Loading...
PC 1994 07 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to ord~ at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina, Diane Harber~ Ron Nutting and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director;, Sharrnin A1-Jaff, Plann~' H; Elliott Knetsch; City Attorney; and Diane De, relic, Watrr Reso~ Coordinator - ARCHITECTUIOkL REVIEW FOR DETACI~D STRUCTURE ON LOT 4~ BLOCK VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION. Kate Aanenson presenlr, cl the staff report on this itrm. Scott: Good. Are there any questions or commits for staff on this psrdcular item? Hearing none, could I have a motion please. Mancino: I move that we open the public hearing. Sco~ There's no public hearing. I should have been more specific. I could mak~ a suggestion. If thc~'e are no questions or comments for staff, if someone would ~ to take' staff's recommendation and mm it inW a motion, I would ~ it. Would you like to try it again. Harberts: I'll move that the Planning Commission adopt a motion approving the archi~ detailing incorporated in the detached c~office building being developed as part of the West Village Center. Scott: Good. It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion7 Mancino: Yes~ The only question that I have for staff is, one of the things we have talked about having to do with the sign ordinance is we need, when I see windows architecturally ~ this, and I believe that they have an architectural significance to this building, I want to ask the applicant if they are going to be windows~ That means that you can look in and out of them. And that no stmc'uxtes, as in furniture, any kind of ~ will be placed on the inside of the windows to obstruct looking in and out. Scott: Mr. James. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Charlie James: I'm not sure I unders~ Mancino: Do you understand the question? Charlie James: Arc you talking, are you saying is there going to be vandalized? Mancino: Well is it going to be clear glass looking in and out. What I thinlr of some buildings that have windows that I have seen lately on the inside of the s~ blocking the window like the back of a shelf that takes up the entire window so it's not real/y a window anymore. It's just a piece of glass you don't see in and out of. You know people may have displays, the back of a display obstructing the, what one thinks of as a window and why it is there architecturally. Charlie James: Well, the best I can recollect the floor plan that was submitted to us fi'om California, all the room partitions would meet on podiums so that there's an interior town or I mean an interior wall. That wall would abut these areas where there is a pilaster coming down so. And there is a, we come in so many feet and there's a counter in the center. I'm not aware of anything that's in front of the windows. This area up here is going to be a radius window. It's not detailed in on the drawing that was pwvided to you but it's one of those ones with the, it looks like a setting sun up here. That is spanoghss because that's above the ceiling. In other words, if you look at this drawing, that can't be glass because if you're looking into the guts of the building, of the bar joist and so above the door entry here, this will be what they call spanoglass which is a glass that is fit to put as close as possible like west in the windows only it has a coating on the back of it so when you see these mirror buildings around town that are all glass, like Northland Glass on Fiance and 20th, that's a combination of vision glass and what they call spanoglass. There would have been, you know I think the concern that you are expres.sing, I think would have been a problem had there been more glass all the way around the building but we've tried to pick up that same motif with the same size recess and it doesn't come off very good on that drawing but you can, if you want to pass these around. This is what we just basically picked up that same. Scott: Oh, it's just real similar to the brick work on the Byerly's store for the insets on the east and west elevations. Mancino: Okay. That's all, thank you. That kind of angwers my question on the windows and how they're treated architecturally. When the occupants move in, that those windows will stay intact looking in and out as windows are to. Your landscape plan on the west side, I was concerned a little bit about your west elevation because of the, there's some detailing there but it looks like the landscape plan looks like it will help that wall I wanted to have a look staff at what it would look like from Powers Boulevard looking east and I can see that Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 they've done some good massing on that west side so I feel real comfortable. That's all my questions. Scott: Good, any other discussion? If there's no more discu~on, I'd like to have a vote on the question. Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning CommlsM'on approve the architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercJa~office building being developed as part of the West Village Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE BF~ FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD~ ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. Sharmin Al-laff presented the staff report on this imm. Scott: Any questions or comments for stuff? Okay, any discussion7 Conrad: Well yeah. We went from a request of 40 some dumpsters up to 100. We went from 58 dumpsters up to whatever. Mancino: 140. Conrad: And staff agrees. Because why7 Al-$aff: Originally it wasn't specified how many they wanted on the site so basically what we did was we went out and we counted how many dumpsmrs were there and we said... A letter came from thc applicant requesting 140 so stuff discussed this issue and we made the recommendation that as long as there is screen_ lng of those. As long as the screening works, then it would be. Conrad: Okay. Shielding 58 is different than shielding 140 or whatever that number is so. Well, I still haven't seen a plan that shows me how it's done so I guess I'm, I think we could pass it along. But on the other hand our duty is to see it first and then pass our recommendations of the plan to the City Council and I still don't see a plan that's acceptable. So I guess I would have to reco~ that we table this item until we see a plan that works. Mancino: What do you want to see in the plan Ladd7 Planning Commission Meeting - Snly 20, 1994 Conrad: I don't know, just something that staff feels comfortable with. It'd be really easy for us to pass it along and just say hey, yeah it looks like a good plan but I think we just owe it, or we're owed a good plan that staff makes a positive recommendation on. Mancino: Yeah, I'd actually like to see in the plan where the 140 are. You know layout where they would be on the plan. Conrad: Yeah. It's not that this is a bad use. You know if it's sa'eened, this could be a good use for the parcel I don't have a problem with the use as long as there's some wording in the recommendation that I think has to be changed a little bit to make sure that we ~lly don't have storage in the dumpsters. The applicant said there's no refuse or whatever but I really would want to make sure that that was specified in our language. But again, it's probably an acceptable, as long as the traffic and noise is handled, it's probably an acceptable use for that. But again, we need a plan that we can see that staff has shown us works. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I would move that we table this particular item, the interim use permit to provide outdoor storage for commercial dmnpsters per the staff report. I would have it tabled until the applicant and staff can present a screening plan that meets staff's requirements. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina: Yes. I also think that we should know specifically where the dumps~ are going to be stored on site. It's a rather large site so we, I need to know what space 150 dumpsters occupies and then that those dumpsters are going to be screened. So I think just to, I think you said that but just to also know where those dumpsters are being stored. Mancino: Yeah. I have a question on that. We're _~ddng for screening right now and I mean one of the only ways we'll get it is to get either a perspective drawing or something perspectively that we're on TH 212 and either they're going to berm or not and then how, if we're going to see 42 trees there, how tall are the trees. And if the trees are 6 feet tall, the span of a 6 foot tall spruce is going to be 4 feet. So if you only have 42 trees, I mean how much screening is that going to be if it's 6 feet tall? So we need to know the height and ff we're talking about screening all year, or complete screen_ ing, we're going to have to know how tall the trees are and what the. span is. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: And then bearing in mind that there's a 20 foot change in elevation over the area where they could be potentially stored so. Ledvins: The criteria though far screening is fxom the highway 212. That's what we're talking about. Okay. Scott: Yeah. Mancino: And there may even need to be a little bit of berming to help in that height because thc trees will start out at 6 feet and it really won't do it. And it taiw, s them about a couple years to really start growing. So and then they'll start aft~ 2 years growing about a foot a year. But the most screening you'll get from a coniferous tree is about 15 feet wide. I meam it grows 15 to 20 is the widest and that's after 25 years. So I mean them needs to be some calculations and looidng at it. Scott: Any other comments or questions? A1-Jaff: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. Al-$aff: Do you have any co~ts regarding... Ledvina: The time line. The term of the permit. Are we talking about 15 years? Or MUSA line extension, whichever comes later. What? A1-Jaff: We're reconun~ding that it be 10 years or until the MUSA. Whichever com~ first. AI-Jaff: Correct. The applicant is reque,sting that that be changed to whichever comes later. We're also reco~tling that the applicant be permitted to request an extension for interim use permit prior to it's expiration. Conrad: Are there a lot of costs in developing this ~ to the point where it can take the dumpsters7 Are we imposing a lot of finan~ hardship7 Are we hnposing a lot of finandal tasks that a~ ~nable7 Have we asked for paving7 AI-Jaff: Paving of the properly7 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 Conrad: Again, when you do a 10 year permit, that's a long time. I would do that if I thought we were imposing some real financial hardships. I think that it's imp~t to get some security. But I don't know right now that we are. I think we're asking for screening. Mancino: Well one time the building was. Scorn Well that was the original Conrad: You know you put a building there, you need the r~mm. You need time to g~ a return on that building. Really they need a time period to get a return, right now, on the screening, which are trees. Which could be 42 trees. Probably more. And I'm not sure that the 10 years is, if I were them I'd want the 10 yearn I'd want to know that the~ was a chance for re-issuing the pem~t and I think we cain prob~ly, if they run a good ~on, which I'm sure they would, I think we would renew that. But I'm not sure that the 10 years is necessary right now. It could be 5. Ledvina: Yeah, I think we talked about 5 last time. Conrad: But again, it's all based on finances. If th~ have to put a lot of money in, then I'd say 10. I don't see it so I think 5 looks pretty good. I think the other thing the applicant will probably care about is the hours of operatior~ You know 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 was struck and now it's 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to 5:00 is not really a commercial type operation so. I would think that they'd be very nervous about that. Those hours. Scott: Any other comments? Mancino: On reconunendation number 6. The second sentence. I would just add, only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. And I agree with -Iautd on the 5 years and hours of operation. I didn't know that they worked on holidays. Picked up waste on holidays. It's int~'esfing. Al-Jaff: I believe this was an item of discussion at the last meeting. It's on page 38 of the Minutes. And the request was to, page 39. I'm sorry. Top of the page. That the hours be changed Saturday to. Conrad: See those are Saturday hours. That may be but not Monday thru Friday. Monday thru Friday, that's just not reasonable. I think we should leave them with the typical 7:00 to 6:00. Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 A1-Jaff: On weekdays and then. Mancino: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. Conrad: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday I think is fight A1-Jaff: Alright Scott: Anything else? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table int~rlm Ii~ permit to allow sereelled outd~r storage in the BF for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion carried unaninmusly. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMF. NT TO TNE CITY CODE TO ~ BF~ FRINGE BUSINESS TO AMEND BY ADDING AODmONAL PERMI'VEED AND CONDITIONAL USES. Public Present: Name Address Veme Severson Tim Wise Leon & Delores Mesen~nk Nancy Lee Patrick Blood Jim Sulcrud Richard Vogel Willard Halvcr 675 Lakota Lane 425 Lakota Lane 250 Flying Cloud Drive Admiral Waste Management Admiral Waste Management 730 Vogelsberg Trail 105 Pioneer.Trail 470 Flying Cloud Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or conm~nts? I just have one. When you're talking about some of that property being zoned or rczoned to a higher usc level, is that something that would come about due to, first of all the MUSA line being available? And then, we would basically see what sort of development plans would come in and if it happens to be a PUD, it would be a PUD. If it happens to be, is it dc'pen_ding upon- Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Aanenson: Well when urban scrvic~ become available we would certainly look at a comp plan amendment and revisit that whole area. Sc, om So the BF could conceivably be a study area if we figured the MUSA line would be, okay. Aanenson: ...with urban services available and them were existing uses down ~, we'd try to accommodate them...So cca'tainly we would revisit that whole area. Scorn So this would be something, for example like what happe~ to an A2 when services are available, it beco~ a PUD or RSF or something like that? Okay. Mancino: Or it could be zoned for an existing use, or whattw~r. I have a question about permitted uses and mini golf course. Mini goff course is different than a miniature golf Scott: Well get your code book out Mancino: I was thinking wouldn't a golf course be nice them and then I say, oh but it does say mini goff course. Aan~son: That's the dc~mition we have. It's the same thing, yeah. Mancino: So it's a miniature golf course. Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: But what if somebody did want to come in and put a l~ni 9 hole golf course in? Could thcy do that? Aanenson: I'm not sure there's enough land in that BF district to do that. Harberts: Is that park and ride lot inside Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: What's it zoned then? A1-Jaff: No, I'm sorry it's zoned A2. Agricultural Estates. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is an item with a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public heaFing. AH voted in favor and the motion carrie. The public hearing was open. Scott: If anyone would like to step forward and make comments or ask questions regarding this particular item, please do so. State your name and your address and have at it. Is there anyone here, sir please. Willard Halver: I'm Willard I-Ialver. I live at 4/0 Flying Cloud Drive. In other words, Highway 169/212. I've been living there for 35 years and it seems as though we're in a situation in that area, and that area is important...to preserve and we've got a situation now where if you want to use that as a conditional uses to the ci~ ordinance and this conditional uses, in addition to the ordinance, city ardinance would open up a can of worms that I don't think we're getting inW and who would be respousible or control these conditional uses? There could be a million different things, in fact we got a number of things right in this, in the area that I am in next door to me that are conditional uses that have been going on for 3- 4 years. And also what is kind of a thing that came to my ~tion, you use this initials BF. Is that a connection with Browning Ferris in regard to his Admiral Waste Management? Scott: No. BF just signifies Business Fringe zoning. 8o it doesn't have anything to do with any commercial enterprise. V~rfllard Halver: I do know that there is an ~ual that's just waiting for this conditional use thing to go into effect and he is within oh 2-3 block area that has been controlled by the City Council and done a good job by keeping under controL But he's just waiting to explode and come...funher sand mining and that would come under this conditional use addition to the ordinance. I thank you. Scott: I don't have an answer or comment. Perhaps you might. Sir are you slating that the people who are operating Moon Valley are planning on purchasing other ~ to expand their mining operation? Is that what you're saying? Willard Halver: Yes. I know it indirectly and almost directly speaking. And thi,~ has been an eyesore in the area for quite a while and it's also a traffic hazard with those big belly dumps going in and out of there every morning because I'm retired and I sit there and watch the traffic tied up when they're trying to go in and out of that pit. But the owner I know from a matter of fact, I got in a round about way, wants to buy all additional property that's available and some of it is right in my front door. And that's why I am taking the stand I'm Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 taking because we like it where we live and we've lived there for 35 years and I don't think somebody can come in and again, they're conditional uses. Scott: Well let's maybe have our staff talk about thaL Aanenson: First of all Moon Valley is not located in this business fringe. And if they were looking at buying property within the disu'ict, this wouldn't be a...use. And you are aware of the fact that we have been in litigation with Moon Valley. Scott: Yes, for quite some time. Aanenson: If you look on the map, maybe Sharrnin can show you where Moon Valley is and where the district is that we're talking about. They're over there quite a ways from the district. We're just talking about that little nan'ow piece on 169. Willard Halver: Yeah, I know. It's about a third of a block from where I live. There's been 15 to 50 durnpsters up until now. And also, what type of screening, is that going to be tree screening or what type of screening is that going to be? I can see it from where I live and I know, this thing has been going on for 2-3 years. Thi~ haphuT~rdly. Aancnson: I think we're talking about the Admiral Waste. Scott: Yeah, we're talking about two things. Aancnson: Yeah, the Planning Commission tabled that earlier for'ftmher informafiom Willard Halver: ...it's been tabled but it's still a thorn in my side. Scott: Yeah, the reason it's been tabled is that we don't feel that the screening as proposed is adequate for the location and amount of dumpst~s that are proposed to be on that spot and that will be coming back probably what, first meeting in August. Al-Jaff: When they submit a revised plan. Scott: Okay. And then on the Admiral Waste, thc notice area would include this gentleman for that partiodar item7 Aanenson: If he warns to be noticed. Scott: If you would like that, we could send you a notice when the i&-dmirltl Waste item 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 19o~ comes up again. Willard Halver: I'd appreciate it. I may be out of town, I mean I don't know. If I am, that's my hard luck. Scott: Well you can work that out with our staff and they'll make sure that you get notice so you can know when that's coming on thc agenda. Willard Halver: The other thing I'm concerned about is, pan of my property fronts on this property that this miner wants to buy and there are some other people in the audience that are closer than I am to that mining pit and I know that it's temporm/ly stopped but that doesn't, this conditional use thing. Aanenson: But this is separate from that. Scott: Yeah this is. Willard I-lalver: It's a can of worms. Scott: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about the item at hand, which is additional conditional uses for and permiuni uses for business fringe? Leon Mesenbrinic: My name is Leon Mesenl~nlr. I live at 250 Flying Cloud Drive which ia right across from the development area. And what really amazes me is you people up here sitting in Chanhassen, beautiful town. You want it all like F. Aina and everything else but us people at the very end of Chsnhassen, it's almost like we're in a different ballgame. Entirely different from you people. You let people, _this Moon Valley do what they want to do. Basically. I ~ you can't stop it. They run truck in and out. I bought there in 1959. How many of you people have been here since 19597 Any of you people? Harlx~: I haven't been alive that long. Leon Mesenbrink: Okay, well that's fine. I bought out there when it wasn't even a gravel pit. It was a ski tow. I bought out there and paid a lot of money, which we thought at that time, we'd be out in the woods. All of a sudden now we're into a conunewia~ nightmare. And now you want to go by 169 or 212 and put another Shakopee and look at a bunch of garbage containers. Do you want them sitting around? Do you have a home in Chanhassen here? I come home every day from work up that road. I should look out at 50 or 100 garbage dumpsters? Would you want to do it? Any of you people? Thinir about some of these things. I'm just saying you people here, we're at the far fringe of Chanhassen but 11 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 we've been here a long time too and think about us. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about the business fringe conditional uses and permitlr, d uses? Yes sir. Sim Sulerud: I'm Sim Sulernd and I live at 730 Vogeisberg Trail I'm not immedi~ly adjacent to business fringe but in the same neighborhood. What my experience has been in the almost 20 years that I've lived there, is that within the city here, iS that the city's very cautious about the tuking of property fights of people so they, the city has by lawsuit in some cases, to give into property owners for exercising their property fights for development or what they want to. I think the present experience in that parti~ portion of the business fringe that's at the, near the Y, iS that if you have multiple failing businesses. Businesses thst tried something. Didn't work out in that setting and it's my view that the city iS not under obligation to further enhance their property values or enhance their ability to do additional things in order to make that suitable for something they were unable to msl~e suitable in the past. So to expand the uses for people, property owners to try something else because what they thought might work in the past doesn't work, seems to be going against all the discussion that I've heard in the Planning Commission and City Council about the wonderful natural area and how it will be nice to preserve that and perpetuate the natmal nature of that area. Now when there's oppartunity, I think you can recognize that when places have failed, maybe that's going in the right direction and not seek ways of enhancing further commercial development. I ~in~ it would be, it would have been great if this were left A2 or whatever. The places where we do see some things growing a little bit, and Admiral iS an example, or the Moon Valley, is where people have gone beyond thc permitted uses. And now they're trying to say, well we'll grandfather them in or we'll provide conditional use permits to accommodate that and I think you can take advantage of the economics right now that have turned that area down and the uses are probably at a low point. If you approve additional uses, you're going to have new proposals before you that do new and wonderful things that I think are contrary to what this body iS looking for and the City Council iS looking for. Thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mandno moved, Conrad seconded to dose the public hearing, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Comments. Matt. Ledvina: Well I don't know what the driving force was to initiate this effort in terms of 12 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 rezoning this area. As I unde~mnd this curr~fly is A2, is that right? Aanenson: No. It's currently lousiness fringe. Ledvina: It is currently business fringe? Okay. So essentially the lines on the map are essentially the same, they're exactly the same. We're not changing the lines. Okay. But what we are doing then is adding pennitt~l uses? Okay. That's the only thing we're adding. Mancino: Well conditions. Ledvina: And, go ahead. Al-la_fi: The only thing we're adding under conditional is the sporting goods. But there could be 5 conditional uses or 5 permitted uses. Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any specific request for any of these items? I mean what drives the mini golf course for example? I mean I can see. Aanenson: What we looked at in this zoning, we tried to look at some reasonable use of the prope~ where maybe it could be a turnover when you go back and look at the study...look at the MUSA line expansion. Maybe there's a bet~ use for the property or higher use...at one time, before it was a part of the city, you know served as a collector and there were services down there. There's some grandfathered uses as the people that spoke tonight indi~ There are some non-conforming uses down there that have grandfathered rights. What we're talking about are other uses that people that have properties there, for people that have property down there to make use of their ~ until such time services do become available. Ledvina: Okay, well I look at the permitt~ uses and I see 1 thru 4 wholesale nursery, greenhouse, that seems to mnire sense. There's not retail activity. Priva~ublic park, great. Single family dwelling, 1 per acre. AgriculturaL All those things are reasonable land uses but then I see mini golf course and now you've got parking. You've got retail. You've got traffic. Aanenson: Yeah. We've addressed that in Section 20-265 which is in the conditional use. We referenced that standard and...show that there are conditional use standards so that's why we've shown that reference. And that does say, if you are going to use this use, you have to develop using this criteria. There are critcfia...you get the hours of otxwation and some other criteria that was to §o in this area you'd have to maintain the use of standards. But we tried to give some...meet those standards. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ledvina: I'm just tbinidng about you know, land uses that are somewhat sinfilar and compatible and I see numbers 1 thru 4 as being low intensive and reasonable but I don't know about number 5 for permitted uses. And then, so I don't know exactly where that's going to go but those are my thoughts on the addition of the permitted uses. And then a question on the conditional uses. Truck Irailer and then we've added sporting goods, boat sales and rental. Again, why would we go ahead and do that? I mean is there ~ing that's driving that or7 Al-$aff: No, but we've always had the auto sale or rental There is a U-Haul rental place. Ledvina: But that was only grandfathered, right? A1-Jaff: No. It's a conditional use. Aanenson: They had to go through the screening, which they've done so we felt that's been an appropriate use and if someone came under that same criteria, and screened it appropriately and landscaped it and fencing. Ledvina: So that's a conditional use. Why isn't that identified on page 3 on the wp? You're saying auto. Aanenson: ...conditions in the BF district. Ledvina: Motor fuel stations. Al-$aff: What you see in bold is just what we're addinE. Ledvina: Right, I underslm~l that. But the, ~ously there was a used car sales. A1-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. And you're saying used car sales are allowed within the business fringe district? Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: They are, okay. Al-Jnff: They don't require the use of urban services. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ledvina: Oh I see, currem uses. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Why are we doing this right now given we're going to study the area7 Aanenson: The area that's outside the MUSA doesn't go quite as far south as we... When we talked about thc...and looking at this on a cursory level, again we've had requests from people to use their property... Again, Matt had a question about the goff course and we'll just give you two of the things and...you can't be within 500 feet from single family ~ce. They have to provide adequate parking. They also have to provide...Again, that's the reason we felt we could make it compatible with the residential. Conrad: Okay. Just real quickly, I think all the pennitted uses are better uses than what we currently will allow under conditional uses so if you follow that logic, I think F d buy what staff is saying. It is, they're more environmental They're more natural, which is, the theory is really they're going to be developed for commercial or it should be put into a natural setting and so no governmentsl body is buying it up for a natural setting. I think we do have to give the land owners an adequate use for their property here and I feel comfortable in the permittrd uses. I think that's certainly acceptable to me. I would like to make some changes in the intent statement however in terms of, because it is, a lot of it is natural and a lot of it is sensitive, I would like to get some wording in that talks about development without impacting the natural conditions or the sensitive to the environment and the river valley that's there. I just think in the past we've tried to rninimiT~ we tried to give land owners an acceptable use, a low level acceptable use of their property in that area without major i ,mpact and I'm not sure if we've been successful in that or not. But I continue to think that we want to really prcse~c thc natural part of that until we have urban services there or until we have a plan to turn it into a more natural setting. Mancino: I have a question on your's, to piggy back on thaL If it is a permi~ use and the MUSA line corrw, s down and includes this area at that time, much like Swings on G-alpin and Highway 5, and now we're looking at that study area and saying, you know it may be single family or multi family. Does the permitt~! use that is there now, once the MUSA line changes and encompasses that land, can that, let's say it's a mini golf co~ stay there even though we have rezoned it forever? Until, okay. Aanenson: Yeah. That's why we were comfortable with these uses even if it were to change. We felt like that...these would be comp, atible. It has to be done, these are the other conditional uses that we'd be looking at... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Mancino: And you feel that way with the wholesale n~sery. I mean they have tnr.~, big trucking operations because they have to get things out and deliveries in the spring and they have big greenhouses, etc and you still feel that. Conllld: We have that at Lake Ann, Down on TH 101. Mancino: Well I know...too so I just wanted to bring that up. Scott: Ladd, are you finished with your comments? Conrad: Finished. Scott: Nancy, do you want to continue, if you have others? Since you're on a roll Diane. ~: I don't really have a lot of extras to add. I guess when you take into consideration that we try to bring a balance to growth and development to the needs of the residents and the needs of thc business community, I think we do that by, when you tak~ into perspective all of our codes or guidelines that we put out there. I mean the architectural integrity. We ask for building and landscaping. I think we've seen that with our first one. The first, on the interim use permit for screening. I think we're here to bring that balance but I think because of standards we've kind of set, it's probably our best we can do to protect the interest of each resident in their own way. So I guess I support what's here. It certainly im't an easy job. Not everyone's going to be happy but when you look at everything that's in place, I think it's good for the community and we just have to remind ourselves. As things come in that we keep that integrity there with each project. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I don't have any big problem with the permitw, d uses. From some of this discussion and the exchange Kate with regard to future and the MUSA line~ Was there discussion about making thc mini golf course a conditional as opposed to a permiued? Aanenson: Again, I think based on the standards that's in the code, I think we feel comfortable as far as that being under permitl~l use... Nutting: Okay. I don't have a lot to add, I think that there's not a significant change here and so it looks good for a motion. Scott: Okay, Serf. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Famuflw~: I'll follow up a little bit on Ladd's conuncnt. What worries me about this, the long m-m and what the plan is going to be in that area. We're ldnd of blanketly saying that when the MUSA gets there we'll worry about it but it seems that most of these uses will revolve around things like dumpsters and ~ and mining and I question in the comprehensive plan, long term, if those are the uses that we see in Chanhassem Is that the intent of the community. Many of these uses have been sort of acquired through default. Businesses that went under. They were able under past ordinances to use this and nobody seemed to care. It was under county at the time before the township expanded. What I would like to sec is a study for us to look at long Un'm use. What our intent is for that property area all along the bluff area because I see a convergence of opposing interests and it seems that all those uses, or all those uses that are unpalatable, seem to be concen~ along that bluff area over there. And it kind of makes you wonder what we're going to wind up with in 20 years. But I understand in the interim that property owners want to continue their use as pcrmitted uses for the businesses. But long term I don't see those there. I'm not going to be on thc commission then but certainly. Mancino: But they could be there long term because once it's a permitted use. Farrnakes: That's what I'm saying. That gets to my next point. You're familiar with how we deal with some of these large scale developments, say Timberwood for instance. They become the nucleus for development around them because people will come in and they will complain that they don't want industrial or they don't want business use or whaler next to their development. So what happens is you get a sort of a nucleus for development going on there that may not be the best interest for the city. Just because dmnpsters happen w...been put there, does that mean that that use should be expanded and therefore...developer may not want to put a housing project there. And that's what I'm getting at. I'd like to see us look at the long term development of that bluff area just because in general scope like we do the comprehensive plan. We've seen to have left that area down below there as work to be done later. It seems that we get an awful lot of that stuff here, in that particular area. It seems to be coming back here a lot. Scott: What woold you think about, insmad of allowing these additional permitt~ uses, allow them as conditional uses? Farmakes: I would, if we put a time limit on them... Scorn I was thinking for the interim point in ~ let those continue but yet to be able to have some sort of a sunset on there that the trigger is thc MUSA line. Farmakes: A sunset that makes sense, yeah. It allows the city staff to long term look at what 17 Plaoning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 would be in the best interest for Chanhassen for development of that property. Because I look at these uses and they're quite haphazard, as you look at them. They're even as grouping of businesses there. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. That's it. Conrad: Okay, just for discussion. Scott: We're doing that. Conrad: You've got two choices down there. It's on a major highway. Harberts: Soon to be ex major highway. Conrad: It's still serving 15,000. Mancino: Soon to be? Scott: 10 to 20 years. Farmakes: A lot of closed businesses on that highway. Corwad: 15,000 cars a day. Scott: How many Super Arneri~'s go out of business? That was a surprise. But anyway, continue. Conrad: Why would they do that, I don't unders~ But you've got a major highway and what's the difference between a major highway there and a major highway on Highway 5? You know what are you going to put? On the other hand you have a very natural area. But somebody's got to come up with money to buy it, meaning a government body, and I haven't seen that in our plans at all. Farmakes: There's a major highway that goes along the St. Croix. I don't see development there either but there happens to be a major highway. Conrad: But it's park property right. Farmakes: No. Not all of it's park property. Mancino: WeLl you could do some architecttu~ guidelines and everything else that's been done to Highway 5 in that area also. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: But are there other alternatives? Mancino: As to what can go7 Conrad: Let's talk, you've got a highway business con'an~ty. You've got a natural community. Natural environmenlal are~ Mancino: You're talking about a city ~um_ A land referendum like Eden Prairie does to buy the land. Farmakes: But are you saying the b~giness that arc along that highway have any, make any sense as a grouping or are they here by default? Conrad: They're there because the land. Farmakes: What does mining have to do with dun~ster storage? Or park and ride. Conrad: I'm just saying, this study that we're looking for. You know you can say well we're not going to do anything until a study happens but the reality of what a study might show us, I think we can be wise enough to know what a couple uses are down there and I'm not sure that we're going to say ah ha. Well there's a good use for that. And I question whether it's going to be public money is going to be put into the area so even so, let's say that's 10-15 years down the line something might happen. You still have to give the property owners a fair use of their property. So fight now they can use it for motor fuel stations, trucks. They can use it for a lot of these things and yeah. Farmakes: You supply intent. I think what I was looking for was a time period for renewal to allow a reasonable amount of time in the interim to look at what the city's going to do with that property. What I'm looking for is to try to take away some of these hap~ businesses driving the development that goes around it. I'd like to see some planning involved there. Conrad: Yeah, I hear what you're saying Jeff. I just don't see any commilment on. There's no urban service. When's urban service going to get there? A long, long time and until that happens, nothing really is going to happen down there. Farmakes: Again, if they have unlhnited usage of those uses, they're going to be what drives them. They're going to be what drives that. Conrad: Jeff, I hear you, so we have some uses there. They're kind of grandfathered in or 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 they're there. They're conditional and we haven't found bett~r ones other than maybe what staff is saying, these might be bell~. So what you're doing is encouraging. So here's your choice. And you can, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying in terms of having some time lines and what have you. But on the other hand, what staff's proposed here is to encourage certain things that probably are more in setting, more in nature of the property. So you could do something today and encourage it. Farmakes: Well, I would make the statement for the public hearing, for the people who have property have adjacent to this area who have a difference of opinion of that. Conrad: Well I'm sure. If I were a residential owner, I wouldn't want any of this sm/f, absolutely. Yeah. I agree. Fannakes: So and what the government is doing with that area, it just seems ~ it's in conflict or will be in conflict. Maybe not now. 10 years from now. Ledvina: Does it make sense to make the permitted uses conditional uses? Scott: ALso the sunset because that's what. Aanenson: ...right now. We're trying to get away from the amount of conditional uses. Scott: I mean I can see where you might be coming from here to say, well if you're willing to, landowner if you're willing to invest in items number 1 thru 5, you'll get a permitt~ use and you can continue that use on into the future as far as you care to carry that. $o I ~ I kind of took a look at that and said, that's what it is. I mean there's conditional uses that perhaps we're not interested in seeing, i.e. motor fuel stations, etc, etc. If someone who happens W own that property wants to single family dwellings, etc, etc, they're in essence guaranteed the use of that land for that purpose for an extended period of lime. But then again, one of the points that Jeff raised is do we want that stuff down there forever. So what I'm hearing. Mancino: Not only that but it will drive the surrounding. Scott: Right, exactly because ff this is going to be here forever, then you're going to see something else. So perhaps what we need to do, I mean we already had one item this evening about business fringe with a sunset on it. Perhaps where we want to go with this is not add permitted uses to business fringe district but perhaps add some conditional uses and sunset them. Would that be acceptable? Planning Commission Meeting - Inly 20. 1994 Aanenson: We can't put a sunset on conditional uses. Scott: Or perhaps make these uses conditional but not permitled. Nutting: Kate, are they already conditional uses, number 1 thru 57 Aanenson: No. Nutting: Okay. Conrad: But what Jeff wants to do is do some planning and nothing we've said right here really does do that. Farmakes: I would like to leave the opportuaity for phnning to have some effect with those USES. Conrad: So you want to, your preference would be to table this thing and have staff come back and tell you when they can get to the planning issue. Farmakes: No, not necessarily. Aanenson: But even if we did that, we said we see this being x, okay. And when urban services come in, what if it's 20 years. And we said, well this is what it's going to be. Then we still have 20 years of relative use of. Conrad: But what 1eff's saying hey, do the plan in the next 6 months so we know. Farmakes: No, that's not what I'm saying. Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Fro'makes: I said leave the door open to review the use rather than grant it forever. That's what I'm saying. Leave it open for the ~ty when thc time comes to do the planning. The city has the option of what it wants to do rather than to have those businesses drive that development. Mancino: But the landowner, if I'm going to build a house on 10 acres and then all of a sudden there's this sunset that thc city wants to review whether that's appropriate in 10 years, Farmakes: Those uses happen quite often. Say for instance you have a permi~ use, let's say you're storing something on a piece of property...in 5 years it's renewed. You may get 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 that again. It may develop. Houses come in and you get enough people to come in 'and they object to that use. It's incompatible with their use and you have to move. We've had several businesses in here that have done this... Nutting: So what I hear Jeff, are you in agreement with what $oe is saying? You're saying mulce the permitted uses conditional uses? Scott: And then set some sort of review time frame. Farmukea: I think that would work and give them a reasonable, about 10 years or whatever you think is. Nutting: But your comment, or what I was thinking is, who's going to do a single family dwelling under a conditional use? Scott: In this area? In the BP? Aanenson: ...you can't put conditions for time limits on conditional use. You can only do it on interim use. So you have to change that to interim use, and then you could put time Scott: So that's really the only vehicle that would us the planning oppommity. Conrad: Kate, why isn't this pan of the 1995 study area? I always thought it was. Scott: Is it too far out? As far as the MUSA access. Aanenson: Well we indicated that we would look at this as part of that. Really we may start working on that plan late this fall ...big project and it's not going to be done in 6 months. No way. Scott: Your thoughts for development pressure being along Highway 5 and not on 212 in this BF area. Aanenson: ...fine there as far as time frame. When they did the comp plan it said 1995. But you know, we said we would look at this and include this in the area of the project. But again if people come up with, you know what we're trying to do here is in the short run allow what we feel is a c, ornpatible use of properties that are down there...just as Ladd has indicated. To allow use of the property... Scott: So are we talking about intelim uses now7 Would that do what we want? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Mancino: ...come back and ask for an interim use until the MUSA line. Scott: That's probably the vehicle that will allow for planning yet, and interim use permits we can set time tables. Harberts: What ordinance..~ there some reason7 Aanenson: Well we felt that in this district there should be some uses that are permi~ Right now the district... Scott: Does somebody want to take a stab at a motion7 Nutting: But you know, even with interim use versus conditional use for some, 1 thru ii, who is going to pursue those under an interim use? Scott: Well I think if the time table's long enough, they will. Nutting: But there's uncertainty with an interim use for the time table so anytime you throw that unity in there. Harberts: WeU in fact similar to the sign ordinance. If thc desire is to go with an interim permit use with a time line, what's thc time line? Scott: Well I would think you know, ff I w~re sitting on a piece of ~ that used to be a drive in, a ~ drive in and I saw the opportll~ty to turn it into a mini golf course that I could operate subject to certain criteria for a l~zi~ of ii years, I'd get my calc~ out and figure out if it would work_ But how do you know 5 years or 2 years or 1 year? Scott: I think that would be something that we'd need to put in with thc intm'im, if we're going to be. For example, if you're going to say that thc permitted uses would become into-ira uses, which would be x years. 