Loading...
1987 08 26 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4liUGUST 26, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO INSTALL A DOCK OVER A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ANDr:;ocATED AT 109 SANDY HOOK ROAD, THOMAS DOCZY. -- --- Public Present Tom Doczy Christine Doczy Herb Bloomberg _0 Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the wetland alteration permit. Tom DOczy: I guess I don't know most of you here. I'm Tom DOczy. This is my wife Christine. We're fairly new residents here in the Lotus Lake area. There are a couple of points that I wanted to make and perhaps clarifications in the report that was put together here by Jo Ann. If I could work off of this it would be good. Starting with just a clarification here, the wood chip path that's in right now does not actually meet the boardwalk. There is a gap of about 40 feet or so. I'll explain why I'm bringing that up. In fact it does not make it out into the boardwalk at this time. I guess there are really three issues here. One is that, if you take this boardwak1 and extend it all the way out to where they're proposing we extend it, there is a considerable amount of additional cost in doing so and that's the whole reason of going further with discussion on the wood chip path, why I think we should be able to keep it. The other two issues that pertain to the wood chip path are why we view the maintenance aspect of the woodchip path and how it's detrimental to that particular area and the vegetation. The third issue is where in fact the wetlands do end. It was my belief at the time that I put in the wooden walkway that in fact the wetlands did end here and that's the reason I did not extend the walk any further. I guess the reason I thought the wetlands ended there, we had contacted the DNR, that was in the report, prior to doing anything in the wetlands. We had heard a lot about the DNR since we've been in Minnesota and that they have a lot of say in things so we figured we'll talk to the DNR, we'll do what they say is okay and if we've done that then we felt that eas probably we've lived up to what we had to do and not realize that we had Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 2 4Ito contact the city on this issue. We spoke with the DNR about crossing the wetlands and we put in a boardwalk that is what they suggested that we do and apparently Dr. Rockwell seems to agree that was a good choice. I have a brochure here, Minnesota Public Waters and Wetlands Permit program and I guess it's put out by the DNR and it says what are wetlands. This is really what I used to go by in terms of deciding where the wetlands end and it described three types of wetlands that they regulate. One of them has quite a bit of water in it, up to 10 feet and the other one is from 6 inches to 3 feet of standing water and the third one that they regulate is described as soil that is usually waterlogged during the growing season and is often covered with as much as 6 inches or more of water. I guess what I am saying or contending here is that really this area, from here over, does not even meet that requirement. I have some pictures here to help explain it. When we talked about the purple loosestrife being predominant in the area and it really has taken over in this area. There are almost no cattails in this area, unfortunately. It would be nice if in fact there were. It would have a nicer appearance to it. The vegetation back in this area is actually quite a bit different. It's not even purple loosestrife which I know is not desirable but it's what tends to take over the wetland area. There are a few of them in here but the vegetation in here that's predominant also has grown between our two houses. Mine here and our neighbors here. Recently I cut back most of it but I left some of it up and took the picture and it's clearly not wetlands back here. I have photos. When Dr. Rockwell came out and inspected the site, that was on July 28th. I think everybody remembers .ow much it rained on the night of the 23rd and into the 24th. I got a few ictures here. I think perhaps at the time when Dr. Rockwell looked, there may have been some water in the area although certainly that area was not covered with standing water even after that rain. There were spots of water but if I can present this, the photos that I do have here of what the woodchip path looks like. Here are some pictures of the path. The thing that I want to point out, you can see the plants that have this yellowish type of flower or seed or whatever it is, these pictures here show in fact the same weeds, these are three pictures of the same weeds here. They are growing between the two homes in relatively dry area. As a matter of fact, I had recently cut back all these weeds, I left those up for the picture. Now, if you take a look at this first photo here, you'll see off in the distance the purple loosestrife. You can see the change in vegetation and in fact this is where you do have standing water most of the time. Anywhere from a few inches to right after that rain storm as much as two feet in this area. I also have here, these photos were taken on July 27th, the day before Dr. Rockwell came out to our site. That's 1-494 and Bush Lake Road. As you can see, there are many areas where there was considerable amount of excess water that just isn't normally there. This area where you see, I'll go back to this first picture here, a while back and I don't know, maybe Herb you may remember when that was, this land had been filled in by the city of Chanhassen. There is a distinct difference in the level of land from where you go from this purple loosestrife back to this vegetation. Apparently it was a sewer project in that immediate neighborhood. They scooped up a lot of dirt and fill and it was deposited in that area so there is a distinct change in the level of the land. The land is higher there _.han it is where there is clearly wetlands and that is the area where I have Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 3 ~he boardwalk. I think that covers most of that other than I understand their point about wanting to preserve the wetlands. The reason I made the point before about the gap of about 40 feet between there, I would say, I guess it's a compromise to what they're asking that I extend the boardwalk that 40 feet to where the woodchip trail starts. The other point is, the impact of the woodchip trail on the actual environment there. Dr. Rockwell stated that I would have to weed the woodchip trail periodically. That's true. That area that is a woodchip trail, I would move the weeds, pull them out or cut them. I'm not sure how that impacts the surrounding area. The other point would be that the woodchips would wash away into the wetland area but after the rainstorm that we had, where we had the 12 or 14 inches that came down, the woodchips do get swirled around and they do move but the vegetation as you can see on either side of the woodchip path is very thick. What happens is the chips, if they do move over to the vegetation, they only get maybe about 6 inches or so before they clog up in the vegetation and what in fact happens is you have these mounds of chips that you build next to it and are easily pushed back into where the path is. They really don't wash into the weeded