Loading...
1i. Minutes1 ti CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Senn COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Bob Generous, Charles Folch and Todd Hoffman APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING JULY AS RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH. Mayor Chmiel: This is a short but brief but I'd like to read it. Whereas physical recreation meaningful leisure experiences contribute to physical and mental well -being as well as the overall quality of life; and Whereas, community recreation and leisure opportunities create socially beneficial connections between and among individuals, groups and communities; and Whereas, parks and recreation services provide prevention health benefits, support more productive work forces, enhance the desirability of locations for business and families, and stimulate tourism revenues to increase a total community economic development model; and Whereas, the provision and preservation of parks and open spaces are both an investment and insurance plan for our collective quality of life. Now therefore be it resolved that July has been designated as Recreation and Parks Month by the National Recreation and Parks Association; and Be it further resolved by all citizens of this great city join in this nationwide celebration bringing recognition to all the benefits derived from quality public and private recreation and park resources at the local level. To be passed and adopted by Chanhassen City Council this 25th day of July, 1994. Can I have a motion please? Resolution #94 -70: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the resolution proclaiming July as Recreation and Parks Month. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Mayor Chmiel: Todd, you have something you'd like to present to us as Council. Todd Hoffman: In recognition of the July as Park and Recreation Month, I'd like to present this poster, framed ' edition to the Mayor and City Council. We'll find somewhere to hang it, either in this building or perhaps maybe in the new recreation center coming on line next fall. I can especially attest to that part of increased revenues from tourism. Having just gotten back from the Boundary Waters for 5 days. After planning for that trip for some 6 months, probably spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 in new equipment, to ' spend 4 nights in a tent, that's $250.00 a night so it does have an economic impact. Much of that money which was purchased right here in Chanhassen. There you have it and... ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. Why don't you just hold it right up there. Todd Hoffman: It says many of the same things that are in the resolution. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. 1 L City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for Minger Addition, Project 94 -13. b. Resolution #94 -71: Approve Change Order No. 4 to West 78th Street and Downtown Improvement, Project 92 -3. c. Resolution #94 -72: Approve Plans and Specifications for Upper Bluff Creek Phase lIB Trunk Utilities; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 91- 1713-2. d. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Lotus Lake Woods. e. Approval of Bills. g. Approve Permit Agreement with Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. All voted in favor and the motion carried. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilman Senn: I just pulled (f) because I wasn't here so I wanted to abstain on the Minutes. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the following Minutes as presented: City Council Minutes dated July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated July 6, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 28, 1994 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated July 14, 1994 All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn abstained from voting on the City Council Minutes and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ' Lee Komland: My name is Lee Kornland and I'm representing Lamberg Inc, 123 North Third Street, Minneapolis, 55401. We are the owners of the 25 acres of property ... east and west of Bluff Creek on Highway 5 and just east of the school site and the school community center. We have been going through the process of ' the PUD process and were seeking housing for that site for multiple housing and we have found that it's been a difficult process. We are withdrawing our housing ... want the community to know that we will be marketing the site for high quality industrial... for uses for that site. The one comment that I will make is, it's been somewhat ' difficult in the process because I understand the Planning Commission's desire to see every detail of the project before they approve the usage but with the PUD process, that's under the circumstance ... and I hope when we do go into the PUD, that we will be looking for ... without such an expenditure of money ... Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to do a visitor presentation? City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY ' IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 93 -32, (CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 1994). Public Present: Name Address ' Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros Construction Pat & Ben Swenson Chanhassen Rosemary Luebke 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Russell, Orletta & Dan Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Tom & Kristine Uppman 532 Lyman Blvd. Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Rick & Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd. , Richard Chadwick 9530 Foxford Road Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. Laura & Lee Wyman 400 Lyman Blvd. Greg & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Nancy R. Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. , B.J. Reich White Bear Lake, MN Jeff Brauchle 3400 Plaza VIII, Mpls 55110 Steve Leifschultz 3025 Harbor Lane #315, Plymouth ' Len Levine 2028 B Ford Parkway, St. Paul 55116 Ernie Peacock 17325 Panama Avenue, Prior Lake Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You'll recall at the last public hearing it was t concluded with Council's direction to staff to take a look at the overall proposed improvement project and evaluate it's structure. To determine whether the project could be split out into phases, if you will, which would allow some construction to begin to meet some of the initial time lines and needs for the petitioning property ' owners on the project and yet allow ... but would also provide improvements for the remaining properties... During this past week staff and the project engineer have had time to review the project. We've also had a meeting with one of the landowners representing the Lakeview Hills Investment Group to discuss some of the concerns that they had raised at the previous public hearing. Following that meeting, which can be viewed as a positive meeting. I think there's still some things to work out but the discussions were positive. I think given some time, the remaining issues can be worked out. But in the interim, we have developed a stage one portion of the project which basically involves constructing a large share of the watermain under this year's fall and early ' spring contract. We do have, Dave do we have the overhead that we can show? Basically stage one would involve construction of the watermain from it's current terminus on Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive. Would be extended north along TH 101 up to the future 86th Street realignment. Then extended east along the ' 86th Street and then going south along the John Klingelhutz property. Continuing south of Lyman Blvd and then extending for a short distance probably back to the west. This would provide water service to the petitioning properties, Mission Hills which would like to begin development work yet this fall. Also John Klingelhutz ' property and the Lundgren development south of Lyman Blvd. It's also proposed with stage one to construct a small amount of sanitary sewer from the current lift station located at the intersection of Lyman and Lake Riley Blvd. Extend that back to the west and provide some interim capacity over the proposed Lundgren ' 3 I City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 ' development with stage one. This would in effect eliminate some of the concerns that you heard raised by Mr. Forbord last time about being 2 years out ... could begin this year. That would be the extent of the proposed stage ' one. Basically, from a revenue standpoint, cost to revenue would balance with that proposed stage... Phase two has not yet been completely defined. It's possible that all of the remaining proposed work would be done under phase two, depending on how our discussions continue with the Adelman property and the Lakeview Hills property on the very east end of the project. It's possible that the project could be split up even further where a stage two would eliminate any proposed improvements adjacent to those properties. We would expect or hope that within the next 30 days we could have these remaining issues ironed out. At least make a determination of whether we can go ahead and proceed with the remaining portion of the project or ... so at this time it would be staff's recommendation to proceed with ordering phase one of the proposed improvement project as stated and then we would propose to come back to Council within 30 days and give a recommendation on the remaining portion of the work to be done with this project. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think right up front here, if Council so chooses, we can move the plans and specs but we cannot order the project because it's going to require a 4/5 majority and being we only have 3 here and I just wanted to bring that up at this particular time. Roger Knutson: The only exception to the 4/5 or 2/3 rule is if you have proper petition signed by 35% of the people in frontage and then you have to put it in the paper and do a few other fancy things. But effectively, if ' you order the plans and specifications, if you want to, you can move the project along. You really can order the project. You can order plans and specifications. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Dave Mitchell: I was just going to comment on that. That we did do some analysis as far as the front footage. That we do exceed that 35% petitioning... that's required. ' Audience: We can't hear back here. ' Mayor Chmiel: Can we turn the microphones up so everyone can hear this? Is that one on up front? Dave Mitchell: Yep, now it is. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can you hear now? Audience: That's better. Roger Knutson: Even when you exceed the 35% frontage, then you have it published in the newspaper and check the validity of the petition. And you create some potential, conceivable problems. I'd still recommend maybe we could get by that if we just order the plans and specifications. Maybe you can by -pass that issue entirely. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Charles. Charles Folch: That'd be fine. City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything in addition to what you said basically right now or is there more than you're planning to show? Okay. I know that we had requested that you re -review some of those things and you had covered each of those accordingly. We did have the public hearing on this. We closed the public hearing. But because of my nature, I do hold it open if there are anyone who have not been here previously and would like to comment on it, you have your opportunity at this particular time. Yes. Would you please come to the microphone. Pat Swenson: If it's absolutely necessary. , Mayor Chmiel: State your name and your address please. I Pat Swenson: My name is Pat Swenson. I'm on Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I'm sorry that we were unavoidably absent at the previous meeting. Do I understand that in the inspection that you're discussing tonight, we are not discussing the road. The improvement of Lake Riley, I mean of Lyman Blvd? Charles Folch: That's correct. That would be proposed under a state improvement. Pat Swenson: What is the purpose of putting in the water until we put in the road, which is much more important? Charles Folch: That's a very good point. But in fact the proposed watermain alignment that we'd be looking at , with stage one, basically does not follow the Lyman Blvd alignment so that we would not be putting the cart before the horse if you will by doing stage one. Pat Swenson: And my second question is, is that lift station adequate to take care of the new development? Charles Folch: We've analyzed, based on pumping records that we have for that lift station and we estimate that ' basically is operating at 50% capacity right now and could take roughly another 65 to 70 homes total. So what we would propose to do as the interim, in the ... proposed development's going on, we would look at splitting that allocation to two subdivisions, proposed subdivisions down on Lyman. Basically limit the remaining capacity ' and not exceed, we basically would not allow any more building permits until we had the... Pat Swenson: Because I remember when that trunk main was put through and there was an established limit of capacity at that time and perhaps Don remembers what it was. I don't. I haven't retained my records on it but there was a question I remember at that time as to whether it was going to be adequate to accommodate development in that area. ...the lift station, you're intending to leave it where it is? Is that the idea? Charles Folch: No. The new lift station would be located actually across the street from where it is now. ' Pat Swenson: To the north? Charles Folch: To the north. Pat Swenson: I don't want it any closer to our house. ' Charles Folch: It'd be to the north side of the new road. i t City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Pat Swenson: Alright. Then from an assessment standpoint, people along Lake Riley have nothing to be concerned with at this time? Charles Folch: Not with stage one. Pat Swenson: Thank you kindly. I'm sorry to have detained the meeting here but there were some questions hanging over. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Any other further discussion? If none, Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I have no comments. . Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of staff's recommendation, ordering plans and specs. Mayor Chmiel: Ordering plans and specs. Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: There is. Richard Chadwick: Mayor, may I speak for a moment please? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. If you'd come up please and just state your name and your address. Richard Chadwick: My name's Richard Chadwick. I live at 9530 Foxford Road. I have some property over on Lyman Blvd. A number of other people here in the audience also have but most of us have spoken earlier in this consideration of this project but before this phase one or phase two or whatever we're talking about now, were broken out. And I guess I have concern tonight because of the phase that has been discussed hasn't discussed anything about the cost to the various property owners and when that might come to play against our properties which may or may not be benefined at all by phase one, or even phase two. We haven't had any discussion about what phase two or phase three or what others there might be. I guess I'd like to have, hear some discussion about it. I received letters in the last week or so indicating that it's going to cost me maybe $35,000.00 for the project that is considered here and I know we've got a number of people that are here in the audience that, if they are forced into paying for a project of this nature, some of them are retired individuals. Others are on fixed incomes, that it's just going to force them to sell their property or develop the property that we've all learned to love and know as a rural section of Chanhassen and it's just destroying that entire area there and we are forced to develop the land or sell it into smaller lots. I guess I would like some comment, if I can, about what the cost is going to be and when the cost is going to be incurred or put upon us for even for phase one, and I haven't heard anything about that tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can expound on that just a bit Charles. In addition to that, I also thought about some of these people who have existing systems of their own for their sewers with septic systems and the question I had, have we ever gone through a process of deferring payment on that? And also, having them make connection to the sewer at the time when their system fails. And I'd like you to address that too. Councilman Senn: Point of clarification though. I thought we weren't dealing with sewers tonight. 2 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. But I wanted. I Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Alright. Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. Charles Folch: In terms of the first question or point that was made. The proposed assessments as shown in the feasibility study that was prepared by OSM, those remain the same. The splitting up of the project into stages here, we've done it in a fashion that they are still very sizeable type contracts and we don't expect to see a different... bid prices due to loss of economy of scales. In terms of timing of potential assessments. We would be looking at holding an assessment hearing of this project likely at this point in time, with the type of staging we're going to do, likely that we wouldn't hold the hearings until probably the fall of '96 now and then with assessments being fast payable in May of '97. Typically on these types of projects, we've had somewhere between 8 and 10 year term paybacks on those assessments. For the large lot properties, as I'm sure you're all aware of what we've done in the past with trunk utilities projects where we don't, it's been Council's position not to force non - development of large lot land holders off their property with heavy assessments so typically we've done this one unit assessment per 10 acres of homesteaded, non - developed property with the remaining is to be collected as a hook -up charge that they would subdivide or develop. In terms of existing sewer and water, the ordinance does require that when sewer is available, lateral sewer is available to property, that they have one year to hook up to that sewer and make a connection. In terms of water, they may elect to continue to use their well. Well water and are not required to hook up until such time as their well would fail and then they would ' be required to hook up. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Does that answer your questions? Mr. Chadwick. Richard Chadwick: Well it would still seem to assess the property owners along Lyman Blvd. the same amount of money at approximately the same time without giving any benefit to those individuals. As I see it, there'd be no sewer or water, at least in phase one, down Lyman Blvd. There would be none into the back part of the properties and yet they're going to be assessed for that. It doesn't sound right to me. I think it's going to force people really to sell their properties and move away and/or develop properties very quickly. That's something that people who have lived in that area for 30 years and had it for the intention of living in the rural area and ' being forced into development now and actually forced off of their land. Charles Folch: I should clarify that Mr. Mayor, members of Council. With stage one, that portion of the project , does not affect these people along Lyman. If that was the only part of the project that was ordered, that's all that we would assess for. We would not assess for the improvements, unless there was improvements down on Lyman Blvd with reconstruction of trunk sewer and water. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Any questions? Rosemary Luebke: Rosemary Luebke, 8526 Great Plains Blvd. I have something to add. I had requested that the water line had been originally scheduled to come through part of our property and our neighbor's, Al Klingelhutz' property and we did have a meeting with the engineers and they came out and said they would make a recommendation that the water line be moved back and follow TH 101. Not to go through the property and I guess I just want a little bit of clarification. I'm not sure right now. They said the recommendation has been made that it be moved to TH 101. We're not sure if we, if this is a decision now that the Council has to J City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 make or whether they approve their recommendation and so can we expect a letter from the city saying that you've accepted their recommendation. I guess we're not sure exactly what that means. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can have Charles address that. Charles Folch: Sure. The first time that we looked at doing this, actually looked at doing this portion of the work about 2 years ago. It was originally proposed to follow TH 101 and then we had a request from one of the property owners to extend it slightly off of TH 101 in order to serve the property at that point in time a little bit more efficiently. That has since, that issue has since gone away and it is our proposal that we would stay along TH 101 with the alignment... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard Chadwick: Did I understand the engineer correctly that there would be no assessment to any of the properties along Lyman Blvd east of John Klingelhutz' property? Charles Folch: That's correct. There will be no assessments associated with stage one. At a future date when stage two is ordered, then there would be. Richard Chadwick: Is there any proposal now or any idea when stage two might be proposed? Charles Folch: We expect to come back to the Council with that proposal within 30 days. Richard Chadwick: We'd have a right then to appeal again? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Okay, with that. Any other discussion? Al Klingelhutz: One question. Mayor Chmiel: Al, would you like to come up please and just state your name and address. Not that we don't know you. Al Klingelhutz: I guess the only question I've got, if you're going to require the feasibility study on it now or the? Mayor Chmiel: No, just the plans and specs. Al Klingelhutz: Plans and specs. How long does that take? Charles Folch: You're putting me on the spot. Dave Mitchell: We would anticipate having plans put together in order to meet the Mission Hills project. I'm assuming that's the prime reason for this behind Al's question. I would anticipate those plans being ready sometime in the same time frame. We may be here on the same night for the same thing. 30 days or there abouts. 4 to 6 weeks. Al Klingelhutz: And then you let it out for bids? 8 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Dave Mitchell: Then we would go out for bids at that point. Al Klingelhutz: How long does that take? I ask the question for my son who's planted some crops on some of this land and he's wondering when he's going to have to harvest them and this is why I've got these questions. Dave Mitchell: I would anticipate that there would be very little activity out there before the first or second , week in October. Mayor Chmiel: Crops will be in. Al Klingelhutz: Maybe. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, we have a motion on the floor with a second to prepare the plans and specs , for Project No. 93 -32. Resolution #94 -73: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for stage I of the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley area trunk utility improvement Project No. 93 -32, with the understanding that staff will bring back a recommendation on the phasing for the remaining work within the next 30 days. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , AWARD OF THE BIDS: WELL NO. 7, PROJECT NO. 94-3. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This past Friday, July 22nd ... bids were opened for the Well No. 7, Project No. 94 -3. Only four bids were received for this project with the low bid being received from Lane Minnesota with a low bid of $164,996.00. It's approximately 90 %. Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it just a little quiet. If you'd like to have discussions, would you mind going outside in the hall. Thank you. Charles Folch: This is approximately 90% below the engineer's estimate which is approximately $180,000.00. We've checked references on ... At this point in time we're still trying to work out some easement acquisition for the site location, which is proposed to go along the future extension of Lake Lucy Road and beyond the Gestach- , Paulson property which will be submitting a subdivision proposal to Council within a month. However, right now the Gestach- Paulson group is let's say concerned or reserved about granting the easement and complying with the site location before they actually have a subdivision proposed so that's approved at least in a preliminary stage by both Planning Commission and Council. So they are scheduled to come before the Planning Commission I believe on the 18th of August. Following the meeting they would be before the Council and it would be staff's recommendation that we award this bid tonight to Lane Minnesota at the contract base bid contingent upon being able to work out this easement negotiation for this site with the Gestach- Paulson group. Mayor Chmiel: When we get ready with that, I'd like to see the exact location as to where it is with a map attached showing the proximity to where this might be located. I drove out there today but I couldn't find any names. Charles Folch: Once we have a preliminary plat, then we can go off a survey for a location. 9 � i � City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Council? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. I didn't get a chance to look at the bids yet. It wasn't in our packet. Mayor Chmiel: They were probably about $24,000.00 less. 23 something. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No, I don't have any issues. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: So if I'm understanding you right, if we approve this to proceed on it, I mean it's still not going to be able to go forward until. Mayor Chmiel: Until we know exactly the location. Councilman Senn: Until we know where it is. Until the easement's in place and everything else. Charles Folch: Our contract doesn't get, the bid specifications stated that the bidders must ... bids for 45 days. We basically have about 45 days to work this, to get this issue ironed out. Councilman Senn: Okay. How long do we have to start? Charles Folch: We'd like to start as soon as possible. Councilman Senn: But how long does the contract, or under the bid specifications do we have to start? Charles Folch: We have 45 days to award and I believe we have. Phil Gravel: Until mid September. Charles Folch: About another 10 days. Phil Gravel: We have a start date of, as late as mid September. The approval's going to be contingent upon a right of entry. Is that what you asked? Councilman Senn: Exactly. Phil Gravel: We've spoken with Gestach - Paulson as late as Friday and I think they're ready to ... for this phase of the project. So we're getting that drafted. Councilman Senn: Okay, so even though we approve this tonight then, you're not really planning on awarding the bid until that's resolved? Charles Folch: That's correct. Contingent award. I unfortunately did not have a chance to get a hold of Phil. About 5:00 today I received a call from the Gestach group and they had some concerns that they had raised so we basically are going to sit tight and let them just go through the preliminary plat approval process until they give us a right of entry. 