1j. Minutes I
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 1991
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, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Jo Ann Olsen, Charles Folch, Todd
Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendation:
e. Approval of Bills.
' f. City Council Minutes dated March 11, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 6, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 12, 1991
g. South Lotus Lake Boat Access Site and Drainage Study, Accept Plans and
Authorize Advertising for Bids.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM THE CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION CLUB FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.
' Mayor Chmiel: I'll take item 1(a) real quickly. This is accepting donations
from Chanhassen American Legion Club for the Public Safety Department and Fire
Department. There's only one other thing that I asked staff this afternoon is
regarding the smoke alarms to be distributed to needy residents. I've got some
real concerns over people in our community who are deaf and asked if they could
check into that to see what's available for those people. Either a flasher or
what else. Whatever kinds of implements we can use. But other than that,
' that's the only thing I wanted to bring up. So I will move item 1(a). Is there
a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Since you pulled it I just wanted to make a comment and
that was to congratulate the Legion and also thank them for their generosity to
our Public Safety Department and to the Fire Department over the years. I
second it.
11
1
1 .
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept donations from the
Chanhassen American Legion Club for the Public Safety Department and Fire
Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR HNTB, AUDUBON ROAD SOUTH PROJECT 89-18.
Councilwoman Dimler: Item (c) is to approve a contract amendment for HNTB,
Audubon Road South Project 89-18. I pulled this one because several'weeks ago I
also pulled the approval of the accounts for BRW because I didn't have a
detailed explanation as to what we were approving but I do want to thank BRW
that they did send that information in. I guess this is a similar case to me
that this engineering firm is increasing it's fees by more than $22,000.00
' simply because of a late construction start. That's the only reason that I
could find and I would really like to know what we're getting for those
$22,000.00. I guess if it were the developer asking for it I could understand
maybe an increase in material and labors but a consultant inspection fee, I
' think that's a little bit high and I'd like to see a detailed accounting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree. I also wanted to pull this one. Same questions
' that you're asking as well. One of the things I had an opportunity to talk to
Charles this afternoon regarding this. It looks like it's about 30% over the
estimate and I'd like to make a motion that we table this and get some
information back regarding this specific item.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Don Ashworth: Clarification.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry. Is that, what you're saying is you're approving the
Accounts Payable but deleting that one item for further information?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: Okay.
Councilman Workman: And I guess I always get a little nervous too when, back up
and see. One of the last sentences on the second page. As will be recalled,
' this project is primarily funded out of Tax Increment Financing, District No 2-1
proceeds and we anticipate no increase in the assessment portion of this
project. It would appear as though it kind of qualified the increases that way
as it 's kind of funny money or magic money or whatever and that because it's
coming out of tax increment. Big deal because it's a big pool. Maybe that's
not the way. It just seems to me that if there were increased in assessments,
we'd all be really nervous about the whole thing and because it's tax increment,
I don't want us to think that it's not.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. We have a motion on the floor with a second.
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table approval of Contract
Amendment No. 1 for HNTB, Audubon Road South Project 89-18. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
2
i
I
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
D. APPROVE 1991 LIQUOR LICENSES.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled item (d) which is the 1991 Liquor License
approval. I met with Scott today and we had a discussion about, and I thought
that it would be good to suggest that a small percentage of these liquor license
fees go to the Public Safety Department for enforcement of Minnesota Statutes
that prohibit illegal sales of liquor to minors and I think that percentage can
be determined in our budget process. I don't know what it should be but you
know just enough to enforce it. We have something similar that we passed here
with the tobacco license people that the fee would be applied to enforcement.
Again, that our department can go in and do inspections or remind them that they
need to check ID's and this kind of thing. And in view of the recent violations
also I felt that MGM, Holiday and Brooke's, I would like to move the approval of
all the other licenses except for them. And for them, I don't think that just
giving them a warning is enough and I would like to have a meeting with them,
similar to what Don suggested, so that we can impress upon them that this is
important. We do have a Drug Task Force in this city that is seeking to make
enforcement more stringent and I think we as a City Council need to back that
up. I'm not sure what our action will be and I don't want to in any way
interrupt their business but it's my understanding that this current license is
in force until May 1st anyway so this would not be interrupting their business.
And that we should set the hearing date before the May 1st so their business
will not be interrupted.
Don Ashworth: So you would like to have a formal hearing then or you'd, like to
have an informal meeting with the businesses?
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, what do you suggest?
Roger Knutson: For discussion? '
Councilwoman Dimler: What do you mean by formal hearing? A public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Here at City Council on one of the next agendas. Is that what '
you're eluding to?
Councilwoman Dimler: What does anyone else think? I
Mayor Chmiel: I think that that could be a meeting that could be established
here in City Hall. '
Councilwoman Dimler: On a regular agenda?
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. I don't see the need for it on the agenda but I think 1
to have a meeting with them to impress upon them just exactly what you said.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I would also like to hear their ideas on how they plan ,
to improve their own procedures. That's the direction I would like to see it
go. Anybody else have comments?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger? - 1
3
11
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Roger Knutson: After discussing this a bit with Don, I would recommend based on
the circumstances, that you handle it fairly formally in the Council chambers as
part of an agenda item.
Don Ashworth: If the Council, if there's a possibility that anyone of the
licenses would not be renewed for 1991, then you should use a formal hearing
' process. I just confirmed that with Roger. If, on the other side you felt that
you would like to meet with owners and make sure that they know the importance
of the subject to the Council, you could do that as an informal meeting and that
could be with two members of the Council or it could be with all members.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I think it should be with all members.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh it should.
Roger Knutson: Obviously with all members it has to be in a public meeting.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Okay, so I would go for a formal hearing then. So
that answers that question.
Mayor Chmiel: It does. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
•
' Councilman Mason: When this came up, it was kind of interesting. We were at
that meeting that Sergeant Hudson had with the Metro Drug Task Force and his
claim, and I agree, is that alcohol is the biggest problem. I'm a little
concerned that we're letting people sell liquor to under aged children but yet
they get arrested, two 30 year olds get arrested for buying or selling
marijuana. I'm not saying the license should be revoked but I hope we don't
have a double standard here because I think what happened to those, well I think
it's very illegal and I think it's very wrong. What is it , 10% I believe of the
population of the United States has some alcohol problem. I think those owners
need to hear that. I'm not advocating revocation of licenses or anything like
' that but I think the City needs to tell anyone that deals with alcohol that they
need to be careful.
Mayor Chmiel: Point well put. Any other discussion? We have a motion on the
floor for a formal hearing at a Council meeting and we have a second.
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the 1991 Liquor
Licenses with the exception of MGM, Holiday and Brooke's who will have a formal
hearing with the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and with the understanding that all the other
licenses have been moved and approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Correct.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: None
4
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING: ALLOCATION OF YEAR XVII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 11
FUNDS.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open this public hearing at this particular time. 1
This is for allocation of Year XVII Community Development Block Grant Funds. Jo
Ann are you going to handle that. -
Jo Ann Olsen: I guess I can pretty much just answer questions if you have any.
Paul has put together a budget for the allocation of the funds. To go through
those. He's recommended that $7,573.00 go the South Shore Senior Center. '
$20,000.00 go to complete the development of the handicapped accessible totlot
in City Center Park. $5,000.00 is recommended to the Old Village Hall for it to
be handicapped accessible. $3,000.00 to the Sojourn Senior Daycare Center for
acquisition of two wheelchairs, a dishwasher and to allow them to construct a
partition to separate the center from the main church building to reduce
conflicts between the different uses in the building. And finally, $1,970.00
for staff time associated with the development of the Senior Services brochure
for Chanhassen residents. The total allocation is $37,543.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Public hearing. Is there anyone out there?
Jo Ann Kvern: I'm Jo Ann Kvern from the South Shore Senior Center. '
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please.
Jo Ann Kvern: Jo Ann Kvern and I'm the coordinator for the South Shore Senior ,
Center. I brought along a brochure this evening that kind of tells you about
the Senior Center. A month or so ago you all received a directory of services
for seniors that the agency did develop. Not just for this South Shore Senior
Center but for the other three senior centers that the agency operates and I
hope the Council will agree with your staff's recommendation. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, I'd like to close
the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed. '
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion? Go ahead Tom.
Councilman Workman: I'll skip through the five here quickly. Or quickly go to
the top part. In the paragraph in the middle of page 2, we're talking about the
Senior Commission has requested that the City use the funds to undertake
specific and well detailed studies of the feasibility of senior housing and a ,
senior center. It is estimated that these studies will cost between $7,500.00
and $10,000.00 each. They will be used to start the long range process of
undertaking these projects if there is support and they prove to be feasible. I
think haven't we come to a conclusion that those do have support and don't we
have the desire that we will make them feasible?
5 '
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so with the Senior Commission.
Councilman Workman: Alright. It was the if that I had a problem with and I
think we ought to be doing as much as we can in that direction. I was talking
to Mike earlier tonight . It just seems like we could use a better focus. I
know I said this last year. It seems like we could use some better focus on
these funds. If not, maybe we can give more to South Shore. It seems like
that 's something that is very much a focus. Number 4. $3,000.00 to the Sojourn
Senior Daycare Center. I'm not sure exactly what that is and I'm wondering
11 about the separation of church and state and how that works. Where is this?
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, would you like to.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well actually I don't, I think you went to visit didn't you?
' Councilman Workman: Was that in Buffalo?
Councilwoman Dimler: Actually they only use the church. They are not church
related. They use the church as, there she is. She can address it .
Mayor Chmiel: Please come up. Please state your name.
' Sally Hebson: I'm Sally Hebson and I'm the founder and director of the Sojourn
Adult Daycare program. We have been located in the township of Chanhassen since
last June when we moved to the Holy Cross Lutheran Church and began leasing
' space from them. We're beginning our 7th year of programming in the Excelsior-
Chanhassen area. We leased space from the Minnetonka School District for the
first 6 years and as you're probably well aware, the School District has needed
their spaces for student programming and so all non-school programs were asked
to move elsewhere. We have been working with Carver County ever since we began
operations in August of 1984 with alternative care grant monies through the
pre-admission screening program in both Carver and Hennepin County. Sojourn is
an adult day program and it's designed to have people, older people who need
assistance in living independently to have some place to spend their time. It
really has a dual purpose. It 's not just for the older person's welfare but it
' offers a rest bit for family members and caregivers who have the unremitting
care of an older person's wellbeing, either family or neighbor or friend. I'm
not sure I'm answering your questions.
' Councilman Workman: I think you are. In talking to Richard he kind of
enlightened me a little bit better as a detail I didn't get to. It might be,
I'd appreciate it if you could maybe invite me out there sometime.
' Sally Hebson: I'd be delighted to invite all of you to come. We can either do
it formally or informally. We have good meals and we bake lots of good treats
in the kitchen.
Councilman Workman: Lord knows I don't need. . .
' Sally Hebson: None of us do but it's always fun so I'd be happy to invite all
of you either formally or informally. I did make a presentation at the Senior
Commission a week ago Friday and Mr. Krauss asked me to send a letter to him
' outlining some of the ways that we could use some monies and that's why we're on
6
1
i
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
the agenda and I'm here tonight . I would be
g very pleased if you would follow
that recommendation. Thanks.
Councilman Workman: That makes me feel good then on that part and none of these
are really minor but they just seem fragmented and if we've got a major focus
like a senior center that's going to take care of a lot of these things.
Obviously handicapped access to building and to the totlots and things shouldn't
be overshadowed but if we've got a focus like the community center, could we use
larger amounts of money for the design of these things in the feasibility study
and anything we want related to that? And if we can, I'd like to see us, we've
got to be running out of buildings to make handicap accessible.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's probably true. Don, do you have anything to add
to that?
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure if I understand the question. Would you like to see
more monies put in reserve for the potential construction of a.
Councilman Workman: It wasn't a question. It was a puntification. I don't
know that we can put them in reserve. Can you put them in reserve for one year
or something?
Don Ashworth: Yes. '
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, if the Senior Commission is working on
this focus of a Senior Center building, it would seem to me that we could use
triple this amount for something like that and should be reserving some.
Don Ashworth: The only reservation I would note is that we have done that in
the past. We have not had a good track record. In other words, we've asked for
a year and then we've extended it for a year and then we still didn't have a
project . Then it went to the side for a 3-4 year period of time and we again
reserved dollars. tie can do it but I'm sure we'll be getting questions as to.
Councilman Workman: Well then I think we just need to get that focus as soon a
we can and then we won't have to reserve anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Sort of have direction as to going that way?
Councilman Workman: Because I don't mean to take and pile money up and keep it
away from other areas unnecessarily. I'm just saying, if that's on the horizon,
we should be planning for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Ursula? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move approval of item 1, 2, 4 and 5 and I'd like
to discuss 3. Although I agree with the intention of making the Old Village
Hall handicapped accessible, I do question how often that is used for meetings
and when it is used for meetings, how many people come that would need that
access. I could see that money being spent somehow better if it is possible to
make one of the Dial-a-Ride vans handicapped accessible so that people can get
around to shopping and you know, have that service available to them. Would
that be a possibility? ,
7
11
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: I suppose anything is a possibility with that . Although I think
too, the question has to be answered as to how much the Old Village Hall is
really used.
Don Ashworth: I can't answer either of those two questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Todd can. •
Todd Gerhardt: We did get one complaint .
Mayor Chmiel: Right behind you too.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: One complaint in how many years Todd?
Todd Gerhardt: We got one complaint, what. The Old Village Hall's been there 3
years now so we did receive one complaint that it wasn't handicapped accessible.
Councilwoman Dimler: But how many meetings do we have there?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, I'd say there's at least one a week in there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Really?
' Todd Hoffman: We also sponsored the Carver County Historical Society's -
. sponsored a program that had a handicapped instructor. We had to go ahead' and
build a wooden ramp structure. A temporary structure for that person,
instructor to enter the building. Roger could probably address that as well.
That being a public building. . .
Mayor Chmiel: It 's a requirement by State Code.
Roger Knutson: If you're going to have official public meetings such as one
time we had an HRA meeting over there. You really shouldn't have meetings in
places that aren't handicapped accessible.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but my question is, those meetings that
are being held once a week, are they public meetings?
' Todd Gerhardt : No. It's the Cub Scouts. It's the local church, St. Hubert's
Historical Soceity. Todd runs city programs through there. I think he has
dance classes in there and craft things and the library also goes over there and
uses it and then any special interest projects or programs where people need
space.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I'm not opposed to it. My question was, could we put
that money to better use by making it more available to more people that would
need wheelchair access to a van you know. And I know that Southwest Metro is
talking about making their vans handicapped accessible and I was just wondering
' if we couldn't give them the money instead.
Todd Gerhardt : I would leave it up to Paul to look into that one. I'd rather
see the van have it than the Old Village Hall. We were just brainstorming areas 1
where we could spend the money and I know we did receive that one complaint.
8
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I kind of felt that's what you.
Mayor Chmiel: As I look at $5,000.00, that'd make a fine ramp but I think maybe '
what we could find out is what it would really cost to put a handicapped
accessibility to the Old Village Hall and the balance of that could be given to
the Southwest Metro as well.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that would be fine.
Councilman Workman: So then we would what? Then maybe we could direct the rest
to the number 4?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We were talking to put that to the Southwest Metro.
Councilwoman Dimler: To Southwest Metro to make their vans handicapped.
Mayor Chmiel: Handicapped accessible. '
•
Councilman Workman: I mean what if that 's more money?
Mayor Chmiel: Well any dollars allocated to them they can use towards whatever. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: It would help them out no matter what they needed.
Councilman Wing: $25,000.00 is going to handicapped improvements. $20,000.00
for a totlot. I guess I don't have a lot of information on these specifics
other than I've seen Sojourn. If there's any money to be spent, the job they do
with the elderly out there is really commendable so I guess if there was any
left over dollars that we're going to argue about, and this was the allotment
program, I'd like to see it go that direction. Or the South Shore Senior
Center. Those two are actually hands on. We were just talking about seniors
earlier and those are physical hands on allocation of dollars for seniors. So
if that's an interest , I fully support dollars to either one of those two versus
the others. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Don?
Don Ashworth: I had some concern on the Southwest only from the standpoint, '
Community Development Block Grant programs, they require so much paperwork
associated with that and you have to show that you spent exactly this dollar and
you have to show each check. They would not accept where we simply wrote a
check to Southwest. We would physically have to insure that we were paying a
bill to some type of firm that was putting something into one of those buses.
That's where it could get a little stickier.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I understand that there are certain stipulations
and I'm sure that that was Paul's intent was also to stay in line with the
stipulations plus distribute the money to different areas for different purposes
that are legal for this money. So like I said, I don't have a problem with
either one of them but I did want to see it go to Southwest.
Councilman Workman: Ursula, doesn't Southwest Metro get funding for that kind
of stuff from the State specifically for that?
