Loading...
PC 2006 08 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, Kevin Dillon, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item and outlined the schedule for review and adoption of the plan. She introduced Erin Krueger with SEH who reviewed the public comment process. Erin Krueger: Hi, as Lori said I'm Erin Krueger with SEH and I'm just going to go through some of the comments that we received. The City has four watershed districts, as you know, that each reviewed the plan and it was the Carver County WMO, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Riley-Purgatory Creek, or Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, and then we also sent a copy of the plan to Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council for their review and any input. We received some comments from Carver County. They wished that we adjust the jurisdictional boundaries of the watershed, which we did that for all the watershed districts, and that's reflected in this plan. They wanted some clarification on ISTS and who has the best information, which is Carver County and the city's ordinance up to speed with their ordinance. And then they, Carver County staff is recommending approval by the County Board and they are meeting next Tuesday, so then we will receive in writing formal approval from them. We didn't received any comments from Hennepin County, and kind of the basis of the comments from Met Council is they said the City, it was an excellent framework to manage storm water in the city. Some of the comments you received from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. They wanted us to add Rice Lake to the lake study and discuss the water quality, and that has been added, and then they just wanted us to address bank erosion in their jurisdiction and then the city's permitting process, which that will be included in the city's ordinances. And they're also recommending plan approval for their meeting tomorrow evening. Excerpts from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and they had a couple of concerns with the city's plan that we were able to work through. They did a wetland inventory of their district and they asked the city to incorporate Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 their data in with the City's data which the City is going to do. And then once the ordinance approval goes through, just need to make sure that the standards are in accordance with their standards, and they, the third thing is that they've got phosphorous limits for lakes Minnewashta and Christmas Lake and in the plan the City already has a prioritized list of projects in those watersheds and as long as they do those projects or meet those standards, and the City has obtained conditional approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also. And then the last agency is the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, and their main comments were they just wanted us to add some more information from their plan about the lakes in Chanhassen and then the stream classifications, and then I know the City has been working with them on a management plan for Bluff Creek. Haak: I think staff was very pleased at their relatively little discrepancy we had between our plan, our revised plan and the other plans that have jurisdiction within the city so we were really pleased to see the comments that came back. There were no really glaring errors or omissions that we found, and things were able to be resolved relatively easy and I think as you look through the agency comment as well as our responses, you'll see that to be the case so we feel that this is a real good plan and it's definitely putting us right in the middle of water resource management for the next 12 years or so. At this time I invite the Planning Commission to continue to review the comments received from the public and the responses that were provided by SEH in combination with city staff, and upon review of the comment and responses, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopts the motion as stated in your packet, which is recommendation that the City Council approve the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan as revised. With that I'd be happy to take any questions you might have. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Want to start? Papke: Yeah, the one that kind of stood out as I was reading through the comments the other night here were the comments from Todd Hoffman. He had a concern about priorities. We had labeled Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen as the crown jewels. All that kind of good stuff and he seemed to have a concern that the heavily used lakes, Minnewashta, Lucy, Lake Ann, Lotus, Lake Susan, Riley really provide a lot more value than those things. Do you, since Todd is obviously the parks director, he's in a pretty good position to make that judgment. What are your thoughts about the priorities as we laid them out? Obviously we put up Seminary Fen, Bluff Creek at the pinnacle here. There aren't a lot of people who go swimming in Assumption Creek every day and go tromping through Seminary Fen. Comments? Thoughts? Haak: Absolutely. That's something that I thought about as soon as I read that comment, but having been privy to the discussions of the task force and knowing the regulatory requirements that are set on those two specific resources, our solution to that comment was actually to keep the crown jewel language in the task force summary but remove it from the remainder of the plan. I don't know if you took a close look at this first version of the plan but that was really carried through the remainder of the plan and certainly we wanted to be sensitive to those resources because they are some of the most widely used resources and most residents in Chanhassen don't necessarily know anything about Assumption Creek or Seminary Fen, and so that was our resolution of that still understanding that those are definitely very valuable water bodies, but 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 understanding that the fen and the trout stream do have special authority or special protection under Minnesota State law and needing to really keep that so. Papke: Okay. So just to summarize what I heard, as a result of this we, you know removed some of the sort of value laden terminology in the body of the report. Kept it at the end and really didn't change any of the priorities that we had laid out. We felt that those were still correctly aligned. Haak: That's correct. Papke: Okay. That's all I had. McDonald: Okay. Dillon: No comments or questions at this time. McDonald: Debbie, any questions? Mark? No? I guess the only thing I had, I also picked up on what Todd Hoffman had said, and whereas throughout the rest of the report it seems that you addressed all the comments that everyone had made and I just didn't see anything there and I guess I felt that that was missing because I did feel he raised a number of good points that I hadn't seen debated before or brought before us and I was just wondering what the resolution was. I think you asked about the priority of water resources that there was a discussion about that. The other thing that I guess, and you may have touched upon this that I was concerned about was, yeah it looks as though Minnehaha Creek, the watershed district there is probably more, or provided more comments than anyone else. That seemed to get down to a lot of details about the differences between maybe what we're looking at for watershed and what they're looking at, and I think you touched upon this but my question is, going by what our standards are, had we created a problem, especially on Christmas Lake and a couple of these shared resources where our standards are lower than their's and we're creating a problem for ourselves as far as between governmental agencies? Haak: Well to date the City has retained permitting authority within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for a number of areas, including wetlands and storm water and things like that. Our intent with this plan was to retain that permitting authority, and there has been actually some fundamental differences of opinion with regard to the city's strategy and it's strategy that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would like us to take with water resource management. So there is in fact some of that conflict. What I think we've been able to do is, in most cases we've been able to resolve that by including small changes to our plan and things of that nature. The other thing that the commissioner should know is that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is actually in the process of updating their plan so they're in transition as well to a third generation plan, and so one of the results of that would be updating this to reflect their third generation plan. But we've really done, I think what we needed to do. Try to eliminate as much duplication as possible because with water resources management there is indeed that overlap, so I think at this point Minnehaha Creek is satisfied with the way those things have been resolved and we're going to continue to work for that. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 McDonald: Okay. And would the same thing be true Rice Marsh Lake I believe in the southern part of the city that I think that's shared by Eden Prairie also. Haak: Right. Basically the watershed district takes a look at all those resources, and that would be Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, and as long as it's consistent with their plan it would then also be consistent with Eden Prairie's plan. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Other than that just make a comment. You've done an excellent job in all of this and I appreciate your effort and everything. I know it couldn't have been easy. Thank you. Now, are we still, as I recall from the last time we did stay any public comments so we're still open to public comment, aren't we? nd Haak: Actually at the May 2 meeting you closed the public hearing. McDonald: We closed, okay. Generous: It would be up to you if you wanted to take any more comment. McDonald: I just wanted to make sure that we had. With that I would ask, are you all here to comment on the watershed plan or the next agenda item? Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I just had a question on the discrepancy between the Lake Riley-Purgatory Creek district and their ideas on Bluff Creek as opposed to Chanhassen's. How was that resolved. McDonald: I think that's part of what I asked Lori and I believe that we did resolve that. Janet Paulsen: That was Lakeville that you were talking about? McDonald: Well but it also included the Bluff Creek-Riley-Purgatory Watershed District, which takes care of all that, or explains so that it would include everything and that was the point of my question was to ask, are those things being resolved and if so, how. Janet Paulsen: But he specified, Conrad Fiskness specified Bluff Creek and I was just wondering. Papke: Was there a specific discrepancy that you. Janet Paulsen: He didn't list the discrepancy in the letter. I was wondering, because I noticed the discrepancy myself. That's all. McDonald: Is that being addressed? Would you comment to that Lori? Haak: That is actually a separate process. It's complicated. The City has a separate Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. That was adopted in 1996. As a result of that, the Watershed District actually did it's own study and there are some discrepancies between the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 City's plan, that Bluff Creek, specific Bluff Creek plan and the Watershed District's version of the plan. We're actively trying to resolve those. We actually have a joint meeting scheduled between the district board and the City Council. I believe that's for November, where we'll be discussing the differences in greater detail, but it really is the opinion of staff that this plan cannot fully encompass all of that. That that's best handled in a separate very specific plan. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Okay seeing no one else get up, I will close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up to the council or commission and I guess, who'd like to start with any comments. Papke: I just have a, maybe one last question here. Could you outline the milestones going forward now? You know what mile post are we at right now? What are the next steps? You mentioned before that you'll eventually be coming back with some city code changes, but between now and then, you know how do we get to complete sign off, you know signed, sealed, delivered, done. Haak: Erin actually put together an updated milestone list. You used a great word. It's like you've been to these meetings. We had our, as you can see, this is actually where we are, August th 15. So we're very close to the end, which is very exciting to get a project like this nearly th complete. We do have it scheduled for the City Council meeting on August 28, and delivery of the final plan just shortly thereafter. So we are 7/8 of the way done, or pretty close to that and we just have those 2 final things for the actual plan and then actually we anticipate having the revised ordinance language, the proposed revisions to city code back to the Planning Commission I believe in November. We're going to try and get this turned around because we do have some very good standards already recommended as a part of the plan so, it should be a fairly quick turn around from this point. Papke: So you mentioned before that Minnehaha Creek is updating their plan, and if I recall correctly you suggested that their plan might engender some changes to our plan. Do you expect that all to come in before this goes to City Council or will this be amended after approval or how will that work? Haak: It will be amended following approval. We anticipate having a full, an adopted plan prior to that. One of the reasons that we decided to proceed in that direction is that we just weren't certain when that, their final plan would be complete. It's very difficult to tell once these go to the public exactly how many comments you'll have and how much review time it will take so, as you've seen with this process, we had anticipated being done with this long ago but we did have some things that we needed to work out so. Papke: There's a lot of stakeholders in Minnehaha Creek, that's. Haak: Absolutely. It's a very large Watershed District so. Papke: Yeah. Okay, thanks. McDonald: Kevin? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Dillon: No, I just echo what someone else said and commend the staff for the work that they did on this. It's quite comprehensive and will be an asset to all. Keefe: Looks good to me. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Mark? Okay, I guess we're to the point where I'll accept a recommendation from the commission. Undestad: Alright, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the City of Chanhassen's Second Generation Water Management plan as revised. McDonald: Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the City of Chanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan as revised. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Haak: Thank you. McDonald: And thank you staff. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. This is your opportunity to change the laws in the community, however these are very small changes we believe at this time. Not like when we update the Wetland Protection Ordinance or the Surface Water Management Plan. A lot of these were pointed out. There's some changing in the engineering department. Other changes within the code that this sort of compliments and so we're bringing these forward. The first one is on page 1 of the report. It's Section 18-39. The submittal requirements. We just want to clarify what people, our current practice is to get electronic format submittals, and that the City prepares the mailing list for people so we wanted to clarify that. And then the fees are actually established by ordinance in Chapter 4 so resolution was an inappropriate word. Then on Section C, which is actually the next page, when development signs go out we've been losing a lot of them and so the City has initiated this year that we actually put them out and bring them back in so that we can be assured that signs go out to notify the public. So that's that first change. On page 2, Section 18-40, we recently adopted standards for the retaining walls. However, one element of that was omitted and that's the maintenance of it. We believe that retaining walls that are built as part of subdivision should be the responsibility of the developer or the association rather than the individual property owners and so this language would clarify that that is in fact the case. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Keefe: Can we ask questions now? Are there other standards in regards to maintenance of them? So just even my own neighborhood we've got a maintenance issue on a retaining wall and the association is dealing with it but is there a standard or timeframe or anything along that that would be, the quality or you know? Generous: Yeah, it would fall under our property maintenance requirements of the city code, which is, I think it's Chapter 7 of our ordinance. Keefe: So there's some language in that. Generous: Yeah, that it has to be done in an appropriate timeframe and the City can actually order people to do, make those improvements or if they don't do it we can make the improvement ourselves and then put it, assess it to their taxes. Keefe: Yeah, I'm just curious. So there's standards around what the maintenance of a retaining wall. Generous: I don't know specifically. If it's 4 feet high there's the engineering requirement but if it's under that, no. It's just got to be done in a workmen fashion and hopefully in the future we have the standards for some prohibition against some materials as part of those retaining walls, as well as requirement that they meet MnDot standards for the wall itself. Keefe: So this is really more just simply assigning the responsible… Generous: Yes, to make sure because we have been adding this language as a condition of approval to plats when we see a lot of retaining walls and so we said well if that's going to be our policy we should just make it part of the ordinance and so everyone knows upfront that that's the expectation. Keefe: Yeah, so this is you're assigned to a developer until it gets turned over to the association and the association it's your problem not the developer's. Generous: Right. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Generous: Section 18-57 under streets. This recently came to our attention that we omitted the Residential Low Medium Density district from our residential districts under subdivision so we added it. We put it in two places because RLM could be used as a low density type development. Single family homes or twins. Or it could be used for more higher, medium or high density developments so we had to put it into two categories. When it's under 4 units an acre, we would treat it as a low density single family. If it's above that, then we treat it as multi- family, and so we followed through on the next page. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Papke: So just coming back to that Bob. So on the table here on page 3, since RLM appears in two places, is it clear if I'm a contractor whether I need. Generous: A 30 or 40. Papke: A 30 or 40 right-of-way or a 20 or 24 pavement width. Generous: Yeah, and that's spelled out on the next page under when it's permitted. When we talk about, when equal to or greater than 4 units per acre or when less than 4 units per acre. Those standards apply. And then on page 5, this is actually one that Jan has pointed out to us that we're clarifying when we include the area of the private street easement as part of the lot area and when we don't, and when we include the impervious surface within that private street and when we don't. And for our low density it's excluded while it's a private street, and then when it's a single driveway we count it against the lot area on a parcel. When it's medium or high density developments, we don't. We include it as part of the lot area because those usually end up in an easement on an individual parcel and serving multiple parcels, and that's existing policy of the city how we review it. I also, as part of this am cleaning up the numbering system on that so while it was…by the publisher, we want to make sure that everyone's on the same page with what numbers they're citing for these issues so, that's those changes. And then it starts on page 6 under Section 18-31, but it's all the way to. Papke: Before you charge ahead there Bob. If I can slow you down here again. In Section 7 and 8 here again, we have RLM in both cases and it's clear which one applies. Can you elucidate why neither the area within the easement for the private street nor the impervious surface is included for, in Section 7 but it is included in Section 8. What's the rationale of excluding it in one and including it in the other? Generous: Well under the low density, or single family, by definition it's not supposed to be part of the lot area within that lot. Papke: So is this consistent with other definitions of lot area or? Generous: Yes. Papke: Okay. Generous: And then when it's medium density or high density we don't treat it the same. We, it's more like a commercial operation where we count their hard surface coverage against the whole thing. It's sort of, some of them are probably maybe because we're losing some hard surface coverage when they're not counting this against any of the lots but it's like streets now. We don't count that against individual lots too so it's very consistent on the low density end and on the high density end they get a little more coverage so they can absorb that. Okay, Section 18-61. It's actually the changes that the, well there's two changes. We're trying to break up this section so we don't have to print every page of this. The 3 pages. When we're just talking about tree preservation for this one section, but we're adding sub-section (e)(10) which is a lot of times when we see these reforestation plans, they have some overstory trees but they have a lot of 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 ornamental trees and under current ordinance that meets the ordinance. Minimum ordinance requirements. We would like to see them provide more canopy type trees as part of the reforestation plan. That's what the existing conditions are there so we're trying to get it back closer to what it was before, we need to specify that they have to provide those larger trees. Papke: So fewer crab apples, more oaks. Generous: Elms and maples and. Not elms I guess. Papke: Yep, no elms. No elms. Generous: Except American Elms are very nice tree. Papke: They die. Generous: Yeah, they just die. Keefe: There's a minimum size for overstory tree, right? Generous: Well it's a 2 1/2 inch caliper but there's a separate list from that. So in Section 18-78 this is one Alyson pointed out to us. Site grading are not necessarily considered site improvements. Like utilities, infrastructure and roads but they are improvements on the site and we want to make sure that we have all the development contracts and security in place before they go forward. Also, she just wanted to point out that developers could be female so her. And then finally we're now moving to, the City has to review all improvements on projects so private utilities that go in, private streets, so we want to include those costs against the entire project so we can retain security to make sure that those are completed. We're already putting in the administrative time to review that so we ran it through the city attorney and said yeah, you can charge for that and you can get security to make sure that's installed. So a lot of, on some developments that's an integral part of it that those private utilities, private infrastructure be put in and so we want to make sure it's done. McDonald: Okay, would you explain that when you say private. Generous: Like a private street. When the public's not going to take over ownership or maintenance of that. We don't currently take any security. We accept any administration fees for reviewing it, yet we have to review it as part of the overall project. Or if you have a private utility line that's extended over a long distance, they still have to comply with specific city standards and we review that and make sure that it meets all those standards. However we're not being reimbursed for that review or having any assurance that it's actually put in as part of the development. McDonald: Okay, so really the standard for the utilities, whether they were public or private are the same. Generous: Right. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, okay. Generous: So that's all the current changes that we're proposing on Chapter 18. And I don't know if you'd like me to proceed or. McDonald: Well, do we have any questions concerning Chapter 18 that we want to go into? Then why don't you proceed with Chapter 20. Generous: Okay, in Chapter 20 there aren't that many. One was directed by City Council and it's the intent of the residential low and medium density district. And I tried to add language in here to get my essence of what that was. We believe that it was a zoning district that could be used in cases where you're going to preserve large areas of a project as permanent open space. And we thought that this was a way to give the developer credit for preserving that space and yet allow him to get into those density ranges that make their projects work. However, right now you could do it almost anywhere and we've, Boulder Cove was a case in point. While the numbers worked out because of the type of project it was, it may not always, we may not always be that lucky and so we want to make sure that when someone's coming in and requesting that zoning, that we're getting the open space to offset the more intensive development on the individual lots. And so this was my shot at trying to clarify that and I think it gets it but that which I came to you to see if it works or if we should make it even more clear or expand on it. Dillon: Like call out Bluff Creek. McDonald: That seems confusing because Boulder, wasn't in the Bluff Creek area. Generous: Right. And that's, actually that's how I started. That's what we wrote the ordinance originally was in mind but the second part of that, or large areas of upland will be preserved and that could happen outside of Bluff Creek. McDonald: Why? Keefe: Was there a reason you called out Bluff Creek particularly? Generous: Only because. Keefe: Versus from a watershed area. Generous: No, because that's when I originally drafted the ordinance, that's what my mind set, I was looking on how to get that density and common open space without doing a planned development. Using density. Papke: You might want to say for example in Bluff Creek. Rather than calling it out specifically. I mean you're using it as an example, not mandating that it be used in Bluff Creek, which might be confusing. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 McDonald: At that point I think we're going to get questions that says, it only can be used in that district and you're outside of that so it's not available. Papke: Now, would it be appropriate to use the cluster term in here? That's one that many people have heard. If that fits with our intent, if our goal is to cluster the housing to leave open space inbetween, that might provide an additional cue. But I don't know if that's what you're trying to get to. Generous: That's all part of it, that you want the development to be concentrated if possible, and you'd have, leave areas that are more commonly open. And not city parkland because that doesn't count. This would be land that would be either private ownership or donated to the community after the development, but where they get their value out of it if you will. An example we did was Pioneer Pass. We did the RLM zoning on that. They had the smaller lots up on top of the hill and we received the whole creek corridor as an, we'll be receiving that as part of an outlot. While a lot of that was wetland, there was a significant area of upland as part of that. McDonald: I guess I'll just ask you about clustered because what you brought up, and the only example that I can come up with was, what was it? Boulder? Generous: Boulder Cove. McDonald: Boulder Cove. Okay, we agreed to have triplexes in there and that was part of pushing things together so we could get open space. Is that like clustered housing? Papke: That's not a very good example of clustered development, no. Because typically in a cluster you've got a group of a dozen houses and then maybe a couple acres of prairie land inbetween or woods or something like that, which I don't know, maybe it's the wrong term. Maybe we're not trying to. Generous: And that's only one element of it, is clustering. McDonald: Maybe concentrated housing is a better approach because we're trying to put the housing in one area and then leave open space. Keefe: …RLM district is intended to be used in environmentally sensitive areas, locations such as the Bluff Creek Overlay District or where large areas of upland will be preserved. Higher density housing will be allowed in exchange for larger open space or, as an offset to. Generous: Not really higher density because that's. Keefe: The term higher density isn't right but it's a way to push the homes together or. Papke: And I don't know whether Bluff Creek, are we trying to preserve the upland or the wetland? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Keefe: Well he puts two things in here. He says wetland in one case and then he says open, upland in the other. That's why I said environmentally sensitive because it's kind of. Papke: Isn't the wetland already protected? Keefe: Yes. Undestad: So we're trying to preserve above that is the upland. Generous: Because you can't use wetland in calculating density. Keefe: That's why I said environmentally sensitive. McDonald: Do we have a good term for that then because at that point it could be upland, could be wetland. It could be you know land that we're just trying to protect. Undestad: …cornfield you know it's upland, if it's wide open you're still trying to protect that. It's not necessarily environmentally sensitive. Generous: And it may be that you're trying to bring it back and expand an area of big woods that was farmed. Keefe: It's a catch all term. Larson: Well do you have to specify upland, wetland or couldn't you just say land? Undestad: I think because of the wetlands are protected, you don't have to worry about losing that, right? Generous: I'd hate someone to come in and argue that well we've got Hidden Creek Meadows for example. He had these huge wetlands in here and we're preserving all that so this, we're preserving a large area of open space permanently. Shouldn't we be able to rezone? Keefe: It needs to be wordsmithed a little bit more I think. Papke: The intent is to protect environmentally sensitive lands not already protected by wetland. Or something like that. I mean because that really could, if I understand you correctly, that's what we're trying, we're trying to say hey buddy. You don't get credit for the wetland but you've got something else that's you know environmentally sensitive or important for conservation purposes or something like that that you're trying to protect because like you say, we're not trying… Undestad: Well but in the end if that's what they're doing, that's what the clustering side gets to is the more land they can keep open, I mean it's cornfields now but something else can grow out there. Again it's more open area that they're trying to get. So upland in general I guess that still kind of goes back to, the way he's got there is. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: Well and we could take out the Bluff Creek in there. Papke: It's a good for example but. McDonald: I guess the thing is, do you want to work on this and bring it back before us or? Generous: Sure. Can take that out. McDonald: Because it seems as though you're trying to catch something in here and we're just not coming up with all the right words that can probably get you there. Papke: Need an English major around here. Generous: I am one but you also need to know what the policy and intent should be. So you know environmentally sensitive, yeah that's part of it and, but also the concept is yeah, areas that we may want to recreate a natural area out of. And if someone was willing to do that, they did an apartment building for instance and saved 5 acres and created a new native plains or something, you know it might be worthwhile to do too. Papke: So somehow might want to work in the words like preservation or creation of. Generous: Well yeah. Keefe: Preservation of larger open space areas. Papke: Or creation. What he's saying is creation. Generous: And we don't want, when I'm putting in a neighborhood, a private neighborhood park and so I should get credit for that too. McDonald: So if you say something like that, we're going to have those kind of arguments. Generous: Yeah, and so we wanted, I think it's more on the natural side that we're looking at is the idea of that. Dillon: Doesn't the first sentence in that thing capture it? I mean do you need to elaborate? Larson: What about direction? Could be directed towards preserving. Or with the intent of directing towards, I don't know. McDonald: When you say the first sentence, which one? Dillon: I mean right under 20-641. The intent of this. For single family. I mean that kind of nets it out. The second sentence you know provides a little elaboration on that but it's kind of superfluous to what's, the intent… 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Undestad: The Bluff Creek Overlay is the part of it, I mean if you just took that