Loading...
PC 1994 04 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIl. 6, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: $oe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad and Diane Harbats MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner H; and Andrew Mack, Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1~ BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B~ PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1~ 2 AND 3~ PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION~ A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 54~720 SQUARE FEET WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10~315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACH,ITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARI~ LOCATED AT THF. NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sc, om Any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I just have one more. I didn't see any in the packet of elevations for the proposed warehouse addition and the proposed Press proofing room. Press room addition. I haven't seen what it's going to look like. How it matches up to the existing building or anything. Oh, did I miss thern? Al-~'aff: I apologize. I thought I gave them to everyone. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That was quick. Sco~ Are there any questions on the new elevations? Take a few minutes and go through Mancino: Excuse me. Is this correct fxom what you drew Sharmin? This east elevatiom This is going to be on the outside of that wall, not on the ~? Al-$aff: These are the existing elevations. It's the second page that shows thai. Planning Commi~don Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Thank you. So that will be covered up and then the narth. Okay, thanks. Scorn Any other questions for staff? Harberts: What are they doing with the open space? A1-J'afl: We don't know at this po/nC Harberts: Any indications at all? What can they do with it? Is it big enough to build on? A1-Jaff: Yes. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for stuff? We'd like to hear from the applicant or their' representatives. Please step to the microphone and identify yourselves... We can take a few moments to set up the tripod so we can get it on the cmnem. John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich fr~rm RLK Associate. We are the real es~___~ architect and civil engineers working with thc Marcus Corporation and the Press...to develop this site for the application that is in front of you. The application that is there, we are excited about and we are willing to work with commission members and staff and City Council in order to see this Kindercare and Press development proceed. V~th me tonight, representing Kindeware is John Pinmore so ff there are specific questions in rega~ to Kindercare, Mr. Pinmore will be able to address those. And I will be able to address the questions in regards to the site plan and engineering plans. A couple of the comments that were raised I would like w respond to. In terms of the issue of the Press expan~on. The intent of the expansion is pfimm'ily for warehouse purposes and storage and secondly to organize and consolidate some of the loa~ding facih'tie~ that are out there today. Ctm~nfly from Highway 5, as Sharmin indicated, are able to see the loading docks. It is proposed, with the facility that would move forward, that they would be fully enclosed. That the loading docks would be fully enclosed and face each other so that the views from Highway 5 and from Dell Road, you would not be able to see the loading dock fadlky. Cummfly there are semi's that sit out here. That is how some of the facility and swrage capacity is taken up to date. With this new expansion it will all be fully enclosed as well as the service of the docks both on the east and west wings of that addition. The facade of the Press will be comparable to what is out there today in terms of this square concrete panels so that it will match the existing facade that is along that eastern side today. The pw~sal is to have a joint access drive from West 77th Street. That would be built into the developer's agreement so that it would be a joint driveway would be, the proposal is 24 feet. We will expand that to 26 feet to meet city code and that would service with the Kindercare, the Press and the outlot that is remaining to date. This 1.5 acre outlot is proposed to ~nmin under the ownership of Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 thc Press at this time. There are no proposals pending or thought of for this site. It is the Press Incorporated's intention to hold onto that site for future considerations. You know if they continue to expand or need more parking. They are in the process of holding it. For the time being it is totally proposed to stay in basically a natural state of ~rass condition as it is today. With the Kindercare facil/ty, we would have a fight-in/fight-out off of Dell Road and circulation that would allow the parents to park and drop off. Drop and take their children inW the facility. Typically we would anticipate the drop off period wonld be over a 2 hour time frame and there would be approximu~ly 100 children during that time frame. We would anticipate the Press being the major client of this Kindercare facility and there would be opportunities for some of the parking that is on the ~ lot to be contracled to the Press employees, Because if they run multiple shifts, we would anticipate a fair amount of usage from the Press for the Kindercare. We would, the parking stalls that are out there would accommodate up to approximal~ly 245 children. We anticipate a maximum amount of children in the Kindercare facih'ty would be approximately 200 so there are multiple parking spaces that are available for contract use or for developing into drop off areas or sidewalk. The licensing of the daycare facility is done by a State review process and that wonld be a process that all daycare facilities need to go through. The signage plan has not been submitted. We would be fully intended to comply with the ordinance of the square footage of the maximum of 80 square feet and also of the height of an 8 foot high sign...that's within ,- " the ordinance requirements. Kindercare is a national chain so they have a logo and basically the total sign plan that they would put. We fully intend to work with the landscaping and berming so that the berm that is currently out there along Highway 5 would be ~ and pulled inw this area so that the entire parking area should be screened fwm view while you were getting inW your car at an elevation on Highway 5. So that we would continue that and then also by adding parking lot islands and hrigation, anticipate that this area will have quite a bit more green than is currently out there in a much more maintainable condition. I believe those are the issues that I heard. We'd be happy to respond to any additional questions with regard to the site plan. Harberts: I have a question. You chamxi about the pazking with regard to conuacc Contracting. I don't understand thaL Could you just kind of elaboraie what you meant by contracting out parking? John Dielrich: With the Press next to this facih'ty they are going to be completely independent in terms of ownership. We would anticipate that there would be an oppartunity for an employee to park and drop off their children and then walk over to the Press facility so there's going to have to be a...agreement between the two landowners. We would also anticipate that the Press would be able to contwl the employee usage far potential cut through of that lot through to Dell Road being that managanent won~ld have the say over how the employees would exit the site and it would be stipulaI~ that...would have to be either to the Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 west or to the north to West 77th Street. Harbens: Is there a fence that will go around the playground area7 Around the daycare area. John Dietrich: Yes, I believe there is. Ledvina: I had a question regarding the parking. Staff has indicat~l that your proposal identifies 314 stalls and the req~t based on the staff's calculations aa far aa the needa are concerned indicates 245 parking slots. Why the extra stalls? John Dietrich: We took the amount of stalls that are out there today and looked at the warehouse expansion and calcula~ that in terms of the new square footage and we added that square footage to the existing number of stalls that are out there today. So in tm'ms of parking requirements, it may be over built today if we wanted to be consislm~t with the ordinance for the expansion of the 55,000 square feet for the Press. So we added that expansion to the existing parking wlal. Ledvina: The expansion that's being proposed? John Dietrich: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: But didn't staff take that into account? So that's already taken into account for what's required, which is the 277. John Dietrich: Yes. Yes. Mancino: $o you went over and beyond what was required even for the expansion? John Dietrich: Yes. Harbe~: So are you asking, is the ordinance minimum or maxim~? Mancino: It still doesn't moire sense, yeah. Har~: Is the ordinance minimum or maxim~? AlJaff: Minimum. They want to exceed that number ff they can. If they meet hard surface coverage, which has not been provided. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: That was my next question- What is the hard surface coverage for, now for that, for the Press and for Kinderca_re? John Dietrich: For the Press and Kindercare. The haxd suff~ coverage for the Ki-d~ is approximate 57%. And the hard surface coverage for the Press at this time is approximately 77%. Mancino: So it's over what they can do? A1-Jaff: 70% is the maximum hard sm'facx coverage. Mancino: And they're at 77? AI-Jaff: So they need to reduce it. Mancino: And they could reduce it by 7% by eliminating some extra parking spaces? I mean that's one way. That's one option- John Dietrich: Yes, if we are over the code, we could do that, yes. Al-laff: Another option is by enlarging the site. Moving the ~ line and currently Lot 3 is open so if they want to take a few square feet and just move the line, they wo,ld make up that 7%. Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions for the elevations. On the south elevation that I'm looking at here, where does it show me what the new additions look like? This one doesn't have a south? John Dietrich: We did not show the south or the west elevation on the proposed because the additions are going on the west. Excuse me. Are going on the east and on the north. If I was to draw in where it would be on the existing, it would be approxima~ly in this range. But it would be set. Mancino: Is it going to have the same sort of detailing that this fi'ont has or is it just going to be the vertical? John Dietrich: It's going to be the vertical square concrete, similar to the existing east elevation. Mancino: Will there be any windows or any sort of anything facing south? Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 $ohn Dietrich: There is warehouse, storage... Mancino: What's the wall, what's the length of the wall of the Press room addition facing south? Is that a 20 foot length of wall or is that? John Dietrich: Thc length of wall Mancino: No, east of it for the addition. Yeah. John Dietrich: This piece he~e? Mancino: How big is that? lohn Dietrich: I would say approxima~y 60 feet. Mancino: 60 feet? John Dietrich: In length. In Imvns of height, it would match the existing. Mancino: And there is no windows? There's no nothing? There's no landscaping for that 60 feet? John Dietrich: ...for the landscaping. Mancino: Okay. And if that's 60 feet, then how big is the warehouse that faces south? John Dietrich: L6t me grab...It's approximately 65 feet, not 60. It's approxima~ly 130 fe~t. Maneino: We have in our Highway 5 guidelines something about you know big expanses of flat wail Or I shouldn't say flat wall but a wall and doing something with those expanses. Making them... John Dietrich: ...landscaping to those facades. They are to help break up those individuaL.. Mancino: Okay. So you would come back to us with a new landscaping plan tha~ would show what you would do? John Dietrich: Yes. Planning Commisdon Meeting - April 8, 19o~ Mancino: Okay. John Dietrich: Or if you would wish, we could put in a condition that they would have to have staff approval or staff to concur with the landscape plans prior to... Mancino: Are there other requirements on the, in the Highway/5 about, just not landscaping but doing something archi~y to those big expanses7 Do you know7 Al-Jaff: ...architecturally elements or lan~g is what it will be. Mancino: It's or? It's not and/or7 We'll have to, we'H look that up7 Okay. Scott: Any other qucsfions for the applicant? Ledvimc Mr. Chairman. On my proposed conditions, on the na~ elevation there's a, I thinir I see a loading dock area and I don't know, is this ~ or how is this, why is this set up this way? John Dietrich: Okay. North elevation on the fight hand side. Ledvina: Right. What am I looking at there? John Dietrich: This one over on this side of the building. Ha_dxa'ts: Mr. Chairman. On that same side, accoMing to th~ site plan that I see hea~, we have parking, 24, 11 and 8. Are those anticipated for employees or who's anticipated to be parking on that side7 John Dietrich: Parking ov~ on the west gde of the building? Harbcrts: Yeah, right. John Dietrich: Typically it's all employee. Harberts: And their accass is from what point7 Is it off of 77th7 John Dietrich: It will probably where it comes in on the southwest corner. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Harberts: I'd like m chat with the gentleman from gindercare. John Pinrnore: I'd like to expand a bit on the drop off and pick up. My name is John Pinmore with Kindercare as a Division Co~on Manager and...I wanted to expand. You've got W keep in mind with a child care center, we're taking children from 6 weeks in age W 12 years and in this particular center a majority, the greater majadty of those children will be between 6 weeks and probably 3 or 4 years. Because of the age of the children, we can't allow parents to drive up and drop off their child. They have to parlr_ Bring the kid into thc center. Sign him in. There has to be an exchange of being in charge of that child for the day. It's not like a grade school where the parents drive up and you know wave good-bye to their son or daughter and they go into thc school. $o the kid is not allowed to just go into a drop off lane type of function. Really it doesn't work in a child cane center because the parent has to go in. You can't just drive it you know. Leave them off. You know thc first person in the front, if they stand in longer than thc person behind_: then you've got a traffic jam in the drop off lane so we find that just a regular pm'king lot works best for thc way we handle our drop off's and pretty much that's how all child ceres have to handle their drop offs because of thc age of thc children. And thc fact that thc Kinderea~ has to take charge of those children at some point in the signing in and si~aning out... Harbem: What about with regard to the access? In terms of if the majority, if the major clients or client that you are anticipating is from the Press, the printing or whatever. John Pinmore: I don't think it will be the major. I meaa we are anticipating...but I do not believe that will be the greater part of the center. We have a dividon in Kindeware called gindercare Work and we actually buiki centers for a pm'ficular client and they guarantee spaces or do something and we didn't have any type of relationship here with the Press. Of course we would take their children, but we'd take them like anybody else's child. Harberts: Do you own or operate any Kindercare's within Eden Prairie, Cha~iva or Chanhassen currently? John Pinmore: We have two in Eden Prairie. One is on TH/5 right now. There will be...few years and then it will be going away. Audience: What is that Valley View? Harberts: Valley View and Prairie Center Drive7... Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 John Pinmore: We have one in Minnetonka on TH 101 and ~or. Harberts: When you have field trips, when you have field trips outside your location, do you provide your own form of transportation? John Pinrnore: Yes, we have vans, correct We also use those vans to pick up the after school children from their schools and then we have designated parking spots in the front row of the building that will be striped van. They're the front spot... Harberts: I'm done. Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Thank you sir. Harberts: Is there anyone from the operations? John Pinmore: No, not here tonight but I can answer numerous of your questions but not all of them. Did you have a specific one? Harberts: Well I'm just wondering, with regards to the employe~. Are there residems ,- within like a 5 mile radius of the employment side?. /s it more of a metro draw in term, of residents7 John Pinmore: It is but they are more localized. Our employees. My ~ is in the Chicago area where we have about 75 centers and you'll find the employees typically live around their center. They don't come from too far of distances. They typically work in the Harber~: Okay, thanks. John Pinmore: But I mean we haven't really patrolled that other than the fact that they need to be there at a certain time and so if they live an hour away, that may become difficult for Harberts: Thank you. Scott: Anything else7 This is a public heafiug and can I have a motion. Pardon me? Find out if auybody else from the applicants or their repxus~tafives would like to speak? John Dietrich: In terms of the facade of the b,,ilding facing south, with the 65 foot step and also approximately 100 foot step. The building was design~ so that sWp would be in there Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 so we do not have one massive block. We wanted to step that a little bit and tuck the parking in. There will also be a berm coming up fi'om the parking lot appro~ms_tely 4 foot up against the facade in this area so that we have an opportunity to have some green going up from the parking lot itseff up to the building. So the bnilding will be off the main, similar to a retaining wall to help bring the scale of that building height down. And finally in terms of visual, we will have the berm along Highway 5 screening the parking lot with the overstory trees to help break up the facade along the proposed expansion. Mancino: The berm being, is a 3 or 4 foot berm and it is also what's on the berm7 I mean you won't get much opacity really because it's going to be overstory trees that are deciduous tre~ so during the winter you're still going to have that direct line sight view into that comer of the building and you're going to see 120 feet of you know just a wall and that's my concern. And it has been addressed in the Highway 5 study on page, I think it's page 58 where we're asking for those buildings on Highway $ not to and actually there's a line drawing of it not to be this plain and straight wall That we have some variations. We don't get into monotony along Highway 5 because it's a very i ,mlx)ztant area for us. John Dietrich: Absolutely... Maucino: And the Press is a wonderful, as far as I'm concerned, wonderfully landscaped in the f~ont. Wonderful archimctm'al in the front. I enjoy it very much going by it. It's very pleasing aesthetically. I don't even, I never realized that there were docks on the east side because I'm drawn to the focal point which is the front of that building because it's so well done. So I want it to stay that way and not to have just this addition which is a block wall to warehousing on Highway 5 because I think what it has right now is great. And I would not like to see the addition didn't live up to what the ox/ginal building is. John Dietrich: The building itself is complimentary to the existing building in term.~ of the score of the concrete panels and sl~ying with it. It does not have the o/rice space with the windows that are ourently there from the south side. Mancino: Which I think some archi~ addition does need to be put on those bigger spaces to keep them in the same quality as it's being the original building. John Dietrich: In terms of the distance, the 65 feet, and 130 feet and the scale of the bnilding is compatible with, you know in terms of the stepping of that side. Not one long facade of 20O feet. Scott: Would anybody else from the app~t like to speak? Okay. Can we have a motion to open the public hearing please. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Harberta moved, Mancino seconded to open the public bearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was opened. Scott: First of all, is there anyone here from the genenfl public who would like to speak about this issue7 Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public heating7 Ledvina moved, Mnn~o seconded to dose the public henring. All voted in favor nnd the public henring was closed. Ledvina: I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about relates to the number of paddng spaces and the hard surface coverage. Many times wc'H have applicants that will corec in without parking and this is kind of a flip of that but I think in ~ instance we want to try to avoid the look of large parking areas. I think that if there were going to be, if the applicant chooses to eliminate some of the parking, which I feel that that shonld be done, I think it should be done along the south part of the site. And I don't know exactly what the existing conditions there are now. Do they plan on expanding the l~rking in that direction, or no7 A1-Jaff: They're cxps_nding it to the east only. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that we need to be aware of oversized parking lots and certainly thc hard surface issue needs to be addressed. And I would be strongly in favor of reducing that to the 245 stalls that were identified in the staff report. That's the extent of my Sco~ Good. Ladd. Conrad: 70% ~ous surface is absolute. What they do with it doesn't matt~ to m~. I think there should be some concern aes~cally for the addition but I'm comfortable that it can be done with plantings, landscaping. I would like to see that condition up to the City Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I can~ in late so I didn't hear all the, I knew you we~ going to talk about the lxaffic here. I also, the 70% issue I agree with. I guess I don't fully understand thc expansion of the lot. I understand thc expanded, they can leave the parking as is by reducing thc ratio that way. But that would still leave thc look of the wide open parking space out front so maybe if there's a way to cut it back without exp~ that, that's an option. And I guess I would agree with Ladd's conurgnts or Nancy's comment in terms of looking at the 11 P/arming Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 south facing wall to make sure that we do get something that enhances the appearance. I'm not, I don't belicvc in putting windows on warehouse space and we don't nccd windows or anything to break it up but if there is a way we can landsca~ that makes sense. So that's all I have. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I have three co--ts and that is impervious surface. I also agree with everyone about 70%. I would like to see it back because I'd like to see some enhancement of the proposed classroom expansion and proposed warehouse expansion. Whether that be architecturally or whether that be landscatping, I've got to see it. You know there was no elevations or very detailed to show us what it's lvally going to look like and I'd like to see what it will really look like. It does, it is on Highway 5 and it is i,,,pox-utnt to us. We've done a whole corridor study for Highway 5 for a year and a half. We care about whether those will look like. The original and their added on space so I would like to see it in detail. What it will look like. Certainly I'm concerned about parking. I'm concerned about the cut through for the people from the Press who park in that back pafldng lot being able to cut through the Kinderca~ lots. I just think of small kids when they get out of their car when they're 4 or 5. I mean they race to the fixmt door before their parents can even stop them. And so I see it as a big public safety issue. That there can be c~rs coming through that parking lot when they're being dropped off or picked up and that's a concern for me. So I do not, I would not like to see the parking lots being used together. I think that there should be a fence or w~er. Plantings between the two parking lots. And I also think that part of the recommendation should include no rooftop equipment. That it cannot be viewed from 77th Street, Dell Road or Highway 5. And lastly, getting to the Kindercare building, ...consmacted of face brick on the bottom part of the building and then it has EIFS. What is? John Dietrich: It's stucco. It's insulated stucco. EIFS stands for Exterior Insulation N'mished System. Basically it's stucco on top of insulation. Where stucco, just straight stucco there's no R value to it- So it's like an, our color will be off white stucco. Mancino: Well we have requested I think on any new building that's coming in, samples so I would like to see samples and colors. You know colors and samples of the facing brick and the stucco and the shingles, etc because we have been asking for that on all of our site plans. Not only samples but what also helps us, if you have another building in 1Minnetonka or in another suburb that is existing, for us to see a picture. An 8 x 10 glossy, what, er. That's very helpful and we can, you know visuals work a thousand words. So I would ~ to see samples and also a photograph of it- Those are my comment~ Scott: Just a question of the Goodyear/Abra building that's being built across the sueet. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 That's almost completely brick isn't it7 A1-Jaif: Correct. There is some concrete block Scott: Okay. And this particular s~ is roughly 25% or. Was something other than brick originally proposed for those buildings across the street? I didn't follow that p~. Al-laff: You mean for the Abra? Scott: Yeah. Al-Jaff: To begin with they were in brick but one of the conditions of approv~ was that brick be used on them... Scott: And the conditions were placed because, is that lOP across the street or were those? AI-Jaff: No, it was Highway Business and under the conditional use permit... Scott: Okay. Because I'm thinking we're Lind of inconsistent where we've got an auto relalni use across the street that's completely hdck and we have, whatever you call this and it's not. So I'm thinking from a standard standpoint, I guess my condition would be that we would have the extedor of this ~ be consistent with the Abra across the street and I can't site you chapter and verse in what they have but I've been watching it being built for the last couple of weeks and so farth. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'd ~ m make a conunent Joe. I wanted to just re-emphasize my comments with regard to public safety. From my perspective, from my professional experience I think this is wonderful in terms of having a Kinderca~. In ~elationship to this type of industry, I think it's excellent. My only concern is that we're missing a small element and that's to make this element really work. And what I mean from that is from my earlier comments with regard to public safety. With regard to pedestrian access. Why treatt an element in which you pull in, drop your kid off, go around and pull into another parking lot. Why not create that type of element, since we have that opportunity where maybe it enhances or mak~ it an advantage~ You know perhaps what I would suggest is that lane of parking that's adjacent to the Kindercare, perhaps that could be designal~ in trams of a perk for people that do work here and do use daycare, that only daycare use~ employees get to park there. It's kind of a perk. And why not put in then like a more pedestrian element such as a sidewalk or something to keep that public safety issue down. I'll just make a comment with regard to public transit in the area. With reverse commu~, I've been woridng with Sharmin and ~ does pull in employee~ on a metro wide area. Reverse commute we started a year ago with a 25 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 passenger bus. We're up to an art[culal~xt bus at 65' passengers in ~ of reverse commute. It's only going to get larger. I guess I'm looidng for that type of ~ty whe~ we can help the employers have that type of advantage because it does help them with regard to employees. I would just go on record with my comments to the City Council and to the applicant that perhaps, and I will extend the services of Southwest Melro Transit, to sit down and perhaps help you identify where those type of advantages may be able to come inw this site element. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope we see more of this but I just think we're missing some of the fine tuning in ~ of the elements and I would certainly encourage that perhaps staff, from the city, staff from Southwest Metro Transit, can sit down. If it requires a little bit of redesi~oning, why not take that opportunity now because based on my experience, basexl on where the public policy is going on a regional level from the me~ area, it's only going to pay off as a positive investment now later on in the future. Scott: Do you want to see this reworked? Mancino: That's what I was going to ask Wouldn't you want to see it rewozk~ and see it again? Harberts: Well from my professional experience I would say yes. But I would want the, I would really encourage that the applicant want to take that initiative .to do it. I don't want government, public policy to be a hinderance but I want it to be viewed as a very positive and like I said, from what my experience is, as well as with where the region is going in terms of public policy and transit, I think if you take that little extra time to maybe take another look at how transit and how this type of pedestrian element can be blended to make it more advantageous, it's going to pay off long term for the business. Mancino: So we have some issues that we want to see. Scott: Yeah, reading from my notes here we see Uaffic circulation. We see i .ml~rvious surface. We see two major things relating to the Highway 5 and related ordinances which appearance of the warehouse addition- We have setback concerns on the Kindercare facility. Are those major to the point where we want to see it reworked again? Yes? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: Okay. I will move that the Planning Commission not approve the site plan review ~ 1 as shown on site plan received. Conrad: Do you want to table it7 Mancino: Oh, okay. I move that we table it and see it again. With all the recommendations 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 that we made. And does staff have all those recommendations7 Thank you. Sc, om Is there a second to the motion7 Conrad: Second. Sco~ It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad ~eeonded to table the Site Plan Review ~1 for ~ to the Press nd a Kindercare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimmmly. Scott: When do you think we'll be able to get thi~ back on our schedule so we can ~ee it7 I don't know how we're looking for the next meeting but. Al-$aff: If they submit cvcrything by Friday. Scott: I just want to make sure that when we table ~nething, that we at ~ give them the opportunity to come back as quickly as they're able to. But if it looks like we can, well I guess it's up to them. We'll make a spot on our meeting in 2 weeks if they lunte the pieee~ in place. Okay. A14aff: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Before we move onto the ordinance, the next item, I just want to introduce Andrew Mack. He's our new city planner. He joined us 10 days ago. Scorn ...maybe give him a name tag so we know who he is. Harberts: Can we take like 2 minutes and ask him about his background. Scott: Did you interview by videotape? Macic No I didn't. I would like to indicate though that I at~l~chte the welcome...and I'm pleased to be a new member of staff here in the city of ~. Scott: Good. I'm sure we'll have comments and questions afterw~ AMENDMENT TO THE CITY (~QDF_, ~ SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW SECTIONS REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND Tl~gg~ PRF..SERVATION. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: ...significant tree definition. Generous: 12 inches or larger. Significant tree means any healthy tree. Conrad: So that's a significant tree? Okay. Generous: And that's just for thc surveying part. Conrad: But that, so that's in the survey. So that goes back into our formula? A si~onificant. Generous: No, not at all It helps us when they're developing their plan. They slm't with basically a survey of the site. The next Layer on that might be the significant tree to give us an idea of where these stand on. The third layer would then be the canopy coverage which would include all the smaller frees and the large trees. Conrad: Okay so. Generous: So it's just to help us in detm'minin§, you know trying to do the massaging of roadway alignments or lot lines using some larger reference. Conrad: So what happens to an insignificant lree? Meaning that it's less than 12 inches. Then what can we do there? Generous: Then we can look at it's canopy coverage. What if that tree contributes to the canopy coverage of the site. Scott: So when we get a preliminary plat let's say of a development, what we're going to be getting will be kind of an outline that will show us what the ~olal canopy coverage is and then there will be dots representing 12 inches or bigger. Generous: The significant tree. Scott: So we can kind of then get a view of whether the canopy coverage is of significant trees or not that they're insignificant but less significant. Conrad: But there's nothing in here that ~ me the formula for what si~gni~cant trees can. It just says they are represented on a plan. They're representing on a survey. We can cut them down if we want but they're there. 