9
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know where their funding's going to come from but
they are looking at .
Mayor Chmiel: I would imagine they do get it from the State.
Councilwoman Dimler: From the RTO.
IICouncilman Workman: I'm surprised that those vehicles aren't mandated to be
handicapped accessible. That they come that way.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Well yes, eventually it will be from the Regional Transit
Board but right now with the budget crunches and everything, the Opt Out
programs are not being funded as we would like. As a matter of fact , they're
cutting our budgets back so I'm just really questioning if this is possible and
if it is, I would like to see some of it go there anyway. I think more people
would benefit from it than the handicapped ramp at the Old Village Hall.
Councilman Workman: Can we have staff look into what that would cost to outfit
one van and then split the rest?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't think. . .
' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. )
Councilman Mason: . . .I think that would kind of erase all of that whole issue.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know if there'd be any leftover money.
Councilman Mason: But certainly it leaves the money in the area too.
Don Ashworth: Could I suggest that you consider approving all of the other
items. Leave the one $5,000.00 allocation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that was my motion.
Don Ashworth: On hold and then have staff bring back some alternatives.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that 'd be fine. Would there be a second to that motion?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #91-26: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve the following Year XVII Community Block Grant Funds allocations:
1. $7,573.00 to the South Shore Senior Center.
2. $20,000.00 to complete the development of the handicapped accessible totlot
' in City Center Park.
3. $5,000.00 to the Old Village Hall for handicapped accessibility shall be
tabled for further staff review.
10
1
- -
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
I
4. $3,000.00 to the Sojourn Senior Daycare Center for acquisition of two
wheelchairs, a dishwasher and to allow them to construct a partition to ,
separate the center from the main church building to reduce conflicts
between the different uses in the building.
5. $1,970.00 for staff time associated with the development of the Senior '
Services brochure for Chanhassen residents.
Total allocation is $32,543.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried ,
unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, FIRST AND SECOND READING, REGARDING:
A. DEFINITION OF STRUCTURES.
B. DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a quick question. Why are we having first and second
readings all at one time or shouldn't we have just the first reading and second
reading at another time? Is there a real rush with it?
Don Ashworth: Well normally you would have a split. If you're going to have
both readings this evening, you're going to have to make a motion to amend your
Rules of Procedure. Jo Ann, did you want to speak to why this was felt to be
necessary?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we weren't doing that specifically for the structure. That
can wait but the accessory structure, we'd really like to get that going because
we're starting to get inquiries on accessory structures because it 's the season
and people are going to start construction. The ordinance that we have right
now, they can be very large. They can be very large and right up to your rear
lot line. We've had a lot of problems so we'd like to get this in the books.
That 's why we were asking for that. To allow that to happen tonight just for
the accessory structure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there any discussion? Anyone wishing to address it?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just had one question and that was on the
advertising signs being defined as a structure and then having to meet. What '
kind of advertising signs are you talking here on private property?
Jo Ann Olsen: Are you looking on the definition of structure?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I mean what did you have in mind when we put that in
there?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're just saying that signs are also considered a
structure. You know they're a permanent structure in the ground and that you
would technically have to get a permit for that also. And just so we can have -
setbacks from that. What types are you talking about?
11
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you talking about like political signs that go up
during the political season?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, we're talking more the more permanent signs where you do have
to meet a setback.
1
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, permanent advertising signs? It wouldn't be seasonal
signs or anything like that?
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Emmings, do you have anything you'd like to shed on that?
Steve Emmings: No. . .
Jo Ann Olsen: We've got other sign regulations that cover that.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're not talking about the sign that's in the,
advertising the Assembly of God Church there that's in our median then?
Jo Ann Olsen: I took that out today. With the help of Dave Hempel. We pulled
' that out . Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Would that be an illegal sign?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's definitely an illegal sign. That's not a permanent sign
either.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. That's all I had.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Any additional discussion? If hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion for items (a) and (b).
' Councilwoman Dimler: Just (a) and just (b)?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right . I thought we were just acting on (a). As far as (b).
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you can go each separately? Each individual?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, why don't you just go separately.
Mayor Chmiel: What were you going to say?
Don Ashworth: I was just talking with Roger. I realize the desire to take and
see this put into effect as soon as possible but recognizing the number of
people we may be affecting, I really think that we should look to a first and
second reading. I would feel more comfortable if we would do that with both (a)
and (b). There may be some permits that we hit in this two week period of time
' but I think insuring that the general public is fully knowledgeable as to what
we're doing probably would outweigh those one or two permits. If we did have a
legal problem down the line, you'd be far more defendable. Or it would be far
•
11 more defendable.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay, can I have a motion?
12
I
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Councilman Workman: You know we discussed this at great length and I saw in the
Minutes Mr. Emmings and Conrad talking about why it got delayed or something. I
remember discussing this at pretty great length. Maybe you can refresh my
memory and why it ended up back at the Planning Commission.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well it 's just been such a long period of time. I thought I'd
bring it back to them too just for discussion. To see, did they want to make '
any other changes? Is it okay to go ahead and take it back in front of the
council?
Councilman Workman: Freshen it up a little? '
Jo Ann Olsen: Well yeah. It had been a long time.
Councilman Workman: Because if you remember it was with Bill, it was kind of
ugly. But yeah I guess, because it seemed to me we had it kind of straighten
out and so that's why I really don't have a whole lot of comments on it. '
Mayor Chmiel: If we can get a motion then for zoning ordinance amendments for
the first reading regarding definition of structures and also definition of
accessory structures.
Councilwoman Dimler: For item (a) only?
Mayor Chmiel: For item (a) and then we'll act on item (b).
Councilwoman Dimler: I so move. ,
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first 1
reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1 to amend the definition of
structure as follows:
Section 20.1 Definitions.
Structure means anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is
normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent
in character, including but not limited to: buildings, fences, sheds,
advertising signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks,
playground equipment, concrete slabs.
Section 20-908(5) is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) Into any required front, rear or side yard: driveways, sidewalks,
strand wire agricultural fence.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Now for the zoning ordinance amendment, first reading for the
definition of accessory structures. Any discussion? If no discussion, I'll -
entertain a motion.
13 I
I
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Councilman Workman: I'll move zoning ordinance amendment , first reading. Item
(b), definition of accessory structures.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of zoning ordinance amendment to amend Chapter 20, Section 20-1, 20-615
and Section 20-904 regarding Accessory Structures as shown in the attached
ordinance amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-263 REGARDING PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILETS
ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS.
Jo Ann Olsen: We were going to pull this from the agenda tonight because there
was some issues that need to be resolved with it and maybe Roger can get into
those. But Ursula also let us know that there's some people who wish to speak
' on this so we thought we could still let them speak, since they're coming
tonight and maybe Roger can also explain. Do you want to get into that now?
' Mayor Chmiel: Roger, why don't you just give a quick, brief explanation and
we'll have..the people address the issue.
Roger Knutson: I received a copy of this on the first time on Friday ana I
I discussed it with Paul. We just weren't able to get a redraft for you in that
short a period. I had some concerns with it. Among other things, a basis for
denial of chemical toilet is neighborhood complaints and that under the law is f
really not per se a basis for turning anyone down for anything. I mean people
can complain about chemical toilets as a guide because they don't like their
neighbor for example and if you don't like your neighbor you can just call up
and say, I hereby complain and the permit won't issue. There's some technical
issues with the ordinance which have to be dressed up. When staff issues a
permit, or renewal permit in this case for chemical toilets or anything else,
they have to have some non-subjective objective criteria upon which to act.
It's confusing the more I think about it but the rule is, staff can't exercise
discretion. It does but it really can't in a sense. Staff carries out the
ordinances which you publicate. They can't exercise discretion on subjective
matters when it comes to issuing permits. That's the Council's perogative so a
few things like that have to be spruced up.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Is there anyone wishing to address this
specific issue? If you would please come forward to the podium and state your
name and your address.
Lee: Could you read the ordinance as it's currently proposed?
Jo Ann Olsen: Why don't I just give him mine.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have it in here.
14
r
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Roger Knutson: It's stuck in there somewhere. I know I found mine. It's
really lengthy. It's like two pages long.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it'd be best if you just read that. We're basically not I
going to.
Councilman Workman: The last page?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Adopt this this evening as was indicated.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have the very last page?
Jo Ann Olsen: It 's not the very last page. '
Mayor Chmiel: No, it's the one prior to. Right here.
Councilwoman Dimler: This is what you're proposing?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. That's what the Planning Commission. . .
Mayor Chmiel: You've had an opportunity to look at it?
Lee: Yeah, I just wanted to find out for sure what was in front of the
Council. I'm with one of the residents with the Sunrise Hills Civic
Association. We've got the private beachlot on Frontier Trail and I guess I was
the one who actually got this all started when I gave Ursula a call t6 find out
what could be done just to address some specific problems that we were having. I
don't think they're at all unique and that is, with that large a number of
people, and I believe there are 57 members that span out over 3 or 4 blocks,
having access to a temporary use toilet facility, I think is a very practical 11 request . I'm glad to see the City Council taking this up. Just in looking
through what was proposed. What we would like to see is have it essentially
from Memorian Day weekend thru a period just after the Labor Day weekend and I
see that June 15th is proposed. But the other conditions that are being set
forth, actually look very feasible. The alterantive that is not having access
to a facility I think is not very workable. We have kids going behind the trees
to use the trees as toilet facilities and that's certainly not what the Council
would like to see. I suppose the worse condition is kids just going right into
the lake which is a real possibility. But really prompted this was that the
chemical toilets are used by the City on some of the other public beaches such
as Carver Beach and we note that there are usually two chemical toilets set up
right on Carver Beach Road. They're right on the road itself, maybe 5 feet back
from the curb and so yeah. If they're well maintained, which is what I think
should, that may not be something that's addressed, and I would not mind
actually seeing in the ordinances that they're maintained by a professional
third party. I believe Ursula you had mentioned there was some discussion about
having permanently constructed. I don't know. As just now a resident of the
City, I don't know if I could like to have something that's not professionally
maintained. What we had proposed was that it would be serviced under contract
at least once a week so that we know that it's taken care of. That the disposal
of the chemicals are not an issue with the environment. None of the residents
want to see that stuff go into the lake and I think that's something that should
15 '
i
IICity Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
11 be in the ordinance to prevent any kind of abuse. That way you know it's being
externally maintained and monitored.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's part of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
That it be commercial taken care of.
I asLee: Yeah. Ursula had mentioned that there w
some discussion about a
permanently built one. I don't know that that makes sense because that will
fall into disarray very quickly I would guess in all likelihood. As far as the
I setback if it were, I don't know that, I see you're proposing 75 feet here. If
it were professionally maintained and properly anchored, would it matter 50 feet
back? I'm just thinking now of our specific layout. It might be close. We're
probably at what I would call a normal water line. Where we would propose to
I have it, it's very close to the 75 foot mark and if it were professionally
maintained once a week, would it matter if it was 50 feet back but still
supported so that it was tip resistent? Does that really matter?
IIMayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you have any?
II Jo Ann: One of the reasons we used 75 feet was the shoreland setback and then
just to remove it as far as possible if there's a tip over. There are going to
be circumstances where there are recreational beachlots that don't have that
depth. I don't have any in front of me so I can't but it seems like where there
I were those situations where you don't have that depth. It can be all contained
so it wouldn't get in over land.
I Mayor Chmiel: It also indicates in here. . .setback from ordinary high water mark
shall be 75 feet . Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve
maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. Some of those are the
IIconsiderations that are taken into it.
Lee: I actually think that's a pretty good recommendation. The only other
thing that I guess I would point out is if we have to apply for annual permits.
II Are you going to have a list of authorized vendors to make it real simple or
authorize third party service?
II Jo Ann Olsen: I'm sure that wouldn't be, that would be real easy for us to
provide that to you.
II Lee: Yeah, that might be something to consider. If you've got a recommended
or approved list that you, that the city knows will provide professional
services. I'm not too concerned about our group because we'll probably go with
one of the major suppliers but I'm thinking now of other people around the lake
I who start using them, will that be subject to abuse. And the last question I
have is, once it's approved do we have to come back for an annual permit? Is
there going to be an annual fee?
ICouncilman Wing: You bet.
Lee: How much?
Jo Ann Olsen: For the cost of the review? 1
i
II 16
1
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Lee: Yeah. What 's the ermit going to be set at?
P 9 9
Mayor Chmiel: I think it will be very minimal like maybe $500.00 a year. No,
I'm kidding. I would imagine that's something.
Councilwoman Dimler: A conditional use permit is $150.00. The original. And
then every year just to review without a fee is the way I understood it.
Lee: Okay, so you would expect it would be a one time but every year we should
file a plan?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. To make sure you're still in compliance with the
ordinance. '
Lee: And after that, and you said you expect there would be no fee after that?
Councilwoman Dimler: That 's my understanding was. That once you pay for the I
conditional use permit, then you just have an annual review but no fee.
Lee: Okay. No, I think that would be fine and part of the renewal .I think
should include a copy of the contract and so on so that you know it's going to
be properly maintained. But I'm real pleased to see this change. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I don't see there being any further discussion. We'll
pull this from the agenda and I don't think we even have to have a motion on
that proposal do we? Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we make a few comments?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I agree with Lee's comment about, I think June
15th is kind of an arbitrary date. I think I would like to see it go in at
Labor Day. That 's when most picnics start. And maybe let it go, I mean
Memorial Day. Did I say Labor Day?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry. Memorial Day. And then have it go a little
bit beyond Labor Day so they have time to get it off. Maybe September 5th.
Sometimes Labor Day is a little bit later than September 5th. It's been as late
as September 9th so maybe we want to move it until the 11th or something like
that. '
Mayor Chmiel: We can probably determine that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Or we can just keep the holidays. You can just, it doesn't have ,
to be a specific date.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, just keep it to the holidays. Memorial Day to Labor
Day.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
17
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
Councilman Mason: Steve, real quickly. What was their rationale for having. . .
Steve Emmings: . . .I think that in our experience. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not , we'll move on to the next
I item.
Councilman Workman: Do you need a motion on that?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you need a motion to table it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. No, we just pulled it.
Councilman Wing: With the neighbor's consent , just to clarify, is only if it 's
not going to be screened. It doesn't require neighbor's consent unless it's not
going to be screened. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Well you really can't delegate that to the neighbors. That's
one of the things we have to.
' Mayor Chmiel: No, you'd have to do that. Making sure it 's screened properly.
Councilman Workman: My only comment on this whole thing is this lies in the
face of everything that we're trying to do in this city with lakes. Cleanliness
and I can't understand. I can understand why we want to do this. I can't,
I mean I'm not that ignorant but I just, everything surrounding these portable
toilets, visually, sensory, and other. I understand the relief that they bring
to people who are going to stay at the beachlots all day but boy, for what they
do, the potential risk, I can't understand how we're. It just seems like we're
kind of letting this thing go a little easy. I guess I'd be curious to find
' out, as we got a little more time to find out what Eden Prairie, Bloomington,
Burnsville, Eagan, Edina, Minnetonka and White Bear Lake know about these things
that we don't because they all said no. Don't do it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, maybe it 's something that we can find out.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just going to say that in this comments that we've
' got from Mr. Hasek. He says that the yearly phospherous loading comes from
ducks and geese about 11% and I was thinking that maybe we could teach them to
use the chemical toilets instead.
Councilman Workman: Diaper service.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody else? If not , we'll move on.
' Councilman Wing: I might just comment that they are in existence and the
beaches have them at this time and all this is trying to do is control an
already existing situation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And you have the ducks and geese on your lot right?
' 18
I
1
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
DISCUSSION OF CITY GOLF COURSE, COUNCILMAN WORKMAN. '
Councilman Workman: This is brought up, it sort of sprouted from the Planning
Commission and Joan Ahrens, Planning Commissioner took it to the Park and Rec
Commission to which I got involved a little bit . I've been involved ever since
we were down in Atlanta and I was wondering why all these golf organizations are
always hanging out at these National Cities Conferences. The reason they're
doing that is because cities are getting more and more involved into golf
courses. Owning municipal golf courses for the preservation of open space and
recreation and everything else. And so anyway, Joan Ahrens and I did a little
speaking in front of the Park and Rec Commission and we'd like to keep this
alive so my reason for putting it on here is two fold. One, I would like to get
your all's input as to what you think of that idea on the surface and then
secondly, I would like, we would like to get together a group of 5 people. Two
of them being Joan Ahrens and one Mr. Batzli from the Planning Commission, the
other myself and then probably one other Council member and at least a Park and
Rec Commissioner and leave staff out until we get our wits about us and then get
staff's involved with it and then go from there. See if we can make this a
reality: If that's a possibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? '
Councilman Wing: I'll support Mr. Workman's attempt to get this off of dead
center and cooperate any way that I can, including serving on that committee.