10 t City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: I mean my only point was going to be, given the fact that you don't have the easement, they want to get through the Planning Commission and stuff before they give you the easement and stuff, and that timing could end up being quite extended. I mean we should extend this time period on our bidding as far as we can extend it without going outside of the. Charles Folch: 45 days to award was in the original plans and specs that were submitted to the bidders. I guess. W Councilman Senn: So our action does not constitute award I guess is what my question comes back to. That's kind of where I'm having the problem with this. To me if we approve this tonight, that clocks starts ticking. Roger Knutson: The clock is, it's 45 days from receipt of bids. So the clock is ticking now if you act or don't act. Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but if we act tonight, we've awarded the bid which then starts the second clock ticking doesn't it? We're past the 45 day clock if we award the bid, are we not? Roger Knutson: Is there a second clock? I haven't seen the plans and specifications. You're saying mid September start date. That's what the contract says. So that's there whether you award tonight or award next week or. Councilman Senn: Oh okay. ' Mayor Chmiel: One of the other questions that I might have too. ' Councilman Senn: I thought there was a 10 day. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have your question answered Mark? ' Councilman Senn: Well I thought there was a set period of time after the. Phil Gravel: On this project there's 45 days is from the date of receipt of the bids that the city has to make the decision on whether or not to award. Then there are also calendar dates in the contract for the contractor that says you shall start construction by September 15th. As a matter of fact this one says the. owner reserves the , right to delay start of construction for easement purposes until September 13th... So if you award it contingent, we have time to work that out. Mayor Chmiel: The only question I have, in negotiating a fee price for this, does this put us in a very ' precarious position? Because we're committed to this. We're going to locate it on their particular property. Have we discussed any prices with them? Charles Folch: Actually to be honest I don't think it will involve, I don't think their concern is in dollars. I , think the concern is not ... location of the site which they might need. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Okay, with that as a contingency as to what's been discussed. Councilman Senn: Move approval. 1 11 ' 1 J I n City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94 -74: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for Well No. 7, Project 94-3 to Lane Minnesota in the base amount of $164,996.00 contingent upon obtaining the needed easement from the Gestach- Paulson property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Unfinished business, item number 5 has been pulled by the applicant so we'll go right onto item number 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 17.6 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES ON THE FLAG LOTS, 1420 AND 1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD, SHADOW RIDGE, (HARVEY /O'BRIEN), COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. One correction for the record. This is a 15.99 acre site. Their original survey showed the right to include the right -of -way for Lake Lucy Road and they were adding the right - of -way back into the number so that's how that number came up to that. We have been working diligently with the applicant to get the development on this site that was sensitive to the environmental issues present. There are part or all of three wetlands on this site that we've been working at to try to preserve. There are some severe slopes located on the site that separate the eastern and western halves of the development. We have a house along the eastern wetland area. Water service has been partially available to this property off of Lake Lucy Road. However, there is no water on Yosemite... Grading and house types were an issue that we when we looked at this development so as part of our recommendation we want them to revise those plans. As I said, the applicant has been very cooperative with us. We are currently recommending that you approve this subdivision, preliminary plat. We are recommending that the city additionally grant a 20 foot front setback for Lots 3 thru 6 in Block 1 and for a 25 foot front setback on Lot 2 in order to pull the building pads away from the top of the slope and preserve the trees on the interior. We are also recommending that Block 2, which is on the western half of this site, be platted as an outlot at this time until some issues regarding the wetlands, the road right -of- way and widening and utilities services can be... If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen, do you have any specific questions in regard to this? Colleen Dockendorf. If you could give me a synopsis of the canopy coverage and what we're doing in that tree preservation area please. Mayor Chmiel: I failed to ask if the applicant was here this evening. Bob Generous: Yeah, Bill's here and he's very conversant on that. There's approximately 65% current coverage. We're looking, this is the roadway into the development. Along the northern edge of that we're proposing a 40 foot buffer area that would have no development in it... There's approximately 210, 270 feet within the middle of the project that would remain in it's natural state basically. We're looking at all the wetland areas on the Lot 2 and then a future phase and areas around the wetland on the east side of the development. In calculating the canopy coverage, that area met almost, most of the development that has to be provided and there's very little additional that we have to... As part of the woodland management plan that they're working on currently, they will provide us with the ... that they're going to make up that additional third of an acre of canopy coverage that area met almost most of the development... provided and there was very little additional that the applicant had to make. As part of the woodland management plan that they're working on 12 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that I would like to see as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And with that, I will move approval of the preliminary plat. 13 1 currently, they will provide us with the ... that they're going to make up that additional third of an acre of canopy coverage that's required. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did you want the applicant to present something? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes, that's what I was going to do and I was moving a little too quickly. I didn't mean to put you to the side. Ken Adolf: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen. We're the consulting engineers for the applicant. Bill Coffman is also present this evening. Mr. Coffman is agreeing to all of the conditions listed. We really don't have any presentation. We'd be available to answer any questions you might have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You're looking basically Bob at the conceptual and the preliminary planned unit development? Bob Generous: No, this is a straight subdivision. It's preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. Yes, okay. I'm holding the wrong one here and I'm looking at the wrong one here and I can't find what I'm looking for. Good. , Councilwoman Dockendorf. And we have ... as to what types of homes and where the building pads will be? Bob Generous: We specified the revisions that they would need to make as part of the conditions of that. As a matter of fact, the building pads that he's showing on the property are most likely larger than what he's building... ' Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, there was only about 2 or 3 of those lots that were roughly about 15,000 square feet. Okay. We're going to have to have an additional council member in here. Would you like to look out in the hall and see if he's there and ask him to come in. We're doing item number 6 and I don't know if you had any questions in regard to this. The applicant has indicated that they are amendable to the number of conditions that have been put on with this. Councilman Senn: No. No notes so no questions. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I don't have discussion. I just, you know it's parcels like this that just break my heart to develop. It's a really nice piece of land and in looking at it you can see the horse paths through it. But it looks like staff and the applicant really have been sensitive to that. I would request that it come back before Council not on consent agenda. Ask that the final plat come through on the regular agenda so we can ' look at it in detail. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that I would like to see as well. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And with that, I will move approval of the preliminary plat. 13 1 r-- City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Subdivision #94-4. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That would be it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Subdivision #94.4 and Rezoning 94 -2 rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag lots for Lots 5, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to permit a twenty foot front setback, and a 5 foot front setback variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 2, Block 1 to permit a 25 foot setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post - developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events. Normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $25,938.00 assuming 13.1 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be waived if the applicant constructs an on- site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWAP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 3. Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake Lucy Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer. ' 4. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. ' S. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on the property fails. I 6. The applicant shall work with staff in determining the most feasible location to extend sanitary sewer and water services to the north (Stewart parcel). 1 14 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood- ' fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ' 16. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. ' 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. ' 7. The grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block 1 to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side /corner walkout type dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be prohibited. 8. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. ' 9. The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated further to the northeast on Lots 10 and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1. , 10. Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot due to the lack of adequate utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard, ' municipal sanitary sewer and water is extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues are resolved. , 11. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum easement width should be 20 feet. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial ' security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. , 13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat ' consideration. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood- ' fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ' 16. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. ' 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. i City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 ' 18. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18 -61(d) of the City Code. This plan must be submitted to ' the city for staff approval. 19. A 25 foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is allowed on Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and to preserve trees. The applicant shall incorporate retaining walls and custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are minimally impacted. Staff encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development. ' 20. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance. 21. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fine hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 foot ' maximum. 22. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, ' NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. 23. Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. 24. Advise Fire Marshal of the status of water main and fire hydrant placement and spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots 1 - 5, Block 2. 25. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval. 26. The tree preservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as part of the final plat approval. The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall be re- evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have the grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the woodland management plan address the replanting of these areas. 27. Calculations for buildable space on each lot be forwarded to the City Council. ' 28. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to ' issuance of any building permits. 29. Final plat come back as a regular agenda item rather than on the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST TO GRADE 4656 ACRES, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST ' 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Back on earlier this month Mission Hills development came before you for preliminary plat approval which was received. Given the time line of their ' proposed development in relation to the necessity for public improvements and getting, their hopes of getting 1 16 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: I've got a number of questions if you want to do that fast, I don't know. You have here the , grading permit, condition 16. You have the grading permit shall be conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat for the Mission Hills PUD by the City Council. Okay, does that mean we're approving this contingent upon that? So I mean we're approving this but they can't proceed we do it? Charles Folch: I believe the preliminary plat was approved on July 1lth. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that was approved. Alright. That was confusing. Second thing. Condition 17. ' Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary. Okay, is that realistic? I mean we had a discussion in here not too long ago about looking at the whole picture rather than individual ones. Is it realistic to assume that this work can all be done and those trees can be saved or are we raising some false expectations because of the way the line's going to be cut and the effect of the root system and everything else? Kate Aanenson: I think I can answer that. That one specifically came out of the Planning Commission meeting. One of the residents spoke, what would be the northeast comer of the site. , 17 1 ' some structure up yet this year, the developer is proposing to go through the interim use grading permit process to at least begin to move some dirt. They do have a significant amount of dirt to move out there. At least we can get some of that work going ahead of time and in the meantime the city receives the ordering of the project that we talked about earlier. Hopefully their project ... and the city's capital improvement project will be ' coordinated in a timely fashion. There are a couple of issues that do need to be discussed in terms of we worked out in terms of this grading permit. The city is, or city staff has pointed out in the conditions of approval that they're still need to work out some of the ponding issues in terms of seeing calculations on , the ... and such. We also would like to see the storm sewer calcs itself which certainly play a part in the grading approval. We do have a signed copy. That's one of the concerns that we had. We had not received a signed copy. They had the grading plan signed. There is a signed copy now that we have received as of tonight. ' There's also some concern that was raised at the previous meeting regarding the Tigua properties to the east which had some trees that they wanted to make sure were protected through this process and we'll take the necessary precautions with the snow fence and such to take care of that. And also there was some concern for some berming that was going to be put to the south of the property. But I think those are all things that we can , work out. So again, staff has recommended approval of this interim use grading permit with the conditions as outlined. I think there's 19 conditions attached to this. And again, one of which was the storm sewer and—calculations which we believe we will get worked out. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The point about the storm ponds, are we still looking at 3 as opposed to what they were looking at? ' Charles Folch: We are looking at 3 permanent and one, which the latest pond describes as being temporary or interim. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And have they come to any conclusion with that as yet? I mean are they leaning to that? I guess my position is, if they don't agree to some of those things that we're recommending. ' Charles Folch: Mainly I think they're in agreement with all of them. They just haven't provided the information or detail of the design information but they have stated it's forth coming. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Is the applicant here? ' Councilman Senn: I've got a number of questions if you want to do that fast, I don't know. You have here the , grading permit, condition 16. You have the grading permit shall be conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat for the Mission Hills PUD by the City Council. Okay, does that mean we're approving this contingent upon that? So I mean we're approving this but they can't proceed we do it? Charles Folch: I believe the preliminary plat was approved on July 1lth. Councilman Senn: Okay. So that was approved. Alright. That was confusing. Second thing. Condition 17. ' Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary. Okay, is that realistic? I mean we had a discussion in here not too long ago about looking at the whole picture rather than individual ones. Is it realistic to assume that this work can all be done and those trees can be saved or are we raising some false expectations because of the way the line's going to be cut and the effect of the root system and everything else? Kate Aanenson: I think I can answer that. That one specifically came out of the Planning Commission meeting. One of the residents spoke, what would be the northeast comer of the site. , 17 1 i J City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well Kate, I picked that up. The resident spoke and said they wanted to keep it and Planning Commission said, keep it. Well I mean to me that doesn't answer the issue. Is it feasible to keep the ' trees? Charles Folch: According to our staff has discussed that with their engineer and their engineer also believes it is feasible. Councilman Senn: Believes. ' Charles Folch: Well. Councilman Senn: Okay, well again. I mean we ended up in big battles on a couple projects already because ' somebody had an expectation that those 8 trees were going to be there and live and stuff and I thought we kind of agreed at that point that we weren't going to get into that kind of a detail on this stuff in the future. But I see it's coming right back here. The Planning Commission is creating the exact same situation again. Or is somebody going to sit out there and count the trees before you start and they're going to count them when ' you're done and we're going to be right back in here arguing again because you're not going to be able to save every tree. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did you want a financial disincentive or? Councilman Senn: Well, I'm just asking the question. When you start grading the site, is it feasible or is it ' realistic to expect that all those trees are going to be saved. Charles Folch: Well, I guess the long and the short. We've looked at it. They've looked at it and I guess they feel that we're not being unreasonable and they've agreed to cooperate with us to do everything possible to try ' and save them. Councilman Senn: Okay. So there's not an absolute requirement. It's you're working together to do it. ' Charles Folch: Right. Councilman Senn: Okay. The 18, condition 18 I didn't like because it seems to me that's a matter between the two property owners. I don't know why we're getting into telling one property owner or two property owners what they can or can't do on their property line. Charles Folch: Although we don't want to approve a plan that shows grading on a trespass situation. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. But if they work it out as property owners, I don't know why we're prohibiting it here. Charles Folch: It's my understanding this was a request from a property owner on the south side that we do this. Councilman Senn: I didn't see that request. I Kate Aanenson: Mr. Klingelhutz' property. 1 18 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: I didn't see that in the Minutes. I Charles Folch: I think that came verbally? , Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well he spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. ...the grading outside the limits on Mission Hills. ' Al Klingelhutz: To berm my property. Councilman Senn: Was that your request Al? ' Al Klingelhutz: Well to take the berm off my property until it was acquired by somebody. Councilman Senn: Okay. But again that's the matter of being too, here we put a condition in here that prohibits , it and that to me again just didn't make sense. Why are we prohibiting something that if they can work out, they can do it, why can't they do it? ' Charles Folch: We can modify that to say, just basically adding onto that. That unless it's mutually agreed upon by the property owners. Councilman Senn: Okay, agreed. That's fine. The only other thing was, is the, let's see here. Where was it? ' The hours issue. What are our Saturday hours in the ordinance? Charles Folch: I believe it is 9:00 to 5:00. I think it's 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. ' Councilman Senn: Is it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Charles Folch: It's 7:00 to 7:00 during the week but 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, because we had one just in here a few weeks ago. I think it was different. That's why I just wondered. , Charles Folch: We may have given a variance to that. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've looked at a couple of other projects with the same intent behind it with what's I here. Saying that it will be reviewed by City Council if there's complaints by the residents. Councilman Senn: But I just wanted to make sure that is in conformance with the ordinance. That we're not establishing a new, okay. Alrighty. No, that was it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen? Did you have any? Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. ' - 7 1 19 1 J i 1 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess my major concern only was with the storm ponds within this and once we come up with those conclusions and get all of your stats, that should take care of it. I know that was a real concern right along with it. Councilman Senn: Okay, do you want a motion then? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one other thing I was just looking for. No, I guess that was it. I'm ready for a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with the deletion of items 16 and the change in language on item 18. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded Approval. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me. Did you say 16 or 17? Councilman Senn: 16. Mayor Chmiel: 16 being deleted. And 18 be added, mutually agreed to by the property owners. For number 18 in addition to what's there. Kate Aanenson: You sure it wasn't 17? 16, that was the contingent. Councilman Senn: Well I didn't... because Charles said they were already making best efforts on that and that's what that really meant, right? Kate Aanenson: I thought you wanted ... 17. Councilman Senn: No. As long as that's best efforts, it's not a problem. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Interim Use Permit #94 -2 for Mission Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane. 2. The applicant shall pay the City $630.00 in grading permit fees as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all City staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour per person. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT. 4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of units. Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion 20 City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the ' City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site. 5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as -built survey of the ' grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the state of Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. , 6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site , as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed Topsoil and discmulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. , 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the , City Council. 9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. In , addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining ingress and egress to the existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles at all times. 10. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City and provide the necessary security to ' guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1994. 11. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine ' the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures. 12. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of all existing draintile systems. ' 13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III version. ' 14. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well. ' 15. This grading permit approval be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public improvement project to extend trunk utility service to the site. 21 1 Cl �J i �J I � L IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 22 16. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be saved with this grading activity. 17. Grading activity for the berm along the southern property boundary shall be contained within the property. 