16 Phmning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Generous: Well depending. You can cut some out, yes. If you go below your threshold, you have to replace it on a larger basis. There's two ways...The first one is if that tree, let's say you're right at the limit you neecL You need 10% tree coverage and you have that. When you start going in and cutting down the existing trees, you have to replace those on a larger basis. Mancino: But what we didn't do was, let's say you have...lree coverage over 90% and 80% is Utrle stuff and 10% is in this one area, they arc significant. I mean they're big trees. We haven't put a difference between those. Generous: Priorities. Mancino: We haven't put a priority about saving those big si~ifleant Irees. Let's say there's a stand within this entire canopy coverage, which I think we may want to think about. That's a good question. Generous: Yeah, we did ~ a distinction betw~ the type of trees. As long as it had leaves on it, some type of canopy coverage... ~: Let me just comment on ttmt though. It seems though that our discussion though at our ri'goring, with regard to variances or whalcver, kind of ccnlgrs mound if it's a significant trees or tree stands. We've asked people to come back showing us where the pads arc, things like that. So if we're looking to be consistent with what we felt was irr~. ortm~t, I think Nancy's comment needs to be sddressed. Mancino: Well and we still want to maintain canopy coverage, even thc younger ones because obviously as we said before, that's our next generation of trees. So it's not that we want to lose those but if, maybe there should be a priority here. Harberts: But we can put value on that though in some of the Lake Susan Hill~ The Jasper Homes and things like that. Mancino: And being more educated and learning more about it and say let's just not save the significant but let's save some of thc younger ones too. But maybe we need to prioritize it. Scott: Let me throw something out. Harlmu: I didn't mcan to jump in Ladd. Conrad: No, that was good. Again, I'm real naive on this. I have not pm~ipated and I 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 want to understand and I guess if I read it throu~ I don't. I don't know what this tells you. Maybe developers are smarter than I am. But just real quick. I don't want to belabor this point. Joe, you thought you were going to go through this one real fast. But real quickly, a si~onit%ant tree to me, you know I'll die for an oak that's 15 inches big but some_ other trees, I guess if I know that they're fast growing, they're not as significant to me. So I guess I'm really picking on the definition here. I just don't, personally I don't buy it but again I haven't gone to the corranittee meetings with you. I thinir there are significant trees below 12 inches and this doesn't. Mancino: Those are called special trees but we do have a category for those trees that are below and that are rare trees. Conrad: Well you've got 30 inches there. Mancino: No, it's rare or unusual lree species or trees of exceptional quality and it doesn't matter what size those are under the _definition of special trees. Generous: Ladd, also as part, with their requirements they're suppose to develop a philosophy of what they're trying to do with that woodland plan. So...these fast growing .trees, we don't want to keep this. We want to make this an oak and maple forest, for example because of the soft conditions, the existing tree patm'n. So that's, we're lzying to give the developer. Conrad: I think everybody here is telling me something I probably believe and I don't see it here. I guess I'm not quite sure that the words are saying what you're saying to me_ right now. I don't have any more questions. Scott: Here's something that I'm going to play this against a development that we saw a while back that I ~ was 40 or so acres...~ no trees basically. So that would be 19% or less. As pan of our ordinance we're requiring people to stick 2 trees on the lot just anyway. If someone is going to develop a treeless lot, because of this ordinance, are they going to be required to exceed the other ordinance that we have? I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. I'd love if they had to put 3 or 4 so I mean are we basically saying, yeah. If you want to develop this treeless site, you're going to end up putting 4 or 5 or 6 trees per lot? Generous: Well not per lot. We would encourage they put the requirement per lot but they would have to create some wooded areas. Massed areas. Scott: Mass, okay. So it's conceivable based upon this is that, and then let me just ask the quesfion~ How many developments have you had. 18 Plavning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Can I ~ke_. that one step figther, what you're asking? Scott: Sure. Mancino: Because what you're saying is, then we may have some lots that don't have any trees on it because we're doing this woodland management and it's all in one area maybe. And our thinking was, and Tim please join in, is that most people, when they buy a new home want to go out and landscape it anyway and will put trees on it. And secondly, and I just lost my train of thought. We still would like to, as a Tree Board, §o back and do an ordinance for boulevard plantings. So that would be in addition to this. We wo-ld do boulevard plantings in different areas too, so. Scotu Okay. Harbens: I have an enforcement question too. So how do we enforce this? Elrl~dally I guess with regard to, you know with the dead trees. Removing of this. Who's going to go out and make sure that the survey they give us is ~? You know in terms of the different caliper inches. Tree caliper means diameter of tree measured at 6 inches above the ground. Who's going to go out and enforce that. Generous: ...to hire a professional landscape consultant. And partially on staff. We're looking at. Harberts: Whichsm~ City's? Generous: City staff. It's like anything. We have to verify what. Harberts: And this is why I'm asking. I'm not opposed to this but let's look at it from an adminisumive, from a city cost. Look at the developments that we have coming in. One, is there staff available? Is there money to support smff~ Can bagc. ally we enforce this ordinance? These are questions, I don't know the answers and I'll just throw this up to the City Council to look at. I mean they're the ones that set the city budget. Everyone loves to see the tax dollars go down rather than going up. Keeping the budget status quo. Where anywhere from a 1% to 5% increase, if even that much. So I guess I question that. You know it's great to involve the professional landscaping people to put the surveys together but again, is the city able to enforce it and do we need to understand what that enfotcem~t process is or is that basically a City Council decision? And I guess my biggest point here is, are we creating a stick in Ire'ms of development or is this a positive §ovemment policy to help create more of a positive parmership7 19 Plaoning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Generous: Well from what I've been reading in the planning li~ the green_ ing of the suburbs is all thc rage now. People are moving out to the suburbs to...because of the green space~ 8o this will be taking a positive step. As far as enforcement, ff this is adopted, will one way or another do it. As a pan of the discusdon items for your joint meeting with City Council, that is one of the items. Mandno: Furthermore, the Tree Board is supporting and has asked for a city f~ and maybe that's 100% Chanhassen. Maybe it's a shared forester with another city. I can tell you that all the city ordinances that we did see across the country, any city that was seriously getting into tree preservation, which most of them are now, have city foresters. They're on staff. Harberts: Well and I don't know if the city needs to hire per se a staff person or maybe they need to hire the services of a professional firm that can accomp, llsh the same thing but again, I just wanted to make sure that it's an ordinance that can be enforced. But what's the cost and I just want to raise those issues. Generous: There's always the other alternative. We require developers to provide funding for the city to get like an engineering for a consultant Scott: There you go. Scott: Yeah, I had a long discussion with our forestry intern and it was kind of nice to see, to hear some of these comments but the bottom line of kind of my thoughts and was seconded by him, somebody who's going to be in that position is if you're going to have somebody to do the enforcement then basically what you do is you have the people who are going to have thi~ ordinance, or have to deal with this ordinance, you need to have them pay for their own cops. So personally, we have this nice formula. I think what we need to do is to add another fee of some sort when someone files for development. They pay x based upon y and z and then based upon the development that we have here, I mean we need to fund that. I think it would be unfair for the city staff to do it, because you all have full time jobs anyway. So anyway, enough of that. Just a quick question. Harbcrts: Just one other thing on that Soc. In terms of the enf~t and thc moniwring though. As I understood from some of the conversations that we've had in subdivision discussions, that some of these trees may not, you know some_ of those may become stressed and they don't duc until a year later or s~g. Has that been taken inw account with regards to enforcement monitoring because yes, they put the fences up and it appears that Planning Commisuion M~ting - Al~'il 6, 1994 they're saving trees but in all likelihood they still got too close. They ~ out the tree and the tree's going w die. Do we need to take that into consideration? Again, I don't have the answers. I'm just raising the questions. City Council can deal with it then. Scott: Well that was the next comment I was going to rnak~ is on page 5, il~m number 10. It says if the pwteeted significant trees are removed or killed, well. Harberts: So what7 Scott: Yeah. The question there is, if it dies aft~ a period of years, we don't...mo storage but I know that city staff has re~ved, and I've received numerous phone eails from people who spent a serious amount of money on a treed lot only to 3 or 4 years later the trees start dying on them. And then also too, number 9. I've got a question on the removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if it cannot be saved. Says who? Mancino: Yeah, that was one of mine too. It must be approved by the city. Scott: You back into it with your heavy equiprnent, well let's get it out of here. So anyway, we've goL Harberts: Well and you know again, I mean from my perspective, I thinlr the City Council, perhaps the Planning Commission needs to ~ though what is the role of the city here versus that of the homeowner. Certainly we want to develop that frame work to provide a comfort level to protect the interests of the homeowner or whatever but again, it's just understanding what the role should be here of city government. Do it in such a way that it isn't really a stick approach to the developer but more of a positive pmmea'~p. You know where's the balance and I guess that's the challenge. Where's the balance here? Scott: Any other comments? Nutting: Mr. Chairm~ I'm somewhat new to this issue but if I could raise a po~t on page 6 of the ordimmce...this deals spec~cally I believe with the issue pertaining to enfmwment but there are conditions for finandal guarantees and ~ and those are certainly types of things that will trigger an analysis of thc existing conditions after ~ements have been...to ensure that the tree saving plan has worked before the funds cam be released. Scott: Okay. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, Ron brought up a good...go ahead. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Nutting: That's okay. Well, yeah. I was just, if you've got-a barren piece of land. Someone comes in and wants to do high density residential, this...15% canopy coverage is required which leaves the landscape barrer~.. Mancino: 15% of the total. Nutting: Yeah but, I guess my question is, is that going to hinder the dev opment of that land. Conrad: It also is a contradiction. We require one uee, We've got some ~ that we're seeing that we've got out in fnrm fields and we require one tree. Now I assume, and...look nt low density residential and we're saying because it's in the 19% or less categ~, we require one tree and we're assuming it's going to cover 25% of the area. Generous: It won't. No. It corm about, one tree will equal about 2 1/2% of the canopy. Conrad: Okay, so I don't understand Generous: We based it on the formula. To get a canopy coverage credit, you plant 40 trees per acre. If you have an acre of barren land that you need to cover, you have to put 40 trees Scott: That would be really good to put into the ordinance. Here's all this and then so what thi, really means is da, da, da, da. Generous: ...didn't like it that way. One tree counts as 1,089 square feet of canopy coverage. Conrad: So what that does...in a ~ right now, thh...to plant 5 trees per 15,000 square foot. Okay, so that just wok up you~ own cost by how many dollars? Scottz So this particular ordinance will supersede any other. Conrad: And the City Council...2 trees per part~ Scottz Well and then, affordable housing in Chanhassen is $175,000.00. Tim Ethan: As Nancy points out, I'm Tim Ethan. I'm on the Tree Committee here and worked on this I guess for a year so far and we're looking forward alot to making, to creating a boulevard tree planting ordinance which I think will do as much if not more than what we're doing here but I think, you know one thing you've got to keep in mind in this whole 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 thing is that we tried to come up with an ordinance that creates a positive relation gh '? with the developer. Keeping in r~ine~ that the city doesn't, when you're talking about existing trees, the city doesn't own those frees. And you know so when we want to start, when we start talking about penalties and stick some things, you know it may be sell defeating because it's, we're trying to work with these people to make sense. The developer wants to save trees. The days are over where it makes sense to go clear cut. We've had an ordimmce for many, many years now that you can't clear cut. You can argue that we have no legal right to do that but the developers don't want to clear cut. And they want to work with the city. I think the whole ordinance is designed to crea~ an environment, to create a street pu~ and development where it's thought...to save these big trees. And it's identified in the remarks. We found, or at least what I understood through this whole discussion is they...because someone goes out there with a bulldozer af~ we've laid out a nice plan and the developer and the staff agrees what's going to be saved and they disregard and just throw the fences off to the side and push down the trees anyway. That's for the big i .mpormnt ones. And we've tried to write that idnd of enforcement into the code penalties and smff...from the way I understand it, talking to Paul Krauss at one time, tried the idea of going out and getting r~lly critical one big tree at a time. And what they found was that was unmanageable. You have somebody bought a lot and he desi~ that couple designed a house to fit that lot and in order to put that house on that lot without taking that u'ee and it turned into a big emotional thing that was really beyond what the staff hsd at the time...so at that time we acn_~lly had one orelinonce and we adjusted it more to deal with the concept of the canopy. Try to deal with that lot...so I think that was the outcome. Then we added another thing too which I think is really kind of new and that is say if you got raw land, in order to mak~ it fair for those...you've got to add a si~ificant u~e. And then the question is, well yeah you can probably do that and then the question is, you're od_ding costs to every house when you do thac..maple grove and evea'ything so we had a lot of discussion about well gee whiT_ At what rate do you want to add trees and one time we had 60 acres, 60 trees per acre and I believe we cut it down. Tried to find something that seemed reasonable. Mancino: Well we did it with the existing subdivisions that had come in. We said you know, how many did we, we took a Lundgren one and we saw the landscaping plan and we found that our ordinance was about the same as what they were going to be putting inW landscaping of that development anyway. $o we did some comparative studies on it too. Tim Erham But I think what...this is really not a ~imple issue. It's really complicated. There's just a lot of factors involved in terms of people and environmental factors and it's very tough to come up with song that balanc~...for tbis project. So I think it's recommending changes at _this point, we could ea~cl up stopping just a lot of work to go back and redo the whole thing again and... 23 Planning Commisdon Meeting - AI~I 6, 1994 Scott: Basically I'd say the world that we're probably going to be deal~g with is most of the developments that we see are 19% or less or I think Lake Susan Hills 9th was probably a major, a very rare situation. Some property but yeah, I'm certainly not against reforestation. I just wanted to make sure that we understood how this ordinance would play against some other ones that deal with reforestation. Let's see. Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: I had one thing. I think overall I support thc amendment. I think it's an excellent step in saving thc remaining tree coverage. But we've talked about, or I've la&ed about the issue as it relates to monumentation in item 7 on page 5. Essentially we're requiring a sign on every lot in a single family development which likely will amount to encountering a sign every 90 feet as you walk along the edge of alree preserve and for me, I don't think that's appropriate. I would like to see that requirement removed. I understand that you want to educate but at the same time I think that would be more negative than positive. Mancino: What would be your solution? Would you then go in to say, in all situations a montunent is required for every 300 linear feet of tree conservation area and just have that and not every lot? Ledvina: Well I think maybe that's a little more palatable because you have a lot of people in their backyard you know enjoying their backyard on their deck.or whatever and they see a sign there and I ~ they don't see their sign. They don't just see their sign, they see the neighbor's sign. The other sign there and then 2 more signs that way. So I can at least in lm'rns of the scenario that I'm envisioning, I wouldn't ~ it. So maybe a com~omise is 300 Mancino: And the other is...what these signs look like. Ledvina: Well I don't know either. Maybe they're little signs on a wood post or something but we have so many signs in our lives and we have a nature preserve that we have to put signs around and I don't like the idea. So I guess Nancy, I would agree that maybe as a compromise there, maybe just one every 300 feet. If we just elimins_te_, the sentence, in ~ngle family residential subdivisions a monument is required for each lot. Mancino: Okay, and then I'd say try that and if we're having a problem with you know in a certain subdivision people going in and cutting or getting into that conservation and we do something. Ledvina: Right. I think the preservation or the major part of the preservation occurs when the site is developed and certainly starts with the planning and then when it's developed, I think after that point people are aware of what they have bordering their property or on their Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 property. Maybe that isn't the case but they don't have real strong reasons to go in and start mucking things up as opposed to the problems that could occur at the devel~t stage. Conrad: Matt, why can't we put a, you're thinking of a sign that comes out of the ground. I guess I don't know that you need to do that. I think you can put flat. You can put, like of golf courses where you've got markers. Ledvina: A tee marking? Conrad: Yeah. So we're not obm~ve. I'm real co~ like wetlands that people will destroy them. I'm concerned that after time, aft~ a year or the next family goes in, it's gone. The sign's gone or whatever but if we get the monument or a marker that's metal in the grass, I don't think that's obtrusive at all and I think that might, that was what i was envisioning. I don't know if that solves you~ problem. Ledvina: Well I don't know. I guess if that's possible. Mancino: An unobUusive monument sign. Led~: Low profile. Mancino: Yeah, profile. That's a good idea. Ledvina: Maybe if you added those words in there. It's just a scenario, bumping into a sign as you're walking in thc woods. That's unpalatable to me but if we can. I can understand if someone starts cutting the underbrush and they see the sign, then okay. Hey if something's happening here and maybe this ~ something. Maybe I should check it out if they're uneducated so f~om that perspective that may make some sense. Mancino: Let's come back with a sign design and just make sure it's what we want. Ledv~ Well maybe, we don't need to say it here or have a picture of a sign in thc ordinance but maybe when developers come up and say, what are you talking about here for a monument, have like kind of a standard plate or whatever that can be used. Generous: Maybe we should do exactly li~ thc wetland ordinance... Ledvina: Okay, well if we could add the word.low profile to monmnenc I guess that would Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott Are there any other comments7 Mancino: Yeah, I just have a few. On that same page, 5. Up in the first paragraph, fifth line down. It says any understory trees and natursl vegetation should be preserved. I'd ~ to put all instead of any. All understory trees and naumti vegetation. Also on page 1, paragraph 2. Bob, when I read that it doesn't tell me that this, or does it. You I~l me. That this survey, where does it tell me that it has to be done by a professional7 I guess I'd like to make sure that the survey that the city gcts from the developer is done by a professional C-enerous: Page 3. Mancino: But that's the woodland manag~t plan. It's not the survey. Scott: We can just add, prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by a licensed landscape. Or you fill in the blank. I don't know what the blank should be but. Generous: Use the same language on number 3. Mancino: Exactly. A licensed forester or other professional approved by the city or landscape archit~--t. So I'd like that also included then in 2. On page 2, (a). Based on thi, survey and either site observation or measurement or aerial photograph intealaretafion_ I would like to make sure it is a current, and when I say current, within the last year or two, aerial photograph. Because there are a lot of aerial photographs that are around here that are 5or 10 years old. Scott: That can work against you too. Mancino: I ~ yeah. I can either work for or against you but I think it should be current.., developer prior to bringing in a site plan because you have on page 2, the baseline canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development application is filed with the city. So somebody could go in and take down quiu: a few before the, yeah. Ledvina: Well I think something like that would be noticed as stuff visited sites and then... photos would come into play. Mancino: Yeah but remember Minnewashta. 26 Phnn/n~ Commission Meeting - April 5, 1994 Mancino: I mean nobody knew exactly what had come down and what hadn't except for a Ledvina: Well and there were, there was au evaluation of what was done there and I mean we looked at stumps and ali that ldnt~ of thing. I think you can do that after the fact if you have to. Mancino: I agree. I just think it would be good if the city did have photographs. If we could use those too. Mancino: In addition to. Scott: Also too, I'd like to see where each, when a prelim/nary plat is brought to us, I personally don't even want to see it unless this is taken care of before hand. I don't want to be wasting our time and the applicant's time just to table it. So personally I don't want to see anything unless all the ducks are in a mw. Richard Wing: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one thing? Scott Yes. Richard Wing: A recent site plan review included pictures and a ~pfion of the trees that were a part of the site plan and I'd like to see staff have each one of the trees that's on our tree list, I think should be on record and I think we should get a picture of that tree and a description of that u'ee and everytime the site plan is presented, those ~ and that description and that picture follows the site plan so we can see what kind of tree they're talking about. How it looks and how it's going to fit in. They just, the last site plan review at the City Council we had that included and it was interesting to be able to see the type of tree, the height of the tree, the crown that the tree had and the... Scott: So that was something like there was a list of species idnd of like we have in here and then with a picuue along side of it? Richard W'mg: I would request staff to continue including picunv~ and descfi~on of the trees when these site plans come forth with the landscaping plan so...or a honey locust, it 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 means nothing to me unless I can see a picture of it and a description of it. At the same time you approved the site plan for Byerly's monument sign of roughly 8 x 11...and no other in¢ormafion whatsoever that makes sense, lust a suggestion that that be included. Scorn Sounds good to me. Mancino: I have another questiom Tim; I can't remember _this and I'm asking you. On page 3, if a developer goes in and takes out more than the 45% canopy coverage and decides to go and take 60% out, we have that replacement being a 1.2 times replacement? Tim Erham Yeah. I flaink it's a ratio on that. Mancino: Yeah. But on the other one, when they go in aftrr it's already protr, ctcd and everything is 1.5, why did we have a difference there? Why don't we stick with 1.5 for both applications? Tim Ethan: If so~y's agreed to save the trees...in a position to go back and...~ he didn't do what he said he was going to do. Versus the other one is more or less a trade off and it's discussed and negotiated up front. Mancino: So there is a 20% penalty for going in and taking additional can~ coverage and let's say there are si~gnificant trees in this canopy coverage. There are some huge, old growth trees and I can take out, I've derided to take out a li~ bit more ~ I can fit a certain house on there and all I have to do is put 20% back in of these young, new little trees. Tim Erhart: Yeah. We went through what the cost per acre and what it costs to do that... Mancino: Okay. Because I know we were playing around with 1.2, 1.3, 1.4. Tim Erham And I don't thini~ there was any clear agreemeat. Mancino: On what that percentage was. Tim Fa'hart: ...magic ratio that anybody felt was just right. We sort of agreed on some point in the middle. But clearly I think we all agreed that if somebody takes alree down, that we thought was going to be saved, clearly ought to be penalized substantially. Mancino: I just wonder if there shouldn't be again a priority. If it's a significant tree, it's a little bit more. That's reworking the whole ordinance. Okay. 28 Planning Commi~ion M~eting - April, 6, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments? Harberts: I have a question for staff. Was it about a few months ago we had looked at like a landscaping ordinance. Is this like a subset of this then? Is that how that fits into it? Scott: On parking lot? Harberts: Yeah. Is that how that fits into it? This is kind of like a subset or is this like a. Generous: This is a different section. It ~ with you, well as far as the site plan, we have thc two will be meshed but as far as thi~ is separately nnd_er the subdivision ordinance. Harberts: Oh okay. What k/nd of action m~ we looking for wnight? Con,_dd_erafion to move it up to the City Council? Mancino: Yes. Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission recaxnmend approval of the Code Amendment to the Landscaping Tree Prescrv~on Sections in the City Code as shown in the March 30, 1994 amendment from the Planning Staff. -. Scott: Is there a second? Harbem: I'll second it. Scorn It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff's reco~fion. Is there any discussion? Harberts: I would just encourage the City Council to, I know I read somewhere here about, oh here it was. In thc Planning Director's report about con~idcring funding for an urban forester for the city and I would just encourage the City Council to consider, before they look at adding on a permanent staff to the city rolls, that they look at perhaps purchasing that service from a company rather than putting that on as pernumeot staff. There might be a cost advantage to that but we certainly want to make sure that the work is done. So I would just encourage city staff to, or the City Coundl to look at purchasing the service from an existing agency rather than putting on a staff report if there's value to doing that. Scott: Is there any other discussion? Ldvina: I would like to also add to my motion that thc discussion undertaken this evening 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 ' a~ it relate~ to suggested language change~ be made prior to forwarding ~ ordinance to the City Council. Scott: Okay. Any other discussion7 Ledvinn moved, Hnrberts seconded thnt the Plnnning Commi~ion recommend approval of City Code Amendment to the lnndsenping nnd tree preservnlton sections ns shown in the stnff report of M_nrch 30, 1994 and atnended to reflect the chnnges diseumed. All voted in fnvor, except Ladd Conrad who nbstnined, and the motion enrrted. Scott: And your reason for abstaining7 Conrad: I'm really not comfortable with the minimum canopy requirements chart And I've tried to rationalize it because I think those on the Tree Board have done a terrific job here. I don't buy some of the percenter. I think I would have done it differently but I didn't want to...well enough. I think there should be it standard per district that you aim for and that may be 50% coverage in a residential area but what we're doing is we're saying, based on how we sUm~ it, we're going to let one district have a different standard and within the same zoning, if the farmer cut down all the trees, they really only have to refore~ it to a certain percentage. Whereas if you started with a lot of trees, we're going to keep them up at that hi~ level and I would have cut it at a standard per zoning district that we're achi~ring. But I understand the logic here~ I don't know... Scott: Thanks for your comment. SIGN ORDIN~~ DISCUSSION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scorn I think we were talking about allowing pylon si~s on ~ with Highway 5 frontage. Mancino: But just in thc gencral business district. I mean no in multi family, no in single family, no in IOP. Scorn BG. Mancino: Yeah. Generous: BH is the only two that would be aff~ Highway B_n_~ness district which is 3O Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 fight along TH 5 and BG, the general busincss which ties in with Market Square basically and... Harberts: So when you say they're affecl~ Bob, are you saying that perhaps, depending on what the outcome of the ordinance is, that those signs would have to come down? Or would they be grandfathered in7 Generous: No. Any existing pylon sign would be... Harberts: And could you just lind of I~l me who they would include? Generous: Well depending on the district, Town Square possibly. Scorn What's Town Square? Generous: On the other side of the bank. Scott: Oh you mean that little. Generous: With the two columns.. That's what, 19 feet or .something like that. Possibly the Country Suites. Depending on what..~'s all I can think of fight now. I'd have to... Anything that's not within whatever distance... Scott: Sounds like somebody's beac~o~. Generous: We also are looking at, we didn't come up with any criteria but for discussion was rewarding good design. Those criteria that we have...genemlized down fl~re. Saying stuff might be started at a lower percentage and then if they used, include those features, that they could have monument signs up to whatever the limit was. Scott: And then also too, if it's kind of the cut outs instead of taking a rectan~ square footage for signage. Harbex~: What about bus sigmas? Are they informational signs? Scott: Those would be non-conforming uses I think. Generous: You mean like bus pick up or bus no parking signs? 