area. I don't think we're going to get a rain storm this century yet that was worse than the one we had then so I really doubt that the chips are going to get washed away. If it was not bordered by this thick vegetation of course they would get washed away. I guess that's all I have right now on the woodchip path, if you have any questions. Headla: Did I understand you said the village put some fill in somewhere _lOng the...? Tom Doczy: Yes, I'm just going to try to estimate it. I think the change in the vegetation, the picture depicts it better or if you come out to the site I can show you where there is a definite change but it would be in this area here pr imar i ly where there was filL I only say tha t because I look around and I can see it and Herb who had been the previous owner of the property had verified that at one time it had been filled as a result of the sewer project. I guess there are no sewers that run back in here, it's just that the project created a lot of excess fill and this site, I'm sure not just on this lot but on the adjoining lots as well received some of this fill and that was, I don't know 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The reason that the boardwalk is at this end of my lot is because this is in fact where the wetlands has the shortest distance, or at least you can walk in there and you can see that this is the closest part to the lake and that's why I chose it. Had I chosen to move the spot over here, in fact the boardwalk would have had to extend further. There is more vegetation back in here that is aquatic in nature and there is, assuming that there is more water back in this area here, I hadn't really gone into that deeply over there. But that's why I chose this site and that's why the woodchip path followed the highest point in the area. That's the natural reason for it's selection and it stays dry. Herb Bloomberg: I would like to add that I don't know how the wetlands are determined but apparently they didn't take into consideration what's in there and I'm sure that reaches into a number of feet...the natural wetland _rea. Anyone that would have a lawn there would mow it and it's about a 30 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 4 ~oot gap to the wetland so we don't feel it's truly wetland or natural wetland at this time. Noziska moved, Headla seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: When Dr. Rockwell was out there, she took these pictures that are in here, did you talk about that, where the boundary was? Olsen: Yes, there is a definite wet area of the wetland where there is open water and then there is also an area where it's not wet but it still has the wetland vegetation which definitely consider it as a Class A wetland. It's not necessarily wet, open water but it is wetland vegetation. It's not cattails or purple loosestrife. It's different vegetation. It definitely was still wetland and Dr. Rockwell did note that where that woodchip path, that was in wetland and that should be removed. Headla: Tom, your boardwalk there, what's that made out of? Tom Doczy: It's a wooden boardwalk. Treated wood. Headla: Is there any regulations on the wovenized wood? They're putting some bulletins on it now that it's arsenic in the wood and is that a valid material to put in wetlands? ~lsen: I talked to Judy Boudreau about that and also with Dr. Rockwell and they have asked their experts in their offices and there isn't any documentation to say that we should be worried about it yet. Headla: So there's no data saying it isn't okay. Olsen: They're researching it but they haven't found anything to say stop using it. Headla: Number 2 of the recommendations, let me carry it to a little extreme, if we have these people put a slow - no wake buoy and just to the north of there we asked people to do it, and maybe the Kurvers they're going to have to do it, and everybody puts out their own buoys, in a few years there may be some that won't be some in some places, they're going to be all different color, sizes and shapes. I'm having a hard time now thinking we should expect the individual owners to put up these buoys. It seems like it either should be city or have it some other regulated way of putting out standard buoys. We've got "standard" slow - no wake buoys but I have a hard time looking at private parties to put that out in wetlands. To me it doesn't seem right. The other one is one number 3. Is this the type of thing you're going to have in the deeds? Olsen: There will be no deed. Headla: If they sold to somebody else? e Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 5 4Itolsen: What we are doing with this now alteration permit we are recording down that will have these conditions in them with the deed. though is along with the wetland at the County a certification and so it will be recorded. It's not Headla: Maybe I used poor terminology. If Tom sells this to the next party, do we really have a good way to alert the next people of the situation? Olsen: It will be in the title search, that will be one of the documents. Headla: Okay, that's all I have. Conrad: Let me just take up on a point that Dave brought up and we have come across folks putting out buoys and I'm just trying to be practical when I think about this. If the individual puts out that buoy, does it come in in the fall? Is that a logical thing to think? Olsen: Yes. water level. It needs to be maintained too. It has to be adjusted to the Tom Doczy: Can I make a statement or comment on the buoy? I forgot to say anything earlier. 4Ifonrad: If you have a quick comment. Tom DOczy: My quick comment on that would be that if you look at the bay area, I think the reason for the buoy is to protect the wetlands, is that correct? Conrad: Yes. Tom Doczy: The bay area has a lot of lily pads in there, actually more than is shown on the sketch that Jo Ann made. I suggest no one in their right mind would take a speed boat in there and just run through there with all the lily pads and hope to get ou t wi thou t tang ling up your motor. Somebody who is crazy enough to do that probably wouldn't pay attention to the buoy anyway. Wildermuth: I guess I agree. I've paddled a canoe around in there and it's just not deep enough to run any kind of a power boat in there. How do we establish the boundary of a wetland? Is it so many feet from open water or is it based on the vegetation? Olsen: It's based on the soils and vegetation. Wildermuth: I guess my feelings would be that in view of the expense involved in trying to pull the woodchip path back out of there and the fact that it is on fill ground, I would be in favor of leaving the woodchip path and the balance, the 313 foot gap that exists between the boardwalk and ~oodchiP path would be a boardwalk. What is the primary objection over a Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 6 4Itpath through a relatively high ground wetland area? Olsen: Because it's a fill area doesn't necessarily make it not wetland. What Dr. Rockwell does is in terms of what the situation is today. If today it's a wetland, it is Class a wetland. It is protected by the City which has different standards than the DNR does and the woodchip path just again, needs constant maintenance whereas a boardwalk is there. It lets the wetland vegetate around it and kind of go back to it's normal state