5 years. That would allow someone to say, well here's the critm'ia. Here's the t/me horizon and then that would allow a business person to make a determination if they want to invest any money in it. I think that'd be ~ straight forward. Because then there's concrete ~ for interim uses and there's a concrete length of time and a business decision could be made based upon that. Harberts: Well I don't know if this group is ready to move it forward. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: Okay. Is there a motion7 I guess I think we need to give staff some direction on this one. Does it appear that interim use would allow us the opportunity to plan yet act as a carrot to have some of the pr~ put to a better use7 I don't know if there's another option for us that would give us the flexibility. Nutting: Are you talking about charting the conditional uses that already exist to interim uses also7 Or are you just going to leave those as conditional? I just sense we're really mucking this thing up here. It's really getting cloudy. Conrad: Yeah. Unless you know where you're going, we don't know. Nutting: You're trying to micro manage something before we even know what we're managing. I agree with the issue of with what Jeff is saying. Mancino: ...big picture plan. Nutting: Big picture and long lmm but what, do we have a reasonable vehicle to do that7 And what I sense is happening, and staff is saying, we don't know but we're going to set it up so that these permitted uses seem to be driving it in a direction which makes more sense long term. But we're not going to know for sure. You know the question is. Mancino: Well and secondly, some of these conditional uses, I would hate to see new conditional uses of motor fuel stations and cold storage and warehousing, etc, expa~cling in this area. And right now they are a conditional use. Nutting: So would you like then to delete some of the conditional uses? Is that what you're? Mancino: I would not like to see the ones that are here expand more. If I were looking at this area as a whole, planning it from the very be~nning, I would not have those uses in Nutting: Okay. But right now, today they're there so we have to do something with them if we don't want to have them expand. Mancino: Plus there could be more coming in accz~ing to this. Because there are conditional uses right now in the BF dislfict Harberts: It seems that, what I'm res_ding here, it seem~ that, is that so much what the expansion items are. It's just the duration because it's kind of an unclear area of what should happen down in that area. What we'd like to see...in that area long term. That' s what it is. I Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 don't know if we're having real problems with the items right now here in time but it's because it's a longer duration possible and does it tie our hands. Scott: Well tmnrmnent uses wonld tie our hands relative to planning for that area. There's no question about that And so will conditional uses. Farmakes: Look at the Red-E-Mix that was on TH 5. Just an incompatible use with TH 5. It wasn't that many years ago that it probably didn't seem that bad of a use at the time. If it is a major highway Ladd, and if it's outside the study area, shouldn't we have the opportunity to plan for it when the time comes without having that planning already done with the expansion of these uses? Conrad: I never disagree with planning. Yet motor fuel stations can be done down there right now. Truck trailer can be done. Cold storage can be done. And as I see it, rather than allowing those to come in, I'd like to encourage some things that I think are more in sync with the area now. So I'll make a motion- The Planning Conmfizsion recommends approval of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to read per the staff report except for moving the mini loft course under a permitted use into a conditional use and to have staff reword the intent statement to emphasize the imp~ on the natural conditions of the area. Scou: Is there a second? Nutting: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend to City Council the motion as stated by Commissioner Conrad. Is there any discussion? Mancino: Yeah, my discussion is, can we ask that it be included in the 1995 study me, a? Aanenson: We've already indicated that we'll do that. Mancino: Oh, okay. Scott: Okay. So that should be in the intent statement then. Okay, is there any other discussion7 Conrad: No, I don't want it in the intent ~t. Scott: Well I know it's in the back~o~ section here. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Conrad: I would like to make it of record that this area will be part of the 1995 study area but Kate when you said that, what is telling me that it is? What guides you to include this? Just us? Okay, I believe you. We'll make sure that is. We'll mak~ sure it is. I guess I don't need that as part. I think it's part of the record but I guess I don't really need to. Scott: And we're also talking about the BF district. That includes the Progress Valley Mini Storage as well? Aanenson: Okay. Scott: Any other discussion? Mancino: I just have one question. Okay, it gets into the 1995 study. That means we can look at the whole area. Rezone it. Take out the conditional uses. Aanenson: We don't know. We've got to go back and do a whole study of the whole 212 corridor. Where should commercial be. Where should residential be. It's the same process we went through with the comp plan...it's a lot of work. Conrad: You're just stuck with what's there. You can change the furore but you're stuck with what's there. Farmakes: But we're expanding what's there. Conrad: My motion is to change what's there. To guide it a little bit differently. Scott: By having the uses that you consider to be more compatible with the area become pcrmitted uses and then thc mini golf course, which is more of a commercial use per sc, become conditional Scott: Which makes, that's a surgical way of kind of doing I think what we want. Mancino: And you want to add sporting goods and boat sales/rental? Conrad: I'm comfortable with that. I'd rather have a boat there than a car bexause there's a river across thc, I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval Pla~nirtg Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to rend per the stnff report except for moving the mini golf course from under permitted use into a conditionnl use nnd to hnve stnff reword the intent statement to emphasize the impact on the naMl-al conditions of the area. All voted in favor, except Commi~mloner Farmakes who opp(md, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. $c, ott: And your reason? Farmakes: I think we're putting the cart before the horse. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY I~ODE TO ADOPT ~ DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" TO INCLUDE CITY WIDE. Public Present: Name Address Frank Fox Willard Halver ,Ann Millea' 22990 Smithtown Road, Shorewood 470 Flying Cloud Drive 6561 Fox Path Kate Aanenson and Dinne Desotelle presented the stnff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments? Mancino: Yeah, I've got a questiom The building foundation has to be from a bluff 25 feet Desotelle: 30. Mancino: 307 Now, I put my foundation here and I camfilev~r out a deck so flmm is no, I mean I do it so there is no footing. Like falling water. Frank Lloyd Wright that's ovew the stream. He cantilevered the deck. Can you do that? Aanenmn: No. The way the ordinance is now, you cannot do that but there's still; as part of the subdivision regulations, they can always apply for a variance if there's something unique that you wanted to do and if you felt...w~ed approval and you could conlrol erosion based on the fact that you're going to have accelerated water runoff, that there maybe a way Pla~nir~g Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 to mitigate that. That was something we could look at. One other thing I failed to mention, there was a concern about the application of lots that are already approved. This would just apply to lots that would be subdivided in the future... There's still a variance appeal procedure if you felt like that was s~ing that you wanted to... Mancino: Yeah but you'd have to show that that was a hardship. Farmakes: ...granite. It probably wonldn't be a good idea to do it on a Minnesota River bluff. Mancino: That kind of a design house I just wondered about. If it could extend into that area. If it was cantilevered and did not have any footings or whatever. Desotelle: I think this would just give, it doesn't apply. You know they would not be able to get it without applying for a variance. It gives us the opportunity to work with that design. Scott: You know a couple of thc issues that we run into a lot in developments, are mass grading of thc significant features, And also from a tree preservation sumdpoint, it appears anyway that the areas of the city that are still forested were areas that were impossible to farm because of bluffs and sw.~-p si~ and so forth. So I see this as, I reme~ a couple months ago we were talking about dueling ordinances where you have an ordinance that has a bunch of calculations in it that makes it impo. ~ble to develop someplace. I see this as an opportunity to aco~_lly make, not only preserve some of these natural features but make it easier on city staff and Planning Cowmi,~sion and also on devel~ers because it'd be, everybody has to do a topographic maps and that's a sure sign of significant sl~ so. That's kind of the extent of my comments but I was quite pleased to see thi~ and it seems to be very easy to, you know when we're §oing to be talking about sign police later on tonight Well I think the bluff police will have a very workable document to be able to determine what is and what isn't so I appreciate you guys doing the work on that. Made it easy for me to understand. Farmakes: ...people who currently build on bluffs on s~...A lot of our bluff here is filled with sumac and they're not a lot of trees... Scott: No, they're sumac. Yeah. Aanenson: The intent is that they're going to...we've had a lot of requests from people who try to put, maintain the 30 foot but then they want to cut the slopes so they can have a walkout Farmakes: I'll give you an example of what's not within the bluff area. Down on Utica, 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Utica is a lake road that's low and then there's a bluff corning down. And it's fairly forested. The property comes over and down the bluff to the road, And a homeowner of one of the lake lots that were bought on that development put up a house and virtually whacked everything vegetation wise over the bluff. I don't know if that's high enough to qualify for Desotelle: You have to reamember it has to be, go up 25 feet with a slope of 30%. Farmakes: I think that's 25 f~L ~ close. Desotelle: Is the slope 30% then? Farmakes: Yes. Maybe even more. Mancino: There's one on Galpin like that too. Aanenson: What this ordinance does say is that fill or excavation material shall not be placed in the bluff. Farmake~: I've seen a lot of that go on outside of the bluff are~ Aanenson: That's exactly what we're saying. You know somebody making a cursory look at this bacl~..felt it shouldn't be applied citywide and as these developments are corning in, we're saying we don't have the tools in place and we feel like, if you don't want to ask for a variance and you feel it meets it as part of the subdivision, then it should be granted. Otherwise we feel like that should... Farmakes: But does thi,~ then also enforce for non new developments? Aanenson: If it's a lot of record, no. Farmakes: Okay. Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff? Harberts: ..aespond to the issues that were raised in these letters with regard to the resulting of overall lower density. Aanenson: Well in some circums~ it may. .. sometimes that's what required in order to preserve natural features... 