And I also state publically, I am not a golfer and I will certainly defend the
rights of the non-golfers but this seems like an excellent way to enhance our -
city.
Mayor Chmiel: I sort of agree to a certain point except knowing what costs are
as far as the acquisition of property for the land. Total numbers of acres.
Also, once getting that golf course into shape, and I did ask Don to find out
from the City of Becker which recently put in a golf course, an 18 hole, I think
it's probably about 2 years ago. Beautiful course. Haven't had an opportunity
to play it yet but I will. But to find out what the total costs are before we
initially move off into anything and I think we should know that particular part
of it. I think it's probably not a bad idea. We have one course here. Of
course we have courses all around us as well. Whether it would be supportive
for the City. That's another question. Some cities are making money on
their's, some are not and so those are some of the considerations I think we're
going to have to look at as well.
Councilman Workman: Don, as you've known over the last couple of years. I'm I
not interested in the City making money off of people. I think they have an
unfair advantage. Between Joan Ahrens and myself, and I gave some information
to Todd and that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's a corporation called Golf
One. They finance golf courses for cities based on the receipts. We have a
golf course in the city right now. It's a golf course that, if you're a golfer,
you're not that excited about playing on and you'll play somewhere else. '
Possibilities with that golf course. I talked with Lundgren Brothers about the
potential possibility of them doing it. They thought of developing a golf
course housing project on the north side with the project they're going to be '
19
11
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991 •
bringing to us probably this summer. The land costs there were too high for
them to do it. I would say there's no less than. . .
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion: )
Councilman Wing: . . .I think this is very preliminary and just a very brief
information group.
Councilwoman Dimler: That 's fine with me.
Councilman Workman: In talking to Mike, open space, like the comment on the
Park and Rec, 300 acres of wooded, nice land is not going to sit open. Not if I
own it and I'm not making any money. It's either going to be farmland or it 's
going to be swamp because open land, quality open land is not going to be found
in this town in the next 15 to 20 years, if that unless something is done to
preserve open space. I don't know of any other way you can preserve large
tracts of open space. Granted it's going to be contoured into a golf course but
it is going to be open and it 's not going to be tract housing. And we probably
aren't going to have much ag here. So I don't know, what I'm saying is 300
acres of open space idea does not pay for itself and if anybody in this room
owns that land, it's going to be developed very quickly, if it isn't already
intended for that purpose. So in order to get open land, you have to
compromise.
Councilman Wing: Or bond for it .
Councilman Workman: So who wants to get on board?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you have Dick indicated he would.
Councilman Wing: Do I need the Mayor's permission?
Mayor Chmiel: No, you don't need my permission. But who else wants to sit on
that?
Councilman Wing: I'll certainly work with Tom and is this a committee that's
being approved by the Council just for preliminary information?
Mayor Chmiel: It 's not officially we're going to take any stance on it right
now because we don't have enough information in total dollars as to what it
might be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Your meetings might even be open.
Mayor Chmiel: Informally.
Councilman Wing: Certainly, they should be.
Councilman Workman: I think it's a good idea. It's definitely a long way off
but it's going to go nowhere if we do nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If not.
20
it
City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991
who may not be aware of the whole history but I know we've chased him out of the
wetland in the past and told him he can't fill in there. He filled in there
once before without permission and we chased him out of there and now it sounds
like he's working down by the creek. There's no question in my mind he knows
full well that he's doing things that the City would not permit and he seems to
just do what he wants to. I think-it 's important to put that into perspective l �
with it .
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I II
will make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim I
I 1
•
I
I
23
I
i
q UN_ EDITE-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
IIMARCH 20, 1991
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. .
IMEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings,
Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al-Jaff,
Planner I
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 70 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ON
IIPROPERTY ZONED BH AND LOCATED AT 7910 DAKOTA AVENUE, SINCLAIR OIL.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
IIConrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
IIEmmings: Does anybody have anything to talk about on this? If not, is .
il -
there a motion?
Batzli: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit Request #91-2 for one 70 square foot pylon sign with
the conditions set forth in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Emmings: It says that one of the conditions is that the applicant must
submit an application for a sign permit. Now isn't that what this is?
That just sounds peculiar to me. I thought they had to give you an
ilapplication before that issue comes up.
Krauss: Commissioner , no. Actually what they've applied for now is the --Y°`t=
il conditional use permit between you and the City Council . They actually
need the permit to construct the sign.
-. Emmings: Okay. Do they ordinarily do that at one time?
IIKrauss: No.
il Emmings: Okay .
Krauss: They actually do that if they have approval and when they're ready
to put the thing up.
Emmings: Okay.
Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request *91-2 for one 70 square foot
pylon sign with the following conditions:
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 -- Page 2
1 . The sign may not exceed 20 feet in height .
2 . The area of the sign may not exceed 72 square feet .
3 . The sign shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from all property
lines .
4 . The applicant must ' submit an application for a sign permit .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH
AND LOCATED AT SEVEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING CENTER, SANG CAM KY, HAPPY GARDENS
II .
Public Present:
Clem Springer , Weis Asset Mgmt , 3601 Minnesota Drive #110 , Mpls , MN 55435
11 Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item .
' Emmings: Is the size changing?
Krauss: No .
Clem Springer : Approximately the same size . . .
' Emmings: Why don 't you come on up to the podium . Paul , does that conclude
the staff report? Okay .
Clem Springer : Exhibit A , you can see that it was originally down in the
end of the center and now it 's in space 109 and 111 . Also we have the
plans as requested by the City of the design of the restaurant here .
IIEmmings: Okay , and what is the difference in size? How big are those two
spaces together?
Clem Springer : 2 ,600 .
Emmings: Alright . Is there anything else you 'd like to present to us at
Ithis time?
Clem Springer : No . We accept the conditions from staff . Thank you .
1 Emmings: Alright , thank you . This is a public hearing . Are there any
members of the public , anyone here that wants to comment on this?
II Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 3
Emmings: Tim , have you got anything on this one? I
Erhart: Just what 's the status of the landscaping?
Krauss: The landscaping was completed last fall . '
Erhart: And the applicant is aware that we 're basically saying one wall
sign as opposed to two?
Clem Springer : That is moved in the interior . . .one sign .
Erhart: That 's my only question . 11
Conrad: Nothing . '
Emmings: Annette? Brian?
Batzli : In condition 2 . Are we trying to say that the applicant shall ,
comply with? Who are we trying to get to comply? I was just confused on
the wording of that .
Krauss: The owners of the shopping center . They 're co-applicants with the I
CUP .
Batzli : Okay . I guess I 'd prefer that it read , cross out the words there I
shall be compliance with and say applicants shall comply with or shall have
complied with . That 's it .
Emmings: Jeff?
Farmakes: I have no comments . '
Emmings: Joan?
Ahrens: No comments . I
Emmings: Alright . Does anybody have anything else they want to talk about
on this one? If not , is there a motion? in
Erhart: I 'll move that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit #91-1 for Happy Gardens . Is there a date on that Paul? With some
date with the conditions as stated in the staff report with number 2 to
read , prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , the applicants shall
comply with all conditions previously attached to other approvals on this
site .
Batzli : Second .
Krauss: Paul is there anything , since you were just presented with a new 1
plan for the restaurant , is there anything that should be added to give you
a chance to review that or are you comfortable with the conditions that are
here?
1
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 4
Krauss: Mr . Chairman , I 'm comfortable with the conditions . The plans for
the restaurant are pretty straight forward . The only thing that we would
look for is that there not be a- major addition of a bar or something that
we didn 't anticipate and that 's not the case here .
Emmings: Alright . We 've got a motion and second .
tErhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #91-1 for Happy Gardens II Restaurant
' with the following conditions:
1 . All trash shall be stored internally .
' 2 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , the applicants shall
comply with all conditions previously attached to other approvals on
this site .
3 . The restaurant is only permitted one wall sign .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously .
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDING THE SIGNAGE FOR THE CHANHASSEN
MEDICAL ARTS FACILITY LOCATED AT 470 WEST 78TH STREET.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Bob Copeland 7625 Metro Blvd . , Suite 165 , Edina
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland . I 'm one of the owners of the
building . If I may, I 'd like to review briefly with you what this is all
about . This is the Chanhassen Medical Center . It 's been called various
other things . Ridgeview Medical Center most recently . This is the parking
lot side and this is the street side . The two signs that are in question
here , this is a directory sign . This is the proposed location of that and
11 I don 't think the location is at question. I think the issue there is that
the sign that we 'd like to put in place now is 6 inches higher than what
was apparently previously approved . So that 's the issue as far as I 'm
concerned . So it 's 6 inches higher . So that 's one of the reasons we 're
here . The other one is that this sign , this is the location of the pylon
sign . It 's the 78th Street side and there are two things related to that
sign . According to staff , this sign is that we 're proposing is 4 feet
wider than approved by Council . And also according to staff , they don 't
like the idea that we would say two things on the sign . As you can see in
your packet there that we would say on one part of the sign we say
i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 5
Ridgeview Center and on the right hand side we would say the name of the
tenants , American Family Insurance . Now first of all let 's maybe just take
these things one at a time if we may . I think that the directory signs , we ,
agree with the staff that we are changing what we like and we 'd like to
have it 6 inches higher now and we don't think that 's a material change and
we don 't think that 's really worthy of much conversation and hope that you
just go along with the sign . We think the proportions are better and we 'd II
just like a 6 inch higher sign . On this pylon sign , we disagree with the
staff . We maintain that this sign was approved at 14 feet wide and the
reason we say that , to document that if you turn to the very last page of
your packet . 39 . Page 39 . About 3/4 of the way down you see some
comments made by me on June 4th there and it says , I said that it 's not a
massive Amoco type sign . We were talking about this very sign . It 's
approximately a foot and a half high . I didn 't have the drawings so I
wasn 't sure about that dimension but it 's 14 feet side . Then there were
about 2 or 3 other comments and that was approved . So we don 't think the
width of the sign is an issue . We think that it 's 14 feet side and that 's II
what was approved . Now as far as whether the sign can say one thing or two II
things on there , I would suggest to you that there are many , many signs in
this community and most other communities where these pylon signs say more '
than one thing . I call your attention to the Fire Department sign . That
pylon sign out there that has the name of the Fire Department and then it
also has a message on the same sign . The sign for Town Square . It
identifies Town Square . It has a message related to some sales and things II
and then it also mentions the name of one of the tenants . The Brooke 's
Food Market is mentioned again on the pylon sign as well as on the
building . I think there are other instances of that too . The Country I
Suites sign , pylon sign . It tells you that it 's Country Suites but it also
has another sign where they can change the wording and I think today it
happens to say welcome . But it says two things on the same pylon sign . So
we feel that our sign is in keeping with the other things that have been
allowed here . We don 't see anything in any ordinance that prohibits this .
When the Council last time talked about not more than one tenant on a sign ,
that was regarding the wall signs . Not this pylon sign and there wasn 't
any discussion of whether there could be one or two things put on this
pylon sign . So we think that we are , our changes are minor . They are
totally within the ordinances and we suggest that you should vote favorably
on them . Just for your information , on our wall signs we are at about 30%
of what we 're allowed in terms of area . On our business directory sign ,
we 're at 22% of the size allowed , even with our 6 inch increase in height .
On the business pylon sign , we 're at 45% of the allowed square footage .
Even with the so called increase . If you buy the increase line of
reasoning . Over all , we are at 30% of our allowed signage related to this
building . We don 't see anything wrong with what we 're proposing to do here
at all and we see it as very minor differences , if any in some instances
from what was approved before . So that 's all we have to say . If you have
any questions , I 'd be happy to answer them .
Emmings: Alright , thank you . If people have questions , you 're going to be
here?
Bob Copeland: I 'll stick around . Oh wait . I 'm sorry . Let me point out
one additional thing if I may . Just so you have the proper perspective .
1
1
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 6
This drawing shows the street elevation of the building and the proposed
sign so that 's the side . And this side shows the parking lot side of the
building and the directory sign . That is 6 inches increased in height .
' Emmings: As far as American Family is concerned , will they also have a
band on the building?
rBob Copeland : No . They will not .
Emmings: That would be their only sign? Okay .
Bob Copeland: They want identification on the street which I think you can
probably understand .
' Erhart: Would you explain that? I don 't understand that .
Bob Copeland: On the 78th Street side?
Erhart: Why not , as opposed to a band?
Bob Copeland: Because the bands are taken . There 's no band to be able to
put it on . I took a picture today and I also cut out that little square
and tried to show you the approximate size of the proposed sign . This is
' the pylon sign . So you might just pass this around and see down there .
The color would match the sign bands but that 's the size of the pylon we 're
talking about .
' Erhart : You mean gold?
Bob Copeland: Pardon me? No , it 's going to match the deep burgandy color .
Conrad: It 's not a wall mounted?
' Bob Copeland: That 's correct . We have all the wall mounted signs that
there 's room for and that we 've asked for and we 're not discussing wall
mounted signs at this time .
Erhart: Is the sign going to face directly into the street?
Bob Copeland: Correct .
Erhart: How far away from the building?
Bob Copeland: I don 't know that precisely but it 's within 5 to 10 feet of
the building .
Erhart: Okay . And what 's the distance between the sidewalk and the
building in that spot?
Bob Copeland: Approximately 20 feet .
Erhart: Okay , and that 's going to be grass?
R
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 7
Bob Copeland: Don 't hold me to that exact dimension . I don 't know
exactly .
Erhart: And that 's grass in there? ,
Bob Copeland : It 's grass . From the building out there 's a landscaped area
where there are chips and some sort of shrubbery and that kind of thing and
then sod from the sidewalk .
Conrad: Is it illuminated?
Bob Copeland: This sign would be illuminated , yes . The directory sign . 1
Conrad: Backlit or illuminated? '
Bob Copeland: It would have a light inside so I guess backlit is the term .
It 's a box . It 's an aluminum box . Burgandy color and the lettering is
white . I
Conrad: How come you have it facing straight out versus facing the traffic
flow? 1
Bob Copeland: I don 't think it will fit on the property .
Conrad: The 14 feet wouldn 't fit , no . I
Bob Copeland: No .
Erhart: If you had a preference of having one more band .
Bob Copeland: I don 't think there 's an adequate place for one . I
Erhart : Well the center band is in the center of the building and then
there 's two blank spots on either side of it .
Bob Copeland: Well you wouldn 't want to add just one more . Then you 'd
want to add two more .
Erhart: Well , we could move one over . In other words , get 6 bands . '
Emmings: But you did say that American Family has expressed a preference
for having it?
Bob Copeland: No , they haven 't necessarily expressed an interest . They
want good signage from the 78th Street side . We haven 't discussed that
with them so I 'm not really sure .
Erhart: I mean , we had one meeting where you spent a bunch of money. and we II
spent a bunch of time and went from , I guess we clarified that we needed 5
band signs . Maybe what you really need is 6 . What tells you today that 6
months from now another tenant will come along and say what I really needed I
was 7?
1
1 _
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 8
11 Bob Copeland: Well I don 't know . If we 're back here again next time ,
you 'd have to reconsider it then .
Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson . I live in Chanhassen . I think basically
what we 're , from a conceptual point of view as far as signage is concerned ,
we have probably 3 types of tenants on main street . You 've got the retail
' tenant such as Brooke 's Superette or you know people that provide products
to the customer and we 're sort of used to seeing them have signs . You have
what is called retail service which this building and the additional
' building that will be built there are designed for . Primarily . Retail
service means I have a service such as insurance in this case or I 'm a
doctor or I 'm a lawyer or whatever and I 'd like the public to come to my
office and know that I 'm there and I like to publicize that . So we have a
retail service sector . If you look at your SIC codes in your book someday ,
SIC , you ' ll find that about 50% of all businesses that are retail oriented
are considered to be retail and the balance are service oriented . You know
service type of clients that are looking for . Those types of people are
the type of people that would want to be in the downtown generally . You
then have the type of tenant that does not need to be known that he 's there
' or she is there or the business is there . That would be like another one
of our tenants in that building called Thies and Talle . They have nothing
to sell to the public . They don 't care if the public knows they 're there
or not and so they 're not interested in signage . They could be in the
' industrial park and that 's the primarily place where you 'd normally find
them . They happen to be an owner of the building so they happen to be in
this building but that would be a typical tenant that you 'd find in the
classic office building who didn't care whether anybody knew they were
there or not . So you have three types of tenants . Your downtown location
is attracting primarily service oriented retail . Insurance , doctors ,
lawyers and real estate type of companies and retail retail who do need
' signage . Now when we designed this building , we put in a sign band along
the top that I guess filled with , we had two tenants or whatever . We
probably hit about 50% or 60% of the maximum in your sign ordinances
which I checked today to see if they 'd been modified since 1986 when they
were adopted . It simply says in the CBD district you 're allowed 15% of the
building wall signage . You're allowed a tenant identification sign of up
' to 80 square feet and you 're allowed a pylon sign of approximately 64
square feet , none of which should be higher than 20 feet . That 's quoting
out of your ordinances . We 've designed all of these to be much lower and
much smaller because they wouldn 't fit . I think in answer to your
1question , we 've now gone through the whole process of signing that building
and it kind of balances . Okay? And it 's true we could move one of those
letters back and forth but just to move the letters is $1 ,500 .00 or
$2 ,000 .00 . Those letters are very difficult to install and so in addition
to that , in this particular case the tenant , American Family has sort of a
logo . It 's that little house that goes over it 's name which would be
difficult to add to , from their point of view , to the sign band . They
could have the name American Family but the logo 's important . And so for
their point of view they would like to be where they are . It works out
nice . As you say , we haven 't really talked to them about the other one but
in mentioning it but , so you have 3 types of signage . In another to
another question , will we ever be back? I guess as long as we are below
the amount of signage allowed and there 's a public hearing process , because
I
i
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 20 , 1991 - Page 9
we 're not just applying for a permit , I guess we have the right to come
back and request that the signage be changed if it 's in properly good
taste . And that 's a right that we have . So as I said , the people that
drive this are the people that pay the rent and the other alternative is
they just have vacant buildings and that 's not our goal . That 's what I 've
got to say on that particular concept . Thank you .