18. The applicant shall maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the residents in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PROPOSED ENTRY MONUMENTS, MICHAEL SCHROEDER, HOISINGTON- KOEGLER GROUP, INC. Mayor Chmiel: Michael was at the HRA last Thursday and made the presentation. I'm going to be quiet with my comments because I think I already made mine over at HRA. So I'd like Council to look at this and look at some of the concepts. Whether you like or dislike or whatever your position might be. Michael Schroeder: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council. We're here tonight just to provide you some ideas of concepts. We were asked to bring or explore some ideas of what could happen at three entry points to the downtown. Market Boulevard, at the AVR site and TH 101 and at Powers Boulevard. We were also asked by the Planning Commission to explore what the implications of these entries would be on properties that are closer to the edge of Chanhassen. So we looked at those. We don't have any specific recommendations but we have some ideas that might be considered as we go forward. These are only concepts. I had some ... what the cost estimates that are associated with these but we're really here tonight just to get some direction. As the Mayor indicated, we've had the HRA. We've taken them to Planning Commission. Continuing to review them with staff. I'm going to go through them just in order going east to west. Starting with the TH 101, AVR site. This site is very difficult to access. We were asked at the HRA whether there's any potential for development on this site. I won't say that there's not but I will say that it seems to be very difficult and after we looked at that, we considered what the uses of this site would be beyond simply providing for some kind of entry marker to Chanhassen. As we considered some of the other questions that were put to us by council people and staff people, we considered the use of a park on this site to try and essentially get more bang for the buck. Try to make the dollars for this entry go a little further. The site is long and narrow. Very directly facing Highway 5. We find that... What we decided to do was highway the pedestrian bridge which crosses Highway 5 by creating a corridor that leads to and from the intersection of Highway 101 or Dakota Avenue. The two concepts that were shown are quite similar. They have a different configuration of plantings on the site but what we propose is a walkway of some kind that leads out to the corner. Makes a connection back to the Highway 5 trail and also ... the pedestrian bridge and back around West 78th. Trying to create a pedestrian oriented park for this space that has along with it the same ideas of entry or gateway for Chanhassen. In the center of this particular concept we show a grove of sugar maples and also trying to recall some of the hedgerow or framing elements of the landscape that surrounds Chanhassen, although in a much smaller way. With additional groves placed at locations to kind of carry the idea through the intersection further. One of the concepts that works for both this concept, the fast one and the second is the idea of making the park more meaningful. Trying to get a purpose for Chanhassen and through discussions that we had early on, it was noted that there people who wanted to create commemorative plantings for family members or other people in Chanhassen. They talked about it happening at a different site. One of the different entries that I'll be discussing. As we looked at it, this site had pedestrian opportunities that are far and away better than other entries. And so we proposed that commemorative plantings could happen on this site in a couple of ways. On this particular plane, a commemorative plantings might happen in a center grove. The other thing that we wanted to try and introduce to this site is, as Chanhassen approaches it's centennial, maybe there's a way that the park could become more 22 t IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 23 ' than just a passive walling park and introduce along the path a time line of elements of events that happened in Chanhassen's history to try and make it a real use out there. This would help create a park and just say it's going to be open space parkland. We'd like to try and find some use. The other concept that goes along with this is, quite similar although in this one the commemorative plantings are striped along the trails and leads back , to the pedestrian bridge creating more of a leading gateway back to the bridge. Both of these concentrate on significant plantings of maple trees with other trees planted to augment the landscaping. As we've gone through in the cost estimates, which I'll share with you later, there could be a fair amount of earth work to happen on this site given it's disturbed nature and we may have to do some soil corrections in order to get a reasonable growing environment for some of the land materials or for any plant materials. Just a sketch that's a little bit difficult to read. This second idea that I'll share. But it tries to highlight the pedestrian bridge and the way the plantings on both sides can work to reinforce the view right back to it so that they're trying to give more of a , frame to the view towards the pedestrian bridge or the gateway element. The second entry area is at Market Boulevard and we were asked to consider, along with the landscape theme, a wetland at the center entry. The possibility of introducing monumentation of some kind which essentially means signs. And we looked at this in ' two different ways. One where we considered using all four comers of the intersection or as much as we can. In really focusing on the idea of wetland by expanding the water area. One of the things that we felt was that wetlands are not easily recognized as being different than tall grasslands unless there's some water present. The pond that surrounds, that's at the fountain now is significant. We could expand in two corners of the intersection with creating some open water areas which would really highlight the idea of this being a wetland entry to Chanhassen. In this particular scheme we looked at a sign that would be viewed as you view Chanhassen from across the landscape. As you drive up and down Highway 5 and look back towards the city, really you look ' across fields, more wetlands, to see the downtown. And we look at that the same way. Where the sign would be viewed across the pond to the sign that's located at the back side of the entry. Somewhat screening the back side of Festival Foods. Looking back, if this is Festival Foods would be in the center of this picture. The sign ' that would use cut out letters against an evergreen background. It might be somewhat akin to a Hollywood sign viewed across the landscape. The second idea or the wetland, for the wetland intersection or the wetland entry is to heighten the difference between wetland and groomed land and creating, instead of excavating areas off the ' ponding, to create a more groomed environment right at the intersection with a sign that's actually a part of that. It kind of spans between an area that's left in more native turf to an area that's more highly groomed. In this case, the ponding for the wetland areas will be left essentially the same. In this scheme I've shown an idea. Picking up on some of the ideas that have been talked about before. Of carrying the maple leaf idea with maybe , a more modest sign than has been proposed in the past. But in this case it would be located very close to Highway 5 as opposed to the other scheme where it would be located back viewed across the pond. ' Councilman Senn: Where would that go? Michael Schroeder: I'm sorry, it would be in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. There may have to be ' some amount of grading there to make sure that it can be elevated high enough to be seen but the main difference between the location of the signs, is one is viewed across the pond as a part of the landscape. The other one's a more significant prominent sign. Finally at the Powers Boulevard intersection we looked at a way ' of capturing the benefit of some of the oaks that were saved at Target and also some of the few oaks that remain at the development up behind Byerly's and using that ... for the Powers Boulevard intersection. Essentially creating a strong ring of oak trees that frame the intersection. Underplanting them with something more colorful where they'd be visible. To really make you feel like you're entering a room at that point. And to reinforce ' that entry by planting the oaks, stretching the oaks along the highway and up and down Powers Boulevard. We also looked at what you have to do to start screening out some of the larger warehouse buildings so you really can focus on the landscape elements instead of the built elements at that intersection. As we talked about this I 23 1 J IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 24 ' concept with staff, we talked about the fast food development and what could be done to introduce the element of oaks. Of the oak theme into that and we think there was potential for expanding the idea of the intersection ' through the development, which really brings us back to the very first board where we talk about what happens at the edges. There's an opportunity I think as development stretches out along Highway 5 that we can designate intersections as entry and use elements of the landscape as subtle statements of entry into the community and I don't know exactly where those will happen yet but it seems to me Dell Road is a possibility, ' being a significant intersection on the easterly end of town. And Highway 41 as being a significant entry on the west end of town. So we might reflect some of those, recall some of the same ideas as we find with the maples at the AVR site and oaks at the Powers Boulevard site. We've also put together some very rough cost estimates ' based on these schemes and really it's only a point of departure for us so when we can begin to understand the implications of these. All of them have indicated there's an amount of money set aside for site preparation and earth work. We want to make sure that if we're doing things here, we can have the elements working to our ' best advantage. The ... where we talk about the Highway 101, AVR site, the costs are substantially more because we're including costs related to pedestrian features and walkway benches and... The center entry is significantly more because it includes a sign as a special feature in this case. This is where we're at right now. We're really bringing it to the Council's attention to try and get some information, direction, ideas. Ideas that we can explore further and I'll take questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Or any direction that you may see. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, I just have a couple comments. ' Mayor Chmiel: On the first page that he's indicated, it's either the square grove or the linear grove for the proposal. Of one or the other and the other choices on the other sites. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I have a question about how the railroad goes through there and will people ' be cutting across that as it goes... Michael Schroeder: Essentially the park that will be created, the feeling of a landscape might stretch across but ' the path itself would, we would create a path that's not so indirect that people would feel that they can't, that they would want to leave the pathway and I think adding the elements of maybe commemorative markers or something along it would help to reinforce the linear nature of it. We wouldn't want to cut it off totally because the space we gain in creating a landscaped effect on the north side I think is significant for us. But we do want ' to maintain some protection at the railroad. We also, I've been trying to get in contact with the railroad so we can understand what the sight line requirements are for this one and the Market Boulevard intersection, which may limit us in our ability to do some plantings in some areas. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I guess my opinion is, the square one was a little too planned. A little too perfect. I would prefer the second option. And as far as the Market Boulevard one, I've never been too keen on monuments so I guess I'd take out those. I don't like either one. I do like the idea of those tall pines however on the back side of the pond. Screening part of that. I believe that will look very nice and to me that's a statement in itself. You don't need it spelled out. The landscaping coming in at $50,000.00 to $59,000.00. A lot of money. And Michael help me, what's not included in these costs? Michael Schroeder: As I've indicated at the beginning. I Councilwoman Dockendorf. Your fees. 1 24 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 25 Michael Schroeder: Right. Design fees. There's survey work which may well need to be. If there's, it's determined that we need to acquire additional property for getting easements or access. Councilwoman Dockendorf. What does that look like now? , Michael Schroeder: Well one of the things that has been considered, if we were to take this intersection here at , the Sinclair station. We may want to do something closer to the Sinclair station than we have property to do. So we may need to either acquire or one way or another gain access to that site. And that may hold true for some of the other intersections as well to Powers Boulevard. We may be wanting to plant closer to buildings on property that we don't actually own and there would have to be some controls established. , Councilwoman Dockendorf: And then getting back to the Market Boulevard one. I'd just as soon leave it in it's natural state with the ponding. Just personal preference again. And the west entry, I really like the idea. ' Spreading the trees out. Again, not making it look so planned. Mayor Chmiel: More or less a softer effect is what you're. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I guess those are my comments about the drawings but in terms of how we're going to fund this is a completely separate issue. And where do we go from here. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I had one question on property acquisition. I guess you kind of all answered that. Second ' question is, what are, have you done estimates on ongoing maintenance costs on this stuff once it's graded? Michael Schroeder: That's one of the things we talked about with the HRA. Before we proceed much further, , we'd like to sit down with the maintenance staff and try to understand what their ability to commit to projects like these would be. We don't yet know but we do know we need to talk to people who are going to maintaining the site. We did talk at HRA about at. a minimum, before we do anything, to find out what the requirements are. Figure out how far apart these should be spaced in order to efficiently get mowers through , there. Riding mowers instead of push mowers. We'll be looking at all those things. We just haven't gotten to that point yet. Councilman Senn: Okay. Let's see. I guess if you're looking for direction or comments, at least as far as I'm ' concerned, what you're showing us on TH 101, I agree with Colleen. I like the linear approach rather than the square. If we're going to do any commemorative markers or whatever, I think we might want to look at some way of doing that privately rather than publically. It seems to be fairly successful in other places that I've seen ' it done. As far as Market goes, I think the design with the sign setback against Festival is considerably softer so I guess I like that in that sense but still provides good identity as the main entrance to the core. I think the simple reality is is with the commercial corner in the downtown area, there's got to be some entry point or ' identity or feature and I guess if we're going to have it somewhere, that's where I'd just as soon see it. And if we don't have it there, I think it's an issue that's going to be continually revisited in the future. Powers, don't see any real problems with that. That has a nice soft effect there. I'm going to withhold comment on the cost. 25 1 i IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1494 Page 26 I have some real I guess potential questions or issues with the cost on that. But I guess when I make that statement, I'm going to make it equally as strong on maintenance because typically the maintenance will very ' quickly out do these numbers. By leaps and bounds. And I guess in that I guess I'd like to make something other clear, at least in my mind and that is, I really view these three entry points and the reason we're pursuing them is basically identifying our central area. Okay, and any ongoing maintenance costs I don't think should be passed back to the taxpayers. I think it should be an assessment to the core in terms of some type of a commercial assessment or something to maintain these areas identifying the core. I don't really see it as something that you fall into a general expenditure and go back. As far as the spreading out from these, I think I stated In fact I thought the Council fairly definitely stated it before that we're not really interested in doing that at this point in terms of going beyond these three points tonight. I would I guess take real issue with even spending money to further study that at this point. We had that kind of long discussion about well what do you mark them? Every entry to the city and what constitutes an entry and you know, why is TH 41 the best place ' when that's really not the line. And there's lots of issues you get into and I quite frankly think it's a waste of our time and spinning wheels and I think this identifies the core which I think is something we need to do. Beyond that, I think we should stay with some of the more standard accepted practices that don't cost a mint. As this I guess reinforces. I guess that's it on my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Some of the things that you had said were the same questions that were raised by the HRA and costs are a little high. They keep looking and I keep looking to see some kind of a structure that ' we can be within that would be much less with total costs as we look at it about $181,000.00. Or $184,000.00. Councilman Senn: Are you like me where you look at it and you say, where's the benefit or where's the use? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I think we have to make a statement but I don't know if we have to make it with that many dollars. That's one of my concerns and has been right along. But yep, upkeep and maintenance was another one of the factors that I then brought up on that too because I was real concerned about that. At HRA. Once you put it in, after a number of years your costs are going to be ... means another individual's going to have ' to hired just to maintain that part of this, as we've discussed. So I guess maybe you might have a pretty good sense of direction again. Whether this should really continue is another one of those questions. I think maybe what we have to do is have staff come back to us with some of their thoughts and ideas as to what they're ' looking at with this. Councilwoman Dockendorf. In terms of where the money will come from? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I'd like to find out, one. I'd like to see this just shaved if we were to ever to go to anything. Just way out of hand is what I keep, $161,000.00 for one and $107,000.00 for another and $184,000.00 for another and there's a lot of dollars that I think we can put to use better within the city than ' within those specific locations. I think we need something as an enticement for the downtown but I'm not sure this is the right way to go. Councilman Senn: You know, to piggy back on that a little bit. It seems to me that we really need to go talk to the commercial businesses and if they feel it's important or strongly feel that this type of, I don't know. I don't want to call it monumentation but this type of treatment of an access to the core is important, you know I think the question becomes, is it then a legitimate priority as it relates to the TIF and use of those funds to accomplish ' it. But more importantly, I think it needs to really be laid on the table with them right up front as far as the maintenance costs go. You know, are they willing to absorb those and take them on in a special assessment district for whatever of the core. And you know, I think if those types of questions get answered, then I think 26 IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 27 it's far easier for us to sit there and turn around and deal with where do we place this TIP expenditure or , whatever in relationship to other priorities or whatever. But there's kind of a lot of unknowns at this point. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I guess I'm not in complete agreement that it's strictly for the benefit of the ' commercial in town. I think it benefits the entire community. That doesn't mean the fund should come out of the general fund but to put it all on the business owners, I'm not sure that's the only reason we're doing this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's something I think that has to be looked at and explored. If I was a business owner, I would sure as heck wouldn't want to pay any additional dollars for anything that's coming in there because I'm already paying taxes and they're a considerable... Councilman Senn: But every year, everybody that's got a downtown area has special maintenance tills and I'm just saying. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And once our TIF is gone, there's dollars are going to be there and it's going to be , balanced everybody within the community so. I guess you have that direction that you're probably looking for. Not maybe what you wanted to hear but. ' Michael Schroeder: We will be taking this to the Planning Commission for their review and looking for staff direction further all the way through the process. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. And we're looking for some additional information back from staff in regards to what the proposal is. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I have a question. I mean, it sounds to me like if this is going back to go ' through the Planning Commission process, I mean we're going to sit here and keep going forward on this and we're going to spend money to retain the consultant to do it. I'd rather see us get these questions, or at least , some of these questions answered and I'd like them to bring it back here before we pass it on the conceptual approval for anybody to look at. So we can provide some direction. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's good. Don, did you hear? Ahight, thanks. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING UPDATE, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: This is in regards to the low and moderate income housing update. Todd and I, Gerhardt and I ' had attended the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding the housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons through the metro area. And the AMM has come up with some strategies and draft report basically and they'd like input back from the cities within the area in regard to this. As most of you are , aware that recently there was an article in the Villager about covering some of these specific ideas and the one who really is spearheading this is Representative Orfield in getting some low income housing within the community. And I think some of his stats and some of his things are just out of context and it'd be the same way to ask him to put some of these kinds of same units in his particular district where his homes are running , probably a million to a million and a half as well, and up. So there's good things people can do and I think some of these things have to be done but I don't think that we, as a city, have to be shot at like a bullseye as he's been doing in the past. Not only Chanhassen but also within Eden Prairie. Recently on one of the radio , 27 ' i IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 28 stations they were taking pot shots again at Chanhassen regarding this. I was out again just today looking at some of the facilities that we have within the community and in just driving around looking at the low kinds of ' housing that's available. You have to look at Lakeview Hills has 218 units. We have other complexes within the community. By the time you get done with it, it all numbers probably about 400 kinds of units that are low to moderate kinds of income housing within the community and I think that's something that he's not even looking at. And for ownership and some of the other things that they're looking at, I think that's some of the ' things that we have to still come up with and still provide some of this within the community. But I'm not sure exactly where that specific cut off comes from. I know that if you've had an opportunity to look at this, some of the things that they're looking for as findings and some of their recommendations are shown through here. And one of the ones that I immediately picked out was the social services as they've indicated here to be formulated. To me that's not a city's responsibility. That basically is county's responsibility. They have the numbers of people. They can maintain it. They can take care of it so I don't think that's all put back onto the city. But have you had an opportunity to review this? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I think it identifies the problem fairly well but these recommendations don't do anything. I mean it's full of words but I don't see anything. Mayor Chmiel: And I think one of the things is that, if any of you would like to just sit down, we have until, what is it? August something if I remember right, from that particular meeting, to get this back to them because ' this is a position paper that they're going to take to the legislature to say this is what the city's are going to do within the metropolitan area. And to try to come up with some conclusions and solutions that you're looking at. Because what's going to be introduced again at the next session, will be the same things that were brought up ' previously and that's always brought up by Representative Orfield. And he gets his votes on it and I just don't fully agree with things that he's really saying. So a lot of things being said that seem to be untrue. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, I'd be interested in working on this as well. I don't want it however to ' become a dissent paper. I'd like it to have some good solutions. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly, and this is exactly what they're looking at. I've already given some of those ' ideas that we've had at that particular meeting with some comments that were done. And so what I'd like to do is to, if you have any specific recommendations that you may have, we'd like you to get those back to Todd so he can formulate those and send those back into the AMM. ' Councilman Senn: When by? Mayor Chmiel: Pardon? ' Councilman Senn: When do you need those by? Mayor Chmiel: Oh we would like, he probably would like those within the next week or so. I like one of those community buildings, seeing poor people in communities to craft solutions to their own problems. That's a good idea but what does it really say... ' Councilman Senn: It says what you says but they don't allow you the authority to do it. 1 28 J IUP for Mission Hills July 6, 1994 Page 29 Mayor Chmiel: That's right. They don't have that authority but you empower them to have that authority. So with that, I would like to get that and we'll work it from there. With no other items on the agenda, I would look for an adjournment. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim OW a t 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina, Diane Harberts, Ron Nutting and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Elliott Knetsch; City Attorney; and Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR DETACHED STRUCTURE ON LOT 4. BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Good. Are there any questions or comments for staff on this particular item? Hearing none, could I have a motion please. Mancino: I move that we open the public hearing. Scott: There's no public hearing. I should have been more specific. I could make a suggestion. If there are no questions or comments for staff, if someone would like to take staff's recommendation and turn it into a motion, I would appreciate it. Would you like to try it again. Harberts: I'll move that the Planning Commission adopt a motion approving the architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercial/office building being developed as part of the West Village Center. Conrad: I second that. ' Scott: Good. It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mancino: Yes. The only question that I have for staff is, one of the things we have talked ' about having to do with the sign ordinance is we need, when I see windows architecturally like this, and I believe that they have an architectural significance to this building, I want to ask the applicant if they are going to be windows. That means that you can look in and out of them. And that no structures, as in furniture, any kind of structure will be placed on the inside of the windows to obstruct looking in and out. ' Scott: Mr. James. 