Loading...
1987 03 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 4, 1987 _ Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth, Howard Noziska and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Gary Warren, City Engineer; and Barbara Dacy, City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIiSENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 6400 CHANHASSEN ROAD, JIM THEIS, APPLICANT. Public Present: Curt and ZoBeth Andrews Douglas Meyers Gene Kremin Dorothy Theis David B. Robinson William H. Griep Peter pflaum 19172 pleasant View Road 525 SkyviewLane, Chaska 414 Co. Rd. 40 E, Chaska 9530 Cain Road, Hamel 25 Pleasant View Road 1324 Valley Street, Chaska Lundgren Bros., Wayzata _ Olsen: The property is located on the corner of TH 101 and Pleasant View Road. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an amateur radio antenna tower. The property is zoned single family. The Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit and certain conditions have been established. The Ordinance requires the tower to be 45 feet in height and that it not be in the front or sideyard setback. That it be 10 feet from any structure. That the height be equal distance from the property line. The applicant is proposing a 48 foot tower with a 15 foot pole extension for the total height of 63 feet. The tower is 27 inches and 10 inches wide at the top. The applicant has provided three alternative sites. The first option locates the tower next to the house on the eastern side adjacent to TH 101. It will be braced to the house at 17 feet. Option number 2 meets all the conditions. It is located 10 feet away from the house. It is an equal distance in height from the property line. Alternative 3, locates the tower to the west of the house. The option 2 which meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance has it right out in the open where it can be easily seen from TH 101, the subdivisions to the east and the subdivision to the north. The ideal spot would be to the west where it is a little more prot~cted by trees and vegetation. The Ordinance listed 45 feet as a maximum height. Staff got that from a publication concerning antenna towers. After research, Staff has found that they normally come in 8 to 10 foot increments and that 50 feet is the preferred minimum. Also, we found that the FCC has a pre- emption that states that the City can not deny the amateur radio tower because of their use in emergencies. They said you can set a height if it is _reasonable. We found that the reasonable height, according to the FCC and ---- -~ Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 2 e other radio operators, was 40 feet would be a minimum and 50 feet would be the preferred minimum. As far as the application, the applicant is again proposing to brace the tower at the house at 17 feet and this would essentially make it a collapsable tower making so it would collapse 46 feet. If it is located at the western side of the house, there is a 50 foot setback so it would still be within the property. Staff, after reviewing this, has found that setting a height limit is not practical and that we should probably look at each application case by case. We have also found that it is sometimes better to locate the antenna next to the building to brace it so we are recommending that those two conditions, the 45 foot height limit and the 10 foot separation from building be removed from the Zoning Ordinance. As far as this proposal, Staff feels that the best location is to the west of the house. We feel that bracing would make it a collapsable tower and that would still be within the setback. 63 feet is high. The applicant can further explain the necessity for the 63 feet. Staff is recommending approval with certain conditions. The Planning Commission has been told by the FCC that we can not deny their rights. We can deny this proposal with a reasonable height. The conditions that staff is recommending is that the antenna should not be located within the required front yard and sideyard setback. The antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code. The antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code. _ Jim Theis: The tower I'm requesting permission to put up is 48 feet and the .., reason for the 15 feet above that, it's basically a 2 inch mast that will be up above 8 feet or so and then the rest of it is going to be basically a little homer rod that will stick up the rest of the way. The reason for this is with radio frequency waves, the wavelengths of them have to separate antennas in so many feet so that you don't start getting reaction between the two different antennas. There would be one right at the top of the tower and then up like 3 feet another one and then there will be just be short straight one that will stick up about the size of a pin. I feel that it is important to society. There have two different cases here and there, where a tornado or something like that where emergency communications in some aspects that way. I'm involved a little bit to handle emergency situations if it takes place. After this spring I'll be involved in Sky One which has to do with National Weather Service. They have different hams that are out mobile and stationary around watching the clouds and stuff moving in. When meteorologists come up with the situation being right for tornadoes and stuff, the weather bureau gets a lot of their information of what's happening so I guess I think that's kind of an important deal. The height, with a lot of people that I know, is in the minimum stages. Some people are 70. If there was no zoning basically we could go up 200 feet according to the FCC but I guess I just want to be able to help so that I can have reasonable communications. I have a hill to the north and actually to the west the terrain does get higher that way too so that's why I'm asking for the height that I am. Douglas Meyers: I am the Mayor of Carver. That's one of the hats I'm e wearing. We went through this about 1 1/2 years ago and we came up with a Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 3 e . d ' d' h h f' . reVIse ZonIng Or Inance. I wear anot er at 0 DIstrIct Emergency Coordinator for the 10 county metro area. I have some overheads that we prepared and we went through this in Chaska about 3 years ago and I'll go through this quickly. If you want detail, speak up otherwise I'm just going to go through this quickly. First of all, amateur radios exist because it qualifies as a service. That is one of the main reasons that the FCC allows us. This is a copy of the FCC Regulations that created amateur radio. Rules and regulations of this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having the fundamental purpose of expression of the following principles. Primarily recognition enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public is a voluneer, non-commercial communication service particular with respect to providing emergency communications. That is number one of the list. It's the main reason we exist. You will find nowhere in here that we exist as a hobby although I have to admit that most of us do consider it a hobby. The main organization I represent, the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, is just a group of volunteers doing exactly what amateur radio was created for, providing emergency service. Now we get into why towers are needed. There are basically two catagories of frequencies that amateurs radios are allocated. One we call high frequency. Jim eluded to band wavelengths and so forth, I'll get into that in a minute. The other is high frequency, very high frequency and so forth. Communication is restricting it's line of sight. The higher the antenna, the higher you can talk. We have a graph here. If you're at 20 feet you can talk about 6 miles. You go to 100 feet, that increases to 15 miles and so forth. It is directly related ~to height on VHF and UHF. On HF frequencies, ones the amateurs literally use . to talk around the world, the graph colored in red shows the height in wavelengths and desirable. You see there is no perfect one but if you get real close to the ground, less than about 3/8th's of a wavelength you can see that we're down here in the not too acceptable range. What does a wavelength mean to you? Depending on which band we're talking about, 1/4 wavelength is usually considered optimum. 1/4 to 1/2. 1/2 is definitely priority. You can see the number of feet there. 1/4 wavelength minimum on 80 meters is 65.6 feet and 1/2 wavelength, which is even better, on 80 meters minimum is 131 feet so really Jim's request for a 48 tower, he's not going to be talking beyond 80 meters with that tower. I've got all kinds of graphs here to show what they means but that would just be ge'tting into a bunch of technical jargon that would certainly confuse you. I do have some handouts. The Amateur Radio Service and Public Service Communications Manual that will give you an indication of what the emergency portion of amateur radio is about. It will point out that we are working closely in Carver County with Greg Davies, Emergency Services Director. We have the support of Mike Fabe, the Carver County Attorney. We work very closely with last year's sheriff, Jack Hendrickson and we're looking forward to working with Ai Wallin this year. Amateur radios exist because it's a public service. In order to provide that service, we need amateurs. In order for Jim to help us, and they aren't that many of us around. Sky One is one of the main things we're in. I've also got a Sky One observer manual. About 250 amateurs in the metro area that participate in the Sky One directly providing communications to the weather bureau when they ask us to. Amateur radio, a natural resource. I apologize that I don't have enough of these that I can hand them out. I'll pass them _down. The amateur radio emergency service on a national level has statements Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 4 ~ of understanding. On the national level, and we also work at the local level with the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the National Communication System, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Associated Public Service Communication Offices, Inc.. We are here to provide a service. There are not that many hams in the Chanhassen area gentlemen. You need all of them you can get to help you out if it ever happens. We all are here to prepare for that. We hope it doesn't happen. I've taken too much time already. Do you have any questions? I know I've gone very quickly because I know your time is valuable. ZoBeth Andrews: My husband and I represent a lot of our neighborhood. We live in Hidden Glen which is located right across from this. We're not only concerned about the cosmetics of the antennas but I guess my question is and the reason why I'm here is to find out, is there going to be any interference on our TV's? Is there going to be any interference on cordless phones and if so, if that would happen, what kind of protections do we have? Conrad: Good question. Can we answer those? Douglas Meyers: Regarding the interference issue, which is the only issue that we should really talk about. I can not tell you that he is not going to interfere with your radio and not interfere with your television set, your cordless phone. If he does, all amateurs have worked hard to get their license. It's not just filling out an application. We have to learn the a morse code and we have to take tests. We are 100% regulated by the Federal ~Communications Commission that says we can't do that. What we request, if you have a problem, is please come to us first. We will work, and I can't say everybody will, but most of us will work very hard to clear up that problem. Conrad: How do you clear up the problem? Douglas Meyers: I can not tell you that they will clear up the problem because our emissions are regulated and we can do everything to our emissions to clear that up. There are several instances where the problem is not ours, it's theirs. If they have a defective cordless phone. If they have a defective television set. If they have a defective radio, there is nothing we can do about that. We will help them but we can not clear it up and we're not obligated to. Curt Andrews: So example, right now I don't have a problem at all at my house. My TV works fine. The cordless telephone works fine. My remote control and VCR works fine. I have no problem. Now if he puts his radio on and I have a problem, now that's my problem. Douglas Meyers: That isn't what I said. Curt Andrews: up his signal. ~ Douglas Meyers: You said it could be my problem in my phone and it would pick I don't have a problem now. Yes, it will become your problem but, Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 5 e Curt Andrews: Why should it? Douglas Meyers: Because if he's legal. Curt Andrews: We're talking about a community. We've got Covington Cove, Trapper's Pass, Hidden Glen, you've got Woodland Knolls. That's going to be all of our problem if indeed that would interfere with a variety of homes. I think the problem would be one person causing a problem. A handful to houses, that would make sense. Douglas Meyers: Let me tell you. Those problems are very, very few and far between. I can not tell you it doesn't happen. Curt Andrews: We lived in a community before, 1,500 homes, and we would sit there at 10:30 at night and somebody would turn on their radio and would wipe out 5 or 6 houses at the same lot. Douglas Meyers: Was it ham or CB? ZoBeth Andrews: We don't know. Douglas Meyers: CBer's don't care is what I'm saying. Ham's do. We'll work with you and clear it up. ~Curt Andrews: But you eluded to his question, what can you do to clear it up .and you said there may be nothing we can do because it might be my defective piece. Douglas Meyers: That is correct. I'm being honest with you and the higher he puts up his tower the lower the probability of it happening. That's a fact. The higher he goes with his tower. If he puts his antenna 5 feet from the ground and aims it at your backdoor, odds are that you're going to get it. If he goes up 50 feet and goes over the top of your roof, the odds are you won't get it. Curt Andrews: I shouldn't get it anyway. Douglas Meyers: You shouldn't. I agree with you. Jim Theis: that now. If you haven't been getting it now, I have been transmitting on ZoBeth Andrews: problems. Our neighbors have on their remote phone. She's already had Jim Theis: What have they heard? ZoBeth Andrews: You talking. Jim Theis: I guess that would be on VHF and that's more highly unlikely _because I am still going for my general to speak ham so as far as on the HF Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 6 4It frequencies, which would be more so be interfering with the because of the frequency, I'm not allocated to be talking. codes on those particular bands which is a dit and dah. cordless phones All I do is morse Curt Andrews: Could you eventually? Jim Theis: Yes I will eventually but also with that problem, if they can come up with the times when they're doing it, I have a log when I'm on. Curt Andrews: Even it does happen or it happened to them, we're not going to go around the neighborhood and try to find out where, you said you have a short antenna right now? How would we know where it's coming from? Going house to house and asking if they have a ham radio. If the antenna's up, obviously we know where it's most likely coming from and that's the question here, are we going to allow that to even happen if you go to all the expense and all of a sudden 50 people get pissed off because you have this thing that's interfering with them. I hate to see you go through a waste of your expense too. Jim Theis: I guess I know all kinds of people who aren't having problems who live in Bloomington and all around. Normally, if there is a problem. Sometimes it grounding, sometimes it's this and that. Just about always has been able to be taken care of. Once in a whi Ie there is something... ~Curt Andrews: Excuse me, I don't want to appear ignorant here but the ~gentlemen up here asked how it can be taken care of and he said he can't guarantee that the problem can be taken care of. That's what I need to hear. That it can be guaranteed that it can always be taken care of. If it can't, then there is a question in my mind that it could cause a problem and last forever. We don't have cable out here. Our televisions all come over the free airways and I don't want to have to deal with that problem. If it's a slight chance that it can be a problem forever, why do I want to take that chance? Gene Kremin: 99 times out of 100 there is no problem. Even at times where there is a problem, there are a number of things you can do technically, electronically at both ends of the system. In other words, if your receiver and his transimitter that will virtually eliminate any possibility of it and beyond that, statistically and you're going to have to look at the probabilities, nobody can guarantee anything. Douglas Meyers: And that's all I'm saying. If you have a problem and you can't resolve it, you have every right to write a letter to the FCC and the FCC will come out but, I'm going to be honest with you, if it's not his problem, they're not going to make him do anything. If it's your problem, some of these real old TV's. The new TV sets and the new cordless phones there are no problems but there is some junk that was made several years ago. Curt Andrews: If people own junk, I'm not calling my stuff junk ~ should trash their junk and go buy new stuff because someone put ~ that interferes with their junk piece that was good at one time? or not, they something up Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 7 e Douglas Meyers: No, it wasn't. It was not good. Curt Andrews: I don't understand. Conrad: Okay, I think we've heard the issue. It's an interesting one. I think the reality is that it is a permitted use. Douglas Meyers: While I was up I said I was wearing two hats. I wore my amateur radio hat. If you will allow me. The City of Carver, a year and a half ago, adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance. The same issue came up at that point in time. At that point in time we talked with our City Attorney. I talked with the FCC. We got copies of the Federal Preemption that had just been issued at that point in time. On the advice of our City Attorney at that point in time, the City of Carver chose not to adopt any restrictive ordinances regarding amateur radio antennas. They looked at the laws on the federal books. Figured yes, we can put laws on books regarding antennas. If we put it in there without an exemption for amateur radio operators, we're asking for trouble in the courts. The other issue is we looked at it from safety standpoint as well as an interference standpoint, as well as aesthetics standpoint. The Federal government has said from an interference standpoint, that is not a local decision. That's a federal law. That is 100% regulated by the FCC. Safety, the City of Carver looked at what we could put in our Ordinance from a safety standpoint. Basically what we came up with in working with our lawyers, if we put anything in there from a ~safety standpoint, we're saying that any antenna that we allow to be put up, "we have granted a stamp of approval from the City saying that it's safe which opens the liability door to the City. From aesthetic standpoint, again federal preemption steps in. The City of Carver chose not to put anything in because of the potential liability issues and the federal preemption. Jim Theis: I would like to address if they are hearing people talking. The stuff that I am licensed to talk on where they would be hearing me is the same business band that the City employees are, the same frequency the city employees are going up and down the streets in talking on also. So it may not be me. It may be the City truck or the service truck of anybody else. It's basically we're just a little below the business band in frequency. Peter Pflaum: I'm the president of Lundgren Bros. Construction and our concern is, as some of you may know, we developed and are in the process of developing the rather large development in your community, some 300 homes in Near Mountain of which maybe 150 are already residents of this community. Our position is we are concerned about the aesthetics. We're also concerned about interference. Our position, I don't know the legalities of it, but we will test the court on this because we think it is interference so our position is we are against it. We happen to represent our owners. I understand the concern of having transmission in Chanhassen. The questions is whether this is the appropriate site in a residential setting and if the courts decide it is then I guess that's fine. I guess there is nothing we can do about it but we will challenge it legally. That's our position. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 8 e Dorothy Theis: I'm Jim's mother. I spent one year on a planning commission and four years on a council and I'm familiar with this feeling of aesthetics and what looks good to one person and not to the other. I guess, Jim liked his home when he had nice open fields to the north and east but there was nothing that he could do to stop development of large houses on little lots going in there so I'm not sure that anyone else should have the priviledge of telling him what he can do on his property either as long as it's not really harming anyone. The developments I feel has made his house a lot less desirable in the real estate market because everyone likes to be close in and yet have the wide open spaces around them. There have been a lot of things that have come up with the development like everyone that misses Pleasant View and they uturn in his yard and across the lawn and so on and so forth so he's had some discomforts with the development too. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: You've got three drawings of your house here about the amateur radio tower and the FCC. What is the status of that? Do the neighbors have anything to say on that at all if a ham wants to put up a tower? Olsen: What the FCC has told me is that we can set conditions. We can't out and out deny it. He has to be able to install a tower. We can set height restrictions. Where it can be located and things like that but they have to ebe reasonable and what's reasonable? They didn't have a definition for that. Headla: In your recommendations, you didn't say anything about it being an attractive nuisance and attracting the kids to climb up that. Is there any risk of that type of thing going on? Olsen: I don't know of any. Headla: How about in Carver? I know of at least one in Carver. Do you have any trouble with kids? Douglas Meyers: The one right on the way into town? There are two right on the way into town. One is his and one is mine. Both 70 feet plus the antenna. No. I can't say I haven't heard of it. I have read of rare instances where it has happened. I don't of any personally. Headla: I guess I'm more concerned with small kids and not realizing that if they climb up it is going to be a problem but I don't know of any instances where it has created a problem. Then I didn't see anything about, is there a point that it is a sound structure? That we verify that it is a sound structure? Do we have any... Olsen: It has to be approved by an engineer and then it has to be approved by the building department to receive a building permit. Headla: Somewhere do we have some way of checking on that to check a e structure? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 9 _ Olsen: Yes. Headla: Your height, what are you operating on? Four bands? Jim Theis: Basically, I run on an alternate and now I'm all set for 160 which there will be 5. There are different ones depending on what but I probably will not get into some of the ultrahigh frequency ones at this time. Right now I run on 80 meters. Headla: You do run on 80? Jim Theis: Yes, I do but then my coverage is not what it is when you pick up . . . Headla: Do you eventually plan to get to 2 meters? Jim Theis: I do run 2 meters also. Headla: You are now? Jim Theis: Yes. Headla: You'vp been able to figure out this as the optimum length for that situation? _Jim Theis: Everybody that's a ham would like to be at 100 feet but for me it's optimum because you start to get into some of the higher towers and this and that, your budget also has to go with it so it's optimum to my pocketbook and what I feel I'll be happy with. Noziska: What about the location of the tower? The recommendation of the Staff. Olsen: We're recommending that it be located to the west of his home where it would be screened more from the north and a majority of the tower would be screened from the east. Noziska: That still gives you the coverage that you're looking for? Jim Theis: Yes, that's originally where I would have would have wanted to put it for the screening factor but with the Code the way it was, it wasn't a possibility because of the 10 foot offset and falling and this and that. wildermuth: In view of the preemptive rights of the FCC and if staff recommendations are followed, I have no questions. Emmings: I know I wouldn't want it next door to me but if there is a FCC preemption, it seems to me our hands are tied in that regard. Conrad: e I think we do have aesthetics and safety that we can talk about. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 10 e Emmings: But in that regard, a tower is a tower. I don't know how we're going to make it look good. If it's going to be 65 feet tall, it isn't going to be attractive but that doesn't make me want to vote for this thing at all. He's got a right to put it in anyway. I guess he can put it in but I'm not going to vote for it. Conrad: Jo Ann, our Ordinance right now talks about a 45 foot limitation and that came from someplace? Olsen: A publication that we had from the Planning Association. Conrad: So the applicant has every right to put something in up to 45 feet? You are recommending that we change the ordinance to eliminate the height restriction? Olsen: Yes. I found that that 45 feet is unreasonable. There is no justification for it except that it keeps the tower short. Conrad: So if we eliminate that restriction and towers are permitted and we don't have control over those going into a residential neighborhood, the controls or concerns that we should have would deal with aesthetics. Olsen: Yes, locations. e Conrad: The location from a safety standpoint? Olsen: Yes. Also, as far as if you don't have a limitation on height, I guess what do we do when somebody comes in with a 100 foot tower? I guess we need to look at what is the necessary height. The FCC and other people that we can contact can determine if that 100 foot tower is necessary or if they could do the same with a 63 foot tower. Conrad: When we're tal king, we're going over zoning distr icts here. We're saying that residential concerns might be different than concerns in a rural area but when we take out the foot limitations, we're ignoring any alteration between zoning districts. In Bloomington, the Bloomington City Codes, they had no restrictions in the residential areas at all? Olsen: No but what they have and what we still have is that the height of the tower, if it falls it's still within the property lines so that makes a difference if you're out in the rural area. If you have a large lot you could have a much taller one but where it is single family, we're restricting the height, it's restrictive from that point. Conrad: In this particular case where you located the preferred on the west side, when it fell, it would not reach? Olsen: It's a proven fact that if it's braced up against the building it becomes like a collapsable tower, just that portion not attached will fall. ~ Conrad: And it won't reach the neighboring prorperty? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 11 e Olsen: It's got 50 feet. Conrad: For this public hearing, neighbors within how? Olsen: We did it within 500 feet. Conrad: There's a new house that's being built directly to their west. Is that yours. David Robinson: Yes. I'm in there now. Conrad: We just don't want to surprise you that there is an antenna going in next to you. David Robinson: No, I've been talking with Jim. The only problem I have with it at all is whether or not it would fall on my property and whether or not it would interfere my reception and Jim has assured me that it can be taken care of and if it can't, I would assume we could do something about it at that time. I'm not going to be worried about it until after something happens. As far as aesthetics, there is all sorts of construction going on around there. There are all sorts of power lines and things like that anyway. e Conrad: There are power lines running out on TH 101 right? lines in your front yard? Are there power David Robinson: All the way down Pleasant View. Conrad: Near Mountain side, all the power is buried as I recall so they are pretty clean over there in terms of structures. Any other comments from the Planning Commission? I think the facts are there that we have an Ordinance and right now the Ordinance says 45 feet so we have to take a look at this particular application in light of that Ordinance. For future we have to decide whether that Ordinance is fair, appropriate for the real world and we've obviously been told that these towers are permitted and can not be turned down just because they are a tower. Is there a motion? Headla: I would like to ask Steve. It seems like Jim was within his right to put the tower up and is there some other reason why you feel he shouldn't do it? Emmings: I'll tell you what my problem is. This is kind of a strange thing we're dealing with here because this is supposed to be going through our Conditional Use process and it doesn't fit really because it isn't as if we're deciding whether or not he can have this thing as a conditional use because it's already jammed down our throats by federal preemption. We've got standards under our conditional use permit. We've got 12 standards, and there's no sense in almost even evaluating the thing as a conditional use because something is going to go up there and really given the fact that it's going to go up there, I think that the Staff's, I may change my mind here e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 12 4Itbout voting for it, I think that the Staff's conditions that they put down are reasonable. I guess what I'm resisting is having this shoved down my throat. That offends me. I think we should have the ability to have more to say about it then we do. Headla: It seems like it's okay with the neighbor and your worry doesn't mean that much at all. Emmings: That's right. The neighbors are going to have to live with it and somehow that's not the way local government is supposed to work. I think it's correct, Mr. Pflaum spoke out here and said they would challenge it. Well, good luck. I think it will be interesting to see and I don't think you'll have any luck either. I think that whole area has been preempted. I've done some work with telephone companies and microwave towers and I know when we ran into problems there, it was exactly the same story so it shouldn't surprise me or bother me as much as it does but it does bother me. Conrad: So if we vote for this, and this is a long discussion with a motion on the table, but if we vote for this we're basically saying forget about our current ordinance. The 45 feet is insignificant and we're saying that whatever this is 61 or whatever, is okay because we don't know what's okay and not okay. Other than it won't fall onto the property line. That's really what we're saying so the next time somebody comes in, if we don't change the Ordinance, somebody can say it's a 90 foot tower, and by the way ~t's probably better for reception from what I'm hearing if it's bigger, but Womebody could say a 90 foot tower and the only thing we could fall back on is that if it doesn't fall on the neighbor's property line or if it did, then we could reject but other than that, what we would be saying is that we don't have any aesthetic standards or anything else to guide us in approving these issues. I'm not sure how to govern it by aesthetics. I think government getting into aesthetics is really a hairy thing. Noziska: Ladd, since it's going to get jammed down our throat anyway, it's better to put conditions on it than deny it. Conrad: But there are other conditions you could put on it if you wanted. Right now we have alternatives to put conditions on. You can say plant 12 trees around it if you like and hopefully the trees catch up sometime. Emmings: I think the most effective way to regulate this thing, given it's going to be there and the folks who live around it are going to have to look at it, and not being able to do anything about that, the most effective way to regulate it, if it's causing them a problem is going right to the FCC because I know they do respond when they get complaints and you're just going to have to take care of it that way because we can't do it. Headla: I would suspect if they have any problems at all, talk to Jim first and I suspect he's going to be very interested in solving the problem. Conrad: Yes, I can tell that the applicant is real sensitive. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 13 tltoziska moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit #873 for the installation of a 63 foot high amateur radio antenna tower with the following conditions: 1. The antenna tower shall be located to the west of the home and braced to the home at a height of 17 feet. 2. The antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightening strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code. 3. The antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code. 4. A building permit shall be required for the installation of the antennas. Applications shall include the submission of a site plan and structural components and the Building Official must approve the building plans before installation. Further, the Planning Commission recommends that the height limit for radio antennas be deleted in the Ordinance. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE RILEY WOODS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 101 AND CR 14 ~-rroNEER TRAIL), GEORGE NEESo~APPLICANT: A. SUBDIVISION OF 134 ACRES INTO 42 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRIC"iJ'LTURE ESTAT"ES. - -- - - B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED -- A2, AGRICULTURE ESTATES. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON -- PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURE ESTATES. Public Present: Alan Dirks Jo Anne Kes & Dan Ackerman Michael Klingelhutz Wayne Tauer Jog Tanner R. Berkland Hallie Bershow Don Sitter Ken Belirsdorf Boyd S. Peterson M. Williams Art Peterson 331 Deerfoot Trail 9441 Great Plains Blvd. 8601 Great Plains Blvd. pioneer Engineering, Mendota Heights. 92343 Lake Riley Blvd. 9261 Kiowa Trail 9271 Kiowa Trail 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 6541 Navaho Trail, Edina 7818 Eden Court, Eden prairie Thorpe Bros. Realty 7818 Eden Court~ Eden prairie e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 14 ~lsen: The site, as you saw briefly before in October, is located at the top of Lake Riley on the northeast corner of TH 101 and pioneer Trail. The proposal is made up of three sections. The first is the subdivision, the second one is the wetland aleration permit and the third one is the recreational beachlot. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 134 acres into 42 single family lots. The site is located in the rural district so it is regulated with the 2 1/2 minimum size lots. The site itself abuts Lake Riley, TH 101 and CR 14 (Pioneer Trail). Part of it is farmed. Another part is very steep slopes. There is a class A wetland and Class B wetland. Conrad: Would you point those out Jo Ann? Olsen: Okay, the Class A wetland and the Class B wetland. There are two blocks. Block 1 has all the lots around the perimeter, 27 lots and Block 2 is the internal lots, there are 15. All of them have the minimum frontage of 180 and again they meet the 2 1/2 acre requirement. As far as sewer and water, it is not available to the site so each site has to have it's own septic system and well. The applicant, when they first came in they had some problems with the soil borings so they went out and performed more and located mound sites. The new tests have been reviewed by the soil consultant and all of the lots have provided two sites except for Lot 14 which there are exceptions on. One of the things the consultant pointed out is that if the site is used as a drainfield site, it must be oriented with the contour. Some of them are perpendicular. They have to be adjusted. There is adequate .Aoom for them to be moved around so that should be no problem. As far as Lot "'4, because of the steep slope, there is only one area for a mound system and he has provided percolation tests for the drainfield site. The mound site is located right next to the road and we were concerned with draining across the road that it might impact this site and again, a mound site, or even a drainfield can not be altered at all so what Staff is requesting is that they provide a grading plan and detailed plan of this lot showing that this site will not be touched at all with the improvement of the street. Also, the percolation tests for the drainfield site, the consultant has questions about those and is requesting that he and the applicant go out to the site and perform some other perc tests to make sure that they are correct. Once that is done and if it comes back and meets with Staff approval, Lot 14 will be considered a buildable lot. As far as the streets, the site is being serviced just off of CR 14. There will be no direct access onto TH 101 because of bad sight distance in the bend in the road. The preliminary plat shows the realignment of CR 14. This has been approved by the County. We are concerned with this little lot that is being left here that is under 2 1/2 acres so we want that to be understood that that is an unbuildable lot. Carver County is working with the people who live just to the south regarding purchasing that property so it might be combined with other land. MnDot has approved the plan but they need 27 more feet of additional rightofway. They wanted rightofway dedicated to the City and must be removed from the lot area. That will have to be recalculated because some of the lots are just over 2 1/2 acres so we will have to see that rightofway on the new lots. As far as the extension of this culdesac, there is an application for a subdivision utility easement. Staff did consider making that a through ~treet in the future because the culdesac on the Vogel property to the east Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 15 ~lSO has a culdesac in the general area. After looking at the topography, we felt that it wouldn't be a good idea to tear through all that and alter all the sites with a connection so we are keeping it as a culdesac. The Park and Recreation Commission wanted a trail easement along CR 14 and TH 101. There will be a 20 foot easement. It will not take away from the lot area. It is for future use. There is the possibility that they may not need it if they can get the easement along the southern portion but they want it now just for a safety factor. They will not be reducing any of the park dedication fees. As far as the grading, the applicant should provide a phasing plan and that any construction and alteration be immediately restored. We also want a plan that shows any clearcutting with the final grading for approval by Staff. All drainage will be going along the streets through the road ditches to the Class B wetland and Class A wetland and finally into Lake Riley. As far as the wetland alteration permit, there is a road that is going over a portion of the Class B wetland. I visited the site with the applicant and Fish and Wildlife and it is a poorer Class B wetland but it is still a wetland area. It is essentially a low drainge area. Therefore, it still requires the wetland alteration permit. The road will not impact the drainage function of the Class B wetland. They are providing a storm sewer to allow the drainage to continue it's natural flow. We are requiring that they install erosion control during construction. The wetland alteration permit requires that 75 foot setback for structures and 150 foot setback for the septic system. Staff is presuming that this is the ordinary high water mark of the wetland and if that is so, Lot 13 and Lot 14 in Block 2 are possibly going to have a ~fficult time meeting the setback. Either variances will be required or the ~plicant will have to provide a new plan showing the setbacks being met. Although, again this is a poor wetland, it is acting as a drainage area and that setback is important. As far as the recreational beachlot, the Ordinance requires 200 feet of lake frontage, 100 feet of depth and 3,000 square feet for a recreational beach lot to have a dock. They also require 80% of the lots to be within 1,000 feet of the beachlot. They are proposing a beachlot in this area and they meet all of those requirements. Staff is recommending that they establish a homeowners association to maintain the beachlot and that they provide Staff with a site plan showing the details of the beachlot. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and the wetland alteration permit with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submit a detailed grading plan providing the preservation of the mound site on Lot 14, Block 1 and not permitting road drainage over the mound site before final plat approval. 2. Submit a plan showing the mound sites oriented with the contours. 3. Submit approved percolation tests for the drainfield site on Lot 14, Block 1. 4. All streets must have a grade of 8% or less. e 5. Designate the property between existing CR 14 and the realignment of CR 14 as an outlot which will be considered unbuildable. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 16 e 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. - 16. Any access onto CR 14 must receive a permit from Carver County. The final plat must designate additional 27 feet of rightofway along TH 101 and all remaining lot areas shall contain 2.5 acres. A phasing plan must be provided before final plat approval. All disturbed areas must be immediately restored. There shall be no clear cutting within the shoreland area except for public road, structures and utilities. A plan designating areas of clear cutting must be provided. No direct access from Lots 1825, Block 1 will be allowed to TH 101. The developer enter into a developers agreement with the City to guarantee completion of improvements. Provide a schedule to the City indicating phasing of the project if such is the intent of the developer. Submit a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan to the City prior to construction. Submit construction plans to Williams Pipeline company for review and approval prior to construction. As far as the conditional use permit for the recreation beachlot, should the Planning Commission recommend approval, Staff is recommending that the applicant create a homeowner's association to maintain the 'private park and recreational beachlot and that the recreational beachlot is limited to one dock only with three overnight slips. George Nelson: I really don't have any objections. There are a number of items that she mentioned that the approval is granted subject to these minor items we have been requested to provide. I was happy to hear her say that the bike path may go on the south side of TH 101. Not that I care that much about it as far as our property is concerned but the Eden prairie bike path is on the south side and I think that isn't going to be a very good place to cross over that. Otherwise, I think the requirements are pretty much in order. Wayne Tauer, Planning Engineer: I can probably run down each one of these items and explain them a little bit if need be. I think I'll just sit back and if you have specific questions about any of the recommendations, I'll do it at that point in time. Alan Dirks: I live on the north side of the Riley. I was concerned on the drainage of the spillage and the mound. I wasn't sure if it was going to be _ound or septic or exactly what it's going to be but just from walking around Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 17 ~at area in previous years, it seems like and as the lady said there, the water does tend to drain towards to those two lowland areas and then everything from there, from the creeks and channels that goes between the gullies and such, it ends up in Lake Riley. It seems to be a tremendous burden on the lake to try and overcome 42 homesites, mound or otherwise, and then in addition to that the streets drainage I believe she said from salt in the road or fertilizer or anything. To take all of that and put it in the lake, that's going to be quite a burden I would think and I'm just curious for input as far as how that runoff, if there has been any thought given to how we can avoid some of that? I'm not sure exactly where the sewer lines come in there. I'm not sure of the runoff wouldn't be tremendous if it wasn't there. I think that has to be given a lot of thought as far as how much that lake can handle. I know it was a big enough concern for the City earlier to have the sewer hookup on all the cottages along the north side and that was completed I believe within the last couple years. Now, it just seems to approve 42 homesites, the additional burden on the lake is quite a load. Olsen: I can respond real quickly to the septic systems. It most likely will mix those so they won't probably all have mound systems. The effluent, by the time it leaves that wetland, and by the time it goes into that large wetland and the lake, shouldn't nave tnat mUGh of an impact on Lake Riley. ,They are all going to very large