Erhart: Can I continue on with the point I was trying to make there?
Emmings: Go ahead . ,
Erhart: I wasn 't trying to be critical at all . I 'm trying to establish an
alternative thought that I had and that was , you 've got a commercial
building , multi-tenant . We've got one across the street over here in Town
Square . You have a sign band . I assume , I mean do we limit the number of
signs on Town Square building or do we limit it in terms of how long the
sign , the minimum length of one sign is or do we have any limits at all on II
the sign band on that building?
Krauss: Town Square has a sign covenant package . Each tenant is entitled
to one and there is some size restriction but there 's a difference that
we 've tried to maintain all along and that 's that Town Square is a retail
building . It 's people selling pizzas and gasoline and restaurants . We 're
talking about an office building here . We 're talking about a heavily
signed office building . There isn 't an tenant in the world , not many that
won 't take a sign or won 't ask for a sign and if they could get one they 'd
love it . But you know when you go past the IDS building you don 't see 45 II different signs for whichever law firms are inside . They have a lobby sign
and that 's just the fact of life that they deal with . Another factor
that 's not coming out here is that when this project was approved , as a
condition of approval they were required to get sign plan approval . That
sign plan deviates from the Code .
Erhart : From the what? 1
Krauss: From the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance . In some areas it 's
more restrictive and in some areas it 's less but it was part of the II architectural package that was approved with this building . Now what we 're
getting is playing two sides of the coin . Yes we have our sign package but
the sign ordinance also allows us more theoretically so let 's get that too . ,
You know , when we argue about a sign being 6 inches taller , that is
trivial . It really is . I don 't know where to draw the line . If it 's 6
inches or a foot and a half or 3 feet . I mean someplace in there I suppose
it becomes more significant . We 're not trying to be contrary with this . It II
just seemed to us that here we had a plan that was approved . Here we 've
got a request for additional signage . There 's no guidance as I would have
liked to have seen I suppose in a sign covenant that restricted signage to 11
primary tenants . That 's something that we asked Market Square to do .
Market Square has signs of different size in the sign package that was
approved and it 's by the size of the tenant . Only the major tenants has a II right to be on the pylon sign which basically will have the Shopping Center
name and the supermarket . We 're comparing a lot of apples and oranges wit
11
•
11 Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 10
' this one and it makes us uncomfortable . We don 't know where to draw the
line basically .
Emmings: Let me ask you something here Paul . The sign in the front of the
building that they 're proposing , what was it? That was approved along with
the rest of the signage? The bands on the building and so forth?
1 Krauss : No .
Emmings: Or is that something new?
Krauss : Well I guess the way I interpretted what happened last summer was
that the attention was focused on the sign bands themselves . How many sign
bands should be approved . There was no request . No new information . No
discussion apart from Mr . Copeland 's comments in the Minutes that I can
recall on the staff report relative to those signs except for the fact that
' it may have been noted that they were there .
Ahrens : We didn 't discuss that at all .
Emmings: No . I don 't remember it at all either . So there wasn 't , were
there any drawings or anything showing this , how should I refer to that
sign in the front there? Monument?
Erhart : Identification sign .
' Krauss: Yeah . Is there any new information on that? To the best of my
knowledge , no .
Emmings: Are you aware , is there anything on those drawings that were
presented back at that time or weren 't there any?
Al-Jaff: No , there weren 't any .
Bob Copeland : That 's not , pardon me . If I 'm understanding your question ,
that 's not an accurate answer . I think if your question was , was a pylon
sign ever approved in any form . Is that your question?
' Krauss: No .
Bob Copeland: Then I don 't understand .
Emmings: I 'm wondering if we have , I know that we talked about the sign
bands and a directory sign in the back . I don 't remember ever considering
a sign in the front of the building on the ground .
Bob Copeland: Well there was , one was approved and it 's just a question
now of what size it is and what it says .
Krauss: That 's true . One was approved . Back up a year further to the
11 original sign plan that was approved . There was a sign in this location .
It 's smaller than the one being requested now and it only had the name of
the building on it .
I
Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 20 , 1991 - Page 11
Emmings: That 's what I was going to ask . If it was proposed , did they say ,
at that time what was going to be on it?
Krauss: Yes . I
Al-Jaff: This is what was approved .
Brad Johnson: That 's a building identification sign but that 's not even '
the name of the building .
Emmings: Well , the name of the building has changed but so then you don 't II
need any sign at all maybe huh? Okay . Alright , we 've still got a public
hearing open here and let 's see if there 's anybody . Have you said
everything to us that you 'd like to say at this point? We may have more
questions for you later and we 'll give you another chance to talk .
Bob Copeland: Thank you . ,
Emmings: Is there anybody else here who wants to talk?
Brad Johnson: I 'd like to say something because . . .and I object to this
being called an office building classification and the signage different .
There 's nothing in your ordinances to say signage office , it doesn 't
delineate the difference . It just allowed signage in the CBD district and II
we built , we 've got the Bloomberg building which is an office building .
We've got signs all over that . We 've got , not that I think they look very
good but there is no delineation . As an office building , this is a service I
retail building . I was trying to point out that we do have retail type
customers like an insurance agents , doctors , chiropractors , which will go
in a retail building just the same , all of which need signage . And one of
the reasons that Waconia Hospital located at that location is that they
knew they could have signage . One of the reasons all of those tenants you
see on the front located at that location is because they were looking for
a high traffic area with signage . We recently leased some additional space II
in this community to St . Francis Hospital . If you go down on West 79th ,
not that I agree with how the signs look but they have the standard sign
package for an office building in that retail look . If you want to look at '
that , they 've got a pylon sign and a number of different signs which the
staff just approved and I wouldn 't say it looks good . You can 't see the
letters on it but that 's office building signs . That 's all the same
characteristics of this particular building . Not in the CBD district . The II
signs over there don 't restrict it . I think that that 's what you have to
realize is that the precedence has been set . We have some ordinances that
are here and they approve them as they go along . 1
Ahrens: When American Family moved into the building , did they think they
were going to get a sign on the front?
Brad Johnson: They will not move in the building unless they get a sign .
I 'm saying my business is leasing space and I 'm in town here to make sure
that the people who lease space from us make money . 1
Ahrens: What 's the occupancy rate of the building right now?
I
r
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 12
Brad Johnson: 90% .
Ahrens: It 's 90% occupied?
Brad Johnson : Yes .
Ahrens: And there 's right now you 're only advertising 5?
Brad Johnson : I have two more tenants in there and we 're having a hard
time because , we went to American Family and they said look . They had 3
' other places to go potentially and we had to present to them that they
could have a sign .
I Ahrens: So you 're doing this all for American Family because all those
other tenants don 't care if they 're advertising?
Brad Johnson: I 'm doing it for the next tenant in line . The next tenant
is a doctor who will ask me the same thing .
Ahrens: Where will you put his sign?
Brad Johnson: He may not get one .
IAhrens: Will he move into the building if he doesn 't get a sign?
Brad Johnson : I don 't know . But right now we know that originally we had
' agreed at the last meeting , as you recall , to go to 5 signs and one .sign
per . Okay?
Emmings: Yep .
Brad Johnson: And reduce the total number of potential tenants . At time
we had all the spaces leased . Since that time we 've had two tenants fall
through and that 's why we said , we felt comfortable . All the space was
leased and right now we 've got two spaces in there to lease but I think
it 's a matter of principle . We 're dealing in retail locations located in
the downtown area . We 're dealing with the standard . We come back with the
' next building you 'd better believe is going to have a lot of signs on it
and they ' ll meet code . I don 't understand when things meet code and we 're
not asking for variances why we have this kind of problem . I don 't
Iunderstand that problem .
Bob Copeland: The building we 're in right now has 3 wall signs saying
virtually the same thing on three sides of the building and it has the
pylon sign or whatever you 'd call it out here , announcing that it 's City
Hall again . So I mean it's very common and we 're not stretching things to
the limit at all with this 30% of what 's allowed .
IAhrens : Can I ask a question?
IEmmings: Sure .
so
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 20 , 1991 - Page 13
Ahrens: In the staff report it says , on page 3-, the second paragraph .
Staff originally reviewed the signage plan for the Medical Arts Building as
a package and did not hold the project to a strict interpretation of the
sign ordinance . The ordinance does not allow low profile identification
signs in the CBD . Back up to the first sentence . I realize there 's
somewhat of an exaplanation here because you thought that it would be okay
to have these kinds of signs on this building because of the nature of the
building . The way we envisioned signage to be in the central business
district . Is that right? Is that why you didn 't make them comply strictly
with the sign ordinance? I
Krauss: I think there 's a couple of reasons for that . It predated both of
our tenures here but in going back through this we had a premiere building
being built in downtown . It was built with participation of the City . It
was held to something of a different standard . They were required by the
Planning Commission to come back in for a signage plan approval because
apparently the Planning Commission and City Council felt strongly enough
about it that it was an element that you wanted to have some additional
authority to control . We 're willing to abide by that commitment and in
fact that commitment as redefined last year and again , I don 't know where II to draw the line on these things . When we have a sign plan that 's approved
for Market Square for example . That package of sign covenants , it 's almost
like a PUD for signs . That becomes the ordinance for that site . That was '
the sign plan approval . They do have the right to come back as they 're
doing to request modifications to that but again , then to say that there 's
an entitlement because the ordinance which is a notoriously bad ordinance ,
gives them something more , I have a tough time digesting that . I
Bob Copeland: In what way didn 't the original package meet the ordinance?
That 's what you say there . You say we 're not allowed a low sign? You have
them all over the city .
Krauss : Not in the CBD .
Bob Copeland: You don 't?
Krauss: They 're actually illegal in the CBD . Now we may have some non-
conforming ones or grandfathered ones .
Bob Copeland: Where does it say you 're not allowed them?
Emmings: I 'm going to call an end to this argument .
Brad Johnson: Well the point being is that in the City ordinance , and it 's II
written in there , it does not allow a low profile . All it says is that it
cannot exceed 20 feet in height .
Bob Copeland: I would think a lower sign would be better . t
Emmings: Have you presented to us what you want to present to us at this
point? 1
Brad Johnson: Yep .
I/
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 14
Emmings: Alright , is there anyone else here who wants to talk on this
issue?
11 Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Alright , Joan .
Ahrens: It seems we 've been discussing these signs ad nauseam or we did
last spring . We never discussed and if there was a discussion it took
place before I came here but I don 't remember any discussion of any
additional signs besides the 5 bands . If you say they were approved , of
course I believe you . I didn 't like the 5 bands . I had a real problem
' with those to begin with . I thought they looked bad and I think they do
look bad . I think there 's no conformity at all in the lettering or in the
size or the style and to add another sign on there advertising one more
tenant in a way that 's completely , I 'm looking at this picture . In a way
' that 's completely different from the rest of them , I think will detract
from the building . On the other hand I have a real problem with how this
whole thing was approved to begin with . It seems to me that they were told
a variety of things as to what would fly sign wise and I 'd hate to think
that we 're just making up the rules as we go along but it kind of looks
like that to me . I hate the idea of they said the applicants would come in
repeatedly if necessary to keep asking for signs . I think that' s a
terrible idea . I think it will make the building look terrible . I was
told in the beginning , I think we were all told this was going to be a
professional building . Now it 's going to be a retail building . I don 't
know what our expectations are of what the appearance of this building is
going to be . This additional picture that was presented of , where is this?
St . Francis Physician? Oh , okay . I don 't think that this is really
relevant as far as comparing it with the signage on this other building . I
think the signs on this building look a whole lot better than the signs on
this retail building . Brad says that the second building that 's going to
be built is going to be loaded with signs . I think that sounds terrible .
I mean it sounds hideous . It sounds .
Brad Johnson: I think the point is that we are allowed . One thing I
object to this whole discussion is your job , as I understand it , is to
interpret the ordinance . All I 'm hearing so far is personal opinions . And
you wonder why we wonder what 's going on . You have an ordinance and all I
I hear when I come to these things is we should stick by the ordinance .
You 're supposed to interpret those .
Ahrens: I think the City generously didn 't make you comply with the
ordinance to begin with so we 're in kind of a different situation at this
time .
Brad Johnson: In what way?
Emmings: Okay . Brad , you 've had your shot and it 's time for her now to
have , to express her opinions . Go ahead .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 15
Ahrens: I don 't see that , I don 't know why they 're going through this 1
process for . I agree , 6 inches to increase a sign seems ridiculous . I
don 't even know why they 're going through this process to increase a sign 6 11
inches . I don 't know what benefit that has . The outside sign , if it was
approved and if it was allowed by the ordinance , I think maybe we should
approve it . I don 't think that the size . I think the size is an issue and
I think it should be approved as presented with just the name of the
building , whatever that is now in front of it and not to have additional
advertising for tenants inside . That 's it .
Emmings : Okay , Jeff . '
Farmakes: Well a lot of the comments that she made I think are relevant to in
what we 're talking about here . I think this was a problem before it ever
came in front of us here . Although I will agree that a matter of personal
opinion does get into some of this when you 're interpretting these things .
Your comment is that 's not what we 're supposed to be doing but I do think
that that we should make comments that reflect the overall look of our
city . I think that 's part of , or at least that was part of the questions I
was asked when I interviewed for the Commission . When it comes to signage II
I question two things and I 've heard this comment made over and over again .
The difference between a retail building and a commercial building . If the
purpose of the signage is identification , as some of the comments that you
made was to identify the tenant , but how does one distinguish between where 11
you 've been identified and where you 're advertising? For instance , you
have 3 signs on the original building that have the same type face .
They 're a dark band and they have white type . Then you 've got a center
sign that 's in a different type face and a different color coordination .
Brad Johnson: Temporary .
Farmakes: Okay . And you 've got this gold one over here in a different
type face again . I believe the American Family logo is in red is it not?
Brad Johnson: No .
Farmakes: But the type I believe is in red . You have the base background
sign but this logo itself is in red .
Brad Johnson: Not in the sign we 're proposing.
Farmakes : Not in the sign you 're proposing? So it 'd just be in black?
Brad Johnson: Like . . .plate . It 's a backlit sign . The American Family is II
a standard red . The one that they currently have over on 79th Street is a
backlit sign with three colors . This one will be one color . Two colors
` actually . It 's white plexiglass with aluminum over it . The aluminum is
the color of the sign band and then they 've cut the aluminum to show what
the sign , that 's how the light comes through . You have a layer of aluminum
that 's going to be , what color?
Bob Copeland: Burgandy .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 16
Brad Johnson: Burgandy . And then they put a white plexiglass behind that
so it shows through . And behind that they light it .
Farmakes: So the definition of your character is if you have a white
plexiglass , it 's burgandy?
1 Brad Johnson: There 's white plexiglass and burgandy in the little look
that you see there . It 's just the reverse of what you print .
Farmakes: Okay , so we have white letters on a burgandy background? Or you
have a white background with burgandy letters?
Brad Johnson: It 's burgandy on white . You have to see a sign and I agree ,
that 's confusing .
Farmakes: The point I 'm trying to make here I guess is that there seems to
1 be some sort of attempt here to stand out from the other signs . Well ,
Goldstar Mortgage versus the Business Health Services .
Brad Johnson: We probably will admit at this particular point that that
was a mistake . I now know that . It just got through the whole process and
it was in the lease that the tenant required that he have gold lettering .
And we 've gone back to him and suggested , because we agree it does look
11 kind of funny , that he change it but that was approved both by us and the
City .