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Harberts: So it's onc of those values that the community really endorses because it saves the natural features. As I recall from our work session that we've had, I think that was to be put in our intent statement. That one of the high priorities in development for this community is really saving and prese~w~g the natural features. So this is, so this bluff line ordinance is really in support of the overall city's... Aanenson: And again that really came out Bill Morrish's study. The rolling topography is really want makes Chanlmssen unique and we cerUdnly, we felt that it'd be short sighted just to keep...other areas in the city. Scott: And also reading through, especially Mr. Forbord's letter. Typically they tend to invest in very interesting plots and they address that market and what I've found is that when we have ordinances like this in place, it really forces already creative developers to become even more creative. They tend to almost always be PUD's and then in that sort of venue we can say, okay. Well here's the bluff. Well listen, we'll let you build 10 feet closer to the street. Make your street smaller. I mean the same sort of preservation work that we do with trees and so forth. So I know where Tcrry's coming from and. Aanenson: Again, ! think that's fight... Scott: I think we can work with PUD's. Mancino: I like us putting the values like that real clear up front and work around it. Scott: Could I have a motion to open the public hea~g7 Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone here who would like m speak at the public hearing regarding the city wide definition of bluffs? Yes sir. Please state your name and your address. Frank Fox: My name is Frank Fox. I have a farm southwest.., and on that farm I got about 60 acres of rolling woods which I think lends itself to beautifld building sites. And I've got some experience too in building horr~s myseff and one lot I built I built right in a ravine and the guy could water around it. You can do a lot with timbers. You can do a lot with rock and to block your water way in. And I agree with Mr. Erhart in respect that if you are going to restrict where you have to build back 30 feet from the edge of the bluff. If you want to have a deck out there that's 15 feet, that's 45 feet you have to be back. You buy a lot to build on. You want to take the best part of it and that's the view. That's what you're after. Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 And use of thc trees. You passed a tree ordinance not too long ago and that also restricts my property and along with this it will be more restfi~ve. It will be, you're limited the amount of building sites you can have on a piece of property and I think that you should take a good look at this. There are a lot of areas here in Chanhassen that already viola~ this ordinanc~ And if you take and go down 78th Street, look off to the right, and there's big mwnhouses going up there, and I don't know how they're going to hold that hill. And I'm also been out in southern California where they have a lot of erosion problems. They have to put plastic down on the side of the hill to keep the hill from eroding away. But there are a lot of ways of doing these things and I think it should be up to a developer and ff you have a city engineer that approves the plans that applies to contwl the water, then that's the way to go. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak about the bluff? Ann Miller: I would. My name is Ann Miller. I live in the Fox Chase area. I'm assuming that to identify what a bluff is, it obviously has something to do with surface water managenm~t. I mean is that why you are saying 25 feet back? Desotelle: The bluff definition is strictly based on the slope. The slope. You have to be 25, 30% of grade and it has to rise at least 25 feet before it can be considered a bluff. Ann Miller: Okay. And is that because of foundation problems or why would you still have to be back that far? Desotelle: Mostly just erosion conlrol and to preserve the dope from eroding further. Ann Miller: Okay, are the soils such in here that that is mostly likely to occur if you're closer than 25 feet? Desotelie: There are problems along the Bluff Creek corridor down in the lower pan of the city where you've got a lot of erosion and so there's a lot of problems as far as that is concerned here. In the northern pm't, I think it's mostly just to help preserve just the look of the city. To maintain the wpography. Ann Miller: Okay. What advisory cornmi~ have you asked for help on identifying what a bluff is? Aanenson: This comes strictly out of the DNR standards. Department of Natural Resources standards. When the staff looked at this in '91, we looked at at, plying it city wide. There was a huge study that was done and the Planning Commission was involved at that time and 31 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - July 20, 1994 they decided just to apply it to the southern half after discussing it numerous times. Now we're saying, now that we've seen a lot of subdivisions come in, we feel like it should have been applied city wide and we're reconmle_nding. Ann Miller: How will documentation be handled far policing this7 Aanenson: Well it's handled when you come in far a bnilding permit. Or if you come in far a deck permit, that's how we would review it. Ann Miller: Thank you. Scott: Good. Any other public comment? Seeing none, may I have a motion to dose the public hearing please? Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to do~e the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing wa~ do~M. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess Diane you said looking at the aerials, that the actual number of areas that are impacted by this, have we actually identified aH them ar is it just k4nd of a top level overview and we're saying there's not that many areas that are affected? Desotelle: We did not identify. .. so I can't tell you at all how many but we slarl~ to look at just a couple of ones that have been coming in and try to get a betl~ idea of how much we're talking about and...there aren't very many areas that have slopes this ~. Nutting: Are those areas undeveloped ar developed? Desotcllc: We were look'lng at undeveloped me, as. Nutting: I guess I don't have a problem with putting thc tool in place to force staff to look at these thing~ And also we do have the abih'ty to look at each development as they come in. If it's in a PUD ar whatever that we have the ability to look at issues that the developer presents a case worthy of variance ar othcmise. That we can take them on a case by case basis but I think it lays a good foundation. It puts the structure in that we seem to be lacldn§ in a lot of areas. I guess I would support staff's reco~tion. Scott: Good, Jeff. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1~ Narmakes: I support staff's recommex~lafion. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: So do L I think it brings it top of mind to developers, their ~pe ar~hitr~-'t~ etc to deal with the site and look at it more comprehensively than maybe is going on now. And I think it also sets a good value s~t for our city in saying, you know really we're interested in seeing and what we want to preserve. So I do support it. Scott: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I think I said it. Basicaily I don't have anything else to add. I support staff's recommendation. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I have a great deal of respect for Thn Erhart and he was very involved in this and I guess I'm a little uncomfortable in terms of the imp~ on certain developments in certain areas. I don't know how much area we're talking about. I don't know what the, bluffs to me were the major ones in the city. I was real concerned with Bluff Creek. Real concerned with Minnesota River valley but now it seems different to me. It seem.~ that when all the work went into this, there was good reason for not allowing it. Not applying it and I think right now we're just sort of taking a real quick cas, si glance at it and saying, well it seems reasonable and I think there's SOme _things that I would support but I don't know enough right now to make it a global statement that it should be applied city wide. I think there are reasons you preserve bluffs in some locations and I think there's some resuicfions that we impose on developers and that maybe I'm not comfortable with so again, I think there was a lot of effort put forth in '91. And there was some good rationale for doing what we did and I guess I'm not comfortable with just brushing it aside that quickly. Scott: What, you know off the top of your head. What were some of the major points that caused the ordinance to be applied just to the river valley? Conrad: It was probably more public vistas than anything else. Make sure that when the public had a chance for a good vista, when it was a public oriented natm~tl asset, it should be preserved. When it gets into a private nattwal asset, then you get into some gray areas. I think it's, since we're only talking about I or 2 areas in town, I feel comfortable. If I saw them, and I have a tendency to want to preserve those areas. Yet on the other hand I don't know what I'm doing here. I honestly don't know what this impacts. It's real quick. Real easy to put through. Haven't heard that much public comment on it. And as I say, I respect 33 Plavning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Tim Erhart's opinion. He's done a great deal for the city and when he was very involved in this, he wanted it. He absolu~y demanded some of these things. When I hear, see the letter tonight that says he's concerned, I have to be too. Sc. om Okay, thanks. Matt Ledvina: Well I read both letters and one thing that I noted was mi.~ng was, and with all respect to Tim ErbaR, former commissioner, the one thing that was mi.~sing was the discussion of you know what do you do to mitigate the situation with erosion problem,,. You know you can say yeah, you're reducing usage of property but what's the other side of the coin hem? Another thing that, when we have bluffs and we have erosion problems, that means that sediment is moving off site and sediment is moving into water resources, wetlands, whatever and in those instances where we may be congnxnnising with all these natural resources, or water resources. And those may not necessarily be owned by the specific property owner so I think that's another element in this discussion as well So I would support the staff's recommendation in this. I'm a little bit confused about this September 19, 1991 memo. Could you give us a summary of that Kate? Aanenson: Yeah, I just put that in for bac~und because Tim had indical~ in his letter to you that there was a recommendation that it only apply to certain areas. So what I did, I thought this background might be helpfi~l...he was the one concerned about the application city wide. I just wanted to, it gives a little bit better history of the bac~und. As Ladd indicated, there was a lot of work that went into this ordinance development so I just put that in so you'd get an idea of the background of the work that was done and what they were looking at. But really, originally, as I indicated at the be~nnin§, the DN-R when we were looking at the shoreland re§s had a definition of bluff so we looked ac .. applyin§ it city wide. Staff looked at applying it city wide. Mr. Erhart raised a concern about what would be the implications of...so they asked Paul Krauss, the Planning Director and Mr. Sathre, of Sathre- Berquist to review what would be the implication of... Again, it was kind of a cursory kind of..xegulations maybe go beyond too far. But again, you know we've seen a lot of changes since this was...and again I'm going