Loading...
1987 10 28 e - - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT PIERCE APPLICANT, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA-PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 172 ~ILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7: - - A. SUBDIVISION OF 9.04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON - -- -- PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Public Present: Name Address Robert pierce Fred plocher Chuck & Helen Lawson Mary Mann Gordon Simonton JoAnn Hallgren Carol Uppal Mary Jo Moore Ray Roettger Barbara Headla Dell Schott Jeff Martineau Applicant Box 181, Victoria 5807 So. Hwy 101 7211 Minnewashta Parkway 375 Hwy. 7, Victoria 6860 Minnewashta Parkway 11014 Oak Knoll Terrace No. 3231 Dartmouth Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 7034 Red Cedar Cove 2565 No. Shore Drive, Orono Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision request. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to table the subdivision request of 9.04 acres into 15 single family lots on property zoned RSF for Robert pierce per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Now staff has the report on the conditional use permit for the beachlot. How can we move on this until we see the subdivision? .~ Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 2 . Olsen: Make it conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat. I feel we can condition it upon approval of the subdivision. It meets all the requirements. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the recreational beachlot. e Robert pierce: As we brought this before the City we've been working hand in hand with them trying to develop this and I'd like to say, one we feel we're willing to work to the benefit of all around us as much as possible and with the City as much as possible. Again, our thinking is that we have approximately 9 acres of land there and the reason we came in with the beachlot and one dock with three stalls in it is that this, as I understand your ordinances, would be the exact same as far as the dock question. A single family home could have three boats on one dock. I know and have understood clearly that there is concern for your lake and that you want to limit the amount of boats that can be on it. I can understand that. That's why we came in with this particular, what we feel was a very low usage of the lake and then allow the other people to enjoy a beach. Up and down Minnewashta Parkway, as I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous usages of this manner. Some of them much higher usage than what we're proposing. We meet most of the requirements for it. We are a little short on one. On the one side, the northerly side, we have about 120 feet and on the southerly side we have about 80 feet and it does narrow a bit inbetween. Our square footage is over and above what is needed for one dock and also instead of 200 feet we have approximately 500 feet of lakeshore. The thing that is really critical to our plan is to get the dock. What we plan is that we would let one of the three lots, like 3, 4 and 5 each have one slip on the dock. If we can do this, we can come in here and set a mood for a very high quality or upper bracket neighborhood which will carry right on through. We're looking at homes roughly in the $300,000.00 range on the frontage and the $200,000.00 range behind. without that dock, the value of the property is greatly reduced. We just feel that in order to do that, it changes the whole idea of what we're trying to do. The housing, the cost would certainly be an asset in the idea of valuations for the neighbors and if we're limited without the dock, you just can't begin to think that we can put in that type of homes. It just won't work. I think from that standpoint and in that way, we're trying to keep a minimal use of the lake and bring in a real quality development. I'm aware that people sometimes just plain and simple don't like development and I can understand their feelings but we'd like to do it such that the development can set a precedence for further development behind if that would ever happen or if it doesn't happen, if you have a nice development on the lake front that can move on back, it would do nothing but make it possible to just continue on that price bracket and make their land worth more at a future date. If there are any questions maybe I could try to answer them. e Chuck Lawson: I lived there for over 70 years. My folks moved there in 1915. For many years they rented boats on this property. We've Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 3 e always had a dock and I believe that somewhere I read that the City of Chanhassen wants to open up the lake for everybody. Not just a few people living right along the shore and that seems to me what this plan is opposite of what it should be. I guess that's about all. Maybe I should make that clear. I mean the Planning Commission's plan is opposite not Mr. Pierce's. e Ray Roettger: I live 3221 Dartmouth Drive on the north end of the lake. I guess I've looked at property and new homes going up and some of the areas are thickly wooded. A developer comes in and does a nice job and they're bui Idi ng $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 homes. I've always kind of wondered why doesn't somebody come in and take some lake property close to the lake where you have a view of the lake and relieve us of some of the taxes we're paying. I think we're being overtaxed on the north end of the lake simply because we're sitting on lake property. I think this is a pretty good approach to it. Taking the three lots and putting a dock out. It won't overload it anymore. I guess first of all when I came in here I was kind of against this but I think just looking at the basic proposal it seems quite reasonable. The thing I would be against is a common beachlot which we have, and I have one right along of my home, and that has been nothing but problems. It's in the Sterling Estates area. We have perhaps 10 lots that that outlot would serve and there is a dock and there was one boat, then two boats then three and then there was four. The problem is I'm looking at it and so is my neighbor but nobody takes care of it. They just tie up their boats. Sometimes they break loose. Nobody has cut the grass. Nobody has picked up the cans. Nobody has done anything so I'm against any beachlot that provides for a number of homes because it just doesn't work. Conrad: So you don't like this proposal? Ray Roettger: No, I think this man has the right approach. Put some high price homes, and I have nothing against people who can't afford the higher priced homes but I'm saying to relieve the tax burden, if you're going to put some high priced homes someplace, you certainly can do it there and provide a single boat, not three boats for each home. If he limits it to that, one boat and he goes on record that he's going to build homes for $300,000.00 or more. Conrad: This proposal and this beachlot is a common beachlot which you don't like. This is a beachlot. What the applicant is asking for is one dock which houses three boats. Ray Roettger: Three slips. One for each one of them, Lots 3, 4 and 5. Conrad: Yes. e Mary Jo Moore: I feel that the City did a two year study on lake usage. We came up wi th a plan... accepted by everybody in the area. I see problems with beachlots. It's left up to the residents of the Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 4 e area to patrol it. I've also seen the new townhomes go on Lake Minnewashta and dockage has increased. Now they are mooring boats by sailboat moorings. It just gets out of hand if you allow people to stretch the ordinance. Fred Plocher: I'm a developer of the Red Cedar Cove Townhouses, just around the corner from here and I represent the seller of the property as the real estate broker for this property so I'm not unbiased. As I understand the ordinance, those lot lines could not continue on the other side of the road. Is that right Jo Ann? Olsen: Not without lot area variances. Fred plocher: So you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 feet of lakeshore here which I believe staff is recommending not have a boat which sounds like on the surface of that, a bit illogical. Whereas if it were sold as one parcel, it could have one dock. It could have a dock as one parcel. In other words, Mr. Lawson who has lived there for 70 years has been illegal to have a dock on that property? Olsen: His dock was grandfathered in. e Fred Plocher: So you have 400 to 500 feet of lakeshore on Minnewashta and you can not have a dock on it. That seems to me to be illogical. Given the ordinance to protect the lake and I don't know of anybody who is against that ordinance but there has to be a balance of logic. To have that much ownership on a lake and not be able to have a dock is illogical. There are several parcels of property along Minnewashta Parkway that have that same condition. It's too bad all those property owners aren't here tonight to hear that. They'll never be able to have docks there when that property changes hands. I think it's the duty of the Planning Commission and Council to take a look at the logic of ordinances where they were well meaning and well written but maybe did not foresee every circumstance. Thank you. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: For my information Jo Ann, tell me why a property owner couldn't buy this, or two, and not have a dock. Olsen: According to the subdivision ordinance, if a parcel of land is separated by a street, it's a separate parcel. A dock is an accessory structure and you would have to have the principal structure on there prior to having a dock. Mr. Lawson did have a dock there for many years but it has not been there or in use for the past year. If there was a dock still on there, it would be grandfathered in. e Conrad: When that requirement and the ordinance was set forth, do you think it was considering this particular situation or this type of Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 5 e situation? It was probably anticipating something else and not this particular one. Olsen: There are other communities that have lakeshore lots similar to this that are considered part of the property across the street where the person would have a dock but right now the way our ordinance states, that's the way we have to look at it. Conrad: Then we can consider this a hardship? Olsen: The way we look at the hardship is that there is no use of the property. Conrad: We are telling the applicant that they can't use the lake. Olsen: They can use the lake but not have a dock. They can have the sand blanket. They can have a.swimming beach. Erhart: I agree that it makes sense to somehow figure out a a dock here so I'm trying to look at this hardship as well. to me that if you pick the hardship because you're comparing another applicantion made on Lake Riley. way to put It seems this to e Olsen: No, we looked at it specifically. Erhart: Okay, for a moment let's just look at that. The hardship there is a 50 foot wide lot. That 50 foot was created by the developer. Erhart: So I look at this hardship being different than this hardship. It boils down to the only technical difference is this one is 5%. It meets all the requirements except for one. Where the other one misses at 50% and the fact that it isn't even meet... Olsen: We weren't necessarily trying to compare. It's just that according to the Attorney's office, there's no hardship in this case. Conrad: Let me get a knack of where you're coming from Tim. Erhart: I was trying to figure out if this was a state highway imposed hardship versus the other one being imposed by the developer himself. Emmings: I guess this case is to different to me from Lake Riley that we don't want to get into extensive comparisons maybe except that it was brought up in the material. Over there you had a 50 foot wide lot width and neighbors living on each side and I think that's a terrible situation. That's where I think beachlots are an abuse. I also live e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 6 e on Lake Minnewashta so I'm not unbiased either. I live on the north end of Lake Minnewashta. We've got a lot of classic examples of how a beachlot should not be constructed on Lake Minnewashta. Be that as it may, in this situation, we've got 500 feet of frontage, to even suggest that you could deny a dock to someone who bought that whole parcel to me is ridiculous. I have almost no doubt in my mind that if I owned that parcel I know I'd get a dock. I think if the City wouldn't give it to me, I have little doubt that a Court would. And given that, I don't see why there shouldn't be a dock. Now, the other side of that though, the flip side of that is there could be certainly one dock out there and if we limit the number of boats. Use by three different households is not the same as use by one household and you discussed that at length here but still for the amount of frontage that's there and everything else, if it's limited to just three boats, one boat per lot then I don't think that's an overuse of the property in any way. I guess I'd be inclined to find a way here to draw the distinction between this and a lot of the bad proposals we've seen and allow there to be a dock here. One thing I'd like to put in here as a condition, I'm concerned about the ramp as providing vehicle access. The ordinance provides that you can't have parking on a beachlot but whenever you make it so easy as driving down a ramp, I think you're inviting it and I'd like to see someway, I almost thing they ought to have it closed off by some means. e Olsen: I think when they talked about a ramp, they meant more of a ramp for the handicapped and wide enough for a wheelchair and for pedestrians if they had to go down with a stretcher. Not necessarily for cars. Emmings: Oh great. If there's going to be a ramp then it shouldn't be able to be used by cars. Olsen: That's prohibited on a recreational beachlot. Emmings: The other thing is, I think there ought to be, we've talked about this from time to time too, there ought to be a specific obligation of a homeowners association to maintain this beachlot such that if the City at any time feels that it's not being adequately maintained, that they can go in and maintain it and charge that back to the homeowners association and to the individual lots that use it so that we're sure that we don't wind up with any messes along there that we can't somehow effectively cope with. Other than that, I think there is a hardship imposed by the road. Siegel: What's the definition of a hardship in this case? Olsen: Where there is not a reasonable use of the property. It's the section where the enforcement of the ordinance would cause an undue hardship. e Siegel: Make it unliveable you mean? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 7 e Olsen: A true hardship would be where they wouldn't have any use of that property whatsoever. There is the option that they could possibly get a housepad on there. They'd have to get numerous variances for the setbacks but there is that possibility and the possibility of a recreational beachlot without a dock. The biggest hardship is when it's self created, then there's no question but again, this is not self created. Siegel: So when somebody is designing a piece of property to meet his own design, that is not necessarily determined as a hardship when he is creating it himself or creating what we may assume to be a hardship if we assume that not having a dock on his property is a hardship. It's sort of interesting because a hardship can take all kinds of different forms depending on the piece of property involved. I agree with Steve with the analogy that we would say that a single property owner could not have a dock on a piece of property of this size is a little incongurous. I don't think the courts would go along wi th it. I'm just wondering if that could be also construed in the light of common sense of stretching our ordinance requirements too far thereby causing a de facto type hardship in this case. Especially in consideration of the fact that he's asking for a dock with only four slips. It's not like he's asking for four docks with four slips. I would tend to think that we're causing a little more stringency here than is required. If ~ it affects the other decisions we've made, our Attorneys would have to ~ look at that. I can't see how we could not grant a conditional use permit for this purpose. wildermuth: ...the outlot does not meet the criteria that we've set up in the ordinance in this particular case, I think we either have an obligation to modify the ordinance or enforce the rules. Headla: Are we talking now a beachlot for the whole property? So called 9 acres? Would there two beachlots? One for the three homeowners to put a dock in and then another beachlot? How do you plan to do that? Bob pierce: At this point, what we did is basically came in with a general idea or concept. We could go either way. My idea was that the dock was for the use of the three homeowners and the beach lot would be for the use of everybody else. To answer the question as far as maintaining it, we'd be more than willing to, in the Homeowners Association to address that so that would be taken care of because once we build it and are gone, it's to the advantage to us too to have that looking nice 5 years from now for several reasons. One, I continue to be in the business and also if we are working with the City, if we hold up our end of the bargain and we do a nice development, it just makes it that much easier to continue to have a good working relationship so that's just kind of a concept but that's kind of what we were planning. ~ Headla: The access to the beachlot, will it be where the old road is ~ going down to the lake or were you going to put in something? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 8 e Bob pierce: I assumed, again I think it can be moved. That is where I just saw a natural spot was for it but it's not cast in concrete. Headla: You've got terribly beautiful oaks there and there are some low spots, do you plan on doing some fill between the road and the lake? Bob pierce: What we had planned on was to bring in some sand. They proposed that we have a plan for what we do down there as far as the trees. I'd like to be able to come in there and to trim some of the trees and just get the underbrush out in the areas that the beach will be and I just kind of anticipated leaving the end toward the north and the south pretty much wild. Just kind of get the buffer zone between the parks and land. Headla: I see the fi re marshall recommended a ramp. I disagree wi th that. I think at that grade, that percent and somebody going down a ramp, certainly not a wheelchair you wouldn't want to go down a ramp like that and if someone was walking down there, since my place is right next to it, I have some idea of what a driveway is, and I think somebody is really liable to fall. I'd like to leave it up to the option of the builder what he wants to do there and I'd like to see something, steps like we were at yesterday looking at the duck pond. I think that would be by far the more practical. Also, if he can have e steps like that, he can control the runoff down into the lake where if he just has a ramp, most of it's going to go shooting down the ramp and then into the lake. I just hate to see that. The engineering, when you have an idea and you go through a thought process and like you said yourself you tend to go to an extreme and let me carry something to an extreme here. I think the Lawson's qualify for a dock and my rationale is I've seen Chuck and Helen have a dock there ever since I've been out there. There's been a dock there and the kids would swim there and people would use that to fish. I think the principal that we're looking at is, is there a dock there the last year. Well, my extreme is, why can't Chuck and Helen go out there this weekend and put a dock in. Then they've established they had a dock in this year. Conrad: Jo Ann, tell me about the concept of depth in a beachlot. Maybe I'll talk to you about what I perceive the depth issue in a beachlot is to be and basically it might be a safety factor. It might allow people space to recreate in. Are there other issues besides those that would be prominent in terms of why we wanted 100 foot depth. Olsen: That's essentially to provide good area. Conrad: Would this area have good area to recreate in? Olsen: It's more or less provides enough space for the beach. _ Conrad: In staff's opinion then, your opinion, 10 or 12 or however ..,many houses we've got here, what do we have l5? 15 houses, is this a Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 9 e suitable area for a common beachlot? Olsen: It's not a whole lot of area. Conrad: So literally what can they do on that property? They can have a canoe rack and a dock and really the land itself would be hard to use otherwise? Olsen: They could also have the beach area. The applicant has proposed that just the lots along Minnewashta Parkway will be the ones using the beachlot. Headla: I thought we were opening up to the whole. Bob pierce: The beachlot, as far as swimming is for the whole thing. The dock issue was for the 3 homes. That was always my intent. Conrad: Okay, let's say for swimming you need a beach area. Is this suitable property for supporting 15 families to go down to the beach? Olsen: There is a wider area on the northern part where they are proposing the dock and the beach area to be right now. It'd be tight. Headla: Let me draw a similarity. Go north about 300 to 400 yards to ~ Pleasant Acres. Take away that parking lot from that beachlot, that leaves what 40 to 45 feet and that's all. They play volleyball there. They swim. They got plenty of room if you take the parking lot out. Conrad: So you feel that here there would be plenty of room? Headla: Definitely. with the approximate number of homes he has and the way we used our lot, and we used our lot a lot in the summertime, what he'd say 31,000 square feet, I think there is adequate room for a park for the number of homes he intends. Conrad: Adequate room on the beachlot for people to enjoy the beachlot? Headla: Right. That's no parking. Not putting anything down except for these people. Olsen: But that would require extensive grading and removal of the vegetation. According to the Shoreland Ordinance, that would not be permitted. Headla: with the plan, can't they cut out the brush as long as they leave the major trees? Olsen: Yes, they can do that. e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 10 e Headla: That's the way I look at it. I can see all the brush cut out. Just right on through and to me, that's what it will be. He's got nice trees and I think that could really add to that whole thing. I think it's a positive thing. Conrad: It seems to me we can do two things tonight. Three things. We can reject it because it doesn't meet it and one thing that I'm really concerned about, this beachlot ordinance, as a lady suggested, it's there. It's not the best but it's something that is also protective of a lot of things that we hold dear to us in Chanhassen. I don't want anything we do tonight to impact how that beachlot ordinance impacts the other beachlots in the community because they'll all be here if we set a precedent in some means if it's not justified. If it's justified and we can rationalize it, then I'm comfortable. I think we can do a couple things. The part has got to be able to use the lake and get a dock out there and I think we can alter any subdivision ordinances we've got to allow it. They could potentially have 3 or 4 pieces of property that would have docking rights if we changed that subdivision ordinance therefore not imposing a hardship on this property so there is an alternative. We can go and change that ordinance and make sure that any new folks that move in on Parkway and have property frontage, are going to be able to have a dock there. That seems logical to me. Rational. I can't imagine we wouldn't want that to happen. On the other hand, the proposal seems like a less e intensive use than what I just described and in that light, I would go along with the proposal as long as it doesn't set a precedent for any other beachlot in Chanhassen. That's where I'm at right now. That's why I led in here Jo Ann with my comment, as long as it looks like a beachlot that people can really enjoy and serves the purpose of a beachlot, the applicant's request seems reasonable, rational and good for the lake. I could go along with it. I would have a real tough time voting for on something tonight unless I knew that the words and the rationalization and justification granting the variance was approved by an attorney saying that we have not altered anything and set a precedent for other properties that are already out there. I would have a real tough time right now without an attorney telling me how to justify the variance. Headla: I thi nk that's probalby the way to go on that. why we need a variance. I don't see Conrad: It doesn't meet our requirements Dave. Headla: What requirements? He was grandfathered in. Conrad: No he's not. As soon as he sells it's gone so there's no grandfathering there. Emmings: No, he's subdividing the whole property. That's where you ~get into a problem. He's subdividing that whole property. Where there ..,was one lot, now there are 15. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 11 e Olsen: And the fact that they did not have a dock in use for over the past year. Headla: But if he put a dock in this weekend? Olsen: It would be non-conforming. Headla: Why if he has a dock every year? Olsen: From I know, that dock hasn't been in place for over a year. It comes back to the subdivision ordinance defining that as a separate parcel. Just to review that, the Attorney and staff, we did review each of the scenarios that Mr. Conrad is pointing out. Whether we could possibly grant 3 or 4 lot area variances and let that Outlot A be separated and each have their own dock or it has a recreational beachlot. This was when we thought that it wouldn't be able to even have a recreational beach lot without a dock, we would have to permit them some use. We were really torn because no, we don't want non- conforming lots along the lake there but then we found we could have the recreational beachlot without the dock. Give him still some use. I know it's not the ideal use and maybe not the most logical use but we did get confirmation from our Attorney that it is not a hardship. Headla: If the Lawson's sell it and he's had his dock there, does that 4Itgrandfather totally go by the wayside? Olsen: If the dock had remained there and it's always been there, was still there today, that dock would be grandfathered in. wildermuth: Could he put a dock there today, the original owner? Olsen: No because technically it's a separate parcel and the dock is an accessory use. You have to have your house there first before you have an accessory use. Headla: If he lived there and he's had the dock there for umpteen years, just because he moved away, isn't that dock still valid? Olsen: The dock isn't there anymore. Headla: Right now it isn't there but what if it was there last year? Olsen: If it has not been used in over a year, it has been removed for over a year, it's lost it. Conrad: The one dock though, this is a beachlot. We're asking for a beachlot, the applicant is, but the beachlot ordinance governs what can go on it and based on the physical dimensions of this beachlot, you can not have a dock. . Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 12 e Headla: I hear you say that but I hear Jo Ann say that if a dock had been standing there it would have been grandfathered in. Erhart: Not for the subdivision. Headla: Not as a beachlot? Conrad: Not for a beachlot. Headla: Okay, so that's not a point. Conrad: No. They're asking for a beachlot. Our ordinance says no you can't have a dock based on the fact that it's not deep enough. The lot does not meet the depth requirements of our beachlot ordinance. Erhart: Ladd, I have a bit more basic question now. Are we talking about a variance to have a beachlot here at all? In other words, does our ordinance say that a beachlot has to be 100 feet deep? Olsen: It says 200 feet wide. Erhart: And there's no depth requirement? Olsen: No. 4ItErhart: How do you tie the 100 feet with the dock? What's the logic for not having a depth requirement then having a depth requirement for a dock? What's the logic? for a beachlot and Conrad: There's a flaw someplace but I think the logic Tim is the fact that, I'm not even sure what the logic was and I've been around enough, I've been through the development of these things and I can't remember why. I was just trying in conceptual terms trying to think about it. Again, if you have a dock, it probably means that people are going to swim, boat and play around there and therefore you need some property to do that on and therefore you should have enough depth to do that and keep you away from, usually there are adjoining properties and you're trying to keep people away from those adjoining properties. You're trying to give people space so they're not sitting on the property line. When you don't have that depth the assumption is, you may be in a different situation. You may be in a situation like this. I guess I could construct a scenario why that 100 foot depth makes sense in many cases for a dock. I'm not sure that's the real reason that we thought of many years ago. Emmings: There's another provision in the ordinance that I've never seen before and it says that each recreational beachlot has to have the width measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 A lineal feet for each unit which has apertinent right of access so we ",would have to have a variance for that provision, dock or no dock. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 13 e Olsen: That's an option if you don't have the width. That you could just go over a certain amount of feet as kind of an option rather than the flat out width. Emmings: That's not what it says. Headla: On Riley, how many square feet did they have? Olsen: It was 50 by 100, 5,000 square feet. Headla: 5,000 and now we're talking about 31,000 square feet. Conrad: I really have a general feeling that I'd like to table this thing. I'm not sure why. Maybe to outline the options of correcting, just the ability to have a dock in a situation like this. What is it, our subdivision ordinance or our zoning ordinance that is controlling the fact that it's a separate parcel? Olsen: Subdivision. It's under a definition of a lot. Conrad: I guess that bothers me. I don't think that is considered, this particular type of situation and I think we should review it. Therefore, we could review that and give the applicant other alternatives in terms of use of that property. On the other hand, we _COUld go ahead tonight and approve it. The staff is saying no dock and that doesn't appear acceptable to me. I think the property has got enough footage there so I guess I'm looking for staff, I personally would be looking for somebody to help me out of this one and rationalize, justify, without us trying to verbalize it here in public. Erhart: I don't think there's any reason to conclude this thing tonight anyway. Conrad: It's got to come back but I think we should give the applicant and those people here a general drift of what we're doing. Maybe we have. Maybe in our comments we're giving a sense for what we're doing. Bob pierce: In the hardship case, wouldn't just the idea that before these ordinances were invoked, let's just pull a number out, let's say his land was worth $100,000.00 because he had a dock and had lakeshore. Now these ordinances that came about 2, 2 1/2 to 3 years ago, you've taken his parcel and now you've said it's not really lakeshore. It's pretty to look at and all that but you can't put a dock in. It seems to me that would be an incredible hardship because I would guess the devaluation of the value of his property has gone down 40%. I mean that's how important it is. Conrad: I don't know. I've never found that reduced value creates a hardship as long as you had some reasonable use of that property and ~I'm not an attorney but as we've watched those things, we've never been ..,able to say that you've decreased value by 10%, therefore it's a Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 14 _ hardship. That's never come up in years here. Bob pierce: But the word reasonable there is kind of the key. Conrad: I think we all recognize that the property needs access and deserves it and I guess my feeling is, what you've proposed is treating the lake much better than some alternatives that I could see. Therefore, I feel good, I'd like you to maintain that posture at least in terms of this beachlot. At least for me. I like how it looks and how it reads right now. I'm not sure, the rest of the subdivision we haven't talked about it but I would hope that there are some improvements in the rest of it. I guess I would like to table this if everybody feels comfortable with that action and allow staff to mull over our comments and come back with some alternatives and some justification given the fact that we think that there should be dockage. Staff should recommend to us whether in light of maintaining the philosophy of the current ordinance, how we do that. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit Request #87-17 for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and motion carried. Tom Heiberg: Mr. Chairman, I missed the public hearing. I know it's _closed here this evening. I just have a couple questions regarding this matter. Would you have time to indulge another citizen for about two mintues? Conrad: Go ahead. Tom Heiberg: The reason I'm here is I'm concerned primarily about pedestrian and roadway traffic along Minnewashta Parkway. As many of you probably know, there are a lot of us out in that particular area and I come from, I live on Red Cedar Point at 3725 South Cedar Drive. I'm just concerned, I walk on that darn road everyday and people drive it too fast. I'm guilty of driving it too fast. A lot of people, there are not good sight lines there. I can see the development of the property should not be discouraged. The petitioner should have the opportunity to do that but I see that we're once again putting pressure, development pressure, traffic pressue, in my judgment on inadequate roads. Then we're also talking about contributing to pedestrian traffic across that way. I don't know who will be the owners of those homes but I would suspect there will families involved. We've had too many close calls already on Minnewashta Parkway and I'm very concerned about encouraging additional close calls. Conrad: Could you have our Public Safety Director address those comments in a note to us the next time back? In terms of crossing. .Erhart: _a trail? You're also aware that there's a 20 foot strip designated for A walking trail. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 15 e Tom Heiberg: No, I was not aware of that. I'm sorry I was not here. This is a 20 foot walkway along Minnewashta Parkway, a 20 foot wide trailway? Headla: That's what the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending which seems to be extremely wide. Olsen: That's an easement. It will a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail. Headla: Over in Lake Susan Hills they have 5 feet and they have a lot more traffic there. Tom, I've got a study on that if you want to stop by. Tom Heiberg: I'll be happy to see that and maybe we had been noticed but if you recall I was here maybe 8 months ago with Greg, Phil and Ed Hasek, he's on the Park and Rec Board, and I haven't seen or heard any results yet of our requests to put a trailway in there or walkway with the improvement of that road. It was my error for not doing my homework there but I am just really concerned. Thank you for your time. Headla: Jo Ann, adjacent landowners shouldn't they have been notified of this meeting? On the Lawson property, anybody who has a home that is adjacent to them, shouldn't they be notified? tit Olsen: Yes. Emmings: Everybody around the lake too. Headla: I know the people around the lake but I'm not sure that the adjacent landowners were. Olsen: We made sure everyone was within 500 feet. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Conrad Minutes o~the Planning Commission meeting amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 12 and 15. motion carried. seconded to approve the dated October 14, 1987 as All voted in favor and COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE = TRANSPORTATION, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler: What I've done, if you recall our discussion of the last meeting, we talked about a whole book of topics and one of the things we wanted to take just a little bit of time tonight and focus on was TH 101. I know it's a subject that Tim has discussed both publicly and when we've been able to meet from time to time in the past. We also talked about this concept of doing a little bit further review of some _of these corridor studies and that decision has yet to be made by the .City Council. I believe it's going to be made on Monday night just Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 16 e what direction they want to provide back to you and how to approach that. Regardless of what decision they may make, TH 101 as is portrayed in here is still something that needs to be addressed because the MUSA line is part of the land use element in the Comprehensive Plan so in that regard what we brought back to you tonight is certainly not a wasted effort. It's something that we need to do and I thought it was a good way perhaps to focus a little bit on what you're thinking is along that corridor as a whole. The item that I've given you that is labeled corridor study is not meant to be a final format in any way, shape or form. It's simply something I had assembled earlier today to just kind of help facilitate some discussion this evening. The land use scenario that's in there is predominantly one that you have seen before. We talked about that in regards to some of the TH 212 discussion that occurred probably 6 to 7 months ago so it may not be something that immediately comes back to mind but we talked about various land uses along that corridor. Particularly down in the interchange area along TH 101. Again, in tonights format it's really more of an example than it is anything but hopefully it will get you thinking that this is a type so you can focus on a little bit more specific level of detail. Particular with regard to TH 212 which with any bit of optimism is presumably going to be a reality at some time. So with that, I will just basically turn it back to comments that you might have on how you want to approach the TH 101 segment. I know it was mentioned last time that we never really even talked about some of ethe realignment alternatives but I think that has been generally kicked around for a number of years by various people. Perhaps not specifically by this body. This is a copy of the land use scenario that is in there. It does identify, at least a recent form of potential interchange. I don't know if it's the most recent but the folded diamond type of interchange. The dot pattern here for TH 212. This then generally depicts the realignment that has been envisioned for TH 101. Get rid of the hortizontal and vertical curvature problem that exists up in through here. Potentially push the road a little bit more throughout this single family residential area with the basic goal being to get rid of the job situation that we have and slightly run the road to the east. So essentially they talked about, I think literally since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and probably even a little bit prior to that. Realignment completely under the roadway and either removal or partial use, depending on the land use scenario that you picked out. Part of it still may maintain as kind of a frontage area for access purposes but as you get further north presumably part of that alternate would be removed and turned back to some of the abutting properties or whatever. So that particular alignment has been kicked around for quite some time and has been, I think on a number of plans. Conrad: Do you reaction to what you just said? Mark Koegler: Stop me anywhere you want to. ~conrad: The proposed alignment of TH 101 makes sense. Is there any ..,reason we would not want to see that? The Planning Commission in terms Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 17 e of how that is there. I think it's been documented that way many, many times and I don't think we're going to set any kind of precedent or nobody is going to surprised when we say yes, this is what we want but is there any disagreement with that? I guess that's the point that we should bring up right now. Anybody care? Makes sense to straighten it out if it's going to be a high traffic area. Headla: what happens if you would run it up and down Chanhassen? Run that straight west to CR 17 and then down and south of CR 18 create a new road. It looks like the way they're going now it's going to be very expensive. Particularly when you go south. Would that be totally out of line to hook one that's not quite a mile from TH 101? You've got a substantial road there already. Conrad: I guess I didn't track. where it is period? You're thinking of eliminating TH 101 Headla: Leave it, it's really a nice road in that type of community and take the real traffic out. So if we could avert the traffic coming from the north, go west to Powers Blvd. and then go south. You wouldn't have to fool around with that one bridge which is going to be a major undertaking. Siegel: You mean eliminate the road as a trunk highway? eHeadla: As a trunk highway right. The road has got a lot of character. When you go on it, it's almost a shame to destroy it. Siegel: You don't think we'll lose any access to downtown Chanhassen by eliminating that road as a main corridor? Headla: I doubt it. I wanted to throw it out as an idea. I was going to bring it up last time we were talking about it and I didn't but now at least I wanted to bring it up. It's something to think about. Erhart: I think the problem Dave is that TH 101 currently goes south to Shakopee and CR 17 currently goes to Chaska. Headla: I think at one point there you would have to continue straight south with a new road. The point is, if all that land isn't developed yet, you could probably put in a better road and less expensive and I'm shooting from the hip on this but I would suspect you could build a better road and less expensive than trying to realign TH 101 the way it is now. Then you lose a road with a lot of character. Emmings: Can it be less expensive if you have to go buy all that right-of-way? Headla: What are you going to do when you realign TH 101? 4ItEmmings: Not the whole southern portion of the road. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 18 e Mark Koegler: Do you want responses to some of those kind of points? To touch on some of your points theoretically. First of all, in terms of reconstruction, this segment is probably one of the easier ones to achieve. Where you get south from here in the future that it's going to be a lot more difficult. The primary reasons being again, assuming this occurs at some point in time, we've got major reconstruction that's going to be occurring essentially by about one-third. The northern third adjacent to the industrial district is all part of the tax increment district which ultimately when this is developed, that's ripe for becoming part of the improvements that mayor may not be a part of that so that segment becomes one that perhaps is a little easier to plan out so you really are left with a fairly small piece. The other response is that when you're looking at the overall traffic plans for the City, TH 101 right now the way we've been talking about it in general terms, probably will be a minor arterial rather than a collector, the way it's been designated in the past. The broadened study area was done by the HRA. That talked about at least the northern segment being a minor arterial. The key in that that we look for is continuity and you typically don't like to take traffic and divert it east or west a mile off the normal path of movement so having TH 101 and having CR 17 are not in conflict with one and another. They both serve very specific purposes. I can't argue against the aesthetics of driving on TH 101, I enjoy it also but in terms of safety and movement of traffic, it certainly loses out. eHeadla: That first point you mentioned where the new TH 212 would be, if you took that cloverleaf, whatever it is and moved it over to CR 17, would you still have the same opinion? You've got a good point with the tax increment. I have no argument with that but all the destruction that we do right at TH 101 and pioneer, if we moved that west to CR 17, where CR 17 could be, would you still feel the same way? Mark Koegler: Part of the problem with moving it to CR 17 and putting an interchange there any time in the near future is less great for northerly movement. Look sometime at a map of the south of CR 17 and try to determine how that could be projected southward which we have done. You run into the golf course and you run into extreme, extreme grade problems along the Bluff Creek area which we basically concluded is going to be economically not feasible to extend that road to the south. So in terms of any continuity of the southern movement, the TH 101 corridor still shows better promise. Headla: So from an economic place you say it just doesn't make sense to extend CR 17 south? Mark Koegler: It's just not very feasible. Headla: Okay, that's fine. econrad: Why don't you go on Mark and talk about the land use. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 19 e Mark Koegler: The land uses that are shown that I referenced before is essentially one of the scenarios that has been presented to you and probably not been discussed in a great detail. It's largely I think representative of a combination of factors. The existing zoning. The existing Comprehensive Plan. The potential changes that are going to happen as a result of construction of the TH 212 interchange and what that may mean. The likely pressure for some commercial development on the south end around interchanges. I think that's a topic that this body may specifically want to address and how it all fits with the existing land use patterns there. There are existing pockets of low density residential expanding from here and out. Certainly an existing portion of it through here that have been recognized. There are a number of smaller little isolated tracks that begin to be created as a result of the highway interchange construction and the right-of-way will be a part of that and in dealing with those, a great deal of those have been tabbed as more of a mid-density type residential. Whether it be a townhouse configuration or whatever with a little more sight design flexibility for some of those parcels. There is a commercial site that is shown down on kind of the southwest quadrant of that intersection. It's important to emphasize that that is a commercial site that's within the MUSA line and I think I put some reference in there that presumably that would be a combination of things. Auto oriented and neighborhood oriented from my judgment at least. Several things like gas stations and convenience stores and maybe dry cleaners ec;r whatever it might be that would satisfy some of the needs of the surrounding neighborhood but yet undoubtedly somebody would want to market to traffic volume that's going to be going along TH 212 and you may get some service stations and something like that for that parcel. So we have shown some commercial down there and again I remind you that commercial would not necessarily be competitive with downtown. We have a little bit different type of use and to some degree similar to what is happened along Lake Drive East. Aside from that, there is a pocket which on this map is shown as low density. It obviously is very extremely low density. It's not sewered right now and in fact the MUSA line I think still jogs around that so that parcel would remind essentially in a hobby farm kind of format for some time to come. The parcels east of that has been shown as additional low density residential with some mid-density residential. When we get over into here we're dealing with existing Lakeview Hills complex and I don't know what expansion plans they mayor may not have for future. I think you heard one night they had one of their counsel present talking about possibly expanding on a future phase and concerns about what the north corridor of TH 212 would do to that. I'm not sure where that sits but that's shown as high density over in that area. The only other pockets are really some of the existing open space areas down along Rice Marsh Lake. Presumably that would continue along the creek. This is open space park up in here which recently has been expanded to some degree. Part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD is talking about trail networks and things coming down here. Talking about open space down in here as part ~~f Chanhassen Hills subdivision. There was a park that was acquired ~own in that area so those kinds of existing things that have been Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 20 e added to the system within the last year or so as well. Again, it's a scenar io as to how some of the land uses may be considered down there and any comments that you would have that you would want to offer would certainly be appreciated. We will get into this in a little bit more detail depending on what we do with these corridor studies depending on what Council decides but again, it's still germain in this topic because this is an area we need to focus on anyway. Conrad: It makes sense to me Mark. I think the residents of the area, I forgot what I've told the residents that were worried about commercial down there. I can't remember if I said there will never be any commercial down there, that's probably what I said. It sounds like I'd say that but it sure looks like the area that you identified for commercial is well sectioned off. It fits there. It's probably appropriate for the neighbors. How do you see the other side of CR 18 developing? When you put commercial in there, do you see the other side of CR 18 as commercial? Do see long term if going to be low density or do you see commercial? The next demand is going to be to follow TH 101 down from a commercial standpoint. Anything on that corner of CR 18 and TH 101 is a good intersection should be there. Mark Koegler: Here again, the biggest thing we've got corning across Lyman is the MUSA line right now which depending on how you view it, maybe that's going to change in the next 10 years, 15 years, maybe that ~ommercial is not. In my mind, it's very likely that that decision is a ways down the road and that's not to say that you don't address it or begin to think about it. To a certain degree I think it's going to depend on what we market actually proves to be doable down there and then the site there, I'm not sure how much area they are reactions to but if that is enough land to support a small neighborhood kind of center which my reaction would be that is adequate for that general area. And to say I don't know that it's necessary from a community standpoint to ever extend that south. I would be very sensitive to thinking in terms of long term TH 101 being developed as a commercial corridor. I don't know that there's anybody who really thinks that that should happen. There are several parallels I think we can see around the Twin Cities. Something that comes to my mind is the city of Bloomington. If you follow 18 down south ,where it approaches the bridge, there's a big park down there, there is multi-family and there's a little neighborhood convenient center that is now sprouting up and there's high density down in the southeast quadrant of the intersection. There is low density in the northeast. It's commercial on the northwest and park on the southwest. I can see those kinds of mixes all the way up in here to undoubtedly... Siegel: When you put these blobs in place here, is there a geographical reason why you put residential low density parcel then right next to it another residential low density in a little smaller parcel and then on the other side of the planned TH 212 you've got the ~~ame thing sort of happening. Is there a reason? Is there a ~eographical reason why you've separated the blobs? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 21 e Mark Koegler: There are several things. There are what I guess you call intrastructural reasons and there is topographic reasons. This area essentially down here is undevelopable, down in the southern portion. This boundary line right here, it's not really shown on here but high density comes in essentially right over here where we've got kind of a natural buffer of the lower western area there. In essence, the grid is shown in here to a large degree as a buffer between the high and the lower uses. These two lower uses really could connect to these lines if you wanted to. The only reason they're broken is this is going to be extremely low density probably for some time to come because of the lack of uses situation again. This is within the MUSA line and may develop at some point in time sooner. You get some of the same kind of fractional things over here and I suspect that is probably part of your comment also. That really ultimately has to receive more detail than what the Comprehensive Plan will give it but this is assuming that existing TH 101 will be maintained in here, at least as some kind of an access road and not totally wasted if you will. The same thing might happen here that it would come down and terminate in some fashion or tie into this development in some fashion. We end up with some kind of remnant parcels that exist as a result of the highway construction and as a result as some of the existing land use patterns. Generally they are representative of either road structure or environmental. tlsiegel: How about that little one north of the TH 212 there where you have the little residential low density and then a large one? Mark Koegler: Really this would be the entire thing. The only reason we have that segregated is we essentially have an existing situation and we end up with kind of a remnant piece here that could have still service off of it and there's been enough lot depth there that we may not necessarily have much impact on the highway situation. Siegel: Where is the MUSA line in relationship to Lyman? Mark Koegler: is out of it. picks up the over to Eden area and all It comes across Lyman. There's a little extra here that It comes across and then comes down and basically just existing area down to Kiowa, comes back up the lake on prairie so essentially all of this is in except for this of this is out. Siegel: Who owns that property? That little jog in there, in the lake? Mark Koegler: There are a series of owners there. Probably half a dozen. I guess what we're asking for tonight is not a definitive conclusion for feasible land uses you want to designate for this area. Simply doing this as kind of saying, here's what we're doing and what we're going to be doing and any comments you specifically have on TH e101 corridor right now. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 22 e Erhart: I don't know if we're talking about the whole document or if we're going through it kind of paragraph by paragraph. Conrad: No, I just picked up on what Mark was talking about here. Erhart: I think what you have Mark is very appropriate. Is the very thing that I would envision making TH 101 really the southern access through Chanhassen and preventing what we've done on the northern access. I think we have the opportunity here to make the southern half, with the freeway so it would be the major access through town. We have the opportunity to do good planning and I think what you're proposing here is appropriate and really adds to the value of the downtown. I would like to see us even go one step further, which is a very small step and that's the boulevard parkway road system from TH 212 into town and actual designate that as a residential or automotive use since we already have designated the CR 17 intersection for industrial use and industrial park. If you start knowing that, like the parkways in St. Paul, do you know what I'm talking about? Mark Koegler: I know what you're talking about and in my mind that sets up some functional problems. One of the things that we're going to have to address pertaining to TH 101 and the Comp Plan and I just kind of touched on that again tonight but keep thinking about that. The position that we have that says that is a minor arterial. Normally tltities don't maintain an old minor arterial. Normally it's at the County level so right now the jurisdiction to TH 101 should be the reponsibility of the County. You start eliminating various types of traffic on that, I'm not sure what that does to that kind talk. The County may, and I have to emphasize may, make the philosophy... When you start eliminating various types of traffic, you get into some awkward situations. It's usually better to do that by design if you can rather than by signage. Making more traffic for CR 17 or whatever the entry into the industrial park itself. Erhart: I'm concerned that the thing will get foggy if we don't then all of a sudden we're going to end up with a boulevard and then no intersection down there and then all the trucks that go into the printing companies and envelope company, the junk mail capital of the world is going to come up this boulevard... You're talking about a situation that really we're not going to accomplish, all we're going to accopmlish then is we end up losing one of those intersections. That's where I'm coming from. Dacy: One more think on that issue, maybe we should schedule that for another agenda in the future but remember that there are a number of interchanges proposed along TH 212 and we can't build all 4 or 5 of them. Erhart: You mean in the southwest corridor? e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 23 e Dacy: Correct. There's going to be a limitation of funds and a determination of which interchange should go first and the combination of the TH 101 interchange and maybe the CR 4 interchange. In that case, TH 101 could potentially be handling traffic to the industrial park because that CR 17 interchange is dependent upon extension of CR 17 as a whole. Which pairs of interchanges are first? Erhart: I'm just bringing the subject up because I think we need to get our ducks in a row and fight for those interchanges and I think this boulevard and entrance to the City, that's one of our strong reasons why we need both interchanges. So rather than going into this thing saying we can...I think we have a plan here. We have a reason to get both of those interchanges. Then the issue is, what happens if we don't get these done? Mentally what are we planning here if TH 212 never happens? Is the realignment still a good idea. Living in the south and running into Chanhassen, I still think it's a great idea. I guess I open that up because I think it's something that's got to be thought about and then again are we still interested in getting the right-of-way acquired for a boulevard? Let's say a subdivision comes in here tomorrow, now if we accept this plan in this area and we want the right-of-way for this thing to get a boulevard we need an extra 20 feet right or something like that? Dacy: What I can say is that MnDot is now looking at preparing a ~etailed alignment based on that concept that you see there and looking at the right-of-way widths because the next step would be to have an official map hearing process for the TH 101 realignment. Erhart: Do you think we're going to see that this year? Dacy: I would say it's more likely in 1988. Erhart: Okay, well that's great. Those are some of the issues that come to my mind. Siegel: Wasn't there a transportation meeting out here in Chanhassen Dinner Theater concerning metro transit? Dacy: That's November 9th. Siegel: Do you suppose this parcel is what's going to be discussed? Dacy: The primary emphasize is going to be improvement of TH 5 and then TH 212 to a certain degree and probably overriding everything is highway funding. Siegel: When Mark mentioned the possibility that the County would be the owner of TH 101, is that the way we should be leaning? I mean there are three possible jurisdictions. I'm asking Mark, why did you tltsay the County might have control over TH l01? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 24 e Mark Koegler: Predominantly because of the minor arterial designation and the conclusion of the Benshoof's broadened study area reported that the road will function at that level. If you look at the Metropolitan Council's criteria for interchanges, for example along the freeways, minor arterials is a minimum threshhold for having an interchange which is where we're at with TH 101. There are a number of indicators that seem to say that that's the functional classification that should be on that road. When we get north of TH 5, we've gone through some of these scenarios before and that got bogged down in discussions between the State and Hennepin County and Carver County and the intent was to turn that road back, in an attempt for jurisdiction and that got caught up in a snag with all of three different routes and I'm not sure where that is today but essentially I think they're back now to only thinking in terms of trying to get rid of the crosstown and CR 18 to the state and not get anything in return. The State's position was part of the fact that there will be returns from TH 101 and the County was willing to do that at one point in time. That's not to say that improvements didn't have to be made or whatever and that issue has never ever really been totally resolved in Carver County as to how they would fit in so we have a jurisdictional situation essentially splits TH 101. A portion of it north of TH 5 and then it comes totally into Carver County when you get into the downtown area. But the reason that statement is in there right now, and this is just a discussion tonight, is that if it is to be a minor arterial that's probably the appropriate ~esignation. Let's not begin to try to predict as to how Carver County might react to that. They may have no interest in it at all but it still gets back to the point that I think the City in the Comprehensive Plan has to make a position one way or the other. Are you stating that it should be a state route, should be a county route or that you're willing to look at taking that as local. That's the only way ultimately I think there's any chance to resolve this thing. Nobody else seems to want to take a lead because they don't live with it everyday. Siegel: Carver County then has not taken any kind of stand on questions at all? They left it up to Hennepin County... Mark Koegler: The previous discussions that occurred, it's my understanding that I don't think it was intentional but Carver County was almost neglected and came into the discussions fairly late. I think it dawned on them that TH 101 is actually in two counties in this area and I know they did get in fairly late but I don't think they really thought they were... Conrad: Is TH 101 going to be the major access to Chanhassen off of TH 212 then? Is that the most probable scenario? Siegel: Wouldn't it almost have to be if you consider the restriction of the MUSA line on development in Chanhassen? We've only got one ~lternative for a main entrance into Chanhassen within the MUSA line ~orridor and that's TH 101. Otherwise you're going to force Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 25 e development on the agricultural area. Dacy: Met Council does look at where the MUSA line is when they look at interchange locations. That's one of the criteria. An Environmental Impact Statement for the TH 212 corridor will be looking at the traffic indications from the interchanges. One study appears to affect traffic versus another set. Your question is, is it the number one access at the time. Really we haven't had a decision on that yet. wildermuth: Shouldn't we be looking at some other zones down there other than residential? Should we be looking at extension of the Industrial Park possibly around the interchange there? Dacy: That was one issue that came up during the public hearing process for the official map. There was strong concern for strip commercial along TH 101 and concern that that would not occur. Another option that was looked at at that time was an all residential option. Industrial was never a part of that picture originally. I don't know if you really have lot sizes that have the area to accomodate that type of use. Mark Koegler: The biggest problem seems to be one of continuity to some of the existing industrial that's in and specifically you've got a number of existing land uses in there. Both on the Tiguo area and down ~long Lyman Blvd. there is a pocket. Admittedly a low density pocket but there's still a pocket of existing land there that by the time you drop the interchange in there, you really end up with some fairly small remnant parcels and those obviously in a lot of communities do take on an industrial type of use. Chanhassen has taken the position, essentially in the industrial that it prefers more of the planned industrial type of approach where you have more of a business park. Whether tha t be the one a t the east end of town or tha t be the maj or Chan Lakes Business Park. I think in terms of the way this plan is approached, the industrial is probably maintaining that philosophy. That if you look at it being areas that are larger in size and perhaps have a little bit more uniform boundary configuration, then more logical future extension might be to look to the west and the southwest of the existing industrial park and eventually expansion in that area. There is a fair amount of vacant land still in the industrial park. The piece on the north side of Lake Susan for the most part is undeveloped and that has been tied up with some state problems in the past. I don't know if that still is the case or not but when you get to the south of the existing Chan Lakes Business Park south of the railroad tracks and again there's another phase in there in that project which ultimately will occur as a part of the extension of the Lake Drive West there. So the philosophy has been to concentrate on the larger, more planned industrial kinds of approaches. I think that was the main reason why on the land use scenario put together for this area, industrial was ommitted. e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 26 e Dacy: One final consideration would be that if we look to these corridor studies, the Commission should consider some type of statement that these types of uses, commercial and heavier density uses, are anticipated upon construction of these improvements. I think there's a real concern out there in the neighborhood too that commercial is proposed next year on Lyman Blvd. and that occurs prior to funding being allocated for TH 212 or TH 101 realignment issue is resolved so that might be another consideration. Conrad: I think that's significant. Let me go back to my primary access to Chan. If it is, if it goes through, in terms of how that road looks Mark, what kind of controls, what kind of ability do we have to make that a real boulevard going into Chanhassen? A center island, trees, something that looks different than a normal road? Really a road that says welcome and maybe a boulevard concept. Is that out of our control? Who would the design of that highway be under? Mark Koegler: You ask a multifaceted and difficult question. The general statement, I think that section of TH 101 probably this City is in as good a position as it's ever been with any transportation corridor to affect the design. What that ultimate design will look like. The reason I say that is because I really believe that if that improvement is going to happen, the City is going to be involved .financiallY. Whether that be in the tax increment area or whether that e in special assessments, whatever. I think realistically for that corridor to be realigned, Chanhassen will have a financial stake in that which gives you a better leverage in the design process. That's not to say that when it gets down around the interchange area that it's not going to be very important for the city to communicate it's thoughts and desires to MnDot as to what you think that should or shouldn't be. Again, that may mean more cost to the City. I don't know how that sorts out because MnDot may say, well that's fine. We'll build a 48 foot road and if you want boulevards it costs this much more and somehow you have to find a way to fund that. But there are enough pieces in that particular stretch that the City I think will have involvement with the financial point of view because that gives you the best leverage of design in probably any site that I'm aware of. I think what that means, in terms of realistically what you want it to be, you've got an opportunity to set it up with boulevards, to control lighting, to control berming, distance along there, just include the right-of-way, what to acquire. I think yes indeed this is a good opportunity to do that and I think that's some of what at least we've talked about for TH 5 and that eventually gets extended with how can the City impact that and make sure that that's handled in the most aesthetic manner that is feasible and I think that means looking at the lighting. Looking at overhead power lines and looking at all of those things that impact you visually when you move through a community. Again, this will probably be easier as we get to a smaller scale. _conrad: So we will have that control when the time comes? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 27 e Mark Koegler: You may have opportunity to have that control. Conrad: Does anybody care what that place looks like and maybe this is not the time, comprehensive planning to be talking about highway design elements and maybe that's off base right now. Is that Mark? Mark Koegler: No, I don't think it's off base. The Comprehensive Plan has a lot of components to it. It certainly is your vision of what this City is going to be in the next 15 plus years and I think in that regard particular if we take the emphasize at least with corridors in the MUSA line, if none of the others, you have the opportunity to go a little bit above and beyond the norm with these little vignents that we're talking about doing. Set up another subcategory. Here's the goals for this corridor. Here are the recommendations that I want you to know. Conrad: Is it worthwhile following up? Just conceptually saying that this is our major access to Chanhassen. That we should try to make it as pleasing, as nice an access as possible. That design consideration should incorporate some kind of friendly way of entering the City. I just don't know what that means. That could mean how you design the berms, how you design boulevards. It's obviously going to be, there are cost considerations there that I have no idea what that impact is. Is there support for that, that we look at that area as something on ~he Comprehensive Plan? Siegel: I think we should definitely say something to that effect. I don't know exactly what. Afterall there are considerations of ownership and whether we will financially participate in the development. Things that are really not part of the consideration but if you're considering it as a part of the Comprehensive Plan we should be looking at this as the entrance to Chanhassen. Conrad: I think I would like that type of wording in this Mark. The entrance to Chanhassen and to incorporate maybe some loose words that kind of help indicate that we're really interested in how we present ourselves to a first time or somebody that's corning in. Do you need more input from us? Mark Koegler: I think that's clear. I would suggest also that in looking at designs that I've done before in similar situations in other communities, if we've got a corridor like this with a lot of interest and a lot of emphasize, we've included things like just a small graphic typical section of what hypothetically we want it to be. So that you've got a graphic example in the plan that we need 100 feet of right-of-way and in that 100 feet of right-of-way we're going to have 24 feet of pavement and 24 feet of median and 24 feet of pavement and lighting and whatever. That's real quick and easy to do and something that I think has a lot more punch than creating some nebulous words as &:. 0 w hat we'd 1 i k e to do. Th 0 sea r e par t 0 fit too. I hop ewe can ~park that with a little graphic will help. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 28 e Siegel: One question Mark, you sort of indicated here the interchange at TH 212 to be a, what is it an inverted diamond or how do you describe that? Mark Koegler: A folded diamond. Siegel: Is that what we've been looking at other interchanges? Mark Koegler: That's what MnDot has been working on. Siegel: Okay. I just couldn't remember for sure the configuration. I just wanted to make sure of that point. Erhart: One more point and I think rather than being apologetic about this thing, I think we ought to take the view that if Eden prairie can design a beautiful street system in their city, we ought to be able to do it too. I think it's just great that we can address this. The other thi ng, are we go i ng to get on the agenda with i n the nex t meeti ng or so with us taking a stand with regard to the State and County about doing some straightening and improving sighting south on TH 10l? Is that this meeting? I remember Al Klingelhutz at the last meeting said this is the time to do it. I'd like to begin this week and as the County Commissioner he wants a statement. In fact I've got clarification. He wants simply a statement from the Planning .ommission and City Council that he can have that goes to the State and says look, we want some money funded to improve some sightings, straightening, ditch grading and so forth. He believes there's enough, with our support, he feels that there's a good chance of getting the funding to do that so I ask that we direct the staff to put together a document that we can sign. Conrad: south? I'm not sure what it means. Minor improvements to TH 101 Erhart: I think what he's asking for is a document that says the city of Chanhassen is behind us so he can put it up along with Chaska and go to the State and get additional funds. He senses that there are funds available if somebody will carry the banner and go get it. He sat here and asked us, it wasn't quite clear what he wanted so I met with him. A resolution, that's the word. It makes it clear and I think we just list some of the things that we'd like to see. Sight improvement is number one. Perhaps some straightening and grading of some of the ditches. Siegel: Where is he going to go with this resolution? Erhart: To the State. Siegel: Department of Transportation? e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 29 e Erhart: Yes. Because they came out and did that sight improvement right outside Cbanhassen Hills and all of a sudden, they never had any money for TH 101 and all of a sudden they do. Dacy: It's the developers. Erhart: I don't know. Somehow he feels with some appropriate pressure right now that he can get some funds. Siegel: We might as well try it. You've got to remember that TH 101 doesn't go through Chaska so it's a single community effort within this jurisdiction. Erhart: Anyway he's the Carver County Commissioner and if we could just get a resolution, let's do it. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - GENERAL DISCUSSION. Conrad: Basically what staff would like on these items is our opinions and then some direction as to, do we proceed? How do we proceed from here? Why don't we take them one at a time. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the 150 foot lot depth erequirement. Emmings: I mentioned last time I thought that as the lot widths increase, and I thought maybe the sideyard setbacks ought to be increased or there ought to be some attempt to center that. I guess what I had in mind what someplace, if you've got a development in and if you've got 175 foot wide lots or 150 foot wide lots or something like that, somehow it seems that if there's a house built here and you've got an open lot for that house to come in and build within 10 feet of that lot line and decides to leave the other side of his lot completely open doesn't seem fair to that neighbor. wi ldermu th: I t depends on wha t he does with it though. I f he bu i Ids a tennis court over there or something like that, swimming pool. Emmings: I guess what I'm thinking about is if I'm the neighbor that's living here, if we all have nice wide lots and he comes in and decides for whatever reason he wants his house as close to mine as he can get it, I'm not going to be very happy about that. I'm not going to happen to look at that. Now the neighbor on the other side may be just as happy as can be but I'm not going to be too happy. It seems to me that maybe there ought to be some kind of a sliding scale so that if you're making the lots wider to try and give it akind of a look so the houses are a little further apart, why let this guy build all the way over next to the lot line within 10 feet of it so maybe if you have, I don't ~know. Maybe if you have 100 foot lot, maybe you leave them at 10. If ~ou have 150, maybe you increase it to 15. Just a little bit more just Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 30 _ to provide more of a buffer to the people who are already there. Siegel: Do we have a lot width requirement? Dacy: Yes, it's 90 feet. Siegel: 90 feet so you're not suggesting that we change that? Dacy: No. Lot width is later on. Siegel: How does that affect the strange shaped lot where we grant a variance because of the shape of the lot. We just created a 50 foot entryway to a 25,000 square foot lot. You know what I'm talking about? Dacy: You mean a flag lot? Siegel: Where you just have enough room for a driveway to get into a lot. Dacy: If it's going to be that large, I'm sure that the depth is going to be well in excess because the throat of that lot, the 50 foot strip is going to have to open out into a larger area for their flag portion if it's 25,000 square feet and that would certainly I would think would _be excess of 150 feet. Is that what you're asking? Siegel: No, well I'm asking about it in the context of a subdiVision. If it's obviously going to affect the two lots on either two sides of this entranceway and the configuration of those lots. In other words, we might have two 90 foot and a 40 foot entryway to a larger lot behind it. Obviously the lot depth would be measured from where? The roadway or the back of that lot back in the back corner? Dacy: The ordinance defines lot depth as the average distance between the front property line abutting the public right-of-way back to the rear property line. Siegel: So his depth would be from the road then to the back of his lot? Dacy: Right. We're going to be talking about flag lots and the problems that they pose a little bit later. Headla: Steve's got a point there. I'll give you a first hand example of that. Here's my property and the neighbors property goes like this. They put up a barn, and we're talking just imaginery but this thing is like 120 by 60 and we're 10 feet away from the line. If you look at the watershed coming off of there and the snow and my fence line is right on the line, it used to be the fence is down, it raises havoc with the trees. It just doesn't seem right that they should be ~able to put a building like that. If they were within the laws, I ~hink we should control something like that and when you mentioned a Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 31 . sliding scale, I think that's very appropriate. Dacy: I hate to do this sometimes but when I worked in Florida we did have an ordinance provision for sideyard setbacks. If a lot width exceeded 100 feet then the side setback would be 10% of the lot width but at minimum you had to have 8 feet as a side setback. I think that gets at what you're trying to do however there are two cautionary points that I want to thrpw on that. One is from an enforcement standpoint. It poses problems because it was one of those details that got lost in the process in the number of building permits every month to be looking at 10% of the 110.9 feet is 10.1 so they've got to have 10 feet on either side of the lot. The second comment that I would have is if you do have 110 or 120 foot wide lot, you would have a buildable area width of 100 feet and I'm sure there's going to be some isolated cases that some people are going to cramp all to one side. I think the norm is that people tend to center their homes on the lot. So there is a mechanism to do it. From a staff's standpoint we're kind of leary because of enforcement and monitoring aspect. That issue comes up on another item that we're discussing. Emmings: I guess my reaction is enforcement is a totally separate question. My notion is if that's what people will do anyway, then it will never be an issue and we don't have to worry about it but if it's ~here, then you protect. In that one case where the guy comes in and ..,is going to be abusive, you've got a reason, something to point at to say no you can't do that. Conrad: I don't know what abuse is. I'm having a tough time with that. I really understand what you're saying but if we have a sideyard setback of 10 feet and somebody meets that, we obviously feel that 10 feet is not an abuse of the neighbors property regardless of if the other side is 90 feet and this side is 10, it's still by ordinance we felt that it's good enough for everybody in the community. Somebody gets the advantage of having 90 feet of sideyard but still the ordinance has protected you by the 10 feet. Headla: absolute picture. probably I think you're trying to measure something in strictly terms without stepping back and looking at the overall My situation there, they've got about 500 feet, they're within 10 feet. Conrad: I would just hate to get into ratios and stuff like that. It seems real arbitrary. Emmings: You're saying arbitrary and you've got a 10 foot sideyard setback now and you tell me what great compelling logic that made that anything but arbitrary. Conrad: Let's do a couple things. Let's sort of take a straw poll ahere in terms of should we have staff proceed in allowing the depth to ~hange from our current ordinance? Yea or nay on that? L Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 32 e Erhart: We're talking about 125 anyway? Emmings: To whatever they want as long as they meet 15,000 square feet. Dacy: No, we're saying a minimum of 125 feet. Erhart: I'm in favor of that. Emmings: Yes. Siegel: Yes. Conrad: Me too. Wildermuth: We felt at the time when this ordinance was put into place that there was a value to having a deep lot along with the minimum of 15,000 square foot lots. I don't think we've tested it enough, given it a fair shot to change it now. Maybe 6 months from now or 4 or 5 subdivisions from now if it turns out to be an issue in every one, that the variances are corning at us from right and left on every one, then yes I think we better listen to what's going on. ~eadla: I'll go for 125 based on what Mark Koegler said last time. ~ertainlY would make his planning a whole lot easier. It Conrad: It looks like consensus is to go ahead and draft something and pass it by the City Council. Jim, my only thought is, I hear you and I think that's valid yet on the other hand, when you think about a physical look of a neighborhood, when you pack the houses together and they're only 20 feet apart, to me that looks crammed regardless of how deep the rearyard is so I think Council was talking about give people open space in their rearyards but I think there's also something to the appearance. I think the flexibility to allow developers to use the land a little bit easier. So, it's a yea on that one. In terms of the scaled ratio, that seems real complicated to me but Tim, would you like to have staff work on some kind of a way to move that setback? Erhart: Nay. Emmings: Yea. Siegel: Yea. Wildermuth: I don't care. Headla: Yea. Conrad: And I'm a nay so we have two nays and three yeses and a I ~don't care so why don't you draft something that might seem easy to _implement. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 33 e Fence Ordinance. Olsen: Pretty much all we did was just to add into the fence section of the ordinance to say that the use of barbed wire fence is prohibited. Conrad: How do you feel about that Dave? Headla: Now that's any fence, barbwire that's in place now is okay? Olsen: Right it would probably be grandfathered in. Erhart: We're talking about no barbwire in the residential areas? We're not talking about agricultural? We're not talking about fences used for horses in agricultural areas? Olsen: It's not in the agricultural. In the residential area. Headla: Where do you draw the line there? The people where we were all classified agricultural tax wise but you've got us listed as residential. Olsen: You're zoned residential. 4Iwildermuth: What about industrial where you've got a cyclone fence with a strand of barbwire? I think we should take a look at it. Olsen: It's not permitted right now anyway. Wildermuth: I think we should take a look at it because we may get some kind of a business in town that has a very high security requirement and we ought to do something about it. Emmings: I didn't understand the language of the proposal because I understand what you're proposing. You say the use of barbed wire fences is prohibited in the residential districts for any use other than agricultural purposes. What would it be permitted for? Olsen: It could be used for agricultural purposes in the agricultural district. Emmings: No, that's not what that says though. Erhart: Yes, you need to go back and focus on that. confusing. It's really Headla: Steve, if I put cattle on my property, I interpret that as I can put up a barbwire fence. eEmmings: Can you have cattle anyplace that's zoned residential. .----. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 34 e Headla: I'm agricultural. Erhart: No, it says residential. The language is confusing. Olsen: No you're not agricultural. You're zoned residential. Headla: My tax says I'm agriculture. Olsen: We want to make it clear that in the agricultural district, in the A-2 and unsewered areas where agriculture is a permitted use, there barbwire fences are permitted. In the single family districts where it's not agricultural, it's not a permitted use. Emmings: Are you saying that barbwire fence will be prohibited in residential districts period? Then you need a period and you need to delete the rest of that sentence. Then it says it can be used in the agricultural area and I guess it already says it, barbwire fences are permitted in the agricultural district when used for agricultural purposes and I was just wondering if we ought to put in there or just put in, for active agricultural purposes or uses. The thought being that we would then have a way to go. I take it people don't like barbwire and my thought was, if somebody wants to have, what do you use barbwire for? It's always for cattle and horses? Alright, so if ~heY're going to have that use in the agricultural area, that's fine ~ut let's make it almost like a conditional use in the sense that as long as you're using it for cattle fine but if you're going to quit using it for cattle, you ought to take that barbwire out of there. Are we that much opposed to barbwire that we'd like to do something like that? I personally have no feelings about it one way or the other. Erhart: I agree with Dave. When you get into the residential area I'm opposed to it but there's an advantage in the rural area even if you have horses because for the money constraints you've got, you can provide a lot bigger area for your horses for a lot less money spent on a fence. There's a real advantage to it. I think I'd be careful wording it so it doesn't get interpretted later that horses are not agricultural therefore it's not useable on horses. Siegel: Does this anticipated change affect any existing stables in the residential area? I can think of one. Those horse stables over there on CR 17. Right up by Shorewood. Conrad: Pat Jensen? Siegel: Pat Jensen Stables. Conrad: She's gone. Moved out west. Siegel: They will be informed of the change or will they be egrandfathered in if they are barbwire? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 35 e Olsen: They would be grandfathered in. Siegel: In a situation like that, would we inform them anyway just so they might do it out of their own goodwill? Olsen: What we'll do is just send them a notice to all people with horses. Conrad: Jim, your concern? Wildermuth: What about a company coming into Chan Lakes Industrial Park. Let's say they process precious metals or something and they've got to put up a cyclone fence stranded with barbwire on top of the fence. Are you going to tell them they can't do that? Olsen: It does specify what kind of fences can be used in the industrial park. Dacy: It's prohibited in residential and commercial and industrial districts. The use of barbwire fence is prohibited in the commercial and industrial areas. Wildermuth: That's not what I would like to see. ~t optional for your industrial area for example. W3 minimum height. I would like to see You may want to put Conrad: That would probably be a good way to do it. Olsen: We've got a maximum of 8 feet in the commercial. Anything over that has to get a conditional use permit. Headla: If we left it as you suggested, no barbwire fencing, could a conditional use permit allow them to put barbwire at the 8 foot level? Olsen: Not with that language. You need to tell us what you want for commercial and industrial. They are allowed to go to 8 feet or barbwire may be considered in commercial and industrial areas through a conditional use permit. Headla: Maybe that's a good way to do it. Wildermuth: I think that's good to do it as a conditional use permit. Siegel: Have we addressed the fencing requirements in commercial and industrial districts within the context of the fence ordinance? Dacy: Yes. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. tlbo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on Accessory Buildings. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 36 e Erhart: I like the concept and I think I was the one that started out with this thing. I think it's a good approach. I would just question the example where someone comes in wanting, he's in a residential area and owns a big lot and wants to build a four stall detached garage with cedar shake roof and it's beautiful. He's going to spend $30,000.00 on this garage and I think we need to accomodate that guy. I'd like to see us raise the 850 to 1,4010 but limit the height or whatever way you define the difference between a steel barn in a residential area and a beautiful detached garage. That's the only concern I have. Emmings: I don't know how you're going to do that because if you allow the size, I think what the person chooses to build it out of, you aren't going to be able to regulate that. Erhart: Can't you make aesthetically similar to the main structure on the house? I should say architecturally similar to the primary structure. Emmings: I actually went through the same process. I thought a 3 car garage is very common today. I thought about building one and it's 22 by 36, which isn't far from the standard size, that's 792 square feet so that fell within the 800 so I was kind of comfortable with the 800 myself but I agree with you, if somebody wanted it to be a four car ~arage and they were going to do a nice job, I really wouldn't have any ~bjections to that. I don't know how you can draw that line in language in there. If they can think of someway to do it, that would be fine. Erhart: I think any number, 8010 or 1,400 is going to eliminate the problem we had with the 510 foot by 30 foot or how big was that barn? Headla: That was like 100 by 50 that he wanted to put in. That's the one you really want to stay low. The height is a clear way to eliminate that one. Erhart: Even 510 by 30, that's like a small Menard's steel shed. What's that size? 510 by 30 so that's 1,500 square feet. Emmings: If we can get away with saying that it will be architecturally consistent with the principal use, that would be nice. Headla: You're talking about these low sheet metal buildings and low barns, they're all portable. Erhart: I would think that 800 and 1,400, anywhere in that range would serve to cover that 30%. Emmings: What kind of a height minimum would help to get rid of these metal barns? e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 37 e Headla: What I was thinking, the only time people put up those buidings like that, they like to hide for dump trucks coming in, construction trucks. Like on mine, I have a 12 foot opening and that's mandatory for good sized equipment but if you limit it to 20 feet, you're going to knock out the sheet metal buildings. Erhart: And yet you could still put a nice 3 car garage with a 20 feet ceiling I would think. Headla: I look at the height of my house, it isn't that high. Siegel: How many square feet existed in that infamous St. Louis Park treehouse? Probably 800 to 900 square feet? Okay, we better consider some types of these kinds of things. You're talking about the barn type of house structure and you're talking about height and square footage here. Erhart: At 1,400 square feet? Siegel: No, you're talking about you're trying to restrict that kind of structure in size in relationship to the rear lot. But the rear lot may not be dimensional a part of a person's plan for detached accessory structure. ~rhart: period. I thought we were talking about limiting height to 20 feet Siegel: That means no building could be taller than 20 feet? I don't know if I go along with that for every application in the world. I can see your point and what you're trying to achieve but I can see some structures coming in here for permits, especially for the larger pieces of property. I'm talking about a detached building on the lot. Erhart: In the first place the ordinance doesn't allow detached garages. Dacy: No, it says if you have a certain style house you have to attach your garage but you can have detached garages. Erhart: I agree that we should allow detached garages. Siegel: We already have. There have been people in here asking for permits for detached garages. Dacy: Weren't you saying, we're talking specifically about the rearyard area and somebody is going to build a four car garage, it's going to be detached, it's going to be fairly close from the side or the rear of the lot. _rhart: So we don't get into problems with horses, I think you should ~ake out the rearyard and just call it accessory buildings. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 38 e Dacy: I think the original intent of this was if somebody had the Sears buildings that it could be placed as near as 5 feet to the rear lot line but yet we wanted to put some type of area. Erhart: But then this guy with a 5 acre lot can walk in and put a barn in front of his house and say it's not in the rearyard. When you get a 5 acre lot, it's going to be difficult. Headla: Tim has a point. Dacy: That's why we're proposing a 800 square foot maximum. Like the lot on Highway 7, you're saying it's 5 acres but there was single family lots in Shorewood and this area could be subdivided. Erhart: I'm just saying, don't talk about rearyard at all. Headla: The Lawson property, which is the front yard and rear yard? You've got double fronted lots. Olsen: The street frontage side of the lots are the front yards. Headla: Well, he's got two streets. _conrad: Where did the 5 come from? 5 feet from any rear lot line? Olsen: That's in the ordinance right now. Conrad: That seems close to any lot line. Wildermuth: It seems too close. Conrad: It does and I don't like that. Siegel: I don't see why you'd have a problem with that. Why do you think somebody is going to build their house facing their yard to the rear? Conrad: It's just 5 feet is this far. Siegel: Yes but the other guy has 5 feet so you've got 10 feet. Conrad: The wa ter from the eaves of thi s barn or roof will hi t the neighbor's property. Dacy: It was consistent with what the older ordinance also. The only thing that was new in this was the 30% thing. Trying to establish a maximum area. Erhart: .ommon. I think a lot of this accessory stuff, I think they're fairly Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 39 e Conrad: Accessory structures are garages right so garages are covered? That's the typical accessory structure that we're talking about now. Is that right? Olsen: Yes and the tool shed. Conrad: So whatever, we have to make sure that whatever restrictions are not really restricting a garage. Siegel: That also says that provided no detached accessory structure shall be placed nearer than 5 feet from any rear lot I ine. I've got one that's closer than that. It's my pump house for the swimming pool and it doesn't affect my neighbor at all. And I'm sure there are a lot of people on smaller lots who are going to be faced with similar circumstances. If they put in any kind of detached accessory structure. It doesn't say a garage. I guess that's where I'm having problems with that because it says no detached accessory structure because it covers too many possibilities or all the possibilities. Emmings: Permitted accessory uses in RSF, there's garage, storage building and there's a bunch of others. Also like a kennel. Those are the kinds of the things that are permitted. afonrad: I originally didn't like the 81010 feet thinking that they're ~arages but I guess I'm comfortable with the 81010 and I could be persuaded to go up from 81010. I guess I'm not really concerned that it fits the character. What I don't want to see is a humongous building out of context in the residential area and I think it sure seems like, whether it be 81010 or 1,41010, we'll probably rule that out so I don't care which number we pick. Emmings: What would be the sideyard setback on the accessory building? 110 feet? Conrad: So, who would like to go along with a larger than 8101O? Erhart: I would. Is there a typical dimensions for a 3 stall detached garage with a little workshop area at one end? Emmings: You've got 12 feet per stall, per car stall and then whatever you want for your shop. Erhart: How deep is it? Emmings: 210 is minimum and they are typically 22 or 24. Erhart: That's 1,1056 feet. Conrad: What should we do? Should we round it off to 1,101O1O? Should tire go up to 1,2101O? Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 40 e Siegel: Why not leave it 30%? Conrad: Let's leave it at 1,000. Emmings: Do people want that 30% referred to in there too? Conrad: I don't like the 30%. It's not meaningful to me at all and that was my biggest problem with this whole deal. The 30% does not mean anything to me. Emmings: Out of 15,000 square foot lot, say half of it was your backyard, is that reasonable? Do you think it would be half of it? It certainly wouldn't be bigger than that. Erhart: So let's say you go down a lot, say you only have a quarter of a backyard, is that reasonable and that's 1,125 square feet. Emmings: So we don't really need the 30%. Dacy: It's in there for smaller lots. Erhart: What are our smallest lots? Conrad: It's 13,500. - Dacy: There are some existing lots that are 8,000 or 9,000 square feet. Emmings: Maybe you ought to leave it in for a just in case. Siegel: Yes, I'm really worried with setting any size on it. I'd rather stick with a percentage. We've got too many different sizes of lots to try and yield the maximum or even the minimum. Erhart: But if you stick with this percentage and then some guy comes over with 150 by 20 foot barn. Conrad: The straight percentage doesn't work for me. Olsen: I think the reason that we have that percentage is just for the benefit of small lots that don't have 1,000 foot. Conrad: Okay, I buy that. Instead of the 800 we can put in the 1,000. We can leave the 30% in controlling... Olsen: Small lots. Conrad: Right and we'll up the 800 square feet to 1,000 and we'll change the 5 feet from any rear lot line. Obviously I have no support 4lior by change to 5 feet. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 41 e Emmings: Change it to 10. I think it should be 10. Why not? Conrad: I think it should be too. If the side is 10. Conrad: If the side is 10, why wouldn't the rear yard be l0? What do you want to do. 10 or 5? Emmings: 10. Siegel: 5. Conrad: I say 10. Siegel: I can envision a lot of situations in small lots where you're going to have problems with that kind of requirement. It's fine for those that have 15,000 square foot lots and larger but you down to those under that size and we're going to have a lot of people in here asking for variances on their rear lot line requirements for accessory buildings. Emmings: Especially where they're setting up these small metal sheds that you buy at the store. Siegel: Even a gazebo in a corner of a lot. They're going to have to ~ome in here because they can't put it 5 feet from the fence? Their own fence because you're going to make them put it 10 feet in? Headla: But why should you put it so close to the lot line? That's imposing on the neighbors. Siegel: A gazebo is imposing on their neighbors? You're actually 20 feet from them minimum. Emmings: Why? Siegel: Because there would be 10 feet on their side. Conrad: There's some validity in what Bob says in terms of those other little structures. Let's take another vote? 5 or l0? 5's win. TREATED WOOD. Olsen: Basically what I said is let's not do anything right now until we have all the information. Conrad: Does anyone want to do anything right now? ~omething that can be very dangerous. ..,e have no way of controlling it. Headla: Yes. I don't think we should allow treated wood in the ground unless they show us that it's not harmful. I can come up with I can stick it in the ground and Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 42 e Conrad: How do they show, they can't show right? They can't show that it's not dangerous. Headla: I think it's up to them to show that it's not dangerous. Olsen: I'm investigating having some tests done. They are sending me some addresses of labs who can do tests. Headla: Yes but I think the vendor or the manufacturer of that product should be doing the testing and pay for it. I don't think we should spend one penny verifying that. I think it's up to the manufacturer to verify that it is not dangerous. Like this wood, why can't we bury that in the ground? That's prohibited. We have to haul it away. That's a situation I really get sqwimish. wildermuth: Rather than take this issue on ourselves, I think we ought to be pressing for the EPA or some state agency to look into it. Olsen: They have looked at it and concluded that ... Headla: Do they list it by product, the manufacturer? 01 sen: When we pu t a board wal kin, we don't see the type of wood that's being used. 4Iteadla: So somebody really can use just about any type of treated wood? Olsen: Right. It's all treated with three major chemicals that are used in the pressure treated woods and they have not found that they are harmful. Conrad: Are we talking about treated wood that is in the water? We're not talking above ground, we're talking about below ground? Headla: That was my main concern where people wanted to put in boardwalks over wetlands with treated wood in the water. Conrad: What is the alternative for treated wood? If we don't use treated wood in the wetland... Headla: Cedar poles, oak poles. They last what, 20 to 30 years. Olsen: Or metal. Conrad: Is that a hardship? Wildermuth: More expensive. ~onrad: What typically are we talking about? Are we talking about ~oardwalks? That's what brought it on was boardwalks through wetlands. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 43 tt-ildermuth: Aren't we just spinning our wheels if we... Conrad: We can't provide it's harmful. Wildermuth: We aren't going to be able to point to some State Statute. Olsen: The EPA said they didn't specifically do, there are 1,000 different combinations. wildermuth: At this point all we can conclude is there no issue here. Headla: I disagree. I think we should say no treated wood in water period. Are we going to get our backs against the wall by saying 5 or 10 feet clearance, no way. Siegel: How are you going to police that though? Headla: I guess the same way you would police the 5 foot. Siegel: No but how are going to police it as a community? They can go to Eden prairie and buy their treated wood. You're talking about a bigger question than just what one municipality can do. I think it's fine if we alert the concern, if we have one, to the Environmental Protection Agency and maybe it already has been or others should voice . concern but why should Chanhassen not allow treated wood without the apabilities of enforcing it? Headla: I think you can enforce it. Just remember now we're only saying like putting treated wood posts in the wetlands. When somebody comes in to put a boardwalk over the wetlands, that's when we explain to them that they can use treated wood as the actual walkway and everything. You just can't put treated wood down into water. Siegel: That's for new construction? Headla: Oh yes. That's all we could do. Conrad: At what point in time would we have control on knowing if it was treated wood or not? Olsen: A lot of those docks we don't even know about. Conrad: When would we have an opportunity to tell anybody that we don't allow treated wood in the water? Olsen: Like a wetland alteration permit. Conrad: Probably only in the wetland alteration permit process. We say you can't do it. You've got to have a dock or you have to have a boardwalk. e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 44 ~iegel: Can we as a community dictate the materials used in such construction? Dacy: That was the issue that we were just discussing. If a national agency and the Sta te has not found whether or not it is harmful, for us to have a basic ordinance or legal justification being reasonable and so on, if that were challenged. Emmings: Meaning the health, safety and public welfare, does it if there's not any proven harm? Erhart: I think if some agency or some group came out, anybody, even the University or a doctor came out and said treated wood is harmful in water then I think we'd have an excellent, good reason to make this ordinance. Whether or not we could enforce it. Just to make that statement but the fact that no one, if we can't find some even semi- official agency to do that. Headla: What about that treated wood at a construction site? Why can't they? Why can't we bury that right at the construction site? Like right next to your house. Erhart: You're saying we can't do that now? tlreadla: Right. Siegel: We can't? Emmings: Who says? I'm not arguing with you, I just wonder where does that come from? Headla: I knew you were going to ask me that too when I started. I'm going to have to look into it more. Conrad: Here's what I'd like to do. Let's defer this issue Jo Ann at least until Dave can find an agency or somebody saying it's negative or let's look at it in 6 months. In the interim, if we can in the wetland alteration permit process highly recommend that treated wood not be used in contact with water, let's highly recommend it. I don't know how you get tha t word ou t bu tin your con tact with them, I th ink tha t would be at least some temporary thing. Olsen: It's a hot issue right now and I think it is being investigated. AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS. Olsen: site. e I'm essentially saying let's limit it to one radio tower per Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 45 e. Emmlngs: I agree. Conrad: I agree. Erhart: I agree. Headla: You can put many antennaes on one tower. I can put a whole bundle, I can put 20 to 30 square feet up on one tower and that's what that one fellow I think he was really angling to do that. I don't know the right wording but I think this really doesn't cut it. I think there's a good way, people can really be imposing on their neighbors if we word it this way. Olsen: I looked at your concerns. It's really difficult to put all your antennaes because they're so different and varying in sizes and sometimes you they are closed up and then they are extended when they're used. That might be getting more into what the FCC is trying to prevent the cities from doing and allowing them to at least communicate. When you're limiting them to that one tower, it may be hard to come up with a maximum size but we can look into it. Headla: I really think that's the way to go. Like 12 feet maximum area. .onrad: It's just all relative though Dave. It's like is a telephone ~ole uglier if it's got 3 wires on it versus 2? The pole is intrusive to begin with and that's like 90% of the impact and the wire. Headla: Some of those things get pretty obnoxious. Conrad: I just don't know how in the heck you can regulate that. Headla: I don't either. Emmings: To me, isn't is a separate thing maybe? One thing we ought to do is regulate the number of towers and then maybe we want to go a step beyond and regulate what's on it to the extent we're able to but we don't know how to do that so at least this is taking the first step in regulating the number of towers. DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL. Olsen: The next one was from Ci ty Counc iI, they wanted to have some control over demolition debris disposal. I pretty much took a lot of the data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Conrad: Yes, it sounded like it was exactly or the way I read it, so what have we done? Why do we need this? Olsen: They don't regulate those. e ----- Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 46 e Conrad: Those are just recommendations? Olsen: No, those are conditions if it's 15,000 cubic yards of open. Conrad: And we've adapted it to a smaller space. Any comments? Emmings: Yes, the key is the permit obviously so you know what's going on where and you can regulate it. I think it looks fine. ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR STANDARDS. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on architectural exterior standards. Erhart: It sounds good. I think the thing we have to think about is I think people building industrial plants here are not willing to pay the same kind of price as they would in Eden Prairie. It's just a thought. I think it's a lot easier for us to price ourselves out of industrial jobs. It's a lot easier for us to carried away with Eden prairie because Eden prairie has such high minimums. I'm in favor...that we don't find ourselves in the position where we're adversely affected. I'm just saying I don't think we have quite the luxury of Eden prairie to dictate some of these things. ~onrad: I think it's okay. LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS ON CUL-DE-SACS AND FLAG LOTS. Barbara Dacy stated that she had a presentation that would easily take half and hour and asked that this item be tabled until the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS FOR 1987. Conrad: Point number one on the goals, increase communication between Planning Commission and public such as encouraging attendance by reporters from local newspapers, regular articles. How are we doing that? That's the one I really wanted to focus on. Olsen: We really didn't start doing much on that until recently. Conrad: What other things will encourage reporters from the paper here? What's the strategy and I guess I haven't hit an objective? Olsen: I think we just wanted to let people know about what was happening before it gets to Council. When a subdivision was approved, let it know that it is in the process. e Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 47 ~onrad: My agenda is, we used to have a whole lot of attention and awareness of the Planning Commission, a whole bunch and I'm not sure that we do anymore. We used to have a whole lot of pressure to get onto the Planning Commission and I'm not sure that we do anymore. It's a case where if you read the materials that come out of City Hall and what have you, very seldom do you see anything about Planning Commission on those materials. We're just not a very visible unit and that's not because I think we need our pictures in the paper because I don't think anybody is here for that but I am concerned that the public knows what the Planning Commission is all about and I am concern that we're as visible in newsletters that the community puts out so it's not all park and rec, which is all park and rec. As much as I'd like that, there is a Planning Commission and until we start letting people know, they won't know how to participate in government and we have a whole lot of new folks in this community. To be very honest in the last year I've seen literally nothing on the Planning Commission so that's my agenda on that particular subject and I'm real happy to see folks here from the press and that's going to help out a whole lot. Hopefully we can maintain that kind of coverages. As long as these meetings can be and as arbitrary as we can be sometimes, it's still nice to have that kind of visibility because it communicates that people do have a chance to communicate to government. Because we hold those public hearings, this is their chance to talk to us and we do listen and we do take action but right now I think we're a little bit invisible. That's my agenda so my agenda is not only in terms of newspapers but it's also hat is being controlled by the City. I really thing we haven't done much in the first 6 or 8 months but we certainly can improve on that and it looks like we are. This is sort of a real arbitrary goal and I guess wha t IIi ke in goal s are some number sand da tes and wha t are we going to do so in point 2, continue working on review of the Comprehensive Plan. Can we put in some dates and guidelines on that particular goal so we know where we're going? Dacy: I think Mark had intended that we proceed with the initial review by the Planning Commission on all the items and have that completed by the end of this year. In 1988 we would be initiating the public hearing process. Conrad: I guess what I'd like to see as a result of our discussion here and I sure hope you guys jump in if you like to on this thing but I'd like to kind of see a rework of these goals. It could be real simple, half a page but just so we all kind of know what we're doing. If we could rework that one just simply with a date I'd be happy. The third one dealing with City Council, we've gotten that. That's been achieved. We've got their comments. Do we need to do anything more on that particular one? I don't think we do. Four is non-goal oriented. It doesn't mean anything to me. It says do your job so that's what we do so that's not a goal. Is there something we want to finish this year? We can narrow it down to the two that we've talked about. A little bit more exposure so the public understands what the Planning tlFommission is doing and then working on the Comprehensive Plan. We've Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 48 ~ot a lot of things, like tonight we covered a whole bunch of stuff. The thing that we're doing very well that we've never done before is hear the public and actually direct staff to change ordinances and recommend changes and that's something that we have never done aggressively. Is there anything else we should be working on that you can think of right now that we'd like to get done this year? Emmings: There's only two months left. The Comprehensive Plan is big enough as it is. I think that's fine. Erhart: I have a question, why are we talking about goals for 1987 when it's almost done? Siegel: This is a review of our goals. Conrad: I just wanted to get a status of them and there was one that I knew we weren't doing much with. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy _ity planner prepared by Nann Opheim e