' Farmakes: I think the end purpose of what I 'm trying to get at here is
that whenever you have an issue or you have a client coming in , I 'm sure
that subject to their interpretation , their franchise or whatever , they 're
going to want the most identification that is possible under the
circumstances . And when you 're interpretting these ordinances as to what
type of sign you can build , I 'm sure on one hand you want the best looking
building possible . On the other hand , you want the client . So when we
1 look at these type of things , it certainly isn 't enhancing your building .
I think you 'd admit that . You made the comment .
' Brad Johnson: The gold?
Farmakes: Well , the gold one or adding on these signs . These are issues
that you are doing as a matter of economic necessity . Correct? To get the
1 client .
Brad Johnson: The current trend is , if you look at Town Square , there is
no consistency to the lettering and there 's a sign band that 's
approximately 2 feet high . Maybe it 's 3 feet high . That runs across the
top of that building . And you can any , because this is what is necessary
in order to attract a tenant , and it can have a logo. They can have
various colored signs and there 's no consistency to the lettering . Now we
may have made a mistake on this building by having too narrow of a sign
band and we 've identified it so much that we didn 't get the free kind of
' spirit that we have over at Town Square . I think we 'll say that 's true .
In addition to that , our first two tenants were the same tenants and they
put in the same type of sign to balance out . One was on one hand in the
■
NIL
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 20 , 1991 - Page 17
left and you 've got the , what do you call it? The Business Health which is I
. . .the standard lettering . . . Now Market Square , the new one , has
approximately the same thing as Town Square has . It 's got a band. It will '
have free form letters . I don 't know what I 'm trying to get to . We really
don 't feel that an American Family logo up on a sign band at this point in
life is a good idea the way that is set up and that 's our decision .
Farmakes: But why is that? Is that your client or is that you? ,
Brad Johnson: That would be me .
Farmakes: So you feel that . . .appearance of the building?
Brad Johnson : . . .yellow sign , I 'd have to live with a logo that would ,
probably look out of place . It 'd be different if everyone had a logo . We
try to balance them ourselves .
Farmakes: Now the star next to the Goldstar Mortgage , is that? I
Brad Johnson: That 's a logo . ,
Farmakes: That is a logo?
Brad Johnson: Yeah . That 's a permitted use in the downtown area on the
sign band .
Farmakes: But you don 't feel that the American State Farm Insurance logo
would look good say in that center area?
Bob Copeland: That 's strictly just a matter of opinion . It 's very
interesting this whole conversation because I can remember being over here
at City Hall with the previous Planner and the consultant to the City where
they told us when this project was still on the drawing board and they
said , we don 't want a plain building . You 've got to get some signage in II there . They 've got to be multi-colored . We want it close to the road . We
want exciting . We want some interest . And that 's what they said . That
was the tone of the project . And that 's the way it was set . Now you
people look at things differently . Well you 're certainly entitled to
but . . .
Farmakes: You 're misinterpretting . '
Bob Copeland: . . .there was a different tone set early on for this .
Farmakes: You 're misinterpretting my question . My question to you was , I
what was the motivation for the story here as to how these signs , what was
the history behind these signs being different? 1
Brad Johnson: All those signs fit in the sign band . And that , from our
point of view , would have been okay and from the City 's point of view. We
approved the signs and the City approved the signs . Once the band has been II
set . The same for Town Square . I mean we could have had the same signs
for Town Square as we had here .
I
T_
11 Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 18
11 Farmakes: Well , I 'm still unclear . Maybe I 'm not listening to you
correctly but I am unclear as to the motivation why you don 't want to put
it up on that sign band? Why your client doesn 't or if your client is
conditional as to it being in that corner down in the way it 's being
proposed here?
Brad Johnson: We had heard the last meeting five . When we came out of
this last meeting five tenants on the sign band . One sign per little step
in and out . Five signs . That 's what we heard . So we never presented to
them that they could do it any other way . I don 't think we could do the
logo . We could say American Family Insurance .
Farmakes: Why is that?
Brad Johnson: It 's just not wide enough .
11 Farmakes : So the size would be too small if that roof was up and above
there for . the type size is what you 're saying?
Brad Johnson: You can 't go outside the sign band to actually accomplish
what I think their logo does . . .
Farmakes : Now do you interpret that or does your client as to how big? I
mean is there a certain point size on that type?
Brad Johnson: The client .
tFarmakes: The client does?
Brad Johnson: If we 're going to do the logo , you have to do . . .
Farmakes: No , I 'm talking about the size of the sign for the size of the
type . The size of the type as it 's read from the street .
' Brad Johnson: They have a sign standard that says American Family or
Century 21 or any of those places . There 's a certain relationship that
they have said in their franchise and whatever and you just try to work
that as much as possible into the ordinances . The scale of that . . .
Farmakes: I guess that answers as many questions as I have . I agree with
you to some extent that that ordinance is vague and I hope that maybe we
can rectify some of that in the future here .
Emmings: Do you have anything on the directory sign in the back? Any
feelings about it one way or the other?
• Farmakes: I feel it serves it 's purpose . I guess I don 't see a problem
. with it . I don't have a problem on the other side of the parking lot .
Emmings: Okay , Brian?
Batzli : Directory sign in the back , thumbs up for me . I think that we
have every right to be looking at this how we 're looking at it given the
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 20 , 1991 - Page 19
way the building was developed and the conditions and everything else . As 1
you 'll remember from the last time , I thought that this building was kind
of the equivalent to a downtown Excelsior area . I liked the signs . I hate
the way the applicant keeps on coming in here and I would say let 's do this 1.
one but kind of a read my lips . No more signs . I can't believe that
they 're obviously in here . They want another tenant and for economic
considerations they 're going to come in and try and brow beat us and I kind II
of resent that attitude .
Emmings: Annette? 1
Ellson: I don't have a problem with the directory sign . I agree with Brad
that there 's differences in the SIC codes and things like that . I kept
thinking to myself that the difference I always see with Town Square and
all these others is that they actually people draw people in because of the
sign . You 're going to go and buy something and would an insurance sign
make me stop and say , gee honey let 's go in and talk about insurance while II
we 're driving by . You know it 's these types of businesses aren 't that
kind . You 're looking them up in the Yellow Pages and a lot of people say
things like we are in the Medical Arts Building or they say things like 11 that simply because they 're that type of business that still draw people
and they don 't have all the signage . I think that they don't have nearly
the drop-in traffic that Town Square type of take-out chow mein would and
things like that . But if the ordinance allows them to have that , I 'd
prefer it be up on the wall . It 's funny , I would rather give up another
space on that wall and make a small American Family in the band then to put
it on the ground there . But if the ordinance allows it on the ground ,
then I would want to take away 6 inches and make it as small as possible .
That 's it .
Emmings: Ladd? 1
Conrad: Paul , the standards for an identification sign . What , other than
size , are there standards? 1
Krauss: In our ordinance?
Conrad: Kind of like what can go on? 1
Krauss: No . And that 's why we 've resorted to basically sign covenants on 11
the newer developments because not only does it often not give the
developer what they want , which isn't the case here , but it doesn 't achieve II
what the City wants . Now for example Town Center , or I 'm sorry . Market
Square has signage that 's guided as to type . I mean I think it 's all like II
the backlit individual letters . The size of the sign area is regulated .
The size of the sign area relative to the tenant and the prioritization of
the tenants is regulated . Within those guidelines they have a lot of
latitude . They can do different colored signs and that can look
attractive .
Conrad: So it 's no unique . This is not a precedent where you have the
name of the building or the name of the group of offices plus a tenant?
That 's not a unique thing?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 20
Krauss: Well , it 's not unique in Chanhassen to date and I 'm real
relunctant to rely on our past experience .
Conrad: Tell me if you had your druthers , what would you do with pylon
signs?
Krauss: That they should identify the property , the building itself and if
they want to identify a tenant , it should be the major tenant .
Conrad: But your preference would probably not be for 10 foot high pylon
signs?
Krauss: No , that 's a quirk in the ordinance and I wouldn't defend that .
That 's wrong but that 's the way it is .
Conrad: Do you have a vision? What you just gave me would be a vision .
Shorter signs . Really to get rid of some of the clutter or the ugliness of
the Sinclair sign or a gas station sign , we really don't want that in
downtown . Are there other characteristics to these signs? They literally
have to be lit at night to be of significant use but is there anything
else? And we 're getting off a little bit Brad . I 'm just kind of curious .
Krauss: We don 't mind monument signs being lit or being prominent but when
you 're monumenting something you 're sticking it out by the right-of--way .
It 's 10 feet back from the street . It 's a different kind of sign than a
tenant sign . I was just talking to Sharmin and I was saying somewhat
facetiously what if this was a 5 story building or 4 story building? We 'd
had 3 sign bands . I mean the issue .
Conrad: You like your identification signs to be kind of classy don 't you?
Krauss: Yes and often times they 're landscaped . They 're lit . They 're
pretty expensive things for a developer to do . And frankly we , at a staff
level , we like the Brooke 's pylon sign . We think that works pretty well .
It identifies the center and the primarily tenant .
Conrad: When the City Council allowed the 5 bands on the front and the
back , what was it that , you know originally there were only 5 bands to be
allowed and then some of us decided that it was appropriate to have the 5
in the back . What ordinance were we concerned with? What guideline were
11 we concerned with when we granted the 5 on the back as well as the 5 . Was
there something? Was it common sense type of issue or was there a one sign
per building? Was it a one sign per street frontage type of deal and the
back side wasn 't on the street frontage?
Krauss: To be honest I don't know . We didn 't support that .
Conrad: I know you didn 't . You and Joan were in the same camp . When , I
don 't want to belabor this and I 'm sorry . You believed you had a sign
agreement and therefore your inflexibility on this one . Is that the right?
j Basically them came in under signed in terms of what would be permitted and
maybe we went and allowed some things that typically our ordinance might
not have granted but I 'm just kind of curious about the fact that they
I
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 -- Page 21
could come back because they still have some liberties . They still may
have some more tenants and I think that the future is a little bit unclear
to me as to how we control this one Paul . But your interpretation is once
you have a sign package , that 's it and no changes unless you go through a
process right?
Krauss: That 's exactly the case . To us that 's no different than you
approving an architectural plan for a building . We 're there to make sure
that that happens .
Conrad: So it 's not like we had the perfect package before? It was there
and now we 're going through the process? Okay . Just a few things .
Personal opinion . I don 't care if it 's retail sales or service sales .
This country is really , you know this is the same spiel I gave you the last II
time . Businesses need signage . They absolutely have to have it and I
think we , you know I think signage can improve the looks if it 's done well
and I just don 't have any problem at all making sure that there 's signage . II
I don 't care if it 's an office building or a retail center where you buy
products . I think signage has to be. The question in my mind is how
tastefully it 's done . I think our sign ordinance is the biggest pain
because you can never , they 're always 50 pages long and they 're just a real
tough thing to develop standards for . There 's all different situations but
anyway , I don 't have a problem at all with the directory sign in the back .
I think when you take a look at it , common sense tells you that it 's fine
and to add a few inches here or there , there 's just no problem . As I look II
at the informational sign or the identification sign on the front , we
probably approved something before . I wouldn 't design it this way . I
think this is low impact visibility the way they 're doing this . This is
not what I would be doing but this is what their decision is as to how to
do it . And again , I think it 's low impact . When you take a look at it , I
don 't think it 's , I just believe it 's not doing , it 's not hurting
Chanhassen 's aesthetic appeal in downtown by allowing it . My concern is
the future . My concern is we don 't have standards really for what these
informational or identification signs should be . They can be really
pretty . They can be a corner stone . And I looked at this and I 'm not sure
what we can do where they need signage . I just don 't know that we could
put up something that 's really significant in that little area that 's
there . So basically my biggest concern right now is that whatever they put
in aesthetically fits , and I don 't know that right now. The quality of
what 's been presented to me tonight doesn 't tell me anything and so I don 't
have a problem with the bands and the signage up there . There 's a few
little problems here and there but I don't see that a big deal but I do
care about the quality of the signs that 's going in . They have to relate .
I heard the words but I would have to make sure that staff . I don 't want a
grotesque sign coming out of there . I really don't and when you start
playing with illumination , I get a little bit concerned . So I don 't have a
problem with what 's being requested tonight . I do have a problem with 11 making sure that it 's aesthetically pleasing and again as I say , this is
not the sign the way I 'd solve the problem but that 's the way they owners
want to solve it . That 's okay . The only other thing I think we should
talk about is what if they come back again. Are we going to go through the II
same thing? Do we have a package deal? The applicant says no . We don 't
have a package deal . We may want to come back . We may have additional
1
I
1 _
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 22
need and maybe we have to decide whether we have a package deal tonight and
this is it or we 'll entertain other signage changes . That 's all I 've got .
Emmings: Can I ask , do I hear you saying you don 't mind the idea of a sign
in the front of the building as it 's proposed as long as it 's not an ugly
sign?
Conrad: Aesthetically pleasing . It should fit in with what the signage
elements that they 've already got . It sounded like they have those . I 'm
not convinced . You know I haven 't seen the hows . How they 're going to do
it here . I just really have to be comfortable that it 's not a glaringly
different appearing sign than what 's there . That 's my biggest concern .
' Emmings: So would you want to see that before we acted on it?
Conrad: Would I want to see it? Somebody should . I don 't care if it 's
staff , City Council . I don 't know that I need to give my . You know
everybody 's got their own personal opinion of what beauty is and I guess
I 'd prefer somebody has to do it .
' Erhart : Paul you mentioned the word , you mentioned that we had a covenant
with Town Square signage?
Krauss: Yes .
Erhart: Do we have a covenant with the owners of this building?
Krauss: Well , you know I don 't think the terminology was as sophisticated
then but essentially yes . You had a site plan with some specific signage
requirements that were conditions of approval . I consider that the same as
a covenant .
Erhart : What 's the , with Town Square what 's the , in your mind what 's the
form of covenant there?
Al-.Taff: It was designed by Fred Hoisington .
Brad Johnson: The difference between the two projects is that this is not
a PUD . . . .PUD by definition . You can vary from the ordinances but you
have to have a pack when it 's all over with . And the CBD because you don 't
need the PUD benefits in order to do a building on a small lot . . .
Krauss: The question here though becomes one of is there a document called
the sign covenant that 's recorded with the property that the City 's
accepted and has some legal standing .
Erhart: We have that with Town Square?
Krauss: There is a separate document with Town Square . This one no . This
one , when you approved the building you conditioned it on a sign plan
j approval . You then approved that sign plan . It became a portion of the
site plan at that point . I sort of regard the two as the same but
administratively they 're a little different I guess .
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 23
Erhart: If you were , if this building , if this was going to come in . 1
Let 's say it was a flat piece of ground today and they came in and you
feel , I sense that you would want to have a separate sign covenant if this
was a new project today or did I misinterpret .
Krauss: That 's correct .
Erhart: Which?
Krauss: That we 'd want a separate document that was recorded that had some 11
better legal standing .
Erhart: Alright , and that 's because you feel the ordinance is too vague?
Krauss: Yeah .
Erhart: Or do you just think that 's the way signs ought to be managed? 1
Krauss: Well in my own personal opinion , this goes beyond what the
ordinance is telling us . Yes , I think it 's better for all concerned to
have a sign package that 's consistent architecturally with the building .
. That the City buys into . The developer buys into that guides , you know
tenants will come in and ask for the stars but you lay a covenant out and
you say this is all you can get . 1
Erhart: Do other cities do it that way?
Krauss: Oh sure . 1
Erhart: You 've got a situation here where you 've got a no win situation .
We can talk about whether you like signs or whether you don 't like signs
but that changes every minute . Every tenant the situation 's going to
change . You 're going to have the building owner wanting to have another
sign for every tenant that wants the signs bigger . Brad you mentioned
there 's a 1 foot height limit on that sign . Where is that? If there 's no
covenant , then why is there a 1 foot height limit on the band?
Brad Johnson: We have a sign band that we created . 1
Erhart: So it 's your own deal . So if you want to put a 1 1/2 foot
American Family sign up there , that has nothing to do with the city .
Krauss: Except that the sign band is part of the architectural elevation
that was approved with the building . 1
Erhart: But what I 'm hearing here is that someone 's arguing that that was
for that day but they can come back anytime and change it to a 2 foot sign
band because our ordinance allows it .
Krauss: I think that 's sort of what you 're hearing .
Erhart: But that 's not right or what?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 24
Batzli : That 's not the City 's position .
Conrad: The City said it was granted once .