back to the Mon'ish study and we're looking at specifically protecting the integrity of our topography which is...so we're saying that the cursory look that they did back then really didn't go far enough as to where we are now in trying to preserve these natmal feauu~. So cerlainly I understand where Mr. Erhart's coming from and...erosion and protection of the naumfl feaunv, s and maybe it warrants a larger lot and maybe under the PUD it...just to have the tools... Harberts: Question. I certainly understand what you're saying about public versus private. You know if we're looking at a sulxiivision that basically falls under that private ~ve. You know Diane talked about erosion or just to preserve the look of the topography. Within Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 a subdivision like that, does not the applicant have the opportunity to ask for a variance? Aanenson: In this background too I've done that. There were specific, I mean the question came up about what does this do about...and what about...they felt that the o~dimmce was workable and they supported it. So yeah, there are individual homeowners already along that bluff in the southern area that are meeting...have people that want to put swimming poola fight adjacent to the edge and we just thought it was too big of a risk. And we...so the existing homeowners that were there could clear a view, certainly. Just like...you allow some clearing for a view but not to clear cut and I think they support that... Harberts: I think what it does for me, you know with the presentation from Diane and Kate with regard to you know it has to have a certain percentage slope. Then you start looking at the erosion or if it's just to preserve natural frature~ With as much work and value that the community puts into the natural preservation, I think it's good to have that type of priority but you have that oppommity to ask for a recon~deration. So overall it's telling fol~ as they develop what's important. It helps staff. Then tell them why they can do this or can't do this. If you want to do this ai~d you have to ask for reconsicleration of that. And I don't have any problems endorsing an ordinance or what is this. Is this an ordinance ~dment? That really supports, really supports what our values, what our priorities are aU about. But I think like Ladd, I certainly respect what you're saying and I know you're just trying to mak~ sure that it's fair. It's equitabie and that we're not imposing some unfair restriction on people, either property owners or the developer. And I certainly suPtx~ that but I think this is a great opportunity where we're able to really, to endorse what we feel is i ~mportant for the Conrad: Just a quick response on that. I'm not §oing to talk too much on this one but what I do respect are the folks that put the time in to review some of these things and sometimes they don't always rnak~ the right decision. But on the other hand, they've devoted a lot more energy than we have in reviewing the situation- So it's not that I sm pro or con on the issue. I just know that there was a lot of energy put in and to get this in because it was very important in Chanhassen. Tonight we're talking about very easily moving it to city wide. I don't know if it's fight or wrong. I just, I haven't looked at the implications. On the surface it makes a lot of sense, which I would never debate. In terms of preserving. You know that that would be a high priority for me. But on the other hand, I don't know what the negatives are fight now. I do know that I've got some input from several people and they're concerned with it" I've got some input from Tim Erhart who was very involved in brining it to Chanha~en. And therefore I'm not always real thrilled with just to process something because it's conv~ent. Mancino: And that was what, 3 years ago? That the task force worked on it. 35 Planning Commission M~ting - July 20, 1~ Scott: Can I have a motion please7 Mancino: Let's see. I move that we adopt the amendment to ardinance, I need a little bit of help here folks. I move that we adopt the arazndme~ to ordinance number 207 Conrad: No, that was the last one. Aan~son: To Chapter 20. Mancino: To Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. The Zoning Ordinance. Scott: Is th~ a second7 Scott: It's b~n mov~l and s~comt~ that we adopt th~ amendment to the City Cod~ book. Is th~ any discussion7 I.~lvina: Just to clarify that. Article XXVIH, S~don 20-1402. Aanenson: It's all locat~ within S~don 20 so. Ledvina: Okay. I just want to rnak~ sur~ that we're being specific enough, okay. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mandno moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the amendmmt to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, Zoning Ordinance as presented in Attachment #1. All voted in favor, except Commiadoner Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Scott: And you stated your reasons. Motion cam/es. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE IR,AN TO ADOPT THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In_,AN (SWMP) FOR ~ CITY. Public Present: Name Address Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path Diane Desotelle presented the staff report o~ this item. Scott: Questions or comments from commi~oners? Hearing none, this is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: This is a public hearing. If any members of the public wish to speak about the surface water management plan, please step forward. As a matter of record, are there any people here who would like to speak about the surface water management program7 Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ann Miller: I would like to speak. Scott: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you when I was looldng around. Please identify yourself. Ann Miller: My name is Ann Miller. I live here in Chanhassen As I unders~ it, this is an amendment to the City Code and Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Surface Water Management Plato Does the surface water management plan include past development? What's already been developed? Was already illegal. I guess I want to know. Desotellc: What it has done is we've taken thc whole city and modeled it for surface water quantity and quality to help us with futu~ planning and existing, to see where you know, to not only slow the runoff rate and try to control...within the whole storm water systrm. Maintain the natural reso~ that we have in the city. The...wetlands. To develop a long term management program on our lakes and water resources to try to main~ what we have here in the city. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ann Miller: Okay. Can you define sairfa~ water for me? Desotelle: Well surface water is that wat~ which runs off the ground that you see. It's different from ground water. Ground water is underneath. Ann Miller: Would it include holding ponds and lak~? Desotelle: Yes it would. Ann Miller: Okay. So any water that we can see on the surface of the ground... Is there any liability right now for holding ponds as far as a lot of the holding ponds by the developers, that the city has the developers make, who's responsible as far as liability goes and the depth of those ponds? If a child would drown or something like that. Desotelle: I think that those would probably be decided on a case by case basis depeoding on what has happened. Scott: I know that some of the practices in the surface water management plan specify dopes that are quite gradual at the perimete~ of holding ponds. Obviously parental diligence is a priority here but you know from a liability sumdpoint, case by case by basi~ But in this plan there are, there's a second that describes how these particular ponds should be made. The responsibility for the maintenance of these are usually, there are always easements through the development to get to those ponds so city crews can clean them out, etc, etc. But this particular plan is available at City Hall and what most people will do, if there's a parti~ section perhaps that applies to maybe some issues that you have. Obviously Diane's here to answer your questions as part of the public hearing. But this is a document that's available to everyone and it's very explicit about a number of things you might find interesting. Ann Miller: Okay. Does it also address hydrologic connections between ground wa~ and surface water? Desotelle: No. Ann Miller: But it does apply to developed areas already...? Desotelle: Yes. The runoff rates on developed areas. The runo~ rates were based on undeveloped areas were based on what that future use will be. So we have kind of a worse case scenado...and those certain areas are developed, what sort of flows are we dealing with and what son of water quality issues are we dealing with. 38 Platming Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Ann Miller: What kind of issues directly would developers have to deal with regarding surface water management? Desotellc: They will have to givc their input, basically what thc system sets up is instead of each development creating pending areas within individual developments so we have ponds all over the place, we're trying to set up more of a regional system so maybe somebody downstream would have a pond built and they would contribute, everybody would contribute to the whole system so that we could have alL_connecting than have everybody just dealing with the water on their site. We're looking at the whole watershed and the runoff within the watershed. Scott: Good, thank you~ Any other comments on the surface water management plan? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was close& Conrad: I said this at the last meeting. It's a tm'tific piece of work. It is really what the city needs and I'm real thrilled that we have it in place. Or it's corning close to being in place. A couple questions that we had on the cornmitt~ and it's called the management of the plan and I'm not sure where that was. My understanding is that the committee who really watched over this has been dissolved and that I've also understmxi that some of the projects that have been identified have not really been implemented and I also know, I don't believe I've seen some of the educational things that the committee cared about. They haven't happened. So my issue is not with the plan. I guess my issue here is to just tell you, it's so much paperwork to understand this. It's hard to do but in terms of my attempts. Aanenson: Can we bring you up to date on some of that stuff? I think we haven't communicated as far as the educational...but we did provide money to the ~ group. They provided...at all the elementary schools not only that service the Chanhassen students. Some of them were in Chaska and some of them were in Excelsior Elementary, Clear Springs. We provided the play Totally Turtle. That was done this spring. We got a great response from the school It was ali about what ~ to water runoff and we got a great response from the schools on that. Maybe you want to... Desotelle: ...program throughout the city. I've been meeting with residents of Lake Minnewashta on a regular basis for the last couple months on Eurasian Milfoil. Our long term goal is to get a lake management plan for each of the ~ and present them to the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 residents and to get feedback from them. I plan on doing a survey on the lakes as far as how people use their lawns. Lawn care. Water quality care. Things like that that we can get an idea of what's going on there. What areas people really do need more information on. Afl~ we get the draft, Lake Management plan out there, we're going to get feedback from the residents and then we hope to have a final plan in place by next summer and I hope to get a lot of citizens involved with helping with the monitoring. Aanenson: I think one of the things