31 Planning Commisdon Meeting - April 6, 1~4 Harberts: Bus stop signs. Oenerous: Those are directional si~, Har~: So they would be directional informational signs? Oenerous: Right. Harberts: We're und~ng a major signage project here folks. Mancino: So nothing has been changed that we talked about in,de the ardinance? Oenemus: Not that I'm aware of, no. We would still need to come up with what numbers you would prefer. Or if you would like to ~implify it and say 10% and maybe give notices for these requirements and drop the percen~ that you allow. Mancino: One of the things that would help me would be drawings. To actually see what is 15% of 600 square feet. I mean you know, I probably should have done that on my own but on some of these, I don't know what that relates to. I don't understand the Nmportion. Scott: Kind of like on Highway 5 where, here's a picture. This not this. Something ~ that. And also you can visually see, get a concept of scale that's involved. But we won't use Blockbuster Video as an example. Maneino: But I would like to see line drawings before I decide percentages even. Scott: Because it's basically what we want is we want to have a quantitative reflection of taste call. We want enf~ble taste is basically what we're looking for here. So I think you need for folks like me, pictures are very valuable so. C-enerous: We did extend our survey to...We received the information for the infls_m_ ble sign... It's part of the memo. page 4. Number 6. I mean basically...discussion to provide staff with any additional direction you want and we'll try to do it. Ledvina: Well, maybe I'll just jmnp in here. I had a long conversation with Randy Herman regarding the new sign ordinance and as you may reaxmxtber, Randy allended some of our work sessions and he's in the signage business. I mean he lives and breatthes this stuff in terms of having to make it work and we talked about a number of these things and some, I'm going to just starting going through it and ~ are some of his concerns and based on our conversations, some of my concerns as well. 32 Plavning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Matt, I'm sorry. Is he a manufacturer of signs? He is a desi~ of signs? Mancino: And manufacturer. Okay. Ledvina: So I'm not, we discussed a lot of different things and certainly some points I didn't agree with him on but I think just in a general way, I think that wc have Chanhassen. It's a developing community. We're concerned about thc retail presence and we want to foster a healthy retail environment and the ability to advertise is crucial in developing and maintaining an environment. And I think that if we're going to have an ord/nance, we should make enforceable. That they're reasonable and that they're fair to the business community as well. So with that premise I have some ~ts you know of the ordinance that we've developed and I think, there's been some changes. I went back and I looked at a couple of di~t things and I was wondering why things weren't changed, and maybe you can go back into that a little bit. But let's see, where do I want to start. Let's look on page 7. This talks about, it's actually item 10(aX2) and it talks about sign display for temporary real estate signs. And we have two criteria there as it relates to the size of the sign based on the size of the parcel and I don't know if that really gets to the issue of what we're trying to do there. I don't know if the size of the parcel has, should really intquence the size of the sign. Essentially we're saying that in, when we have small lots, we want small signs. When we have large lots, we can have larger signs. But what we're concerned about really and what, like what real estate people are concerned about is the visibility of the sign. They're not, and for let's say for example on Highway 5. If they've got a piece of ~ there. They might have a 5 acre parcel on Highway 5 and you're requiring them to have essentially a 3 x 4 sign, that's going to be absolutely useless. So thc thing is the visibih'~ and maybe what we're, maybe the sign, the area of the sign should be tied to the setback distance from the right-of- way because obviously we don't want big si.qns in our downtown area on a vacant parcel of land. So if we say something like, 12 square foot sign. Minimum setback of 20 feet from the right-of-way. 32 foot square sign minimum 100 feet from the setback. Or setback from the right-of-way. I think that would be more appropriate. In terms of the size of the parcel Mancino: Do you thinlr it's going to be hard to control though? I mean somebody will do a bigger sign and put it up closer. Ledvina: Then you won't sec it. I ~ it will have the perspective that a 3 x 4 sign would have closer. So it's obviously cheap~ to put up a 3 x 4 sign if you can sec it. Mancino: No but I'm saying, I would do the bigger signagc allowable. What you're thinking Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 of seeing it at a distance so it doesn't read as big, Mancino: I would take that bigger sign and I would just more it forward. Ledvina: Well maybe not the right-of-way. Maybe it should be the center like of the road or something like that. Because in the business district the center line, you know you have the roadway, the curb and then whatever. The parcel. But in an environment like a 4 lane situation you have just a huge chunk of land that's eaten up by the right-of-way so to, you won't be able to see the sign. Scott: Does this point out a need to look at either the class of roadway that abuts the roadway or the zoning of the property? Ledvina: Well that's the other thing. Maybe it can be done by zoning. Mack: Mr. Chairman, that is a very common practice on real estate development signs. That you tie the size of the sign to the roadway clas~4fication as well as the speed limit. Scott: And I'd like to piggy back on top of kind of no brainer stuff because if I have a parcel I'm trying to sell and I've got a realwr, I'd like the realwr to be able to go...4 lane highway so I can put it this big and something that you can kind of sit down and figure it out pretty fast. But they should be calling Bob. Ledvina: I think this is a new section and I think we need to look at how we refine that. I think there could be a different criteria there as it relates to that ~t for different sized signs. Scott: So is class of road and speed limit, do you think that's? Ledvina: Yes. That would be, that seems reasonable, sure. I was just thinking of some alternative. I'm not in the sign business but I'm trying to look at some of these things _and try to see what seems to make sense. Harbens: Do you have any specifics on your comments with regard to enforcement? Ledvina: With regard w, I'll get to that. Harberts: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Iaxivina: Let's see. Turning to page 8 for example: Item n~ 1 under tempm'ary signs.. I think we need to break banners and portable signs into two size categories. For exampl~ Randy informed rr~ that I believe the city has 6 signs that they use and they rotate the signs. The banner signs. And each of these signs are 60 feet. 60 square feet so throw away all our signs fight now and start over. So banners are typically 60 square feet and I think that's reasonable so I would suggest we use that. And for portable signs, a 32 square foot maximum I think represents, it's a small sign but that's reasonable. So I would suggest a 60 foot maximum for banners. Conrad: What width does the material come in? Ledvina: Pardon7 Conrad: Do you know what width the banners would be? Scott: Or 3 or 4 feet. Conrad: I'm going to start jumping in I guess. That's about 30 feet expanse right there and there are very few, if you say Welcome to Chanhasse~, you can't fit it in basically. It's tough. You could go to two levels of letters and then you get your letters down to about 8 or 10 inches and then when you start doing that, then they become tough to read. It's hardly worth while. So Matt, when you say 60 feet. 60 feet I think there's some smaller widths that they do but that's even, that's barely enough to do anything. And so the question is, are we, what do we want to do? 30 feet is a pretty, you know if he says 20, I really don't buy that. Maybe that's Chanhassen but in term~ of what you typically see, a 30 foot banner is real common. Then I think the issue is really how do you want it. How high do you want it? Do you want to restrict it to one width of material which is probably about 24 inches. Is that what we're trying to do? Or do we want to? You know to me this is the factor. This way, not necessarily the width so I guess as we come up with our arbitrary numbers, I tixink we should think of some practical things. St. Hubert's wouldn't fly and that's sort of a traditional banner that we typically has that goes across the street. And you know it's bigger than this and it's not o~ve. It's only up for a week or so. Ledvina: That's the important thing. A temp~ and. Conrad: I think you're right on the mark. Ledvina: Well should we use a larger? Conrad: I don't know what the number is. I seriously, I get real frustratrd by numbers 3~ Planning Commission Meeling - April 6, 1994 because we're just sort of wheeling and dealing. Hey, how about 187 I need somebody that really says, a typical banner is 30 feet and a typical width is this and that way we can make a decision. Scott: Yeah, it's a taste call and if you, you know call St. Hubert's up. lust say how's big your banner and then that way, because obviously, at least in my case, I think it's great. I ~ I look for them and I tbinlr that's another think we're talking about here is that what is, Mancino: It's fun to see them. Conrad: They're nice, yeah. Scott: I don't think I've seen, I mean the stuff that the Parks deparmmat does and St. Hubert's and all the other stuff that goes on, call around and find out how big they are because I haven't seen any of those things that I consider to be too big and that's really what I think we're doing here is quantifying taste so we have, so it's enf~le. So let's just see what's happening around thc community fight now, which I thinir we can use that as a planning nnit. Ledvina: Okay. Moving to page 11. Looking at the general location restrictions. ~ (a). We say that no sign shall be placed within drainage or utility easement. And Randy and I talked about this and he indicated that roughly ?0% of the existing si~s would violate this requirement. And that says to me that this is going to create a very large har~_hi? for the standard operating procedure as it relates to this. I can understand that we need to k~zp signs out of the way of snow plows and other type of nmin~ equipment and previously the ordinance said, no sign shall be placed within the public right-of-way. But the problem is that many times drainage easements, drainage and utility easements go far into propertie~ They cut across properti~...we're going to want, or someone's going to want to put a sign in an area that is not necessarily a problem from a maint~oance perspective but would not meet_ the requirements of the ordinance. The one thing that I conside~ relal~ to building things within utility easements. That means there's things undergrou~ Well these people, any time you do anything near a roadway or even for that matt~, on any parcel. Any time you dig, put a footing in or whaltwer, or even pound a sign in, you're required to go through...to clear the utilities and they're very conscientious about that. P, nd~ so in that event, the danger of public safety, the danger that could be envisioned with that scenario is rather remote so I guess I would prefer to see this language changed to public fight-of-way. Mancino: I just have a question Matt. I thought the whole reason was to ~ the ~t open and not obstruc~ so that a vehicle or anything that needed to get in could have access. 36 Plar~ning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1904 So if you put a sign in the middle of this easement, no longer do you have an unobstmct~ way for a vehicle to get in and service it. Scott: Well utility easements usually are not for, but it might say a maintenance easement I mean that's a different story. Because those are usn_~lly, when I think of a maintenance easement, I think of like a road that goes to a NURP pond or something like that. So those are probably a lot fewer and farther between and we all have at least one ar two utilities easements on our property. So I can see, you know I can see, I don't _think somebody sticking a sign on a utility easement to advertise a house for sale or something ~ that, that's not going to be deep enough but yeah. I could see where the utility side of it would be a question but as far as malnteaance, I don't know. Ledvinm I don't have the, I don't claim to have a definitive answer on this but this seems to be reac~g a little too far in terms of restrictions. And I would recommend that staff ~h that and see what the status quo is in axrns of thc situation and I don't know. Do you have any comments on that Bob? Generous: Well that is, it's in the current ordinance. If Dave was here I bet he would be jumping up and down. Scott: Who? Generous: Hempel. Because they put the, they really would ~ to have them open just in case they need to use them. Mancino: Yeah, that's what I thought. Lcdvina: Well I understand you know some utility easements but when you have telephone and power that don't require servicing or very rarely require servicing on individual lines. I don't know. I guess I wouldn't want to see, I want to be cautious in terms of developing an ordinance that would have routine non-compliance. I gness that's my stwng concern here. Mancino: I'd like to get Dave's input. Sco~ ff you took out the thing that said no sign shall be placed within any drainage or maintenance easenm~t. Then if you go down to number (e) it says, ...should not interfere with any electric light, power, telephone, telegraph wires or supports thereof. I think that kind of gets at that thing. You know we don't want people punching holes in utilities but there, I could see where there are certain instances and I can _think of an instance on my particular expanse of property where I put signs in the utility easement but then I also know 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 that utilities are like 12 inches below the ground and sticking ii little sign in there isn't going to interfere with them but ! can see where you're coming from because if somebody's putting up a big sign, they're going to call But then I think this item number (e) kind of tak~ into consideration protecting the utility thing without reslricting people from putting signs in. Ledvina: Right. Well, just to voice my concern that that specific requirement be carefully considered. Generous: ...clarification. Are you talking about all signagc or only as tempor~y? Ledv~: Well this is general location restrictions. Scott: That's everything. Generous: Even the large pylon signs or little signs7 Scott: Yes. Conrad: I guess I'm in~ in what's the impact of that requirement. I don't have a clue. I don't know if, are 90% of our cmxent signs in this area? Scott: Probably. Mancino: I keep pulling them out in front of our house. I mean people put 10 signs in the front drainage and I just keep pulling them out. It bugs the beck out of me. Conrad: I'm not concerned as much about the temlxtrary. Mancino: But permanent. Scott: This is general location restriction~ so that applies to everything. Ledvinm Okay, and just to finish up here. My last item glat~ to the prohibition on window signs. I don't know why this is, well we talked about it certainly at length the last time and I'm looking at your survey which is great. I think if this is a way to do it, to see what other communities are doing, that's great. But what I'm seeing is that mostly window signage is permi~ to a certain degree. And here we have it not permitted and I think that this is a huge issue as it relates to the retail people. I think as it relates to permanent window signage, I would agree with some type of restriction. Whether it be 5% or 50%. I don't know the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 number and maybe it's a dart board kind of thing but I don't know. But I think that some. window signage should be allowed. Scott: But are you ~ that de4qnltely less than .50%? More than 25, less than ~507 Mancino: I'd like to see again some drawings to see different percentages. Scott: I thinic of public safety. I mean aside from the clutter, there's a public safety issue and it's got to be less than 50% but then you know, Ladd brought up a point where it's advertising really you don't have to pay for. You buy the sign and you get the exposure but then it's also is that Ladd, most window signs are mostly people who have already decided to go into a retail establishment and this is an attractant from 10 feet away. I _mean it's not. I'm just trying to figure out what we're going to be deal~g with here. You're the sign guy this evening. Less than 50, more than 25. Conrad: Yeah. I don't know. What you've got to do is go