Erhart: But what I 'm sensing here is that , and maybe I 'm misreading the
Planning Commission , is that we 're kind of going along . And maybe I 'm
' misreading the group here a little bit . It just bothers me that I guess
that we 're going to have to go through that . First of all what bothers me
is that the applicant expects to get this through . I think you do and at
what point do you stop . At what point do we stop having meetings? At what
point , you know Bill Boyt talked about a 14 foot sign and everything , or 10
or anything and somebody expected that we were going to have a 10 foot sign
and we spent a lot of money getting this into a document and how long does
that go on? I guess the other side of that is I guess the whole band looks
terrible today . Whatever you guys came up with for an approach , didn 't
work . I think Brad . . .says it doesn 't work . I guess I 'd like to see if
we 're right out on a limb , negotiate a covenant so we don't have to come
back here with another meeting and spends hours and thousands of dollars of
city money on another meeting and money from these guys and let 's negotiate
' a package . Make a covenant that 's going to end it . I personally think at
this point , I think the band around Town Square looks better than the signs
on this building .
Brad Johnson: . . .Town Square and the lead tenant chose small signs , small ,
you know what you see .
Erhart: The suggestion that I would have is ,' in the first place I think
it 's kind of ridiculous to make the identification sign two purpose . If
it 's identification sign , make it the title of the building and negotiate ,
make a continuous band around the building . I think it looks better if you
have logos up there in multiple colors and put some character into it . If
you 're going to have signs , then let 's put some character into it and
' negotiate a covenant to give them the signs they need . Keep some
consistency so the identification sign is the identification sign . Not
something else that they 'll come back and say now I want American Family on
this side and another one on this side because we don 't have the band space
and it 's going to go on and on and negotiate a covenant .
Brad Johnson: The original plan on this was to have a band like you
suggested with as many tenants as we wanted . We came back and somebody
said well you can only have 5 tenants . We don 't have this kind of problem
with Market Square because , over here at Town Square because if we expand
to 7 tenants or 10 tenants , there 's no limit as long as their sign is in
' that band . And this particular one , because you limited the number that
can be in the band , somebody has limited it . I also think , and I told Bob
this , the band is a little narrow and we made that decision by about a
foot . And that 's because we put that burgandy thing in there . It 's a
little narrow to accomplish what we have over there . It 's an architectural
thing .
Erhart: In summary , I guess I don 't care about the 6 inches on the
directory sign . I don 't think it makes sense to have both an occupant
advertising sign and building identification sign on one sign and I think
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 25
we should , I 'd like to see this go back and negotiate a covenant that gives II
them a whole fresh look at that band . Where you allow them to have
adequate signage up there for occupants .
Emmings : Okay . I agree with everybody . Is there a motion?
Conrad: We 've got 6 different approaches here . ,
Emmings: I don 't know . I guess where I come down on this is , I don 't
think we 're really got , I don 't have any problem with saying to Brad a
deal 's a deal . They made a deal with the City here and I don 't care what
the ordinance says , they made the deal and we certainly have every right to
make them stick with it if we want to . Having that said , I also don 't have
any problem with them coming back and asking for modifications . I think
that 's the way the system 's got to work a little bit . That doesn 't mean we II
have to give it to them . And I really , I don 't think it 's fair , I don 't
like the position that Brad took that because the ordinance allows it that 11
somehow we have to give it to him . That simply is not , that 's wrong as far
as I 'm concerned . I think what they were allowed , if it was ambiguous in
the beginning , was certainly clarified last year when we looked at this. II And so I think they 've been treated fairly and a deal 's a deal to some
extent . The directory sign in the back , if they want it 6 inches bigger , I
have absolutely no problem with that . That 's fine . The sign in the front ,
I agree with Tim , ought to be a building identification sign and shouldn 't II
have anybody on it other than the name of the building . American Family ,
if they 're going to go in that building , is going to have to have a sign
and I have no idea on how you 're going to accomplish that . I don 't have
any suggestions for you but I don 't want to see it down on that sign . I
don 't know what else to say . Somehow American Family needs a sign and you
may well have to come back and do what Tim suggested and start a process to
rethink all of the signs on the building and we 'll have to look at it
again . I don 't think that the , I personally would not like to see the
American Family logo up on the sign band but I might change my mind on
that . Those are my comments I guess . Do you have anything else you want
to add back there?
Bob Copeland: I have one thing that we 're not here tonight because of our
desire to . . . The only reason we 're here is because the staff wouldn 't
approve , they didn 't consider this minor enough to approve it at their
level . In other words , we didn 't want to have this public hearing . We
resisted it . . . I
Emmings: I don 't have any problem with you coming in here and asking for
anything . I really don 't . I think that 's the way we 're set up to work so '
I don 't resent or think there 's anything wrong with you coming in and
asking for anything you want .
Brad Johnson: Probably the way to solve the problem is a little bit- like
what you 're saying , what Tim says and what everybody else says . Get the
signs on the sign band and originally we didn 't have a limit . We just knew
we had a limited amount of space but not limit the number of tenants which ,
see Market Square if you had gone in and said , okay . You wouldn 't even
think this way but you can only have sign for 5 tenants . You would have
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 26
heard us scream and holler . We knew we were going to have more . So if we
could just limit ourselves to a sign area there , I don 't think we 'd have
half this discussion and that 's originally how we started out . At some
period of time somebody said , we only want , we want to do the cookie
cutter . There 's 5 spots . That 's what we want and that 's where we put
them . We possibly made a couple of mistakes in the design of the sign band
' because we went in and really made it narrow by painting those little
stripes on that you see on the , they 're architectural stripes . We said
that 's where the signs are going . You don 't see that on Town Square .
' There is no point and we can come back and talk about that and that might
be the solution . Because then it 's our job to just kind of keep it
balanced . Right now it 's so tight that if we go beyond that , it looks
funny and everybody 's designing their signs to fit into those little spots .
I think you 're right about that .
Emmings: Would you have any feeling about whether you 'd want us to act on
this or whether you 'd want to table it while you try and work something out
for us to look at again?
11 Erhart: We could move on the directory sign tonight and table the front .
Ahrens: Well the sign in front isn 't going to go the way , we,'re not going
to approve that it sounds like anyway . . .
Emmings: I think you 're right . Brad , I 'm waiting for you .
' Brad Johnson: I 'm talking to the owner of the building and he feels that
we should go ahead .
Emmings: Okay . Alright , does anyone else have any comments about this? If
not , is there a motion?
Erhart : Well I 'll just move to say the Planning Commission recommends
denial to the signage change I guess .
Conrad: Do you want to approve the directory sign and deny?
Erhart: Well I know the applicants just asked us , would you want us to
separate the two issues?
Brad Johnson: Well it would help .
Bob Copeland: If you 're not going to recommend approval for both , then
' recommend approval for one .
Erhart: Okay . I 'll move to approve the change to the directory sign as
Irequested by the applicant .
Emmings: And by the directory sign we 're talking about the sign behind the
building? Okay . Alright we 've got a motion . Is there a second?
Krauss: Question . Did you want to include in the motion your guidance as
to the suggestion about resubmitting something around the sign band?
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 20 , 1991 - Page 27
Emmings: No . I think the Minutes are clear on that . Is there a second?
Conrad: Second . _ I
Emmings: Is there discussion on the motion?
Conrad: Basically what we would entertain . No . That 's not part of the
motion . Basically Tim is not saying anything about what we do from here .
Just the fact that we 're looking at , we approve the directory sign and we
haven 't given staff direction with this motion . '
Erhart: We 're only asking the 6 inches . 5 feet . That 's all .
Conrad: And so it 's up to us whether would want , well it 'd be up to the
applicant to carry this through to City Council or to come back with regard
to the particular identification sign .
Emmings : Or how to change all of the signage on the building to maybe a
different kind of concept or whatever .
Conrad: You know just out of curiousity , are we open to looking . You know I
we 're sending some signals here and I think regardless of what are motions
are , I think the signals are real important . Are we open to looking at
that band?
Emmings: Let 's do this . Let 's call a question on the motion and then
let 's discuss . Give them whatever direction people feel like they want to , I
if they haven 't already done it in their comments . Is there any other
discussion on the motion? Let 's call the question .
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
amend the site plan for the Medical Arts Building to approve the directory
sign as proposed. All voted in favor except Brian Batzli who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1 .
Emmings: Okay , Brian tell us why you 're opposed .
Batzli : I would make it a condition that they don 't get any more signs
after this . This is it and this is the full and final agreement and I
would also vote to approve the sign they 've got in front .
Emmings: Okay . Now as far as any direction to the applicant . Ladd , do
you want to?
Erhart: Do you want to vote on the other one first?
Emmings: What? '
Erhart: Do you want to vote on the front sign first? Before we give
direction to the applicant so we know where the vote is .
Conrad: That 's not part of your motion . You didn 't include that .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 28
Ellson : You can only have one motion .
Erhart: I thought Steve that you wanted to vote on both the front and the
rear and then give . If that gets denied , then give our opinion to the
applicant .
Emmings: No . What I understand we 've done here , just to recap . We 've
approved the sign on the back of the property and that 's all . Otherwise
we 've denied what they 're asked for .
Erhart : Okay . I thought specifically we were going to take a vote on the
denial of the rest of it so it was clear in the Minutes .
Emmings : No . That 's done with what we did , as far as I 'm concerned . Now
is there any direction? I think Ladd wants to ask if there 's sentiment up
here if people would look at .
' Conrad: Changing the sign band . Yeah . But Tim you obviously feel it 's .
Erhart : You 've got mine .
Emmings: Would you Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah .
Emmings: Yeah , I would too . Annette?
Ellson: If it was tastefully and aethetically done well . It 's hard to say
across the board . It could come in 10 feet tall and then you said , now you
said the sign . . .
Conrad: I don 't realistically you 're not going to change what you 've got
up there . You 've got a lot of money into your signage right now don 't you?
You 're not going to go out in the next .
Brad Johnson : The tenants do .
' Conrad: And the tenants aren 't really going to go out and say oh boy ,
let 's change our signage .
' Brad Johnson: We could come back with signage . . . I 've got the middle
left . There is no sign there . If we come back and handle that and then as
we add the other ones . They were limited to 5 total tenants on the front
' and we 've got a problem . Let us kind of handle that area , we 're okay .
Conrad: The question really is here , and I don 't know . Maybe it 's not
' that big of a deal . Do we feel committed to 5 or do we feel open to multi
as long as it's designed well?
Brad Johnson: My point is I think we were a little bit overly rigid on how
1 I listened to you and look at Town Square and I keep saying what 's the
difference . We were very rigidly defined on our own , not by you , on where
we could put the band . It doesn 't look . . .
t
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 20 , 1991 - Page 29
Ahrens: I guess I have trouble opening up the band issue . It seems to me
we have very little control over that anyway . Brad 's saying that the
reason Goldstar looks the way it does , which is not the way we would have
wanted it to look is because it slipped through the cracks of the lease .
They got a sign and they entered into an agreement with the tenant to have
the sign the way it is and they got it that way .
Brad Johnson: One of the reasons it doesn 't look very good is all the
other signs are white .
Emmings: Right .
Ahrens: Well yeah . Whatever the problem is . I
Brad Johnson: It just didn 't work .
Ahrens: Well what I 'm saying is how you got to the problem . You got to
the problem because everything slipped through the cracks . It 's not like
we had control over the method .
Conrad: It 's real interesting . We 're getting into some aesthetic
judgments here but just out of .
Emmings: That 's fair . '
Conrad: We love it don 't we when it gets arbitrary like this .
Emmings: No , but I think this is fair . They talk about bringing in
another building and we 're getting a lot of practical experience on how
that other building 's going to look . Brad says it 's coming back with a lot I
of signage and I think we 're going to be real fussy . If they get that
building , there 's going to be a lot of fussiness with signs and we 'll have
learned a lot from this . I don 't want to get into the specifics . I
Ahrens : I don 't want to talk about that either but what my point is is
that we 're talking about having control over what it 's going to loo like
over whether it 's going to look nice or bad according to whatever standards 1
we use but do we really have any control if this is something that the
tenant decides anyway in a lease?
Emmings: Well we could , I suppose , when we limited them to 5 sign bands we I
could have said they ' ll all be the same color . There will be no logos . I
mean there are whole bunch of things we could have said .
Ahrens: I don 't think we need to do that . I think they may need to be
approved by the staff or something .
Emmings : Right , but there are ways you could limit that if you wanted to . II
Ahrens: Oh sure . Sure .
Conrad: Are we looking for multi-colored signage on this building? I 'm
hearing that . I 'm just going to tell you another personal . . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 30
Emmings: Well Tim .
' Conrad: Yeah , I guess Tim . It 's probably Tim .
Erhart: I 'm color blind .
' Conrad: Tim 's whispering in my ear and I 'm assuming that he 's looking for
everybody . The signage that is there is really low impact right now folks .
It really is . When you get white on a burgandy at a foot high , we 're not
talking about breaking anybody 's eyeballs in terms of gaudiness . You may
be reacting to , I 'm not sure what everybody 's reacting to aesthetically
here but again , so I just don 't want to send a signal that says we want
flashy . I think signage on this kind of building should be very practical .
It should identify who 's there but I just don 't feel it should be literally
the backlit , multi-colored logoish that we put on a retail store because
that stuff can be very attractive on a retail center . I don 't know that it
fits on this particular . I know it doesn 't fit on this particular building
so again ,' just from my personal standpoint , I don 't want the flashy stuff
and I think they 've got practical signs that work really well to help
people identify where services are . They 're not going to stop you in your
tracks . I don 't mind what we really have here other than the gold color
but again .
Ahrens: I think we need some design standards . We obviously don 't have
any . We have 7 people up here with different opinions .
' Conrad: You 're right . We 'd all be in a different boat . If we were to
figure it out Joan , we 'd all be different .
Richard Wing: My name is Richard Wing and I 'm going to speak as a
resident . Joan has commented on the gateway appearance of our city . You
come in on TH 101 and we go through the Amoco station and we go through a
Valvoline Oil Change . Now even though it 's going to be the best designed
' place which I think we can take pride in . And as we come into Chanhassen ,
both the Mayor has commented on the gateway affect of our city . The
biggest building and the largest building , the most significant building in
' our gateway is the building we 're discussing here and I 'm going to just
urge you to be very conservative and if in doubt , to err on the side of
being conservative because that is a gateway building . I would like to see
it as a professional building . I think I would like to see it classy . I
don 't want to see a mass of color . That 's a classy building right now and
as I 'm looking at these plans , I think there 's a trend to get away from
that classiness . So if in doubt , my personal feelings are that you err , if
you have to make a decision , err on a conservative side and let 's worry
about this in the future . I would have a real hard time dressing that
building up with signs . That is a gateway building . That is a major
impact visually coming into the city and I think we have to treat that with
special care . It 's a very unique location .
Emmings: Alright . Unless somebody 's really burning to make more comments
11 on this , let 's have an end to it . Does anyone else want to say anything?
I
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 20 , 1991 - Page 31
Conrad: Ah yeah. Signage is just so much fun . This is really great . I
would like to , and I speak for myself . I don 't know Steve where you 're
going . If there 's a motion coming here or if we 're just going to let it go
but I think as we look at that band , the challenge should be for , you know
as we open , as we may give more flexibility to that band , I 'd sure like to
see a better sign for the whole building . In other words , what we were
talking about identification sign , I think that 's going to make the
building seem that much more significant . If we talk about it , well
personally I 'd like to see that identification sign as a significant , good
looking sign versus putting advertising messages on it . I
Emmings: I agree . Okay .
Brad Johnson: Can I ask one question? I
Emmings: Yeah .
Brad Johnson: That 's my own . The owner doesn 't agree with it . If we were
to kind of dress up the band . Try to figure out some flexibility that we
don 't have , would you guys go along with that? Is that what I hear you II saying? As long as we come with some consistency and it keeps the building
looking okay?
Emmings: Yeah . I think that 's what we 're saying . But you 'll have to work II
with the staff on that . We 're not in the business of designing bands .
Brad Johnson: . . .have Bob do that . I
Emmings: Yeah . I think that 's what I hear too .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning I
Commission meeting dated April 6 , 1991 as presented .
OPEN DISCUSSION:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS/DISCUSSION OF PUD'S AND
PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE BY JOHN SHARDLOW OF DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW AND UBAN AND II
TERRY FORBORD OF LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION_
Paul Krauss gave a short presentation on the background of the item and
then introduced John Shardlow and Terry Forbord who each gave slide
presentations on proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development
Ordinance .
Emmings: I don't know if this is too obvious a question . Maybe I 'm just
not getting it but in a lot of ways it would seem to me to be simpler for a II
developer to just make one of those good old fashion subdivisions where you
put in blocks of lots . What 's in it for a developer? Why are the PUD 's
desireable for a developer? Is it basically the flexibility so they 're not
confronted with rigid standards or that they can make a higher quality
development that will be better in the marketplace? What 's the advantage
for the developer?
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 32
John Shardlow: Well I would say it depends on the nature of what you 're
trying to develop . What Terry was talking about , when he showed you some
examples of reduced front yard setbacks , reduced side yard setbacks . What
you were getting in exchange for that were maybe some enhanced ponds and
some other design features so the overall affect of it was still positive
with the trees , open space and so forth . But the flexibility allows them
to get more density and reduce their development costs on the residential
side .
IEmmings: And I was real impressed with those slides . I thought those
shorter front yards didn 't offend me any .
Ellson: Was that the 9 ,000?
' Emmings: Yeah , even in the 9 ,000 . I didn 't know we had 9 ,000 , small lots
like that and I thought they looked great . I think it 's pretty impressive
' myself .
Terry Forbord: Can I ask you a question?
Emmings: - Yeah , sure .
Terry Forbord: I 'm Terry Forbord . The benefit to us is that' it allows us
to do different things . I 'm not necessarily going to say you make more
money doing a PUD because the costs are more . The most money we could make
is if we went in there with a grid system and cut down every single tree
and leveled that site so there was no grade to it . That 's how you make
money and you see some people that do that today but for us , I mean this is
our life . We do this because we like to do it too . It 's not that we 're
just trying to make a living at it . But it really makes something nice and
we don 't have to cut down trees and we can enhance a wetland that 's already
there and we can provide a housing type that somebody wouldn 't normally be
able to afford if I had to put them on a 15 ,000 or a 20 ,000 square foot
lot . So all of a sudden , instead of just one housing product type , I can
maybe have 4 and so I 'm meeting a more diverse group of people who want to
come and move into a community . As you know , because I heard each of you
talk about it during the process of the MUSA expansion , there was no MUSA
capacity so all of a sudden lots in Chanhassen were all $50 ,000 .00 and up
and so that 's the only kind of housing you could get . Now with more
capacity and more land available , you 'll start seeing more creativity
hopefully from the development community .
Emmings: John , when you talked you talked about the fact that we should ,
you don 't think , zone areas into PUD . We should leave underlying zoning
and then let people , that would leave people with the opportunity to either
come in under some kind of a standard subdivision or go PUD. If we want to
encourage that PUD , how do we get them to do that?
John Shardlow: That 's a really good question. There have been some cities
that have come up with planned residential district zoning . Planned
industrial district zoning . Now at one point one of the northwest
communities had a planned industrial district all along one of the
freeways . The idea was there that sort of come in and we 'll tell you what
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 20 , 1991 - Page 33
you can do with your land you know and that 's illegal . When you get right
down to it , the City has the authority to adopt an ordinance and set
standards . And if you 're going through -planned unit development , it gives II
the opportunity to negotiate different standards but when you boil it all
down to what you have the authority to enforce , you have the authority to
enforce an ordinance . And is it reasonable to have an ordinance that sort
of makes up the standards as you go along? Of course not . So how you
encourage people to go planned unit development is you first of all have a
reasonable process so it 's not some convoluted deal that takes forever .
You don 't know what you 've got until the building 's done if you will .
Emmings: And also not to , I suppose to demonstrate the attitudes that you
talked about . ,
John Shardlow: Absolutely . And if the attitude isn 't right , who 's going
to do it? I mean the developer 's aren 't stupid for the most part . . . But II the fact of the matter is , people aren 't going to go through a planned unit
development process if they can go through . If you 're in a confortational
mode with the city and you have a piece of property and you want to develop
it , you 're going to say okay . We 're zoned R-1 , single family residential . II
I 'll plat my land and I want to plat it in the number of lots that I can
get based on the ordinance and your subdivision regulations and that 's an
adminstrative approval . They come in with a plat . They meet your
standards . They get the approval .
Ellson: But that 's what we 're concerned about . If you get more of that
than the kind we 'd like to see .
Emmings: What if we jack up our minimum standards?
John Shardlow: Well there 's something to that . I think you have to look
at all of that but I think more importantly than that , making the planned
unit development a win win and obviously that 's a whole discussion that has II
to go on and it 's your responsibility to articulate what your vision is for
the community . What do you want to be and what are the elements of being
that kind of community . Whether that 's preservation of trees , preservation
of topography , provision of innovative housing types. Whatever that is and
then you have to articulate that in your plan tools . You have to represent
that in the information that the staff tells the people because my
experience with developers is for the most part they don 't want to fight .
For the most part they 'd much rather spend the time , energy , and money
putting together a package that 's going to be acceptable to the extent that
they obviously have a product that they want to market as well . But people
I 've found will go a long ways if they just know what it 's going to take
and if they know what the standards are to a certain extent .
Emmings: They need some clear signals? I
John Shardlow: Exactly .
Conrad: So John , I guess I misinterpretted you in the beginning . I I
thought you said that you should go in and zone certain things PUD but
basically that 's not true?
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
11 March 20 , 1991 - Page 34
II Erhart: No .
Conrad: There are certain areas that should be but you 're saying we can't .
I John Shardlow: What I 'm saying is , the tool . The planned unit development
ought to be a floating zoning district that is available to be applied for
anywhere in the city . So I understand that you should zone planned unit
I development but you shouldn 't go out on your official zoning map and pre-
designate sites planned unit development .
Conrad: Because you can 't?
IJohn Shardlow: Because you can 't in my' opinion .
IConrad: And your opinion .
John Shardlow: That 's based upon long conversations with .
IConrad: Yeah , but there would be certain parcels and if we 're
environmentally sensitive , there are going to be certain treed areas ,
certain sloped areas , certain large parcels that should be developed PUD
I but basically you 're saying we can 't do anything about it . It 's pretty
much up to the developer to come in and talk to us . We can 't forecast
those areas and say we really think that these areas need a different touch
II and we would like them to come in PUD? Basically you 're saying that 's
going to be a negotiation stage and really , if a developer comes in and has
a subdivision , we may have even gone along with it .
IJohn Shardlow: Certainly you have to look at your design standards across
the board and are you preserving and protecting trees and those sorts of
things .
IConrad: But we can be aggressive . What I 'm saying John , we could be
aggressive and you 're telling me we can 't .
John Shardlow: I 'm telling you can be aggressive in terms of encouraging .
In every comprehensive plan that I 've ever worked on over the last 5 or 6
years , we 've had very clear in terms of encouraging planned unit
I development and encouraging flexibilities in planned unit developments . I
mean your policy documents can be very clear about encouraging what the .
I Conrad: But agressive in my way of thinking would be we look at the areas
and say these are the areas that we think really a PUD is really
appropriate . The whole TH 5 corridor for commercial .
John Shardlow: There 's no . . .in saying that . Designating it in your
comprehensive plan as an area that you think should be a planned
development district but that 's different than from going out and saying .
IConrad: And zoning it .
IIJohn Shardlow: We zone it planned unit development .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 35
Conrad: So it could be in the comprehensive plan , not in the zone . I
John Shardlow: In that particular area .
Emmings: Is it alright to think about this in terms of here we have our ,
subdivision ordinance and our standards and you can either do this or the
PUD as an alternative to any of our subdivision regulations or standards
that we set where you can come in and basically negotiate a different set
of standards . A different set of rules .
Krauss: That gets to the heart of one of the issues that I 've been
bringing up is that our current way of looking at PUD 's throws out
everything and gives no guidance at all . I 'm looking for a middle ground
here .
Emmings: He made it clear to me and I thought it was a good point that the
subdivision rules , the standards that are over here are baseline and we 're
going to work our way up from there in our negotiations but what we might
want to do to encourage a PUD , it would seem to me is to lay down some
standards regarding things that are very important to us that will be hard
to meet under the subdivision ordinance to encourage them to come in and
negotiate under a PUD . Is that getting grabby? Is that displaying the
- wrong attitude? I don 't know .
Krauss: To the extent that you 're achieving appropriate goals . I mean to II
the extent that we are protecting mature stands of trees or wetlands -or
requiring buffers or adequate setbacks and adequate parking and adequate
landscaping and everything else , it 's perfectly legitimate to have a very
tight ordinance that if you go straight zoning it says exactly what thou
shalt do . And if that becomes a problem or if there are more creative ways
of doing it , our alternative is to go PUD. We 've spent the last 2 years
tidying up all sorts of sections of the straight zoning ordinance and we 'll
continue to do that . I think the ground work is set for us to be using the
PUD quite a bit more . My statements to you last meeting too were that when II we 're looking at what 's going to come down the pike on TH 5 , we 've got some
very large tracts of ground , several of which are owned by some very
sophisticated developers or would be marketed to those people and I think
our expectations for it are somewhat similar . Terry doesn 't do PUD 's out
of altruism . He might feel better doing a quality development than he
would otherwise but it meets a market . Terry finds those lots to be
eminently more marketable than cornfield development. It works for all
concerned . So there 's lots of angles to play with these things and the
more sophisticated developers understand that .
Ahrens: Why can 't our subdivision regulations or ordinances be good enough II
or strong enough and have high enough standards so that it doesn't matter
if somebody comes in with a PUD or a standard subdivision , we get the same
high quality result? Why does it always have to be , you know either you
have a high quality with a PUD or you have to fall back onto the
subdivision .
John Shardlow: Subdivision regulations focus on what size do the parcels 1
have to be in order to be developed and then zoning regulations focus on
1 _
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 36
' what standards have to be met on that lot . Planned unit developments look
at the whole parcel and develops and plans for what 's best for the whole
parcel irrespective of lot size . I mean obviously you still have setback
' considerations between buildings and so forth but you start with a
completely different framework .
Ahrens: But the results would be the same with the same high quality?
John Shardlow: Well , I 'd argue . If you have a large area that is parceled
off in strange configurations with different topography and different trees
' and you put minimum standards that are rectalinear . Rectangular . And
different owners and it 's going to develop over time . Be marketed to
different people . It could still be an attractive building . It could
still be an attractive building . It could still save some trees . I 'm just
telling you , it 's not going to be as attractive as if it was planned as a
whole .
' Ahrens: But not all subdivisions have to have rectalinear lots .
Krauss: No , but a good example of what John is saying is the Chanhassen
' Business Park which is not a bad straight zoning type of industrial park .
But had that been laid out , and we still have the odd lot . Every lot is
sold off . It 's sold off to an individual . Opus originally developed a
bunch of them but then they 're just placed on the market . Anybody that
' comes down the pike who meets the site plan review standards gets to put up
a building . And again , it 's not a bad project but I think had we had an
overall development scheme , had we had an overall lighting and
architectural theme , had we had a better handle on being able to preserve
areas of open space . I mean we are reduced to arguing over whether or not
a given oak tree should be preserved and it 's sitting smack in the middle
' of the remaining lot where that 's the only place to build the building . I
mean your hands are tied at that point . You don 't have the ability to make
any creative judgment . The die is cast .
Ahrens : But even if you had the ability to make a creative judgment , if
the developer in a PUD said I don 't want to do that . That 's not the way I
want to develop it , even though there 's supposed to be give and take in
negotiation between a city and developer . And I 'm not saying they get to
the point where they 're in an adversarial relationship but there 's not the
give and take that there should be and the developer says , I want to do it
this way in my PUD . They still get their own way right?
John Shardlow: No . If it 's inconsistent with the development plan , you
can 't do it that way because you represented to us that you were going to
' save that tree and these other trees because that was the basis for giving
you an increased intensification of development on this site . So the point
is that it is planned as whole and that significant tree that Paul was
' calling out for , was shown in the Exhibits that identified the inventory
analysis and the constraints and so forth initially .
Ahrens : It 's developed as a whole in the beginning but the developers can
come back in at anytime and say .
I
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 37
John Shardlow: But it 's subject to rezoning and you can say no . That 's
the key difference .
Ahrens: Yeah but is it . . .over a barrel at that point? I mean can they -say I
no? If a developer comes in and says I don 't want to build apartment
buildings . I don 't want to build townhouses . I want to build single
family homes because that 's what the market has now . The City 's not going
to step back and say no .
John Shardlow: You can say yes but that doesn 't mean that you 're going to
give them the authority to cut that tree down . You see the difference? '
Ellson: You still have some give or take yes but now let 's look at what .
Emmings: You can impose conditions on the rezoning I suppose . '
Ahrens: I get the impression that the push is to have everything PUD and
maybe that 's good . I don 't know .
Ellson: I think so .
Ahrens: I don 't know . 1
Ellson: But I don 't see that we have a whole lot of groups of property
owners that are big enough either .
Emmings: It could just be a lot . Terry?
Terry Forbord : My name is Terry Forbord . I think that .
Batzli : Force of habit . ,
Terry Forbord: I 'm just used to doing it because of the record . I always
want to get everything on the record . Personally there 's situations that
I"'ve been in where I would have just as soon not done a PUD . I mean I
could go in and accomplish . We do certain things , our firm does in every
subdivision no matter what . We have , like I say our formula and if I find
that it 's easier for me and less hassle and less meetings , because it 's
more of a process with the PUD process , that I can accomplish the exact
same thing going through a standard subdivision , then I 'll go the standard
subdivision and I 'll still put in all the neat things that we do anyway
because we found that that 's the formula that works for us . And I have
been in a position where I have gone to a city and I 've said here 's what
we 're proposing to do . That particular city was the adversarial type of " II city . They pounded their chests and said , well when you come into our
town , we exact a pound of flesh from everybody who comes in here and if you
don 't do this , blah, blah, blah , then you 're not going to get a PUD
approval . Then I said , well fine . I won 't do a PUD . I 'll just do ,a II standard subdivision . It doesn 't make any difference to me . I don 't want
to sit and argue and have you be unreasonable with me so I mean it gets
into a situation where the objective may be able to be met without using II the PUD . But the PUD tool can be a benefit to both parties . Easily . You
certainly , if I was a Planning Commissioner . I no longer am but when I was
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 38
' a planning commissioner , I wanted them to do a PUD because then I had some
say . I had some legislative say over what was going to be done because in
the community , in Shakopee where I was a planning commissioner , we didn 't
' have the benefit of having a lot of first class developers . We had guys
that wanted to come in and rape and pillage so that gave us a little
authority where we were able to do , have some control .
' John Shardlow: I think you always have to be , continuously looking at how
you can improve your standards . And I work with communities all the time
where how can we tighten up our signage standards? How do we require sign
' criteria for the whole development? How can we improve tree preservation?
And how can we get better building materials in our commercial district?
Those sorts of things . You need to keep elevating the base but I submit to
you that you 're always going to be in a situation where you can set a
performance oriented standard like high quality building materials of
consistent quality and someone can put a white brick building on this
building and a gray brick building here and a striped brick building here
' and so forth and I 'm saying to you , if it 's designed as a whole , you 've got
the ability through planned unit development to have an enhanced design
framework where you can have a comprehensive landscape plan for the whole
corridor . A comprehensive lighting plan for the whole corridor . A
comprehensive signage scheme for the whole corridor . And if you develop
those parcels as parcels , you 're never going to be able to do, as good a job
of tree preservation or as good a job of developing and preserving
wetlands . You 're just not because design , if you look at land design ,
you 've always got , the more land you 've got to work with , the better job
you can do .
' Erhart: I 've got 3 things . One is , the sense that I 've heard here , when
we talk about PUD 's is that somehow there 's a feeling that we 've giving ,
' when you get a PUD somehow the City is negotiating a way , increase density
for something in return . Yet the ones that I 've looked at and what I 'm
hearing tonight , it comes out . You 've got 100 acres and you want to put
200 lots in . I 've not heard anybody say we 're looking for increased
density . It appears to me what you 're looking for is a different way to do
those 200 lots . I mean have we ever in a PUD here , residential PUD , have
we actually increased the density versus what the ordinance would require
for a standard subdivision in that area?
Krauss: Yes .
' Erhart : We do do that?
Krauss: You did do that here . The way you changed the ordinance to have a
12 ,500 square foot average minimum now sort of minimizes that .
Erhart: I 'm talking about the overall density .
' Krauss: Yeah , you look at Pheasant Hills or someplace like that . Sure ,
there 's more homes in there than there could be in a straight zoning .
Erhart : I guess I 'm getting the impression that that 's not one of the
items that you 're looking for . You 're looking at a different way to do the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 -- Page 39
200 lots . I
John Shardlow: It might or might not be . In some instances , increased
density might be what the developer needs to do . In other situations it
might just be the flexibility to do some shared wall or common wall
development and others it might .
Erhart: Well when you get into increased density then you 're really into
the situation where you 're doing negotiating and trading yet I think more
the opportunities are in the way of how you do the 200 lots . I guess I
think you should focus on that .
Conrad: It 's a real interesting thing and Terry maybe it 's a good one for
you . How do you maintain your quality standard yet preserve the things
that you 're going after? And let 's say it 's open space just for the sake
of argument . Typically if you say , well instead of 100 acres of single
family residential , we want 70 acres of that and 30 acres open space and
typically the developer will come back and say well I 'm going to have to
put my units on smaller lots and typically they come in with a worse
product . They 're going to come in with a cheaper product or whatever so
we 're moving from , in many cases , we 're moving from a single family to
basically a multi-family complex . And we don 't even know if that product
sells . You found that product doesn 't sell so that whole area gets real
confusing to me .
Terry Forbord: You know when we talk and we use these buzz words . Density I
and units per acre and downsizing and open space . I mean I hear open space
everywhere I go to the point where , well what is open space? I don 't even
know if I know what that means and I 've been doing this all my life . I
don 't know what open space is . I 've been in projects that were 20 units
per acre that felt like more open space than the Near Mountain subdivision '
that we 've done just because of the way it was done and the creativity and
certain elements and things or a water element or a view corridor so I mean
a lot of it really comes down to creativity and I 'm not going to be able to
give you a rock hard answer on that because the density thing I would
encourage people to not get too hung up on that because I know , even as a
professional I could go through 10 projects and I probably wouldn 't be able
to look at you and accurately say well this one is 2 unit per acre and this
one 's 5 because they feel , if they were done right , they 'd feel in such a
way that you probably wouldn 't feel the impact of the density . And I know
John 's worked on projects that are like that so I think the density II transfer issue that you were talking about is important because I think ,
for the City to have a PUD ordinance where they 're going to be in sensitive
areas or in areas where we 're trying to provide alternative type product or
housing or whatever , there 's going to need to be some mechanism , this is my II
personal feeling and John is certainly more eloquent about this than I am .
There 's going to be a need to be able to transfer density somehow and
increase densities in certain areas but sometimes you can take 2 acres of
"open space" and it can feel like it 's 10 acres . So the density thing , a
lot of it just depends on who the people are and how they 're doing it .
Erhart: Okay , I 've got . . . ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 40
' John Shardlow: I 've got a real burning response to that . If somebody
comes in and does a single family residential plat , do you review building
plans? You can in a PUD . If someone 's coming in to do a planned unit
' development and they want to do an increase in density , you can look at
their building plans . Part of the negotiation can be what 's the nature of
the woodwork and you can get into that kind of thing in a planned unit
development and you can say no . I guess that 's the key point . And maybe
density transfer doesn 't work on a PUD project but I guess before you focus
so much on what you 're giving up , I 'd ask you to look at it from the
standpoint of what you 're getting . What you have got in terms of a tool
' and you don 't have to use it . You know you don 't have to use it but in
Eagan we did a planned unit development when Northwest Airlines wanted to
expand because they needed to do a full blown environmental impact
' statement . They needed to build a new interchange on the freeway and one
of the only way they were going to be able to get the amount of development
on the land that they wanted to was to be able to do traffic demand
management . That 's where everyone staggers their work force at different
hours and so forth . How in the world is the City going to enforce that?
Through a planned unit development is how they 're going to enforce it . The
City of Burnsville we had a very difficult area but multiple ownership
which some people had narrow ownership , long rectangular parcels and some
had deep parcels with no frontage . The planned unit development gave them
the opportunity to maximize their development and potential of their
' property by working together with those lot lines . It 's an extremely
flexible tool and I guess look at it from that standpoint of what it gives
you in terms of the ability to achieve your goals as opposed to what we 're
going to be giving up .
Conrad: But it 's all developer initiated John . The developer 's coming in
and when they apply , when they want the PUD it 's because they don 't want to
' meet our standards .
Krauss : No , that 's not true .
Conrad: They don 't want to meet a particular density or whatever .
Krauss: Well , I ' ll grant you this though Ladd . Our experience with how
it 's been used in downtown Chanhassen falls into that spector . That
somebody couldn 't meet the hard surface coverage so do it like a PUD .
Well , we changed a lot of thinking about PUD 's with the Market Square . We
' made them buy into a development contract . I think you might recall them
arguing that we didn 't have the right to tell them what could go on the
outlots in that project and I said that 's garbage . We do have the right .
You 're signing a contract . Developers understand contracts . We 're going
' to tell you architecturally what can go on that . We 're going to tell you
where you can access and where you 're going to park and they kicked and
screamed about that but the Council ultimately approved it that way and
' those are the kinds of advantages that come out of this . Also , in terms of
a developer dictating things , I guess we try to be as open with the
Planning Commission as we can but it 's hard to relate to you the number of
contacts and meetings we have with people before they ever show up here and
we have a great deal of latitude in pushing them one way or the other . You
know most developers don 't come here trying to bump heads . They come here
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 41
trying to come up with something that 's mutually acceptable . When they sit II
down with us and we say that 's a sensitive piece of ground . It 's on a
highway corridor and we really want to treat this as an overall project .
Get as much land locked up as you can and come up with an overall design II concept , more than half the time they 'll do it because we basically laid it
out as a reasonable premise .
Conrad: Then that leads me into another question . Same thing Paul .
You 're doing the negotiation . Planning Commission doesn 't have a clue .
Basically you 're negotiating and we sit here and we say we don 't know if
you negotiated a good deal or a bad deal . We don 't know what the developer I
saved . What the utilities and all the special , all the things that they
had , that they benefitted from versus what they negotiated so the question
becomes , what 's the role of the Planning Commission?
Ellson: We set the goals for them .
Krauss : Yeah . I think that 's very true Annette that there are goals that II
need to be set . Possibly we do need to do a better job of conveying the
sorts of trade-offs that are in there but Ladd look at the inverse of what
you 're saying . A lot of developers take the mind set that I 'm going to
come to the city with 8 , you know I 'm going to over the units by 30%
. because I know the City 's going to dump all over me . I ' ll come up with a
lousy landscaping scheme so I can buy , you some give them something back .
That 's the flip side to your argument and what we try to do is avoid that
confrontational aspect altogether if we can and work that out hopefully .
Conrad : But how does the Planning Commission get involved in this? We
don 't know what 's being negotiated .
Krauss: But you see the end product .
Conrad: We see the end product so therefore we see it .
Ahrens : We don 't know what the options are . And the end result is only as II
good as the planning staff .
Conrad: I 've gone through a lot of them Paul and I 'm just telling you , I II don 't have a clue whether it was a good deal or a bad deal . I never had a
perspective of what should have been done to that property . Not an idea .
The developer knew what they wanted to do . I didn 't and so I 'm sitting
here saying , well gee . Do I want another 15 square feet for that
playground and was the 5 yard , did the 5 foot change in the setback make
any difference? And I don 't know . And I say why am I looking at this
because I don 't have a clue . ,
John Shardlow: Well the process that I outlined in my slides called for ,
obviously people are going to , you don 't want people to come to see the
staff and if nothing else to find out what the procedures are and get the
policy documents and so forth but one of the key aspect of that process was
the sketch plan . When they come to you and convey the basic idea and you
can ask them those hard questions . You can ask them what 's in it for you
and what are the savings and you can talk about those sorts of things and
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 -- Page 42
' you can get very detailed . Very detailed at the concept stage approval
before you recommend approval of the zoning . So there you 've got a very
real role . You 've got the opportunity to ask all the tough questions and
know all of the information that you want to know short of proprietory
information about what 's in it for them and what 's in it for you . So I
mean again , I haven 't reviewed the ordinance that Paul 's put together in
detail but every planned unit development that I 've worked with has got
that sketch plan approval and it 's got that concept stage approval and
that 's exactly the kind of role you play in the process .
Elison: . . .when people do that we usually say , I can 't decide without a
plan . That 's usually what we end up coming back with .
' Conrad : John , you mentioned performance standards and we have a couple in
our old ordinance and we had some , we don 't know if our old ordinance
motivated anybody to do anything . Have you like , you can go down to 12 ,000
square foot lot sizes and that 's another issue . You know we just don 't
' know if it 's doing anything because people aren 't coming in and demanding
that . We just haven 't seen a lot of requests for that but performance
standards in general . Should we , that 's one way of having a formulated
approach to this but do you recommend that we have performance standards?
How do we find them? How do we make them fair?
John Shardlow: Well again , that 's almost a subject for a whole other
night 's discussion and I 've got two other carousels of slides to talk about
performance standards but to me , performance standards again are another
way of achieving your goals while providing the development community with
flexibility . Because you 're saying what we want is for rooftop utilities
to be totally screened from off site view and we strongly encourage you to
do that with an extension of the parapet wall . I mean what it 's saying is
' this is the objective . Meet it anyway that it makes sense in the total
context of your project . So from that standpoint , you 're accomplishing
your objective and you 're not saying all screening shall be done with wood
picket fences . No more than , you know you 're not creating a standard that
is so rigid as to deny a flexibility on how it 's achieved . So should you
have performance standards? As a designer and as a planner , I think it 's a
much better way to go than any rigidly construed set of how to 's that gets
' incorporated into a zoning ordinance .
Erhart : John , what did you mean when you said Eden Prairie doesn 't give
you zoning until they see the whites of your eyes?
John Shardlow: In the City of Eden Prairie it is their practice to leave
land zoned agricultural until they review a specific development proposal
at which time they will zone in accordance with their comprehensive plan .
Erhart: Okay . And I ' ll tell you , I sat there and listened to that whole .
' I listened to your whole presentation and I 'll go back specifically to the
development that we had for these high density apartments up here and they
come in . You 've got your ordinance that allows what , R-12 or something .
' We look at it and we all say it 's crappy . It 's too dense and not enough
open space and I look at that and I go , why do we zone it R-12? Why don 't
you start out with either something lower or just go single family
I
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 43
residential and then go back and encourage somebody to come in with a PUD
and say yeah , really deep down we do want some apartments up there .
Krauss: That shows one of the other advantages of a PUD . I mean
unfortunately that was a pre-zoned piece of property where you had a
developer who said , I 'm going to cram as many units as I can in there and
I 'm going to do the absolute minimum your ordinance requires . But we
played that game with him . Every time he quoted something out of the
ordinance , we quoted something else that was in there and it got to be a
very uncomfortable contensious situation .
Erhart : My question is , why do we have anything in the zoning map that 's
R-12?
4
Krauss: First of all , had we never pre-zoned that thing in the first '
place . One of the things I like about a PUD is if you came along , say
somebody did have a project you found acceptable . You approved it as a
PUD . For whatever reason the project never goes . You 're not left with a
piece of R-12 zoning sitting around waiting for something bad to happen .
You 've got a piece of property with the only thing that 's approved on it is
that project that you liked and anybody that wants to do anything else has I
to get a completely new zoning which gets back to the additional authority
that John touched on . It 's one of the enhancements to the PUD that it 's
there and it 's added protection for the city and for the residents .
Erhart: I guess what I 'm saying , in conjunction with this PUD I think we
ought to look at some of these zoning areas and say hey , let 's give
ourselves a little control on this and let 's back off on some of this
zoning and at the same time encourage to come in and make a PUD so we can
get some control over it .
John Shardlow: Yeah . Please don 't hear me saying that PUD 's is the cure
all because it isn 't . You still have to look at all your standards and you
still have to scrutinize all of the land in your community to find If it 's
zoned and guided the right way . There 's no question you still have to do
that but maybe if you ended up with a schlocky multiple project , your
standards in the multiple family district aren 't strong enough .
Emmings: Right . '
Conrad: I don 't know , I like PUD 's but you know I 'd rather have , it gets II back to if you bring in the right developer , you 're going to have a better
product and if you get a bad developer you 're not going to and I 'm not sure
that our PUD ordinance is going to make a big difference . As big a
difference as having the right developer come into town . '
Ellson: Yeah , but if you have a bad developer , you have more control over
them with a PUD . That 's why I 'd try to go out and get more PUD 's but like II
you said , we can 't zone it that way . How' can we aggressively encourage it?
Just state it everywhere?
Erhart: You 're right . You can increase performance standards but it 's a
lot of work . It appears to me it 's a lot easier to down zone your areas
r
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 44
that you 'd like to have PUD 's .
Ellson: Then what?
' Erhart : Then force the developer to come in .
Elison: But how do you tell a developer you 're thinking of changing that
one?
John Shardlow: You 're entering into a whole different discussion in terms .
' of your philosophy and your attitude and your relationship with the
development community . That 's something you have to work out for yourself .
I mean the role that you play and the way in which your community
' represents itself to the development community is something that you have
to decide philosophically . Obviously Eden Prairie feels that that way of
approaching it is better . If push came to shove in my honest opinion , I
think it 's illegal what Eden Prairie does but they 've never been
' challenged .
Emmings : It 's like spot zoning .
' John Shardlow: Well they 're refusing to zone in accordance with their
comprehensive plan .
' Krauss : Which we do here . I also told them that it 's a little iffy but it
makes sense to do and until we 're challenged on it , that 's what we intend
to do .
Erhart: I know but there 's nobody forcing them to zone a specific spot
high density . Multiple housing high density .
' Krauss: No , and we don 't have an intention of pre-zoning any more property
other than the new MUSA land . You know the new MUSA is sort of
advantageous in a lot of ways . It 's raw land . It 's all zoned ag . We 're
starting with a clean slate out there . It gets a lot tougher when you 're .
Erhart : We 're not looking at any new high density?
Krauss : We 've got some new areas that are guided high density but they
continue to be zoned ag .
' Erhart: Well what I would suggest , when we get to the zoning map is we
make everything RSF .
' John Shardlow: We 've done exactly what you 've said in the city of
Burnsville where in the multi-family residential district you 're allowed to
go up to something like 12 units per acre and then over and above that , if
' you go the planned unit development route , you can get up to 26 units per
acre if you do underground parking and other things like that . So that
idea of saying you have a right based upon the underlying zoning to go to
12 and you go beyond that but the only way we 're going to allow you to do
that is to go through planned unit development . But again I 'm going to
caution you that your standards still need to be reasonable and what you
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 -- Page 45
exact out of the process still has to be reasonable because you can never
get away from the ability or the responsibility of being held to that .
Conrad: So what encourages a developer to ask for a PUD?
John Shardlow : In which circumstance? I mean really , you keep pinning me
down and it really depends on the specific project . In the event of Near
Mountain , they needed , they wanted the flexibility to develop some smaller I
lots . Some lots closer to the lake . Some more flexibility in terms of
side yard setback . In the case of the development along TH 5 , there 's a
lot of constraints out there . There 's a lot of wetlands . There 's a lot of
woodlands . There 's a lot of topography to be dealt with . It could provide
the opportunity to be more efficient in the development while still saving
more trees and being able to preserve those features .
Batzli : But how do you encourage that along TH 5 if there 's a multiple
group of property owners?
John Shardlow: I could have swore we proposed it .
Batzli : Excuse me? • II
John Shardlow: I said I could have swore we proposed it .
Batzli : Well yes , granted but let 's say but now that you 've proposed it '
there 's nothing that says the people are actually going to do that . I mean
how do we encourage that in other areas? You proposed it in that
particular area but I mean is there something that we as a city can
proactively do to go out and get property owners in corridors together to
do something like that?
John Shardlow: The City of Burnsville did a Highway 13 corridor study '
where they got all of the landowners to participate in the process and
plan . They had a task force and they did some short term goals and some 11 mid term goals and some long term goals and adopted some goals and
objectives for the corridor and established some specific policies . Things
they were going to try and accomplish over time and one of the things that
kept coming back into that was encouraging the development of the corridor II
through the planned unit development process . Again , you can do a lot to
encourage . All I 'm saying is you can't go out and say you 're zoned planned
unit development and the only way you can develop your property is by
coming in here and negotiating with us and we 'll tell you what you can do
with your land . And that 's an attitude that 's out there and as long as
you 're aware of that , you can encourage it in your plan . In your
comprehensive plan . You can do corridor studies . You can adopt policies
in your comprehensive plan . You can adopt standards in your ordinance that
says if you want to do beyond this level of intensity , the only way we ' ll
allow that is through planned unit development . There are some uses in some
cities where I consult which can only be approved in the city through the
planned unit development . It doesn 't exist as a permitted use or
conditional use in any zoning district in the zoning community . One of 11 those that comes to mind is a marina . In the City of Roseville they had an
existing marina and they wanted to allow it to expand . It didn 't show up
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 20 , 1991 - Page 46
' as a conditional or permitted use in any zoning district . They didn 't want
to make it a conditional use in the R-1 district because they didn 't want
any other marinas in the community . So we developed a planned unit
' development so that it allowed you that flexibility . Extremely flexible
tool .
' Elison: We could have put in the testing station that way .
Emmings: The chairman has an announcement he 'd like to make . I 'm leaving .
Conrad: The meeting is closed .
Emmings: No , I ' ll just turn it over to Tim if you guys want to stay and
talk . This is really interesting . I want to thank both of you for coming
and talking to us .
Erhart: Why don 't you close the meeting and we can keep going .
Emmings: Okay . As far as , we 've got a couple of agenda items that ,
there 's a landscaping issue paper and a pending wetland legislation update .
' Can we push those over?
Krauss: Oh yeah , no problem .
Emmings: Okay . So then that concludes what 's on our agenda . Is there a
motion to close the meeting?
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p .m . .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
I
1
1
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I