out, that it's all intended to be used for large areas of upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space. Generous: Well no, that one. Undestad: Yeah, you want to cover through the whole… Generous: Yeah, exactly and I think that would work. Then you're not site specific but you're getting both the intent that it could be a natural area you're preserving or it could be an area that you're creating. McDonald: Okay so, how would you re-word that now? Where does it start? Generous: The RLM District is intended to be used where larger or large areas of, I don’t know, upland is the word there or not. Upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher hard surface coverage permitted on individual lots. Undestad: That sounds good. Keefe: Or where large areas of upland or large areas of. Generous: Of land. McDonald: What was the term you used? Generous: Non-wetland. Or lake. McDonald: Preserving or creating open space or, what was the term that you used at some point that. Papke: May not be… I don't know, upland is the opposite of wetlands so that pretty much gets to where you're at. McDonald: Okay, let's go with that. Okay, does that sound okay? Generous: Yeah, I think so. Keefe: Can you say it one more time? Generous: The RLM District is intended to be used where large areas of upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher hard surface coverage permitted on individual lots. And that gets the essence of, we're going to, if you're going to come in and do the zoning, we anticipate that you're going to create some common open space. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 McDonald: Okay. Sounds good. Generous: Okay, and then Section 20-1255. On page 10. Subsection (d) is already in the prohibited sections. It's a duplicate and I couldn't figure out how it got there. I think it was just mis-printed there. Section 20-1259. Subsection (2). We're adding, and this was at the direction of City Council. They wanted regulations that if these message boards were located near single family homes that they would only be on for a certain time period. What we used in this instance was the example of Chapel Hill. Papke: How about Halla? Generous: Halla? Halla wouldn’t be permitted because he's in the agricultural district. He probably also wouldn't meet it because of separation but that's a separate. Papke: Separate issue. Generous: Right. So you know 6:00 a.m. to 10:00, we believe that gives them a long enough period so they can use it and get messages out, but then at night, especially during the winter on a night that's a lot longer. It wouldn't be…even though we do have a requirement that they tone down the intent of the other lighting. It's just something that the council was. Keefe: This is kind of add onto the one (g) above. Cannot be located in agricultural or residential. But furthermore, it says they're…within 500 feet of that. Generous: Within single family homes, exactly. Then on the bottom of page 11. Section 1265. As we have a conflict in our ordinance. There's 10 citations where it says the setback's a minimum of 10 feet, and then in this one it says it's half the required setback. So it was either modify the other 10 or do this one. We think this is reasonable. It's what we anticipate in a lot of projects. It keeps it out of sight distances, and that's the second change of the sight distance. It's not a sight distance, so we're just clarifying that it's, an area that you have to look on the corner so. Papke: So explain to me how the last two sentences there differ. The signs shall not block, the sentence. The sight distance triangle. Generous: From any private drive or easement. Or access. Papke: The signs shall not be located in any sight distance triangle so that would apply to. Generous: And public right-of-way is the intent. Because at driveways the sign would have to be 45 feet back from the curb to keep out of the sight distance triangle. But on the corner, the 30 foot setback from the property line, the definition's already in the ordinance and so we're just. Papke: So just for clarity and consistency, what is the difference between signs shall not block and signs shall not be located in? How could something be located in if they're not blocked? Or vice versa. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: They're the same but the only difference, the intent, the only difference was one was at the end of driveways which may be in the middle of a block but not at the intersection of two streets. So maybe we need to leave in a sight distance triangle of an intersection. Papke: I'm just concerned with the language here. You know it just sounds like those are two separate things so I'm trying to visualize in my brain here you know what these triangles look like and what it means so that, I can't understand how something could be located in the sight distance triangle, yet not block it. You see where I'm getting at? Generous: Yes. Papke: I understand that these are two separate cases, but there might be some value in. Generous: To making them both consistent? Papke: Consistent otherwise it's like well, okay one of them tells me I can't block it and the other one says I can't be in it so I guess. Generous: Shall not be located. Papke: Yeah. See where I'm going? Generous: So we'll just, okay we'll change the first reference to say located in the sight distance triangle. And get out block. Take out the block. And then I think I will, to clarify that, sight distance triangle of and put back in of an intersection. So that. Papke: That's what you're trying to get at. Generous: Yeah, to clarify that that, this is for the public street and a public intersection. Papke: Yeah, so might want to state for a public. Generous: Public intersection. Papke: Yeah. McDonald: Okay, but the 30 feet still… Generous: Yes. The sight distance is the same in both instances. It's how you measure it. At an intersection you can use the crossing line at a driveway that's in the middle of the block, you have to use the distance because it's only one property line. You don't have two. I can draw it. McDonald: You say that so clearly but what I'm wondering about is, are we going to get some developer in here where we start to get into arguments about what this triangle is and where I'm at and what the sides are. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: The one, let's say this is a. Papke: And maybe the picture should go, can you put a picture in the city code here rather than just explain. Generous: Yeah, we could add a picture under the definition section. McDonald: That would probably help. Papke: Yeah, you know rather than just explaining it to us. I think it's more important that the people who eventually have to read it get it. Generous: So, but in this instance for property lines we measure back the distance and draw a line between that and this area would be the sight distance triangle. So you'd have to put a sign back behind there. Now in this instance you only have one property line so you can come back 30 feet here but then we don't know where to put it on this way. There's no angle so what we do, we say is you have to be 45 feet back from the curb which is usually out farther. The driveway goes out into the right-of-way. And so you go back 45 feet. In essence you get the same location as if you would do a 30 foot, but then you're out this angle. They can see that way and that way. Or this way and that way. As part of the definition we are working on that separately and I can put a drawing in there. Papke: Drawing's always help. McDonald: Yep, that will help. Generous: As they say it's worth 1,000 words. Or at least 10 minutes of my trying to draw. Larson: Yeah, take a photograph of it and put one out there. Generous: And then on the last page 12, under (c), the City currently does approve signs in public right-of-ways and so this clarifies under what instances that we would. We see as part of the subdivision they'll put their sign in that driveway or the access road coming into the project, right in the median and so. Papke: One of those signs along Market Boulevard there in front of the Americana Bank where all the businesses have their, I don't know last time I drove by there was a bunch of them stacked up in there… Generous: No, because those are in, those on private property as opposed to public property. Papke: Really? Because they're right along side the road. Generous: Are those those little ones? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Papke: Yeah, the little ones. Generous: Yeah, those were illegal. We need a full time sign person to keep up on. Larson: And what about political signs? Generous: Those aren't supposed to be in the right-of-way. You have to permit them beginning st August 1 to be on private property. The free speech requirement. So the code permits it without a permit and we just say you have to meet standards. Larson: You hope nobody pokes into. th Generous: Yeah, well we actually had to take some down because they were like on August 29 they were up and we were getting calls. Papke: How about realtor signs? There's a jillion of them around the city here. Generous: Yeah, they're supposed to be on private property too and it's you know, and we're sending out notification to a bunch of businesses about these temporary signs. About the city ordinance requirements and hopefully part of the education, that will help reduce some of it but really we tell our public works people, if they see signs in the right-of-way, pull them up. Especially if they're in a bad location for sight. Creates a safety hazard at that intersection. And again, that's something you could do 24/7. Once you finish you start over again because they're back. Keefe: This establishes the rule. It doesn't necessarily. Generous: Yeah, and this is only in the public right-of-way so we're looking more at the subdivision signs as part of maybe a commercial project where someone would want to put it in there. So we'll clarify it for at least in those instances. And that's all for now. So staff is recommending approval, adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 18, attached with that revision to the RLM intent section. And the one that we did for the sight distance triangle. And as part of my amendment to Chapter 1 in definitions I'll look at including a picture. I think Josh actually drew one up so. McDonald: Okay. Generous: But he's on vacation. McDonald: Okay well, at this point do the commissioners have any more questions of staff? Then why don't we, this is a public meeting. We will now open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to make comment, please come forward. State your name and address the commission. Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I have a question on the first page, Section 18-39 and I was wondering the reason why the City wants to prepare the list of property owners as opposed to previously was certified by the Abstract company. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: Currently we do that on our applications we, the City says we're, we'll make it and you'll pay us for it. We have a GIS system that's very good. We get it from Carver County and it's updated and we can do it. We can make sure we have the information available when they, when the submittal comes in rather than, a lot of times before people would do it, oh I forgot the list and so okay, we'll give you a few more days to get it in. And we weren't sure that we'd have it. This way we're sure we have it. Janet Paulsen: And it's just as accurate as an Abstract company would be? Generous: Yes, it's based on the Carver County data. Janet Paulsen: Okay. Then on page 2, I have a question. Well I have a request actually. The sentence where the Community Development Director may require an expanding mailing list for sites fronting on the lake shore when the development would be visible over a larger area. I was thinking, especially of the development Lakeside on Lake Riley, and the only people notified were those within 500 feet. All along the west side of that lake those people were not notified and I'm sure they would have been very interested. And there's quite a bit of housing on that side of the lake. And also Eden Prairie has that large park. I'm not sure if that's the Lake Riley- Purgatory Creek Park or if it's Eden Prairie but maybe they should have been notified too. And previously, 2 1/2 years, 2-2 1/2 years ago it was required that everybody on the lake be notified, and the Planning Commission didn't think that that was important anymore but I have to tell you the lake owners are the best watch dogs of your lake water that there are. I would like to have that reinstated. And then on page 5 of 12. On number 7. The private street issue with RLM district. I was wondering when it's less than 4 units per acre, when is the impervious surface of that street calculated? Ever? Generous: No. Janet Paulsen: Never? Generous: Never. When it's part of a private street. When it's a driveway then we count it against both the lot and the lot area. Janet Paulsen: And then the statement there, once the private street terminates, what does that mean, when it terminates? Generous: When it's no longer. Janet Paulsen: To the side or the end? Generous: When it's no longer used by 2 properties. The definition of a private street is basically it's a driveway serving more than 1 lot. Once it's no longer…it's not a private street anymore. It's a driveway and so that's where the area would, it would terminate from being excluded from the lot area and being excluded from the lot coverage. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Janet Paulsen: And so then on 8, when both area and the impervious surface of the easement in front of it's street shall be included in the calculation of lot area. I'm just confused on what that means. What is the difference between the two? Generous: In multi family we're not going to exclude, or multi family or industrial we don't exclude the area of the private street from the calculations. Either from the area, lot area or from impervious surface area. It's like Lifetime Fitness. Technically that part of their driveway is a private street because it's serving, well that's not a good because they haven't platted yet but in essence when something serves more than one lot it's a private street. But it's really in commercial it's a driveway. It's a parking lot area and so we want to count that, both for the impervious area and for the lot area. Again then we don't run into, well we're not accounting for all this hard coverage. Janet Paulsen: So is there an advantage then for the RLM people or greater than 4 units per acre? Do they get an advantage of more space for their lot and less impervious? Generous: No. They get, the impervious surface is counted against their lot. They also get that area within that easement or within, yeah within the easement counted as their lot area, so they get some density out of it. Papke: I'm more concerned with the other case, the RSF and the RLM less than 4. I mean basically what we're saying, if by excluding, if we included it instead of excluded it, we're basically averaging in 100% surface coverage area, okay. So what you're saying is geez, if I have an RSF or an RLM with you know, less than 4, I can get more impervious surface coverage just by putting in private streets. Ooh. There's a way to get around it. Generous: Well yeah, for that portion and then. Papke: So why are, remind me again why we're calculating it this way? Generous: That's the way it's defined. You can't include the private street as part of the lot area for the single family home. So we also can't, if you can't count the lot area, then you shouldn't be able to count the impervious surface in that area against that lot either. McDonald: Okay, I thought one of the big problems was we also go to smaller lots on these RLM's and that was the other thing was to try to get something to help them out there, otherwise they're not going to be able to meet the standards without increasing the lot and we're trying to squeeze the lots down anyway. Generous: Right, and as far as. Papke: So the private streets would be included in the net hard surface coverage of the entire development. Yes? When they calculate the overall percentage of hard surface coverage for the whole development that would be included, right? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: If we did a planned development they would. In this instance it's excluded. Only the private streets now. Portion of it. It's like we don't, for single family we don't count the public street. Or the area of the public street when you calculate. Papke: Okay. So it's equivalent to a public street? Generous: Right. As far as how you track it. Papke: So what I said before was incorrect. The developer has no net benefit to put in private streets. So they would get docked the same amount whether it's a public street or private street, yes or no? Generous: Well for the private streets they get a smaller easement area to put it in. So they gain some for the, some area, potentially for an individual lot. Papke: Yeah, yeah. But in terms of, if I was a developer I don't have an incentive to put in a private street to get around the hard surface coverage requirement because in essence you know, I'm going to, that area is not going to be counted whether it's public or private. It's just that it's public. If it's private, it's smaller. Generous: Right. Papke: Which actually is a good thing. So, okay. Generous: So there are potential benefits to development, but I don't. Papke: Alright, are we still confused here or? Janet Paulsen: Well when they put in a private street, they don't have to put as much area in the street. Papke: Right. Right, which is fine. That's less hard surface coverage. From the perspective of hard surface. Janet Paulsen: That means they can crowd more lots in less space. Generous: Yeah, but under low density you don't get 4 lots per private street anyway so. There's not an incentive to do that under low density. The incentive's under medium or high density, or commercial. Janet Paulsen: Well they used to cram in. Generous: If yes, high density. Janet Paulsen: Even in RSF they used to cram in. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: Well yes, make some sites work, and. Papke: It will give you a little bit more density but it doesn't, what I was concerned with before is I'm, if I was creating any kind of incentive for developers to gain the hard surface coverage requirement. That's what I'm concerned with, and it doesn’t sound like this is doing that. So they may be able to, like you say, squeeze a few more lots in as a result because the streets don't take up as much space, but they're not, they're not creating more of a runoff problem by doing that because the streets are smaller. Debbie Lloyd: …RLM, more than 3 lots… Papke: I'm not following why that would be the case. McDonald: Why don't you come up to the podium. Debbie Lloyd: Because neither of the lot areas nor the pavement. Papke: But that's also true if it's a public street. Okay so what I'm concerned with, what I want to avoid is I don't want to create an incentive for a developer to say, I'm going to gain the system and get, and work around the hard surface coverage by putting in a private street because this would…Private or public, either way it ain't going to get counted. Debbie Lloyd: You're right. Papke: Alright. McDonald: As long as you're up there, if you want to state your name and address for the record, we would appreciate it. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to back up one section. 18-40(f). If the assumption that this is going, a retaining wall is going to only be for an area that has a homeowners association and you might have a development with 4 lots that might have a retaining wall across the lot but don't have a homeowners association. So you might want to say, a homeowners association or homeowners. Papke: But then, if you don't have a homeowners association you're right back to not having. Debbie Lloyd: Once it crosses lots, I mean. Generous: And that's what we're trying to get at. Papke: But that's when you're back to having the individual homeowners maintain it so, I'm not sure what you gain by saying okay, well if there's no homeowners association, then well yeah. You're back to not having this aspect in the code at all. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Debbie Lloyd: But don't you have to have homeowners, don't you have to require they maintain it once the developer is gone. Generous: Yes, that's what it is now. They each are responsible for that portion of the wall that's on their property. Debbie Lloyd: So, okay. Generous: This is, we want, let's say there's 7 lots in the subdivision and there's a retaining wall that's put on 3 of them to make the subdivision work. Because it's for the overall subdivision, we think all 7 properties should be responsible for that maintenance and repair rather than the 3 that actually physically have it. Papke: I think you're bringing up a valid point though. You might want to say, stipulate in here just to make it clear, you know if there is a homeowners association, then they're responsible for maintaining it. Otherwise it reverts to the following, which is the individual lots. Because otherwise there might be some questionable interpretation of it. Generous: Or the condis, if there's not a homeowners association then it would be the responsibility of all the lots within that subdivision. McDonald: Well but then also as you said before, it comes down to the city's going to end up making the repairs and assess homeowners for those costs. Generous: Right so, but at least rather than my example, those 3 homes that actually have it on where the assessment would go against the 7 homes in that neighborhood. Debbie Lloyd: In the subdivision. Generous: Yes, in the subdivision. So that we could clarify that last part. If there's no homeowners association then it would be the responsibility of all the lots within that subdivision. Debbie Lloyd: Because it could be onerous for one single homeowner who happens to be the one that has the property. Papke: So this applies when it crosses boundaries. Debbie Lloyd: Yeah. Papke: But if there's 100 houses in the development and in only crosses 2 lots, now you're asking the other 98 homeowners to pick up the tab. Is that what you want to do? Debbie Lloyd: If the retaining wall was integral to making the other 98 work as part of the overall project, we don't know. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Papke: I just, that's going to, you know whenever you're talking money, it's going to be an issue. This is like the street improvements. Who pays? Power lines. Who pays? I have a longer lot and a shorter lot line. You know if this retaining wall doesn't run through my back yard, I don’t want to pay for it. Generous: That's right. McDonald: Somehow you need to tie it to the approval process. I mean if it was part of the approval for the, if it's a PUD or subdivision, that's it. You know it's tied to that particular thing. I mean somehow you've got to get it narrowed down to who is responsible. Because if you're now saying it was integral of making that subdivision again with, okay. How did that affect the other 97 lots in this 100 lot development that just crosses these 3? Did the wall only allow you to add the 3 or did it allow you to add the whole development? I mean these are the kind of issues you're going to get into because yeah, you start assessing 100 people and they're not going to like it, or you only assess the 3 and they're not going to like it either, so there needs to be some definition in there because ultimately the city is the association that's going to do the repairs. And how are you going to recollect your money for it, if there isn't a homeowners association. So yeah, I think that is a valid point as to how you determine where the assessments are going to be. Keefe: Typically homeowners associations are established up front, right? So the establishment of them…recorded with the subdivision. So the rules associated with that, I mean would include maintenance of the retaining wall. McDonald: But that only works where you have a homeowners association. You can't have subdivisions without a homeowners association and now how do you deal with this? Generous: Yeah, the benefited properties that's just beyond the ones that it may be in the… If this retaining wall allowed them to put two rows of houses in, then it's both sides of the street would be the benefiting properties. McDonald: That's fine but where do you find that? I mean where is it said that this is why that wall went in to benefit these other dwellings also. Keefe: Maybe it's an additional sentence like in subdivisions without an association, the retaining wall will then be maintained by the befitting properties. Papke: But then it's open to interpretation. Keefe: …properties that will benefit from it. Papke: Okay, well that's one definition. Debbie Lloyd: Maybe the benefiting parties need to be identified during the process and part of Findings of Fact the benefiting parties are. If it's not a homeowners association. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Papke: It's kind of creating a new step in creating a subdivision. Now you know along with the plat you've got to record who the benefiting properties are. You know it kind of opens up a. McDonald: Big can of worms. Papke: Can of worms. The easiest way would be just to say well, if it's in your back yard, you pay for it. Generous: Well that's what we have now. Papke: Yeah. Well and it's probably reasonable. Larson: Why did it come up to change it? Generous: With some of the new subdivisions. Papke: …that's cool but if there is no association and it's in your back yard, you pay for it. Dillon: Yeah, what is to tamper with it. I mean if it's a, you know let the local rule decide who's going to pay for it. Keefe: I think the way you stated it, you said what you're doing it. Right now it's whatever property it lies on, right? They pay for it. What you're adding here is, where there is an association, the association is going to pick up the tab. Otherwise it's where it is today. It will follow exactly where it is today. McDonald: Yeah, so in other words you keep the language you've got. We don't get into this, as far as benefiting properties and then you add the homeowners association and it's in their covenants and it's taken care of. Generous: Yeah, that would do it with the association. Papke: Have we beaten this one to death? McDonald: I think so. Debbie Lloyd: You're supposed to beat up to death. That's what you're charged to do. McDonald: Okay, well we just wanted to make sure that we have beat it to death and that we performed our duties. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. McDonald: Is there another one you want us to. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Debbie Lloyd: 18-57. The chart. You did bring it up I think Kurt. I think having been through so many, watching this for so long and through so many different projects. As many as you have, I think putting it in the chart, RLM equals less than, equals less than 3. 4 plus. …so that it clarifies. Generous: Yeah, I can do that. McDonald: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: And Section 18-57(p). When you're defining the minimum width of the roadway, perhaps you might want to include the width of the right-of-way along with that. The 20, you know like in (p). Generous: Repeat the table again? Debbie Lloyd: (p)(1). No, you're just saying, paved to a width of 20 feet, right-of-way 30. I mean it's just a suggestion. You have it in the table. And the same with the minimum width of 26 right-of-way. Point 2, I'm just going to, on (p)(2). Private streets. I just want to point this out to you all. It says in here, parking on private streets or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. In bringing this up last night, Liberty on the Creek was approved. 20 foot private street. Serving homes. Parking is allowed. It was passed with allowing parking on 20 foot wide streets, except in the winter. I mean just go check out the width of one of these private streets and try to have your friends pass you and then think about a car's parking on 2 sides of the street. It's just so unsafe. Those are the things I think you really need to watch when they come through. The Mayor pointed that out to me last night, well in the plan for that development originally cars parked in the driveways of their home would have come out into the street. Well if that's the case then I'd say the lots are substandard to begin with. Okay, 20-6, Section 20-641. You guys really worked this one over very well but that word permanent jumps out at me. That permanent open space only because of what happened recently at Chaska with permanent open space. Papke: Are you talking about the greenway? Debbie Lloyd: Perhaps you could put a different word in there. Or maybe it should become a conservation easement. Again just a suggestion. Just that word permanent can be over read and we've seen it passing you know. Especially upland. When you said corn fields, upland. Open space. Papke: But wasn't that a change in land use in Chaska? Debbie Lloyd: It was but. Papke: So in this case, I mean the plat is the plat. Debbie Lloyd: Well okay, outlots. Outlots. Bob knows what I probably am getting at with Lakeside. There was an outlot dedicated to. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 Generous: For the beachlot? Debbie Lloyd: Yes. For a beachlot for one neighborhood which ultimately because of use by another neighborhood, ended up being taken over. What's the name of that Bob? Generous: Adverse possession. Debbie Lloyd: Adverse possession. Yeah. So that lot was sold to the developer of Lakeside, even though originally as an outlot it belonged to another development. So there's things that happen because I've heard the word outlot before. Papke: …how can you make it stronger? Generous: Mr. Chairman. The good thing about this language in the rezoning in any subdivision that would be done as part of that is we would either take it as dedication or donation to the community as an outlot, or they would have a conservation recorded with it. Debbie Lloyd: Well both are great then. Generous: And that's how we do it under, like we did for the Pioneer Pass. That was a requirement. Either they, they could keep it in private ownership but they have to put the conservation easement. Or they can donate it to the City. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Those are controlled…that's great. Okay, and then Section 20-1265. Just the word private drive. I mean private drive, it should be private driveway. In code there is not a private drive. Right Bob? Generous: I don't know. Probably not. Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, I think we got rid of that a few years ago. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Okay, any comments by the commissioners. Oh. Come on back up. I thought you were done. Sorry. Janet Paulsen: Oh I'm sorry. I forgot one. On Section 18-57. Streets. And there are 3 classifications. They're talking about cul-de-sacs and turn around radiuses. On private streets, aren't the turn around's approved by the fire marshal and that there is no standard. I suppose if you're just addressing two homes that's not such a problem but RLM it could be. Shouldn't we have standards for turn around's for private streets? McDonald: I guess what that all comes down to is the fire marshal approves or disapproves it. None of these are approved without going through him. Janet Paulsen: And then I want to make one more point about private streets. Show this. This is the two lots for example next to my home and a private street was put in here, so it's a 30 foot 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 private street, and this is the driveway coming off to address this house, and this is the driveway coming down to address this house. The problem is, this is a hill going uphill and the driveway coming into this home does not have a turn around and so they have to back up and come out this way. Back out into the street, or they turn around here and go out front wards in the street, and anything coming down here of course has to turn around down here. Now the problem is, the City views this as, this is the only, this strip, the private street only has to go this far because it's addressing this home here and then down to here, but it's not taking into account that a street, a driveway that doesn't have a turn around here would have to back out and if they're going to back out this way, it's actually serving 2 homes to the back up point. And that's my point I want to make about private streets that hasn't been considered by the City. And it's kind of a dangerous situation if you have backing out into a busy street. Papke: Wouldn't that be true of any long driveway? You're going to run into the same situation where you're backing out a long distance potentially into a busy street? Janet Paulsen: That's not addressing 2 homes though. Papke: No, it's one home that, 2 homes with 2 driveways that are going to have exactly the same problem. Janet Paulsen: Well I maintain that. Papke: I'm just saying I don't see how it differs from a long driveway. Janet Paulsen: Well my point is that the access they need to back up and go uphill, this is, this should be part of the private street also. Not just the original 30 feet because 2 people are using that. That's my point. Thank you. McDonald: Staff can look at that. Okay. At this point then, seeing no one else wanting to get up, I will close the public meeting on this issue. I'll bring it back up for the commissioners. Any comments? Okay, then at that point I'd be willing to accept a recommendation on staff's proposal before us. Keefe: Sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. With modifications as noted. Papke: Second. McDonald: Okay, good. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29