lots. A lot of overland drainage will pick up all the impurities.' e Alan Dirks: Does that come from the DNR or does the DNR get involved in any of this? Olsen: They review it. Alan Dirks: It is my understanding that the rural lot sizes just got changed to 10 acres for that very reason of the fact that 2 1/2 was too much of a burden for all the septic systems. Now is that true? Olsen: The Metropolitan Council had it changed to one unit per 10 acres and the reason for that was just that there was too much density occurring out in the rural area. They wanted growth within the urban area where the services were. They came in under the old application rule. Alan Dirks: The area is beautiful and I can certainly see why people would want to build there and live there and all that but I just have some reservations about what that will cause and what effect it will have. Conrad: I think your comments are valid and we will probably be concerned with some of those issues. Reflecting on one, on the septic system. We, as a Planning Commission, have spent some time reviewing septic systems and I think in the beginning we were extremely concerned and the more we have reviewed them and as Chanhassen has upgraded it's controls of septic systems, I think we're a little bit more comfortable with the fact that they can be ~gineered to be very good. It's not that they are bad. It's the problem Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 18 4th at the y t urn bad 0 v era per i 0 d 0 f t i mea n d w hat we' ve don e her e i s t r i e d to put some management of those septic systems into place in Chanhassen. That may relieve one of your concerns and I know there are others but that's one that we have been watching because of a concern with development in the rural area. Don Sitter: I live just on the north side of the bay right across from this property. I also have the concern with the septic systems. I find it hard to believe in thiB day and age that we aren't putting in full sanitary sewer systems. If the Beptic tanks, like you mentioned, are well manageed. If they are well engineered. If they are well put in. If everything goes just right, how about long term? What if things go bad? I think we have to look at the future. I have a few other questions. It's just a point that I'm concerned beCaUSE! a lot of the area does slope towards the lake. How many lots are actually on the lake front? Olsen: Seven. Don Sitter: Seven lots on the lake front and those will be single family homes with a dock and boat priviledges as everybody else on the lake? And then the beachlot you said would allow 3 boats? Olsen: Three boats overnight but the dock will have 4 slips. There is possibility of having sailboat moorings. You need to go through DNR to ~ose permits but our Ordinance used to not allow any overnight storage ~at has recently been amended so 3 boats can be stored overnight. the get and Don Sitter: That has been amended. I guess I have a concern about that. There is other property on the lake that can be developed. Al lives in the Sunnyslope develoIlment. They have been fighting the beachlot for a few years. We've got this one now in front of us. I know that Mr. Roger owns some property, three lots on the lake, 300 feet of something with a bunch of area behind. If lJ7e set a precedent here allowing beachlots, how are we going to turn down Sunnyslope again? How are we going to tell Mr. Rogers that he can't build his property and put another dock out there? It's a small lake. There! is already public access. It is controlled but there are still a lot of boats and if we have 7 more homes and they have an association. I don't know what the limit is on the dock? It's something 1 i k e 4 boa t son a ;3 i n g 1 e fa mil y horn e . Th at mea n son e 0 f eve r y 7 P eo p 1 e has a friend somewhere :Ln the association that has a boat. We're going to double the boats on the lake real quickly here and I have a concern about the lake being able to handle that. I hate to see anymore boats going on there. Conrad: Let me rE~spond to the precedent and I'm not going to defend anything but basically the beachlot ordinance right now allows what you see on this piece of paper so it's not a precedent. There is a beachlot ordinance and it has been reviewed significantly. It has been altered a time or two recently but it's there and as long as this fits and it does, to my understanding, it's not a precedent. You may not like it but it's not setting a precedent for others that cculd come in and do a similar thing. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 19 tton Sitter: I was here not too long ago that the beachlot did not allow overnight storage. I heard comments about we just wrote this law two years ago, let's not open it now. If we change it now, two years later we'll be changing it again. It seems like we've already changed it. Conrad: You're right. We were with that ordinance and there was a lawsuit or something like that and it was changed. Joy Tanner: Does that recreational beachlot have the capacity then for the homeowners to launch their boats there? Conrad: We're not allowing overland launching. No, you have to use the public access. Joy Tanner: The traffic is going to be something else on the water. Hallie Bershow: I live on Lake Riley on Kiowa Trail. Can I clarify what she said? These 30 some homeowners outside of the 7 on the lakeshore, they will not be able to use this beachfront to corne into the lake even though they are part of the private homeowners association? They can't take their boats down through there? Conrad: Not through the property. They can take it to a publ ic access, bring it over during the day. ~allie Bershow: Over at Eden Prairie? Conrad: Yes. They can bring it over during the day but then they would have to remove all but three. Three can have permanent storage on that dock which is a change within the last year. Prior to this last year, there was no overnight storage but this last year, for this type of a lot, you can have 3 overnight so the association will have to determine which 3 get the dock slips. Hallie Bershow: Alright, I have another question about the sewers. Do all the homes or cottages on Lake Riley right now have sewers? Olsen: Just the lots right along the west side have sanitary sewer no. A~l the rest_will have'to have septic systems. Hallie Bershow: But all the existing homes are now on sewer? Gary Warren: The existing homes that she pointed out are within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area which is controlled by Met Council and required to be on sewer. If you are outside of that service area, which this development is, we can not service them with public sewer. That is a restriction that Met Council has basically on the growth of the community to a certain extent. Hallie Bershow: You're saying that they can't be these new homes on sewer? e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 20 'ary Warren: system or not They have to be either serviceable by a septic system, a mound allowed to be developed. Hallie Bershow: Well, is that all bad then? The way the State is going is that we're not allowing people to put septic systems on lakes anymore. Maybe we should think about not allowing septic systems to go onto lakes in Chanhassen. Warren: I think as Mr. Conrad pointed out, there are some advances, the mound system being one of them as far as current technology as it relates to septic systems and a lot of the abuses of septic systems have not been so much in the design but lack of maintenance and some of these things. Hallie Bershow: And eventually that happens. You can't be that short- sighted to know that these people are building homes for a 10 year period. They are building homes for a long period of time and eventually they are going to wear out, break down and then they start seeping into the lake. Conrad: What did we put in our Ordinance for review Jo Ann? I've forgotten it already. Olsen: We've got a new Ordinance. We've updated the ordinance that controls the septic systems and what it does now is requires the systems to be cleaned out every 3 years. What we're going to do is notify the owners who have septic Aystems and let them know that this is the year to clean~it. Owners have to have it ~eaned and they have to submit documentation that ,qhows they have had it cleaned. If they don't, we have penalties which we can pursue. Again, the maintenance is what we found is important. If you keep them cleaned up, they will work well and they do their jobs. Now we have the control to keep the systems maintained. Also, there is a minimum setback that they can be from the lake so again, that gives them enough distance for it to percolate out so it should not have any effect. Hallie Bershow: The same with fertilizer and ChemLawn products? Olsen: No. We don't have a fertilizer ordinance but we have public education. There is no setback as far as that. We are hoping that they will maintain their land in it's natural state. Hallie Bershow: You're saying then that fertilizers will be getting into the lake? Olsen: It's possible. Don Sitter: You say you can not hook up to the sanitary sewer system. about the storm sewer system? Can we at least look at that? You said of the drains in the roads are literally running right into the lake. there a storm sewer system we can look into? How some Is Warren: As was pointed out earlier, the storm water itself, the internal ~etlands are being utilized to help improve some of the storm water run-off. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 21 4Ite didn't think it appropriate I guess with the topography on the site to require further drainage. Storm sewer actually, because of the rapid run-off they provide, almost get water to the lakes quicker and do not allow any opportunity for any sediment or debris to collect in the water. Don Sitter: If you run towards the lake but if you run it away from the lake. Warren: It's all going to end up in a depository of some sort I guess. Wayne Tauer: I was going to answer some of these questions a little bit. I would like to state that on every house site we have two septic systems that are programmed. If one fails, there is always another back-up and the City has the clean-out program. You can't see it very well on the drawings up there but there are two locations already specified as to exactly where a system would be and where a back-up system would be so if one fails the other one is also available. In talking about pollutants, as far as those kind of things, as you probably realize, this is all under farm or agricultural zoning right now and most of it is being farmed. The pollutants that are coming off the farmland right now are probably far greater than anything that you will realize with the single family residential. In actuality the quality of the lake water will probably improve because of this subivision as opposed to what is existing there now. .r. Peterson: I have a concern about these guys are going to sell these lots o the individuals and they are going to have the erosion control of the land. It seems like a lot of times, once the lots are sold, there is a question of who is responsible for controlling erosion or putting up erosion control barriers around the lake when there is a homeowner or a person owns the land? A lot of times they don't get put up. Around Lake Riley, those are some very steep hills and there is going to be, when they're out there putting the basements in for the homes, there is going to be a lot of exposed earth and I'm willing to bet that there won't be very many, the erosion control plans submitted won't be followed by the person who purchased the individual lots. Conrad: How do we follow that up Jo Ann? Olsen: It's established in the development contract that the developer has to set all the erosion control measures that he planned for. Mr. Peterson: Is that the person building the house or the homeowner or the person that sold the lots? Warren: Typically, I think Chan vista may be an example. We were just out last week reviewing the erosion control measures with the developer and since that development is doing rapid expansion right now with builders, there are separate people that he contracts with or sells out to for the building. It's his perogative but in either case, the agreement that the City has as ~ar as erosion control to the development agreement is with the developer. .e was out there walking the site with us last week. We pointed out areas Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 22 ~here we wanted corrections made the next day almost. to be made and in fact, those corrections were Mr. Peterson: Is that a small lot development or large lots? Warren: It's small lots but number wise, we're talking about 90 lots all together. Mr. Peterson: I'm just wondering, are you saying it's the person that owns the land and submits the planning who is responsible for controlling that and not the homeowners? Warren: During the development process. Mr. Peterson: Okay, well say somebody buys their lot and doesn't build on it for 20 years, what interest does he have on controlling the erosion? Warren: At that time when the builder or owner comes in to take out a building permit, we will identify specific sites that if they have steep grades, as part of the buidling permit they would be required to submit a separate erosion control plan just for that site. Alan Dirks: Are you folks watchdogs then? ~arren: We don't pant. Typically what happens is the engineering department Was our hands full keeping up with the major developments in the city and trunk systems that are going in and our building inspector people are taking care of the individual buildings that are going on. We try to work together. Alan Dirks: I think that is going to be a challenge. Just because of the topography out there. Don Sitter: I hate to beat the septic tank to death but I'm receiving some confusing input. First I hear that we have these new engineered systems that are supposed to be very reliable and then the developer's engineer tells us that he's got two septic systems so in case one fails, they've got back-up. That doesn't sound like they are real reliable systems. That they have a lot of confidence in them. My second question is on the outlot. You said they can not launch a boat from there. On the other seven private lots, can other homeowners bring their boats through those lots and launch on the lake? Conrad: It would be like any homeowner. Any homeowner can allow whatever they want. Theoretically they are not launch sites but it is up to the individual homeowner. Individual homeowners can allow people to store boats on their docks. They're not permitted but obviously that can happen. Don Sitter: It's not permitted? Conrad: It's not permitted. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 23 40n Si tter: I'm an indi vidual homeowner on the lake and I don't let other people launch their boats but I'm also not part of the homeowner's association that gets together as a group to work and function together. It's a point of concern. Conrad: The concern is what? Don Sitter: The 7 homeowners but they are part of a homeowners association. That was the recommendation of the Staff to form a homeowners association to help control this beachlot. Is that right? Okay, so they are all part of a group that gets together as friends and groups together as friends I think would be more likely to let other friends, I know you can't launch it on the beachlot but I'll let you launch it on my dock. Is that correct? Conrad: When you say launch, they're not going to launch it over this land are they? You're talking about storage or launching? Don Sitter: Both. Conrad: It's always possible that they can store there but launch I don't think in that area they are going to do any launching. It just does't seem reasonable. Wayne Tauer: I would just like to expand a little bit on the concerns of our ~osion control. This is a large lot subdivision and it probably has less ~ainage on it than a standard lot subdivision or small lot subdivision. Technically what we're doing here is simply grading in the street. We're not going to be playing around with any of the lots per see We're going to allow these homeowners to come in and pick his lot site and determine where they best think their house would sit on the topograhy. Our emphasis here is to do as little grading as possible. We have probably maintained a grading limits at or just slightly beyond the right-of-way which is 60 feet so we have a strip of grading out there which is about 60 feet wide times the length of the street and that is basically all the grading that is going to happen. When the basement is dug, again, I think the building permit and the building inspector will be picking up that situation and controlling it from that point. As soon as we're done disturbing the property, we're going to seed and mulch it and re-establish the turf so it's going to be a short period of time that it will get exposed to the weather. Just to react a little bit to the homeowners association. It's going to be a very minor homeowners association. Obviously just to concern themselves about rules and regs about that beachlot. They meet once, possibly twice a year. I don't think long lasting relationships are going to be established in that kind of a program. Granted, neighbors, if they live across the street from somebody, you're going to develop friendships and whatever. Those friendships and negotiations between the two happen, well they happen. I guess it's like everyplace else on the lake. We can't control that. Olsen: In talking about~he fertilizer going into the lake. . " The shoreland district is 1,000 feet from the 4Ilrdinary high water mark and our shoreland ordinance prohibits clear cutting Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 24 41tithin that except for roads and house plow everything down to the beach. pads so they will not be permitted to Hallie Bershow: You said there is going to be some fertilizer ordinance possibility? What is the progress of that? Olsen: We decided not to do the fertilizer ordinance because it really was impossible to implement so what we're going to do instead is public education during the spring and fall to let people know to use low phospherous fertilizers and ideally to test their soils to see if they even need fertilizer. So it's more of a public education. Hallie Bershow: Wouldn't both be effective? You might not get 100% compliance by having an ordinance but you would get some compliance by having the ordinance and that would alleviate some of the problems going in there. It can't be initiated for this development at least to say something to prevent it? Olsen: We did a thorough investigation and it was just impossible to enforce and really it was nothing more than the public education is going to do. In fact I just spoke wi th somebody from the EPA yesterday and Shorev,iew has such an Ordinance and it's just not working. They have determined that the public education is what works. .onrad: We have looked at that. If you want to get involved in something ike that, call Jo Ann and maybe you can participate. We've had an environmental group that's been working and it's a real concern. Jo Ann told you the realities of the thing. When you put an ordinance in place. Talk about controlling what you're putting on grass, it's words only and it's back to there's just no way to control it so your ordinance is really pretty hollow. If you don't have a way to control it, you get concerned with why did you put it in there in the first place. That's why we talk about the education which a lot of the homeowners on lakes are doing every spring so you control the phospherous in your fertilizers and that's really important. However, I think the City is really interested in that kind of control but practically speaking, the issue that you're talking about. Hallie Bershow: It concerns me because we're having another 134 acres that all of a sudden is going to start being heavily fertilized with new homes being built coming into the lake. Noziska moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: The mounds. To the people on Lake Riley, did we tell them that after a sewer goes bad it takes over a year for corrective action? I think one way to help this situation, if the people live around Lake Riley, is there someway you can tie in the homeowners association that they have some control over that? They can take immediate action in case a mound isn't functioning properly? e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 25 ttlsen: I'm sure that they would would have to follow which again have to follow the same action as the City is a long process. Headla: What I'm trying to do is cut down that time element from when something goes bad until the time corrective action is taken. Emmings: We talked about this another time but it's a length we all agreed that ought to be done but I don't remember what the resolution was. Headla: It turned out that over a year and some action eventually followed but it took over a year for corrective action. These people who are right on the lake, I don't think we can stand a year. Emmings: Ladd, can you remember what happened to our discussion or Jo Ann? We talked what ought to be done in the short term and what ought to be done in the long term. Was that stuff incorporated in our Ordinance? Olsen: Yes, we have that all set up. Emmings: Okay, what happens if a septic system goes bad? Olsen: They've got 24 hours to report it. It's 48 hours to pump and they have to continue pumping until it gets repaired. Ultimately they've got 60 days to have it repaired and they are working with the building inspector. ~f it's during the winter months and they can't get it done in that time, ~ey can work out a schedule with the building inspector. Emmings: So I think we have that stuff in. Headla: motion? What was it that Mayor Hamilton said right at the end of that I thought that time got extended again. Olsen: The City Council can extend it if there is a reason. Headla: That's fine but didn't Mayor Hamilton say something that got into the motion that extended the time. Olsen: They were talking 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 120 days and they went back to 60 days. We have the option to get City Council approval for an extension. Headla: So after like 60 days, the Village can step in? Olsen: Yes but again, you get the long court process. Emmings: But it's being pumped within 24 hours of notice of a problem. Headla: give you .oing to Well, if it's being pumped then that's corrective action. Does that more confidence sir? That within 60 days that mound system is be pumped continuously. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 26 4tlan Dirks: It sure beats a year. It's so hard to police it that it is a real concern. I know the public discussion is closed but I'm just thinking in my mind that, we have a cabin up on ottertail Lake and they had all these septic systems going in there and then the federal government and state government and the local government came in with the landowners and they just put in this big deal where it has a lift station and all that. I was wondering if that has anything they can take a look at. To pull them all together and it percolates from a further distance or all from a central spot where they can clear and then it's governed at the same time. Noziska: That would mean that they would have to be hooked up and it's an awful long site. Conrad: It is. This is a big development for that. shouldn't be looked at but it's a big development. It doesn't mean it Alan Dirks: This is an 11 mile long lake by 5 miles long and all of them are just summer cabins. Noziska: They were pretty close together though. The frontage is kind of like an already subdivided area of Lake Riley. It's pretty close together so that sort of makes sense but when they're scattered allover 2 1/2 acres. Alan Dirks: Yes, but you're talking about an 11 mile long lake by 4 or 5 ~iles wide lake and that a long distance. A lot further than 134 acres. ~st seems there are a lot of options rather than just... It Noziska: The problem gets to be not the length of it but the problem gets to be how many people there is to pay for it. If you have 11 mile long piece of land and you've got 50 people to pay for it is more than if you have 250 people. That virtually the economics of the thing. The homeowners divide in the cost of the septic system. Erhart: I think for the people here we might point out that just in the last 12 months the City has paid a fair amount of money to have a consultant come in and review the whole septic system ordinance here. This group was involved with that. In fact, we initiated it and as a result of that study, all the changes that we referenced tonight regarding the ordinance itself and it's regulations were put into place just within the last 3 or 4 months. I think, if I can speak for the rest of the Commission, are pretty confident that the design of this will result in the satisfactory system for many years. Headla: The applicant is in agreement with the recommendations of Staff? George Nelson: Yes. Noziska: I guess I don't have that much more to discuss about it. I think you probably know my feelings about 2 1/2 acre lots. I would much rather see ,~ So be it, I think there is a need for immediate action should a septic Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 27 ~ystem fail. I think there is a lot of harm that can be done and if feels comfortable with that, we could probably sit here all night. everyone Wildermuth: Assuming the developer would be interested in installing a sewer system, is that an option? Olsen: No. Wildermuth: Because it's outside the service area so a sewer system for this development is not even an option for the developer even if he chose to put one in. Siegel: Jo Ann could you point out on the map where William's Pipeline is? Does that go through that Class B wetland? Olsen: Yes, it goes through it. Siegel: I just have one other question. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but on the report under the recreational beachlot. Math isn't my favorite subject but is that a typo or am I seeing the figures wrong? The second paragraph where it's 80% of 42 lots equals 34 lots which must be within 1,000 feet? Olsen: That's a typo. ~nrad: 80% would be about 34 but you found 25 lots to be within the 1,000 ~et which means that doesn't meet the standards. Olsen: You're right. The first time I did this report I did that and it didn't meet it and then when I did it the second time it was within that. That's my mistake. Conrad: So it doesn't really meet the requirement? Olsen: In that case, that goes back to the old definition that it does not meet that condition and it must require a variance and that's the catch all. What I pointed out in the last report was that normally this is with a smaller lot subdivision where there never really any problem for the lots to be within the 1,000 feet. This is kind of a different case. This is the first rural subdivision, large lot, with a beachlot so again, Staff left it up to the Commission to determine whether or not they felt that was an applicable condition for this. Siegel: Would that have to be part of the conditional use permit? be an extension. It would Olsen: You would have to grant a variance for that. Siegel: I wonder if we should rework that and see how the actual layouts of the proposed single family dwellings are going to lay on here in relationship to their being included in the beachlot. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 28 .1 sen : To get 80% within? Siegel: Not necessarily get 80% within but to determine whether there should be some special adaptation in the variance that we proposed that would allow us to do this without coming up with the same problem again. Olsen: Have different designation for rural subdivision? Siegel: Yes. Olsen: That was Staff's position because it is such a different instance. Typically this is still 42 lots and it's still less than what is normally used for the recreational beachlots. That is one way of being able to approve beachlots and deny them if you want. Siegel: I just don't know whether all the classical questions have been posed pertaining to approving that beachlot conditional use permit. There are less than 9 single family dwellings short of the 80% that it requires by our existing ordinance. What I'm saying is should we have a parameter of how much area is allowed for so many lots beyond that 80% and I don't know if we have the answers to that. Olsen: As far as the intent of the beach lot ordinance, since I wasn't here I'm not sure exactly why that 80% was determined so I could look back at that 4Ird see how that would apply to the rural subdivisions. Conrad: I don't know where to go with that Bob. The intent was, there was a concern several years ago that there would be neighborhoods buying little pieces of property on lakes and that neighborhood had 5,000 houses in it and you could basically funnel those 5,000 houses onto a small piece of property. Therefore, magically we in our wisdom came up with 80% being within 1,000 feet which absolutely has no relevance to anything other than saying we're trying to cluster those houses around the beachlot itself and be in as close proximity. That was the intent so you wouldn't have this and then another block our here and all being association members. I don't know how to react to this one because we're obviously in a rural area with bigger lots and it doesn't meet it. If you go for it here and allow it, we would have to make it very clear why we did that because the precedent again would come right back to the residential area within the MUSA line and then we'll have cases to review with court in mind. Siegel: That's why I question whether we have the answers tonight mathematically even to make a determination on that conditional use permit. I think it needs further staff study. Emmings: To follow up on that a little bit, when you looked at the beachlot ordinance. Here you've got 7 places that already have lake frontage. Should they count? Maybe you've really only got 18 houses within the 1,000 feet who are actually going to be using it because the 7 lake frontage properties aren't even going to be using it. - Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 29 .onrad: I don't think they do but I don't know the ordinance well enough. don't think they are a part. It wasn't the intent of the Ordinance to have other lakeshore owners be part of the association. I Emmings: Because there is so much concern about the drainfields and Tim already started to address it, there really have been a lot of changes. A lot of the concerns that were raised here about the septic problems I think would have been concerns that we wouldn't have been able to respond to even like 4 months ago but since we've had some seminars and we changed a lot of things in the ordinance, I'm pretty comfortable with what's here. The fellow in the green shirt raised a point about why are there two sites on each lot. That is another change we just put in. We said a lot of times they come in and there is only one place they can put a drainfield and if something goes wrong, if it's improperly maintained or for whatever it doesn't work out and there is no other place to put another drainfield, we're going to make everybody show us on every buildable lot that there are two places they can put drainfields so if the worse happens and that spot can't be used, they have an alternative place to go and we won't let them build anything else on that spot that's identified as the alternative site. They can't build any other structure on there. That has to be maintained forever as an alternative site so I think we're looking at this thing in a lot more detail. Both in terms of requiring routine maintenance and in terms of looking over the long term. That really was a problem here. A terrible one but I really think it's been fixed and really, when I look at this plan, I think they've Cne the best job I've ever seen. I haven't been here that long but more an a year and this plan is better in that regard than any plan that has ever come before us just because of all the changes we put in the ordinace lately. I'm impressed in this business about other people's boats being parked at the docks of the private landowners. Isn't there a limit to the nubmer of boats that even a guy who owns a lake front and has a dock out there. There is a limit to the number of boats he can have. It's two isn't it? Olsen: Four or five. Don Sitter: It's five. Emmings: Okay, and can they dock other people's boats? Olsen: Technically no. They have to be licensed under whoever owns the property or is renting the property. Emmings: Okay, if that is abused that is something that can be reported to the city and it can be enforced. They all have licenses and I supposed that can tracked down if it looks like it's being abused. I take it they can't park cars on that beachlot? Olsen: Nothing. Emmings: They can't build any structures on it or anything? e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 30 'sen: They have to get another conditional use to do a structure. Emmings: So they would have to come back and notify people of their plans. Olsen: The beachlot ordinance says they can not have any structures on it. Emmings: If they didn't create a homeowners association, who would be responsible for maintaining that beachlot. Olsen: We've always had them start a homeowners association to maintain the beachlot. Emmings: We're not giving them any choice in that regard? It's going to be there as a condition? If they don't have a homeowners association maintaining it they can't have it? Olsen: Right. Emmings: The hardest one in the whole thing is this Class B wetland that's on here and the setbacks. I guess I'm not as concerned about the setbacks of the home from the wetland as I am about the setbacks of the septic sites. I don't really know what to say or ask but apparently they are not set back far enough. ~sen: No. The structures on certain lots and for the septic systems. This ., such a low. class Class.B wetland, the structure setback may not be as im:.?ortant as the septic setback but , the 150' septic setback should be'~.maintained. I haven't been able to talk with Mr. Anderson or Mr. Machmeier about that but I would feel more comfortable maintaining that setback for the septic systems since it's used as a drainage area. Emmings: Which lots can they not get the septic systems 150 feet away from the wetland? They are all on Block 2 right? 13 and 14? 14 looks like they are kind of far away and also 2 and 3. Olsen: 14 I think can but 13 definitely doesn't and they don't really any other room to go. They are right on the edge now. Emmings: And they are bumping into the pipeline right away. Olsen: Yes, that's the same with 2 that they are going to have problems with siting the septic systems because of the pipeline. Lot 3, I believe they have room to move it. Emmings: Just looking at 2 Jo Ann, why can't that one that's real close to the wetland go way back up over by where the number 5 appears on the south lot line on Block 2. Why couldn't that go over there? Olsen: I'm not saying it can't. I just want them to show us a plan showing that they can meet it. Make it a condition that they provide a new plan ~ther showing the rearrangement of lots or whatever is necessary showing Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 31 ~hat those setbacks are maintained. Emmings: Is this Class B wetland that is lined off here. Would I read this right that there are arrows going out of that to the... Olsen: It's used for drainage. Emmings: And does that drain up into that other wetland? Olsen: Yes. It goes into the large Class A wetland which eventually goes into Lake Riley. Emmings: Is that going over ground? Olsen: Over ground yes. Except for under the streets. Emmings: Have our consultants that look at all the soil borings and everything else, have they looked at this plan and considered it's effect on this wetland or has our engineer? Olsen: The engineer has looked at it. The consultants have not specifically looked at the mound and drainfield sites into this wetland, no. I didn't point it out to them and they didn't refer to it in their report. ~mings: Is that the kind of thing that we're asking them to do or is what ~'re asking them to do different than that? Olsen: Actually all we are having them do is to review the soil boring tests. Erhart: They did do borings at those sites where the dots are? Olsen: Yes and what I do then, is if I find any questions I call them. They are gone every other week on seminars and they were gone this week. Emmings: I think that deserves a lot more attention. I think we maybe ought to find out from them what they think the impact on the wetland if that is the kind of information they can give us. We ought to try and rearrange stuff because that looks like a bad situation to me. Otherwise, I think it's a nice plan. Wayne Tauer: I believe three of those lots can be very easily be solved by simply moving the location. When those sites were picked, it was done by a separate consultant. A specialist in doing soil borings and percolation tests and unfortunately we had to almost draw boxes around where he poked holes in the ground. In the two that are on the north side, they can certainly be moved and get 150 feet away from that wetland. I believe Lot 14 is so close to 150 and if you want a scale, I have one here. I think they are right at 150 or very close to that. I think it is really a questionable ~all. The only one I believe is possibly Lot 13. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 32 ttrhart: That Class B wetland, is that cultivated currently? Wayne Tauer: It's not cultivated right now. I think the reason it did exist is the fact that the farmer didn't cultivate it. In fact I think what happened, if you look real closely to the contours, technically by the contours it should drain. Somewhere along the line that outlet got plugged and over a period of years, and it doesn't take very long, we've run into this a number of times, within 4 or 5 years it will turn into a wetland by itself. I personally walked that with Dr. Elizabeth Rockwell, who's out at Fish and Wildlife Service and also John Smith out of the Corps of Engineers. I brought them out to this site to view both wetlands. They didn't have really any concern about that Class B wetland and the fact that the Class A wetland on the east side there was totally being undisturbed, they were impressed with that. They gave us a nice letter of recommendation. Thanking us for what we're doing here not trying to develop the property to it's maximum so they had no specific problems with crosssing it with a road or the pipeline goes across it. All they said is maintain it the best you can and we are putting it on the side lot line and we're going to maintain it in the best possible manner we can. Erhart: The cul-de-sac to the east there, does that have another easement to take that through to the other property? Olsen: . _at we Erhart: We looked at that and we just determined that with the topography did not want to push that through right now. Or any time in the future? Olsen: We are not planning on it. Erhart: Gary, did you look at it too and that's something you decided was not a good idea? Warren: I think pioneer Trail being realigned too and it will help us for procurring the racetrack through the area, didn't diminish the importance of that. Erhart: If we approve this, how does that work with these variances? For example, let's say we approve the recreational beachlot conditional use for essentially all the homeowners are involved other than those on the beach itself. If we approve that tonight, that automatically gives them the variance? Is that how that works? Olsen: Yes. Erhart: So we don't have to spell that out as a separate item. Likewise with the Class B wetland. If we just simply approve per your recommendation, those variances become automatic? Okay, what about the trails? Again, I agree the best place to have the trails is on the south but in the worse case we can run it here, do those need to be, I guess that's just automatic with ~ur description? It doesn't have to be separated out? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 33 4tlsen: No, it will be along when they come through with the final plan they will have the definite easement on there. Erhart: Then my only comment is I would like to see us state in our recommendations to try and move those septic systems further away from that Class B wetland if possible if you proceed with the proposal. That's all I've got. Conrad: I'll wrap it up here rather quickly. Jo Ann, you made a comment that the road across the Class B wetland will not impact the function of drainage. Why not? Olsen: They are putting in a culvert underneath the road so essentially the drainage still be allowed to flow right through. It won't be stopping the drainage. Conrad: It will be following it right versus spreading it out. Olsen: Right. The drainage will be directed to the culvert. Conrad: The lower road goes over the Class B wetland, right? The westerly road goes over a B wetland. Why are we allowing that? Olsen: We looked at it as far as the impact to the wetland. ~nrad: Can't the road go around? Warren: I think from an alignment standpoint it would be pretty tough to do with some sharp radius'. I think really the status of that wetland is a marginal B wetland at best. We were just talking about a corner of it and it's not really disturbing it. It's an upstream corner of that wetland so the real benefit of the wetland, such as it can still be preserved wasn't a major impact on it. Conrad: So how does the water get under that road? Warren: There is another culvert. There is one culvert under the road that carries any water that will be spilled off of the west side of the road would still pass through as it had before into the wetland. Conrad: But passing through a culvert isn't the same. I guess what I'm getting to, we are in a sense, Lake Riley is not the best of lakes and I think a lot of agencies and citizens are concerned about pollution. It's not in good shape. What we're doing right now is kind of tampering with a couple of areas that are the control of pollution going into the lake. It's hard for me to assess the impact of taking farming out of here and it's impact on the lake and now reducing the impact with some people and 42 houses but the wetland ordinance said that it is there to do a couple of things and one is to kind of protect downstream waters. As soon as you put a culvert in, ~ou're taking away some of the things that it used to do. Class B wetlands ~ other classes of wetlands is my undestanding so it's not just a Class B. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 34 ~here are other classes besides A and B so we're not at the bottom of the totempole in terms of wetlands. It is a B wetland and our ordinance says that if you have a B wetland you probably don't want to disturb it unless you can prove that really you're not doing anything and in fact, you've been helping the nutrient striping capacities or whatever. I don't see that and it may be but I don't see it on a report right now. Therefore, I don't see a reason right now, I haven't seen a hardship for putting a road elsewhere. 