so it's a one time alteration where the woodchip path you're trying to keep constant maintenance and has impact over and above what the boardwalk would. Wildermuth: What would the owner have to do to take the woodchip path out? Would they have to remove all the woodchips and take dirt and excavate? Olsen: I don't believe you have to excavate at all. Tom DOczy: I think the objection to the woodchip path is you let the weeds grow back or when the vegetation does grow back, then just leave it and that would be primarily what has been happening. Noziska: The area between the wooden walk and the woodchips right now is just dirt? What does the path consist of between the wooden walk and the woodchip path right now? ~Tom Doczy: Dirt with some vegetation on it. It's walkable. When it rains ~a lot I have boards lying there but there's nothing permanent. Noziska: DNR doesn't alert homeowners to the City's responsibility? Olsen: I think what was asked of the DNR was for the installation of a dock and that's a temporary dock and no, it doesn't require a permit and I don't think it was even thought that there were wetlands there. Tom Doczy: No, we did ask them about the wetlands and what was required but perhaps the way when we asked a specific question, we got a specific answer and the DNR apparently didn't tell us other agencies to contact. Noziska: You would think they might automatically say well, why don't you check with City Hall before you go into something. Christine Doczy: They might not even have known that was considered wetland. Since we're new to Minnesota we probably thought they were weeds at the time too. I said well, it's a weedy area because I made the phone call and we had lived here for about two weeks and came from a totally different state. Nothing like this before so I think maybe it was more the situation. Emmings: I don't have any questions but I guess I would just comment that the, I'm not impressed by the need for the buoy. It seems like we required one a while ago but it was in connection with a beachlot where the use is a ~ot higher and there it made sense to me. This is kind of, it looks almost Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 7 4Itlike a private little bay and they are going to be the primary users and I'm not sure what we would be accomplishing by having it. I'm very torn by it because the consultant that we retain to give us advice on these matters, since we don't know anything about wetlands either, is telling us it ought to be a boardwalk. It seems like an awful lot of work to me to do and an awful lot of expense and I really am not bothered by the path but I don't know, I'm just kind of torn about that I guess. I don't know what to do. That's all I got. Erhart: Lotus Lake is a receational lake right? We have some non- recreational lakes in the City? Olsen: Rice Marsh Lake. Erhart: Are docks allowed on Rice Marsh Lake? Olsen: There aren't any there. Erhart: Do we have any non-recreational lakes? If it's a non-recreational lake essentially then it's a marsh? Essentially a wetland with open water? Is that sort of the rule of thumb? Dacy: Rice Marsh Lake is a natural environment lake according to the DNR's terms. Rice Lake down by the Minnesota River, that's a natural environment 4Itlake. All the rest in Chanhassen are recreational lakes. Erhart: Maybe what we need to do is to have an ordinance saying you can't put docks on natural environment lakes. That has nothing to do with this so you'll have to excuse me but my attitude about this is a recreational lake and the next guy and have a dock and these people can have a dock even though the wetland but maybe we ought to look so we don't get, let's draw some distinction between a recreational lake and an environmental lake. Maybe we ought to look at it before we get into it, somebody comes in here and wants to put a dock on Rice Marsh Lake because I think there is a difference in the use of the two lakes and I hate to see a lake that has been designated for wild lake and so forth and somebody can put a dock in. Which then leads to the question is if you take a recreational lake and would you create a separate area on that lake as an environmental area versus recreational area such as this? I don't know if you can answer that. Dacy: I think DNR has basic criteria for classifying the types of lakes with development around it so I don't know that we could say one half of Lotus is x and the other half isn't. Erhart: I'm not suggesting that we do. I guess I'm thinking about that one that came in on Lake Minnewashta where we allowed the guy to put a dock through miles of marsh and I had to really think about that one. You have to be consistent if it's a recreational lake and everybody else has got lakeshore on it. e Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 8 ttDaCy: Mr. Erhart, I think another issue that also is consistency with applying the wetland Planning Commission will be seeing additional Point subdivision and so on for specific dock you're kind of dealing with alteration permit. The applications on the Kurvers requests such as this. Erhart: One recreational lakes? Dacy: Right. You have to feel comfortable with what you're approving here tonight. Erhart: Yes, understand I'm just posing to the rest of the members whether we should take up the issue of docks on environmental lakes to try and pre- empt any problem in the future. Regarding this application I guess I would have to agree with the general line of thinking here is that in the first place, the buoy thing that you're asking them to put it on the lake which isn't their property anyway. I don't know how you can do that. How we can do that. It just doesn't even make legal sense to me nor, I agree with Dave I think suggested that we have a buoys allover the lake so I would say that I wouldn't support that. Is there anyway, can we draw this line from the end of the dock to where the existing woodchip path starts, is that where the transition from Class A to Class B wetland perhaps? Olsen: It's all Class A. 4ItErhart: It's considered Class A through the woodchips. Torn Doczy: I think the definition of Class A is just that it adjoins the lake so anything that we call wetland... Erhart: Isn't it the type of vegetation? Conrad: The vegetation too. Olsen: There are Class A wetlands that are in the middle of property. Erhart: What was the final settlement on the Minnewashta boardwalk? Did we require them to put docks up? Conrad: The Worm property. Olsen: Boardwalks. Emmings: Boardwalk all the way up to the ordinary high water mark. Is that what we're talking about here? Erhart: Where's the ordinary high water mark here? Olsen: I don't know. What happened with the Worm property is that they provided the docks in the wetland and they met those with boardwalks to the edge of the wetland vegetation. A dock in the open water and then ~oardwa1ks from the dock to the edge of the wetland vegetation so we are Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 9 ttbeing consistent in our recommendation. Erhart: Yes, except if the argument is against woodchips is because you're getting rid of the vegetation in a narrow strip, if you're going to put a boardwalk down 3 inches above the turf there and you're not going to have any vegetation anyway, at a great expense, so I find it a little hard. Olsen: The concern is not that you're creating a path through the wetland, more that you're going to be constantly altering it. Constantly cutting away at it and they're finding that that is not good for the wetland, promotes less desirable vegetation. Erhart: I guess I hear it but I just can't see forcing them to put wood all the way through there is my feeling. That's all. Conrad: I don't think we need a buoy either. I think in this particular case, I don't think we need to enforce that. I think access to the lake is important. I don't have a problem with the dock but I don't have any reason to disagree with the consultant's opinion. It is a Class A wetland and from a consistency standpoint, I know there are going to be other issues and woodchips is not the type of trail that should be going through a wetland. I think there will be more of these coming at us so I guess I'm consistent with the consultant's recommendation, other than the buoy issue. aHeadla: Let me comment to one of Tim's comments. .Isle Royale? Have you ever been on Erhart: No. Headla: That's an excellent place where you go through the woods and all of a sudden you come across a walkway and it's some of it's hardly off the ground at all and by walking through there and you look around to where the people have walked off of it, they certainly do disturb the vegetation. Erhart: The walkway versus? Headla: The walkway versus walking right on the ground and a lot of the boardwalks, I don't know, they're hardly off the ground but it does make a significant difference. I don't know, on the boardwalks, do they have any requirement on how high they have to be? Olsen: I asked that and they don't have a minimum height. Just enough so it's not right on the ground. Headla: They just don't want you disturbing the top soil there. Emmings: Another thing too, if we require a boardwalk back to where the wetland ends, the path is straighten out, reduce the cost too. It may not be starting exactly where they want it but that's up to them and how they want to trade that off. e e Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 10 Tom Doc zy: this way? I think you were suggesting that what, the boardwalk would go Conrad: Rather than winding it through the wetland. Tom Doczy: There was a specific reason it goes here because back in here there is a draw. There is a group of trees here and there is a low spot in here and if we were to impact, it makes more sense to go this way. I guess it's hard to explain without actually going there and walking the paths. Christine Doczy: We have a definite stand of trees. There's a whole grouping of thick trees there and specifically that path goes around the tree area. Conrad: If you move the boardwalk to where your dock is right now to the front of the house, what would happen then instead of having it where it is? Tom Doc zy : I'm not sure I understand. Move the boardwalk to where? Emmings: Over this way. . Tom Doczy: As I mentioned earlier, this is the narrowest path in what is truly wet wetland right here and that's why it's there because we're trying not to distrub that area so I picked that point and the area that is definitely wet tends to go like this and that's why the path is where it is. Headla: And shall replace existing woodchip trail. You can have total replacement or you can you can rake up what's on' the surface. When you say replace, did you have any thoughts on what? Emmings: No, I have no idea. They have to work that out with staff. It says replacement and I guess whatever it is that Dr. Rockwell had in mind when she gave us that is what I mean. Wildermuth: I think we're looking at trade-off here. We cut down some trees to straighten the boardwalk and minimize the cost for the property owner or we allow an except i on here based on the fact tha t the Ci ty had previously placed fill there and the fact that he's already got an existing woodchip trail on what appears to be relatively high ground. Conrad: I guess what I'm listening to Jim is the fact that Rockwell is still saying that it's a functioning wetland. If I had heard that it was non-functioning. A little bit of wetland works all together. You cut it up and you do all that stuff, it kind of destroys what a wetlands function does. That's why when I heard we're going to cut 3% out of a wetland and do this, that and the other thing, that 3% can really impact the overall 100%. When I see that the consultant has gone out there and still is telling me ~that it is a wetland, functioning as such. Think of the other places on Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 11 . Lotus Lake. If she had come back and said it is a non-functioning wetland my recommendation would be different. I think on the north, on the beachlot. Maybe you weren't here but basically it was a non-functioning thing. If I had heard that in this particular case, I wouldn't have had a problem changing things and flexing to the applicant's posture but here the consultant is saying to me that it's still working. It's still there. I'm sens i ti ve to the appl icant' s interest in thi s. I can relate to it real easily. As Steve said, it's a tough one but I guess I need a good reason to say that wetland's not valuable and I haven't got a reason to say that we can get around the ordinance this time. Emmings: I think too, to answer yours and this is how I answered it for myself is, I think of this is kind of a nasty little result for him and I think it's unfortunate. I don't like it from that point of view but I guess I'm looking at this one just like we did at Minnewashta where it came in new. I don't think we should take into account the fact that he put a woodchip trail in there. I think we should do what we think is best for the wetland in consideration of what we've done with new projects in the past and wha t we're go i ng to do with new ones in the fu ture and I know tha tin the future we're always going to require a boardwalk right up to the edge of that boundary so I think we should do it here. That's the way I came up with it. Even though I think it's unfortunate. . Headla: I agree with you Steve, I think it's very unfortunate for Tom but if we're not consistent here, what kind of signals is that going to send to all of the other people. We can't sit and do one thing one time and on a different Wednesday night do something else. Conrad: It can also raise the question of our ordinance but I think that's the other thing we look at when we see problems like this. Is the ordinance right and fair? We have to continue to examine the ordinance to make sure it is. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-10 for the installation of a boardwalk through a Class A wetland with the following conditions: 1. The boardwalk must be installed to the edge of the wetland vegetation and shall replace the existing woodchip trail. 2. There shall be no use of chemicals or dredging, filling or additional alteration to the wetland without City, DNR and Corps of Engineers approval. 3. The applicant shall submit a plan that shows the existing boundary of the wetlands with the proposed and existing boardwalk. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried. e~ Conrad: Tom, the City Council they will see your points as well as the comments that we have so I think they'll take a fresh look at it along with Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 12 -our input and I appreciate you corning in and talking to us and being as straight forward as you have been. That's nice to have folks like you in the area and although it didn't sound like we voted on your side and welcome to the community but we really do. We've worked on the wetland ordinance here for years and we've probably, every meeting we deal with one or two wetland issues and I think most of us would rather not even be dealing with them. Yet on the other hand, as a community, Chanhassen made a commitment to preserving the wetlands in a State that really hasn't done a very good job and is many, many years behind the times in terms of wetland preservation but I thank you and stick with it and bring the same issues up. Again, what we've looked for in a wetland alteration permit is for the applicant to show the proof that that wetland is not functioning. Something is different than what we didn't know and if you can do that between now and two weeks from now, when you get in there, I think the Council will pay attention to you. Torn Doczy: If I do that, who do I bring that information to? To Jo Ann? Conrad: Yes. Torn Doczy: I guess my intention would be, maybe to get another expert. Conrad: We don't advise you to incur expenses but that's what I would do if I were you. 4ItTom DOczy: with the assumption that this is the case where the boardwalk can be extended, is the woodchip path is nothing but a path with woodchips that will decay. Is there any reason why I would have to pull them out or merely not maintain it? Conrad: If I were making the decision, City Coucnil will, I would say just don't maintain it. Let it grow back. If a decision carne to me, that's what I would tell you to do but that's one individual. I think what you need to hear is the City Council saying that to you. Christine Doczy: Do City Council members go out to the site? Conrad: They will. Christine Doczy: Because I think that's important too. Conrad: That's not a bad idea and if you would like to call them up and have them walk the area with you, that's nice to have them have a visual. Headla: You didn't give Tim a chance to say why he didn't vote for it. Erhart: I'm all for preserving and creating wetlands but not in this case, I guess in general, I have a hard time seeing why woodchips are more intrusive than paths. And responding to your point which was good Dave, I think yes, in a public area where there's a problem with people walking on ~paths but again, this is a private home. Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 13 tlconrad: Is that an issue you would like to have us have Dr. Rockwell give us a little bit of a, it's going to come back. You know that we're going to talk this again and again. Erhart: Maybe in the context of my other question is I think we ought to consider whether we want to allow docks in environment lakes and get it in the ordinance before they come in. If the context was that, if we could tie it together and yes, it could be good. Conrad: Jo Ann, I'm not going to put it in that context. Can you have Dr. Rockwell. Olsen: I'll have her put it in writing. Conrad: Yes, I think we should understand it. Under the 51-49 deal or are we talking 95-5. Christine Doczy: There's a real definite difference between woodchips and a structure that's built into the ground. Conrad: And we'll try to find some of those things out. Thank you for coming in. Erhart: Is there no interest in environment? econrad: All I know is I could solve that one problem. What do you want to do? Is there no interest in taking a look at recreational versus other types of lakes in terms of access to it? Think about that. We'll come back to you at the end of the meeting. Noziska: I think Dave brought up a point that always bothers me is treated wood and in conjunction with our lakes. Back a few months ago I know that the EPA in their rules and regulations had stated that if you're going to throw the stuff away you can't just bury it anywhere. It has to be taken to a hazardous waste landfill and deposited there so I don't know if that means anything or not but it doesn't seem to like, and I'm not a chemist. All I know is I look at that stuff and the reason it doesn't rot is because it has fine, heavy metals stuck to the ends of the fibers of the wood so the water doesn't get the soft inner fibers and preserves it against rotting for a while. I think that is an issue that someone in the city needs to look at. I just hope that they don't bury much of that stuff in where I get my water from. Headla: Maybe we should be looking at that before all of these boardwalks come in. Olsen: You remember Eric Rivkin with the dock and the channel on Lake Lucy has another application but he submitted information about the treated wood and how rather than having a boardwalk he should have a channel so because of that I did have Elizabeth look at it and Judy Boudreau from the DNR and I tlfm getting documentation back on whether or not it is a potential hazard. Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 14 tlElizabeth wrote back and said the documentation that she has found shown that there is any reason why we should cease using it but as the facts aren't in. ha s n ' t I say all Erhart: Is it possible to go one step further, is it possible to designate certain portions of lakes environmental and some recreational? Olsen: The wetland really does that. Erhart: Let's say we take up the environmental lake want docks in the environmental lakes or boardwalks. that out to say, you have the same thing in this bay, docks and boardwalks there? thing and say we don't Then you could extend why are we allowing Dacy: We probaby shouldn't belabor it but we're dealing with a lot of legal issue with exiting lakes and existing docks and lots platted since 1910 and so on. Erhart: But there are the two environmental lakes. Dacy: The two environmental lakes that we have, there's no development immediately around it. Emmings: Do they also tend to be shallow lakes? 4ItDaCy: Rice Marsh Lake is about 9 feet. Emmings: So you're probably not looking at anyone wanting to get out there. Erhart: Somebody will want to. SUBDIVISION OF 33,300 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED ON LOT ~ BLOCK ~ BANDIMERE HEIG~2ND ADDITION, 9360 KIOW~ TRAIL, KAREN KING. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision request. Karen King: I'm the applicant and I think everything has been stated. Conrad: It's very simple. Thank you for saying that. We like issues like this. Any other comments? Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: They're neighbor's driveway comes halfway across in front of the lot on the north side. Is that a good solution for that? ~aren King: The driveway itself is not a problem... Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 15 tlHeadla: Do we have any obligations here for fighting fire where there isn't city water there? Dacy: The City Fire Department does have a pumper truck. It's the same as in the rural lots. Erhart moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-27 as shown on the plan stamped "Received August 11, 1987" with the following conditions: 1. That Lot 2, Block 2 of King Addition shall be required to provide its own well. 2. Lot 2 shall provide erosion control to the east and south part of the site. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Erhard moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 12, 1987 as amended by Headla on Page 28 and Noziska on Page 3. All voted in favor except Conrad who abstained and motion carried. 4ItOPEN DISCUSSION: SITE REVIEW POLICY. Dacy: First of all, this item will be going to the Council also. Erhart: About us? Dacy: No, for Council members also. It is, for example tonight when they brought up there have been occasions in the past that developers would say how many people come out to the si te and can we expect them there and the intent is merely to establish some type of policy so Jo Ann and I can relate to them some type of typical procedure. I've listed some examples that the other boards, the Park and Recreation Commission is doing to initiate discussion on this. Emmings: If it's there as a formal policy, does it mean something then when you don't do it? Dacy: It wasn't an intent to amend the by-laws or anything but I guess it's an informal discussion. Conrad: To tell you the truth, I think it's a good issue. I don't want to amend anything but I think many times I visit it after the fact. Like Dogwood Road. I hear the concerns. At first I think there's no problem and then I go out there and I'm there two weeks later and that's probably the wrong time to be there. It confirms our something. It's not the best thing eso I think just as an in-house policy on the Planning Commission, we really Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 16 4Itshould try to get out to the site. The question is, we're not going to go to all of them and I guess we just have to be smart enough to figure out the ones that are kind of controversial and that just means being, I don't know. I don't know what triggers it because we haven't talked about it together before we get to this meeting room so I guess it's just for one, we should really pay attention to getting there. It doesn't take that much time. Chanhassen is not that big. We should try to get out there. Wildermuth: What about meeting a little earlier and going out to the site on some of these occasions where you recommend? Conrad: I think Barbara should actually, when it really is controversial I think she should flag it and say we should meet half an hour or hour early and go at the site. Noziska: Give it a double asterick or something. I don't know so much about meeting early the night of the meeting because sometimes that gets a little garbagy but a lot of times we've met on Saturday mornings or during the evening, some evening. I think there are some obvious issues that Barbara or Jo Ann or someone from the staff should flag and say hey, this is one that we're going to have a whole raft of people sitting in front of us yelling at us. Wildermuth: Like the development south of the Industrial Park. I feel a ~little foolish about some of the things I said about all those cul-de-sacs ~after going out there and walking it. I don't know what else you would do besides build bridges or fill in. Conrad: I jumped on your bandwagon real quickly. I'm really disgusted that you're backing out. I went out there but I think Barbara, if you can flag, or Jo Ann. When you see something that's really critical make sure we know it's really critical and in cases where we should meet as a group because we need some technical, we need your advice to show us the thing that you're seeing that maybe we couldn't see or we should have first hand, then we could schedule, I think Saturday morning typically, even though there are conflicts allover, but Saturday morning is probably the best time to go out. At least we'd have a chance to review the packet. Headla: I think where I have by problem is like on the Tom DOczy place. When I went over to look at Kurvers, that really bothered me so I went over and darn if I didn't get them out of the sack. Now I thought I had allowed them plenty of time and here the guy comes in his pajamas and we talked for a little bit and he called his brother over and then we sat up for about two hours talking. I'm really hesitant to go up to these places, like Tom's. Do I go up to the door and explain who I am and then go around and look? Dacy: When they do apply we do explain to them that here are the planning commissioners and some of them do visit the site so if you see somebody walking around. 4Ifonrad: What about the city buying us hats that say Planning Commissioner? Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 17 eDaCy: There are soft plastic hats for visiting construction sites. Noziska: No, we've got to do the City Council a little better than that. How about orange blazers with our little emblem on it. Sort of brown emblem of the maple leaf. Headla: Is there a problem going up to people and just saying you want to look at the property? Olsen: They know it. with this case, they specifically requested that you come there. That's one where we should have flagged. Dacy: what about purchasing name tags for you. I know the Councilman have them. Conrad: There's something to that. I was kind of saying it in jest but there is something serious about my comment too. Anything that jumps out and says we should wear something? Emmings: I just want to know if they've got a dog. of farm places and you can't get out of the car. I've gone out to a lot Conrad: You will not get out of the car at a farm. That's a policy that I've had. ~Emmings: But here, that could have been the same situation here and I'm kind of interested in that. If I'm going to go visit somebody's house I want to know if they've got a dog because I'm not going if they do. Noziska: I think it's a real good idea to give them a jingle. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. Conrad: Barbara, what's your strategy in terms of... Dacy: I just wanted to confirm those three. Those were the ones that we recalled from recent meetings and now we're beginning to catch up on some of that stuff so we just wanted to confirm those three. Emmings: Last week we talked about reviewing the zoning along TH 5 from the city down to TH 41. Dacy: That will be on the next agenda. Conrad: How about flag lots. Does that fit? Dacy: Part of number 3. It doesn't say flag lots. Erhart: Can you give us an analysis of this acreage left for subdivision 4Itwithin the MUSA line and how that relates to Met Council's calculations and Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 18 -all that stuff so that we have a feeling for where we're at after all these subdivisions come in? If I remember, there is some formula, they say you've got so many acres left to subdivide within the MUSA line therefore in 1990 we put it here and that was based on what they anticipated to be subdivided bu t which we all know is abou t 10 times tha t much. Thi s all ties into thi s thing. Conrad: Did we have something once upon a time on fencing? Dacy: Yes, tha t came up when we rev iewed, wha t' s the guys name on TH 7? The barbed wire. Conrad: Barbed wire, that's right. In fact, that was the reason I had it in my notes. Fencing for barbed wire but we also hit that issue, Carver Beach we had a fence that went up close to a property line. Maybe that one was resolved. Susan Albee's. Did that trigger anything? Dacy: The fence ordinance. Conrad: Okay, so then the only thing I've got in