. Again, we couldn't come up with a good setback. -Emmings: Do you have the Shorewood Ordinance here? Olsen: Where if you sign with the neighbors? Emmings: Yes, I like that a lot and I don't have that anymore. Olsen: I don't have it with me right now. I have it upstairs. I think we goofed because I remember having that added in there and now it's not. Emmings: I liked the way it was in the Shorewood and I recall it was just a little bit off the lot line unless both neighbors signed something that they agreed to. Olsen: And they would provide that along with the building permit. I had that in the last one didn't I and now it is deleted. Conrad: Last time it was several feel off as I recall. Emmings: I think that was a good feature and I think that ought to be put back in and then I got a question on number 7, Recreational Fences. If I'm going to put a tennis court on my property, do I have to come in and apply for any permits? Is there anything that lets my neighbors have any say so about looking at a 10 foot fence? _Olsen: You still have to get the permit for the tennis court fence but if Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 210 e it is within 110 feet, they don't have any say. It's when you have to get a Conditional Use Permit. Emmings: I think 7 ought to be deleted. I don't think we ought to automatically give anybody a 110 foot fence under any circumstances. I think they should have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit to get a fence that high just to give the neighbors some input as to where it is going to go, whether or not it is appropriate in that kind of situation. I would just take 7 out. Conrad: Does a tennis court need a building permit George? Donnelly: That was a resolution of the City Council? To give you some background, we had one of these come up on Lake Minnewashta about 4-5 years ago. If you allow that 110 feet, this guy built it right on his 1akeshore lot and he built it right down close to the lake so a 110 foot fence and that's where the resolution came for the building permit but they did allow that and that one we have riparian fences here being only 3 1/2 feet, that sort of shoots that down. If the guy wants to put a tennis court he can put a 110 foot fence right down there next to the water. That's what this guy did so you are right on that. I think it should be deleted. Headla: a somebody .months? On number 5, if it goes December 2nd or wha tever, could we ha ve building a fence within 3 months of December... or is that six Conrad: Six months. Headla: Okay, I was thinking it was three months. The other one is if I put a fence down the middle of my property to go along the driveway, I have a hard time understanding why I should have a building permit. Donnelly: Like I told you, the reason I want this is so I have a complete control over the fences so we know every fence and we know what they are doing, where they are putting it before they do it. We have a chance to talk to them. They have to bring in a plat plan to show where they are going to put it. Headla: So you are primarily concerned about either the right-of-way. Could it be a fence on the property line the right-of-way? Donnelly: Would require a building permit? They all are going to be along the lot lines. Headla: My fences aren't. I've got a bunch of fences... Donnelly: Well, you have horses. You've got a different situation. Generally speaking, the fences that go down the lot lines and they sometimes go... e Headla: I agree with lot lines and right-of-way. I do not agree with all Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 21 e fences. I have fences running allover my place. They are to grow flowers, there are other things other then agricultural. If it's not on the lot line and it's not over four feet, why do I have to have a building permit? Donnelly: What if we put in there excluded other then ornamental fences? Headla: Can't that be along the lot line? I think you have a very good point, lot lines and right-of-way. I think that is a good point but I don't think we ought to require everything. Donnelly: We know where they are going to put them then. They won't be putting them out on the right-of-way like a lot of them are. An awful lot of them in Chanhassen are right along the blacktop. Headla: If it is along the right-of-way or lot line they should have a permit to make sure of that. Donnelly: It will be in before you know it. We won't know they put a fence in, you know what I mean. This way we know. They have to see us before the put fence in I guess is where I'm coming from on that. We can make them aware of the fact that they can't go down to the blacktop and cross in front of the lot. e Headla: Either way the fence is going to go in before you know about it. Just because you require a building permit doesn't mean that they are going to do it. Donnelly: That goes for any kind of building permit. Headla: That's right so I don't see where you're argument is concerned there. Donnelly: I think what we would do probably if this ordinance passes, we would have something in our Chanhassen News telling people that if they are going to put in a fence then they are going to be required to get a bu i Id i ng perm i t. We ha ve to educa te them to the fact tha t they need one just like people are educated now pretty to the fact that they need one if they put a deck in. I'm not trying to collect some extra money here or anything. I just wish sometimes we could control it before they get the fence in. That was the only reason I wanted it in there. Headla: What if somebody puts up a fence around their garden right at the edge of their house, are you saying that they have to have a buiding permit? Donnelly: Well, maybe. What if they are going to put up a 12 foot fence. Headla: If they want to put a 3 foot fence around their garden they ~ would need a building permit? Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 22 -- Donnelly: I would think so. Well, we could exclude a few of these things. Exclude gardens and ornamental fences or whatever you want to call them. Conrad: What do you want to exclude Dave? Headla: If it is on the person's property well within the property... Donnelly: Let's call them perimeter fences. How about that? Most fences are perimeter fences aren't they? Generally speaking. Headla: Yes, I bet 80% of them are. Donnelly: Okay, what if we say that if you are going to build a perimeter fence. Headla: Fine. Donnelly: What if somebody has a garden 10 feet from the lot line and they put an 8 foot fence around it? Headla: Isn't that covered with height? e Conrad: Does anybody else agree with the dialogue. some direction. We have to give Staff Siegel: I think it is a really good point especially in the rural communities that we have. Ornamental fencing and other types of fencing. What if they want to put up a fence for growing grapes? Do they have to get a permi t? Emmings: That is agricultural, they are excluded. I would think that a fence around a garden would be to keep rabbits and whatever out and I think that would fall under