1 f E I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 I Charlie James: I'm not sure I understand. Mancino: Do you understand the question? Charlie James: Are you talking, are you saying is there going to be vandalized? Mancino: Well is it going to be clear glass looking in and out. What I think of some buildings that have windows that I have seen lately on the inside of the structure blocking the window like the back of a shelf that takes up the entire window so it's not really a window anymore. It's just a piece of glass you don't see in and out of You know people may have 1 displays, the back of a display obstructing the, what one thinks of as a window and why it is there architecturally. F� Charlie James: Well, the best I can recollect the floor plan that was submitted to us from California, all the room partitions would meet on podiums so that there's an interior town or I mean an interior wall. That wall would abut these areas where there is a pilaster coming down so. And there is a, we come in so many feet and there's a counter in the center. I'm not aware of anything that's in front of the windows. This area up here is going to be a radius window. It's not detailed in on the drawing that was provided to you but it's one of those ones with the, it looks like a setting sun up here. That is spanoglass because that's above the ceiling. In other words, if you look at this drawing, that can't be glass because if you're looking into the guts of the building, of the bar joist and so above the door entry here, this will be what they call spanoglass which is a glass that is fit to put as close as possible like west in the windows only it has a coating on the back of it so when you see these mirror buildings around town that are all glass, like Northland Glass on France and 20th, that's a combination of vision glass and what they call spanoglass. There would have been, you know I think the concern that you are expressing, I think would have been a problem had there been more glass all the way around the building but we've tried to pick up that same motif with the same size recess and it doesn't come off very good on that drawing but you can, if you want to pass these around. This is what we just basically picked up that same. Scott: Oh, it's just real similar to the brick work on the Byerly's store for the insets on the east and west elevations. Mancino: Okay. That's all, thank you. That kind of answers my question on the windows and how they're treated architecturally. When the occupants move in, that those windows will stay intact looking in and out as windows are to. Your landscape plan on the west side, I was concerned a little bit about your west elevation because of the, there's some detailing there but it looks like the landscape plan looks like it will help that wall. I wanted to have a look staff at what it would look like from Powers Boulevard looking east and I can see that Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 they've done some good massing on that west side so I feel real comfortable. That's all my questions. Scott: Good, any other discussion? If there's no more discussion, I'd like to have a vote on the question. Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercial /office building being developed as part of the West Village Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Okay, any discussion? Conrad: Well yeah. We went from a request of 40 some dumpsters up to 100. We went from 58 dumpsters up to whatever. Mancino: 140. Conrad: And staff agrees. Because why? Al -Jaff: Originally it wasn't specified how many they wanted on the site so basically what we did was we went out and we counted how many dumpsters were there and we said... A letter came from the applicant requesting 140 so staff discussed this issue and we made the recommendation that as long as there is screening of those. As long as the screening works, then it would be. Conrad: Okay. Shielding 58 is different than shielding 140 or whatever that number is so. Well, I still haven't seen a plan that shows me how it's done so I guess I'm, I think we could pass it along. But on the other hand our duty is to see it first and then pass our recommendations of the plan to the City Council and I still don't see a plan that's acceptable. So I guess I would have to recommend that we table this item until we see a plan that works. Mancino: What do you want to see in the plan Ladd? 3 L! �II I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: I don't know, just something that staff feels comfortable with. It'd be really easy for us to pass it along and just say hey, yeah it looks like a good plan but I think we just owe it, or we're owed a good plan that staff makes a positive recommendation on. ' Mancino: Yeah, I'd actually like to see in the plan where the 140 are. You know layout where they would be on the plan. Conrad: Yeah. It's not that this is a bad use. You know if it's screened, this could be a good use for the parcel. I don't have a problem with the use as long as there's some wording in the recommendation that I think has to be changed a little bit to make sure that we really 1 don't have storage in the dumpsters. The applicant said there's no refuse or whatever but I really would want to make sure that that was specified in our language. But again, it's probably an acceptable, as long as the traffic and noise is handled, it's probably an acceptable ' use for that. But again, we need a plan that we can see that staff has shown us works. ' Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I would move that we table this particular item, the interim use permit to provide ' outdoor storage for commercial dumpsters per the staff report. I would have it tabled until the applicant and staff can present a screening plan that meets staff's requirements. 1 Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina: Yes. I also think that we should know specifically where the dumpsters are going to be stored on site. It's a rather large site so we, I need to know what space 150 dumpsters occupies and then that those dumpsters are going to be screened. So I think just to, I think you said that but just to also know where those dumpsters are being stored. Mancino: Yeah. I have a question on that. We're asking for screening right now and I mean one of the only ways we'll get it is to get either a perspective drawing or something perspectively that we're on TH 212 and either they're going to berm or not and then how, if we're going to see 42 trees there, how tall are the trees. And if the trees are 6 feet tall, the ' span of a 6 foot tall spruce is going to be 4 feet. So if you only have 42 trees, I mean how much screening is that going to be if it's 6 feet tall? So we need to know the height and if we're talking about screening all year, or complete screening, we're going to have to know how tall the trees are and what the span is. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Scott: And then bearing n min there's 2 g d that the e s a 0 foot change in elevation over the area where they could be potentially stored so. Ledvina: The criteria though for screening is from the highway 212. That's what we're talking about. Okay. , Scott: Yeah. Mancino: And there may even need to be a little bit of berming to help in that height because the trees will start out at 6 feet and it really won't do it. And it takes them about a couple years to really start growing. So and then they'll start after 2 years growing about a foot a year. But the most screening you'll get from a coniferous tree is about 15 feet wide. I mean it grows 15 to 20 is the widest and that's after 25 years. So I mean there needs to be some calculations and looking at it. , Scott: Any other comments or questions? Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. I AI -Jaffa Do you have any comments regarding... Ledvina: The time line. The term of the permit. Are we talking about 15 years? Or MUSA line extension, whichever comes later. What? AI -Jaff: We're recommending that it be 10 years or until the MUSA. Ledvina: Whichever comes first. Al -Jaffa Correct. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to whichever comes later. ' We're also recommending that the applicant be permitted to request an extension for interim use permit prior to it's expiration. Conrad: Are there a lot of costs in developing this property to the point where it can take the , dumpsters? Are we imposing a lot of financial hardship? Are we imposing a lot of financial tasks that appear unreasonable? Have we asked for paving? ' Al -Jaffa Paving of the property? LI i Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: Again, when you do a 10 year permit, that's a long time. I would do that if I ' thought we were imposing some real financial hardships. I think that it's important to get some security. But I don't know right now that we are. I think we're asking for screening. Anything else? Mancino: Well one time the building was. Scott: Well that was the original. Conrad: You know you put a building there, you need the return. You need time to get a ' return on that building. Really they need a time period to get a return, right now, on the screening, which are trees. Which could be 42 trees. Probably more. And I'm not sure that the 10 years is, if I were them I'd want the 10 years. I'd want to know that there was a 1 chance for re- issuing the permit and I think we can probably, if they run a good operation, which I'm sure they would, I think we would renew that. But I'm not sure that the 10 years is necessary right now. It could be 5. Ledvina: Yeah, I think we talked about 5 last time. Conrad: But again, it's all based on finances. If they have to put a lot of money in, then I'd say 10. I don't see it so I think 5 looks pretty good. I think the other thing the applicant will probably care about is the hours of operation. You know 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 was struck and ' now it's 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to 5:00 is not really a commercial type operation so. I would think that they'd be very nervous about that. Those hours. Scott: Any other comments? Mancino: On recommendation number 6. - The second sentence. I would just add, only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. And I agree with Ladd on the 5 years and hours of operation. I didn't know that they worked on holidays. Picked up waste on holidays. It's ' interesting. Al -Jaff: I believe this was an item of discussion at the last meeting. It's on page 38 of the ' Minutes. And the request was to, page 39. I'm sorry. Top of the page. That the hours be changed Saturday to. Conrad: See those are Saturday hours. That may be but not Monday thru Friday. Monday thru Friday, that's just not reasonable. I think we should leave them with the typical 7:00 to 6:00. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Al -Jaff: On weekdays and then. Mancino: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. ' Conrad: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday I think is right. I Al -Jaff: Alright Scott: Anything else? Y g Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table interim use permit to allow screened outdoor storage in the BF for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO THE BE FRINGE BUSINESS TO AMEND BY ADDING ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES. Public Present: Name Address I Verne Severson 575 Lakota Lane Tim Wise 425 Lakota Lane Leon & Delores Mesenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Management Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Management Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail , Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 1 Scott: Any questions or comments? I just have one. When you're talking about some of that property being zoned or rezoned to a higher use level, is that something that would come about due to, first of all the MUSA line being available? And then, we would basically see what sort of development plans would come in and if it happens to be a PUD, it would be a PUD. If it happens to be, is it depending upon. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Aanenson: Well when urban services become available we would certainly look at a comp plan amendment and revisit that whole area. Scott: So the BF could conceivably be a study area if we figured the MUSA line would be, ' okay. Aanenson: ...with urban services available and there were existing uses down there, we'd try to accommodate them ... So certainly we would revisit that whole area. Scott: So this would be something, for example like what happens to an A2 when services 1 are available, it becomes a PUD or RSF or something like that? Okay. Mancino: Or it could be zoned for an existing use, or whatever. I have a question about 1 permitted uses and mini golf course. Mini golf course is different than a miniature golf course? Scott: Well get your code book out. 1 Mancino: I was thinking wouldn't a golf course be nice there and then I say, oh but it does say mini golf course. ' Aanenson: That's the definition we have. It's the same thing, yeah. Mancino: So it's a miniature golf course. Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: But what if somebody did want to come in and put a mini 9 hole golf course in? Could they do that? Aanenson: I'm not sure there's enough land in that BF district to do that. Harberts: Is that park and ride lot inside Chanhassen? Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: What's it zoned then? Al -Jaffa No, I'm sorry it's zoned A2. Agricultural Estates. 1 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 �j Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is an item with a public hearing and may 1 have a motion to open the public hearing please? I Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was open. ' Scott: If anyone would like to step forward and make comments or ask questions regarding this particular item, please do so. State your name and your address and have at it. Is there anyone here, sir please. Willard Halver: I'm Willard Halver. I live at 470 Flying Cloud Drive. In other words, Highway 169/212. I've been living there for 35 years and it seems as though we're in a situation in that area, and that area is important ... to preserve and we've got a situation now where if you want to use that as a conditional uses to the city ordinance and this conditional uses, in addition to the ordinance, city ordinance would open up a can of worms that I don't think we're getting into and who would be responsible or control these conditional uses? There could be a million different things, in fact we got a number of things right in this, in the area that I am in next door to me that are conditional uses that have been going on for 3- 4 years. And also what is kind of a thing that came to my attention, you use this initials BF. Is that a connection with Browning Ferris in regard to his Admiral Waste Management? Scott: No. BF just signifies Business Fringe zoning. So it doesn't have anything to do with any commercial enterprise. Willard Halver: I do know that there is an individual that's just waiting for this conditional use thing to go into effect and he is within oh 2 -3 block area that has been controlled by the City Council and done a good job by keeping under control. But he's just waiting to explode and come ... further sand mining and that would come under this conditional use addition to the ordinance. I thank you. Scott: I don't have an answer or comment. Perhaps you might. Sir are you stating that the people who are operating Moon Valley are planning on purchasing other property to expand their mining operation? Is that what you're saying? Willard Halver: Yes. I know it indirectly and almost directly speaking. And this has been ' an eyesore in the area for quite a while and it's also a traffic hazard with those big belly dumps going in and out of there every morning because I'm retired and I sit there and watch the traffic tied up when they're trying to go in and out of that pit. But the owner I know from a matter of fact, I got in a round about way, wants to buy all additional property that's available and some of it is right in my front door. And that's why I am taking the stand I'm , 9 1 n Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 taking because we like it where we live and we've lived there for 35 years and I don't think ' somebody can come in and again, they're conditional uses. Scott: Well let's maybe have our staff talk about that. ' Aanenson: First of all Moon Valley is not located in this business fringe. And if they were looking at buying property within the district, this wouldn't be a ... use. And you are aware of the fact that we have been in litigation with Moon Valley. Scott: Yes, for quite some time. 1 Aanenson: If you look on the map, maybe Sharmin can show you where Moon Valley is and where the district is that we're talking about. They're over there quite a ways from the district. We're just talking about that little narrow piece on 169. Willard Halver: Yeah, I know. It's about a third of a block from where I live. There's been 15 to 50 dumpsters up until now. And also, what type of screening, is that going to be tree screening or what type of screening is that going to be? I can see it from where I live and I know, this thing has been going on for 2 -3 years. This haphazardly. i Aanenson: I think we're talkin g about the Admiral Waste. Scott: Yeah, we're talking about two things. Aanenson: Yeah, the Planning Commission tabled that earlier for further information. Willard Halver: ...it's been tabled but it's still a thorn in my side. Scott: Yeah, the reason it's been tabled is that we don't feel that the screening as proposed is adequate for the location and amount of dumpsters that are proposed to be on that spot and that will be coming back probably what, first meeting in August. Al -Jaff: When they submit a revised plan. Scott: Okay. And then on the Admiral Waste, the notice area would include this gentleman for that particular item? Aanenson: If he wants to be noticed. I Scott: If you would like that, we could send you a notice when the Admiral Waste item 1 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 1 comes up again. Willard Halver: I'd appreciate it. I may be out of town, I mean I don't know. If I am, that's my hard luck. Scott: Well you can work that out with our staff and they'll make sure that you get notice 'so you can know when that's coming on the agenda. i Willard Halver: The other thing I'm concerned about is, part of my property fronts on this ■ property that this miner wants to buy and there are some other people in the audience that are closer than I am to that mining pit and I know that it's temporarily stopped but that doesn't, this conditional use thing. Aanenson: But this is separate from that. Scott: Yeah this is. Willard Halver: It's a can of worms. Scott: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about the item at hand, which is additional conditional uses for and permitted uses for business fringe? Leon Mesenbrink: My name is Leon Mesenbrink. I live at 250 Flying Cloud Drive which is , right across from the development area. And what really amazes me is you people up here sitting in Chanhassen, beautiful town. You want it all like Edina and everything else but us people at the very end of Chanhassen, it's almost like we're in a different ballgame. Entirely different from you people. You let people, this Moon Valley do what they want to do. Basically. I mean you can't stop it. They-run trucks in and out. I bought there in 1959. , How many of you people have been here since 1959? Any of you people? Harberts: I haven't been alive that long. I Leon Mesenbrink: Okay, well that's fine. I bought out there when it wasn't even a gravel pit. It was a ski tow. I bought out there and paid a lot of money, which we thought at that , time, we'd be out in the woods. All of a sudden now we're into a commercial nightmare. And now you want to go by 169 or 212 and put another Shakopee and look at a bunch of garbage containers. Do you want them sitting around? Do you have a home in Chanhassen here? I come home every day from work up that road. I should look out at 50 or 100 garbage dumpsters? Would you want to do it? Any of you people? Think about some of these things. I'm just saying you people here, we're at the far fringe of Chanhassen but 11 i L Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 we've been here a long time too and think about us. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about the business fringe conditional uses and permitted uses? Yes sir. Jim Sulerud: I'm Jim Sulerud and I live at 730 Vogelsberg Trail. I'm not immediately adjacent to business fringe but in the same neighborhood. What my experience has been in the almost 20 years that I've lived there, is that within the city here, is that the city's very cautious about the taking of property rights of people so they, the city has by lawsuit in some cases, to give into property owners for exercising their property rights for development or what they want to. I think the present experience in that particular portion of the business fringe that's at the, near the Y, is that if you have multiple failing businesses. Businesses that tried something. Didn't work out in that setting and it's my view that the city is not under obligation to further enhance their property values or enhance their ability to do additional things in order to make that suitable for something they were unable to make suitable in the past. So to expand the uses for people, property owners to try something else because what they thought might work in the past doesn't work, seems to be going against all the discussion that I've heard in the Planning Commission and City Council about the wonderful natural area and how it will be nice to preserve that and perpetuate the natural nature of that area. Now when there's opportunity, I think you can recognize that when places have failed, maybe that's going in the right direction and not seek ways of enhancing further commercial development. I think it would be, it would have been great if this were left A2 or whatever. The places where we do see some things growing a little bit, and Admiral is an example, or the Moon Valley, is where people have gone beyond the permitted uses. And now they're trying to say, well we'll grandfather them in or we'll provide conditional use permits to accommodate that and I think you can take advantage of the economics right now that have turned that area down and the uses are probably at a low point. If you approve additional uses, you're going to have new proposals before you that do new and wonderful things that I think are contrary to what this body is looking for and the City Council is looking for. Thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Matt. Ledvina: Well I don't know what the driving force was to initiate this effort in terms of 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 rezoning this area. As I understand this currently is A2, is that right? Aanenson: No. It's currently business fringe. , Ledvina: It is currently business fringe? Okay. So essentially the lines on the map are essentially the same, they're exactly the same. We're not changing the lines. Okay. But what we are doing then is adding permitted uses? Okay. That's the only thing we're adding. Mancino: Well conditions. Ledvina: And, go ahead. I Al -Jaff: The only thing we're adding under conditional is the sporting goods. But there could be 5 conditional uses or 5 permitted uses. Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any specific request for any of these items? I mean what drives the mini golf course for example? I mean I can see. 1 Aanenson: What we looked at in this zoning, we tried to look at some reasonable use of the property where maybe it could be a turnover when you go back and look at the study ... look at t the MUSA line expansion. Maybe there's a better use for the property or higher use ... at one time, before it was a part of the city, you know served as a collector and there were services down there. There's some grandfathered uses as the people that spoke tonight indicated. There are some non - conforming uses down there that have grandfathered rights. What we're talking about are other uses that people that have properties there, for people that have property down there to make use of their property until such time services do become available. Ledvina: Okay, well I look at the permitted uses and I see 1 thru 4 wholesale nursery, , greenhouse, that seems to make sense. There's not retail activity. Private /public park, great. Single family dwelling, 1 per acre. Agricultural. All those things are reasonable land uses but then I see mini golf course and now you've got parking. You've got retail. You've got traffic. Aanenson: Yeah. We've addressed that in Section 20 -265 which is in the conditional use. We referenced that standard and—show that there are conditional use standards so that's why we've shown that reference. And that does say, if you are going to use this use, you have to ' develop using this criteria. There are criteria ... you get the hours of operation and some other criteria that was to go in this area you'd have to maintain the use of standards. But we tried to give some ... meet those standards. 13 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ledvina: I'm just thinking about you know, land uses that are somewhat similar and compatible and I see numbers 1 thru 4 as being low intensive and reasonable but I don't know about number 5 for permitted uses. And then, so I don't know exactly where that's going to go but those are my thoughts on the addition of the permitted uses. And then a question on the conditional uses. Truck trailer and then we've added sporting goods, boat sales and rental. Again, why would we go ahead and do that? I mean is there something that's driving that or? Al -Jaff: No, but we've always had the auto sale or rental. There is a U -Haul rental place. Ledvina: But that was only grandfathered, right? Al -Jaff: No. It's a conditional use. Aanenson: They had to go through the screening, which they've done so we felt that's been an appropriate use and if someone came under that same criteria, and screened it appropriately and landscaped it and fencing. Ledvina: So that's a conditional use. Why isn't that identified on page 3 on the top? You're saying auto. Ledvina: Motor fuel stations. Aanenson: ...conditions in the BF district. Al -Jaff: What you see in bold is just what we're adding. Ledvina: Right, I understand that. But the, previously there was a used car sales. Al -Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. And you're saying used car sales are allowed within the business fringe district? Al -Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: They are, okay. Al -Jaff: They don't require the use of urban services. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ledvina: Oh I see, current uses. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Why are we doing this right now given we're going to study the area? ' Aanenson: The area that's outside the MUSA doesn't go quite as far south as we... When we talked about the ... and looking at this on a cursory level, again we've had requests from people to use their property... Again, Matt had a question about the golf course and we'll just give you two of the things and ... you can't be within 500 feet from single family residence. They have to provide adequate parking. They also have to provide—Again, that's the reason we felt we could make it compatible with the residential. Conrad: Okay. Just real quickly, I think all the permitted uses are better uses than what we , currently will allow under conditional uses so if you follow that logic, I think I'd buy what staff is saying. It is, they're more environmental. They're more natural, which is, the theory is really they're going to be developed for commercial or it should be put into a natural , setting and so no governmental body is buying it up for a natural setting. I think we do have to give the land owners an adequate use for their property here and I feel comfortable in the permitted uses. I think that's certainly acceptable to me. I would like to make some changes in the intent statement however in terms of, because it is, a lot of it is natural and a lot of it is sensitive, I would like to get some wording in that talks about development without impacting the natural conditions or the sensitive to the environment and the river valley that's there. I just think in the past we've tried to minimize, we tried to give land owners an acceptable use, a low level acceptable use of their property in that area without major impact and I'm not sure if we've been successful in that or not. But I continue to think that we want to really preserve the natural part of that until we have urban services there or until we have a plan to turn it into a more natural setting. I Mancino: I have a question on your's, to piggy back on that. If it is a permitted use and the MUSA line comes down and includes this area at that time, much like Swings on Galpin and Highway 5, and now we're looking at that study area and saying, you know it may be single family or multi family. Does the permitted use that is there now, once the MUSA line changes and encompasses that land, can that, let's say it's a mini golf course, stay there even though we have rezoned it forever? Until, okay. Aanenson: Yeah. That's why we were comfortable with these uses even if it were to ' change. We felt like that ... these would be compatible. It has to be done, these are the other conditional uses that we'd be looking at... 15 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Mancino: And you feel that way with the wholesale nursery. I mean they have trucks, big trucking operations because they have to get things out and deliveries in the spring and they have big greenhouses, etc and you still feel that. Conrad: We have that at Lake Ann. Down on TH 101. Mancino: Well I know ... too so I just wanted to bring that up. Scott: Ladd, are you finished with your comments? ' Conrad: Finished. ' Scott: Nancy, do you want to continue, if you have others? Since you're on a roll. Diane. Harberts: I don't really have a lot of extras to add. I guess when you take into consideration ' that we try to bring a balance to growth and development to the needs of the residents and the needs of the business community, I think we do that by, when you take into perspective all of our codes or guidelines that we put out there. I mean the architectural integrity. We ask for building and landscaping. I think we've seen that with our first one. The first, on the interim use permit for screening. I think we're here to bring that balance but 1 think because of standards we've kind of set, it's probably our best we can do to protect the interest of each ' resident in their own way. So I guess I support what's here. It certainly isn't an easy job. Not everyone's going to be happy but when you look at everything that's in place, I think it's good for the community and we just have to remind ourselves. As things come in that we keep that integrity there with each project. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I don't have any big problem with the permitted uses. From some of this discussion and the exchange Kate with regard to future and the MUSA line. Was there ' discussion about making the mini golf course a conditional as opposed to a permitted? Aanenson: Again, I think based on the standards that's in the code, I think we feel ' comfortable as far as that being under permitted use... Nutting: Okay. I don't have a lot to add. I think that there's not a significant change here and so it looks good for a motion. Scott: Okay, Jeff. 1 16 E Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 I Farmakes: I'll follow up a little bit on Ladd's comment. What worries me about this, the long term and what the plan is going to be in that area. We're kind of blanketly saying that when the MUSA gets there we'll worry about it but it seems that most of these uses will ' revolve around things like dumpsters and trucks and mining and I question in the comprehensive plan, long term, if those are the uses that we see in Chanhassen. Is that the ' intent of the community. Many of these uses have been sort of acquired through default. Businesses that went under. They were able under past ordinances to use this and nobody seemed to care. It was under county at the time before the township expanded. What I ' would like to see is a study for us to look at long term use. What our intent is for that property area all along the bluff area because I see a convergence of opposing interests and it seems that all those uses, or all those uses that are unpalatable, seem to be concentrated along , that bluff area over there. And it kind of makes you wonder what we're going to wind up with in 20 years. But I understand in the interim that property owners want to continue their use as permitted uses for the businesses. But long term I don't see those there. I'm not ' going to be on the commission then but certainly. Mancino: But they could be there long term because once it's a permitted use. Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. That gets to my next point. You're familiar with how we deal with some of these large scale developments, say Timberwood for instance. They , become the nucleus for development around them because people will come in and they will complain that they don't want industrial or they don't want business use or whatever next to their development. So what happens is you get a sort of a nucleus for development going on ' there that may not be the best interest for the city. Just because dumpsters happen to ... been put there, does that mean that that use should be expanded and therefore—developer may not want to put a housing project there. And that's what I'm getting at. I'd like to see us look at the long term development of that bluff area just because in general scope like we do the comprehensive plan. We've seen to have left that area down below there as work to be done later. It seems that we get an awful lot of that stuff here, in that particular area. It seems to ' be coming back here a lot. ' Scott: What would you think about, instead of allowing these additional permitted uses, allow them as conditional uses? Farmakes: I would, if we put a time limit on them... Scott: I was thinking for the interim point in time, let those continue but yet to be able to have some sort of a sunset on there that the trigger is the MUSA line. Farmakes: A sunset that makes sense, yeah. It allows the city staff to long term look at what I 17 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 I would be in the best interest for Chanhassen for development of that property. Because I look at these uses and they're quite haphazard, as you look at them. They're even as grouping of businesses there. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. That's it. ' Conrad: Okay, just for discussion. Scott: We're doing that. ' Conrad: You've got two choices down there. It's on a major highway. ' Harberts: Soon to be ex major highway. Conrad: It's still serving 15,000. Mancino: Soon to be? Scott: 10 to 20 years. ' Farmakes: A lot of closed businesses on that highway. Conrad: 15,000 cars a day. ' Scott: How many Super America's go out of business? That was a surprise. But anyway, continue. Conrad: Why would they do that, I don't understand. But you've got a major highway and what's the difference between a major highway there and a major highway on Highway 5? ' You know what are you going to put? On the other hand you have a very natural area. But somebody's got to come up with money to buy it, meaning a government body, and I haven't seen that in our plans at all. Farmakes: There's a major highway that goes along the St. Croix. I don't see development there either but there happens to be a major highway. ' Conrad: But it's park property right. ' Farmakes: No. Not all of it's park property. Mancino: Well you could do some architectural guidelines and everything else that's been done to Highway 5 in that area also. 1 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: But are there other alternatives? Mancino: As to what can go? Conrad: Let's talk, you've got a highway business community. You've got a natural ' community. Natural environmental area. Mancino: You're talking about a city referendum. A land referendum like Eden Prairie does , to buy the land. Farmakes: But are you saying the business that are along that highway have any, make any , sense as a grouping or are they here by default? Conrad: They're there because the land. , Farmakes: What does mining have to do with dumpster storage? Or park and ride. I Conrad: I'm just saying, this study that we're looking for. You know you can say well we're not going to do anything until a study happens but the reality of what a study might , show us, I think we can be wise enough to know what a couple uses are down there and I'm not sure that we're going to say ah ha. Well there's a good use for that. And I question whether it's going to be public money is going to be put into the area so even so, let's say ' that's 10 -15 years down the line something might happen. You still have to give the property owners a fair use of their property. So right now they can use it for motor fuel stations, trucks. They can use it for a lot of these things and yeah. I Farmakes: You supply intent. I think what I was looking for was a time period for renewal to allow a reasonable amount of time in the interim to look at what the city's going to do ' with that property. What I'm looking for is to try to take away some of these haphazard businesses driving the development that goes around it. I'd like to see some planning involved there. ' Conrad: Yeah, I hear what you're saying Jeff. I just don't see any commitment on. There's no urban service. When's urban service going to get there? A long, long time and until that ' happens, nothing really is going to happen down there. Farmakes: Again, if they have unlimited usage of those uses, they're going to be what drives ' them. They're going to be what drives that. Conrad: Jeff, I hear you, so we have some uses there. They're kind of grandfathered in or ' 19 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 they're there. They're conditional and we haven't found better ones other than maybe what staff is saying, these might be better. So what you're doing is encouraging. So here's your choice. And you can, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying in terms of having some time lines and what have you. But on the other hand, what staff's proposed ' here is to encourage certain things that probably are more in setting, more in nature of the property. So you could do something today and encourage it. Farmakes: Well, I would make the statement for the public hearing, for the people who have property have adjacent to this area who have a difference of opinion of that. ' Conrad: Well I'm sure. If I were a residential owner, I wouldn't want any of this stuff, absolutely. Yeah. I agree. ' Farmakes: So and what the government is doing with that area, it just seems like it's in conflict or will be in conflict. Maybe not now. 10 years from now. ' Ledvina: Does it make sense to make the permitted uses conditional uses? ' Scott: Also the sunset because that's what. Aanenson: ...right now. We're trying to get away from the amount of conditional uses. Scott: I mean I can see where you might be coming from here to say, well if you're willing to, landowner if you're willing to invest in items number 1 thru 5, you'll get a permitted use ' and you can continue that use on into the future as far as you care to carry that. So I mean I kind of took a look at that and said, that's what it is. I mean there's conditional uses that perhaps we're not interested in seeing, i.e. motor fuel stations, etc, etc. If someone who ' happens to own that property wants to single family dwellings, etc, etc, they're in essence guaranteed the use of that land for that purpose for an extended period of time. But then again, one of the points that Jeff raised is do we want that stuff down there forever. So what ' I'm hearing. Mancino: Not only that but it will drive the surrounding. Scott: Right, exactly because if this is going to be here forever, then you're going to see g� Y g g Y g g something else. So perhaps what we need to do, I mean we already had one item this evening about business fringe with a sunset on it. Perhaps where we want to go with this is not add permitted uses to business fringe district but perhaps add some conditional uses and sunset them. Would that be acceptable? 20 Planning ommission Meeting - Jul 20, 1994 g g Y Aanenson: We can't put a sunset on conditional uses. Scott: Or perhaps make these uses conditional but not permitted. Scot p p p Nutting: Kate, are they already conditional uses, number 1 thru 5? Aanenson: No. Nutting: Okay. , Conrad: But what Jeff wants to do is do some planning and nothing we've said right here , really does do that. Farmakes: I would like to leave the opportunity for planning to have some effect with those I uses. Conrad: So you want to, your preference would be to table this thing and have staff come back and tell you when they can get to the planning issue. Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I Aanenson: But even if we did that, we said we see this being x, okay. And when urban services come in, what if it's 20 years. And we said, well this is what it's going to be. Then I we still have 20 years of relative use of. Conrad: But what Jeff's saying hey, do the plan in the next 6 months so we know. I Farmakes: No, that's not what I'm saying. Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. ' Farmakes: I said leave the door open to review the use rather than grant it forever. That's ' what I'm saying. Leave it open for the opportunity when the time comes to do the planning. The city has the option of what it wants to do rather than to have those businesses drive that development. ' Mancino: But the landowner, if I'm going to build a house on 10 acres and then all of a ' sudden there's this sunset that the city wants to review whether that's appropriate in 10 years. Farmakes: Those uses happen quite often. Say for instance you have a permitted use, let's ' say you're storing something on a piece of property ... in 5 years it's renewed. You may get 21 ' �J Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 that again. It may develop. Houses come in and you get enough people to come in and they object to that use. It's incompatible with their use and you have to move. We've had several businesses in here that have done this... Nutting: So what I hear Jeff, are you in agreement with what Joe is saying? You're saying make the permitted uses conditional uses? Scott: And then set some sort of review time frame. Farmakes: I think that would work and give them a reasonable, about 10 years or whatever you think is. Nutting: But your comment, or what I was thinking is, who's going to do a single family dwelling under a conditional use? Scott: In this area? In the BF? Aanenson: ...you can't put conditions for time limits on conditional use. You can only do it on interim use. So you have to change that to interim use, and then you could put time limits. Scott: So that's really the only vehicle that would us the planning opportunity. Conrad: Kate, why isn't this part of the 1995 study area? I always thought it was. Scott: Is it too far out? As far as the MUSA access. Aanenson: Well we indicated that we would look at this as part of that. Really we may start ' working on that plan late this fall. ...big project and it's not going to be done in 6 months. No way. ' Scott: Your thoughts for development pressure being along Highway 5 and not on 212 in this BF area. ' Aanenson: ...fine there as far as time frame. When they did the comp plan it said 1995. But you know, we said we would look at this and include this in the area of the project. But again if people come up with, you know what we're trying to do here is in the short run ' allow what we feel is a compatible use of properties that are down there.. just as Ladd has indicated. To allow use of the property... Scott: So are we talking about interim uses now? Would that do what we want? 22 Nutting: But you know, even with interim use versus conditional use for some, 1 thru 5, who I is going to pursue those under an interim use? Scott: Well I think if the time table's long enough, they will. 1 Nutting: But there's uncertainty with an interim use for the time table so anytime you throw that uncertainty in there. I Harberts: Well in fact similar to the sign ordinance. If the desire is to go with an interim permit use with a time line, what's the time line? , Scott: Well I would think you know, if I were sitting on a piece of property that used to be a drive in, a failed drive in and I saw the opportunity to turn it into a mini golf course that I ' could operate subject to certain criteria for a period of 5 years, I'd get my calculator out and figure out if it would work. Harberts: But how do ou know 5 ears or 2 ears or 1 ear? ' Y Y Y Y Scott: I think that would be something that we'd need to put in with the interim, if we're ' going to be. For example, if you're going to say that the permitted uses would become interim uses, which would be x years. 5 years. That would allow someone to say, well , here's the criteria. Here's the time horizon and then that would allow a business person to make a determination if they want to invest any money in it. I think that'd be pretty straight forward. Because then there's concrete rules for interim uses and there's a concrete length of I time and a business decision could be made based upon that. Harberts: Well I don't know if this group is ready to move it forward. I 23 1 Planning ommission Meeting - Jul 20 1994 g g Y Mancino: ...come back and ask for an interim use until the MUSA line. ' Scott: That's probably the vehicle that will allow for planning yet, and interim use permits we can set time tables. ' Harberts: What ordinance—is there some reason? Aanenson: Well we felt that in this district there should be some uses that are permitted. i Right now the district... Scott: Does somebody want to take a stab at a motion? , Nutting: But you know, even with interim use versus conditional use for some, 1 thru 5, who I is going to pursue those under an interim use? Scott: Well I think if the time table's long enough, they will. 1 Nutting: But there's uncertainty with an interim use for the time table so anytime you throw that uncertainty in there. I Harberts: Well in fact similar to the sign ordinance. If the desire is to go with an interim permit use with a time line, what's the time line? , Scott: Well I would think you know, if I were sitting on a piece of property that used to be a drive in, a failed drive in and I saw the opportunity to turn it into a mini golf course that I ' could operate subject to certain criteria for a period of 5 years, I'd get my calculator out and figure out if it would work. Harberts: But how do ou know 5 ears or 2 ears or 1 ear? ' Y Y Y Y Scott: I think that would be something that we'd need to put in with the interim, if we're ' going to be. For example, if you're going to say that the permitted uses would become interim uses, which would be x years. 5 years. That would allow someone to say, well , here's the criteria. Here's the time horizon and then that would allow a business person to make a determination if they want to invest any money in it. I think that'd be pretty straight forward. Because then there's concrete rules for interim uses and there's a concrete length of I time and a business decision could be made based upon that. Harberts: Well I don't know if this group is ready to move it forward. I 23 1 i , i Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: Okay. Is there a motion? I guess I think we need to give staff some direction on this ' one. Does it appear that interim use would allow us the opportunity to plan yet act as a carrot to have some of the property put to a better use? I don't know if there's another option for us that would give us the flexibility. ' Nutting: Are you talking about changing the conditional uses that already exist to interim uses also? Or are you just going to leave those as conditional? I just sense we're really mucking this thing up here. It's really getting cloudy. Conrad: Yeah. Unless you know where you're going, we don't know. ' Nutting: You're trying to micro manage something before we even know what we're managing. I agree with the issue of with what Jeff is saying. ' Mancino: ...bi picture plan. big P Nutting: Big picture and long term but what, do we have a reasonable vehicle to do that? And what I sense is happening, and staff is saying, we don't know but we're going to set it up so that these permitted uses seem to be driving it in a direction which makes more sense long term. But we're not going to know for sure. You know the question is. Mancino: Well and secondly, some of these conditional uses, I would hate to see new conditional uses of motor fuel stations and cold storage and warehousing, etc, expanding in this area. And right now they are a conditional use. Nutting: So would you like then to delete some of the conditional uses? Is that what you're? Mancino: I would not like to see the ones that are here expand more. If I were looking at this area as a whole, planning it from the very beginning, I would not have those uses in there. Nutting: Okay. But right now, today they're there so we have to do something with them if we don't want to have them expand. Mancino: Plus there could be more coming in according to this. Because there are conditional uses right now in the BF district. Harberts: It seems that, what I'm reading here, it seems that, is that so much what the expansion items are. It's just the duration because it's kind of an unclear area of what should ' happen down in that area. What we'd like to see ... in that area long term. That's what it is. ] 1 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 don't know if we're having real problems with the items right now here in time but it's because it's a longer duration possible and does it tie our hands. ' Scott: Well permanent uses would tie our hands relative to planning for that area. There's ' no question about that. And so will conditional uses. Farmakes: Look at the Red -E -Mix that was on TH 5. Just an incompatible use with TH 5. It wasn't that many years ago that it probably didn't seem that bad of a use at the time. If it is a major highway Ladd, and if it's outside the study area, shouldn't we have the opportunity to plan for it when the time comes without having that planning already done with the ' expansion of these uses? Conrad: I never disagree with planning. Yet motor fuel stations can be done down there right now. Truck trailer can be done. Cold storage can be done. And as I see it, rather than ' allowing those to come in, I'd like to encourage some things that I think are more in sync with the area now. So I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to read per the staff report except for moving the ' mini golf course under a permitted use into a conditional use and to have staff reword the intent statement to emphasize the impact on the natural conditions of the area. Scott: Is there a second? , Nutting: I second that Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend to City Council the motion as ' stated by Commissioner Conrad. Is there any discussion? Mancino: Yeah, my discussion is, can we ask that it be included in the 1995 study area? ' Aanenson: We've already indicated that we'll do that. ' Mancino: Oh, okay. Scott: Okay. So that should be in the intent statement then. Okay, is there any other discussion? Conrad: No, I don't want it in the intent statement. Scott: Well I know it's in the background section here. I 25 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: I would like to make it of record that this area will be part of the 1995 study area but Kate when you said that, what is telling me that it is? What guides you to include this? Just us? Okay, I believe you. We'll make sure that is. We'll make sure it is. I guess I don't need that as part. I think it's part of the record but I guess I don't really need to. Scott: And we're also talking about the BF district. That includes the Progress Valley Mini Storage as well? Aanenson: Okay. Scott: Any other discussion? Mancino: I just have one question. Okay, it gets into the 1995 study. That means we can look at the whole area. Rezone it. Take out the conditional uses. Aanenson: We don't know. We've got to go back and do a whole study of the whole 212 corridor. Where should commercial be. Where should residential be. It's the same process we went through with the comp plan ... it's a lot of work. Conrad: You're just stuck with what's there. You can change the future but you're stuck with what's there. Farmakes: But we're expanding what's there. Conrad: My motion is to change what's there. To guide it a little bit differently. Scott: By having the uses that you consider to be more compatible with the area become ' permitted uses and then the mini golf course, which is more of a commercial use per se, become conditional. ' Conrad: Yeah. ' Scott: Which makes, that's a surgical way of kind of doing I think what we want. Mancino: And you want to add sporting goods and boat sales/rental? ' Conrad: I'm comfortable with that. I'd rather have a boat there than a car because there's a river across the, I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval 1 26 J Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to read per the staff report except for moving the mini golf course from under permitted use into a conditional use and to have staff reword the intent statement to emphasize the impact on the natural conditions of the area. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Scott: And your reasons? I Farmakes: I think we're putting the cart before the horse. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" I TO INCLUDE CITY WIDE. Public Present: ' Name Address Frank Fox 22990 Smithtown Road, Shorewood Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path ' Kate Aanenson and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Q uestions or comments? Mancino: Yeah, I've got a question. The building foundation has to be from a bluff 25 feet ' set back. Desotelle: 30. ' Mancino: 30? Now, I put my foundation here and I cantilever out a deck so there is no, I ' mean I do it so there is no footing. Like falling water. Frank Lloyd Wright that's over the stream. He cantilevered the deck. Can you do that? Aanenson: No. The way the ordinance is now, you cannot do that but there's still, as part of , the subdivision regulations, they can always apply for a variance if there's something unique that you wanted to do and if you felt... watershed approval and you could control erosion , based on the fact that you're going to have accelerated water runoff, that there maybe a way 27 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 I to mitigate that. That was something we could look at. One other thing I failed to mention, ' there was a concern about the application of lots that are already approved. This would just apply to lots that would be subdivided in the future... There's still a variance appeal procedure if you felt like that was something that you wanted to... Mancino: Yeah but you'd have to show that that was a hardship. ' Farmakes: ...granite. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do it on a Minnesota River bluff. Mancino: That kind of a design house I just wondered about. If it could extend into that ' area. If it was cantilevered and did not have any footings or whatever. Desotelle: I think this would just give, it doesn't apply. You know they would not be able to get it without applying for a variance. It gives us the opportunity to work with that design. Scott: You know a couple of the issues that we run into a lot in developments, are mass ' grading of the significant features. And also from a tree preservation standpoint, it appears anyway that the areas of the city that are still forested were areas that were impossible to ' farm because of bluffs and steep slopes and so forth. So I see this as, I remember a couple months ago we were talking about dueling ordinances where you have an ordinance that has a bunch of calculations in it that makes it impossible to develop someplace. I see this as an opportunity to actually make, not only preserve some of these natural features but make it easier on city staff and Planning Commission and also on developers because it'd be, everybody has to do a topographic maps and that's a sure sign of significant slopes so. ' That's kind of the extent of my comments but I was quite pleased to see this and it seems to be very easy to, you know when we're going to be talking about sign police later on tonight. Well I think the bluff police will have a very workable document to be able to determine ' what is and what isn't so I appreciate you guys doing the work on that. Made it easy for me to understand. ' Farmakes: ...people who currently build on bluffs on structures...A lot of our bluff here is filled with sumac and they're not a lot of trees... Scott: No, they're sumac. Yeah. Aanenson: The intent is that they're going to—we've had a lot of requests from people who try to put, maintain the 30 foot but then they want to cut the slopes so they can have a walkout. Farmakes: I'll give you an example of what's not within the bluff area. Down on Utica, 28 t Aanenson: That's exactly what we're saying. You know somebody making a cursory look at this back ... felt it shouldn't be applied citywide and as these developments are coming in, we're saying we don't have the tools in place and we feel like, if you don't want to ask for a variance and you feel it meets it as part of the subdivision, then it should be granted. ' Otherwise we feel like that should... Farmakes: But does this then also enforce' for non new developments? ' Aanenson: If it's a lot of record, no. Farmakes: Okay. ' Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff? I Harberts: ...respond to the issues that were raised in these letters with regard to the resulting of overall lower density. I Aanenson: Well in some circumstances it may... sometimes that's what required in order to I preserve natural features... 29 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Utica is a lake road that's low and then there's a bluff coming down. And it's fairly forested. The property comes over and down the bluff to the road. And a homeowner of one of the , lake lots that were bought on that development put up a house and virtually whacked everything vegetation wise over the bluff. I don't know if that's high enough to qualify for this ordinance. Desotelle: You have to remember it has to be, go up 25 feet with a slope of 30 %. Farmakes: I think that's 25 feet. Pretty close. Desotelle: Is the slope 30% then? ' Farmakes: Yes. Maybe even more. Mancino: There's one on Galpm like that too. Aanenson: What this ordinance does say is that fill or excavation material shall not be placed ' in the bluff. Farmakes: I've seen a lot of that go on outside of the bluff area. ' Aanenson: That's exactly what we're saying. You know somebody making a cursory look at this back ... felt it shouldn't be applied citywide and as these developments are coming in, we're saying we don't have the tools in place and we feel like, if you don't want to ask for a variance and you feel it meets it as part of the subdivision, then it should be granted. ' Otherwise we feel like that should... Farmakes: But does this then also enforce' for non new developments? ' Aanenson: If it's a lot of record, no. Farmakes: Okay. ' Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff? I Harberts: ...respond to the issues that were raised in these letters with regard to the resulting of overall lower density. I Aanenson: Well in some circumstances it may... sometimes that's what required in order to I preserve natural features... 29 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Harberts: So it's one of those values that the community really endorses because it saves the ' natural features. As I recall from our work session that we've had, I think that was to be put in our intent statement. That one of the high priorities in development for this community is really saving and preserving the natural features. So this is, so this bluff line ordinance is really in support of the overall city's... Aanenson: And again that really came out Bill Morrish's study. The rolling topography is ' really want makes Chanhassen unique and we certainly, we felt that it'd be short sighted just to keep ... other areas in the city. Scott: And also reading through, especially Mr. Forbord's letter. Typically they tend to invest in very interesting plots and they address that market and what I've found is that when we have ordinances like this in place, it really forces already creative developers to become even more creative. They tend to almost always be PUD's and then in that sort of venue we can say, okay. Well here's the bluff. Well listen, we'll let you build 10 feet closer to the street. Make your street smaller. I mean the same sort of preservation work that we do with ' trees and so forth. So I know where Terry's coming from and. Aanenson: Again, I think that's right... ' Scott: I think we can work with PUD's. ' Mancino: I like us putting the values like that real clear up front and work around it. ' Scott: Could I have a motion to open the public hearing? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone here who would like to speak at the public hearing regarding the city ' wide definition of bluffs? Yes sir. Please state your name and your address. Frank Fox: My name is Frank Fox. I have a farm southwest... and on that farm I got about ' 60 acres of rolling woods which I think lends itself to beautiful building sites. And I've got some experience too in building homes myself and one lot I built I built right in a ravine and the guy could water around it. You can do a lot with timbers. You can do a lot with rock and to block your water way in. And I agree with Mr. Erhart in respect that if you are going to restrict where you have to build back 30 feet from the edge of the bluff. If you want to have a deck out there that's 15 feet, that's 45 feet you have to be back. You buy a lot to ' build on. You want to take the best part of it and that's the view. That's what you're after. 1 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 And use of the trees. You passed a tree ordinance not too long ago and that also restricts my property and along with this it will be more restrictive. It will be, you're limited the amount , of building sites you can have on a piece of property and I think that you should take a good look at this. There are a lot of areas here in Chanhassen that already violate this ordinance. And if you take and go down 78th Street, look off to the right, and there's big townhouses going up there, and I don't know how they're going to hold that hill. And I'm also been out in southern California where they have a lot of erosion problems. They have. to put plastic down on the side of the hill to keep the hill from eroding away. But there are a lot of ways of doing these things and I think it should be up to a developer and if you have a city engineer that approves the plans that applies to control the water, then that's the way to go. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak about the bluff? Ann Miller: I would. My name is Ann Miller. I live in the Fox Chase area. I'm assuming that to identify what a bluff is, it obviously has something to do with surface water , management. I mean is that why you are saying 25 feet back? Desotelle: The bluff definition is strictly based on the slope. The slope. You have to be 25, I 30% of grade and it has to rise at least 25 feet before it can be considered a bluff. Ann Miller: Okay. And is that because of foundation problems or why would you still have I to be back that far? Desotelle: Mostly just erosion control and to preserve the slope from eroding further. I Ann Miller: Okay, are the soils such in here that that is mostly likely to occur if you're closer than 25 feet? I Desotelle: There are problems along the Bluff Creek corridor down in the lower part of the city where you've got a lot of erosion and so there's a lot of problems as far as that is ' concerned here. In the northern part, I think it's mostly just to help preserve just the look of the city. To maintain the topography. Ann Miller: Okay. What advisory committee have you asked for help on identifying ' Y r Y P what a bluff is? Aanenson: This comes strictly out of the DNR standards. Department of Natural Resources standards. When the staff looked at this in '91, we looked at applying it city wide. There was a huge study that was done and the Planning Commission was involved at that time and 31 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 they decided just to apply it to the southern half after discussing it numerous times. Now ' we're saying, now that we've seen a lot of subdivisions come in, we feel like it should have been applied city wide and we're recommending. Ann Miller: How will documentation be handled for policing this? Aanenson: Well it's handled when you come in for a building permit. Or if you come in for ' a deck permit, that's how we would review it. Ann Miller: Thank you. Scott: Good. An other public comment? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the Y P g Y public hearing please? ' Harberts moved Ledvina seconded to close the ublic hearing. All voted in favor and P g ' the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. ' Nutting: I guess Diane you said looking at the aerials, that the actual number of areas that are impacted by this, have we actually identified all them or is it just kind of a top level overview and we're saying there's not that many areas that are affected? Desotelle: We did not identify ... so I can't tell you at all how many but we started to look at just a couple of ones that have been coming in and try to get a better idea of how much we're talking about and—there aren't very many areas that have slopes this steep. ' Nutting: Are those areas undeveloped or developed? Desotelle: We were looking at undeveloped areas. ' Nutting: I guess I don't have a problem with putting the tool in place to force staff to look at these things. And also we do have the ability to look at each development as they come in. If it's in a PUD or whatever that we have the ability to look at issues that the developer presents a case worthy of variance or otherwise. That we can take them on a case by case basis but I think it lays a good foundation. It puts the structure in that we seem to be lacking ' in a lot of areas. I guess I would support staff's recommendation. Scott: Good, Jeff. 1 32 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Farmakes: I support staff's recommendation. Scott: Nancy. ' Mancino: So do I. I think it brings it top of mind to developers, their landscape architects, etc to deal with the site and look at it more comprehensively than maybe is going on now. And I think it also sets a good value statement for our city in saying, you know really we're interested in seeing and what we want to preserve. So I do support it. t Scott: Okay, Diane. 1 Harberts: I think I said it. Basically I don't have anything else to add. I support staff's recommendation. ' Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I have a great deal of respect for Tim Erhart and he was very involved in this and I ' guess I'm a little uncomfortable in terms of the impact on certain developments in certain areas. I don't know how much area we're talking about. I don't know what the, bluffs to me , were the major ones in the city. I was real concerned with Bluff Creek. Real concerned with Minnesota River valley but now it seems different to me. It seems that when all the work went into this, there was good reason for not allowing it. Not applying it and I think right , now we're just sort of taking a real quick casual glance at it and saying, well it seems reasonable and I think there's some things that I would support but I don't know enough right now to make it a global statement that it should be applied city wide. I think there are reasons you preserve bluffs in some locations and I think there's some restrictions that we impose on developers and that maybe I'm not comfortable with so again, I think there was a lot of effort put forth in '91. And there was some good rationale for doing what we did and I , guess I'm not comfortable with just brushing it aside that quickly. Scott: What, you know off the top of your head. What were some of the major points that caused the ordinance to be applied just to the river valley? Conrad: It was probably more public vistas than anything else. Make sure that when the public had a chance for a good vista, when it was a public oriented natural asset, it should be preserved. When it gets into a private natural asset, then you get into some gray areas. I think it's, since we're only talking about 1 or 2 areas in town, I feel comfortable. If I saw , them, and I have a tendency to want to preserve those areas. Yet on the other hand I don't know what I'm doing here. I honestly don't know what this impacts. It's real quick. Real ' easy to put through. Haven't heard that much public comment on it. And as I say, I respect 33 1 J i Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Tim Erhart's opinion. He's done a great deal for the city and when he was very involved in ' this, he wanted it. He absolutely demanded some of these things. When I hear, see the letter tonight that says he's concerned, I have to be too. Scott: Okay, thanks. Matt. Ledvina: Well I read both letters and one thing that I noted was missing was, and with all ' respect to Tim Erhart, former commissioner, the one thing that was missing was the discussion of you know what do you do to mitigate the situation with erosion problems. You know you can say yeah, you're reducing usage of property but what's the other side of the coin here? Another thing that, when we have bluffs and we have erosion problems, that means that sediment is moving off site and sediment is moving into water resources, wetlands, whatever and in those instances where we may be compromising with all these natural resources, or water resources. And those may not necessarily be owned by the specific property owner so I think that's another element in this discussion as well. So I would support the staff's recommendation in this. I'm a little bit confused about this ' September 19, 1991 memo. Could you give us a summary of that Kate? Aanenson: Yeah, I just put that in for background because Tim had indicated in his letter to ' you that there was a recommendation that it only apply to certain areas. So what I did, I thought this background might be helpful ... he was the one concerned about the application city wide. I just wanted to, it gives a little bit better history of the background. As Ladd ' indicated, there was a lot of work that went into this ordinance development so I just put that in so you'd get an idea of the background of the work that was done and what they were ' looking at. But really, originally, as I indicated at the beginning, the DNR when we were looking at the shoreland regs had a definition of bluff so we looked at—applying it city wide. Staff looked at applying it city wide. Mr. Erhart raised a concern about what would be the ' implications of...so they asked Paul Krauss, the Planning Director and Mr. Sathre, of Sathre- Berquist to review what would be the implication of... Again, it was kind of a cursory kind of...regulations maybe go beyond too far. But again, you know we've seen a lot of changes since this was ... and again I'm going back to the Morrish study and we're looking at specifically protecting the integrity of our topography which is ... so we're saying that the cursory look that they did back then really didn't go far enough as to where we are now in ' trying to preserve these natural features. So certainly I understand where Mr. Erhart's coming from and ... erosion and protection of the natural features and maybe it warrants a larger lot and maybe under the PUD it ... just to have the tools... ' Harberts: Question. I certainly understand what you're saying about public versus private. You know if we're looking at a subdivision that basically falls under that private perspective. ' You know Diane talked about erosion or just to preserve the look of the topography. Within 34 Planning ommission Meeting - Jul 20, 1994 g g Y a subdivision like that, does not the applicant have the opportunity to ask for a variance? Aanenson: In this background too I've done that. There were specific, I mean the question ' Si' P q came up about what does this do about ... and what about ... they felt that the ordinance was workable and they supported it. So yeah, there are individual homeowners already along that bluff in the southern area that are meeting ... have people that want to put swimming pools right adjacent to the edge and we just thought it was too big of a risk. And we ... so the , existing homeowners that were there could clear a view, certainly. Just like ... you allow some clearing for a view but not to clear cut and I think they support that... Harberts: I think what it does for me, you know with the presentation from Diane and Kate with regard to you know it has to have a certain percentage slope. Then you start looking at the erosion or if it's just to preserve natural features. With as much work and value that the community puts into the natural preservation, I think it's good to have that type of priority but you have that opportunity to ask for a reconsideration. So overall it's telling folks as they develop what's important. It helps staff. Then tell them why they can do this or can't do , this. If you want to do this and you have to ask for reconsideration of that. And I don't have any problems endorsing an ordinance or what is this. Is this an ordinance amendment? That really supports, really supports what our values, what our priorities are all about. But I ' think like Ladd, I certainly respect what you're saying and I know you're just trying to make sure that it's fair. It's equitable and that we're not imposing some unfair restriction on people, either property owners or the developer. And I certainly support that but I think this is a great opportunity where we're able to really, to endorse what we feel is important for the community. ' Conrad: Just a quick response on that. I'm not going to talk too much on this one but what I do respect are the folks that put the time in to review some of these things and sometimes they don't always make the right decision. But on the other hand, they've devoted a lot more , energy than we have in reviewing the situation. So it's not that I am pro or con on the issue. I just know that there was a lot of energy put in and to get this in because it was very important in Chanhassen. Tonight we're talking about very easily moving it to city wide. I don't know if it's right or wrong. I just, I haven't looked at the implications. On the surface it makes a lot of sense, which I would never debate. In terms of preserving. You know that that would be a high priority for me. But on the other hand, I don't know what the negatives are right now. I do know that I've got some input from several people and they're concerned with it. I've got some input from Tim Erhart who was very involved in bringing it to Chanhassen. And therefore I'm not always real thrilled with just to process something ' because it's convenient. Mancino: And that was what, 3 years ago? That the task force worked on it. ' 35 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: Can I have a motion please? Mancino: Let's see. I move that we adopt the amendment to ordinance, I need a little bit of help here folks. I move that we adopt the amendment to ordinance number 20? Conrad: No, that was the last one. Aanenson: To Chapter 20. Mancino: To Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. The Zoning Ordinance. Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the amendment to the City Code book. Is there any discussion? Ledvina: Just to clarify that. Article XXVIII, Section 20 -1402. Aanenson: It's all located within Section 20 so. Ledvina: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're being specific enough, okay. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, Zoning Ordinance as presented in Attachment #1. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Scott: And you stated your reasons. Motion carries. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) FOR THE CITY. Public Present: Name I Address I Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item. Scott: uestions or comments from commissioners? Hearin none, this is a public hearing. Q g . P g May I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. ' Scott: This is a public hearing. If any members of the public wish to speak about the surface water management plan, please step forward. As a matter of record, are there any people here who would like to speak about the surface water management program? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ann Miller: I would like to speak. , Scott: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you when I was looking around. Please identify yourself. I Ann Miller: My name is Ann Miller. I live here in Chanhassen As I understand it, this is an amendment to the City Code and Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Surface Water Management Plan. Does the surface water management plan include past development? What's already been developed? Was already illegal. I guess I want to know. Desotelle: What it has done is we've taken the whole city and modeled it for surface water ' quantity and quality to help us with future planning and existing, to see where you know, to not only slow the runoff rate and try to control... within the whole storm water system. , Maintain the natural resources that we have in the city. The... wetlands. To develop a long term management program on our lakes and water resources to try to maintain what we have here in the city. ' 37 1 I u I P, Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ann Miller: Okay. Can you define surface water for me? Desotelle: Well surface water is that water which runs off the ground that you see. It's different from ground water. Ground water is underneath. Ann Miller: Would it include holding ponds and lakes? Desotelle: Yes it would. Ann Miller: Okay. So any water that we can see on the surface of the ground... Is there any liability right now for holding ponds as far as a lot of the holding ponds by the developers, that the city has the developers make, who's responsible as far as liability goes and the depth of those ponds? If a child would drown or something like that. Desotelle: I think that those would probably be decided on a case by case basis depending on what has happened. Scott: I know that some of the practices in the surface water management plan specify slopes that are quite gradual at the perimeters of holding ponds. Obviously parental diligence is a priority here but you know from a liability standpoint, case by case by basis. But in this plan there are, there's a second that describes how these particular ponds should be made. The responsibility for the maintenance of these are usually, there are always easements through the development to get to those ponds so city crews can clean them out, etc, etc. But this particular plan is available at City Hall and what most people will do, if there's a particular section perhaps that applies to maybe some issues that you have. Obviously Diane's here to answer your questions as part of the public hearing. But this is a document that's available to everyone and it's very explicit about a number of things you might find interesting. Ann Miller: Okay. Does it also address hydrologic connections between ground water and surface water? Desotelle: No. Ann Miller: But it does apply to developed areas already...? Desotelle: Yes. The runoff rates on developed areas. The runoff rates were based on undeveloped areas were based on what that future use will be. So we have kind of a worse case scenario ... and those certain areas are developed, what sort of flows are we dealing with and what sort of water quality issues are we dealing with. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ann Miller: What kind of issues directly would developers have to deal with regarding surface water management? Desotelle: They will have to give their input, basically what the system sets up is instead of each development creating ponding areas within individual developments so we have ponds all over the place, we're trying to set up more of a regional system so maybe somebody downstream would have a pond built and they would contribute, everybody would contribute to the whole system so that we could have all—connecting than have everybody just dealing with the water on their site. We're looking at the whole watershed and the runoff within the watershed. ' Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments on the surface water management plan? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: I said this at the last meeting. It's a terrific piece of work. It is really what the city ' needs and I'm real thrilled that we have it in place. Or it's coming close to being in place. A couple questions that we had on the committee, and it's called the management of the plan and I'm not sure where that was. My understanding is that the committee who really watched over this has been dissolved and that I've also understand that some of the projects that have been identified have not really been implemented and I also know, I don't believe I've seen , some of the educational things that the committee cared about. They haven't happened. So my issue is not with the plan. I guess my issue here is to just tell you, it's so much paperwork to understand this. It's hard to do but in terms of my attempts. I Aanenson: Can we bring you up to date on some of that stuff? I think we haven't communicated as far as the educational... but we did provide money to the theater group. ' They provided ... at all the elementary schools not only that service the Chanhassen students. Some of them were in Chaska and some of them were in Excelsior Elementary, Clear Springs. We provided the play Totally Turtle. That was done this spring. We got a great , response from the school. It was all about what happens to water runoff and we got a great response from the schools on that. Maybe you want to... Desotelle: ... program throu throughout the city. I've been meeting with residents of Lake ' g tY g Minnewashta on a regular basis for the last couple months on Eurasian Milfoil. Our long ' term goal is to get a lake management plan for each of the lakes and present them to the 39 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 residents and to get feedback from them. I plan on doing a survey on the lakes as far as how people use their lawns. Lawn care. Water quality care. Things like that that we can get an idea of what's going on there. What areas people really do need more information on. After we get the draft, Lake Management plan out there, we're going to get feedback from the residents and then we hope to have a final plan in place by next summer and I hope to get a lot of citizens involved with helping with the monitoring. ' Aanenson: I think one of the things that has come out of this plan ... monitor whether or not our plan is actually improving the water quality and that's the intent of the monitoring so we can evaluate and say yes, we are doing a good job as far as the ordinance and things that we ' have in place. So monitoring is a ... as Diane indicated, we're working, she's working with one group right now... �I Desotelle: ...same idea too to get some baseline data and implement some of these problems that we talked about... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: ...some of the money. There are projects that get approved. You have some money that gets raised and how does that get managed. And the last thing is, not that I really want to create another commission. I really want to put the bulk of this in staff's lap because that's what this manual's about. For guiding them. But on the other hand, there's some things that are beyond what staff might want to do and that is project priority and the environmental committee, may be that bundling of things. And if that's not there, then I don't know how it's being managed from a public standpoint, which means who makes sure these things are happening. Now when we can say staff is but on the other hand, I think we have to make sure, I'm real concerned that DNR is not letting us do some of the projects. Real concerned. If I had known that, we would have been doing some things. Nobody's told me. I haven't asked however. I don't find that acceptable in terms of, you know I'll find ways to make sure those things get going. But at this point in time there wasn't a mechanism to get me back involved. So again, I raise those issues and I would really hope that staff, when you take this forward to the City Council, that those issues are at least brought up and that the management of this and the funding of it, if we don't have the staff to do it, that the funding has to be there. Otherwise this doesn't work. Mancino: Just a question about the environmental board, a concept and that is, there's a lot ' of material here. I mean to pull people who haven't worked on this and to get them up to speed with the background information is going to take some time. Conrad: Yeah. A lot of our committees in Chanhassen, they sort of come in for a while and 1 40 F Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 then they leave and it's probably not real rewarding, to tell you the truth. Aanenson: But really a lot of the... Harberts: I think it's really understanding the role of an advisory committee versus that of ' technical staff. We look at staff to do the day to day. Understand what the details are and that your advisory point, that oversight. ...not really an oversight but just to help establish the values, the priorities and which direction to send staff. ' Mancino: But I've never seen a good advisory committee who hasn't go in depth and understand and work and advise. I mean I don't think you could just sit out here and not ' know some of that detailed stuff. I think you need that behind it to make those good judgments. , Harberts: But I think that's, Y ou know look at the planning and it's the same with the Planning Commission. Understanding the ordinance. The intent. You know priorities but we all bring our own kind of spins because of what we feel is important as individuals but yet 1 keeping it as a community overall perspective. I would think that that environmental committee would try to serve that same function. I guess my only comment, question. From my understanding that the, we had a call from our ... that this is also consistent with state and ' federal requirements or guidelines or whatever it's called? Desotelle: Right, we have to still follow the Wetland Conservation Act and federal ' guidelines. Those are some of the issues I'm dealing with and some of the work we want to do in wetlands. Harberts: And didn't we as a...community exceed those and am I mixing this up with something else? , Desotelle: Well our ordinance basically allows us to go into some of these "lower functioning wetlands" but how the city defines them. However, the state and the federal system do not allow you to do that. If our ordinance was more conservative, it wouldn't be a problem. But we aren't as conservative so we still have to follow their guidelines and that's... I'm dealing with. Some of the issues that the state and federal government is dealing with and they're going to be dealing with extensively in the next couple years. There's other cities bringing plans forward and growing urban communities. This idea of functioning wetland and what is considered a high or a low quality and when can you use a wetland for water quality purposes so that you can maintain the higher functioning wetland for habitat and other types of natural resources that are important. 41 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Harberts: That's probably the extent of my comments. The only thing I find is when we talk about these NURP ponds and everything. How they're supposed to catch all the sediment and runoff and this is all the stuff that's supposed to be settling at the bottom. You know, what if in 20 to 40 years ... stuff at the bottom. Aanenson: That's why we didn't want a lot of little ponds. We wanted to... ' Harberts: But couldn't that be considered hazardous waste? Desotelle: ...and so far from what I've learned is the tests that have been done on this, say ' it's not. They don't have the heavy metals and things... Maybe some of the areas where you're real close by an existing highway or... i Harberts: So it is the city's responsibility for clean up? Scott: Well yeah. Desotelle: Part of the plan is for us to maintain the storm water. Harberts: That's it. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: I would echo Ladd's comments in terms of the document itself. It's a tremendous effort. 2 to 3 year effort by the SWMP committee and many, many hours and the implementation part of it is extremely important and we have to make sure that we find ways of making the types of improvements we want to with the wetland areas and getting those projects going. That's certainly important.. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: No new comments. I'm just very impressed by the work that's been done. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I'll echo those comments. I'd support the recommendation. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Scott: Good, motion please. Conrad: Yeah, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Surface Water Management Plan. Harberts: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the motion be voted on as so stated. Is there any I discussion? Mancino: I third it. I Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Surface Water Management Plan as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: , AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Public Present: Name Address Al & Shirley Seeley 586 West 78th Street ' Clem Springer 1550 E 79th Street, Bloomington Roxanne Gregory 7091 Redman Lane Wanda Biteler 910 Penamint Court , Randy H. Herman 2792 Piper Ridge Lane Paul Karlson 7888 Market Blvd. Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota Avenue , Tom Lukes 400 West 78th Street Bernie Hanson 7890 Market Blvd. Dave Colehour 7886 Market Blvd. Debbie Stacionis 7880 Market Blvd. Robert M. Murray 7900 Market Blvd. ' Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay Kevin P. McShane 180 South Shore Court Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle 43 L II I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Maybe what we can do is field some comments and then have a public hearing and then I'll make a few comments prior to the public hearing, so. Nutting: Kate, what's your, the first on page one of the Chamber's comments and recommendations. Actually it's page one. The first recommendation where they propose revising the variance, Section 20 -1253. What is staff's? Aanenson: That's in place right now in the ordinance. You have a right to appeal for a variance. What page are you on? Nutting: It's comment number one. It's 5 pages back from the start. Where they're referring to the hardship terminology. Is that standard terminology? Aanenson: That's in the code right now. It's standard legal language. Again, I'm not sure... Nutting: That's consistent with all? Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: Kate probably, and I'd like to have the other commissioners give us some feedback on this but I'm thinking, perhaps what might be important for all of us here is that if there are sections in the comments and recommendations that are already contained or there are already vehicles for example, this is a good example. The first one. That there already is a variance vehicle to take care of this so we can limit the discussion at the public hearing to items that are not currently covered. And I think there also might be some misconceptions as to whether window signs are permitted or not. Because I read Mr. Burdick's letter reacting to window signs being prohibited and that's true with the existing ordinance but it is not true with the ordinance as proposed. So what we'll try to do for all of you is try to identify things that may have been misconstrued so that if you're here for that particular part of the issue, if you have a second issue that you want to talk about, great. But we want to hear all your comments but I think if we can maybe knock a few of them off before the public hearing, we'll try to do that. Harberts: Joe, because staff didn't have an opportunity to really review this and I don't know if it's fair to put Kate on the spot like this. Wouldn't it be advantageous to first let staff have an opportunity to maybe dissect it a little bit and maybe do some of that analysis. Maybe see where some of those points of contention are. Those points that are similar. Otherwise I'm afraid, you know what are we trying to do with this when staff hasn't really looked at it to 44 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 maybe compare it what's already out there or whatever. Scott: Well we have a public hearing. , Harberts: Right, but this is, I just don't want to see Kate put on the spot. I think the comments are good but I'm just wondering if we might want to be careful so we don't try and put staff into a corner here because they haven't really had an opportunity to look at it. I think the comments are good to take but I just don't want to put Kate on the spot here in ' terms of how is this interpreted given what we already have or, that's just my comments. Scott: Yeah, I think I'd just leave it up to you. If you can respond to certain things. I Aanenson: ...there are a lot of issues in here and maybe decide what the philosophy and some of the broader issues are. I'll go through the things that are just as an overview. ...to ' start over. Well first I think the ordinance we have in place is pretty darn good and if we want to leave that one in place, that's fine. I think we were talking about getting some, again the Highway 5 issue. Architectural compatibility which ... I frankly would recommend starting over ... we put some flexibility in here. One of the other big issues was no regulation of temporary signs and I think philosophically staff opposed to that... We do support the fact that there is appropriate locations and use of window signs and ... we do support that. One of r the other issues is location of signs for real estate ... as far as setback and number and intent. You know having additional signs for other, people that finance the project. People that , design the project and we've always felt like that should all be on one sign and given enough square footage to... And another issue that was raised... completed leased and/or completely sold out and sometimes that takes years and years and years. Meanwhile the sign ... Again, our ' current ordinance does address that. We didn't change that at all really and I think the existing ordinance ... and that decision will be allowed when we build that ... Again, there's a recommendation...commercial for turn about on Highway 7. Should they allow a pylon sign. ' Only the commercial can have ... are not allowed a monument sign anyway. I guess some other issues as far as legal non - conforming signs, that's currently addressed in the code. If we have any legal non - conforming signs, you can change the copy but you can't change the sign itself as far as the structural changes. If you're going to change the copy, that's acceptable. That's already existing in the code... The next question about allowing...we don't allow anything like that in that currently. I mentioned the request for a temporary signs. We , don't support that. Again, there was a concern about the formula that staff has. This is one of the bigger changes is the relationship between heights of building, percentage of wall sign and scale of the sign. What we did to change in this ordinance to try to make the size of the ' sign have a proportional relationship to the size of the building, which is not ... now and that is a standard change and there is some concern that that would be too restrictive. Staff supports what we have in here in this document as far as recommendations. There are a couple of ' 45 1 �I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 points that were raised. There are some... They asked that signs closer than 200 feet, that maybe 100 feet. Farmakes: Where are you looking Kate? Aanenson: On page 1. The first page. Under change (d) to read closer than 100 feet from residential and... That may be acceptable. Another one, as I said, you can't have a sign facing a residential area. That's... completely facing residential... some areas you can see Byerly's from the townhouses behind. That may be too restrictive in certain areas. We can look at this ... I'm sorry, I have a lot of notes in here but those are just some of the—so just some overview thoughts. Scott: Comments, questions from commissioners. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Please step forward. Identify yourself, name and address and if you could, if you feel similarly to someone who has spoken before you, please state that if you like. No one's allowed to use the word reiterate but please stick to specific issues. And as best you can, try to keep track of what's already been discussed because this is a very important session for all of us and we want to make sure we get your comments. My sense is, and please correct me. We expect a tremendous amount of input. We may need to continue this to another meeting to have staff time to react to your specific comments, which the way I, speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission, appreciate what you've done. Typically in public hearings on occasion, we have members of the public who are not as well prepared and it's very difficult for us to try to juggle all the information so thank you in advance for that. Who'd like to go first? Kevin McShane: Good evening. My name is Kevin McShane. I reside at 180 South Shore Court in Chanhassen. I'm also involved in businesses in town with the State Bank of Chanhassen. And I'm also currently the President of the Chamber of Commerce for this year. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Thank you for the opportunity to visit about this tonight. We did, as a chamber, spend a lot of time and effort with a variety of people putting together these comments. To go back to Kate's comments, I was one of the chamber members involved in the original subcommittee that reviewed this. The two people who were involved were retailers, myself and Gene Borg with McDonald's in town. This obviously encompasses a lot of other businesses, developers, commercial people, industrial park type folks and certainly we're going to hear some comments from some of those tonight. My -1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 comments are more general from the standpoint that I do believe that there needs to be some additional work on this and possibly a way to approach this is to get a subcommittee of sorts of the commission and business people to really work through a lot of these issues. There has been a variety of drafts done on this. I've been looking at it for 2 1/2 years. There was a period of time where not a lot happened on it and other people looked at it so the original ' group was somewhat resurrected about March of this year and between the time, the last draft we saw as Chamber members and so about March of this year, other groups had seen it and there had been changes. And each time there's a change, people need to be able to react to it ' and hopefully we're to the point now that we can narrow in on it and talk about the specific issues. There are some comments in here that relate to the existing ordinance. I think as we went through, at least my version of it is not only look at the existing ordinance in terms of ' some of the specific changes but if there are other things in there that people wanted to comment on, that was the way it was approached. The people that were involved, Chamber and non - Chamber members but basically business people in town, did take the approach that they wanted to do this in concert with everyone. You know we don't necessarily want to stand at a public hearing and hash through every issue and so therefore I think it may make sense to get some rooms together and do some more work on it. There are a number of ' people here tonight who have spent time on it. Would like to comment on specific things and we'd like them to have the opportunity to do that. I think the key is, as a business person, signing is a form of advertising and a form of marketing and those are some of the most key things in your business that you do. You can do a lot of background things. But really to let the public know who you are, where you are and get an identity, is what marketing and advertising is all about. Signing, with the amount of money spent. I know our , sign, I tried to find the exact numbers. I think it was in the neighborhood of $25,000.00 for a moving sign. It gets to be a significant investment on the part of a business. And you spend a lot of time and effort maintaining that. I think we're all aware of bad signage and good ' signage and certainly we can all come up with examples of that. I think the intent of the current business committee is to, as they've upgraded businesses, we've seen a lot of redevelopment. People have not used their old signs. They've spent money on new ones. I ' mean that was important to their business and I think the spirit of the business community is evident in what we see on main street today. And in the industrial parks, etc. So I would encourage this group to set aside some time and really go through each one of these issues ' because they're important to all kinds of people in this room. With that I'd like to turn it over to some of the other folks that have specific comments about specific areas in the proposal. Scott: Good, thank you. Kevin McShane: Thanks. 47 1 -1 fl d L� Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Dan Herbst: Good evening. Chairman, members of Planning Commission. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen and I'm coming to you from three perspectives tonight. I served as a member of the Planning Commission and Chairman back when one of the first sign ordinances were proposed and I know what it's like to be screamed at in a room like this that I was anti business and I know what it's like to be screamed at other places worse things but I know what you're going through. It can be a contentious issue. I also have been in the land development, housing business. I have a company called Pemtom which has been in the housing land development business since 1963 and I'd like to just touch on the perspective of some specific information we have given to staff and included in your information. Thirdly, I also own Cheers Wine and Spirits in town and I want to just briefly talk about the impact of this sign ordinance on that business. From a historical perspective, I think you know, I mentioned on previous occasions to some of you that we were the commission who drafted the land use plan and ordinances when nothing was going on out here. We were actually encouraging businesses and you're looking at a whole wave of activity. I think you find it very threatening but I think the important thing is to look at what other cities have experienced. Right now we're meeting as a core city task force with the Mayor of Minneapolis, Mayor of St.Paul to look at how do to remove barriers for businesses and housing. So I think it's important that you don't turn the screws too tight not only in the sign ordinances but other ordinances as you're proceeding through this process. Even cities such as Edina have problems with 50th and France. They had to look at all their ordinances. Bloomington out at 98th and Lyndale. Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park. So many times you're flooded with an onset of development activity and signage is one of them and you tend to make ordinances tighter and tighter and tighter and all of a sudden businesses are failing and going other places and you've got to go back and relook at it. So it's a very costly process. And you've got to go through TIF and things like that to bring businesses back or relook at your ordinance so I think if you err on anything, you ought to err on the side of being more liberal instead of being conservative and tightening the ordinance up. From the land development perspective and the housing. I guess I'd ask you to think about when you first purchased your own home out probably in Chanhassen. Signage is extremely important. Study after study that we've done, you think people come to you because you're Pemtom or you're Lundgren or whatever the case may be but basically people get in their cars and they drive on a Saturday and Sunday and they start looking for housing in the area that they think they may want to live. And directional signs, model home signs, are very, very important. Parade of Home signs are very important. Weekend signs. You don't see builders, realtors climbing out in 20 below weather sticking out signs on the corner because they want to do it. It's not a fun activity but if you sat in a model home and didn't have signage up, you would realize how important it is. So we have given some language that's been adopted recently by Eden Prairie and by Burnsville and it's incorporated in our comments that Kate has and if we could have that same perspective on the weekend signs going up at the set time when we put in our comments. The Parade of Home signs. That 48 I� Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 11 I� would be extremely helpful because it's not only helpful to the business person. It's extremely important to the consumer. Thirdly, and I don't know the pylon sign. I would not have leased the space I have without the pylon sign. It's very, very important. The window ' signage, you know no one probably dislikes it more than I do. I don't even like to pull up in front of my business but it's a business where from the Liquor Control Commission, you are not allowed to advertise price in the newspaper. You cannot put anything in these valpacks. ' And your ability to advertise wines and liquors are extremely, extremely limited. That's why you see so much going on in windows and that's the only way consumers are going to be ' able to compare. I think one of the key elements we brought to town when we opened up Cheers was that we added a strong element of competitiveness to retail part of wines and spirits. But signage is very, very important to us and it's the only way we could basically ' advertise what's going on inside that store. So I know the existing ordinance or one of the drafts had no window signs. Now it's 33 %. As far as this particular store that I have now, the whole store is windows so it's not going to impact us. There's probably a number of people here that 33% is not going to be enough to help them communicate their business so I again, I'd like to also repeat what Kevin said. If a couple of our committee, a couple of the Planning Commission and also someone from staff could get together and fine tune this thing , and bring it back, I think it would be much more beneficial than not. There's a lot of people very upset going all the way up to Council and having the process work very contentious and then having a system where you have a lot of signs that are not in keeping with the ordinance ' and it's really impossible to go out there and picking up and taking down signs and sending people letters and all that kind of stuff so I think again, it's better I think if you err on the side of leaving the sign ordinance as little as possible. Let the people who advertise their ' business for ... Thank you very much. Scott: Thanks Dan. Vernelle Clayton: My name is Vernelle Clayton and I know I can't say reiterate but... Scott: Also. And I agree with. Just don't say reiterate. Vernelle Clayton: I participated in a number of the meetings that were held by the group comprised of the Chamber committee that it was sort of a revolving door. We had some people at some meetings and others at others and there were some... Therefore we had a ' variety of input but there were some things that—rang through all of them. One of the ones that hasn't been discussed here, one of the points that hasn't been discussed by the various speakers is one that I'll touch on first and then I'll just be very brief after that... And that is the language relating to a violation becoming a misdemeanor. I think while you have heard that most people... window signs and certainly they are, I think that this sends a very negative image and ... formulate a response that goes kind of like with this. We have a cooperate spirit. I 49 1 11 I'] r Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 They would like a cooperate spirit and they don't need to be presumed to be a person that would directly or a person affected by signs but a lot of people... These are our neighbors, our friends, the people that we shop with and work with and to think that the city needs to create a situation where every day they have something out that strong, it's a misdemeanor is kind of the message I don't think you want to send. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? Any violation of the city code, anything in the city code, anybody notified, violation... Vernelle Clayton: This was new language that was added. Aanenson: Well anything, if you're cited for a violation of the code is a Class B misdemeanor. Mancino: So that's just clarifying. Aanenson: It's just, we pulled it into that section of the code but any violation. If we send somebody—get a permit, then we send a notice they didn't comply and we would have the right to, normally our procedure is we send them a letter then we send a follow up letter saying you've got x number of days and then if we don't get compliance, we turn it over to the City Attorney. And yes, ultimately that could be ... Class B misdemeanor but that is any ordinance. Vemelle Clayton: Is each day added for this, per this ordinance... Aanenson: Yes. It's applied city wide. If you're in violation ... that that could happen. Vernelle Clayton: So that's even. Well let me say that. If it's possible that...misdemeanor could be deleted from this section of the ordinance if we'd like that. If it's possible. If not, the for each day, we certainly would like that. Aanenson: Well we could take it out of that section of the code but it's still in the city ordinance. I think we put it in there so everybody's on notice. It's in the code. At the beginning of almost all the city ordinances in the city code book. Vemelle Clayton: You know the attitude that I just expressed the attitude that the group expressed and so you can. Aanenson: I don't think ... normally the procedure is to send a letter and we usually get cooperation... 