my note is really related to the barbed wire fencing. Headla: ...who helped formulate that fence ordinance? ~Dacy: Jo Ann and I take the first crack at it from looking at other Wordinances and look at our ordinance to see what fits and then bring it to you guys. Is that what you're asking. Erhart: If I remember that discussion, the question was do we permit barbed wire fences in the agricultural area? To me that was the question that popped in my mind and then Barb and Jo Ann conf i rmed la ter tha t yes, our ordinance does allow the use of barbed wire in the agricultural area but not in the residential area. Olsen: The way it reads now, you couldn't really have barbed wire in the residential. It says simply that you can't have barbed ends. On page 9. Dacy: I think what we're going to end up doing is just creating another section called barbed wire. 01 sen: And I read tha t as no barbed wire and we need to be a 1 i t t le more clear. Erhart: So you think it is confusing then? Olsen: It just says no barbed ends shall be exposed. Emmings: what section are you reading? Olsen: Section 6 (12) . e Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 19 -Erhart: So you're proposing to do some changing and bring it back to us? Olsen: Making it so barbed wire... Headla: You've got to be careful on that plan. That's what, single family now? Those were all agricultural. Now that's your tax status and there's some cattle there. Dacy: If we go by agricultural use rather than district. Noziska: What sort of a burning issue is this again? This is a red hot issue or it comes up from time to time or why are we worried about it? Dacy: It came up in the past and we've been kind of collecting all these items that you wanted to have addressed so we can look at them all together in an omnibus. Headla: I really think we needed something for the horses too. We shouldn't be using barbed wire. Wildermuth: Should not be? Headla: Should not be. 4ItWildermuth: Why? Headla: Kids tend to go and look at horses and they can get banged up pretty bad but it's also tough on the horses too. Cattle don't jump over fences the way horses do. It's really tragic when they go through and there's other ways to do it. Conrad: Other issues. Barbara, I guess under your third point you've got lot dimensions so when I said the flag lot, I guess that relates to a setback at 90 feet issue. I know in the rural area we also had that concern with 180 foot width in the rural area so I think you should look at that. I also want to be very specific in the PUD language in there because we've got 19 different opinions on what our PUD is trying to do which is real obvious. It's obvious that the City Council has different opinions of what the PUD ordinance is all about so I guess from a planning standpoint I would like to see you two draft it. In terms of philosophical planning lingo and then we'll break it down to our talk but I think you two probably know the posture that we had when we went through the Lake Susan South and I want to make it real clear what constitutes a PUD. Erhart: We don't have an intent section? Conrad: I thought we did but it's obviously not good enough because City Council had five different views of that as a PUD and it clearly is not a PUD. It clearly is not. 4ItEmmings: We were pretty unified. Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 20 ewildermuth: What happened with that? Dacy: What happened is the Attorney is drafting a PUD concept agreement document that's outlining the items that he has to adhere to and conform to. It gives us the power as each phase, as each plat comes in, just because we looked at that plan that said there were 411 single family lots in concept. When they resubmit, things have to meet ordinance requirements and we have to look at the individual plans so they may not get the 411 lots. At any rate, the intent of the agreement was to outline all that was discussed... Conrad: I think through the procees they gave Chanhassen more things than they started out so I'm not really negative on how it turned out. It just seemed like such a simple case, in the very beginning it was not a PUD and it seemed like a lot of work for nothing but in terms of what was done but there was very little creativity and the zoning was all there. To create the densities, it really didn't need a PUD status but I think staff and certain council members did a nice job and were able to negotiate some things and it will probably be a pretty good development. Erhart: I take it you don't want to discuss these things tonight. want to list them? You just Conrad: I just want to list them and get staff working on them and hopefully they can corne back and we can take a crack at what they have. 4ItHeadla: Can we take a variation on that last one. On cul-de-sacs. Snowplowing. I would like to hear what our maintenance people say. Is there an optimum diameter and should we take the position. To my knowledge, to make a decision we're in a lot of trouble. I think if we can find a way to do it, let them give a recommendation on it. Emmings: Should we at the same time look at, what are we going to do in terms of requiring vegetation on them and so forth so we don't wind up with a bunch of just ugly ones. Wildermuth: Is it in the pervue of the Commission to look at building codes, like the wooden chimney, wooden foundations? Conrad: Isn't Bill Boyt heading that up? Dacy: Boyt and the Mayor and Howie was going to be notified. Noziska: I haven't been contacted. Conrad: We want you on that. Your name is frequently mentioned. If it's Bill in charge, I know he's been wanting to talk to Howie but he really does need your insight. He's hitting some dead-ends real fast and he's tempted to drop it and I guess maybe that's unfair of me too. Noziska: One other thing too, I'm sitting here recalling the great big 4Itburnable barn that we approved in the back of our main street. I really Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 21 4Itthink some thought ought to be given to either fire resistant construction of multi-family dwellings or some sort of compartmentilization. Either within 5,000 square feet or 10,000 or something for fire walls. Fire resistant fire walls. We're sitting in a volunteer fire department with part time people. I just feel a little uneasy by having these great big buildings. Look at our industrial park, most of that stuff is in pretty good shape. Conrad: What they're hearing right now, and maybe you know more than I do, but they're hearing right now that the State does not look real positively on the City upgrading the building codes. Is that a fair assessment? Have you two heard that? Making it more restrictive and that's the feedback so far saying, it's negative and that there would be a real hesitation to start looking at that simply because the state has to approve it. Noziska: No, the State doesn't have to. Conrad: Maybe I'm misinterpretting but maybe that's not a road to take to change our building code. Everybody adopts what is it the State Unified Building Code. Noziska: It's the Uniformed Building Code but it's adopted by the State as in minimum requirement code. That's UBC. It's put together by ICBM. International Conference of Building Mangers and as far as that code goes, ~just about anything goes and any of these special interest groups have a