that too. Donnelly: How far do you want to stretch it? Emmings: I don't know. What does ornamental mean? Donnelly: Let me just interject something here. What is going to happen is I'll just get phone calls just like I do now on our building permits. I'm going to do so and so, am I going to need a building permit? I'm going to put up a dog house, do I need a building permit? No. I think what will happen on this thing if we leave it just like it is, people call up and say I'm going to put up a garden fence, do I need one? What is it you are going to put up? They say a 3 foot fence around my tomato plants. I'll say forget it. You just handle it right through the department rather then trying to handle everything out of here. Not everything can be handled out of this darn thing I don't think. __ Emmings: This is a simple old fence permit and I like it for that reason. e Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 23 Conrad: I think I do too. I agree with you Dave and I know what you are trying to solve but we have to give Staff some kind of consensus to draft the Ordinance to bring back in a public hearing format. Is there consensus that the Ordinance should be drafted very closely to as is or is there? Noziska: Taking out number 7? Conrad: Taking out number 7, yes. Dacy: Instead of excluding I thought you were saying that any tennis court fence shall have a Conditional Use Permit? Emmings: It automatically will because as soon as they get over 6 1/2 feet they have to come in. It comes in under the fence height. Dacy: Okay, so you also have to amend number 8 too. Any fence over 6 1/2 feet and maybe include recreational fences, tennis court fences. Conrad: Also to bring back the part about the lot line. The issue that is outstanding as far as our direction is concerned is whether Dave would like some exceptions in that building permit. Would anybody like to see Staff work on those exceptions? e Emmings: Could I make a suggestion? Could there be language that would say that we would allow the building inspector, in his discretion to not require a building permit for certain types of fences such as and then list a few examples and then just let him handle it. That would take care of it because I agree with you. Donnelly: It's just like the building permit. We don't put down everything that you have to get a building permit for. There are just thousands of things. It rings a bell and people are on the phone to me and I listen to them and say no, forget it. It's the same with this I think. Emm ings: that. I think we could just add something right into number 1 like Conrad: Anything else? Any other direction? That may have not taken care of you Dave but... Headla: I think the discretion of the building inspector is fine. Conrad: Anything else? Okay, number 5 is taken care of. Olsen: We had put in here that this could be incorporated into the new Ordinance. Would you rather do that then hold a specific public hearing on this or would you rather just slip it into the new Ordinance. Conrad: Where is the new Ordinance? e Dacy: They are heading for adoption by December 15th. - Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 24 Conrad: Okay, then we don't need to bring it back but then we don't see it. We think Staff knows what they are doing. Jay Johnson: Does the public get excluded on that then? Emmings: There will be a public hearing on the ordinance. Jay Johnson: There will be a public hearing before Council... Dacy: It is not "official public hearing" but we are notifying homeowners associations, everybody that was here in February and March will be notified again. Jay Johnson: I know a lot of people who put up fences and this is a major change to the fences going up. Dacy: I also stuck in an article in the Chamber News so that should be coming out the day after Thanksgiving. Conrad: I just want to make sure that it is because fencing is very personal and people get involved in fencing. e Dacy: Most people call up and ask what the rules are but there is always that one individual. Conrad: I was looking at the procedure here though Barb. As this goes up to City Council, it will be a public hearing? You said you were notifying but will it be a public hearing? Dacy: I'm sure the Mayor will recogni ze the people to comment. They are conducting a special meeting on December 3rd, Wednesday to go over it and yes, it will be a public meeting. They will have the opportunity to comment. Headla: If somebody calls up after seeing it in the paper, will you send them out the proposed ordinance? Dacy: Sure. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - COMMUNITY SIGN PROPOSAL. e Dacy: I wanted to bring this item to your attention because some of you that have been involved with the Chamber are probably aware of it also but we talked last time about the community signage that our consultant for the downtown feasibility study is preparing. By the way, they will be here at our December 10th meeting to do a quick presentation on the improvements that the HRA is looking at so the Planning Commission is up to date on that. Part of those improvements are the signs and I wanted to ask the Commission whether or not they wanted to participate in kind of a review process of the proposed signage and if so, we should ask the Chamber to come up with a design that is consistent with what the community is Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 25 e thinking as part of the downtown improvement program. If not, if you want to s h i f t t 11 at res p 0 n s b i 1 i t Y m 0 reo nth e H RA the n we can t a k e the P 1 ann i n g Com m i s s ion 0 u t 0 fit and red ire c t the C ham b e r tot h e H RA but I k now t hat you guys were concerned about signage and so on so I wanted to have you at least talk about it first and then go from there, yes or no. Conrad: What is our control on signage other then the ordinance? Dacy: The control, what would happen is I would send the Chamber's sign design to Jim Lasher over BRW who is responsible for the streetscape part of the feasibility improvements. He will look at what they have come up with here in your packet and make recommendations and is it compatible to what we are trying to plan for the downtown area or are there some suggestions included so that would be your guideline in making the recommendation to the HRA. Conrad: Who has control over what the Chamber puts up? Dacy: The City does. Ultimately the Council. They may be asking the HRA for cost participation so the HRA would in essence control as to whether or not they would contribute any money to the erection of the sign. Headla: Barb, what can anybody can we do over what the HRA can do? 4Ibacy: That is the decision that you folks have to make. That is the question. If you feel that you want to be a part of the process, then this is your opportunity to say so. If not, then we just go ahead. Siegel: Is the HRA involved in this process? Dacy: Oh yes, because they are going to be seeing the downtown feasbility proposal and they are the ones that are going to determine what sewer goes where and what street is aligned. Siegel: I mean on the sign? Dacy: Yes, as an advisory body you would be making a recommendation to that body. Siegel: Would you make a recommendation to HRA? Dacy: And to City Council. Noziska: Where are the signs going to go? Conrad: Right at the corner of TH 101 and TH 5. The Chamber has come up with on page 2 this design where they can promote individual facilities in Chanhassen. They can't promote them all but they will charge out part of their cost to individuals who would like to advertise. What they did was a ~ylon facing east of eight individual business and the opposite side will say Welcome to Chanhassen. That is what they recommended. There are some Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 26 e failures in that sign proposal in that in the future Chanhassen may grow and eight people will have signage and many others won't yet on the other hand, the business community needs promotion and needs directional signage and this is one way they feel they can help at least eight Chamber members. I'm not sure that we want to mucky-muck around because I do believe that the HRA personally, I think we should be bringing people into Chanhassen at the entry point and I don't know that 8 little signs are legible. 11m just not real positive about this. I think there are benefits for the community to have a major sign out there with a Welcome to Chanhassen and a sign pointing to the business district but I don't know. Noziska: Welcome to Chanhassen, Your Place to Grow or something. Conrad: That's my preference too. Something to be out there. Noziska: Shop. Rather then Joe's Bar and Grill, Suzie's Sauna and Ed's Barber Siegel: Ladd, you said this was the preferred one from the Chamber of Commerce? Conrad: have got _iegel: The Chamber has been working on this for more then months. agreement from the Chamber body that this is it. They That is one of the most original signs I have ever seen. Conrad: They are open as to what to put on the back side but the front side with the businesses, they are trying to sell and help eight businesses. Dacy: Your initial direction already is you are saying that you prefer a more simple sign and not a directory type of sign at that particular location and if you want to leave it at that and leave the specifics to the HRA Council. Conrad: That's what I said. I don't know about everybody else. Emmings: I agree completely and these designs back here with brick and wood, this looks like maybe a subdivision. I think they are awful, just awful. This one I don't mind where it says Welcome to Chanhassen. That seems kind of friendly and straight forward and I think that is fine but having a limited number of spaces for businesses is just ridiculous to me. I can't imagine why they want to do it. Noziska: Horrible, absolutely horrible. Conrad: So am I hearing that we want to stay out of this but make a recommendationt to the HRA that a sign be constructed that promotes the community versus promotion of individual businesses. ~iegel: Keep it simple. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 27 e Noziska: I don't see a single, solitary sign here that looks like anything but a mess even though I like the masonary. I think the wood that would be up there for 2-3 years will warp and crack, looks pretty great too. there has to be a better way of doing it. Something. None of those really do much for me. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - HOUSING CHAPTER. Koegler: Last time you recall we went through the existing housing section and indicated we would be back this meeting with at least the beginning of the draft changes for that portion and that is what has been submitted as part of your packet for this evening. In going through this, every attempt was made to basically follow Metropolitan Council's outline as much as reasonably could be accommodated and at the same time to reflect some of the comments and the thinking that the members of the Commission expressed which not to try to sum that up but to maybe paraphrase generally, to keep things to some degree structured but unstructured, if that is possible. There were certain topics that you wished to avoid and I trust we have done that. Normal procedures has been just to run through this quickly and I guess I will begin doing that. Flag me at any point in time that you have anything. As we talked about last time, the first thing that we wanted to do was unclutter, basically the housing section and as a result of that there are a number of omissions that occur throughout this. The first one ~s referenced on the first page, really got into the various types of ~ousing that were described in some detail in the last plan and you agreed last time that that was not really necessary and therefore that has been removed from this documents. The first addition that actually occurred is a very minor one which was on page 14 and simply referenced the preceding criteria and indicated that the City Planning Comission and Council may apply that type of criteria in reviewing housing proposals. Obviously the ordinance criteria takes precedence but that is just kind of a general framework kind of thing. On page 21, we got into an update of Census Data. Obviously replaced the 1980 data with previous 1970 data and when possible, tried to provide a side by side comparison of the two figures where the categories would remain the same which was throughout most of that text portion. We talked a little bit last time about the growth in housing that has occurred and the fact that the median rent has gone up about 99% over the 10 year period. Purchase price of the average residence was $84,000.00 which was up 121% from the $39,000.00 figure recorded in 1970. Those kinds of figures are reflected in the comparison numbers that are present in that particular chart. The previous plan had some language on neighborhoods and as was brought up this evening with regard to the Zoning Ordinance and so forth. The neighborhood associations and neighborhoods in general are a good vehicle to promote to get the word out if you will. That has been left as a proponent of the plan and in fact, the various neighborhood areas have been updated to reflect some of the developments that have occurred in the last five years or so that were not a part of the previous plan so that information has simply been updated from city records. Page 26, there is a lead in there. In July of this year, Todd spent some time actually going ~round the community and rerecording by geographic area the types of units that are within those as well as the unit count. That information was Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 28 e recorded on a map also and will be a part of the final plan so there will be an updated, existing land use map. Those figures are shown on the Insert #4 for the various types of housing that occur within the areas of the community. The next addition that occurred is the one that is labeled number 5. It is the substitution for a portion of the text that was on the original page 30 and that is an update of a brief narrative on the housing type within the City. We talked about that initially when we were going through some of the land use material. We talked about that again last month in regard to the housing. The fact that the single family house which presently is the mainstay in the City, really that didn't change dramatically between 1980 and then onto 1985, that is approximately 75%. The survey that the City conducted in 1986 is where that figure came from so it is a fairly accurate number. It is still in a neighborhood of about 3/4 of the residential units being single family, detached variety. The next page, there were a couple of additional substitutions for some language there which again just really is kind of a fairly basic update. With regard to mobile homes we are going to modify the verbage that is in that paragraph a little bit further. The intent is that the City is requird by State Law to allow manufactured housing in all of the residential zoning districts and has to meet the same tests and criteria which traditional housing is subject to. State Law does not let you get overly restrictive in that regard. The intent was to allow manufactured housing in all communities so that is simply a slight legislative update I guess reflected ~n that paragraph. Item 7, discussion of housing conditions, there was a ~ousing condition survey that was done on the 1980 plan that was compiled. To my knowledge, that particular type of information wasn't updated. Was it when Todd was? Okay, we can go back and we will look at that. I really doubt that there is going to be much change. Obviously since all of the growth has been in new housing within the past five years, there has not been probably significant deterioration of any of the housing stock. There is a note in there however that has been standard in most city's housing plans for the past 10-15 years and that is housing that has been constructed prior to 1940, that typically has always been a barometer that has been used by people in that industry to indicate residences that may be getting to the point where they are in somewhat of a deteriorating condition or at least require more maintenance then they have in the past. There were about 300 units in that category that were constructed prior to 1940 that are standing in the community today. There is an update that replaces material on page 39 on vacancy and turn over. Noziska: What again do you base the analysis that buildings built before 1940 are potentially deteriorating? Koegler: That guideline, to my knowledge, originated in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In communications, plans that they have been involved and what I have been familiar with for the past 10-12 years, that is a common barometer that is used simply because the unit was constructed. That a house built pre-1940, according to HUD's assessment is to the point where it is beginning to need significant on-going maintenance tits you will. Roofs need to be replaced, those kinds of things that you aon't have with a house that was built in 1960 or 1970. It is only due to Planning _November the age factor. It is obviously saying that every house that it is built in that category is having problems because in fact I'm sure many of them are not. Many of them stand for 90-100 years without significant problems but as I indicate, that is a benchmark that has been used for quite a period of time in terms of housing plans. Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 29 Noziska: I just find it interesting that it should weave it's way into a report like this. I've lived in houses that was built in 1920 and I swear you could drive a tank across it and I've also been in houses built in 1960 or 1970 or 1980 that walk across the dining room floor and you think you are on a trampoline so I don't know if the analysis has an awful lot to do with it. Sometimes it does but generally it doesn't. The 1920 house that we moved out of had some real live wood in it. I didn't belabor or slow this up but I really don't necessarily agree with the comments that houses that are built today with this wonderboard and you slap it on and wonder how long it is going to last. The older houses had 1 inch real live boards to put on and then all you had to do was paint them every now and then but these new 4 x 8 sheets. Anyway, it's interesting. We've got two neighbors that have resided. One guy partially did it and the other the whole and those are five year old houses so somehow yes, you might have a point there but. Koegler: The verbage on Insert #8 is a update of the vacancy and turnover aPperation. There really is not a lot of comment that needs to be made on ~hat. There has not been a significant change in vacancy from year to year really for the past 10 or 11 year period. There are some specific numbers that are available through the City of Chanhassen and as is noted, they do not include 100% of the community. They include approximately 90% of the community. All the area that falls within NSP's service district. within that area, there were 22 total units of vacant housing at the time the census was taken which represented an overall rate of about 1% within the City. Single family was at about 1/2%, multi-family was at about 5.3% and there obviously at that point in time were only two units that were vacate for six months or longer which is not a significant supply so the vacancy rate, normally when the vacancy rate is discussed, the most common reference is to multi-family and what is acceptable in the multi-family. Typically the barometer there is about 5%, plus or minus, which Chanhassen is in that area so you could assume that basically reasonably comfortable vacancy rate. Not an overbundance of supply and not a shortage as of 1980. Conrad: Turnover rate, Mark, if you said the fourth quarter of 1985 the turnover rate is 4.1, does that mean you multiply by 4 to get the annual turnover rate? Koegler: That's a good question. I'll have to go back and look at the way the Met Council's data is pulled together. I'm not sure. I presume it's not accumulative. They just take a quarterly review at any point in time and I think you could take an average of that if you would to find out what ~t's been. I don't think you would multiply by four. Planning _November Conrad: I guess, I think 1 in 5 a year move every year so if I multiply that by 4 that would get me closer to the rate but... Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 30 Noziska: Of course, then you've got the multi-family rate of 8 and 15 and that would be 60 so I don't know. Conrad: I don't know as though it makes any difference to me right now. Koegler: The Buiding Permit discussion on Insert #9 contains obviously some updated information. For your information, there is permit activity presented there for 1974 through 1985. During that time period there are 805 permits issued for single family structures, 66 permits for attached structures which represented a total of 200 housing units. Again, since 1974,75% of the residential growth has been in the form of single family, detached structures which has kept that percentage relatively constant. Underneath the building permit's chart there is a reference there to 1970 and 1980 census and we think there was a glitch apparently and part of the numbers were kicked out. The numbers that are shown there as 1970 are actually 1980 census numbers so if you would cross that out and the next draft that we get you will have the 1970 side by side comparison. Obviously there are some substantial differences in the fact that for instance in 1970 the low category was houses less then $10,000.00. There aren't too many of those around today. They have bumped that up to almost .40,000.00 for the low end. On the high end, the high category in 1970 was ategorized as $35,000.00 and over and in 1980 it is $150,000.00 and over so there have been some pretty significant changes obviously in housing costs during that time period and we will insert those new numbers in the next draft. It was kind of interesting to note on the next page the average cost of a house in Chanhassen and again it is taken from building permit records, in 1986 back through 1981 and if you looked at those you might have first thought that they should have been reversed but indeed they are presented is accurate. Back in the early 80's when the interest rates were extremely high, you saw a lot of building activity along the lines of Lotus Lakes Estates where the market was not quite as sensitive to the interest rate factor as a part of the housing cost and as interest rates began to fall as we moved on into the mid part of the decade, opened up the housing market for some units that were on, let's say the lower priced then perhaps what they were in the early part of the 1980's and the result, the average cost of the houses dropped accordingly during that time period. There is a significant difference obviously in volume of permits also. In 1981, for instance, there were 22 permits, in 1982 there were 19 permits for single family structures. That can tend to skew those numbers pretty heavily. In 1986, as of May if I remember correctly, there were approximately, plus or minus, 200 permits at that point in time this year so there is obviously a great deal more activity then from what there was in the early part of the decade. Continuing, number #10 really gets into more the meat of the changes and again, this is reflective of the outline that we reviewed last time with the Metropolitan Council has assembled is to desired components from their perspective in a community's comprehensive ~lan. It is based upon the goals which were originally adopted back in the 1980 plan and which have been discussed as a result of this effort also, Planning fIlovember that the City's intent is to provide housing opportunities for all residents consistent with the identified community development goal and that speaks to some of the quality factors. Don't build in areas that are steep slopes and where soils don't permit and you need sewer for most housing applications and so forth. As well as, there is another policy there that deals with the provision that housing opportunities for persons of a range of incomes to try and meet the needs of all Chanhassen's residents. In discussing that last time, we kicked around the Metropolitan Council's current phraseology, if that's a word, of life cycle housing. In looking at it, I thought that perhaps that is a reasonable way to look at housing supply situation within the City of Chanhassen. In following through the defined stages of the life cycle of the average housing consumer, they start with the household formation stage and the ages of 18-24 years. In 19813 the City had approximately 113% of it's population existing residents that fell within that age category. That equated to about 611 people. In Chanhassen, apartments are the mainstay of the housing stock from the rental point of view. There were obviously some houses that for rent but basically it is apartment units for the most part. The City had 392 apartment units in 19813. That was about 17% of the housing supply presuming that a good portion of this age group is getting out of high school and so forth and getting into college and a number of those people will be leaving the community. The assumption is that most of those that wish to remain in the community can certainly be accomodated ~ithin the existing housing structure. Those that wish to leave home and ~ove into an apartment or whatever. The one thing that that does not consider is individuals right outside the city of Chanhassen who may desire to live here and that has not been a major factor in previous years because prior to about 19813 the City really had a fairly limited employment base but as you are we 11 a war e and anybody t hat d r i v esT H 5 is we 11 a war e, t hat has been changing in the last 5-6 year period and in fact, the City has added about 1,81313 jobs during that time period which presumably again puts additional pressure on the rental market because you are now facing a situation of accomodating not only existing residents but also new employees or employees that may desire to move into the community as well. The types of positions that have been a part of those 1,81313 new jobs, there are a number of them that are assembly and relatively lower paid, which certainly are not necessarily going to be home buyers, particularly in this age bracket. When those groups are factored in, there is suspicion and it is basically that, it is very difficult to quantify, is that that puts a significant amount of additional pressure on the rental market and right now we're still at about a 5% figure so we are in reasonably good shape. However, we don't know that the existing supply will continue obviously to support that level and therefore, as this community continues to grow into the future, the assumption, tax reform aside, being that apartment units will be something that you will see additional proposals for that type of housing. The second category which was reviewed is what is labeled the first time homebuyers which is the individuals in the ages of about 25-34 again referencing 19813 census. There are about 18.6% of this City's ~oPulation in that particular age group. As I referenced before, the ousing price in 19813 was somewhat distorted by the inactivity of market ut in 19813 the average was about $1135,131313.1313 and obviously there is not Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 31 Planning e November hardly a one in that group that can begin to handle that type of mortgage typically in that age bracket. The alternative typically to buying a new house is to look at an existing house. Again, in 1980 based upon the vacancy and turnover data, that was probably not a terrificably viable option to the average housing consumer because there were only 23 single family structures that were vacant during that particular point in time. Presuming there is a broad range of price there, anyone that wished to live in this city may not necessarily have had a great deal of choice. As a result, there does seem to be a need for housing units that do appeal to first time homebuyers. There are a couple of ways that can occur. One is through construction of more modest or moderate cost housing units. Over the period of time I think additionally as this City's housing base continues to grow, there will be an increasing percentage of existing housing that may be available to certain segments of the population so some of that will be accomodated over time but it appears to be a fact that there is a need for housing that will serve the first time home buyer market. That is a demand that is probably there now and not necessarily being accommodated to the degree that it could be. Various forms may satisfy that. It may be either smaller homes or smaller lots or it may be some type of an attached form of housing. The second time buyers and the individuals who have completed raising children, according to the Metro Council's categories, covers a fairly broad age bracket of 35-54. The reason these two are included together is partially due to statistical ~eference. The census data lumps these age categories together and does not ~reak those out individually. The presumption here is that to a large degree the housing demand for both of these segments is being met. That assumption is based on the fact that typically if someone is in a second time home buying situation they have accrued some equity in their existing dwelling and may be moving for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the reason is simply choice and at that point in time the existing housing market seems to be better prepared to meet the needs of those individuals. The possible exception to that would be that in 1980, what was labeled as modest cost housing had a maximum value of $62,000.00 and looking at the modest income correlation for a family of four, that would have put the individuals in about a $19,600.00-$27,000.00 annual income bracket. Referencing again back to the censes, there are about 56% of the people within the community that earned less then that and we would presume that some of those would be in the second time home buyer situation so obviously family size may have had an impact upon someone's ability to acquire a larger dwelling or different dwelling or whatever it might be. The final two categories I think are probably ones that it is easier to see perhaps some significant need. 6% of the 1980 population of the City was in what is categorized as the empty nester group which is the ages 55-64. At the present time, there does seem to be a perception of a need for housing to accommodate people within this group. The group typically has a higher income threshhold that they mayor may not be willing to devote to housing. They have some different needs perhaps. If they are in a semi-retirement situation and they are thinking more in terms of security and kind of leave it for 3 or 4 months in the winter and go away and come back. There really is not the ~ype of housing right now within the community that would necessarily satisfy those needs. It's not uncommon for that group to be looking at an Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 32 Planning fiovember attached form that has a fairly significant high degree of amenities with that. Whether that be recreational facilities or security or whatever. There seems to be a need for that type of housing within the community at the present time. Probably the more critical need is in the elderly bracket from age 65 plus. Relatively small, on a percentage basis in the 1980 census of 4.9%. However, obviously it is a problem that is only going to continue to grow in the future because as we all know if not the baby boom, everyone else is certainly graying and you constantly see reference to the graying of America and it is going to be an issue that the City is not necessarily going to have a critical proportion in the next five years but longer term it will be. There is very little housing right now within this City to accommodate this group and when you look at some of the more specialized needs, people that require health care, those kinds of things, there really is none. There are no cooperative types of housing. There are no nursing homes. Someone who has a family member who would like to keep in close proximity to where they are living in the City of Chanhassen right now has the option really of only taking them within their own home or making some kind of special arrangements so there is a need to accommodate people within the elderly bracket and that is something that we will talk about in a little while in terms of how some of those kinds of things can be implemented. In addition to that, there is reference and there is continuing probably public awareness of specialized housing needs, handicapped, single head of households, female head of households kind of ~ituations where it is not unusual that the housing, particularly ~partments that have been constructed in the past predominantly are one bedroom. They have a sprinkling of maybe 20-30% of their units are two bedroom. Neither of those necessarily satisfy family needs very well in a rental situation so there may be increasing pressure in the future for larger bedroom count at least types of rental units to meet family needs, particularly those of single head of households. One of the criteria that the Met Council recommended a City review is the availability of land to provide housing. That is what the next little paragraph is referencing and I think that is covered as well in the land use section which is why it is not elaborated upon any more heavily here. You are aware of the numbers. The City has about 1,600 acres designated for residential growth between 1985 and 2000. Depending upon whose counts you believe, that equates to about 3,000 or 1,600 additional households in the next 15 year period. Those reflecting both the City's projections and those of the Metropolitan Council. Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 33 Conrad: Before you move on Mark, I don't disagree with the conclusions but I'm kind of uncomfortable with the numbers. Because you prefaced your statement by saying 1980 data is distorted, we are using distorted numbers to make the situation look real bleak and as bleak as it may be I guess I'm not comfortable with looking at 1980 information when we do have 1985 or recent information so I guess, coming to your same conclusions could probably be acceptable or it is accurate but I guess I would have a preference for you to plug in data that is up to date. I question the data on Chanhassen that 56% earn less then $27,000.00. I'm not sure I buy that _umber. Planning _November Koegler: That number obviously is not accurate as we sit here now. That number was accurate in 1980. Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 34 Conrad: I buy that but we're making judgments today on housing and we're using, I know those numbers aren't right. Koegler: There is a problem in that we try to apply consistent levels of data. I wholeheartedly agree with regard to using the building permit average cost of the housing in 1980 is a distorted number. That's why I brought it to your attention in the earlier discussion. I think instead though necessarily of just throwing that out and putting in 1985 data it might be more appropriate to put some language in there to that effect and then also reference the 1985 data. The problem with 1985 is that we don't have a projection on income. There has not been a special census that has been done. There is not the income information available that there was in 1980. It makes it harder to draw any comparison between the two figures bu t tha t does not mean tha t we can't put a reference to the number s tha t we do know for 1985 and perhaps ever some speculation on what has occurred in order to maybe downplay what appears to be a pretty substantial impact to those kind of numbers. As we sit here, I believe that the conclusion would be the same also. We just slid the scale of numbers a little bit but I think we have probably narrowed it down a little bit in doing so. <<onrad: I'm not real interested in making Chanhassen look so unique. hink the numbers make us look real unique. I don't disagree with the conclusions but I do disagree with some of what is on there. Family income? I know we can come up with fairly conclusive information on family income more recently then 1980. I Koegler: Let me dig out and see what... Conrad: I'll look too. I'll give you a call. Koegler: I will do some digging but as a minimum, we will soften the blow of that text by getting into some of the background discussion as well as referencing some of the 1985 points and bring that back to you next time for review. The format for the balance of the material remained essentially the same. There were some replacements of some of the material that was outdated due to reference to 1970 numbers or whatever. Specifically, the changes that are shown on items to be substituted, #11 when through and it discusses, breaks out housing availability and then talks a little bit about housing quality from a policy perspective and then what we will get into shortly will be some implementation discussion in both of those areas. The Metropolitan Council, as we talked about last time, has established their goals and policies which they suggest be used by municipalities. Those really fit fairly well with what this City has been saying for the last five years. There aren't any great differentials in what either party is saying and that is referenced there. There is a ~retty good correlation between what the City's goals are and what the ..,1etropolitan Council's goals are. How you achieve those and what actually can be achieved may be of some debate between both parties but Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 35 e fundamentally, I think the thinking is pretty much the same. The policies that are referenced there are basically the same ones that are a component of the 1980 plan when we went through and talked briefly about policies in the past, there was not any significant movement on the Commission to change those. Policy #4 is one that we referenced last time that has been updated to reflect the fact that there are no more numerical goals for units and this body was quite specific last time in stating that despite the Metropolitan Council's request that you approve that language, that it really did not seem to fit therefore it has not been identified. What has been identified is the City will kind of continue to analyze housing needs throughout all of the segments of the population and will emphasis a commitment to meeting those needs, not necessarily saying that we will do two of these and three of those and five of those. The Met Council also identified their regional goal of providing low and modest cost housing wbich we talked about last time at 63% region wide. We indicated that the City was at 39% at the present time. The text there simply references the fact that that is not a guideline now that the Metropolitan Council is using but the City over a course of time can kind of continue to monitor local growth and see how it compares to that regional percentage. That's not saying necessarily that you are shooting for that percentage or that you are trying to avoid that percentage but just assess how the City sits with regard to the balance of the Metropolitan area. The final policy on that section, policy #8 has some changes as well that are along the same ~ines. That is specifically that the Metropolitan Council has put in kind ~f as a quasi-guide on alternative forms of housing and there again, they have a regional goal of 41% alternatives which means non-single family detached. In 1980 the City had 23.8% and again, that is a number that can continue to be monitored at the time. There was a specific suggestion from the Commission last time which has been added into that last paragraph and I think it is a very valid one. In looking at the future land use plan, which you agree was part of the land use discussion that we went through, the land that is designated for single family units according to the various density categories that are shown on the plan, between 1985 and 2000 will accommodate about 1,780 units and that is assuming that basically fairly close to the maximum density range in each of those categories will be developed and realistically that is usually what you end up with. The land designated for the alternative forms of housing will accommodate 1,900 units so that if you go simply on a unit count over the next 15 year period, it is possible that the alternative forms of housing will actually surpass the single family construction. Now that is to a large degree, as we talked about a market factor and the market has been fairly soft in some of the attached forms. It may continue to be that, it may change but I think that is a fairly graphic example and hopefully one that Met Council will pick up on that the City is not foreclosing on opportunities of alternative forms of housing. The fact that most of the permits now are single family does not necessarily mean that there is not any land use block to that turning around in a different perspective in the future so I thought that was a good point that was brought up last time that has been added into the text. The discussion on housing quality, a few editorial tIlotes that kind of bring that up to date, there really is no great need to change that. There weren't any significant changes that really were Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 1986 - Page 36 e applicable there so that has essentially been left as it is. On page 49, there is a reference to adding Insert #12 and that is into the plan section and specifically the housing implementation section. The implementation is defined in two ways. First of all, looking at housing availability and then looking at housing quality. There is a rundown there of various programs that are available through various sources to implement a housing