50 Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else? You don't need an invitation. You can just come ' up. Would anybody else like to speak? Clem Springer: Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Clem Springer. I manage the Town Square. My address is 1550 East 79th Street in Bloomington. I support in general the comments and recommendations that have been made by the Chamber. I had an opportunity to read those just recently. I was planning on making some specific comments , 51 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Vernelle Clayton: And that's the point. The point is that our solution was that the ordinance should be the type of ordinance that represents a cooperative, friendly and helpful attitude for ' the businesses. I think unless it is so restrictive, there is probably not much change that you can continue with that type of measures to enforce it. And that was our point. I would like to address perhaps the way the planning ... a bit because most of the folks that I work with on , a daily basis are merchants who are affected by the window signage. And I would also like to say I think if we can, I can parallel my experience perhaps with your's in that we work in bringing plans of building to completion. We have beautiful plans in multi color, chalk and , photo and so forth and we've conjured up a mental image of what this project is going to look like when it's done. So do you. You approve a building that has x number of square feet and the windows are here and ... and so forth and ... beautiful building. And then it's built ' and people move in. At that point it's no longer mine. It's no longer your's. Now we've turned it over to other folks who have another idea. Another use. And they put it to use, in this case, ...for it's intended use which is retail. The windows are used to display , merchandise. In some cases they put up signs that are very important to them. I might not like it. There are several signs around town personally that I don't like. But it's none of my business. It's a little bit of my business since I have something to do with managing Market Square but only to the extent that something that any individual tenant might do that would be detrimental to the overall impact or image of the entire shopping center and not harmful to some of the other tenants and their reputation. These folks, this is their livelihood... but as taxpayers in Chanhassen, we certainly depend on them to make sure that each of our individual taxes on our individual homes are not as high as they would if we didn't have retail and industrial community. And we're I guess, I'm speaking about messages. I'm , speaking about letting go. I'm speaking about letting the merchants make some of their own decisions on what kind of image that they want. It might not be my image. It's their image. If they feel it's tacky, they'll go out of business. That's ... run through several times in our meetings. That maybe these guys should be making their own decisions. If they have a tacky shop, they'll probably be out of business. So to summarize, I'd encourage you to keep ' it simple and practical. Keep a proper attitude and yet we did address sections of the ordinance that have not been as a body of the report. So it was intentional. There weren't any reference to making some changes in the area that we thought needed to be changed. Or ' had been in... Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else? You don't need an invitation. You can just come ' up. Would anybody else like to speak? Clem Springer: Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Clem Springer. I manage the Town Square. My address is 1550 East 79th Street in Bloomington. I support in general the comments and recommendations that have been made by the Chamber. I had an opportunity to read those just recently. I was planning on making some specific comments , 51 1 rj u Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 about the ordinance but to start that I don't have the current one. The one I was sent was dated back in May and I've not been receiving anything later since that time. Again, I'm most concerned about the interior sign controls. I think this goes beyond the public safety and welfare that's usually the reason for a city being involved in sign ordinances. And I think there's been an over reaction in part to some existing problems in this city. I've managed property here for 6 years and I've felt, as one of the new people in town, that I'm being restricted in ways that existing people are not being restricted in terms of the kind of signage that they have. I was told for example when I came to town that I could not put a sign on my shopping center for rent if I didn't have at least 20% vacancy. I see signs other places in the community that have been up for 6 years saying they're for rent and that kind of bothers me that uneven enforcement I think of some of the ordinances today and I think that if some way was found to bring up the code enforcement on the ones that are there today, that you'd probably be less concerned about what's going to be done in the future. That you'd probably find that you rid yourself of a number of problems. I see pylon signs for example on TH 5 that advertise off site premises. I see signs that welcome us to Chanhassen as we come. And I think those kind of signs have to be taken into consideration in your ordinance and make sure that what applies to the public also applies to some of the things that the city is involved with. I thing the main thing that's being stressed is that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in the context of what's economically reasonable for the business people as well as what gives you the kind of impact an aesthetics that you want in your city but I think you have to have advertising, marketing of the businesses to be able to have them successful and pay some pretty high taxes. The center that I have here in Chanhassen has the higher tax rate of all the centers that I've managed. More than 50% more than the other centers and that imposes quite a burden on the retailers. Thank you for your time. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm with Lotus Realty. I guess my only real concern about this, and other things that have been going on within the city is that we've brought 40 businesses to the community and along with Clem and others, are concerned about their survival. And I have been in business a long time and normally when you change an ordinance you first of all state your mission and I don't really care how you personally feel but I think for your own comments, if you're going to comment, so I want to know if you're pro business or anti business. Because I perceive the documents that I've seen so far on this are anti business. And that's why you have these people here. That's why they've probably spent 100 hours on this particular thing and I really don't care. If you feel that you're anti business, you're not concerned about the people in the community that pay 5 times the taxes you pay as a homeowner. The people that really are here putting out their life, that's fine. I want to hear that because I think that's the key issue here. The issue is, if you look at Guys 52 !1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 and Dolls, how do you like their sign? It looks pretty good right now. Herb has put a lot of money into that facility without your asking to change the look of that particular building. Over the last, and the signs are being changed. All our buildings that we have built have gone along with what the city has. Aanenson: I'm sorry but I have to comment on that Brad. That took a lot of work, since I've been with the city, to get some regeneration of those signs that are up there. We got in a big dispute with ... where we were very offended with their coming to the city and we wouldn't let them have the sign they wanted so. Brad Johnson: I'm not disagreeing with you but I think. Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with your comments you know but I just want to make sure that it's clear that we worked very hard to try to get those signs changed. Brad Johnson: I'm not, I'm just saying that the signage in the community since I was here for the last 7 or 8 years has changed dramatically. Each new building that we have come, we have met your requirements. We've agreed on signs and I think we're getting there but I think the bottom line is that you have to decide if you're pro business. Are we encouraging businesses. We compete with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka and other communities. And these people have to survive. That's all my feelings are and I'd like to hear, as you comment on this, the first step I want to hear from each of you is are you pro business or anti business. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments? Debbie Stacionis: Hi. I'm Debbie Stacionis and I guess I apologize for not, I haven't seen the latest proposal. I just have a question and some clarification on the signage. What, as far as how much of windows can be covered or has that been...? Harberts: I think the question is, has it been proposed. Aanenson: What we're recommending, it's 33% but then also there was a cap put on there based on the fact that we capped your wall signs so what we decided is that you went to 33% the area of a window sign. So you have interpreted it as a total window area for that space of the building and ... total window sign area exceeded the wall sign area ... so there's a formula for that and... Debbie Stacionis: So 33 %... 53 Ll 0 Ll Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Aanenson: There's a caveat with it total wall sign... Debbie Stacionis: Well okay, I guess my question is. Aanenson: I have to know the size of the front of your building. I guess I can't answer that completely. Debbie Stacionis: My question is, are you looking at the total sign? I'm thinking of my sign in particular which are very large however if you're going to consider only the neon and consider the area of the neon, it would not be so I guess I'm trying to figure out where I stand. You know what I'm saying. It's not a solid sign. So how is that going to be interpreted? t Aanenson: The way it's interpreted is we take the outside area and that would be the square footage. Debbie Stacionis: Even though the square is empty. Aanenson: So maybe that needs to be an area that might need some clarification. Neon versus. Debbie Stacionis: And how did ... that certain percentage? How did the 33 %? Aanenson: Surveying other communities and through the work that the Planning Commission discussed it and that was their recommendation. Debbie Stacionis: Thank you. Scott: Good. Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Scott: Just a question. Do you have, I'm trying to think if whether it would be appropriate to continue this particular issue to the next meeting to give, do you feel that staff needs time to digest some of these comments? Aanenson: Well I guess I'd like to hear some of your comments... give me some direction. Scott: Okay. 54 E Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Harberts: I'll start. Scott: Oh, okay. ' Harberts: I would recommend that Kevin's comment earlier about the partnership and ' addressing this issue, with the importance that it has on the community's vitality, both in terms of the look as well as the survival of businesses ... I would certainly encourage that they continue with a round table discussion made up of staff, commission members, chamber ' members, the business community. And just come to, try and come to an understanding or agreement or compromise or whatever that everyone feels is a win/win situation. That's my comments. I do not feel comfortable with moving this on and I think it's very important that ' we take into consideration the comments from the people that this is most affecting. Given the amount of work and interest that they have portrayed here. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: I would echo Diane's comments. One I think, I'm real impressed with the ' Chamber. I told some members this already. I really appreciate the involvement. I think it's significant. It's obviously not in line with what the proposal was but I think that's good just to have their involvement in a real organized way. But my recommendation, there are so , many. I have my own issues and I see some issues that I think need some time to take a look at and sync it up with our ordinance or kick it out but I think that's sort of, that's a work session. And I've been trying to think of the formulation for that work session. How , does that work? Is that a little committee? Is that a Planning Commission work session? And I'm not totally sure but yet I might, I would propose that we get two chamber members, two Planning Commission members, staff and maybe somebody at large. Maybe somebody , from the public community that we could bring in that might be a little bit non - biased. Might reflect some community thoughts. And see what that work session could turn out. I don't ' know that there's going to be agreement in that. But on the other hand, I think we could probably get rid of some of the issues in that work session and come back with, to staff or come back to the Planning Commission with something that's closer. ' Harberts: I would just also comment that I think the ordinance that staff has drafted or framed is also good. So it's just in a sense finding that balance between what the city's , trying to be guided as and what the business community needs to meet their concerns. So I think, you know I'd have to also endorse the efforts by staff. Conrad: I think it's interesting to see reality. What you're seeing is an ordinance that might be drafted in nice philosophy but now we're seeing it tested in real situations and maybe we can learn some things. So again, I do believe we need, there's no way we're going to be fair , 55 1 fl I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 ' if we try to go through this point by point tonight. I think it does need some more work. ' Scott: Good. Matt. Ledvina: I would agree with Ladd and Diane. But as far as a work committee, I think that's a good idea. I don't know the exact formula for that but I would be receptive to seeing the whole Planning Commission involved since it's really at our, it's our responsibility as a ' whole group. You know to take it from this point and bring it to the Council. Or forward it to the Council with the changes. The necessary changes so I don't know. t Ll F L Conrad: That'd be alright. I think. Nutting: A Planning Commission work session and in support of that in that small group maybe more, put all the commissioners into that, either way. Farmakes: All of the work sessions were attended by Chamber representatives. All the work sessions that I've attended had a Chamber representative sitting in observation anyways. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I support the comments made already. I guess I'll leave my other comments to later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I think this needs more work. There are several areas that could be discussed in a work session. I think it's good to get it out in front of the group that's concerned about it. Find out where interests are and where reality is, as Ladd has said. However, I do want to make a comment. I don't think the issue is pro business or anti business. I think the issue is pro community. And that's why I'm here. Why I'm volunteering my time. These issues of signage are really can be quite overt and they can be very subtle. They create the flavor of a community and it's not always based on the dollar. Some of you who go to Wisconsin Dells, where it's essentially wide open competition. Every signage basically can be put up and you get a prolifery of tacky signage. It's left up to the individual, the store manager. The process that we have here is not to leave government up to the store manager. It's a process of comment. Process of community involvement. And it's a process of the professional staff and advice. And I think it works best when we work together to sell this property. Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion please? Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Harberts: I would move that the Planning Commission table the sign ordinance and that staff work to develop this type of task force or sign commission work session, whatever is ' appropriate. I think the Chamber's certainly been a real key player so I would support the comments made by Ladd with regard to make up. Scott: What is our schedule look like as far as work sessions coming up? Because I think it , would be advantageous if we could schedule that while these folks are here. Audience: Are you inviting our comments at that work session? Scott: Yeah. I Audience: I mean are you asking that we be vocally involved? Scott: That's correct. Just like I know you and Kevin came to one of the work sessions and ' that's basically what it is. It's not necessarily a published public hearing but it's more of an informal, and this is very formal and I think for something like this, there'd be more ' interplay. Anybody who wants to come is able to come. Audience: I think we were just under the impression that we've been allowed to sit in on a ' work session but we weren't allowed to make comments. Aanenson: That's not true. We've asked for your comments and been waiting and waiting ' and waiting. Scott: But perhaps that wasn't obvious and that's, as the Chairperson, that's partially my ' fault but. Audience: So we can join in at a work session? , Scott: Absolutely. ' Audience: Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Scott: Yeah, okay. ' Aanenson: That's why we invited you up to the table... ' Audience: Oh, see I was really under the impression, and I think we all were, that it was kind of a you could be seen but not heard. That this was a work meeting for you guys , 57 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 where, with a lot of community involvement it was really going to just become a public hearing without notice. So we were under the impression that we weren't allowed to make comments or put input in until this stage and I think that's the impetus to asking for real direct dialogue between, so instead of just having something on paper, we can say this is why we're looking at it from this angle. So I guess there's been. Harberts: I don't know and I don't know if a work session is the right environment or if it's just a task force in terms of the interested. Scott: I don't really care what it's called. Let's schedule it. Harberts: No, I don't either. ' Aanenson: When you start breaking it down, to have some people that don't understand the rationale as to how we got to where we are and I agree with, I think Matt's right on. If you don't take everybody on board to understand the rationale, why we have the ordinance we do, we're back trying to educate the rest of you as to why we're ... so I appreciate Matt's comments. I think we all need to be there to be brought along. And the same with the Chamber. Now you have to recognize that there's competing interests out there and if you ' take the narrow focus of your spokespeople, you've got to make sure those people who have different interests than the people that are leading it, that they're attracting... too. Scott: Well if I can suggest. I mean it was the way it was handled today, I think worked really well. I mean the President of the Chamber of Commerce, who is also a business. We had retail. We had developers. We had mall managers so I think amongst yourselves you can probably identify, get the broad brush and maybe we're talking half a dozen people. I'm not going to tell you want to do but I think you can figure it out. But how does the schedule look and I would think like a 5:30, couple hours before one. Next time? Is that okay, August 3rd? You're all invited. So it will be 5:30, Wednesday. August 3rd and then what we'll do is we'll give it 2 hours and if we're not where we want to be, we'll be doing that on the 17th. And probably figure within this kind of focused effort, 4 hours we should probably be able to at least get it to the point where we can bring it back to another public hearing and possibly resolve it so. Great. And there's a motion that has not been seconded. So can I have a second please. Ledvina: I'll second that. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance for further study. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Mancino who had left the meeting, and 58 t Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 1 Aanenson: We've got a lot of things to talk about. They approved the second reading of the Highway 5 overlay zone so it's just a matter of publishing. We have a Highway 5 ... overlay district itself. The approval of the Marcus Corporation, the Kindercare request was approved subject to a letter from Councilman Senn indicating that he has no financial interest in the , project. Scott: Can I ask you a question about that? I talked with Roger a little bit about it and that document was going to be put together, or maybe has been put together by staff. Because I was reading. Aanenson: I believe Roger was preparing that. ' Scott: Yeah, see I read in the paper that Roger was going to do it. And then so I gave him a ' call and he said, what? And then I wasn't trying to, you know I thought that was, I mean I read the thing and I went wow, this is kind of interesting. So he went, oh wait a minute. And I said well geez, you know I didn't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thing but I ' said if you're going to talk to staff shortly, you might want to, because that needs to get done. That needs to get resolved. Aanenson: It will be on the... Mission Hills, Tandem Properties was given preliminary plat ' P g P az3' P approval. I told you that they did modify the park area. The issue that the Planning ' Commission raised. I give Todd Hoffman a lot of credit because he really went to bat on that project and took a lot of heat and I think we're going to have a lot better quality project based on areas what you talked about and ... did a great job there. The Oaks at Minnewashta ' was given preliminary plat approval. That's the one on Kings Road with the park. Just for your information, the residents south of Kings Road have asked that an EAW be done. They're concerned with the wetlands. Mitigation... ' Nutting: What happens to that request? Aanenson: It goes right to the EQB. They have a number of days to decide who the , RGU ... back to us and then when it goes to the City Council, we can go through the issues that they bring and whether or not we support. Whether or not it should have an EAW. I 59 1 the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of ' the Planning Commission meeting dated July 6, 1994 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: We've got a lot of things to talk about. They approved the second reading of the Highway 5 overlay zone so it's just a matter of publishing. We have a Highway 5 ... overlay district itself. The approval of the Marcus Corporation, the Kindercare request was approved subject to a letter from Councilman Senn indicating that he has no financial interest in the , project. Scott: Can I ask you a question about that? I talked with Roger a little bit about it and that document was going to be put together, or maybe has been put together by staff. Because I was reading. Aanenson: I believe Roger was preparing that. ' Scott: Yeah, see I read in the paper that Roger was going to do it. And then so I gave him a ' call and he said, what? And then I wasn't trying to, you know I thought that was, I mean I read the thing and I went wow, this is kind of interesting. So he went, oh wait a minute. And I said well geez, you know I didn't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thing but I ' said if you're going to talk to staff shortly, you might want to, because that needs to get done. That needs to get resolved. Aanenson: It will be on the... Mission Hills, Tandem Properties was given preliminary plat ' P g P az3' P approval. I told you that they did modify the park area. The issue that the Planning ' Commission raised. I give Todd Hoffman a lot of credit because he really went to bat on that project and took a lot of heat and I think we're going to have a lot better quality project based on areas what you talked about and ... did a great job there. The Oaks at Minnewashta ' was given preliminary plat approval. That's the one on Kings Road with the park. Just for your information, the residents south of Kings Road have asked that an EAW be done. They're concerned with the wetlands. Mitigation... ' Nutting: What happens to that request? Aanenson: It goes right to the EQB. They have a number of days to decide who the , RGU ... back to us and then when it goes to the City Council, we can go through the issues that they bring and whether or not we support. Whether or not it should have an EAW. I 59 1 I J 1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes. The applicant wasn't there. He indicated that he didn't get a copy of the packet in time ... so that will be on City Council on Monday. The City Council did amend the CBD zone to allow for the schools. They did the first and second reading based on the fact that they're not going to have more than 3 people at the meeting. For a code amendment they need 4 people so they did that. The telephone switching was given approval and the first reading for the accessory structure was also given approval. The next agenda will be light on the Council because they will only have 3 people there. anything that needs a code amendment, which is the shoreland regs, we couldn't put on. We need 4/5 on that. The next Planning Commission meetings, we have a couple of subdivisions on there. We just came in with the rest of the, or two of the outlots on the Target so you'll be seeing that on your August 18th meeting. The Perkins and the Taco Bell. And going to HRA tomorrow night is conceptual design—entry monuments if you're interested in that.. ' Scott: Okay, good. Aanenson: Oh, and I just wanted to say. We did hire somebody. A Planner I. He'll be ' starting on August 1st and we're real excited. His main primary responsibility will be code enforcement and. i 1 Scott: That's a first, isn't it? Aanenson: Well when I was asked, part of being Planning Director, that was one area that... Scott: Yeah, if we're going to make them up. Good. We don't really have any ongoing items do we? Aanenson: I need to put something in the packet. We have a list of ongoing items but I can knock a lot of those off so I'll put that in next time. I've just been so busy that I haven't been able to do that but we've got the Highway 5 stuff done. We're ... the shoreland got done, so we're really... Oh some other good news. We've been approved for the underpass. On Highway we put in on some ISTEA money that we got ... Bluff Creek and we just found we did get approval for that so when we build that segment of road next year, we'll have the underpass. Scott: That's great, and that's Bluff Creek? Aanenson: Yeah, the south frontage road... Scott: Okay, I guess the next item is open discussion but I hear briefcases so hopefully we won't. .1 t Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 t I Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 1 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim Al it 1