lot ,.,indians and it doesn't matter who it is. I think rather than them be nebuously being led down the primrose path without direction, we should say, is that what we want for Chanhassen? If we do fine. If we don't, then let's change it. I'm serious about this fire thing and I do think our experience with these wooden chimneys surrounding tin have pretty much proven themselves to be acceptable to the fire department. I think approving that great big tin mess that we're more or less going to saddle Chaska with, Brown's deal. I think that's a mistake too. I don't think that improves the village of Chanhassen one little bit and if we do anything, I think we should take the tact, look where Eden prairie is. Eden prairie requires quality buildings. They don't let just any old shack be built. You let a developer build a shack, he's going to build a shack. Dacy: Another item that we could amend, the zoning ordinance could prohibit metal buildings in certain areas. That's an option. I know Chaska has a requirement and Eden prairie require 75% of the exterior in wood and I don't think we should go that far in the design since we don't have any design qualified staff, architects. Simply prohibiting metal buildings would... Conrad: A lot of these issues Howie, I talked to Tom Hamilton about and I talked to Bill Boyt and we really would like you to participate in that group. The reason I'm bringing it up right now is, the concern that I have is that whether it was a building inspector or whoever, who called the State, there was a real sense of let's not do this so I think I need your involvement on that Howie. e Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 22 eNoziska: I'll be happy to get a hold of Bill. Also, Bloomington. There's another example. Bloomington has corridors where they have stricter design requirements and I think there was for a time, this great big thought about us presenting a negative image in Chanhassen and we should do something. Well, if we're ever going to do something about it we're going to have to take some steps. I also know in Bloomington an issue doesn't get to the City Council before the Planning Commission likes it and then by the time the Planning Commission is through with it, that it's pretty much a rubber stamp for City Council. Not all issues but 80% of them as opposed to the way we run things, We sort of run things, we go our way, they go their's and their's is a political decision and ours is sometimes a planning decision and sometimes not but there isn't that same sort of mesh. I think we can learn from these other communities. Eden prairie is just an example community to work with I think and they are just ahead of us or we're just behind them in the development. Conrad: Street size. Is that in zoning? Where's our street size? Is that in the subdivision ordinance? We were talking about we had concerns with how wide we were forcing people to build street and the quality of the streets in some of our three lot splits. Dacy: I thought we had put that issues to rest. Conrad: Did we? eEmmings: I couldn't tell you what they are but I think we did something on them. Conrad: Has that gone through? Have we changed the ordinance? Dacy: As to the rural and the private drives, at the meeting we discussed how many lots could be served by a public road and what the ordinance provides now is a gravel roadway to city specifications in the rural area. Anything over four lots has to be upgraded but yes, we went through all that. Headla: How long does it take to change an ordinance like the beachlot definition? Dacy: I thought we just did that. Headla: The question is how long does it take to change it. Dacy: It depends on the issue. With beachlots it's going to be a little longer. Headla: Here's the point I wanted to bring up. We've got a definition right now and it's quite favorable for people to put in a beachlot. There are other people that can be looking at a beachlot and can say I guess in 5 years I'm going to do that. However, in a little while people say, we're egetting too many beachlots. Wham, cut off from putting in anymore Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 23 4Itbeach1ots. That is not right. What I would like to see, if we're going to have a position on beach1ots, that position should be valid and if we decide to change it fine but the change can't be incorporated for a finite number of years. Am I clear in what I'm saying. It's clear in my own mind but am I getting my point across? Dacy: The Council, as a policy can not predetermine what a future Council mayor may not do as far as an ordinance change. If you're saying that the current ordinance is too permissive. Headla: No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying a lot of decisions are being made right now based on that ordinance and it's probably a very good ordinance. I have no qualms about it but a lot of people are looking at that and saying in 10 years I think that's what we ought to do and in 5 years, maybe 3 years the Council is going to change that and it seems like they shouldn't be able to change that for, I don't know 1 year, 2 years or whatever. Emmings: Why? Why do you want to restrict yourself? Don't you want to retain all the flexibility you can to change anything as more information comes to light? Why do you want to tie yourself down? Head1a: Because people are making decisions. ~Emmings: Except when they decided to apply for something they have to deal _with the ordinance as it exists at the time they apply and if they decide to wait 10 years, they have to take the risk that the ordinance will be the same in 10 years. If they want to get in on the present ordinance they have to apply now. We don't want to put ourselves in the position where we say now we've passed an ordinance and say, we are not going to change this for 10 years because it's not fair to people. That makes no sense to me at all. Erhart: Ladd, that's what I called you about that one time. We were talking about beach10ts that one night. If your concerned about getting too many beach10ts on the lake what you do is establish how many beach10ts or how many foot of beach10t area you can have relative to the number of square feet of water on the lake and set a limit by the size of the lake and when that much lot is on the lake, that's the end of it. That's a way of regulating the amount of beach10ts on a recreational lake. Wildermuth: Until the Council changes the parameters. Erhart: I said I think they're great and then you started turning red. Conrad: That's right I was irritated. I thought you were talking about your trails. I got a lot of comments on your trail system. Erhart: Anyway, that was an idea. Headla: The property just north of my place they're going to be coming eup pretty quick and they've got intentions to do that and look at all the Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 1987 - Page 24 4Itother places that can be developed. What's going to happen? to be a flood of them coming in for the beach lots? Is there going Emmings: We looked at that one for a beachlot once already. Headla: It's coming in again. Emmings: They didn't have enough area or frontage or something. I'm thinking of the one that came in just a little while ago and we said just to forget it. Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e e