plan and any recommendations that you ultimately would care to come up with. First of all, there is a run through of some local programs. The housing bonds that we summarized a little bit in a previous meeting is potentially still a tool, however again, with the Tax Reform Act that tool to some degree has been weakened at least from the standpoint of tax free bonds would in most cases not be applicable. Any person who is looking at a project will have to look at the impact of taxable bonds and many cities undoubtedly will use tax increment finance to offset some of those costs and that could be done here. Whether that is in some kind of a land write down or whether that is in an interest reduction, there are a number of scenarios as to how that could occur. Another option for promoting housing, if it is the community desires to do so, is occasionally communities do receive tax forfeit land where there are lots that will go tax forfeiture and can be acquired. The Hennepin County I believe used to just simply transfer title of those to the city's if they wanted them. I believe now they don't do that any longer. There is at least some kind of minimum charge but I believe the cities still do have one of the first ~hoices for buying such property. There are communities in the metro area Wight now that are doing that on a limited basis. It is not something that is a major program but they are able to acquire land for very little if any expenditure and to be able to either turn around and sell that to a developer or write the cost down completely to a developer that will agree to build housing within a certain cost range. That is a tool that can be used. Again, it is not a major tool. One of the ones that probably has a lot of interest, at least from a public policy debate kind of perspective is the concept of direct participation. There are several cities that are looking at this right now. There are two metro counties that are looking at this right now in light of tax reform change that these entities are actually considering getting into the housing business. They will actually build, own, probably contract the management but they will in essence be landlords and I think that brings up a whole host of interesting arguments depend i ng on wha t s ide of the fence maybe you sit on bu tit cer ta i nly clearly mandates I think that any city that is considering doing that needs to establish very clearly what the public purpose is in doing that. It is not something that I'm suggesting that this city wants to do but I think it is something that we need to bring to your attention that there are communities that are looking at doing that and that mayor may not be a tool that is utilized. Tax increment financing, most of you are basically familiar with. Chanhassen has not really used tax increment for residential purposes. It has been primarily been focused on the commercial and industrial segments. There are means though that the tax increments affect and those increments are available either for existing or future ~rojects can be used for housing development as well as doing housing as a art of tax increment so that is a tool that the City still has. Again, it as been weakened perhaps to some degree by recent legislative changes. Planning fiovember There was reference last time to the PUD Ordinance and the fact that this city is going through an amendment of that at the present time. That does still exist as a tool which does allow some flexibility. It does allow some of the clustering and things that have been talked about for alternative forms and will continue to be a vehicle that can be used in the future. The text also talks about some of the programs that are available outside of the arena of local initiatives and specifically there are only two sources right now. One is the Minnesota Housing Finance Angency and the other is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Both of those agencies' programs have been severly limited within the last five year period compared to what they were back in the late 70's. There are still a few programs which may have some interest to certain segments within the private sector which may have interest within the City as well in terms of promoting those programs but for instance, the Housing Finance Agency does still have a single family mortgage loan program that is geared towards low and moderate income, first time home buyers. The program however, is financed through tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds which is very debatable about whether or not those funds would still be at least applied at the same rate that they were for this program. The caps that have been put on as a part of the Tax Reform Act of bringing down that pool of money and the allocation of that will be undoubtedly controlled more tightly then it has been in the past. They do have some other programs though that aren't quite so sensitive to some of those more traditional financing vehicles. .ne is the innovative housing program which is a program that is geared, as he name applies towards innovative design and construction. It is one that has been used and there are a couple of references there just as examples. There have been some empty nester type of housing done down in St. Paul, there has been some handicapped housing done in some of the other suburban communities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development still has a couple of programs left which may provide some opportunities. The Housing Development grant program does have the potential to have construction for rehab of existing rental housing units. Those however though are in areas that are only defined as experiencing severe rental housing shortages and to my knowledge, I don't know what the cutoff point is but I can't imagine that as we presently sit the vacancy rate would probably indicate that there is a severe rental housing shortage. Now, when we take that into looking at the low and moderate income perspective, that may change that but there is a program which may have some application. The Section 8, lower income rental assistance is probably the most popular program that I think most communities have taken advantage of and this community certainly is no exception to that. Chanhassen has been active in that program to my knowledge for at least about a 10 year period. Initially, the City was involved in some of the administration and probably 7-8 years ago contracted that with the Metropolitan Council and HRA and all of that is handled now through the Met Council and HRA. That program is used right now. There are a number of units within this community right now that are receiving, the tennant is receiving the Section 8 rent assistance which goes directly as a payment to the landowner. It is a very clean program and it is working very effectively. Final program, under HUD's portfolio tIlhere is still a rental housing program for low and moderate income families which does have some potential for new construction or sustantial Commission Meeting 19, 1986 - Page 37