through Market Square and see what it looks like. You've got to go past your grocery stores in the cities and your drug stores and they all use them and I don't think anybody here is going to say they're pretty but they're using them and so the question is, how much do we think is acceptable. Now I'll throw some other factors in. I think you can go around town and certain people will have 2 or 3 sign~ in one window block. I don't think you want that. That's clutl~r. That's really compounding things so it's beyond just square footage. It's how many times in a one window frarm might be a better way. And then how many of those windows that a store would have, how many do you want to tqll up. And what percent. So you get into some of that stuff. I tbinic you've got to be looking at a third of the window space in that urea. I think you do. You know and if we're mk~ng a compromise here as I look at it, someplace around that area. That's where I'm starting from. I don't have a magic key. Harberts: Well yeah and I think that's Ii good point Ladd. Vffle~ I shop at Festival you go up to the front door and they'll have today's hot special on the front door. I mean does that constitute a window? Mancino: Yeah. Ledvina: Well that's a temporary sign. I think there's categories here. Harberts: Well again but, yeah but do they change it every day and second, again what constitutes a window? Maybe I'm far fetching here but I noticed when I pulled up to the Americana Bank, where I do my banking, that one of the drive thru windows, teller windows had a nice Christmas display in it. That's a window. You know it seems to me that was 39 Planning Conunission Meeting - April 6, 1994 50%. Again. Mancino: But a sign is different than a display. I mean all you've got to do is go down to Excelsior and it has the older type of bnildings with displays in them and they are welcoming. They bring you into, we know what they sell there, etc. Harberts: But when something, for instance like Market Square is, the windows are kind on the interior. They're small You know more for that pedestrian walk, do we care? Do we want to care? This is what I'm trying to understand. So you know, what's the intent here? What are we trying to do? I think Matt's comment though, I think we need to be very careful of is it reasonable. Can it be enforceable? The question that I have with regard to, on page 7, number 4. (a)(4). All ~nporary real estate signs shall be moved within 7 days following the sale. What's the sale? Is it when the purchase agreement is accepted or when it's finally closed and who's going to be driving around town, oh okay. So okay, we'll be back in 7 days. Again, is it enforceable. Is it reasonable but bottom line here is, is it creating a positive parmership, especially with the business community. The business community is one of those elements that makes a community. And~ so again, is ~is a positive intent7 Conrad: What do you think? Harberts: I don't. I don't. Conrad: So you'd rather take it out? No restri~o~? I-Iarbens: Oh I didn't say no resuictions but I think you said it well Ladd when you said, we're just kind of 7, 8, 10, 12. I don't know. I don't know but when I apply some of that rationale, you know the Festival Food store. The Americana drive up. You know those are all windows with tm'uporary signs. What are we creating? Are we creating more of a monster? Conrad: It's a t~ribly difficult issue. You know to the point where it gets confusing. There are some things that if you tak~ a look at Market Square. We'll use them because they're the closest one and more retail than anyplace else but there are ~ings that wouldn't be considered signage in some of those windows that are real offemive. $o what we're going to do, and you'll figure out what I'm talking about but what we're going to do is we're going to resuiet some folks because they litem~y have a paper sign that we have wools to ~be yet there are some examples of clutter that we won't, we can't conlxol there. And so it's a real tough issue. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 19~ Mancino: Well you know and I would like to go further than that, in talking about signs. I would like to, and all you have to do is go and visit the MGM on TH 101 and TH 7, the new MGM, and they have windows. Why they ever put glass windows in I don't know because what you see in those windows is the back of displays. It's whit~ board. So I don't know why they put windows in the building to begin with, so that's a whole other area. Harberts: Well are we missing the int~mt here of what we're trying to achieve? I guess that's the bottom question. Scott: And also too we're, personally we're making a recommendation to the City Council too so I mean, obviously most of the things that we send there get beat up and chewed up anyway, which is fine. On this window thing, I don't think prohibiting window signs makes sense. I don't think anybody wants to see anything more than a third so why don't we, let's throw the dart up in the air and go for a third and if the City Council feels that that's higher or lower, they can go from there. I don't think we really need to beat it up but at least from what I'm heating here is that, you know a full window doesn't make any sense but we want to allow these folks a chance to advertise. Mancino: Now is that total window coverage? I mean first of all I'm not for 33. I'd go for 25 but anyway. Scott: Okay. Sounds good to me. Mancino: But is that aggregate glass or is that each window itself can have 25%? Scorn We're talking about sign canopy. Conrad: I'd like to reinforce somebody who does one nice sign versus two mediocre like that or brings it all together. I think aggregate or total. So if we've got 1,000 square feet of windows, they can put 333 square feet of... Scott: Okay, so this is 25% of total aggregate window area. Mancino: That would be the average one out of all those. And that includes doors. I mean doors are glass. And they're windows. Scott: What about skylights now? Forget it. Ledvina: The other thing is, on window signs there's, I think there's a distinction between 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 permanent and temporary. I think temporary signs should be allowed a higher percentage. see that's what they've done in New Brighton and that seems to make sense to me, And I don't know, maybe 50% for temporary si,~ns~ Generous: What's a temporary sign? Ledvina: Well a ternporary sign is defined in the ordinance I think Mack: ...point upon the window signages is very typically one thing that's very dit~cult to regulate from the city's standpoint and most communities that I've deak with do not normally permit those signs. Those are allowed by fight and they can just do them. So it's real tough. But if you have a standard it's more icom an enforcement standpoint. And just to comment too on the percentage. Typically anything over 33% is going to look pretty cluttered. One thing I've given a lot of thought to this...when I was in Btunsville woridng on this particular issue. One of the things I closely considered suggesting, and would probably do so tonight is that you consider a sliding scale. For example you have concerns. Where you occupy a large area, with a higher percentage or even a low percentage. If you have a large window area, say about 33%, that would be an awful lot of signage if it's a big area. Versus a small area in one business location~ Having that and that's not necessary a lot so you might want to consider a sliding scale based upon square footage amount that you have, one applies to a larger area and perhaps a smaller percentage to a large area and perhaps a slightly larger area Ledvina: Kind of like the wall sign. Scott: Yeah. Have that be consistent. Harberts: Bob, tell me how, if I drive down Kerbcr Boulevard when I go down and there's a particular home that has a big daycare sign on thc back of their house. They must be a registered or licensed daycare. Where does that fit in? Generous: They can't do that. They get 2 square feet I believe for home occupations and the big sign... Harberts: Well and from my perspective, if it was any smaller, I wouldn't see it. Again, that is a person's livelihood. Mancino: Yeah but that's not their only vehicle to advertise. I mean they've got radio, TV, newspaper. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 C-encrous: ._32 square foot sign sitting off the kitchen window... Harbcrts: Their privilege in t~rms of...exactly. Scott: Let's attack thc window signage in a similar fashion. Also too, personally I don't think that we should make any distinction between permanent and temporary window signage because that's ridiculous f~om an enforcement standpoint, So we should just go after total window coverage, permanent or temponuy doesn't matter. And this is a guideline and obviously it's one thing to have an ordinance but I think when you're looking at people's ability to advertise their business by han~ng stuff on their windows, something like this really needs, or at least a smmrmry of this, really needs to be mailed to all of the businesses in town so they know what the beck is going on. And at least the business people will know that there's so if we decide we're going to be s~g different with their signagc, they can go to their friendly sign person and say, by the way here's the ordinance. But yeah, this is something that needs to be sent out to everybody. Conrad: When? Scott: When it's passexL Ledvina: Not when it's passed. Harberts: I ~ it should be beforehand. Mancino: They'll have a public hearings? Ledvins: They'll have the opportunity... Harberts: But I think this is a notice though that needs to go out as if it was a site plan review in terms of this is what's on the agenc~ Not just counting on the newspaper. Generous: It says .500 feet of, every ~ial building? Every... Scott: At our board meeting at thc Chamber of Commerce we passed this around. All thc board members have got copies of it so. Conrad: I guess just a foomote. My preference is to keep this window deal simple. So although...that maybe makes sense, I'd certainly like to see it simple. We're not smart enough to figure out all these differenL..and scales. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott: No, and we don't want to. Conrad: I guess I'd like staff to say it makes sense to have a scale but on the other, I lvally like one number loe that covers both temporary and permanmt. I really do feel strongly about how much clutter is in a particular deal. You know I think sometimes it's not square feet but it's stuff. You can have neon here and then a paper ~ and then an insignia here and boy, that is visual pollution. So again, if there's a way to get our hands around that and if there's not, I really don't want complexity in this thing. Nobody's going to enforce it. It should be simple and it should be a simple one for merchants to figure out. Mancino: And I think we should pull in public safety in there. I mean W say why we're doing it so that he can police w~cr can look insidc. Thcy want unobs~cted views. Scott: Yeah, and they can't always keep up with the ordinances that come through but I'd like to do something so when ~ Bob is going around he can say, because he knows it's up there and those people can kin,q of, yeah. But yeah, that's a good comment Ladd. Ledvina: A very minor point on page 20. On the drawing of the bnilding. Please eliminate the reference to PizT~_ Hut. Generous: I mentioned that to Kate... Ledvimc Make it Taco Shack or whatever but don't make it Pizza Hut. Scott: Any other questions or cowm~nts? Although this is not a public hearing we have, Randy's here. Councilman Wing. Questions. Comnvmts. Since you're kind enough to sit here for now coming up on 3 hours. Randy Schultz: Thanks $oe for allowing me to say a few words. Let me introduce myself. I'm Randy Schultz, Pl~ident of the ~ Community Bank and I just want to mention a few concerns that I had when I looked at _this proposed ordinance. I'm really gratified to hear some of the comments made already regarding my window sign. Our particular building isn't one that a lot of our tenants have asked about window signs but we have had some cornrrmuts made about that already. We do though in every case, and I'm not sure if all of you are familiar with our building but we do have enough signit%ant amount of tenant space in the building and we are still loo_king for mmnts for quite a bit of that space over there still and I do want to tell you that in every case, in every tenant that comes to or ~ve tenant that comes to our building have all talked about signage. It's very important to them. It's very important where they're going to have signage. And even in our particular building where we ~nd to have firms more like law firms and accounting firms and insurance firms, Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 that's still a very important i~em to them so I would submit to you that in our buildings in your community where you're dealing more with more remiL..Signage is going to be even that much more for them. So it's an i ~mportant element and I think it needs to be thought about. In that regard, if you're all familiar with our building, one of the, our main sign that we have for our tenants is a large monument sign fight near the corner of our building. I do see that the proposed ordinance change for a building our size has that monument maximum square footage being 36 square feet. Going down from the present ordinance of 80. Am I right about that Bob7 When 1 looked at the page 15...you're taking that all the way from an ordinance, a present ordinance of 80 square feet down to 36 square feet. Generous: What's... Mancino: 13,000. Randy Schullz: 11,000. Generous: That would be 64 square feet. Conrad: For a pylon or a monument? Generous: Both. Randy Schultz: Am I looking at that right? So if you look at our sign you will notice that thc client, thc tr, mmts that we do have now, their particular signagc isn't that large and in our particular building, the way the tenant space works out, ideally we'd like to have about 6 tenants. So if you think about a building without a major tenant like an owner tmumt like ourselves, we might have 6 to 8 tenants and you start divi'ding that up into 36 square feet, you're going to have a pretty small space for that tenant. It's going to be very hard for most people to even notice or see. I think you're looking at a square footage there that's very, very small The other thing I was going to mention is...window signs and prohibiting them entirely I think would be very, very difficult with businesses and I'm glad to see you're thinking about allowing some appropriate percentage. The last thing I wanted to mention is that we don't have an immediate request that we're going to, wanting to make to the city but that part on page 10, and I know this was part of the previous ordinance also but to prohibit motion signs and flashing signs except time and temperature. I'd like to see, I wonder ff there isn't a way to make that a little less restrictive from the standpoint of obviously I don't think anybody wants a big pawdy flashing Hollywood type of sign but for a bank lilm ourselves, we could see ourselves sometime in the future wanting to put some kind of a sign up on the building there because we don't think our signage is adequate. We'd like to change it someday but we're not looidng to do that...but we'd like to have signage and since we have 45 Plavning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 such a good spot down there, we'd like to have signage that not only could we put our name up on it but we'd like to have some kind of signage we could talk about comnmnity events. We could congratulate people. We could give the markets at noon. What the stock market did. Things like that we think people would like to see when they'd be cowing down TH 5 would be able to see it and if we could do that in a tas~ful way and people would, and the Planning Commission and the City Council would agree with. I think that would be a plus to the community and not a negative. And so I think to say that unless we're just flashing time and temperam~...prohibit that kind of sign and I think we could do solve very nice things in the community. Not just necessarily the bank but many somebody else. And I wouldn't want you to see to just prohibit that entirely. Scott: I've got a question. You know the city rents that sign with the am)w thing on it and you put movable letters, you put letters on it and it's on a trailer. Harberts: I think they're called portable. Sco~ A portable. So the city would be prohibiled from uaing that-..I'm just trying to think of things that are kind of in tune. Anyway, just a thought. Randy Schultz: Just one other thing I did mention. I do think the other thing that I see that's changed in this ardinance is I believe before a ~ in the general ~b~in~s district could have a pylon sign or a ground low profile sign. Or even could have two ground low pwfile signs but could not have, could have some combination of those two. Could have two low profile signs with no pylon. You could have a pylon and a low profile and I think the way this is worded now, you can only have one of each and I'm not sure that you might want to make it more flexible than that. I'm not sure that two low profile signs we're going to get a nicer look than to require somebody to have profile and pylon. Given the flexibility. Thanks. Harberts: Bob, on page 10, number 2. Why was barber poles in there as not being prohibited? Generous: ...I don't know why that was. Harberts: I would suggest we take that out. Mandno: I think they're great. Ledvina: I like barber poles. Mancino: I do too. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott: Obviously I wouldn't know. Harbens: Yeah, is there a definition for barber pole? Scott: Can I have a motion7 Conrad: Mr. Chairman, give me two seconds. I really have quite a few. Maybe it isn't covered but I think we have to have it back We've got sign ordinances are generally difficult and I'm not ready to pass this on. Scott: It goes to public heating. Conrad: On page 3, we didn't permit requirements. We didn't ask for design or ms__ted'sls in that...We're missing the words that I wonld resd: Now maybe in...how it's designed. And ff we have a bonus in there, I think you've got to require that up front. Mancino: Can I add to that? Is there a way that we can see si~,ns when we see a site plan for a building? I mean it just seems like the appropriate tilne that when they come in with a site plan and the architecUual specs, that we also kind of integrate the sign in with it. Then we can see the perspective of the sign to the building. Generous: Because, for example, Byerly's gave you a picture of the sign and that doesn't seem to be what you wanted. You want it as part of a drawing? Mancino: I would have liked to have seen the visual at the time when they brought in the whole building concept. And you know at that time he said they designed the whole front entrance so that it would take this big Byerly's sign. Well, at the time when we saw it, I think it would have been, when it first came in to see where the signage would go and how they had allowed for it because hopefully an architect will do, will think about signage at the time when they're designing the bailding. So it seems to me it would be an at~rtypriate time to see the signage with. Generous: The architects usually consider the building only and then it's the tenants that want the signage later. Yeah, I think that is a requirement for, that they put in the signage. I thought on Byerly's they had the building sign with the monument. Mancino: They didn't have any signage. Harberts: That was a condition. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Sco~ Well on that rendering when we had that meeting on that Saturday meeting, they did have the Byerly's sign on there but. Harberts: There was no signage packet, no. That was a condition. Conrad: Okay, page 5, point number 3. The word event should be worked in to the comment there. That's what most signages in the city are about. They're events and we really didn't, I guess you've got to challenge what I'm thinking. Some~ the logic, maybe it's covered some other place but I think ~ word event is real i~t. If we want that 40 days to apply to an event. I've seen all ggts of n~ and I get down to 6 and all of a sudden I see 50 square feet and I haven't seen 50 square feet in any grid anyplace. All of a sudden it's someplace and I don't know. I won't pick on that one. It's just like geez, it's another number. Page number 6. I don't know why we give garage sales 2 days to tak~ the sign down once the garage sale's over. I don't know. Point on page 6 again. Under 9(d). It says no signs shall be located closer than 200 feet from an existing residential dwelling unit. Well basically that ~ you probably can't put a sign very close to any residentisl area, and I'm thinking of the Near Mountain are~ Tra~ Pass area. I can go through, a lot of these fly in the face of what we've been doing and I look at the real world examples and they're not offensive to me. That one, yeah. So I guess folks, you've got to challenge some of this stuff. The Near Mountain stuff is closer than 200 feet from a resldentisl area. It is not offensive. It's quite nicely done and I don't know where they put the sign. I honestly don't. It's across the street from a residential area and it's...a problem. Conrad: New development saying, yeah the classic would be going out with phase 4 and such and such and they lry to get good access, visibility. But I'd just challenge that one. Seriously. I don't think we're smart enough, I'm not smart enough to go do it but I need somebody from staff to say this mak~ sense or it doesn't or it's, there's good reason for why that was there but on the other hand, I guess I need somebody to challenge those things. I agree with Matt's point on page 7. On the 12 square feet versus, the 12 square feet. That's 3 x 4 on a 10 acre deal. If it's on a 55, you can't, when you're going 55 mph, you can't read things that are smaller than 14 inch letters. You can't. Okay. So if you're going 55 rnph on Highway 5. Mancino: You should be driving, not trying to read. Conrad: That's right. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1004 Scott: Cel]ulsr phone too. Conrad: Point number 4 on page 7. All temporary real estate si~s shall be removed within 7 days following the sale. Diane you brought this one up. For sale, lease, rental of the protmny. That weans all the real estate si~s that say sold, they've got 7 days for the sold to be there and somebody's going to take it up. I don't know that there's a problem. If somebody thinks there's a problem there, then let's leave it in. I don't know there's a problem. On page 8. We already talked about the banners. I think banners, Matt you said it. I won't say any more. Banner's different than a portable sign. Going to page 9, letter (c) at the top of the page. Banners must be affixed to a principle structure which is owned and leased by the business which thc sign is advertising. Well that means St. Hubert's can have their banner. Okay. They can't. They don't own across the sireet on the, I thini~ they're on the telephone pole. Okay. So they can't do it and if they allah it to the church, the church will fall over. On page 10. Motion si~s, flashing signs. Boy. Scott: Conditional use. Conrad: It might be. I've got to look at that one again. I don't know that anybody's complained about the Chanhal~sen Bsnlr moving sign. I find it interesting. I guess if there are complaints to that I will lisl~.a. A message board, greeter boards, and it's got to be comrolled. There's just no doubt. It's got to be controlled but I don't, you know. Nutting: Banning it is kind of heavy duty. Scott: Yeah, I think conditional use. I thin~ there's a scale issue there. Yeah. Conrad: Point number 3 on that same page. Projecting signs are not allowed. One of the few historic things we have in this town is the Pony Express sign so when you get rid of that sign, it's in but I just found that interesting. I think it's a good point but the Pony Express sign has character. It's one of the few signs in Chan that really has character and we're saying don't do it anymore. Okay. There has to be a bonus way in this whole deal There has to be a way to motivate good signage. Absolutely. Got to be in there. Somehow figure out how to do it but it will be arbilrary as can be but let's say we care. If nothing else...we care about good signage and we're going to, even if it's only for 5% increase in something, let's say we care. Okay, you talked about most of these. Page 13. Bottom of the page, point number 2. Area iden~on. Enmmce signs. Only one monument sign may be erected on a lot. Scott: Yeah this is though RSF. You're thinidng about entrance monumentation? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Generous: Yeah, that's what... Scott: Oh wow. Aren't those usually on an ouflot? Or an island. Conrad: That word is wrong. Get the right terminology in them. Ledvina: That's, just while we're talking about that, that's a small area. The sign, the Winfield entrance. Scott: That's like a huge sign. I.~l~: It's done very nicely. Conrad: Right. I'd lilm to reinforce a developer who wants m do thi~. Now I don't know if the city staff does but sense of place. Entry into an area is so critical Get rid of all the other signs and turn away, let them have a nice, reward then for a nice sign that says you have now entered...or whatever it might be. 24 feet is not very big. I wish somebody would look and see if we've got nicer signs that are bigger than that but boy, that's real i ~rrsx:~tant. That's people oriental! and I think we may be restricting that. Page 14. Under point (c), and maybe it's not the right place but we didn't tslk about the 24 Hour issue there. Now 24 hours sounds like we, the City Council just allowed it on Byerly's so I guess we've got to deal with that. That is not identification, logo, center name...so what is it? That's an issue that we have to resolve. I don't know that city staff solves it but we have to deal with it and I guess we have to take a lead from the City Council's approval of Byerly's that they don't mind it. Mancino: But they didn't approve it. They didn't have 4/5 approval Richard W'mg: It was not approved but I would support the commission on that one. I think we have an ordinance and... Conrad: I'm not saying pro or con. I didn't think it Was right but I think let's just figure it out and get it in the ordinance. Mancino: So what do you think of the percentages? All fl~ese percentages. Conrad: On page 157 Mancino: 14, 15, 16. Planning Commission Meeting - April ~, 1994 Conrad: They're probably okay. They're probably okay. Mancino: Did you do any drawings? Conrad: No I didn't. That's just so much work. I spent it lot of time going through this ordinance because I tell you, if we don't do a good job, we're going to hurt people.. We're going to hun their livelihood. Signage works for business and for government and we've really got to be careful on this thing. So I spent some time going through it but yeah, I really should have spent more. I know something about it and that's why I felt m~re compelled to go through it. But I think Randy's right. I'm not sure that some of these numbers on monument signs are the right numbers. If he's got 6 tenants down there, all we're doing. He doesn't even have the tenant names on the side of the building... Mancino: I was just going to ask about that. What if you have 15 tenants? How do you ever have a big enough sign to cover all those tenants? Conrad: Well that's the point. If somebody doesn't put it up on the wall Nancy, why don't we give them a sign, a monument sign that let's them have it outside? It's very, if you run a business, it's a real personal thing. You want your name there. Mancino: I'm downtown so we don't have monument signs. Conrad: So I'm not sure that this, I don't. It seems liim a small n~. I think for somebody that didn't put the names up on thc building. I think tbere's some trade offs here. I think if you do, you know and that's why it gets complicat~ If you don't put the signs up, or the names on the side of the building, I think somebody should get rewarded and that reward might be for a monument sign that's a little bit bigger. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out...So and then I got back to the bottom of the page 15. Do we get one pylon, they're going to get one pylon and one low ground profile sign? Is that what we're saying? Do you get those automatically? Do you get both? Or just one. It doesn't say. Generous: No it doesn't, you're fight. Conrad: I think those arc my comments. You Bob and staff, if you can go through sornc of those things for mc. Seriously I'm not smart enough to figure some of that out but I think_.. and not penalize a business to make this a well mainmin~ sign area but not to really be a heavy burden on it. Scott: Can I have a motion? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Harberts: I'll move that we table the sign ordinan~ Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the ordinance. Any discussion? Harberts moved, Mnndno seconded to table the sign ordinance for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd ~ to see that as soon as possible and then also too, since this will probably be in it's final form, I think it's appropriat~ that it's a public hearing. Generous: You want it to come back as a public hearing? Scott: I would think so. Generous: ...wanted to see the proportions on the sign. Mancino: Maybe I can do that individually. Scott: When it gets into it's final form. Of course then it will §o onto the City Council Ledvina: Hold it. There's two public hearings at our level, is that what I read in here? Or no? One public hearing. Okay. Mancino: So do we need to see it before a public hearing7 Scott: Yeah. Because we'll probably have...Thank you for your tons of work on this. APPROVAL OF MINUTE~: Ledvina: Just a question. Last time we were going through the Minutes and thcrc was a vote as it related to my motion and I don't know, did you read this in the Minutes at all? Conrad: I can't stand to read them over. Lcdvina: Okay. But I just wanted to try to g~t it straight for the record. I made a motion 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 regarding the Wendy's/office building site plan and it showed up in the Minutes that you voted for my motion and I didn't thin~ you did. That's a month ago already, or whatever. More than a month. Do you recall how that all went or do you care? Harberts: Well the motion was defeauxl ~ then I made the motion to deny the project and that's what passed. Ledvina: Right. Yeah and I know you voted for the motion to deny but I don't know if you voted. Or you voted against the motion to deny. Conrad: I think I voted for your motion. The few fim~... Ledvina: I know it doesn't hatrpen very often and that's why I wanted to know because I, I'm going to write that down in my diary. Conrad: Thanks for bringing that up. I think I did. Ledvina: Okay. I don't ~ to make a big point of it but I want to make sure that in my mind anyway that I understand how people are voting so. ~ that was fairly impartant. Harberts: Are you counting your friends? Ledvina: No, no. Harberts: Just wondering. Scott: Would it be too much to ask to get a motion to approve the Minutes of our last meeting on March 16th? May I have a motion please? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commisaion meeting dated March 16, 1994 as presented. AH voted in favor, except Diane Harbe~ abstained, and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Generous: Church Road 2nd Addition was given approval, The Byerly's variance request was tabled. A motion to approved failed by 3 to 1 positive motion and it takes a 4/5 majority. As part of the Highway 5 su~y, the southerly access road alternative was approved for the environmental asse~ne~t documentation. 53 Planning Commisdon Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: That was a preference. Conrad: The southerly one as. Ledvina: As recommended. Scott: As not recommended by. Mancino: Nobody recommended it. Scott: I was sitting among, I think there was a handful of Highway 5 Task Force people when I was at that meeting. And the comment was, why the hell did I waste 6 months of my life. Mancino: No, it was a year and a half. Sco~ Year and a half, I'm sorry. Well so yeah, anyway. Richard Wing: ..~I don't know what the protocols are here but..I just want to address that one particular issue.. We knew, well as a matter of fact I tried to insult you one night because you started asking questions. Scott Right, ri~t. Richard W'mg: ...it's the same situation. We have to re-invent the wheel. Why do we try to make a decision when we have no information whatsoever. So they approved that southern route based on the fact that, I can't remember. The vote was a strong majority for the northern route. The only question was the cross over points. Very few people, other than maybe Mike Mason, voted for the southern route. So with zero info, n, zero background, zero input, they voted for the south and I said this has got to stop. So I called Bill Morrish and his staff and Don Ashworth and said stop it now. We have to come in and re-invent the wheel. All the en~neers. All the people and you've got to be there and speak up and say excuse me but this is what reality is and we have looked at land use. We have looked at the environment, etc, elc, etc. I knew it was worthless to have it at the Planning Commission because it might as well get right to the Council and then re-invent the wheel there than have all of this §o through this process again, So it's critical and staff now recognizes it and I recognize it and I called Milm Mason and I _1%-~rnind__ed him that we didn't vot~ for the south route. There was a strong favor for the north route so here we §o again. The process is extremely difficult and it's really frustrating. And ff there's time Wnight I'd just like to make a couple more comments. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Whcn is that work session? Richard Wing: Pm'don? Mancino: When is the work session on Highway 5 with the Ci~ Council, do you know? Richard Wing: ...because I don't know. It's soon. But we're losing momentnm and we've got to get Bill Morrish and lenT and everybody back in...we need to get back out on another tour. We need to re-invent it. One of thc...that Bill Morrish pointed out was really ~.. the land forms he wanted to support was the hill behind Byerly's with those old oak trees up on top. Where are they? They're just been cut down. Wiped out. Destroyed when we built apamnent buildings there. I honestly thought that those apartment bnildings were on top of that hill and that we preserved that landform. I let myself say okay to a $3.00 blueprint. Why we keep appw~§ these million dollar projects off $3.00 blueprin~ The Byerly's sign on an 8 x 11 piece of paper. That's all there was to make a decision on a 20 foot pylon sign: I don't know where we're going with this...and I'm really getting discomaged. I'd like to make more conunents... Scott: Go ahead. Richard Wing: I'm ~g, well I guess it's appropriate to say anything. I'm ruffly feeling frustrated at thc Council leveL You're a stop gap. I mean if you can't handle it...gets to us. We have less time than you do...to handle these issues and I'm really figh~ng to elevate our city to step up, to crank it up a notch with these signs. We have to have a sign ordinanc~ We've got to protect ourselves...Randy and your conmaents, they're really well taken. We have a responsibility to the...whether it's signs or what is coming here in Chanhass~ is quality. Rapid Oil went through. The newspaper's quoted that it'd be the most beautifully landscaped Rapid Oil change in the country. Well we honestly thought we had something going. So did you guys. The ones that were here for that. Where's all the trees...they're not there. So there was one. Then the conidor study. Well geez now we're losing ground on that because we've got to re-invent the wheel and we're all kind of tired of it now and the money's been spent. This group put a year and a half of their time in it. I mean they have a fight to a product here and I want to support it but we've got to get it up. AImL I voted for brick. We said brick. Well I see an awful lot of block down there. I didn't vote for any block. I voted for brick. Now it frustra~ me that the one gentleman that voted for brick and is adamant in this Highway 15 corridor and feels we're cheating the east end of town has just come in Wnight with a building that I thought looked like a...that's going across the street that Jeff commented about. We want brick. Where's our standard? Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 19o,4 Sco~ Well it dicln't go very far. Richard Wing: Insulated stucco. A pitched roof that's bigger than the building itself. Why ar~ w~ fighting to got ahem? Why are wo fighting quality7 Because our ordinances m~n't up to par. They ought to come to you and just be pmt~ ~irr~,le. Bill Morrish said if we make the rules, they will come as long as we enforce them. We can have strict, rigid rules... valuable and they're still going to come. Right now I'm hanging onto the back of this cart with some of these developers whipping horses and dust is getting my face and it's starting to hurt a little bit. For some reason staff has fought this imaging and this model building. I've never seen my wife's company ever turn in a project without a complete model and elevations and everything else. Why would we look at this Market Square thing across the street without the views f~om West ?gth Street and Market Boulevard and why would we look at a pylon sign for Byerly's without the sketch and video imaging that's avallable...thi~ ordinance past Council but all that came in tonight was a $3.00 blueprints again. I want to know what that, I think we're putting another fast food restaurant down on Dell Road and Highway 5 based on the drawing I saw. I can't tell what it looks like and I hope you aren't going to pass it that way so. Jeff has s~__tod and many of you that we're looking for permanence and we're looking for quality and somehow when it gets up here to this Highway 5 corridor study is that brick, glass or better. So why does staff keep bringing in projects that aren't up to those standards that we're trying to impose. Are we reaching the point where we have to have a moratorium? Do we have to stoop to that level to atop it until we get caught up? Find out where we're going so I'm losing sleep over this Izamuse...and we seem to be falling short and I fall back on you people. I'm just awed by what you do and how you come through with these things but then it gets to the Council. I almost have to ask you to be there and fight hard a little biL It's not your responsibility, it's ours but I'm in a state of utter confusion and discouragement right now. I'm not sure where to go so I want to thank you for your effort but I want this corridor thing to go through and I want these quality standards and I think you have to fight for lfie little guy becaun~ it is easy to make rni~tak~ and do what is right...but I do know that if we don't have this ordinance, we'll look like Bemidji because the retail areas and business will come in and try to be bigger and brighter and bolder and it's just... My mind is suddenly not clear but I'm going to fight for quality. We have an issue coming up next Monday night that has me troubled deeply. I don't want to put Army barracks on that comer but I don't own the land. I don't know we want fast food there but no one's talked about it. I don't think we should put it there unless we do talk about it. They want to know why it wasn't passed in the 20 days like. Byerly's. Well Byerly's took 6, 7, 8 months but they also came in with brick and quality and a project that we wanted...project across the streeL something's wrong. We're not comfortable with the building that's been called a barrack~ We're uncomfortable with a fast food restaurant. We're not sure we want it. We're not sure that the ffaffic's going to work. None of the issues have been addressed and now it's going to hit the Council head on and unless you're 56 Planning Commi~on Meeting - April 6, 1994 there and fighting for your beliefs, I'm going down thc tubes and w~'re going to wind up with a Bycrly's, or a fast food restaurant and a mediocre office building in an area that's thc focal point of the community. Anywhere you look at it, it's our central city and I don't think it ought to bc based on Serf Fannakes' $13.00 a square foot and that' s.. .Maybe it's going to be $50.00 a square foot and HRA has to get involved there, I don't know but that one really scares me. I just. Jet your piece be known on Monday night, I'd sure appreciate the help because I don't know if I'm alone or not. I know where I stand but I would rather own that land and take it for public use than have it..Jet it develop prearm~y and do something that's wrong. And I'm not sure that the pitched roof of that building fits into our downWwn scheme right now. I don't think it's architectural standards should follow this glitzy little 1970 shopping center. If you look across the street and it's all brick. It's all ghss. It's all quality. I'd sort of like to start thaL..but those are our standards so. Thank you for listening. It's been a real hard week for me. You guys really are the liaisons to help us get to the wp of the ladd~ and I hope we can get things together. Mancino: Dick, did you have any time to read the tree preservation ordinance that we went over tonight? Any thoughts on that? Richard Wing: I was really...and I really lilaxl your comments about what we're doing. They're son of separate issues here. You've got your standard subdivision and here's this other one here. If we're going to talk, it is going to cost more money for some of these developers coming in. But then don't develop in Chan but if we're going to fie it to affordable housing, let's stop talking about these issues, Let's talk su~idl _zed; cheap affordable housing. I'm willing to redo our Comprehensive Plan. I'll go down to 4,000 square foot lots. I don't care what we do. If we want affordable housing, I'm all for it. I'll support it. But let's stop talking about it and using all lhese things as excuses that we shoulcln't do because they're going to cost _mo~. This doesn't have to apply to low income subsidized. What's the proper word here? Affordable housing. We can do a lot for affordable housing. I'm willing to get off dead center and start talking about it. Do something. Rezone and do what has to be done but for the genaal city at large, the more trees, the more landscaping, the more we do...we just redid the pazking lot ordinance. When Byerly's came in, Mr. I~ just about came across the counter because I ~_ for 12 more trees. He was truly upset...When the church came in down here they had 5 or 6 trees and I said, you know put in about 13 more u'ees and look what happened in the future and look at...and they said hey, that's a good idea. They came back with 16 trees on that little church down there. Talk about community spin't and that's not a wooded setting. That's just a few trees for shade and so when a multi-million dollar Byefly's complains of 12 trees, and this little tiny church says gee, that's a good suggestion and puts in 16, I wonder if our ordinances aren't pretty lax. We're not asking for a lot. I thought the ordinance was really good. I was really pleased to see it done. I think it's a start. You've got some legitimate concenm..it's 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 very, very difficult. Tim and Nancy put a tremendous amount of work in trying to figure it out. Conrad: I apprccial~. When you scc thc proccss, it's a rough pro. ss m work...put in a lot of time and then to pass it up and then we try to. You know we almost have to spcnd...to really try to figure out these issues and that goes up. Then you go back to the quality and the composition of the connni~:c and you hope they wcrc thorough. But otherwise, we're spcn~g a lot of time here. You know there's only so much time and we've got to figmc out what issues we really want to get on and if it's, you know we spend a lot of time architecture. I don't like that. To bc very honcsC The standards should bc there and wc shouldn't be playing around with architecttmil smndsr~ They should be on the books. That's it. And we should not be making a decision whether glass goes here or this goes there. That's wrong and I'll guarantee evea'y Planning Commission, I think our stuff will tell you that that's just, we're not doing it the fight way. We're doing it bccamse maybe the standards aren't there right now that we'd like to see. So inst,,ad of piece rr~__~ing, picking these things to death, we should be figuring out how to get those sumdm~ in place. Mancino: Well either standards or having some sort of archfl~-'mml review board. Conrad: That's possible. Richard Wing: ...ordinance from Wayzata. .. and I think what's going on on the corner, I'm not opposed to but I think that's a building that's got...that's the entry point of ou~ community and I don't think we put fast food or daycare in there. That's got to be quality. Scott: And it's particularly distressing when you have a member of the City Council on the developrr~nt team and that was pretty offensive so. Richard W'mg: He's a developer. That's his fight. I'm sure he'll stay out of that...but if he wants brick across the street, he cerlainly...I hope. Scott: Well, enough said. Thank you for your comments Richard..~or a City Council update eh? Generous: Well the last item was the Minnewsshta Landings... Council approved plat and added a condition that a 45 degree view be provided for the Hoelke's. Scott: Okay. Oenerous: And I think ~ put on here just as... from thc city's ordinance on conceptual 58 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 PUD plans... Mancino: I don't particularly like what's in the ordinance. It doesu't mak~ a lot of sense to me. I think there are other things that need to be in the conceptual for me to pass i~. So the dt~tion of a conceptual plan that I'm reading, I think is worthless. Som~~ that we want to look at. I'm kind of being bottom lined here. I've got to go. Harberm: Bob, would you have Kate call me on the ongoing issues on number 15. I'm not aware of any plans and development from Southwest Metro's perspective. Mancino: And I would like to politely say that I would love to enter some new writing, some words, verbiage for conceptual plan. I'll put something together that we can talk about. Be pan of the solutions. Generous: lust a final ilmn. You have a joint meeting scheduled for the 20th with City Council. We'd like to son of provide an agenda for that so if you have any additional issues, concerns that you want to bring out. If you could get them to us and we can put them in... so we have some oraer. ~: I'd like to talk with you outside this meeting too with regard to another possible item. Nor that meeting. Conrad: What's the point of the meeting? Generous: To commnnicat~. Harberts: Goals and expec~tions, how's that? Conrad: Did you say goals? Do we have those lisl~l? Do we have. Generous: Do we have a program7 Conrad: Yeah. ff we don't have anything listed, I can't attend. We just have to have those out in advance...Planning Commission. We've got to do them. If we go into that meeting it will just be chaos. It will be ? people here and 5 there. Scott: Yeah, what I don't want to see is, I um2~n~er the first work session th~ I was at with the folks from HGA and the City Council and the Park and Rec and all this kind of stuff and it was just 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Ledvina: Talking about the community center. Scott: Yeah, what we need to do is ~ the agenda is and this evening we will make the decision as to whether this happens or that happens. Let me ask a question. Proceas of review of developments that is i.e. Wendy's. What does that mean? Was that a post mortm~ on the decision of the City Council a couple weeks prior to that or anyway, Ladd made a very good comment. Har~: Is this where the Chairman sits down with staff and the. Scott: The C~mirman of what? Harberts: Thc Chairman of thc Planning Commission and help identify thc goal~ Har~: Okay. Just asking for clarification. Scott: Okay. So give us an agenda on this thing quicidy and then a little preface...would be nice a little intent. The intent of this meeting is w finalize decim'ons on-..issues. Issue, issue, issues. Yes, no, yes, no. Just so people can irind of get the flame of mind that they're going to be making some decisions. Conrad: I think it's not necessarily staff looking for stuff. I think those inquiries have got to go out to City Council. What is it that you care about? Talking about. So I think Coundl owes staff some input before and as do we and it can be through the C~mitmau or it could be through us or individuals...Maybe there are issues that...by figuring it out before we get together. Mancino: And seeing it beffore we get there. Conrad: Otherwise it won't go anyplace. Wc've been there before. There will be another day that we'll all walk away saying, why did we do that. Scott: I think one issue is basically, we know what our roles are but I think, at least my opinion is, I think we take the opinions of the task forces and committees that make recommendations to us more seriously I thinir than some ~ of the City Council take our recommendations, which in most cases, it's never been a rubber slmnp but we'll take, we make an assumption as Ladd was saying. These people know what they're doing. They spent a lot of time. We tweak it a little bit. At least, I've only been here a year and a haft Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 but I've not sccn us take song that was si~onifleant and flip it the other way and it's not just what we're reco~ing. I think it's that there's momen~ corning through us. So I think that can be, and I don't know how you word that but we need to be a lot more et~nt in our commissions and so forth and that's just one of the reasons why Richard is so fi*ust~ted. We get some good momentRm 8.nd thon things kind of die. But anywlty...ongoing items. Is there anything in here that we need to discuss? Ladd says no. We'll skip over discussion and go right to adjoumffmnt. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director ~ by Nann Ophcim 61