2 1/2 acre subdivision in this area is not a hardship in my mind. I think moving a road a few feet around a Class B is not going to be damaging and maybe it is but I haven't seen alternative road alignments. I would be interested, if somebody could pursuade me that you're going over the tip is not a damage I think that is fine but I still have a problem when you put a culvert under that, it's not doing the same drainage things that it has in the past. Then downstream from the Class B we have another road and again, I'm kind of interested in how this nutrient striping capacities and all the things we want to do for this property is going to be taken care of as we pass under that road. Those are concerns and I would just like to have somebody like from the Fish and Wildlife Service or from Staff, Gary yourself included, tell me that we're not damaging Lake Riley because of these things we're doing. I see a line here on our Staff report but that doesn't tell me that we've really taken a good look at it and it's just what the wetland ordinance is trying to do. I don't think I could vote for this in terms of the other things that the Staff and Planning Commission has said. The setbacks in my mind have got to be 150 feet back. Have got to be. There is ~ust no doubt in my mind. It's not even a hope but it's got to be back from Whe wetlands. It's not that we're dealing in a rural area where there is no water. This is flow into Lake Riley with 42 septic systems that in 22 years might have a problem and I think we have to be planning ahead for that. I think in my mind I would sure like to see what the developer can do in terms of setbacks. I don't think they're difficult things but I'm not saying that 42 lots is what I need to review here either. In a 2 1/2 acre subdivision, I think that's very liberal. I think we could find ways to put roads in that amount of property without damaging some of the things that we're trying to protect. Again, technical advice can persuade me around that but I haven't seen it yet. I haven't seen some of the notes that I guess I would like to see reassuring me that we've been taken care of here so my bottom line is that I have a problem simply because of the drainage and the impact on Lake Riley. The overall development looks real good to me. I think that is an impressive design. If I can be satisfied on erosion control during development and I can be satisfied in terms of drainage, I think I can vote for that but not at this point in time. Wayne Tauer: Talking about your wetlands, the culverts going across the road will not effect the effectiveness of wetlands. The fact that the culvert is there isn't going to change anything. The only thing that will change the effectiveness of that wetland is the elimination of whatever we did to take out that road. The phosphate levels are taken out by the vegetation basically and the fact that it could possibly sit in an area and percolate out. So those two things. The vegetation and the ability for the water to sit for a while and percolate some of these phosphates and other impurities ~t of the water. Basically, we're eliminating only a very small part of the Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 35 ~egetation by putting it across there. A culvert has nothing to do with it as I understand. Ultimately the water gets to Lake Riley but there are two other stages for that water before it gets to Lake Riley. One is the Class B wetland which will not effect the quality of water dramatically. There is vegetation in there that will start taking on some of those things. The real treatment is going to happen in the Class A wetland. The reason for that is, unless we have a very dramatic storm, I'm talking the 100 year event, there isn't going to be water collecting down there. That Class A wetland does not drain immediately. I have an aerial photo here. If you put the lake away from you tha t wou ld be nor tho As you can see where the wa ter now ex i sts, there is a fairly large area beyond that before it actually starts running out of that wetland and that would all have to fill up before it started overflowing getting into Lake Riley. In fact I believe there are some more wetlands before it actually dumps into Lake Riley and maybe Jo Ann can back me up on that. We have a number of stages here before that water actually reaches Lake Riley. It's going to quite purified through the vegetation. Through the fact that it would sit unless we had a very major storm where it would fill those things up and then dump over. That is point one that I wanted to make. Point number two is that I just went through an Environmental Assessment Worksheet program in the city of Lakeville because we were depositing water from our project into Crystal Lake. We had to go through an EAW. A gentlemen by the name of Brian Christensen, who is the head of the SCS office out of Lakeville, Soil and Water Conservation, reacted and was one of the participants in the EAW. He stated in our EAW that ~rmland greatly contributes to phosphates and pollutants in the water far "'ore than single family subdivision. We were talking standard lots in this subdivision. We're talking 10,000 to 12,000 square foot. Not the 2 1/2 acres. Another thing I would like to point out too, as far as the quantity of water that we're actually going to be generating on this property. Right now, I suppose a cold fission run-off, in other words, for every 10 drops that hit ground, maybe two, maybe three will run off now in the present condition because of the grassland. Because of the trees. We do have some slopes there and they will run-off more there. I'm guessing. Maybe about 3. Maybe the engineer can help me on that but the fact that we're going to put in some hard surfaces. Some streets and rooftops and driveways, I don't think we're going to increase the run-off on an overall basis very dramatically. It might go up by 1/2%. It might go 3.5% possibly 4% so we're not going to increase the volume amount from this property. Especially with the kind of development we're having dramatically at all. In fact, I think the quality of water is going to be dramatically better just because of the fact that we're not going to be putting fertilizer down on a mass basis like the farmers have done. It looks as though they have been growing corn and soybeans and those kind of things. I don't exactly what farmers put on their crops but if you wanted to put that name down, Brian Christensen out of Farmington office, you could call him tomorrow. I know it's not an answer tonight but he will back what I just said. I don't know if that would convince you but we're not going to hurt Lake Riley. I'm relatively positive of that. Conrad: I think your point on the farmland is right. I think the farmland ~es a lot more damage than what you're proposing. My concern still stands Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 36 .s to a few of the other things that I mentioned. My concern still is that the ordinance for wetlands is there and I sure would like to have somebody in a technical capacity, whether it's the Fish and Wildlife Service or our own Staff, reassure me that when we fill in a Class B wetland, we are doing it knowing what we're doing, not that we can put a culvert under it. I'm maintaining the ordinance as it was developed. Wayne Tauer: One thing I forgot to react to is why the street is there. We were committed or pushed to, I would maybe say, that location as it comes off of CR 14. Two reasons. One, the County requires a distance between inter- sections. First off, the TH 101 and CR 14 intersection is a major intersec- tion and who knows what that volume of traffic is going to be in the future so they make you spread those things out. Two, is we were required to match a street corning out of the subdivision to the south which is the Halla Subdivi- sion. We could certainly move that street farther to the west and corne between Lots 27 and 26 possibly and stay out of that wetland fringe and maybe push the cul-de-sac the other direction but again, the County is one of the dictators and also the City is one of the dictators that we corne in at that location so we're kind of in trouble there too. You get forced into these little boxes that you can't sometimes get out of. Alan Dirks: Just a quick rebuttal on what he had to say on the farmland versus city lots. That's true what he is saying when you go through the septic systems, as far as the land fertilizer versus the farmer's fertilizer, 4IJhat's true but when you throw in septic systems. Conrad: Whoever makes the motion, we can do a lot of things. We can table it for more information on variances for our beachlot. We can pass it with additional comments on beachlot and whatever you would like. I think I just wanted to remind whoever is going to make the motion that we are not in sync in the beachlot. It is a variance. We're not close. Emmings: It's down there as two separate items Ladd. They've got the subdivision and wetland alteration permit in one and the beachlot in the second so I think the distinction is there. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-25 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #86-3 with the following conditions: 1. Submit a detailed grading plan providing the preservation of the mound sitE on Lot 14, Block 1 and not permitting road drainage over the mound site before final plat approval. 2. Submit a plan showing the mound sites oriented with the contours. 3. Submit approved percolation tests for the drainfield site on Lot 14, Block 1. . 4. All streets must have a grade of 8% or less. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 37 e 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. Designate the property between existing CR 14 and the realignment of CR 14 as an outlot which will be considered unbuildable. Any acess onto CR 14 must receive a permit from Carver County. The final plat must designate additional 27 feet of right-of-way along TH 101 and all remaining lot areas shall contain 2.5 acres. A phasing plan must be provided before final plat approval. All disturbed areas must be immediately restored. There shall be no clear cutting within the shoreland area except for public roads, structures and utilities. A plan designating areas of clear cutting must be provided. No direct access from Lots 18-25, Block 1 will be allowed to TH 101. The developer enter into a developers agreement with the City to guarantee completion of improvements. 14. Provide a schedule to the City indicating phasing of the project if such is the intent of the developer. e 15. Submit a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan to the City prior to construction. 16. Submit construction plans to Williams Pipeline Company for review and approval prior to construction. 17. With respect to Lots 2, 3, 13, and 14 in Block 2, that some reconfiguration be done to get all septic systems 150 feet away from the wetland. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the motion carried. Conrad: I'm opposed for several reasons. I think the structures should be 150 feet away in the wetlands as well as the septic systems and I think the Class B wetland should not be crossed because there are alternatives. Three, I don't think they have enough technical information to tell me that the road alignment and the dealings with the wetlands are not going to impact the nutrient stripping capacities of the wetlands. This will go to City Council when? Olsen: March 16th. Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to table the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot until Staff prepares the repercussions and alternatives to issuing a variance in the rural areas. All voted in favor of tabling 4IJxcept Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 38 .onrad: Basically because that I could have voted on logic but it certainly was I voted on the first negatively and I don't know this one positively. I'm not sure if that is good logical to me. PUBLIC HEARING: SADDLEBROOK - BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT - LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET:--- A. REZONE APPROXIMATLEY ~ ACRES OF RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY AND 8.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO R=T2, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENYfAL. ----- B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE 8.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW ---------- DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY. C. SUBDIVIDE 74 ACRES INTO 30 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY, 100 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY AND 8.2 ACRES OF ATTACHED MULTIPLE FAMILY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY R-4, ~IXED MEDIUM DENSITY, AND R-l, ~IXED HIGH DENSITY. D. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PONDING AREAS IN AND AROUND A -- -- CLASS B WETLAND. tl5UbliS Present: Jane and Cecil Kubitz Bernard Kerber Vernon J. Kerber 7492 Saratoga 221 West 77th Street 7241 Powers Blvd. Olsen: The property is located between Powers and Kerber Blvd. just north of West 78th Street. It's south of Chaparral and east of Chan vista and kitty corner from Triple Crown. The applicant, is going through a rezoning request, a land use plan amendment, preliminary plat and wetland alteration. The property is currently zoned residential single family and the land use is residential low density. As far as the_ r~zoning, right now it is residential single familv. The applicant is pT-cposing to rezone the north from single family to R-4 which is a mixed low density. There are going to be 30 single family doubles an6 32 single family lots. The R-4 district allows doubles and singles' ; lots. Single family lots have to be 15,000 square feet but they can have a width of 80 feet rather than the 90 feet in the regular single family development. As far as the rezoning request, it is adjacent to quad homes and twin homes which has a much higher density. It will act as a buffer between the high density area and the single family area. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. As far as the single family area, that will still maintain as a single family. The other rezoning area would be the southerly 8.2 acres which is being proposed as high density. Again, the property just to the south is zoned as high density so it would be in conformance with that. The high .nsity site is essentially separated from the remaining site by topography Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 39 4Ito itls a good separation and R-12 was thought to be a better use for that because of the slope and high density of the other site. As far as the land use plan amendment, this land is currently designated residential single family and that is one unit to 3.4 units per acre. The overall density for the area up to the multiple family is still under that designation so that will still remain as residential low ,density. R-12 zoning allows 12 units per acre so this area has to be rezoned to high density. We have this designation to the south so it would be in conformance with the surrounding properties. As far as the densities. The doubles have a net density of 2.2 units per acre. The single family within the R-4 district has 2.5 units per acre and the remaining single family lots have a density of 3.2 units per acre. As far as the preliminary plat, there are 82 acres and the proposal is for 30 double lots, 34 single family and the R-4 District has 76 single family in the remaining single family area and then 8.2 acres of multiple family. The average lot size for the double lots is 13,600. For the single family within the R-4, it is 17,500 and within the remaining single family is 19,800. All the lots meet the minimum zoning requirements. As far as streets are concerned, there is one major street connecting Kerber to Powers Blvd.. This one has a 60 foot right-of-way. The required right-of-way is 50 feet for the urban section. All streets do meet the minimum street requirements. There is over 300 foot separation between the access points on Kerber Blvd. with the curve and access points for Chan vista so that does meet again with City standards. The applicant will have to receive a permit from Carver County for the access points onto to Powers ~lvd. and no direct access on either Kerber or Powers Blvd. will be allowed. ~rber Blvd. will be required to be improved with curb and gutter along the westerly side to make it conform with the urban section on Kerber to the north. utilities are available to the property. Water can be serviced from Kerber and Powers Blvd. The sanitary sewer will be provided from Powers Blvd. to the southerly part of the site and from Kerber Blvd. for the northerly part. As far as grading and drainage, the applicant is providing storm sewer throughout and ponding areas. There is ponding to the north and then the two smaller ponding areas to the south. The Watershed District was requesting a discharge pipe from the pond on the north through the ravine rather than overland drainage. We met this week with the applicant and we are finding that there might be some other alternatives that would work better to reduce the amount of erosion so he will be working with city staff and the Watershed District to find out exactly what the most ideal option would be for that site. Staff is requiring final erosion control plans to be provided prior to approval. We also are requesting the conservation easement along the pond to the south and along the ravine in the north. We set the 960 elevation. Welre finding that that really cut some of the buildable area, some of the lots, Lots 9, 10 and 11, and that is not necessary to preserve some of those ponds. What welre going to be doing is coming up with a set d i stance from the pond i ng area to the wet land to prov ide open space. Again, we will be working with the applicant. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this and again wanted trail easements along the major roads. Along Powers Blvd., Kerber Blvd., these are the off-street trails and also off-street trails along the 60 foot right-of-way road and then along this road. Also, the applicant has supplied a 2.1 acre park in 4Ife north to connect it with the existing parks in the north. The Park and Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 40 4Itec Commission felt that this additional parkland really wasn't required. They had enough park area for the needs in the site. They are willing to take it but they are not going to reduce any park dedication fees for it. The applicant is taking this under consideration and might bring in a new plan to show additional lots and remove that parkland. As far as the wetland alteration permit, the zoning ordinance aP1. wetland alteration permit for putting ponds into the area. This wetland is similar to the one we just reviewed, a Class B wetland and it is actually just a drainage area. Ms. Rockwell felt that the ponding area, if anything, would improve the site so she did not have any objection to it being used as a drainage area. Again, we have the 75 foot setback for structures. What Staff is requesting is that the ordinary high water mark of the wetland area be designated and those setbacks shown. I mentioned that we had a meeting this afternoon and I passed out the new conditions. I think I went through most of these. These conditions should be inserted into the conditions that Staff has put into the report. We are recommending approval of the rezoning, the land use plan, the preliminary plat and the wetland alteration with the conditions that we have set forth. Conrad: Jo Ann, what's the overall density? Olsen: I just separated it. Conrad: Excluding the high density. I don't care about that but the 4liesidential. In the future could you do that in our reports? Olsen: Okay. I just kept it separate. Rick Murray: It's going to be very brief this time of the evening. 1.89 is the overall density. I think Staff did any awfully good job explaining. We had some parameters that we dealt with initially. Just the fact that we had both the County Road, a major city collector street and then seemed to be sandwiched north and south with high density on both ends. As Jo ann explained we tried to buffer the sequence between develops so we've got the center, basically the high plateau property that's where we concentrated our 20,000 to 30,000 square foot lots. The transition goes from quads to twin homes going into some single family lots. Those single family lots still have an average of 17,500 square feet roughly so there is still a lot above the 15,000 square foot minimum. Then transition into our regular single family lots. I think the best way to see the natural break in the ground is on the topography map. On the south side of the site we have the two ponds which is part of a grazed out pasture but evidentally there are some grasses that are typical of maybe a marsh Class B wetland in that area. The significant part of that wetlands actually occurs, which would be our southwest corner of the plat. It is marked on your grading and drainage contour map with little "s" marks around it. You will note that our ponding are does not go into that which is identified. The rest of the report I think was done very well. We have a couple concerns yet especially related to the number of trails which maybe would be better addressed at the City Council. Another thing that was in my mind, about the only substantial stand ef t r e est hat we h a ve 0 nth e sit e i s com i n g 0 nth e nor the as t cor n e r 0 f the Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 41 4Itite through that ravine. The Watershed District did indicate a desire maybe to pipe the outflow from that pond. If they do that, in my opinion I think you are going to ruin or substantially impact a lot of those trees just getting in there with your equipment to put the pipe in. We were looking at some other alternatives this afternoon and Staff thinks that maybe there are some that would be very viable in this situation to slow the release of that water so we're going to investigate that further. Conrad: Is that in our recommendation Rick? Olsen: Number 6. Rick Murray: Other than that, if you have questions of a technical nature, I brought my engineer along, Rick Sathre. He's got some remarks he would like to make. Rick Sathre: We were a little surprised at the desire for the trails. As we understand the Park and Rec Commission's recommendations, they would like to get as much of the pedestrian traffic off of the streets as they can. In fact, Staff had a board put together showing through the use of a green marker, someone has shown trail links on this plan. Basically the desire is to get an off the paved driving surface trail along Kerber and Powers Blvds. and also provide some cross links within the plat on minor residential streets to get pedestrian circulation from one collector street, Kerber, the ~ajor collector in the area, to the County Road, Powers Blvd.. We'll work .ith the Staff to try and make provisions to put in whatever trails you think are appropriate. As we understand that the Park and Rec Commission wishes to have a separate 6 foot trail that wouldn't be part of the street. It would be set behind the curb. I'm not sure that we need this level of trails within that subdivision. I think it is a much greater degree of trailway than you find in any other subdivision in town. I think that is something we should look at as we go forward. I was really speaking to the condition 1 where we had some questions before today about what was meant by additional right-of-way or sufficient right-of-way to provide a trail corridors. We can certainly work to help to grade in a trail corridor behind the curb area so they can be built. The condition 2 in the amended conditions deals with the potential for upgrading to an urban section, the Kerber Blvd. street. As you may recall, south of Chaparral all the way down past City Hall, the road is now a rural section with ditches and the City may wish to upgrade that street to put in concrete curb and make it a more residential looking street. We will work with the Staff if the City decides to do that project, we'll upgrade that street, we work with them to accommodate the City but we would like to make the point that in the initial construction of the road, the property was already assessed more than what we think a normal residential street could buy. Probably 130% of that for what a normal street should cost and we wish not to be involved in paying for making the street it's ultimate 45 foot width. The third amended condition deals with the setback from the pond. We too, we'll work with the Staff to define the area that we need to protect. Our general intent in the transition area between the RSF District and the proposed R-12 zoning district is to create a good buffer between the ~wo zoning districts and to protect the lower portions of those slopes. We Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 42 4Itay chose to propose a restrictive covenant or something rather than a conservation easement if it seems like it would work better for all concerned. We too would like to see the lower portions of those slopes protected in some way so everybody can enjoy them and not just perhaps one homeowner. In lieu of that, I guess I'll close unless you have questions. Conrad: Just for clarification, Rick you said that your ponds were not going to be in the Class B wetlands. Did you say that? Rick Murray: I probably did but you're not going to be meaning what you would look at is a Class B wetland. Ms. Rockwell was out there. The rest of that area is all grazed out. It's all pasture. When you walk around in it I guess you can find some plants that would be typical of a first water area or what maybe could have been a stretched out wetlands but there's not much. I was looking at it. You don't see it unless you're right down looking at it. Olsen: It's on our wetland map, it's farther ,than what is shown. Rick Sathre: We wish to enhance the lows, the drainage areas, drainage basins by draining open water. Maybe I should go back to that plan that shows the blue on it. Our basic premise here is to control the rate of discharge or run-off off the site at the current levels so we worked with the City Engineer to preliminarily establish what those rates are and how much volume of storage we needed to implement to protect the downstream owners. .he intent is to dig and create those open water bodies shown on the plan as ~orage for run-off. Conrad: Jo Ann when we sayan R-4 District requires 15,000 square feet of land and 80 frontage and we look at the land and it's less than that, what does that mean? All I'm doing is starting with the regulations that are applying to what we're going to talk about. Olsen: If it was less than that we would require a variance. Conrad: So in the R-4 areas, there are lots... Rick Murray: Ladd, they will all be single family lots in there. Maybe you're looking at the attached doubles on the north end of the plat and those have a different standard I believe for square footage. Conrad: And where is that standard Jo Ann? Rick Sathre: The standards in the R-4 for the double lots, you have to have 10,000 square feet per half of double and you have to have at least 50 feet of lot width at the street and we meet or exceed both of those standards on every lot. Rich Murray: We used 60 feet of frontage there. Olsen: es, 30 And on the cul-de-sacs we take the frontage with whatever the setback feet at that point where they have to have 80 feet, 50 feet. Also, Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 43 .eal quick, lot sizes. the net density is 2.4 overall. That's just net. It doesn't include the multi-family area. That's all the Rick Sathre: That 1.9 number that I threw out, that included every bit of land except the multi-family. Erhart: The material that you dig out for the ponds, where is that going? Rich Sathre: We'll use it in the area that is immediately around the ponds for landscaping. We'll bring it uphill from the pond. In fact, a lot of it will be very good use for when we regrade for structural fill. Erhar t: Do you know in advance wha t the wa ter level is go i ng to be when you do this? Rick Sathre: I'm able to assign an elevation because we design fix the level at the outflow. We'll design those ponds for the event so the flow can be accommodated for each of those things. storm comes, the pipe just won't overflow. the pipe to 100 year If a lesser Erhart: What are we doing, we have to rezone it and what you view as good planning as far as blending densities. That's the overall reason. Conrad: While you're on the subject, Jo Ann can you show us our current ~omprehensive plan that shows how this relates? Olsen: With the land use plan designation? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: Again, there is a difference between the zoning and the land use designations. This is the land use plan. What you're doing is amending the land use plan to have high densities in through here. This will already be low density so you don't have to change the density. Conrad: On the west, what is the land use plan? Olsen: The land use plan on the west is commercial. Right now the zoning is high density. The zoning is R-12 right here and PUD to the north. Rick Murray: The Zoning map is the third map in the back and the Land Use plan then would be the fifth map in the back. Erhart: You see double homes as transition from the quad homes to the single homes? Rick Sathre: That's what we're using in the rear yard. Then we're using the pond as a transitional buffer down to the single family in the R-4 zone. The easiest step from those single family lots that are allover 15,000 square feet to the pond. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 44 tltmmings: My only question is the impact of the pond on the square footages that are listed, particularly on Lot 2. Are the numbers that are on the, let's just take an example of Lot 10, Block 2. It says it is 17,600 square feet. That number does not take the pond into account. Rick Sathre: That includes the pond bottom, that is correct. Since it wasn't already a wetland basin, we are creating it, we didn't think that we should exempt that from the square footage but what we did as a practical matter was to try and set the lot up so that there was a reasonable useable rearyard space behind the proposed structure so the people wouldn't fallout of the rear door into the pond. Emmings: But what would be the square footage of Lot 10 from the normal high water mark at elevation 974, from there what does that leave for buildable area on the lot? Rick Sathre: From the 974 elevation, from there to the street it's 150 feet on Lot 10 and we're 60 feet wide, I think it's 9,000 square feet that is high and dry. Rick Murray: There is no guarantee that that pond will always have water. The 100 year flood plan at the height of 974 is the normal high water mark. If we get an exceptionally dry year, those numbers will... tljmmings: Or a muddy mess depending on how you want to characterise it. Rick Sathre: We were trying to hold that level as best we can but right now a lot of the ponds are very low. I hope that won't be an on-going problem. Our drainage area to that pond is about 70 acres if I recall. It should be pretty easily self sustaining. Emmings: Does the net density figure you gave us take that pond into account? Olsen: No, I just added all the lot areas and that would reduce it. Siegel: Maybe this went right over my head and it might have been answered before but what is the Zoning Ordinance regulation of the R-4 district required minimum lot area number of 15,000 square feet and minimum lot frontage of 80 feet, how does that rationalize with those twin homes in the R-4 district in the area? Olsen: There is separate regulations for the twin home lots and then there is a separate regulation for single family lots in the R-4 district. The double lots have 10,000 square feet each lot and 50 foot wide with each side. Siegel: That's allowable in the R-4 District? Olsen: That's the R-4 district but for single family lots you still have to have 15,000 square feet but the width has been reduced to 80 feet. The lot _rontage. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 45 .iegel: homes? And that's why the proposed R-4 is split into single family and twin Olsen: Actually the applicant can probably explain this better but they wanted some more buffered area between. Rick Murray: Basically the reason it is done Bob is to provide a transition for what we hope are our more valuable lots in the single family. From the high density lots. Siegel: I guess my question on that is once this area is zoned R-4, what if you decide to put twin homes on all these lots? Rick Murray: it. You are going to approve a preliminary plat which these lots on Siegel: Now we've also approved the rezoning to R-4. Olsen: What would happen with that is they would have to come through and for an amendment to the preliminary and final plat. Siegel: And what would be our recourse to say no if it's already been rezoned? ~lsen: You could say that it was previously approved for single family. .at the doubles do not conform with the area. That you would be having doubles right next to single family. That the smaller single family lots are needed for transition. You can just throw back the same reasons that they are asking for this. Rick Murray: If it will make you more comfortable, you can include that as a condition right now. Siege 1: I guess my other concer n is why does th i s 1 i ne go beh i nd the houses instead of down the middle of the street? Rick Murray: We found that the best place for transition between properties is in the rear of the lot as opposed to the front. Siegel: I guess that was my concern because you going from single family to single family so what transition are we talking about? Olsen: Smaller lots. Siegel: Some of the lots on the other side are smaller. Rick Murray: You're absolutely right Bob. The only transition you're going to have is in that R-4 zone you find that some of those lots have 80 foot frontages. I don't know what the majority of them are. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 46 4Itick Sathre: They are predominately that. The curvatures of the road and the intersections work out so you didn't have some extremely large lots and you had some consistency in there. They are predominantly 80 to 85 feet. Siegel: Yes, but there are only a couple that are 80 or 82 on that south side of the street. Rick Sathre: A lot of them are much more than that. That's correct. Siegel: I guess that's why I'm expressing a concern here. Why we're putting the R-4 District behind those homes instead of in front of them. If the reasoning is to create organization, and you're going here from at 16,700 square foot lot to 15,700 in the RSF District and there are other inconsistencies there, 16,700 and 15,000. All along there it doesn't seem to make sense that we would be drawing that line behind the homes instead of in front of them where on the other side of the street you have a predominantly large number of 80 foot frontages which would be a transitional phase. I'm just talking common sense zoning. Natural transition doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be behind the lots on that side of the street. Rich Sathre: I think if you focus on the lot widths at the street, what you're saying it is confusing but as we were designing the lot widths, our design standard in the R-4 District, we were trying to achieve a nice lot with a 80 foot wide lot width at the building site as well. Some of the lots ~onverge down as you go back. I think if you spent the time to plot a house ~t on a lot and look at how wide is the lot at the rear of the home, you're getting down to that 80 foot dimension. Really, the only difference between the RSF, single family lots and the R-4 single family lots would be in the total structure width allowing. The setbacks are 10 feet in each case. It's just on an 80 foot lot we would be building up to a 60 foot wide home on an RSF and 90 foot wide lot we could 70 foot wide but I'm not sure that's going to be that easy to perceive either with the variety of houses. I'm going on and on but I think the rear yard transition is more appropriate than a front yard, across the street transition. That's where we thought it was the wisest place to do that. Siegel: If it's all single family in this case, I don't see a transition. You're talking about transition that doesn't really exist because most of the lots along the street here are larger than the adjoining lots to the south, in many cases anyway, so I don't know what kind of transition you're talking about. Rick Sathre: Going back to what I was saying, if you measure back to where the house is, the lots on the R-4 zone are 80 feet wide. If you structures are predominantly 60 feet wide versus the 70 foot wide structures in the 90 foot lots, you're just going to tend to have a little less structure value in the R-4 lots than you would in the RSF lots. We're trying to fight that stigma of having the transition from the quads, which are nice homes but they are smaller. They've got a different lifestyle. We're trying to move up into the site to where the 90 foot lots are very capable of supporting any ~ind of or any value of home someone might chose to build. Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 47 .iegel: I guess what you're talking about then is the price of the homes that are going to be put on the lots and it is a better transition to a more expensive home through a rear yard transition than it is... Rick Sathre: Exactly. Siegel: Okay, then I guess it makes a little more sense that you wouldn't want to look across the street at a cheaper home. Rick Sathre: We had a difficult planning process on this site. We've got a future very heavily traveled Powers Blvd. to the west. Kerber Blvd. someday will be much more heavily traveled. We have a PUD with doubles and quads on the north and R-12 zoning to the south so somewhere in that box of this site we had to do the transitional thing. I hoped we had done a good job of transitioning. No transitioned to us so we're trying to do it on the site. Siegel: Was there any regulations as far as accesses? I notice there are two streets coming in off of Kerber Blvd. and three coming off of Powers. What is the anticipated access for your multi family units down here coming from the south? Rick Sathre: There is a suitable access point on Kerber directly on the site but we would have some hope of having that outlot combined in ownership with the land to the south so it could be developed in conjunction with that. ....here are two alternatives but I think it would be logical to assume that 'lbme sort of circulation system could go back and forth across the south property line to tie the two together. Siegel: I just want to make a comment that it seems to me, maybe just because of the general planning process, but we seem to be sandwiching in residential single family of fairly substantial investment into a multi- family unit and a cheaper single family home to an attached double family home and I guess you go across Powers Blvd. you've got sort of a switch there. I'm not sure whether our zoning lines are where they should be in relationship to how this is developing out here. I'm not real comfortable with the flow of how Chaparral is leading in one direction to doubles, cheaper singles, more expensive singles and then to multiples and on the other side of the road we have fairly nice development going in. It seems that something is amiss in our flow. We should be, as we get to our central business district, properly be talking about more high density but it seems like as we get up here and we look a t your proposa 1 here, why shouldn't we be staying with single family residential until we get down here since we have already designated this up here as a multi-unit development and I guess there could be some proposal that would have another, if you're going to go with backyard transition, go right into single family like you're doing with the multiple down here in the single family. I just question whether our zoning is appropriate up and along this corridor to make this kind of plan the best for Chanhassen's future growth. Rick Sathre: Rick commented earlier that the really only significant tree ~and was right on the northest corner of the site. That tree stands serves Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 48 .s a transition from doubles in Chaparral to the single family R-4 lots in the northeast part of this site. There is another significant design element that we're using for transition and that is that southerly Class B wetland ravine. We thought that that ravine, that low, provided a much more logical point of transition between the R-12 district and the single family then did that artibtrary fence line that sits where the R-12 ends now, which is our south property line. We're trying to use those two features of the land to the change land use and not to use arbitrary as perhaps the line is across the Eckarkar site to the west where it goes from R-4 to RSF just in the middle of the field. Siegel: I can appreciate your concern on using the topography to make a natural break between zoning. I guess my question is whether the city is right in allowing that much R-4 zone to come south and then to go into RSF and then into multi. It just doesn't seem to jibe with my common sense. Wildermuth: I agree wi th Bob. I would like to see less of the R-4 zone. I would like to see that line between the transition between the R-4 on the street instead of in the rear yard. The other thing that bothers me is, here we are I think setting quite a precedent by calculating lot sizes and ignoring the fact that a portion of these lots are going to be pond area. It seems to me that these lots have to be recalculated with that large pond. I think a lot of sizes have to be recalculated to satisfy the minimum lot sizes. -'ck Sathre: I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would feel very much the same if we were looking at what is now a wetland with cattails. Certainly you don't want to presume that to be yours but here we're arbitrarily, artificially creating an amenity pond that is in that backyard and we think that we're adding value to the lots and those will probably will faster because there is something that is pretty and pristine out there but I don't think that since we're going the extra mile to create a nice water body that it should somehow penalize the landowner. Wildermuth: I can see your argument. I can understand that but I still think you're decreasing the buildable portion of the lot. Rick Murray: However, you are gaining frontage so from east to west or left to right on the lot, when you put a house on the lot you'll end up with a 35 by 26 foot house and... Rick Sathre: A lot of lots, even in this zoning district, that would be all that you would need. Wildermuth: The other concern I have is, I think it's the same thing that Ladd was talking about before, the storm sewer run-off. I think we need some kind of input from an authoritative body as to what the impact of the run-off would present to Lotus Lake. Headla: There's one here from Metro Council. Second paragraph, the Council 4Irnds that increase run-off into Lake Riley chain of lakes, would actually Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 49 ~ead to increases in phosphorous into Lake Riley. Wildermuth: That's not a very comforting statement is it? Headla: No. Conrad: Jo Ann, have the comments of the Met Council been incorporated into the Staff's recommendation? Olsen: No, we just received it right when the packet was going out. It is referring to the EAW and what we'll do is have them address it and it will become part of the EAW. As far as your questions with the storm water, that is what the Watershed District is looking at also. I don't know if you remembered but with Chan vista we included the creek and then we've got Triple Crown making large ponding areas so we're working with the Watershed District to insure that the run-off from all of these sites are not going to negatively impact Lotus Lake. There is a portion of the site that does end up going into Lake Susan and that's what the Met Council was referring to. He was, I think, we've got a different opinion from the Watershed District. Headla: Shouldn't that be resolved before we do something? Olsen: It can become part of the process. Usually what happens, when there are comments, to make the EAW, we work with them before we go the City eouncil. Rick Sathre: I have met with Dick Osgood a couple of times previously. He did a study on a lot of lakes in the metro area but one of them happened to be Lake Riley. What he found in his monitoring of that lake was that Rice Marsh Lake, immediately to the north, the next lake upstream from Riley, has a great reservoirs of phosphates trapped or held in it so as water is discharged through that lake basin, Rice Marsh Lake, phospherous is carried into Lake Riley where it causes algae ballons and such. He is really making a policy statement or putting in his two cents that says, gee whiz Chanhassen, when you develop this City, every time you increase the water flow off of the land it's flushing a little more phospherous into Lake Riley out of Rice Marsh Lake no matter how good a job you do upstream at cleansing the water. If it's absolutely pure water when it gets to Rice Marsh Lake, still it tends to flush the nutrients out of that body into Riley and there is only one way to solve that problem probably and that is to harvest those phosphates out of Rice Marsh Lake so they aren't flushed downstream. He doesn't have an answer for the problem either. We've asked him what can we do and he doesn't have an answer. He just said that we want you to know that that is the problem. That that is the situation. Gary Warren: I could add a couple of comments to that also. We didn't have the benefit of Dick's comments at the time the Staff Report. In talking with Dick, he calls it volume sensitive, that Lake Riley is. In other words, as Rick is saying, any water, no matter how clean, is going to flush out phospherous from that marsh down there. I think the thrust of his concern _as that at least we ought to be aware of it as a minimal and try to do what Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 50 ~e can to, I don't even of but not allowing any It's just the nature of know if harvesting phospherous is possible, in short increase run-off, there isn't much that you can do. the watershed at that point. Headla: I think there is a lot we could do. Allowing clean water going into Lake Riley is sure a lot better than polluted water. Warren: Mr. Osgood is saying no. Headla: The cleaner you can get going into the lake north of there the better off we are. Warren: Mr. Osgood, because I pressed him on that issue also, he says that it's volume sensitive. It doesn't matter if it's distilled water. It will flush out additional phospherous with every extra gallon. Headla: I think we all agree with that but if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out continually but if you put in clean, eventually you're going to get clean out so why make it any more difficult than it has to be? Warren: I don't think anybody is looking to make it any more difficult than it has to be. I think what the concern is, Dick is raising some concern and has spent a lot of time within the last several years in doing lake sampling ~or Met Council and some of things basically are relatively new findings on ~s part and I think we're hoping to have some of the solutions. Rick Sathre: The long term solution to Rice Marsh Lake's problems might be to try and dike some run-off around the lake so that it isn't constantly flushing. That would be a tremendous undertaking unfortunately. If the water didn't go through that lake, we wouldn't have that problem. Noziska: I don't have that much in addition to what has been discussed already. I do, when you look at the transition from one to the next, I'm not so sure that having backyards make the transition is any better than to do it across the street. Here's it's done more naturally. Headla: The only thing I have is this last sentence. The project should include appropriate measures to protect this lake. Apparently Dick didn't give you any idea of what these appropriate measures were. Then there is no way to work it out in the resolution. Conrad: The way I'm interpret it is, he is saying that we should be looking to the EAW in looking for a solution. He didn't give us one but he is saying. There are some new things in here that I'm not aware of. Both Lake Riley and Lotus have been identified as priority lakes and I was unaware of that. When you hear that and then he says that we should be looking at, I think that's important but he is saying to solve it through the EAW process. Olsen: What we need to find out to be the direction in the EAW. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 51 .onrad: And how does that process work Jo Ann? Olsen: We check into many of the comments made and give them back to the applicant and they address them in the EAW. Again, with this situation, when we met with Dick Osgood he said he does not know of any options to alleviate this problem. It's just something that he has found and he believes that this is what is happening. As far as it being established as a priority lake, he did a lake study for the Met Council. Conrad: Was there a grant to clean up the Riley chain? Olsen: That's a whole new area. We did receive a grant from the EPA and I'm working with that right now with the Watershed District and it's kind of on hold because we were given this money but we were also given stipulations of what we had to do and we just had to clarify who was taking control and doing what but it is starting to move and that is going to be entailing all the lakes, the chain of lakes. Also, the Watershed District does a lot of these studies of the lakes which determine what the status of them and part of that was to work on that grant to improve that. Conrad: Was that grant given to Chanhassen and Eden prairie? Olsen: It's going to be given to the powers. It's specifically given to the Watershed District and the cities. 4Ibnrad: That zoning is of interest to me Jo Ann. I still don't understand what we've got here. To the east of the R-12 that is being asked, what is going up to the east? Olsen: To the east is Chan vista and that is all PUD and that's all residential single family. Conrad: What do you think about a high density going to the west of that? Olsen: It's separated. This is where the high density is and you have a low pond area, and this piece is that higher piece that the developer owns. Mr. Murray also owns that and if anything that would most likely be an area another small buildable site so it's either going to be a one or two single family. Actually I think it is separated from the single family. From a planning aspect, we have no problem. Conrad: Separated by a road but what else? Olsen: A road and a very low area. That low pond area and it goes up that high area. If it were single family right here, then we wouldn't be agreeing with that but what has happened is that there is a low area in here, you've got a high point for high density and you've got high density right here. This whole piece is going to be high density. Conrad: My concern is to the east which is what it abuts into and you're ~Ying from a planning aspect, and Rick you own that land to the east? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 52 ~iCk Murray: We own this. This pond and basin where it comes pretty much all the way down something like this, Chan vista cuts off right at this corner, the other side of that... Conrad: The City Staff recommended storm water piping of water and I think you've changed that a little bit. I'm just kind of curious why we recommended storm water piping given the fact that it's just obviously a way of getting rid of water but it's certainly not the way of stripping water of the nutrients and all the stuff that we're trying to get rid of. What was the thinking when you made that recommendation? Olsen: That recommendation came from the Watershed District who ultimately is granting the permit. Warren: I think the Watershed's reaction and also by looking at it and wanting to make sure that we didn't have an erosion problem generated from run-off from the pond, even though the rate will be controlled by the ponds to their acceptable rate, we assume to see increased volumes of run-off through that drainage area and I guess the question was the Watershed District reacted to that specifically and it's kind of an argumentive point but I said all right, if they felt that way about it then I would go along with it in saying that it should be piped. Recognizing as you say, you don't get any stripping value but the ponds will be supplementing what maybe we're taking away piping. tlhsen: They wanted to prevent the overland drainage to further erode. Conrad: Rick, we talked about curbing, we're asking them to curb? Warren: We need to look back at the State Aid project for Kerber. We want to have curb there. We've got a feasibility study currently going on for the James Property to the south and we'll be requiring curb and gutter on that portion of Kerber also so we want to continue it up and match in with Chaparral and the rest of the urban section. This will be strictly on the west side and the question is whether the property had been assessed as a part of the original Kerber construction for that improvement. We need to get back to the original records to identify that. Conrad: Why is the east side of the street not curbed? Warren: The east side drops off pretty dramatically along that side and we didn't feel that a reasonable improvement on that side in light of that. If we put curbing in there, then we would have to carry storm water down and get rid of it so on the west side, because of the trail system question also, it seemed appropriate to get rid of the rural section ditch on that side. Conrad: I think most of my other questions have been answered. I do have a concern with the comment from Metropolitan Council. I think we should be following up on that to make sure that through the EAW process we review that. Before reading that I felt pretty comfortable but just the words in eh ere, I w 0 u 1 d wan t t 0 be sur e t hat we follow i t up on w hat the in ten tan d i f Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 53 .iCk Osgood that. When review what sees some significant problems, I would sure like to know about we process this out of here, we don't have another opportunity to comes back on the EAW worksheet do we? Who gets to review that? Olsen: City Council. Conrad: So, tell me the process Jo Ann. If we say we're concerned with the run-off based on this, you're going to ask Rick Murray to do something? Olsen: And we'll be in contact with Dick Osgood. Conrad: Okay, so that is Rick's job to get back the input before the City Council meeting? Olsen: Yes, and we can bring it back to you also. If you want you can table action until those comments are addressed or to keep things going, we could possibly table council action so you would have a chance to review it again. Those all have to be addressed before the Council can approve it anyway if there are any comments or questions. It has to be in a format that Staff can recommend approval. Headla: Are we going to meet again before Council meets? Olsen: This one will go on the 16th so no we wouldn't. The next one is the ~th and then the 13th. Unless we tabled it until April 20th, that would give .u a chance to review it April 15th or else we can just go ahead with the process and trust us to address this. Headla: Couldn't we just go ahead and state that concern for the City Council? Conrad: We can do a lot of things. If you want to see the impact or if you want to know what somebody sees here, the best thing is to br ing it back. That's your only control but if you don't think that there is a solution or there isn't much here, then I think you can feel comfortable letting it go through the system and flagging it for City Council and let them deal with it. I do believe they will be concerned with it. It's not going to go under. They will be watchful I think so it's just a matter of how much you want to be involved in reviewing the thing. It doesn't sound like we can review it on a real reasonable timeframe. Headla: I don't see where we're going to add anymore value to it. If you flag it for the council, I think that is about as much value as we can do. Rick Sathre: This is really a thorny issue for Chanhassen as a whole. We're focusing on 80 acres here but when I first met with Dick Osgood it was in relationship to the Hidden Valley project down by the Legion. The same issue came up. I would guess that probably one-third or half of Chanhassen drains down through Rice Marsh Lake into Lake Riley and the same concern every time something happens. That big board over there, the downtown redevelopment, he 4Irs the same concerns about downtown that he does about this site because Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 54 4th a t wa t erg 0 est h r 0 ugh and he doesn't have one. be done. the same chain of lakes. There is no easy answer Maybe the grant, maybe there is something that can Conrad: The only reason I'm bringing it up and paying attention is because of his comments "a grave concern" and because I'm not technical enough. You're going to build here and there is going to be drainage and there is going to be water and I guess I'm just not capable of saying that the drainage right now is the best or the worst. Gary probably has some feel for it but we're hearing some technical comments and somebody that is trying to help us a little bit and I would kind of like to flush that out and if it's just like everything else, there's not anything we're going to do about it but at this time I don't know what he means. Rick Sathre: Specifically what he said about Hidden Valley, and we were directly up from Rice Marsh Lake where there is nothing you can do. Emmings: He's not just talking about Lake Riley. He's also talking about Lotus Lake. That maybe is a little different issue. We don't have Rice Marsh Lake inbetween so I think and he specifically says that the Metropolitan Council recommends the EAW be amended to assess the nature of the impacts. If the impacts are significant, the property should include proper measures to protect the lakes. If nothing else, he says it's more attention so I certainly don't disagree with him. 4Ibnrad: The last thing, the walking trails or whatever. Park and Rec recommended a couple going through here and Rick says it's too many. Is everyone comfortable with what Park and Rec recommended as far as trails through the project? Tim, you're king of trails. We all have our little things. Erhart: I think our city is sort of going through that right now. It's something that has been ignored for a long time and now all of a sudden there is a great interest in trails again. I'm just learning too because I'm just getting involved. My immediate reaction is, what the Park is proposing is essentially to have a trail on every street no matter how short it is or how small it is. Is that sort of the way it's looking? Olsen: Yes. I think they are trying to pick the major streets in a development. They consider this, which it is, a major road going through this 60 foot right-of-way so I think the minimal would be Powers, Kerber and this one. They considered this one a through street too and actually it's not. It kind of goes over here and this was an extension of it so they looked at it as two major thoroughfares. Erhart: So they don't want them along the cul-de-sacs? Olsen: No. Erhart: I couldn't see it very well on the screen. What expense is this to ~ou to put those trails in at this point? What's your concern? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 55 ~iCk Sathre: The internal streets that they are being proposed on are very minor residential streets carrying probably well under 1,000 trips per day. I don't think you could justify cost effectively or practically building a separate bituminous trail in front. Erhart: But they're not asking you to do that now. Rick Murray: afternoon and be off-street granted. Erhart: Really what you're providing is a 10 foot easement on all the lots? That's right. Part of that was resolved at the meeting this we do have as part of your amendment says that it was going to and we're to try and work that into the right-of-ways that are Rick Murray: What we're providing is a 10 foot right-of-way and if the City wants to put a path in there, that's fine. The City can do that without any cost on my part. My biggest concern is that the cities we develop in, Eden prairie is the only one that requires sidewalks and this is going to be an awful lot of sidewalk and those are the most difficult properties to get people to accept. They don't want people in their front yards. If I was developing this thing in Eden prairie, this would be the only street that I would have a sidewalk on. They wouldn't consider this a through street or this a connection because people who use this street are only people that are driving to their homes here off of this or driving to their homes here off of .his and that same argument is the reason we have this one back up to the ~rtheast. This street here. We have a connection here and then we're going to have a connection to the northeast so if there was somebody taking a shortcut from Excelsior to get to downtown, they have the impression to go to the northeast to Kerber and then downtown. Erhart: Okay, but the intent here is that we're not going to put in sidewalks at this time correct? All we're doing is we're making provisions so that in the future if the City wants to put sidewalks in, they can do it. They're not asking you to do it. Rick Sathre: I think the intent, a path for it to go and maybe that wouldn't be paved right now but I'm not sure. The details weren't worked out. Emmings: Do you know what the rationale was for adding that extra one. It seems to me having that short connector between the two major ones makes sense but are we supposed to sit here and second guess what Park and Recreation is doing? Conrad: I don't know. It seems like we should be looking at that but we very seldom get opportunities to look at trail systems. Erhart: I don't know as though we've established a philosphy here. Conrad: Maybe they have a better philosphy than we do at this point in time. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 56 4Itrhart: Maybe what we ought to do, again I don't think these developers are being asked to commit to it, and maybe it shouldn't be a great concern at this time, let's assume that the Park Commission is finally now getting on the bandwagon to develop a philosphy and maybe what we should is get a couple of their members, when they get it put together to come and talk to us about it so we know what their thinking is. Conrad: That would be fairly wise. The only thing we could put in a motion, if somebody wanted, you may want to flag that trail system as proposed and send a signal to City Council. Otherwise, you can leave it alone and let Rick fight it. Rick Sathre: The Council's decision, in my opinion, would be should we spend the money on those trails along the minor residential streets or should we use those park fees to work on the neighborhood parks or the more major trails. I don't know what their reaction will be. Conrad: I sure like them on the major streets but the interior. Rick Sathre: You understand the dotted one here? There is a cattle path under Kerber and there is a desire to have a major trail from Lake Ann over to Carver Beach or somewhere. This would serve that function. Rick Murray: That's the only one shown on the Comprehensive Plan. ~hart: Are you providing those trails in lieu of park fees. Olsen: It's within their right-of-way. Rick Murray: We're providing the 60 foot right-of-way and 50 foot right-of- way and within that, the City can work out. Erhart: It has nothing to do with park fees? Rick Murray: Right. If they ask us to build them, then of course that would come out of our fees. Rick Sathre: Park and Rec said we don't want land from you but we do want your money instead. I think that's the basis. Erhart: I tend to think they're not asking you to build those sidewalks at this time. Conrad: Not the interior ones at least. Erhart: I sure wouldn't want to be negative. With the Park and Rec bringing this up, I wouldn't want to be negative at this point. Conrad: Okay, any other issues? We have several things we have to react to in terms of zoning and the subdivision. We're concerned about the run-off. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 57 . think I've heard some concern about where we divide the R-4 area. take a motion is somebody would like to make one. I would Emmings: Before a motion is made, on the amended condition there is a 12, there is no 11, should that be ll? Olsen: That's a typo. Also, in the recommendation I've got rezoning, land use plan amendment, preliminary plat, we also need the wetland ordinance in there with what you're approving the wetland alteration permit with condition 11. (Siegel made a motion at this point in the meeting) Conrad: For clarification Bob, you want to run the R-4 on a street, not a backyard? Siegel: Yes. Conrad: You want the zone to extend from the proposed area to the north to the first street? Siegel: To the north. Rick Sathre: .ingle family ~onr ad : Yes, To clarify that, this line would be the center of the proposed detached street for the R-4 area? that's the way the motion reads now. Siegel: I just have one question Jo Ann. Once an area like this is zoned R-4 for successive property owners, what if they decide that they want to make their home into a twin home? Olsen: They have to go through the Planning Commission to go through the whole subdivision process. They wouldn't have, unles they had 100 foot width and 20,000 square feet, they wouldn't be able to do it. Siegel: Some of them do. Olsen: Right but it goes before your review and the City Council so you have the right to deny it if you don't feel it fits in with the surrounding properties. Siegel: We can refuse it even though it's a use that's allowed in the R-4 District? Olsen: Yes, you just have to establish a Findings of Fact. We've had other divisions where the proposal meets all the conditions but was still denied because - the Council did not feel that it would fit with the surrounding area so you can still deny it. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 58 .iegel: What if somebody wanted to have a daycare center in this area of the R-4 District? Olsen: That's allowed anywhere. As long as it's 12 or under. We have those almost everywhere. Probably next door to you there could be one. Siegel: That's not allowed in the single family? Olsen: Yes, it's permitted in the single family. Erhart: With the motion at hand, how would that affect your plan? Are you going to have to rejuggle some lots. Rick Murray: Probably. I would have to look at it. Bob's ini tial remarks were correct because your Zoning Ordinance only looks to frontage on the street and total square footage. It doesn't address what happens when you get back to a building pad. You can end up with a situation, as we have, along the street. Our frontages are 100 feet in some places, well in excess of what the area is zoned for. Consequently, the frontages get that wide with the reasonable depths, they're already over 15,000 square feet so that's not an issue. Along this, there're probably two or maybe three lots that will have to be juggled or maybe drop one of those but along this street, from this width to there, it's owned as more of a question of what's going to be across the street. With Bob's amendment, it won't substantially impact ~he value of what's on that lot versus the value on this lot because the ~ilding pad on this lot, you still only have 80 feet. Typically what that extra 10 feet gives you is a third garage and most of our subdivisions right now. On these lots back here, you'll have a little larger home but since most of our homes now are growing in depth versus width, the extra 10 feet in width will allow you, if necessary, to install a garage. We envisioned this street right there, maybe not having that flexibility because of the 80 foot width. Even if we move it back to there, the back is still the area that gets pinched when you have a pie coming in. It's not the street frontage so theoretically, at the back of that house right there, he still only has 60 feet. This was more the visualization of what we saw can happen as to where it should really be but it was a very astute observation. I guess I hadn't really looked at it with the fact that gee, they're allover 90 feet anyway. Erhart: Really. As far as I can see there is only one lot. Siegel: But those should be realigned with the adjoinging lots to... Rick Murray: To pick up a foot or two on either side. I agree. Siegel: The adjoining lots you've got 100 and 115 in one case. Erhart: I guess what I'm getting to, you seem to be uncertain whether there is a consensus of do we really what to do this. Is it worth it or not to have them go back and review all this? That's the only question I ask because we're talking about two lots. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 59 .iCk Murray: That change can come with the final plat. We can take your conditions and go to the City Council with this plat. The City Council can say, okay all we're going to approve is the change down the road and then when we do the final plat for our first phase, we have to incorporate that and make sure that all these lots fit that level. Is that correct Jo Ann? Olsen: Yes. Conrad: I think it's reasonable that Rick can take what he's got here to them and if they don't agree, then he's not out anything. If they do, all you do is get a magic marker. Headla: What is the direction again for the R-4 from what is being proposed? I don't understand your rationale for that choice. Siegel: From the back lots to the street. Headla: Yes. Siegel: Well, why make a larger, less intensive use of the property for reasons of transition. Rick Murray: Bob's concern, if I hear it correctly, is that the City's going out on a limb here. They're saying they're going to rezone a piece of land .4IIIIIIIl~ d may b e 0 u r com pan y sell sit and so me bod y e 1 set r y s tog eta d iff ere n t kin d ~ use out of it so why do anymore than you reasonably have to. If you take a look at this whole tier of lots that I have on the south side of this street, there's only one or two lots in there that need to be in the R-4 zoning because all the rest of them do have greater than 90 feet of street frontage and they're allover 15,000 square feet so Bob's point was it's not necessary to have them be in the R-4. You can have it here. The reason it was designed here is because the homeowner in this side of the street, we have a 60 foot building pad on a 80 foot lot with 10 foot sideyard setbacks. We like to have homes of equal value facing each other along the street. It makes for consistent streets. On this side of the street, because the road basically rolls two directions, you end up with 108 feet of frontage even though at the back here I still have 60 feet from here to here. His point is this falls within your general RSF zoning, this tier of lots pretty much falls within that RSF zoning anyway. Why change it to R-4? That's a legitimate question. Knowing what we were going to build along the street, we put it there just because we thought we needed to. You guys measure off the frontages and square footages. I always think of building pad width. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, and preliminary plat dated December 30, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. Off-street trails shall be provided along the three main streets in the development and along the westerly edge of Kerber Blvd. and the easterly edge of Powers Blvd.. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 60 e 7. 8. e 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 2. The westerly edge of Kerber Blvd. shall be upgraded with curb and gutter. 3. The City and the developer shall establish a setback from the pond areas for the conservation easement. 4. Submittal of a final grading and drainage and erosion control plan acceptable to the City, Watershed District and DNR and adherence to all conditions. 5. If construction phasing is proposed, the submittal of an acceptable phasing plan along with execution of a developers agreement with the City. 6. The City and Watershed District shall review alternatives for conveying storm water from the northern pond to mitigate erosion problems. All street and utility construction shall be consistent with City standards for urban residential development. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary for placement of all utility lines. Sanitary sewer extensions off-site in order to connect with existing municipal utilities shall be the developer's expense. Mass grading of the site will not be permitted without adequate assurances and guarantees being provided to the City. The applicant shall establish the OHWM of the Class B Wetland and establish the 75 foot setback. The R-4 zoning area follow the alignment of the street instead of the rearyard definition. Staff and developer follow-up the note dated February 23, 1987 from Dick Osgood of the Metropolitan Council to address his concerns and to review the EAW from the standpoint of the impact of storm water run-off on Lotus Lake and Lake Riley. All voted in favor of motion except James Wildermuth and David Headla and motion carried with a vote of five in favor and two opposed. Headla: I liked the split the way they proposed it. I agree with the whole motion except for the split. wildermuth: I think the pond area should be excluded from the calculation of the lot sizes. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 61 ~rhart: Can I comment on that ponding. It brings up a real problem. In one instance, if you do that youlre going to discourage developers from creating ponds. The flip side of that is how big do you allow them to make that pond. At some point the lots get too small to be practical. In this case, I don't know if that's the case but that's going to come up again. I think it's nice when developer's do go and create those kind of things. Rick Sathre: We did that to Fox Hollow and that came out very nice and liveable environment. Conrad: Jo Ann for notes, when we bring up issues I want to make sure we don't drop them. The Ordinance for towers. I want to make sure that we dig into that and add that to your worklist. I think we have to review those standards and maybe that was in a motion but I don't want to drop that. I would also kind of like to follow Jim's comment on ponds and if we can pursue that. Third thing, in this last motion we did not talk about a wetlands alteration permit in the motion itself which we should have. The motion didn't talk about that. Jo Ann brought it up. I have a real problem wi th the process that welre going through on wetland alteration permits. I want to react to a permit. I don't want to react to words saying wetland alteration permit. I guess 11m not sure what welre reacting to. When there's a permit required, I guess I feel that we have to be reacting to something in front of us. Right now it's just that we grant the wetland alteration permit. What are we doing when we say we approve the wetland ~lteration permit? Olsen: You are giving permission to go ahead and... Conrad: And do something. They had to fill out a form to do something on the wetland? Olsen: Just the application. The basic application. Conrad: Doesn't that application, and 11m going to pursue this one because 11m really bothered by it. 11m real uncomfortable wi th the process right now. The fact that welre not getting some of the technical stuff in that we should react to. I think welre needlessly standing still in these meetings when we should be able to say yes, they looked at it and there is no neglible impact or whatever and that should be on a piece of paper that says, I want to put 50 yards of fill in here and take away 300 feet of Class B wetlands. Technical person says I see no impact to this and therefore the water quality and whatever is going to be maintained. I'm real uncomfortable with what welre doing and I guess I have to go back and look at what the process is supposed to be. Erhart: So far welre approving something that the DNR hasn't looked at. Is that what youlre saying? Olsen: No, they've seen all the plans. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 62 ~onrad: The DNR has gone through it. I'm just uncomfortable with what we're doing and how we're reacting. It's our permit process. It's not the DNR's. The applicant has to fill out a permit to do something on the wetland and part of that process is for the applicant to prove to us that they are not damaging or the damage is minimal and that's in the ordinance. I'm not seeing that. Erhart: You need more information then? Conrad: It's like we're approving a subdivision and we see information to react to on that subdivision. We see lot lines and we see the drainage stuff and we see all that. We're asked to approve a wetlands alteration permit and it's just three words. Emmings: It's almost like a footnote to the rest of what we're doing and it probably ought to be more a major item. Conrad: Right now it's nothing. It's just totally awkward and what we're doing is wasting time up here. Trying to figure out if this miscellaneous information that we might have gotten is the right stuff to confirm that the permit should be granted. Emmings: Who's qualified to look at that in the City? Would that be the engineer? ~nrad: The engineer. Emmings: So he maybe should give us a report. Conrad: Yes. I think the Staff can also get these people like Rick Murray's got and other folks, Fish and Wildlife, it's up to the developer to prove to us that and that was the way the Ordinance said, or my interpretation was that it was up to them to tell us that what they were doing was beneficial or neglible impact and I'm not seeing it. It's proably in your conversation with them but it's not going to me so I can review it. Could you review that for us, maybe not by the next meeting but in two meetings Jo Ann? I would really like to go through the process that was intended in that and Steve keeps bringing up these points, who is going to review it? I think when we passed the thing we always had the concern who is going to give us this technical information and I just want to confirm that we know what we're asking for and who we're asking to do it. Barbara Dacy: Was there a motion then on the alteration permit? Conrad: There was not. It was not mentioned in the motion. Barbara Dacy: You have to do it one way or the other. Conrad: Bob did not make it as a part of the motion. ~egel: I thought it was lIon the amended conditions. Isn't that it? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 63 "sen: You needed it in the motion too. Erhart: It's not in your recommended motion? Olsen: Right and that's why I pointed out that it should be. Siegel: Is there any problem with putting it in? Do you have a problem with that Ladd? Conrad: I knew you didn't have it in there. I didn't know what I was reacting to. My last five minute scenario was in reaction to that. I approved the wetland alteration permit, I didn't know what it was. I honestly don't know what they are asking to do. I would have to go back through all that literature and try to figure it out. What was it? What is it that they're asking? They're asking to really pipe water in. Olsen: They're digging it. They're making two ponding areas. Emmings: There we did have a letter saying that that was going to be beneficial. Conrad: I felt pretty comfortable with some of the stuff that has been said. The ponds were not in the wetlands were they? ~lsen: That's where I think they are. As far as the we,t~~p, 9 ma, p,when we went ~t to the site, theve~etation showed that they are withi~, the wetla~d too so that was part of the condition that they must show what the ordinary high water mark is to determine where the outline is. Conrad: It's all part of the whole drainage issue which is what the folks at Met Council said they weren't quite sure of. Emmings: that. But that now is included in that extra condition so we did cover Conrad: We did cover that. We should make a separate motion. Bob, do you want to make a motion on the approval? Siegel: Can't we just amend the motion? After it's been passed? Olsen: Technically, you have to make another motion. Siegel: Somebody else can make another motion. Conrad: Does somebody want to make a motion approving the wetlands alteration permit as applied to the Saddlebrook Development. Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Wetlands Alteration Permit as applied for to the Saddlebrook Development. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 64 e REVIEW TRANSPORTAION SECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mark Koegler: There were several components of the discussion that we had originally intended to have with you this evening. The beginning of which I was responsible for and the actual meat of it though was the part that Barb and I had kind of planned to do jointly with her taking the lead. Basically we wanted to address three topics related to transportation issues and issues that are going to be part of the plan. That was improvements that are in the works right now that this group is probably aware of but just to make sure that you are aware of. There was a comment I believe that Tim had last time specifically requesting some further input on TH 101 and what in the world the status of that is. There was an attempt to clarify that. It's not an issue that is easy to do that with. The final thing we were going to talk about was TH 212 and Barb has worked up some land use traffic segments that we had hoped to discuss. Conrad: If we had gone through that, how much time do you think to do a fair job with that agenda, would it take? Barbara Dacy: I think Mark's portion is relatively... but I think we could direct my portion on the TH 212 land use need, really deserves half hour to 45 minutes and maybe we could postpone my portion until next week. ~onrad: What kind of agenda do we have next week? ~lsen: We've got a few items but they shouldn't be real long. Emmings: Can I make a suggestion here? I think when Mark comes or when there is an item, a broader item, I think we should put it on first. I think it just awful to make him sit and wait until we're done with this other stuff but he should know ahead of time that it's going to be a half-hour and tailor his presentation that way and get him in and get him out. This is nuts to have him sit here and wait. I would suggest that we just start a half hour earlier but I guess there are other people who don't want to do that. The other thing is, if people are coming here for public hearings and they hear these issues that are kind of a broader concern, that's not going to hurt them any either. Maybe it's a way to get some of the stuff that we do in front of more people. I think maybe that's another reason to do it but making him sit here for 5 hours is insane. Erhart: Put him on first. 8:30 or something. Say the public hearings won't start until 8:00 or Emmings: Tell the people who are coming to public hearings that that portion will start later. Conrad: There's a little bit of an issue there too because many times the public hearings take time and we don't want to keep the public out until 12:00 or 11:00 so it can be on the flip side. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 65 ~mings: Let's decide who we want to abuse this way. Some people want to sit here and talk and talk and talk about public hearing things. Fine, let tha t go on and maybe tha t will make them shu t up and maybe they'll want to go home but making Mark to sit through all that I think is really unfair. Conrad: I think making Mark sit is unfair but I don't think making the public sit is fair either. Emmings: But they're going to sit at most an extra half hour where Mark doesn't know if he's going to be on at 9:00, 11:00 or 12:00. Headla: 7:30. Schedule the people then. Tell them they don't have to corne at Conrad: That's true and I think for short items if Mark is here for half hour, I have no problem putting him on first. If he's here for an hour and half, to open a public hearing at 9:00 is not right. There are a lot of people who probably have to go home. Public hearings are really important and getting people here and involved is really important and I'm not sure that they want to hear a consultant. Although I agree with it's good for them to hear that we're doing other stuff. Having them sit, we've got complaints of people going late at night too. Emmings: Most of the stuff he can do in half an hour. If he needs an hour olIIIIIIIIIlnd a half, then maybe we ought to schedule him as a regular item and make ~re we don't have a couple of large public hearings. Conrad: Maybe tonight the antenna was longer than it should have been but the other two projects that we looked at were major projects and you can't shut them down. Mark Koegler: I appreciate your looking out for my well being. The sitting here part believe me doesn't bother me at all. I do that in a lot of different places but the problem is when we get to this point on the clock, nobody is real interested in carrying out discussions and we do need to get into some topics sooner or later. Conrad: What should we do tonight? Mark Koegler: I had originally intended to review some of the material that was in the memo. I think you can all read that for yourselves and I see no real purpose in sitting here and paraphrasing all of that material. I don't know if there are any distinct decisions that need to be made. Again, as we proceed, with background material that's in there on TH 101, TH 101 is going to be a cloudy issue. It still is not resolved by any means. It is our intent, Barb and I and probably Gary will try to meet with Roger Gustafson with the County within the next or so to further explore that because the County was kind of a distant admirer at best in the discussions and initiations that occurred during the Past summer regarding the potential turn back of TH 101 to the City or the County or there were a number of scenarios ~at were played out. I think our conclusions so far is that the City, Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 66 ~Ogether with the County is going to take a more proactive position with TH 101 if there is ever going to be any change. We've seen 54 years past now with the roads being the same way with the same type of lack of improvements, if you would. I think the City is going to have to look internally through the tax increment district and development to make improvements to that road. We'll get into that as we finalize plan elements. Beyond that, I think one of the more significant discussions is probably talking about some of the land use and traffic impacts of TH 212 which is going to occur in a week or so which given the hour is wise. Beyond that, I don't see any reason to go through in great detail the material. Tonight was going to be more of a discussion session. If there are any questions on anything, I would certainly be glad to address those at this time. Erhart: Is TH 101 north of TH 5 different than south of TH 5? Are they a different problem? Koegler: No, the only different problem was that the only segment that was actually included in the legislation this past summer was the segment north of TH 5. Erhart: And again, that legislation was to? Koegler: The bill that was enacted by the legislature and passed by the Governor which established the framework for an exchange of a series of roads ~hroughout the metroplitan area. It didn't specifically focus on TH 101 but ~ 101 was one of the roadways. Specifically that focused on the turnback Issue between MnDot and Hennepin County. Originally Hennepin County went to MnDot and said our maintaining the crosstown highway and CR 18 with county taxpayer money is crazy. The road is not surveying a local county type capacity. It's a much larger perspective and MnDot said that fine, we think that's a reasonable position but if we're going to take those back, we're going to give you something and TH 101 was part of that giveaway. Erhart: In your current conversations with the City and County on TH 101, where is that leading to? Koegler: The County and MnDot reached an impass in their negotiations this summer. I think I referenced in the memo what really turned the tide was some of the County Commissioners making statements that as soon as CR 18 was turned back to MnDot from the County, that MnDot would construction noise barriers and MnDot had a real problem with that. They in no way, shape or form had intended to fund noise barriers, particularly through St. Louis Park area is where the issue stemmed. Based on that conflict and several other things and the jurisdictional problem with TH 101 was another minor contributing factor, MnDot kind of retrenched and said we've got to go back to the legislature and we've got to get clarification on exactly what details are going to be worked out in this exchange of roads. It stopped essentially at that point. That's where it is right now. Hennepin County is very doubtful that MnDot will press very hard in the legislative session to get it resolved very quickly. Meanwhile, the County is working to assemble 4IrgiSlation. They don't have an author yet. That will be introduced Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 67 ~eSUmablY this session, that reinforces their original position which is that they only want to get rid of CR 62 and CR 18 so they're back to the position they had in 1985 which said they only want to pass two of those roadways onto MnDot and don't want anything in return. It seems as though on the surface perhaps some of the best constructive dialogue occurred during the summer months has probably gone and wasted at this time and it's no clearer. Erhart: So Carver County wants TH 101 at this spot? Koegler: Carver County was brought in very late in the discussions between MnDot and Hennepin County. Most of the turnback issues, from what I can tell, the conversations have been focused on Hennepin County rather than Carver County. It seems as though the light flicked on somewhere along the way in somebody's mind that all of a sudden realized that Th 101 was not totally within Hennepin county. That's when they brought Carver County into the picture and I suspect Carver County felt as though they should have been brought in sooner and I think rightfully so. There have been a myriad of discussions that have gone on with no clear consensus whatsoever. That's where it gets back to the fact that if TH 101 is to be turned back, Chanhassen will be involved. A minor arterial normally that would be a county funded road. That's where we get back to the position that we're going to meet with the county and see what their records are also. That's seems to be a key right now. ~nrad: The alignment of TH 212, just out of curiousity, we've all gotten notes from some lady talking about going south versus north. Are those issues still active issues? Dacy: Yes, that was part of my proposed presentation tonight because the Planning Commission will be involved in the alignment issue. A public hearing will be held before you to look at the alignment issue. You are going to be receiving letters from people along the north alignment and along the south alignment saying it should be south and people along the south saying it should be north. For the last six years the City has planned for the northerly alignment. I could get into the whole issue and we could be here another hour. Siegel: What prompted the letters because I can't recall any publicity? Dacy: As I said in the memo, I had an informational meeting at the end of January for the landowners immediately effected by the northerly alignment because Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden prairie, and Carver County are to the point that we're negotiating Joint Powers Agreement to jointly fund a portion of the Environmental Impact Statement and get the construction process going because it's a 6 to 8 year process before the first shovel is brought out so in order to get that going, we had to start an alignment review to look at impacts from new frontage roads. To look at whose driveway neds to be realigned. Look at interchange impacts. e Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1987 - Page 68 ~iegel: So did you invite only those people affected by that northern alignment? Dacy: Right and assuming that everyone was aware of what was going on, that was the wrong subject because we do have a lot of people in the southern area of the Chanhassen and as Dick said, I didn't know this was going on for 25 years. We had heard there was a southerly route, why was not chosen versus this one? So, intending to hold another meeting the end of March with people along the south route and along the north route. Noziska: I thought MnDot had made up their mind for the north. Dacy: MnDot will point their finger back to the community and say, that's what you guys told us in 1979-1980. In reviewing the files, there are about three different sets of citizen advisory committees in the mid-70's. Our Council issued three resolution at three different time periods and three different timeframes in three different decades supporting a roadway. The most recent information in the early 80's was to recommend the northern route. Mark was working for the City at that time and was involved with that process also so it really seems that if this is the time if we're ever going to get the road built, that it's coming together right now because we've got a Joint Agreement from Met Council, MnDot and the five jurisdictions to start funding an Environmental Impact Statement. Once that is completed within the next three years, then everything goes along from there. If one community .ong the Corridor at this time balks, causes delays, I really question ether or not we'll ever have another. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the PlannTng Commission meeting dated February 11, 1987 as amended by Emmings, Conrad and Wildermuth. All voted in favor and motion carried. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim e