The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 01 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel, Howard Noziska and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHANNEL AND BOAT TURNAROUND IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIA~ AND LOCATED ON LOT 5,~CK 2, LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS;-ERIC RIVKIN, APPLICANT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit request. Erhart: On Lake Minnewashta we allowed docks to go through an existing wetland there recently? A boardwalk and docks. How wide was that wetland or how far from the high water mark? ....Olsen: " Erhart: surround there? I ~' I don't have the exact number but it wasn't this long... Do you have a better map that shows the whole area of the lots with you? Show where the wetland, is it the black line Olsen: Yes. He has this high land. Erhart: Okay, so the colored area is the wetland. Okay, so all the lots in that area essentially have the same problem of getting through to water? Olsen: These are existing lots. subdivision. These are not part of the Erhart: Part of what subdivision? Olsen: Part of Lake Lucy Highlands. Erhart: And all the letters that we received or that were submitted with this in favor of it, can you mark those lots on there. Olsen: I believe those are mostly from Lake Lucy Highlands. The only other one have the wetlands is Lot 4... Erhart: And all the other lot owners on the right there and on the east and south were notified? J..~' ..~.-.-=;..;-~. _~., ~..~, , "~-,~.-,....';.....>., ..-,; h~__ _ --, - e IlIr Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 2 Olsen: Yes. A few of them were going to corne tonight. I don't know if they did. Erhart: We're not having a public hearing for what reason? Conrad: It's not a public hearing but I plan on entertaining comments. Erhart: Wouldn't it be a little more interesting to have any comments first and then handle our discussion? Conrad: I kind of thought that we may bring up some issues that the public would like to hear and they can react to so I was going through the Commission first. Erhart: Okay, that's one thing I'd like to hear what anybody here on the shoreline, what their thoughts were. Much more so than the people not on the lake. I don't know if that has a significant influence on what my opinion would be on this. Joe Monnens: I live on the lake and I did in fact submit one of the letters in favor of the proposed channel. I guess my reason for that is I think a channel would be less of an impact on the aesthetics of the area than would a boardwalk. I can see a 400 foot dock deteriorating over not too many years plus the dangers to deer and other kind of wildlife and snowmobiles and cross country skiers, people that use the area. So that was my reason for supporting the proposed alteration. Erhart: Joe, it appears from the letters that all the comments were comparing a dock versus a channel and given the question of anything at all, what would be your response? I think you have to have a permit to do a dock or a channel. Joe Monnens: It seems a person wi th lakeshore has aright to access the lake so one way or the other something has to be approved. Erhart: I don't know if that's true is it? approved? Something has to be Conrad: Legally a person has the riparian right to get to the water. Roger do you want to help me on that? Roger Knutson: Generally speaking if you own a abutting lot, you have certain rights but you have the right to regulate that to not damage the wetland. Joe Monnens: I don't know if there's any legal rationale but I felt in the sense of justice that a person should have access and either be a boardwalk or a channel so I thought a channel would be better. ~ .~.4 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 3 e Erhart: So this whole issue then, is it coming down to we either approve the channel or dock? Is that what you're saying because that isn't the way I remember this discussion the last time? Conrad: We can actually reject all options and say that the wetland and the ordinance is to maintain a Class A wetland and no degregation to it at all. Options to that are as requested by the applicant. Erhart: I think what I'm hearing though is that if it comes to it and Eric wants to build a dock out here across 400 feet of this, he can do that? Conrad: I don't think we have to grant that but I think we're finding technical support to say that it's not that detrimental to a wetland and we also have precedent saying we have granted docks over wetlands in the past. We haven't granted any dredging to a wetland yet since our ordinance went in so what this is, it's really a precedent on how we want to treat wetlands in Chanhassen. Obviously, the applicant has some cause for requesting it. It's a unique situation. We've never seen one like this before and applied the ordinance to it but it would set a precedent and I think that's really what the issue is Tim. Emmings: Can I just ask as a follow up, because this is right on the same subject, has he asked us to consider a boardwalk if we're not willing to give him the channel? e Olsen: No, that was staff's option for providing some means of access. He's always wanted a channel and not necessarily a boardwalk. Conrad: Mr. Rivkin, do you want to talk about that? Eric Rivkin: This is a copy of a letter from a neighbor to the west. He was unable to attend but he had some comments about the issue. Last time we met the Planning Commission concurred that I was going to have to bring something up to give me a permit so that there was no argument as to which had an impact, which was detrimental and which was minimal and so forth. I was told that I had to give one plan that was approved that settled the technical issues and I did. There is a permit. We shouldn't have to stand here and argue whether fish and wildlife and plantlife are endangered. We shouldn't have to argue whether which construction method, erosion control methods are better. We shouldn't have to argue whether loosestrife is going to run rampant. We shouldn't argue whether a channel has less or more detrimental impact than the dock or which method is more reasonable under my rightful access to the lake. Because the DNR and the Watershed have reviewed these issues and settled those arguments which conform with the permit and special provisions. Between the two agencies there were 6 to 10, maybe even 12 experts in fish and wildlife and plants and hydrology and engineering that reviewed my proposal. I myself would not recommend a channel if I had thought this project or subsequents projects under the precedent would cause any major environmental loses. e e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 4 If I had a short distance to go, a dock would be no question. It would be certainly more reasonable but planning staff had only one opinion. One person. Dr. Rockwell, in opposition to the opinion of many, many other experts. I'm not at all in agreement with her comments. If you look at her letter, I bel ieve it's page I-B or item l-B in the package, she states, "The proposed channel would destroy a substantial portion of emergent wetland associated with Lake Lucy at the project site." She also states that a single access channel would probably not significantly reduce resources for fish and wildlife who's reproduction depends on the wetland. However, the cumulative effect from more than one such project could cause major losses that cannot be replaced or mitigated. Her key words here are significant and major. I'd like to look at the scenario on the overhead here. As the plan stated, this is the designated wetlands around Lake Lucy. The area is approximately 60 acres. My lot is right here. I believe she is incorrect in saying that all the lots would have the same problem of access. That is not true. I superimposed the lot lines, existing lot lines on the wetland area map to show exactly, and I went door to door at each one of these lots talking about this proposal and asking their opinions of a dock versus a channel and soliciting opinions and I asked them if they had access or not. Out of all the lots that have solid lines around here, are existing lots that either have access, either with clean lakeshore or an existing channel which is grand fathered in before the wetlands ordinance was passed, or they have, in this case, let's say of this lot here that hasn't sold yet, this outlot, it has such a short distance to go that there's no question, it's only about 50 feet to open water, that a dock is obviously the solution for them. All these residents around here, except this one, all of them around here have access. Even if this island were divided into lots, that would have access so there's no option for them. If there's no residence there now, there's no reason why they wouldn't need a dock or a channel in some cases. The lots that are starred, existing lots that are starred, are lots with potential access with channels because there is a long way to go. Lot 4, Lot 5, have the longest to go, roughly 400 feet. The other potential lots, let's say if Prince subdivides and with the 10 acre minimum rule in effect, I drew in dotted lines here to simulate proposed lots. Okay, let's take that scenario. Let's add up all the channels. If everyone of these lots had a channel, worse case, we added them all up. The wetland area is 60 acres, there's 2 1/2 million square feet. If we add up all the lenghts of the channels multiplied by the width of my proposed channel which is 16 feet, that's 20,000 square feet. That's 8/l0th's on 1 percent of the total of the designated area. I hardly call that major or substantial impact. If you're talking about my lot, which is only 7,600 square feet and nobody else puts in channels, we're only talking about 3/10th's of 1 percent. That's not even close to being substantial or major. Now I confronted Dr. Rockwell at the lot. She came and visited the lot and I was supposed to meet her. I confronted her with this information. I didn't have the numbers but I had the same opinion and she said that's for the DNR to decide. Whether that's minimal or detrimental. It's not my jurisdiction. She says I've been just asked to corne out here ._-, Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 5 e and give my opinion. So the DNR has decided and they decided it is minimal. She also states in reference to concern over pollution from treated wood docks from boardwalks. She submitted Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol, Inorganic Arsenicals. These are hazardous chemicals that are found in treated wood. I also submitted the same type of information from the EPA in my report and she says available information suggests that pollution from pressure treated wood material for docks and boardwalks is minimal. This is like saying that the available information on DDT and aebestos was safe at the time the information was available but now we know better and have learned from the past before it's too late. There is no safe level of any hazardous substance. It just depends on the various levels of harm. So I believe that with the DNR, with their staff, we're in an excellent position to assess the environmental impact of this plan. That the opinion of the planning staff doesn't carry much weight and I think that a channel should be allowed to proceed. Any questions? I have some direct comments about the dock itself but I submitted some reports, comments about the dock and if you have questions about those directly I can answer those. Erhart: Explain the materials that you are removing here? Can you walk on this in the summertime now or you can't? You can't. Is it cattails? e Eric Rivkin: It's cattails and soft grass. There are little mounds of dirt and I took a core sample in the summertime. The soil gradually goes down and slopes off at about 4 feet at the water, 4 to 6 feet at the waterline, and starts from 0 at the high water mark. It's roughly 80% water. All these spoils would be removed upland. Erhart: Okay, so this is really a process of nutrification? Eric Rivkin: That issue is kind of moot now. Erhart: Why? Eric Rivkin: Last time we argued about nutrification and fate of the lake and we were not in any position to argue that because we said we're not experts so we had to get the DNR experts to decide this. So I took the arguments to the DNR, they got a copy of the city's reports and the Minutes of the last meeting, it was all put in and... Erhart: That's not the reason I'm questioning it. get into a technical discussion. I'm not trying to Eric Rivkin: I don't want to be put in the awkward position of trying to defend... Erhart: I'm just trying to understand what this area is like. To me this whole question is one of more practical things like aesthetics and .~ if you're going to allow channels or if you're going to allow ~~, Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 6 e essentially landscaping, which you have there, as opposed to a dock, than you're dealing, I think with aesthetic issues and to me, exchanging this nutrification area for open water, who's going to argue whether that's better or worse for wildlife. My opinion, in that particular area you could use a little more open water. So from a wildlife standpoint, I'd favor the proposal. What I'm trying to understand is, are you really removing nutrification or are you going in and creating a new pond here? Eric Rivkin: I'm creating more open water by virtue of the fact that I'm taking out solid materials and adding material and taking it away. But that end of the lake is so choked with vegetation...lf you want to get into that kind of argument... Erhart: What you're proposing isn't a whole lot different than a guy coming along and saying I want clean lakeshore which I think, is that not a common practice? If someone buys a lot on the lake, they can get approval to go in there. Olsen: Clearing's not allowed unless you have a permit. Erhart: What's the issue when a guy goes in and buys a lot and essentially it's real swampy and he wants to put in a beach. Can he do that today in the City of Chanhassen? e Olsen: Not in the wetlands. Erhart: What happens if it's just a lake and it's got a weedy shore? Can he do that then? Olsen: He has to get permission from the DNR. There's a difference between a weedy shore and wetland. Erhart: You might find this case, a weedy shore supports more wildlife than this. It's a different type of wildlife. Eric Rivkin: The issue of supporting wildlife, was addressed at the DNR and I had to remove some pond in this cases because the Fisheries Department feared that because the pond was maybe better than the lake, in terms of oxygen and cleanliness, that the fish would want to go there, spawn, stay all winter and die. So they said, you've got to keep things real shallow and you've got to keep them unliveable... Erhart: I guess I question in this particular thing that perhaps it is a better alternative. Perhaps it is a better alternative than a dock. My concern is probably, if we're going to look at this as an alternative to a dock in these situations, is to review what the worse case would be if these things, if we start seeing a lot of these. Do we need to sit down and perhaps wr i te up a guidel i ne? I f there are some real bad ramifications that happen, not Eric's by himself, but let's say the next guy who wants to do it and the next guy and think e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 7 e that process through. I think that's the question in my mind here. I'm not opposed to this project because I think it's potentially better than a dock. The concern would be, where do we go from here. Maybe after talking some more, it might be a question. e Emmings: I'm opposed to the channel and I'm going to try and explain my reasons why. This, like last time, is a very difficult issue in my mind. I had a hard time coming to a decision on this one. Mr. Rivkin has done a lot of work preparing his case. Mobilizing neighborhood support, making graphics and everything else and in a way I almost feel like rewarding him for his effort alone because it's impressive. On the other hand, I'm totally not persuaded by his arguments that there are many experts on the one hand and one expert on the other because we can choose to believe whichever expert we think makes the most sense no matter how many there are on one side or the other. I'm also not persuaded by the fact that there have been other agency approvals because I think we have the right to be stricter than those agencies in our own backyard. I don't really like a dock going over 400 feet. It seems like it's too darn long to me. I think it may be a liability hazard. May be a hazard to snowmobiles, deer, whatever. I don't really like the dock. In a way I like the canal, in this particular case maybe better than a dock but I'm against a canal for the sole reason that we've got a wetland policy that says we're going to protect the wetland and we're not going to allow dredging. We never have allowed dredging and I don't think we ought to open it up. I think what we did on Lake Minnewashta on the subdivision right across from the entrance to the Arboretum and it would seem to me that if we give Mr. Rivkin his canal on this case, we would have no way to defend not giving it to a developer there. It seemed very clear I think, there was nobody on the commission who supported allowing any dredging on Lake Minnewashta in a cattail area where they were going to have 4 or 5 openings. The Commission was v~ry unified in not wanting them to do dredging in that type of an area. I can see no distinction between that case and this one. I think given the statement on intent of the wetland protection regulation, given our past actions, we simply have no choice here but to deny the channel. If that means that his only access then is by dock, then I'm in favor of that because I think he should have access to the lake. That's basically my position and rationale for it. Headla: I see so many people taking wetlands away from us and not putting anything back. Why is it you want to put in a channel but you didn't create like donut that we see in so many slews for like geese or an isolated island? Only if you were really interested in wildlife, that would have been an ideal setup with a channel. Eric Rivkin: My first proposal... Headla: That wasn't your first proposal. e Eric Rivkin: Not to have an island in the middle but... -' Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 8 e Headla: That's what I'm talking about. An island there for wildlife. Eric Rivkin: It's extremely costly. The DNR said that I had to go a minimum of 150 feet in diameter to do that... I have the right to reasonable access. If I have to pay $8,000.00 to dig...it would be about 3 acres plus the channel according to department standards to create an island... Headla: I see you are using economics as one of your rationales why it should be a channel. $22.00 a foot for the mucking and $44.00 per foot for the dock. Why did you have the dock almost twice as long as the channel? Eric Rivkin: I had a bid, I was amazed at how high it was myself but I didn't want to fool around. I wanted to present valid information so I sent the letter out with a sketch of the plan and had those. Headla: As I understand the bids, you asked for 430 foot dock but a 230 foot channel. Eric Rivkin: ...and with a dock I don't want to go straight out. I want it to sidestep over a bit so you have to pull back a little bit plus you have to have some out in the water to put a boat. So the equivalent of 430 feet. e Headla: So that mucking cost estimate is for 400 feet? Eric Rivkin: That's because there's 400 feet of swamp. Headla: There you're getting down to roughly $10.00 a foot to muck that out but it costs $44.00 a foot to put in a dock. Eric Rivkin: I got a solid bid... Headla: I couldn't get ahold of Serv-a-Dock but I did talk to two other dock builders who thought that was an extremely high cost. Eric Rivkin: Serv-a-Dock did not give me a bid. Headla: I think they gave you the bid and Bill Niccum was the one who refused. Eric Rivkin: Bill Niccum refused and Waterfree did not, they gave me an estimate but they would not give me a written estimate so it was invalid. Headla: It just seems awfully strange to me that you could do mucking for one-fourth the cost of putting in a dock. e Eric Rivkin: It's about 3 days worth of work and at these rates, I had a professional who's been doing dredging and has the product for many, e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 9 many years. Is very well qualified to do this and has done work with Carver County. I have all the confidence in the world that he was right with these figures. Headla: You were concerned about putting in some treated wood into the wetlands? Eric Rivkin: I said, with the $19,000.00 dock, it would be a dock without poisoning... Headla: We've talked about putting treated wood into the wetlands and we've had concerns about it. There's no documented data to say it is not safe. We have not been able to substantiate to say you can't do it and until that becomes available we've got to say, hey, it is permissible. Eric Rivkin: I realize that if you want to have a dock. I care for the environment. I don't want to put arsenicals in the lake. That's my choice. I'd rather put galvanized metal posts in. e Headla: We're all for that. Everyone on the commission, I think that's why we're here, partly, because we do support that type of thing. Anyway, I look at that class A dock, 42 inches wide and I think you went first class on that. I have a hard time doing that. Overall, I support the dock over the channel. If we put in one channel, how in the world can we deny it to other people? We've laid the baseline, I think it's reasonable and I think we've got to stick with it. Conrad: Roger, let me put you on the spot a little bit and advise us on that. I'm concerned, as others are, about the precedent. How we've stayed away from channels and we've guided most people to use docks. Here we have an extended situation. Mr. Rivkin really has a long wetland to go through and I think we all empathize with him. I don't think we're trying to say don't use the lake and you can't get there but what kind of advice can you offer? Maybe it's not advice but do you see any rationale based on our ordinance that would allow an exception in this case and allow us to not grant the same right to others on that lake or others who want to dredge? Is there any rationale? e Roger Knutson: You talked about precedent and treating similarly situated people similarly. When you really get down to it, it's a matter of argument as much as anything else. Everything is similar but everything is dissimilar. When you try drawing lines, you could draw a line and say anything over a 200 foot dock is unreasonable or 100 or 300 or whatever you have. My own druthers, if you're going to do something like that, I'd prefer an ordinance amendment. If you've got a rule, put it in an ordinance. If you want to allow docks of a certain length or open channels if it goes too far, put it down in the ordinance and say it. Then you've protected yourself. On this situation, my own judgment would be, if your conclusion is that Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 10 e allowing an open channel is going to have significant adverse affect that wetland, than you ought to turn it down. On the other hand, if you think it will not have a significant adverse affect on that wetland, then by all means approve the open channel. on Erhart: Dave, you hit on a line of thought there that I'd like to pursue and that is, the concept of improving wetlands. Say given a situation where there's a small pond and it's been almost totally nutrified and all that's left is just the tiniest little spot in the center where there's a little open water and somebody comes in here with a proposal to essentially go in with a dragline and clean it all out and make it into an area now, and puts an island in the middle and has the DNR okayed it and approved the plan and I'm sure Elizabeth Rockwell would approve it. Make it big enough so ducks and geese would nest in it yet it started out as a Class A wetland. Are we going to turn that down just because we've got an ordinance that says you can't disturb cattails? Olsen: The difference would be determining the condition of that wetland. And the one that you just described, even though that would be a Class A wetland, it's in a detriorating state and needs to be improved. Where this wetland, it might be a little cattail clogged and some of it could be cleared out, Dr. Rockwell felt that it was a good wetland and that dredging it out for a channel... e Erhart: The one I'm talking about is 200 feet in diameter. The wetland he's got is 400 feet. What I'm getting to here, I'm not trying to get anybody, but what I'm trying to get to here is maybe the rule that we're looking for, rather than Eric corning in here or anybody else corning in with a plan to get access to a lot, maybe what we ought to look at or seek out people to corne in with plans for improving wetland areas. Headla: We visited one this fall and that's why I asked Jo Ann to speak. Now I don't remember it being that big. Do you remember the dimensions of that? Olsen: That was a wetland in a poor state where the duck pond they were proposing was going to improve it. Whereas this wetland is already in a good state and altering it might harm it. Erhart: I guess what I'm having a hard time with is you're saying that continuous 400 feet of cattails is better than a broken up area where you have some open water and some cattails and some islands and I don't think that's correct. Olsen: The dredging out of that wetland. Erhart: I'm not talking about Eric's proposal anymore. I'm talking about a fictious issue. If you were to go in and say, we have 400 feet of cattails here and we have 600 feet of width to work with and we e ~ Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 11 e wanted to come in and just simply improve the wetlands for wildlife. This is designed to be an access rather than a wetland improvement and maybe the thing, as a Commission, is that what we would like to see or invite people in these types of situations to come in with wetland improvement proposals that had Rockwell's support. And yes, if it could be used as an access, that's great too. e Conrad: I think you're right. Theoretically, the things that we have approved and wetland modification, at least the way I've tried to direct them, have been improvements. That's got to be the attitude to playing around with the wetland and there are ways to improve them. There are ways to fill in a wetland and make another one. So just preserving for the sake of preserving, I think that's why we have Rockwell going out. I don't think, at least I'm not trying to preserve just to preserve. I think I'm trying, in my attitude is to maintain and to improve and if there's a better alternative, to take a look at that and not to administer it, no tampering. That's why there's a permit process. If we felt that wetlands should never be gotten into, we wouldn't have a permit process. We'd simply say don't go into a Class A wetland but because there are ways of improving it, that's one of the rationales for the permit. Just two points Tim, for your consideration and my memory is giving way up here trying to remember certain elements about the wetlands and how we drafted the ordinance and what we were trying to do and preserve. You heard a lot of testimony and a lot of reports several years ago when the ordinance went in. Two things, however, were extremely critical. The Class A wetlands are typically an extremely good filter. One of the things we heard is when you tamper with a little bit, it can make an entire wetland ineffective. Therefore, that whole wetland can be negated. Eric brings up some good points here in Dr. Rockwell's comments about a substantial impact. Well, it s obviously not areawise, a substantial impact, but I think if I were to read between the lines and I haven't talked to her, but I think her point could have been that by tampering with a little bit, you can really make a lot more ineffective than just that little bit. The other side of the thing is, as you tamper with wetlands it's real evident, as you take a look at the purple loosestrife takeover, it's not just where you tamper with the wetland, it's that purple loosestrife all of a sudden choke out the entire wetland. They keep going and going and one of the things that I heard years ago that as you do disturb the wetland, you have a great tendency for encouraging purple loosestrife and there's really not a real effective way of keeping the loosestrife from taking over. The chemicals have not been, unless on a spot basis with over and over again, been able to control that. Those were just two technical things that I recall about why the wetlands, we didn't want dredging in the wetlands. Going back to your point, I think the improvement to the wetland is what we're always been looking for. Especially in a Class A. In a Class B we've been pretty liberal in how those have been treated and I think overall Dr. Rockwell, I haven't found her to be real unreasonable. She takes a look at a wetland and if it's not good, e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 12 she will tell us that and we have been a lot less stringent, a lot less A:rict on what goes on based on how valuable she feels that wetland is. Tefore we wrap thi ngs up here, there are others of you tha t maybe haven't said anything tonight and if you've got a comment on what we've said or what Mr. Rivkin has said, I'd sure entertain your comments right now. If it's something that pertinent that we can mull into our decision making. Eric Rivkin: I don't know if anybody else wants to go first but I think I've got to say some things. Conrad: Alright, go ahead. Eric Rivkin: Regarding the issue of aesthetics. I designed it to be a natural benefit. If they have to put in a channel, design it to be a natural looking channel. Not a straight shot. When you're on the lake you will not be able to see through. When you're on the shore you won't be able to see through so it will be like a weaving in... Other benefits are, regarding the purple loosestrife issue, there is some purple loosestrife on Lake Lucy and whether you dredge the channel or not, purple loosestrife may take over the whole lake. Without a channel, I wouldn't have access to go pick purple loosestrife. If everybody else doesn't have channels, they wouldn't have access to the purple loosestr i fe ei ther. ...and you've got long access channel s, it would be easier to pick the stuff rather than harmful herbacides to poison the fish and downstream the beach at Lake Ann where our kids ~im. As far as the minimal impact is concerned, doing absolutely ~thing to the wetland, as in Mrs. Rockwell's words, may be intellectually...but I don't believe that. ...which is my lawful right of water access. I agree that, and I tried last time to try and conv i nce you tha t the pond a nd the channel would be a benef i t instead of just providing the access but you saw it more as just for my benefit and I pulled back on the second go around with the DNR and said, look, let's just go minimal here. You tell me what's minimal and they told me and gave me a permit. Now, if you're willing to fund me going to hire an engineering expertise and hiring Dr. Rockwell and getting all kinds of approvals and going to landscape designers and wetland designers and coming up with one plan to improve Lake Lucy and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to do a bang up job on my lot, on my 8 acres of wetland, okay but if I have to fund it, it's unreasonable access. I have lawful rights to reasonable access to open water on Lake Lucy. You have to grant me that. It's state law. It's the law. Now, a dock versus a channel, let's talk about a dock for a minute here. Aesthetically, a ribbon of plastic or wood going out on the dock, the wood is very high maintenance. Anybody that tells you a dock does not require maintenance is blowing smoke. There are floating dock systems that may be cheaper but have no less liability than a wooden dock in which people can falloff, drown off of, run into and deer trip over so I don't think that a dock from that standpoint and because, addressing the issue about why it's so expensive. You've got dozens and dozens of posts to pound down. Many of them have to go 20 e ~ Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 13 feet or more just to hit solid ground in order to support it. You ~n't take the posts out for 400 feet of dock. You can't even take ~e docks out. It's not a seasonal dock. That's going to stay there year around. It's not practical to remove 400 feet of dock every year. You're forcing, through some of your provisions, that they have to work in the wintertime. That's why it's so expensive. You've got to go pound 100 posts out there. The access problems. These guys are not going to want to work. They work by the hour and it's very expensive to put a dock in the winter that long. So me and residents around the lake feel it's going to be a piece of junk on the wetland. Now that has an impact. Regarding the City's comments, this Attorney said that if the applicant is concerned with liability, he can choose to leave the property alone and not do anything. I'm not concerned with liability as I am with my right for reasonable access. You say that staff can not base recommendations on the cost of the outcome. Cost to the applicant is an element because access, denial of access, would be in effect denial of my rights to open water and denying me because resources are beyond my reach. That's true in cases where I can design a big fancy improvement to the wetland too. If it's my expense, it's unreasonable. I can't afford it. No way. That's in violation of state law. Reasonable access to open water. You say that Item C states that the size of the dredged area should be the minimum requirement of the proposed action. The purpose of the channel is to provide the property owner with his access to Lake Lucy. You have to qualify the word access to reasonable access. Taking out acres and adding my own ponds and lakes and there's no way that I'm going to put .' a $19,000.00 dock. The other question I had for all of you is, the R has addressed all of these issues. We've got experts, like Mrs. Rockwell but broader because they have crossed all boundaries besides Fish and Wildlife which Mrs. Rockwell is an expert in. But they are in contrary opinions to Mrs. Rockwell. Now, the DNR has already spoken to these issues and considered the dock proposal. They considered the impact. They considered all the issues. They have experience on thousands of channels dredged on hundreds of lakes and ponds around Minnesota and they've given their opinion. They've given me a permit. You said I had to go back and get a permit. I got a permit. That should have settled all the arguments. Conrad: Not true and that's why we have an ordinance. We have an ordinance that we're looking at. The last time you were in, there were a lot of missing pieces and we got confused. We didn't say, if you get those missing pieces back to us you're automatically granted the permit. There were a lot of missing pieces in what we saw and we asked you and staff to go back and collect some comments. You carne back with this. You've done a nice job of corning back but we have an ordinance. Mr. Rivkin you don't understand that there is a wetland ordinance in this town and we are looking at that. It's more strict than the DNR. That's why we have that ordinance and we had a group of seven people construct that ordinance over a couple years back so that's what we're looking at now. We're not looking at the - Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 14 DNR. They've given you their opinion. They've granted the permit but I have to take a look at our ordinance and that's what we're kind of ruggling over right now. That's why we have a legal staff here to kind of guide that. So the ONR is one piece of the pie. We wanted them to be in concurrence with the things that they look at, and they only look at a few of the things. They are not the most strict body when it gets to wetlands. They just aren't. That's why Chanhassen took a look at it and said we have a lot of wetlands in Chanhassen, it covers a lot of territority and we wanted to take a look at it ourselves and put in an ordinance ourselves and that's what we're struggling with. Emmings: In addition Ladd, I'd like to point out that his permit from the ONR is specifically conditioned upon complying with all rules, regulations, requirements and standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state and local agencies and that's us. We're a local agency. Conrad: I just didn't want you to keep drumming in that fact because we're looking at other things, just not that. Did you have any other concluding things? Eric Rivkin: Yes, I don't hear any expert, I mean everybody has the right to their opinions but you brought up issues that were left unanswered about the fact about the quality of life in the wetlands. There is no conclusive evidence by you in favor of the channel...just .Positions. Conrad: The Wetland Ordinance does say that it's up to the applicant to persuade us, not the staff. It's up to the applicant to persuade us that there is minimal or no impact to the wetland alteration so it's on your shoulders to do that and you've presented information that we have to review. If we believe that there is zero degregation or minimal impact, then I think you'll have easy sailing in this regard through us or through City Council. Eric Rivkin: ...What expert testimony do you have that it's going to degrade the wetland? Conrad: Simply by dredging is taking part of the wetland away and that's what we're looking at. Eric Rivkin: But how do you know taking some of the wetland is detrimental in this case? Conrad: I guess, and I'm answering for myself, at this point in time you haven't persuaded me that it's not and our technical expert is saying that she can see no rationale for harming that wetland at this time that wouldn't be detrimental. Those are the two things that I'm looking at. e ~- - Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 15 Eric Rivkin: I could put in a dock and you could say the same thing. Joe Monnens: I really appreciate the problem you guys are struggling with here in your efforts to want to enforce a stricter ordinance than most communities. I really applaud that and I also share your concern about not wanting developers to corne in and dredge up the wetlands in this area but my gosh, this is just a guy that wants to get a canoe out on the lake. He's just asking for a little channel. You got to find a way to let that happen. Conrad: Roger, you wanted to talk a few seconds ago. Do you remember what you were going to say? Roger Knutson: Yes, but you said it. I was just going to ask if you had discussed, I haven't been participating in the discussions earlier, the fact the purpose of wetlands, nutrient stripping and all that good stuff. Apparently you had gone over that. Obviously it's a lot more than just wildlife nesting areas. - Conrad: Generally, here's my opinion, I think Mr. Rivkin has done a nice job of revising his plan and giving us more information. As Steve said, I'd like to find a way of solving a problem. I really do like and agree with access to the lake for any riparian homeowner. The plan is a lot more reasonable than it was before but I see on the other side, I still see some technical advice telling me that it is negative and this technical advice typically is not looking at letter of the laws. In the past has always been real reasonable on how they've advised us so I feel sensitive to the technical advice. I think I'm still concerned with impact on that wetland as you disturb it. The comments that I said about making a small change could impact the entire wetland and the impact of loosestrife. It's not just this one. It's other channels and I think the whole precedent issue is the one that I'm struggling with the most. I think Mr. Rivkin has a real valid argument to get out there but I don't know how to control it in other issues just like this one. I think when we have other accesses on Lake Lucy that we'll have to look at, and I think every dock that we've look at so far that we've asked every access to a wetland, will be back here wanting to channel. Not everyone, that's an overstatement but many will. Many wanted to and we tended to keep the rules pretty strict in that regard. I think a dock might be a reasonable alternative. I don't know that the costs are that different as you are suspecting Dave. I think maintenance on both issues might be a long term, whether it be redredging or reworking the dock but I don't know that the costs are that prohibited. I guess in my mind the only alternative right now that I see, the only recommendation I can make is to turn down the channel and possibly to review, as Roger said, the wetland ordinance. I'd be real apprehensive about granting a variance because of the impact. I would have a tendency to want to take a look at the ordinance. It doesn't help Mr. Rivkin right now. He wants to go out and do the thing in the winter based on ordinance but I think revising the ordinance is the only thing that I could do and I think if the City e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 16 ~ouncil wanted to take a look at that again, we certainly could have a, ~ don't know if you call it a blue ribbon, but we could have some kind of a group take a look at it. Maybe there is a way to review this issue in situations when you've got 400 feet to get to the lake. I emphathize with what you're trying to do. I just really do but I also feel that I don't have a good enough way to grant that at this time other than taking a look at the ordinance itself and saying, is there any possible way of altering that so we still don't impact that wetland but give you that right and that's the only thing I can see right now. Eric Rivkin: Maybe the ordinance does need a change but I would suggest that you have all lakeshore owners notified and this blue ribbon panel or whatever it is should include select homeowners or maybe representatives of homeowners could form lake homeowners associations to represent that way. But the ordinance does need changing. If you're saying that it's on the burden of a mere homeowner to provide a convincing argument that we have staffs and state agencies for, that's a hell of a burden. I've got to convince you that the wetland's not to be touched. That's ridiculous. I went to seek the opinions of others and I'm of the position that I probably could have done 10 times more than the next guy out there but take the average guy coming in here trying to get a dock or channel, he hasn't got a chance in front of you guys. Emmings: Dr. Rockwell has come back to us on several times when she's gone out to review wetlands, she comes back and says I think what ~heY're proposing to do is an improvement to the wetland. She gives us ~hat information. She didn't in your case but she's done that on lots of them. Eric Rivkin: It seems a little inconsistent here. First, she made an opinion...and it is very choked out wi th these weeds and stuff. The last time I came here, I wanted to dredge I think more, there were more members up here than before, but three of them are on record in favor of the channel upon thinking that it was an improvement. I didn't bring up those arguments again here because they were mentioned before and I had the DNR backing me now saying that okay, it would be less than minimal. It's a very awkward position for a homeowner to come in and defend...maybe it's a problem the ordinance like you're saying. Conrad: In fact, when the ordinance went in, I sure knew where there were going to be problems. When we had wetlands that were as big as the ones that are in front of your house and the committee, 2 to 3 years ago did look at that and at that time they couldn't find a solution for us. It's a real problem but I think the point was that we were really trying to make it hard for somebody to modify a Class A wetland. They are so valuable. They are eaten up, in Minnesota more are eaten up proportionally than should be. Water is such an important asset to Minnesota but we have really, the State's done a really bad job of preserving wetlands. Not only for habitat but for water control and runoff and all that. They've really done a miserable job. That's e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 17 _hY we don't have a whole lot of respect for what the DNR is out there oing. They can do certain things but they're not doing a real good job in terms of some of these things that we think are important. Eric Rivkin: If you wanted to table this so I don't feel like you're denying my right to lawful access. Conrad: I think what you should do is go to City Council. I think you have to hear what they have to say. I think you have a presentable proposal at this time and because we turn it down, which you may have gotten the drift but that doesn't mean that you can't come back later on and bring it back up. What is the limit? If it does get turned down by us and City Council, Mr. Rivkin certainly has the opportunity to bring back a different scenario at any time he'd like right? But I think it's really worthwhile that you hear City Council on this one because if they want us to look at the wetland ordinance, I'd like to have their direction to do that. Then we get some kind of concurrence between them and us. Eric Rivkin: You'll point out this report to them? Conrad: They're going to hear everything that I just said. Emmings: Before we make a motion, are we just going to vote on the proposal for the channel or are we also going to consider the alternative for the boardwalk? ttonrad: I didn't hear Mr. Rivkin ask for the boardwalk. He's asking for the channel. I think that's the one he wants to pursue to City Council and I think we should just react to that. Headla: I would prefer to table it and see if he couldn't come back. Work with the different groups where it's a benefit to the wetland as well as to himself. Apparently the feeling is that he's better off going right to the Council. I think he can win if he sits down and talks and how can the wetlands benefit besides him. I find it hard to believe there is no way to do it. That's why I would prefer tabling it. If you feel time is of the essence and you want to gamble that way because it's... Conrad: Do you want to make a motion to table it? Headla moved, Erhart seconded to table the wetland alteration permit request and ask Mr. Rivkin to work with the City Staff and the appropriate people to see can be done to benefit the wetlands as well as himself. The motion was later withdrawn. Erhart: I guess I'd like to ask a question before we vote on that. Are you interested in coming back here once again with a proposal to improve the wetland? You've sat there now and said it doesn't hurt and doesn't hurt and the DNR says it hasn't hurt the wetland. You're not e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 18 .oing to sell that in the City right and I think what you have to sell s how you're going to come in here and show us how you're going to improve the wetlands and then I think you'll get it through. There's no sense tabling it if you don't want to come back but I think I agree with Dave, if you want to come back with a proposal and have Dr. Rockwell review, perhaps put an island and make the pond bigger, that sounds really funny at this point I know, and put an island in it... Eric Rivkin: Who's going to pay for it? Erhar t: Well, we're not going to pay for it. put a dock. You basically heard the argument. Reasonable access is to You can put a dock in. Eric Rivkin: You haven't convinced me that a dock is cheaper. Erhart: We don't have to. That's irrelevant. We don't have to give you a channel. You can put a dock in. Joe Monnens: I hope if he comes back with a proposal for a dock, that you deny that. I'd much rather see a channel than a dock. Erhart: I'm not sure we can though because we've allowed it in other similar situations. Joe Monnens: A 400 foot dock... 4i'rhart: We don't have an ordinance that prohibits a 400 foot dock. Joe Monnens: That would be a good mofidication to your existing ordinance then. Erhart: Maybe, if a dock is over 400 feet, then look at a channel or something but... Eric Rivkin: I would want to come back year and do this if the ordinance is improved but it's not within my means to go back and hire people and find out why an affordable channel is going to improve the wetlands. Erhart: I don't think you're that far away. Eric Rivkin: with who? Erhart: Rockwell. Eric Rivkin: She was very adamant about doing anything. Emmings: Is she available anymore? Olsen: She moved to New Jersey. There's another person in her office that is available. e __ --.0 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 19 tteadla: Does the staff feel that we can work something out? Olsen: At this time, again just interpretting the ordinance, we interpret it as minimal impact or alteration...with the channel but there are other alternatives. Just from hearing, even people from the DNR, it is a good wetland and I don't know if it needs to be improved with a channel and a pond. Conrad: I think it sure should go to City Council. Although you've made a motion that it's being tabled. I think Mr. Rivkin should take it to them and get their opinion. He'll be there in two weeks and he'll hear what they have to say. If they believe what we're saying or if they don't. If nothing else, if they believe that the ordinance, I have to believe that they're going to reinforce what we're saying. But they may be interested in other alternatives like changing the ordinance and that's the most reasonable way of solving of the problem. So I think it's really to his benefit to get it up there rather than spinning around with us and coming back. Headla: Maybe you're right. Mr. Rivkin isn't that interested in pursuing it. Conrad: costwise it's going to be more. A different solution I think. Headla: Okay, how do we withdraw that motion? ~nrad: You can withdraw it. Headla: Okay, I withdraw my motion. Conrad: Do you withdraw your second? Erhart: Sure. Headla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the wetland alteration permit to construct a channel and turnaround. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Do we any special instructions as we send this forward? I think our comments as they get to City Council will be, the last few minutes of discussion will be clear for them as they read our Minutes. Emmings: Maybe if they want us to look at the ordinance, and it seems to me maybe we should, they should give us some clear indication of how we cna fit this particular case into the general thing with the ordinance because I can't see how we're going to do it. I think I'd like some direction. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 20 TRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON OPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 9.04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FORCONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A ---- --- --------- CLASS B WETLAND. Larry Brown presented the engineering department's staff report on the Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Headla: That sedimentation basin, when I was looking at it, it looked like it would be 6 feet below the street level. Is that right? Brown: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and the elevation of the roadway is approximately 972. This invert of the storm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, well it's 966.5 above this. During the 100 year storm, the maximum capacity that it's expected to maintain, the elevation would be 968. This is well below the provisions of the roadway so we won't be creating a problem there. The one problem that does exist is the Park and Recreation Commission had proposed for a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. During the normal storm, say 10 year frequency storm, you can fit a trail ~rough here fairly readily. There's not many obstacles through there. ~ will be up out of the ponding area and won't be a problem. The problem does come in if a 100 year storm does occur, we may start encroaching upon the trail but I seriously doubt that many people are going to be using the trail during a 100 year storm. Headla: How do you get the water from the sedimentation basin out? Just a culvert under the road? Brown: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and with a baffle structure here, it will flow into Lake Minnewashta. Certain provisions can be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but I don't think that would be very advantageous. The sedimentation is trapped in the basin and there won't be anything... Headla: Is all the water coming out of there going to stay on the pierce property? The grade in the land kind of makes it keep on going south. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. You see it's headed southeast. Why didn't it go more east? If you head southeast, it's going to continue flowing to the south when it gets past the road. Brown: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes from here is trapped through the roadway system and storm sewer system. It flows into the sedimentation basin and then goes out here. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 21 ~eadla: Okay, right there. It doesn't get to the lake. It gets to ~e east side of the road but then the grade tends to make it flow to the south. Are they going to pipe it right down to the lake? Brown: That was my understanding. Is that correct? Ted: Yes. Conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around there and I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. Not only for this project but for others to the north and to the west. Why not? Is the elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drain to the rear to a pond and how come that's not an alternative? Brown: Basicly the initial submittal had the pond in this area and we made them relocate it to facilitate some of the natural drainage path. This area over here, BRW had analyzed that in their report. On their sketch they had picked out specific areas, low lying areas, that a pond could be facilitated. Unfortunately, I don't have an overhead of that but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they had picked. Because they met the 100 year frequency, it worked in with the side slopes of these lots and the existing drainage patterns, I felt that it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that could be explored but I felt that this pond... Conrad: Tell me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like at can't hold, wha t would you do wi th the pond tha t was there? Would ~e assumption be that it could hold a lot of water or would you still have the same type of outlet into Minnewashta? Without looking at the site I have no idea what the holding capacity would be back there but would you potentially have to have the same type of outlet that you currently have on the holding pond that you planned in this particular map or could a pond be self contained? It flows in and it just stays there. Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually that pond is going to reach capacity. I know that the neighboring properties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one of the major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not only that, obviously \\re're limited by the property boundary and the slopes in the ditch area now. Like I said, I haven't got it down to brass tacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be some shifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet it someplace and I'm afraid that that alternative would be bad for Lake Minnewashta. Conrad: How does a study, like BRW, how did this get funded? The BRW portion of alternatives. What prompted a study and who funded that? Brown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explore this, we used BRW because we're concerned with Minnewashta Parkway e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 22 being a collector street. We're worried about the aspects of access ~to Minnewashta Parkway. There are certain problems, as you're ~obably more than aware of, of sight distance and speed on Minnewashta Parkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictions we needed for Stratford Ridge such as this entrance and also to facilitate future development. If this piece goes, it's fairly inevitable that the surrounding pieces will do that so we had to look at once these pieces start coming in, how are we going to facilitate utilities through there, the roadway patterns. Conrad: Did that come from your office or did the City Council direct you to do that? Brown: Yes, it came from our office. Conrad: Okay, and then how does that get funded? Who pays BRW for doing that? Is that just a budget that the city has? Brown: That's a budgeted item, yes. We often use consultants. Conrad: You're just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann, you're going to be talking about other things. Anything else for Larry? Jo Ann Olsen presented the planning department's staff report on the Stratford Ridge Subdivision. anrad: Would the applicant like to talk to us on what was just presented and any other comments? Ted Kenner, Schoell and Madsen: The two questions that Jo Ann specifically brought up were the area of the property and we have calculated the area of the property to be 9.04 acres. This apparently disagrees with the tax area which is substantially less. Something in the 5 acre area. I have not seen the tax statement, but it is actually a 9 acre parcel. As to Lot 1, Block 2 I understand by looking at it, it does not appear to have the 15,000. If you take the dimensions that are shown out of the plat, that does not calculate out but those are the dimensions to the curves. If you take the length of the lot times the width of the lot, which is 140 feet long by 108 feet wide, it calculates out to be 15,120. So when the plat is finally calculated, that lot will be made to be a 15,000 or larger and it will be based with that configuration. I guess I don't have any other issues unless you have questions. Headla: On the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember early this fall when we had that Halla's property and I asked the question, the area they stated, did that include the highway. We were talking about TH 101, and you said no, that's not normally included. When I look at the arithmetic on this property, if I measure strictly the envelope, I come up with 9.04 acres. That includes Minnewashta Parkway. If I take off e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 23 Minnewashta Parkway and the lakeshore, I corne up with 7.56 acres which ... what the taxable property was and that's really what you're trying ~ develop. If you take away the outlot, it's really 7 acres that you're developing. Do you agree with that? Ted Kenner: developable Minnewashta quarters of It depends on how you figure it. I would say that the property is the entire parcel less the area that is in Parkway. The area in Minnewashta Parkway is about three- an acre so you still have 8.3 acres of land area. Headla: So the 9.04 did include the highway? Ted Kenner: That is correct. You've got three-quarters of an acre between the road and the lake in there or about seven-tenths of an acre and that is not within the plat itself but it's still land area that is developable and is taxed. Headla: I give you credit for a little bit more area than that. Okay, I wanted to make that point. Can I see your arithmetic on Lot I? I've tried and tried and tried and I can not corne up with the, if you could just sketch it. Give me the overall dimensions and then let me go on to something else. Ted Kenner: Overall, the length is 140 feet. Headla: I get 130. If I take this 100 and this 15 and this 15, that's .0. Ted Kenner: All I'm using is the scale. Headla: I'm using dimensions right off the print. Ted Kenner: Okay, that's the way I've based it and that's the way the lot was set up is based on scale. Headla: I don't believe it's 15,000. until I can see dimensions on the print that says that, I think you're way under. It does not meet the minimum of 15,000. Ted Kenner: I guess I'm confident tha tit does just based on my calculations. Headla: What does preliminary plat mean? Ted Kenner: This is a preliminary plat. This has not been calculated at this point. Headla: But if we approve this, what are we really approving? Can you slide anything around like you want or are we approving this as it is? e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 24 Olsen: They haven't made the final calculations but we check the lot tlfmensions with the final plat to match the two. You can't change. Headla: What do you really change on here? I'm not sure I really understand preliminary. Olsen: The preliminary you'll establish the lot layout and the lot dimensions and the square footage. The final plat, it just comes in with just the lot lines. That's when you've done the final calculations. So with a preliminary plat sometimes you'll get a lot that's 110 wide and then the final will come in and it might be actually 112. Headla: So you're really just fine tuning some of the dimensions but these lots aren't going to slide around anymore. I guess I want to make very sure that does meet the minimum requirements. I don't know how they're going to achieve it. That's all I had on that. On the driveway, on the outlot that you're suggesting, are you going to be doing any grading on that driveway? Are you changing the level of that at all? Olsen: Right along here. There is concern that this driveway not be blocked at all. Ted Kenner: it as is. 4Iladla: So you won't be doing any grading in there and you aren't changing water flow at all then? The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leave Ted Kenner: No. It will only be constructed from Minnewashta Parkway up to Stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That will be finished, the roadway up to there. Beyond that will remain the gravel driveway that presently exists there. Headla: Fine, there was some concern and I just wanted clarification on that. When you're doing this, and this is kind of a question that comes up at different times, there's only one way into that house, what happens if there is an emergency up there? Is there always going to be an access to that place? When you're putting in that 50 foot road, how is that person, in case there's an emergency, how does that house get served? Ted Kenner: When you say that house, which are you talking about? Headla: The one directly to the west. Ted Kenner: Hallgren's? Headla: Yes. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 25 Ted Kenner: They would maintain the driveway through there so they ~Uld get through at all times. Headla: Even when you're building that 50 foot road? Ted Kenner: Yes. Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I think it's Mrs. Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and I think that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. What happens to her? I s she just ou t of 1 uck now or maybe the bui Ider can tell me, how is that handled? Robert pierce: That's been addressed. There is an easement for driveway purposes. Ted Kenner: Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn, we have gotten additional information on the exterior boundaries and they will be shifting a little further from her house on the north side anyway and possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may not go into our property. Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going along Minnewashta parkway and then that 6 foot drop-off there? Then you've got a 6 foot water pond along the parkway and then you're going to have homes there. Is that going to be a problem for people on the bike 4Ijail or the homes that are right there that have small children? Robert pierce: At this point, I guess I don't really know. It's a little hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until I really see where it's going to go. I do know that with the proper landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and made to look very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trail to use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a speed that they can't stay on the trail or whatever, I guess that's where problems would come in but that could be anywhere along the trail. Headla: Do they grate that thing or what do they do? Brown: There is plenty of room for the 8 foot trail. Where the problem comes in is actually the 20 foot easement area that's normally required. There's a problem with overlapping the drainage easement with the trail easement and that was my major concern. There is more than enough room to get an 8 foot trail in there. That obviously doesn't alleviate the possibility of reaching maximum capacity of the pond and occasionally running over the top of that trail. I think that's the problem at this point. As far as the question we were getting at before about the pond being close to the residential neighborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all the developments. One classic example is over here on the Saddlebrook. That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is - , ~..J Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 26 e adjacent to the rearyard so I really don't foresee any direct problem. Headla: So if we set a precedent, it isn't going to be any di fferent than what we've done other places? Brown: That's correct. Headla: I was looking at that hoping to have the water go back the other way. The other one, I'm concerned about the wetland to the northwest, but we can talk about that. My only other comment is, I was really disappointed in the BRW maps. They just blatantly went right through the wetlands and they are suggesting these are where the roads should go. I'm not going to belabor the point except that I thought it was inappropriate to do. You heard the discussion tonight. We're very concerned about wetlands and then something that the village will sponsor, we blast a road right on through. Brown: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann can confirm this, initially we didn't think that area was a wetland. As I stated before, when the applicant submitted this at first, that was when we ordered the overview by BRW. Shortly thereafter wards, the area back there in the northwest corner was analyzed as a low class wetland. So it's not a real obvious factor when you're out there tromping through the site, that it is a wetland. e Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Ann it says Lots 1 through 5 and I assume that's Block 2 that you're talking about there so I guess I'd like to, whoever makes the motion, I think we ought to include Block 2 in there so we're sure we know which Lots 1 through 5 we're talking about. Then, going to condition 1, we're talking about the right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 will be designated as an outlot. Do I understand the reason that's being done is to avoid the double frontage question? Olsen: Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain a double frontage. It's indicated as street right-of-way right now... Emmings: Why aren't we doing the same things then at least Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Block 1 that we're doing on Lot 2 for the double frontage lots? Olsen: Technically right now it's not actually a double frontage lot. Emmings: We are creating double frontage lots right? Olsen: It's possible that when streets are approved there that it will just go straight down from Stratford to this driveway but... Emmings: As far as the double frontage lots, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think the plan is a bad plan at all for the property. I'm glad that they looked to see how it would fit with the e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 27 e development of the neighboring properties. I think that's been looked at. I guess I don't have any trouble thinking about a variance for those because we've already said we want lot depth to be 125 feet and in fact they may not need a variance at all if the City Council goes along with that. I do however like the idea of having additional landscaping when there are double frontage lots. The only thing I have trouble really conceptualizing in this plan is four of those lots in Block 2, such as 2, 3, 4 and 5 really, it would seem to me there is some kind of mushy language in there that we recommend that the houses face the internal streets but I would think as a matter of fact, you'd want to build those houses to look at the lake. Olsen: What that means is that it emphasizes is they must be cleared for a driveway. What we would consider the rear of the house they would consider the front. Emmings: That makes it perfectly clear. Now I understand. I don't care which way they go but as long as they have the access off the internal street and they've got some additional, when we say they're going to have additional screening, that's on the Parkway side right? I don't have anymore questions. Erhart: On that BRW plan, on Option A, how are they going to get access from Minnewashta Parkway? Olsen: Option A is showing it to be accessed from the north. e Erhart: And that street exists? Olsen: No. I think what they would probably do is put a service road where this dotted line is. Erhart: And that not being such a good idea, for that purpose we end up with double frontage lots gives us Option B. Option B gives us with double frontage lots. Olsen: But they're building this already. Erhart: Really, the BRW plan is the one that gives us the variance. possibly you could have drawn up a street plan and prevented any double frontage lots. Brown: If I could interrupt, I think as pointed out in the BRW report, that there is a large number of possibilities that one could lay this out. Again, one of the other points that was brought out in the report is the ability to develop this area is going to rely on a developer to package several parcels of land together. That may not happen. Some of the homeowners have already expressed that no, my land will never be developed. That may in fact happen but the object of this was not to layout the specific lots or force anyone into developing, it was just such that we can address Stratford Ridge to accomodate that development lit Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 28 if it were to occur. - Erhart: I think what you did in putting together a master plan for the area was just great. I think that's super. Whether they did a good job or not, that one I won't make a judgment on. Obviously, if any company should do this, I agree with Dave, they should go in and find out, before they lay any pen to paper they ought to find out what's wetland in the area because that's just as important as the existing streets. In my mind, I'm just trying to understand the double fronted lots to some degree comes about as putting pressure on the developer to try to stick to our master plan so I guess I don't have a problem with the variance from that standpoint. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, they have 70 foot frontage on one side. That's below the minimum allowed. Olsen: comes There's 90 foot street frontage and including the radius, out to 85. that Ted Kenner: It's 90 at the building setback line. Olsen: That's for cul-de-sacs. Ted Kenner: Then we should make that lot 90 on the front then. Erhart: Lot 1 should be 90. Lot 2, that one being on an outside curve, you could argue that it would be on the setback, but Lot 1, I think you've got to look at that number. And the extra 10 feet is ~included in Lots 7 through 10 of Block 1 right, because it's double ~frontage? It is included? Olsen: Not right now but it will be. Right now it's not. The position right is for Lots 1 through 5... Erhart: If the plan is for them to be double fronted, of course the thing is in this case the developer is not, there is no assurance that that street will ever continue to go through there. Robert pierce: There's the possibility too that at a future date, depending on how land would develop around there, that that access may never be used or it might shift over 30 feet. Erhart: So I guess it really isn't an issue. No more questions. Conrad: The size of the properties on either side Jo Ann, are large parcels on either side? North and south? Olsen: Yes, they are also narrow to where, as Larry mentioned, they are going to have to work together. I think the properties to the north is probably coming in for a subdivision. They are all large parcels but they are also narrow. e _c-._ Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 29 Erhart: Are you talking about the Charles Anderson property is coming Ain for a subdivision? And they would get access from where your blue .line is? Olsen: I haven't seen the plans. Ted Kenner: I have talked to them and they are more interested in developing the property to the north. They are looking at the Charles Anderson property and the one just to the west of there which is owned by the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. They are looking at developing those two parcels together tying both of those off of Pleasant Acres. Conrad: I still have a problem. It still looks to me like we're putting a whole lot of stuff on a few acres here. I know that our legal consultants say it meets the minimum as long as they all do but when I see the bike trail and I see the holding pond and I see some variances and double frontages, it always means, usually when we have a lot of stuff like that it means we're putting too much on a piece of property. Erhart: Jo Ann are we asking for a variances for double frontage on Lot 7 through 10? How can we do that when there's no street there? We're not asking for a variance? Conrad: We're not? _Olsen: What you need right now is a variance to that additional feet required on Lots 1 through 5. Headla: What did you say Jo Ann? I didn't follow. Olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additional 10 feet. Erhart: And the reason for justification of a variance was what? Olsen: Is that that 10 feet could not be provided without altering. They can shift the street up here, that would provide more lot depth but to provide that additional 10 feet, there is no alternative. They would possibly have to remove this lot and shift it up. Again, we were just working with the location of this street for accessing the property to the north. We felt this was a good street configuration. Erhart: And the 10 feet is added to what? Olsen: The lot depth. Right now they would have to have 160 feet. Erhart: And we've sent on to the Council to change that to 125? e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 30 Olsen: Yes, and if that does get approved, then all of these lots ~OUld meet without the additional 10 feet. Headla: Does it look like that's going to fly? Don't know. Larry Wenzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel of property in respect to the other pieces of property with this master layout, that plan, how much of this is cast in stone? It appears that we're pretty well constricted individually, or even as a group, according to the road systems that have been laid out as far as the lots. You've got some variances on this piece of property. How many built in variances have they laid in for the rest of us that we're going to have to get compliance to even to think of the economics of whether this thing is going to be developed in 1989 or the year 3000 subject to the value of what we can sell our piece of land and therefore a house for. Is this the plan that's going to be maintained subject to whether that's approved or not approved? Olsen: No, the only plan that would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this is altering the impact of the surrounding properties is that it is designating where future roads will be provided to the north and then it will be providing this whole length along here and a road that goes straight to the south and west. That's the only thing that's dictating at this time. These plans are just going to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what the street layouts could possibly have. Staff is concerned with a lot .f separate accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. We were trying to look . t a way to provide service to all those lots along here without necessarily having separate accesses. Larry Wenzel: Are they assuming that most of the existing homes will be moved out of there? That's the way it appears. Olsen: There's really no assumption, it was just kind of an overall plan just to lay it on top. This was like if everybody would want to subdivide. There are many possibilities. Larry Wenzel: Can I get a copy of those variances that you have listed? The easement for the trail that's going to run, as I perceived it, along Minnewashta Parkway, running the whole way. That's going to be taken on what, the west side of Minnewashta Parkway? Olsen: At this point it will be on the west side. Larry Wenzel: And what are they going to do, just cut another swath in tpere? Another 8 foot swath west of the road? Olsen.: Off of the right-of-way. Larry Wenzel: If they do that, this is the third time they've taken our stuff. Along here you've got a major hill and when you cut this e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 31 away I lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from 4Itack of water. Then they put the new street in and they pitched it wrong and you've got all the water coming down this road at 90 mph going right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in after it washed the whole bank out once and out into the lake. Are they going to put some kind of a storm sewer on this side of the street then along with that so handle that kind of a problem? Because you're increasing that grade dramatically. Olsen: We have not looked at it at this point. Those sort of issues would be reviewed at that time. Emmings: Jo Ann, aren't they just reserving an easement on this plat for a possible future trailway. There's no plan to build it. Larry Wenzel: It's not connected to whatever, you approved this development, it doesn't cast that into stone and it is there and setting a precedent? Emmings: Just reserving an easement for a possible future trail. Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and Minnewashta Parkway is designated to have a trail so as developments come in, we reserve easements for tha t. When it will be bui 1 t, I couldn't tell you. .arry Wenzel: I guess I get a little nervous when I see, and our eighbor John Ziegler of course isn't here, but I see something like that and I'm wondering how much thought process went into that thing. Olsen: area. This doesn't show everything. That might have been a ponding Larry Wenzel: That's all high ground. Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the proposed plat has really nothing to do with the approval of this. Like I said, a number of these plans could have been drawn up. You could have come in with five of these. The only thing about this plan is that if Stratford Ridge is approved, if Mr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary sewer if he wanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the sanitary sewer and water from the Stratford Ridge development. That was the only reason that this report was even looked at. To figure out how we can put in piece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plan, as far as the lot layouts, as far as even these parcels are developed, is strictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide to develop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout, each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the 15,000 square foot minimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this layout is arbitrary. It's just so future development can be made to facilitate if the need should occur. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 32 _Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we're tIloming from, none of us had seen this. We didn't even know it was going on. All of a sudden there's two options. What we're going to possibly do with your horne, with your property, so it's a little shocking. You can look at it objectively but for us, it's more of an emotional thing the first shot. Brown: I think also, as pointed out in the report before, some of these parcels will have trouble meeting the requirements as far as lot area by themselves and this report was a way of informing the neighbors that if they so choose, they can get together and develop this or have somebody develop it for them if they have a smaller parcel. It's just another method of learning, if they want to develop, they should be informed as to what's out there. Larry Wenzel: I think you're right and I'm not disagreeing. It is a shock. When you see your name up there and all these lots chopped up and your house doesn't exist. Mrs. Wenzel: And no road access. Larry Wenzel: Each one of us, even though our piece is 10.5 acres, after Dave's explanation, I'm not sure what we've got after listening to what Lawson's might or might not. I don't know who the devil it comes from but in my particular case which is inmaterial to this, we've got a house here and a house here, which is fine because of your lake .ules. You'd probably get it blocked off and get two front water lots nd the rest of it you develop or whatever the case may be but there you've got access that exists from the main street now. The way this appears, all of a sudden that's changed, even though it's there. It might not be and I guess that's what makes you a little nervous. Erhart: Well, it may not be because the ordinance, I believe on collectors, it's 300 feet separation for street access. So the whole purpose of putting together this master plan is a plan that everybody has future access and still meet the ordinance. You do that by preventing situations like this developer corning in and putting two cul-de-sacs with no future extension of the street. So what the plan allowed us to do here is to work with the developer to allow future access of the one street to go up to the Mildred Kirkson property, if that person so chooses to develop without having a direct access onto Minnewashta parkway. Larry Wenzel: Yes, but many of the driveways already exist and they are two distinct and separate pieces of property, how can you tell me now that this is going to change. Erhart: No it doesn't, but if you wanted to develop, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can put in a street outlet to Minnewashta. e ~- ---- Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 33 Larry Wenzel: I didn't say anything about street outlet, I said two ~ive outlets that are already there. Jo Ann Hallgren: I was the one that had the driveway. My property is landlocked as you can see. The x on the map there, that is probably what you would consider a wetland. I have a wetland on the north of my property. There's a huge ravine that runs to the western part of my property and all the way to the railroad tracks. what I'm getting at is, on the lot selection, the driveway easement, the one that's not going to be developed into a public street, is considered an outlot. That's what the staff has stated. To me, that is my only access to my property. But the property owners property goes down further than a public street would give more square footage than what would exist with the existing easement. I'm wondering if that would be a problem there If a public street were to be continued back. Can you take acreage from the lots? Olsen: You'd have to work with that property owner. Jo Ann Hallgren: What if he's the one that says no? Olsen: I think what we were looking at when the additional right-of- way would be required, that it would also be working with the property with this house. Jo Ann Hallgren: Finally, I would like a condition to serve my _oblem. Erhart: You've got 33 feet there. Olsen: You've got 33 feet but not the 50 feet. Ted Kenner: We have shown on the preliminary plat reserving 17 foot of additional right-of-way along Lots 7 through 10 for future street expansion in there so it would be 50 feet wide. Conrad: You've never talked about burning the house Dave. Headla: Oh yes, I wanted to thank you. I wanted to discuss that. What happens if they can't come up with 15,000 square feet on Lot 1, Block 2? What happens to all the work that's done here? Olsen: To get approval, they would have to receive a lot area variance. What you could probably do, what you probably should do, is establish a condition that Lot 1, Block 2... Emmings: plat says truth and to and it Why do we have to do that? We've approved this plat. This it has 15,000. If it doesn't, than they haven't told us the then they've got a problem so we'll just assume they're going will be up to staff to check and make sure they do. e ~ --- Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 34 ,adla: Emmings: They have to come back again? No. Headla: If they don't make it 15,000. Emmings: Dave, look at the lot next door is 17,500. They can steal enough over there to make that one 15,000 I would think without any trouble at all. If they do need it. Headla: I just want to see it at 15,000. Emmings: happens. Well, that's what the plan says. That's what we're approving. Staff has to make sure that Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision 187-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be designated as an outlot. 2. Lots 1-5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing screening from Minnewashta Parkway. e 3. The existing building and debris shall be removed from the site upon approval of the appropriate permits. 4. provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. 5. Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10. 6. A typical detail for Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan. 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 8. All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the City's standards for urban construction. 9. The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed. 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. - Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 35 e 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. 12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and DNR permit. 13. The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum possible elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated. 14. Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary. 15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried. Conrad: The reason for my opposition is I still think there are too many pieces of land on this piece of property. I would recommend that one parcel be eliminated and I think that would solve a lot of my concerns with the subdivision. Headla: On the building on the property, the Fire Department talked to me and said they were interested in burning it. Did Dick Winger tlta1ly get a hold of you? Robert pierce: I guess I hadn't contacted anybody at this point because I wanted to get to this point before I made any other arrangements. Headla: Can we tell them to get in touch with you then? Robert pierce: Sure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the conditional use permit for a recreational beach1ot. Erhart: What's happened here in the procedural changes? Olsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ordinance... Erhart: We've been voting on the zoning ordinance since I've been on the Commission. Now all of a sudden that's not the way it is anymore or have we been doing it wrong? e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 36 .. en: No, you've been voting on variances to subdivisions and the lot tho As far as the recreational beachlot, the zoning ordinance states that variances should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments. Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the... Olsen: Under the zoning ordinance. Roger Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoning ordinance. Recreational beachlots are in the zoning ordinance. The requirements with a dock is 100 foot depth. If you want to get around that requirement, it needs a variance and the zoning ordinance says that goes to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The subdivision is a separate ordinance. It doesn't have to go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. You can decide that. Erhart: We're not chaning anything, we're just following the rules on this one. It's a lot easier for us. The only thing we're dealing with here is just simply approving or disapproving the beachlot as it fits our beachlot ordinance? Simply that. The only issue we have to deal with is essentially the plan of the beachlot. Then the only question I have is, in proposing the change from steps to a ramp, are you not inviting 3-wheelers to come driving down that to our nice beach? Ted Kenner: That's always a problem when you have a ramp. At the same time, I can see what the staff is suggesting for safety, if you need to ~ down there in case of emergency. Erhart: But in case of emergency, then don't they put the guy on a stretcher and they can carry him up the steps just as well as they can carry him... Olsen: Stretchers have wheels on them. Erhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on ei ther one but I'd sure favor the steps over the ramp. I don't know if it's worth getting into a big discussion. That's the only thing I've got. Headla: Who looks at the tree plantings? There are some beautiful oaks there and I just want to make sure that the oaks stay. Well, you'd have every reason to want to keep them too. Olsen: That will be approved by the DNR forester, Allan Olsen. Conrad: The Planning Commission looks at a conditional use permit, what are we looking at? What are the conditions that we're measuring this against? It seems like the conditions that we're measuring against are not in our power to measure but the Board of Adjustments is measuring. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 37 e Olsen: We looked at it meeting the conditions of the recreational beachlot... Conrad: But not the depth. We're not looking at area size. Olsen: You look at whether it meets the conditions. Conrad: And it doesn't. Olsen: When it doesn't, that's when you want it to go to the Board of Adjustments. Conrad: So, what are the conditions that we're looking at? Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot without a dock. Erhart: The depth is required for the dock but that's out of our jurisdiction. Let me correct this, it does meet all of the conditions for just a standard beach lot? Olsen: Yes. You have the lake frontage. e Conrad: And 80% of the houses are located within 1,000 feet? Okay. We asked the Public Safety Director to review the safety of this lot, crossing Minnewashta Parkway. Did he ever do that for us? Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be crossing the street... He felt that the bigger issue was... Conrad: And the steps simply just for access, emergencies and handicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. And we're not concerned with where the beach is placed? Headla: Does the builder feel he has to have a ramp? Robert pierce: No, I guess it's really up to you. Erhart: Ladd, I think it is within our duties to make comments about the plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the few things we do have input on. Olsen: In the report I did review that we did want more detailed plans if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condition. Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condition here. What's staff's opinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think the concern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance between the lake and the road is 40 feet and is that acceptable in terms of how people are handled? If you get 13 lots, or whatever it is, more than that, 15 lots, can that 40 feet of depth, which we're not looking at, e e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 38 handle that many people? Originally, I think the 100 feet is simply to separate, give people room away from property and I think with the road there and everything, I have no problem with that. I'm sure the Board of Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clear separation between the outlot and people's land and therefore it's not going to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. My concern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed the right amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet is really not a whole lot for a beach. Especially, I'm don't know how much of that is useable for a beach. Robert pierce: Maybe I can take this a step back, about the steps or the ramp. I guess, if I had my way I'd rather probably put steps in because of ease of maintenance and I think they can just make it nicer looking but again, it's not anything one way or the other. It would proably just make it look a little nicer with those steps. Then going to the 40 foot, we have a major length of shoreline there and the kind of beaches that I take my kids to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lot of times where we go we are probably, the sand beach depth and there would be quite a few other boats, a lot of time that beach is not more than just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus we would make it 80 to 100 feet... e Conrad: You're comfortable you can solve the problem that these homeowners are going to put on the beachlot? Robert pierce: We want to make an attractive situation for everybody. It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to have something that will be desirable and that they can see they're going to enjoy. Headla: Did you want to fit the point there, Jo Ann? Olsen: About the more detailed plans? Headla: Yes. Olsen: Sure. Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustment and City Council. e e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 39 3. All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4. A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. 5. The applicant must submit a more detailed plan of the recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200-FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit. Conrad: Can you build on a Class B wetland? Can you build a house? A Class B wetland is not buildable, isn't that right and therefore is not part of area that we use to calculate densities. Olsen: We've always used that. e Headla: You've always included wetlands in your densi ty calculations? Conrad: Wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann. Erhart: Yes, but you still include them in your overall acreage. Olsen: Yes, I think we do. The developer has done it. I'm trying to think, like for Hidden Valley. When we had that large wetland in that marsh area down there, I believe that went into the net density, we did not include that. Conrad: But in terms of individual lot size, not the overall plat or subdivision, but in terms of the overall lot size. A wetland will help make up the 15,000 square foot minimum? Erhart: The only rule we have is the setback from the building. Robert pierce: You have in the past because I know of one other subdivision here and they included the wetlands. It wasn't this, it was a Class A wetland and they were included in the calculations of the lots. Olsen: with the Lake Riley Woods subdivision, it was then. Even with that open ponding area in the Lake Riley Woods, we included that. e Erhart: I'm not sure it's appropriate for 15,000 square foot lots but it is for the 2 1/2 acre. That's how I know I've studied it. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 40 Olsen: Now we have the 2 1/2 acre lot, a minimum of 1 acre buildable. If it wasn't shown as a wetland, we wouldn't have known. Erhart: What you have is a 6 inch dip there is what it really is on the side of the hill. Headla: There are pretty good swales up there. Jo Ann, Rockwell and I walked through it and she looked at it and boy, she locked on that right away. Conrad: What's it like off this property? How much more is a Class B wetland? Olsen: It does continue to drain over here to the northwest. There is a large, and it shows on this map. I think I might have covered it up with this but there is a larger, better wetland to the northwest. Conrad: I don't know how closely related to the permit, what are we communicating here as we allow filling of the B in terms of the adjacent properties? Are we saying that we don't care for the B's in that area? We've got an alternative, which is acceptable, for another holding pond that Rockwell feels is a subsitute but does that communicate anything about the neighboring part of that wetland? What are we thinking Jo Ann? e Olsen: When we visited the site she felt that it is important to the drainage and that other wetland was the important wetland. As stated that was our optimum place to provide the ponds and you could maintain the drainage. Headla: We were dumping a lot of water in there that wasn't affecting, a little bit on the northwest corner but affecting the adjoining properties. You're getting faster runoff into the adjoining properties. Olsen: Now we are? Actually they're bringing over the drainage the other way. So what they're actually doing is taking natural drainage and going to that wetland pond. We did look at that, we walked over there and looked at that other wetland and that was the important one that she would not want to see filled or altered. Conrad: Okay, I'm comfortable with the exchange but I guess I'm still a little bit not sure. I haven't seen the property. e Erhart: Addressing your thoughts there, I guess in the Riley Lake subdivision we had a Class B wetland there and that was even marginal, Class E, but what we made them do was essentially move it over a little bit and turn it into a Class A essentially. Now there we moved it over a little bit. Here we're moving it across. I think it would be preferable also to take that little dip and move it down to the edge of that lot. I think that would have been also a nicety. To maintain, Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 41 Alain reduce the amount of runoff on that lot and also to maintain that ~ttle Class B or even the small little pond down there into a Class A. It certainly would not have hurt that lot because you know that house is not going to be built right there. Headla: How big is this basin going to be? on the area. I don't see anything here Robert Pierce: I don't have it with me at this time. Headla: What would you guess it would be? Erhart: Yes, compared to the old one. Was that area an existing Class A wetland where that basin is? Headla: Class B. Erhart: That was B by Minnewashta Parkway? Conrad: No, that's nothing. Olsen: That never was a wetland. Headla: That would be a quarter of an acre basin in the northwest corner of that property? Is that what we're talking about? That whole tlJale goes up between 5 and 6 but where would this .26 acres be? Conrad: The drainage pond is right on the Parkway. Brown: That .26 encompasses this area here that I have yellowed. Headla: Okay, I don't have any problem with it. Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-16 to permit the alteration of a Class B wetland with the following conditions: 1. The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the following six criteria so that it will also be as a wetland area: a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and nesting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. e Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 42 . c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 2. The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~rad: I guess the only discussion I have is, in concept I wish we <:.Wld have figured out a way to enhance the wetland that we're filling in and use that as a drainage area and also as an asset. Headla: One of the things I think, there's a subtle thing, we're preventing a lot of water from going into that real wetlands into the northwest and we've never talked about, what is the real impact on that wetland? I don't know if it's 1% of the water that normally goes in there or is it 25% or 40%. Conrad: taxed. I through. there was do it but I think as that area develops, that wetland's going to be think the other wetlands will be used to drain runoff It will have it's chance to do it's job sooner or later but a potential case of using a wetland as an asset. We didn't this is an alternative that's acceptable. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONEDIOP;- INDUSTRIAL-OFFiCE PARK DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAS~ORDQUIST SIGNS (DATASERV). This item was tabled per the applicant's request. e - Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE PUBLIC WORKS~LDING ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDU8'TRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LO~D AT 1591 PARK ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Barbara Dacy waived the staff report given the hour of the meeting. Chairman Conrad opened the public hearing. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-19 to expand the existing public works facility as shown on the site plan stamped "Received December 15, 1987." All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes oY-the Planning Commission meeting dated December 9, 1987 as amended by Dave Headla on Page 7, and Ladd Conrad on pages 3, 4 and 9. All voted in favor and motion carried. I. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Conrad: Any changes to our By-laws? Emmings: Yes, right at the bottom, 2.1. It says regular meetings will be the second and fourth weeks of each month and we're doing it on the first and third. Erhart: Can we change it from Wednesdays? Emmings: Not me. Erhart: travels, anyplace. I'd prefer Monday. Opposite Mondays. Any person that Wednesday's the worse day of the week. You can't travel You never travel for one day. You always travel for 2 or 3. Dacy: Monday's you're limited to first and third Mondays because the Council is meeting the second and fourth Mondays. The first and third Mondays are traditionally falling on all the Monday holidays. Tuesdays are Park and Rec. Thursdays is the HRA. They only meet once a month on the third Thursday of the month so the available days are either Wednesday or Thursday. e Erhart: I wouldn't ask you to change it for me. If you had one of the other members here who had the same problem with traveling and he agreed, then I think it would be worth discussing. Planning Commission Meeting 4ItJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 44 Conrad: Monday's are okay with me as long as they work for staff. Monday and Wednesdays are equally good. I have problems on other days but why don't we wait and see what the new commissioners have in terms of their schedules. I think we're adopting these right now but that doesn't mean we can't change that any time we want to. Emmings: I have a suggestion too on the By-laws. There's a sentence that carries over from page 1 to page 2 and then the next sentence says, regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11:30 and that's mandatory language. I just wonder if we shouldn't say, I would like to end our meetings by 11:00. On the other hand, if we feel like we've got a half hour more of business or in the middle of something, I think it's dumb to say, we've got to go home now. Maybe it should say regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11:00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the chairman. That's what we do anyway so why shouldn't it say that because you're the chairman and you'd like to exercise your discretion. Conrad: Absolutely and I like 11:00. Emmings: Also, I read Section 1 and I don't know, I guess I've been here long enough now so that what it said kind of put into focus what we're supposed to be doing here a little bit. I sort of came away with ea clearer idea. I just recommend it to your reading. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as amended. All voted in favor and motion carried. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN. Dacy: I had three phone nominations. Chairman and Steve as Vice-Chairman. to use them for nominations. They are unanimous for Ladd as I have ballots here if you want Erhart moved, Headla seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman and Steven Emmings as Vice-Chairman. All voted in favor and motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION 1988 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Headla: I hear something I really can't get my hands on and say this is it, but apparently there is becoming a problem of uncapped wells. Li ke us, we had our own well s and then the sewer wen tin and then tha t well lays dormant. I'm hearing that it's gradually becoming a problem but we don't know how to cap them and make them full proof. Is that part of our concern? I think it probably should be. Should we be 4Itlooking at that? Planning Commission Meeting 4Ifanuary 6, 1988 - Page 45 Dacy: Maybe not necessarily the Planning Commission but the Public Safety Commissioner could. Headla: I wanted to bring it up. I didn't know where we fit in but you hear it and it's hard to get information on it. Erhart: Are we going to be finished with the upgrading of the Comp plan this year? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: What issues are remaining? Dacy: We still have the Transportation Chapter and Implementation Chapter and there will be another chapter that staff will be adding. Erhart: Mark's coming back again. Dacy: Yes, Mark will be at the next meeting in January. Emmings: But when do you thing we'll be done with it? Dacy: Mark is going to be bringing a detailed, a general schedule to _he next meeting. What we're looking at is January, February and March inishing up the chapter reviews and possibly looking at an information meeting and public hearings at the beginning of the summer. Emmings: How many public hearings? Is there more than one? Dacy: Only one is required by State Law but given the immensity of the project. Erhart: Is anybody interested in it? Dacy: Yes. The Transportation Chapter will be the most controversial because of the proposed intersection of TH 101. The bigger issue of the Comp Plan is going to get narrowed down to that. Emmings: What about the northern alignment of TH 212? Is that going to be a big issue? Dacy: That may be diverted from the Comp plan to some extent because MnDot is almost through with the official map. Erhart: You're saying the Comp Plan, one of the focus points is going to be that TH 101 interchange on TH 5? I Dacy: we'r~ including those recommendations into the proposed ~ransportatlon Chapter. Erhart: We've not seen that yet? Planning Commission Meeting tlfnuary 6, 1988 - Page 46 Dacy: You will be seeing that next time. Even though it occupies one sentence on a piece of paper, it represents 9 months of work. Erhart: What does it look like this year as far as the number of subdivisions corning in? Is it going to be as busy as last year do you think? Dacy: I think obviously it will not be as large subdivisions as Lake Susan Hills West. I think you'll see a number of smaller subdivisions like you saw this evening. Conrad: I can't think of any major things. The trail system is pretty well completed. Erhart: Just long range planning. Dacy: There's another issue kind of hidden in goal 3 that staff is just beginning to look at, some sign ordinance change. Especially in the downtown area. Now that we're finalizing the street and landscaping plans here, we're going to bring to the Commission some discussion items on signage in the downtown and commercial districts. That hasn't been fully covered. Along with the on-going housekeeping stuff, that always seems to come up with other issues. .nrad: The sign ordinance is that at your impetus because you're seeing variances or you're seeing needs that are not going to be accomodated with the sign ordinance? Dacy: It really started wi th the whole downtown redevelopment effort. Remember when the Planning Commission talked about entrance signs into the community? Where they should be placed and what they should look like? We kind of started from that discussion and looked at, how do we want an entrance on TH 5 to look and how do we want the downtown to look? Do we want 10 large AMOCO signs or a big Brooke's Superette sign on the main street. Headla: If I corne in from my place and turn down here on Powers Blvd. and I see a sign you're entering Chanhassen. Dacy: These are the issues that we want to start looking at. Emmings: Downtown Chanhassen. Conrad: You know, that cockeyed building. Emmings: I looked at it from the other side tonight though, corning up from TH 5 and it looks fine. _nrad: It does? You see, I don't think it does at all. I think it looks real out of place. It's not parallel to anything. It looks Planning Commission Meeting tlfuary 6, 1988 - Page 47 terrible. It really does. Dacy: You're talking to the wrong people. Conrad: I realize that. Who should we talk to? As a citizen Barbara, who should we talk to, to get that changed? Dacy: You should talk to Don. Conrad: I can't imagine what you can do to make that... Erhart: We can make a resolution of the Planning Commission. Conrad: To do what? Erhart: Change it. Conrad: I don't think that's a planning issue is it? Headla: Bill Boyt took a straw vote at one of our Rec Center meetings, $10,000.00 to move it. Whatever, just to turn it around. Those decisions are easy to me, you leave it. ~rad: Dave, it's a real mistake. Headla: When you come in, you see it right away and I've been assured time and again that it's going to work out alright. Erhart: After we get the trees in place? Conrad: I can't imagine how you can make it, I bought the argument Barbara, that we're going to make it look good off of TH 5 but then when I took a look at it coming in from TH 5, it's not parelle to anything. All it does is contrast against the back of Pauly's. Is there any landscaping that's going to occur at the back of Pauly's? Dacy: Right. The downtown project is half done. We're waiting for the spring thaw. Conrad: But that's going to be a parking lot back there right? Dacy: Right, and there will be landscaping around, and park benches in front and it will be a part of the whole design. Conrad: So when you say you think it's going to be good, is that your personal opinion or is that the public line? Dacy: That's my opinion. &rad: You get into aesthetics like that, and it's individual but I'm just amazed... Planning Commission Meeting ~uary 6, 1988 - Page 48 Emmings: But you can conceive of several places to put the building that you know are going to provoke a large number of people. You can also consider places to put it where it isn't going to provoke anybody. I think that I could design that little area, I'm not a designer and I could do a better job. Dacy: I think what we're happy about is the amount of comment that it has generated. Emmings: Yes, it's wonderful. A lot of negative comments. Dacy: Well, it is because if that's the only thing that we have to worry about. Emmings: Has anyone said they really think it was a stroke of just a beautiful way to put the building there? Dacy: Yes, there is a faction of people that do like it. And we saw those people when you were interviewing. There were people who said, I really like what you guys did with the location of the City Hall. Then the other half said, this really stinks so I think it's split. It's 50-50. The north side of TH 5, who can see it from the north side, are ilJinst it but I think coming from the south, it looks good. Conrad: Does it really? It doesn't even look perpendicular to the road. I think it's a definite reflection on the downtown. The downtown is a really nice project in my mind and this is a surface deal. It's a real Mickey Mouse deal and people say, hey, they can't even line up a building. Then the roads are too narrow and we're going to have traffic. I've heard all the comments about downtown and there's a lot of negative about downtown. A whole bunch of negative. Dacy: It's half done. Erhart: Is the street wide enough so in two years when we want to remove the center curbs, are we going to have a four lane road going through the downtown. Dacy: You guys, you're going to drive me crazy. Jim Lasher stood in here and he showed you two boards. Roadway alignment A and B. A was the one with the median and B was the one without the median. Everybody said go with the median because you have the trees, you have the landscaping... Conrad: change. Yes, I did. I still like it and I think people are going to Erhart: I think it's not going to work. If you take a poll two years tlrm now, more than 50% will say it's a mistake. Planning Commission Meeting J4Irary 6, 1988 - Page 49 Conrad: Okay, finalizing our goals. The third point, continue evaluation of development ordinances. That's really, you're just doing that because you want more than two right? That's sort of like a job responsibility. Unless it's real specific, it doesn't mean much right now. We will do that. I guess what I'd like to do, are there any other specific things that anybody here thinks we should be addressing? Do we want to put the sign ordinance review as a fact or should we just let that come in as a housekeeping? Headla: Have it corne in as housekeeping. Conrad: I don't see it as a major activity and I'd rather have these being major. Obviously the Comprehensive Plan is a major thing. I'd like to have some dates on it however so we can get it through. Erhart: I had an idea to develop a landscaping plan for the arterials in the City. In other words, to take TH 101 and like TH 41 and the one running up here. On the new developments, they're nice. They're bringing in those big pine trees and stuff and putting berms along like Powers Blvd.. It's real nice but in the old developments where they didn't do that, it's just hodge podge of dirt piled up here and there. The worse being TH 101 going north. I'd like to see us spend some m~ey, maybe this year, to have a master plan by one of the consultants .t we use all the time. If we could somehow find monies to go back and plant larger trees and try and clean up on all these arterials. plus when we do new ones, that there's a plan because I think that's one of the major niceties about a city when you drive on the arterials is it's aesthetically nice. Right now the developers, I think we're internally sort of done it because we know the problems and they are doing a good job on each development but I think it'd be good to have a master plan. Headla: That might be appropriate the way we're looking at putting in a trail system too. That may go right along with that. Dacy: So a landscaping program for major streets? Erhart: I'm thinking definitely the aterials, even TH 5. if you want to include collectors yet. Maybe collectors. thinking of TH 101, Powers Blvd., CR 17. I don't know Mostly I'm Emmings: TH 41 sure has a flavor all it's own with all these pine trees. Erhart: If we could start doing some plantings now, even on a limited scale every year, along TH 101, it would be just a matter of 10-15 years. I think it's money well spent. .rad: Whatever happened to Arbor Day that you were going to rdinate last year? Planning Commission Meeting J~ary 6, 1988 - Page 50 Erhart: We had a tree giveaway. We gave away trees out in front of Kenny's, about 2,000 seedlings. Conrad: Any zoning ordinance that we want to look at? Any ordinance for that matter. , i Emmings: One thing that came up tonight. I think we should just keep alert to opportunities. When questions come up. One that came up tonight is this beachlot thing. You were worried about the 40 feet in depth of that one and I was sitting here thinking, isn't it better, since you've got the area, to spread out those 15 households over that... It seems better to me. Maybe we could kick some of that around. Maybe we could trade some depth for some extra width. Headla: Go on an area basis? Emmings: Well do it on an area basis but if you're not going to have ithe 100 feep in depth, first of all that only applies to a dock I guess, but if you're not going to have the 100 feet in depth, maybe if you've got over the 200 feet in width. Maybe that should make a difference. I don't know. C~rad: That one we'll probaby be looking at. I don't know what ~ Council's going to do with that. If they're going to ask us look at the beachlot. Do you want to force that to happen Steve? you want us to put that down as an agenda item for us? the to Do Emmings: I don't think it's a goal. The other thing that came up tonight, is we could be looking at the wetlands thing again. Both of those tonight, we hit situations where on the beachlot thing it seemed right to let them have a beachlot there. To me it sure did and in a lot of ways it seemed right to let Rivkin have his channel. Erhar t: I guess my feel i ng on tha t deal is, anybody who comes inhere with a wetland improvement proposal, he'll get through. Therefore, I don't think we need a change in the wetland. Conrad: I don't think we do either. I think with Rockwell's guidance, we've been really pretty, she's really been very fair I think as things have come through. Real fair. Not just sticking to the letter of the law but really looking at the wetland. I have a great deal of confidence in her. Emmings: What are we going to do in her absence? Olsen: She has somebody else in the office that we can deal with who will come out. Aart: I think we've gotten a lot more educated in the last year. I ~w I have. Would it have been unreasonable to ask that developer to put a walkway underneath Minnewashta Parkway to get to that? p~ning Commission Meeting J...ary 6, 1988 - Page 51 Olsen: We discussed it with the developer and there is a cost. Emmings: Just put a culvert under there like they used to, to put cattle through. Olsen: Even that, there's a safety issue. Headla: That'd be a tough one to do there because you've got the two sewer lines and the water line and the gas line just at the right level where you'd like to put a walkway through. That could be real costly. Erhart: On this landscaping thing, I assume we have access to funds to get studies done? Dacy: We can look at that. Each department does have a certain amount of funds available for consulting fees. Erhart: If we want to do something like that, spend some money on that, does the City Council approve spending that? Dacy: WY? Erhart: arterial Are you saying that they have to approve the spending of the Yes, let's say we want BRW to come back with a plan on landscaping study. Dacy: If it's a fa i r ly maj or proj ect, in excess of say $10,000.00 or $15,000.00, the Council would have to... Emmings: BRW would already have all the maps of the City and everything so they wouldn't have to come out and surveyor anything. Dacy: I don't know that we would look to them specifically. Yes, they have done a lot of Chanhassen projects but Mark's firm has done the trail plan so I would think that he would be the logical choice. He's also a landscape architect. So the four goals are what the Commission wants to adopt? . Emmings: Do you think we ought have down as a goal that we keep alert for opportunities to reviewing the zoning ordinance or is that just... IConrad: a goal. I think that goes without saying. That's our job. I don't think that's really Dacy: We've got a coule more things here. Who do you want to have ~ representative at the HRA meeting? And the HRA is important ..ause if you want to talk about where the city halls are going to ana how wide the roads are going to be. as be p1Ivning Commission Meeting J~ary 6, 1988 - Page 52 Emmings: Maybe one of the new commissioners. Conrad: I think Jim would be a good member of the HRA. Let's put him on it. Erhart: How often do they meet? Dacy: Once a month. Conrad: Tim, do you want to do it? Erhart: I have a tough time meeting up with this schedule. Emmings: Me too. There are going to be two new members, maybe one of them will be. Dacy: Do you want to postpone this until next meeting then? Conrad: Let's do that and I think Jim would be a good potential for that. Dacy: Then the last thing is, we put together a little calendar of all .,meetings and the question is, whether or not you want to have the s ond meeting in December changed or only schedule one? Conrad: I think one. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e,