that has come out of this plan...monitor whether or not our plan is actually ~§ the water quality and that's the intent of the monitoring so we can evaluate and say yes, we are doing a good job ns far as the ordinance and things that we have in place. So monitoring is a._as Diane indicated, we're working, she's working with one group right now... Desotelle: ...same iden too to get some baseline data and implen~nt some of these problems that we talked about... Crhere was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: ...some of the money. There are projects that get approved. You have some money that gets raised and how does that get managed. And the last thing is, not that I really want to cream another commission. I really want to put the bulk of thi,~ in staff's lap because that's what this manual's about. For guiding them. But on the other hand, there's some things that are beyond what staff might want to do and that is project priority and the environmental committee, may be that bundling of things. And if that's not there, then I don't know how it's being managed from a public standpoint, which means who makes sure these things are happening. Now when we can say staff is but on the other hand, I think we have to make sure, I'm real concerned that DNR is not letting us do some of the projects. Real concerned. If I had known that, we would have been doing some things. Nobody's told me. I haven't asked however. I don't find that acceptab~ in terms of, you know I'll find ways to make sure those things get going. But at this point in time there wasn't a mechanism to get me back involved. $o again, I raise those issues and I would really hope that staff, when you take this forward to the City Council, that those issues are at least brought up and that the management of this and the funding of it, if we don't have the stuff to do it, that the funding has to be there. Othemdse this doesn't work. Mancino: Just a question about the environmental board, a concept and that is, there's a lot of material here. I mean to pull people who haven't worked on this and to get them up to speed with thc bae~und information is going to take some time. Conrad: Yeah. A lot of our committees in Chanhassen, they sort of come in for a while and Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 then they leave and it's probably not r~l rewarding, to tell you the ~-uth. Aanenson: But really a lot of the... Harberts: I think it's re, ally understanding the role of an advisory committ~ versus that of technical staff. We look at staff to do the day to day. Undea'smnd what the details are and that your advisory point, that oversight. ...not really an ovea~ight but just to help establish the values, the priorities and which direction to send staff. Mancino: But I've never seen a good advisory commitme who ham't go in depth and understand and work and advise. I mean I don't think you could just sit out hem and not know some of that detailed stuff. I think you need that behind it to msim those good judgments. Harberts: But I think that's, you know look at the planning and it's thc same with the Plavning Commission. Understanding the ordinance. The intent. You know priorities but we all bring our own kind of spins because of what we feel is important as individuals but yet keeping it as a commnnity overall p~ipective. I would think that that environmental committee would try to serve that same fimction. I guess my only comment, question. From my understanding that the, we had a call from our...that this is also consistent with state and federal req~ts or guidelines or whatever it's called? Desotelle: Right, we have to still follow the Wetland Conservation Act and federal gm'delines. Those are some of the issues I'm dealing with and some of the work we want to do in wetlands. Harbem: And didn't we as a...community exceed those and am I mixing this up with something else? Desotelle: Well our ordinance basically allows us to go into some of these '%wer fimctioning wetlands" but how the city ~ them. However, the stat~ and the federal system do not allow you to do that. If our ordinance was more conservative, it wouldn't be a problerm But we aren't as conservative so we still have to follow their guidelines and that's... I'm dealing with. Some of the issues that the state and federal government is dealing with and they're going to be dealing with exteax~vely in thc next couple years. There's other cities bringing plans forward and growing urban communities. This idea of filnctioning wetland and what is considered a high or a low quality and when can you use a wetland for water quality purposes so that you can maintain the higher fullctioning wetl~d for habitat alld other types of natural reso~ that are imp~t. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20. 1994 Harberts: That's probably the extent of my comments. The only thing I find_ is when we talk about these NURP ponds and everything. How they're supposed to catch all the sediment and runoff and this is all the stuff that's supposed to be settling at the bottom. You know, what if in 20 to 40 years...smif at the bottom. Aanenson: That's why we didn't want a lot of little ponds. We wanted to... Harberts: But couldn't that be considered hazardous waste? Desotelle: ...and so far from what I've learned is the tests that have been done on this, say it's not. They don't have the heavy metals and things... Maybe some of the areas where you're real closo by an existing highway or... Harbens: So it is the city's responsibility for clean up? Scott: Well yeah. Desotelle: Part of the plan is for us to maintain the storm water. Harberts: That's it. Scott: Good, Matt Ledvina: I would echo Ladd's comments in terms of the document itself. It's a tremendous effort. 2 to 3 year effort by the SWMP committee and many, many hours and the implemeatation part of it is extremely important and we have to make sure that we fred ways of making the types of improvements we want to with the wetland areas and getting those projects going. That's certainly important. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: No new comments. I'm just very impressed by the work that's been done. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: rll echo those cotmnents. I'd support the recommendation. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Scott: Good, motion please. Conrad: Yeah, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommands City Council approve thc Surface Walrr Management Plan. Harbens: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the motion be volrd on as so stated. Is there any discussion? Mancino: I third it. Conrad roved, Harberts seconded that the ~ CommisMOll recommend approval of the Surface Water Management Plan as preseMeL All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COD~ ARTI~E XXVI~ REGARDING ~ SIGN ORDINANCE. Public PFesent~ Name Address Al & Shirley Seeley Clem Springer Roxanne Gregory Wanda Biteler Randy H. ~ Paul Karlson Herb Bloomberg Tom Lukes Bernie Hanson Dave Colehour Debbie Stacionis Robert M. Murray Dan Herbst Kevin P. McShane VemeHe Clayton 586 West 78th Street 1550 E 79th SUe't, Bloomington 7091 Redman Lane 910 Penamint Court 2792 Piper Ridge Lane 7888 Market Blvd. 7008 Dakota Avenue 400 West 78th Street 7890 Market Blvd. 7886 Market Blvd. 788O Market Blvd. 7900 Market Blvd. 7640 Oimson Bay 180 South Shore Court 422 Santa Fe Circle 43 Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 Scott: Maybe what we can do is field some comments and then have a public fruiting and then I'll msire a few comments prior to the public ~g, so. Nutting: Kate, what's your, the first on page one of the Chamber's comments and recommendations. Actually it's page one. The first reconm~ndation where they propose revising the variance, Section 20-1253. What is staff's? Aanenson: That's in place fight now in the ordinance. You have a right to appeal for a variance. What page are you on? Nutting: It's comment number one. It's 5 pages back from thc stsrt- Where they're referring to the hardship terminology. Is that standard Im'minology? Aanenson: That's in the code fight now. It's standard legal language. Again, I'm not sure... Nutting: That's consistent with all? Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: Kate probably, and I'd like to have the other commissioners give us some feed~ on this but I'm thinking, perhaps what might be important for all of us here is that if there are sections in the comments and recommendations that are already contained or there are already vehicles for example, this is a good example. The first one. That there already is a variance vehicle to take care of this so we can limit the discussion at the public hearing to items that are not currently covered. And I think there also might be some misconceptions as to whether window signs are permitted or not. Because I read Mr. Burdick's ~ reacting to window signs being prohibited and that's true with the existing ordinance but it is not true with the ordinance as proposed. So what we'll fry to do for all of you is try to identify things that may have been misconsmuxi so that if you're here for that particular part of the issue, if you have a second issue that you want to talk about, great. But we want to hear all your comments but I think if we can maybe knock a few of them off before the public hearing, we'll try to do that. Harberts: Joe, because staff didn't have an opportunity to really review this and I don't know if it's fair to put Ka~ on the spot like this. Wouldn't it be advantageous to first let staff have an opportunity to maybe dissect it a little bit and maybe do some of that analysis. Maybe see where some of those points of contention are. Those points that are similar. Otherwise I'm afraid, you know what are we trying to do with thi~ when staff hasn't really looked at it to Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 maybe compare it what's already out there or wlmtever. Scott: Well we have a public hearing. Har~: Right, but this is, I just don't want to see Kate put on the spot I think the comments are good but I'm just wondering if we might want to be careful so we don't try and put staff into a comer here because they haven't really had an opportunity to look at it. I think the comments are good to take but I just don't want to put ~ on the spot here in terms of how is this intm'preted given what we already have or, that's just my comments. Scorn Yeah, I think I'd just leave it up to you. If you can respond to tamain thing~ Aanenson: ...there are a lot of issues in here mad maybe decide what the philosophy and some of the broader issues are. I'll go through the things that are just as an overview .... to start over. Well first I thinir the ordinltn~ we have in place is pretty dam good and ff we want to leave that one in place, that's fine. I think we were talking about getting some, again the Highway 5 issue. Architecttmd compatibility which...I frankly would recommend starting over...we put some flexibility in here. One of the other big issues was no regulation of temporary signs and I think philosophically stuff opposed to that... We do support the fact that there is appropriate locations and use of window signs and...we do support that. One of the other issues is location of signs for real e _st0__~...as far as setback and number and intent. You know having additional si~ for other, people that finance the project. People that design the project and w~'ve always felt like that should all be on one sign and given enough square footage to... And another issue that was mised...~l~ leased and/or completely sold out and so~ that takes years and years and years. Meanwhile the sign...Again, our ~t ordinance does address that. We didn't change that at all reaflly and I think the existing ordinance. .. and that decision will be allowed when we build that_Again, there's a recommendation...co~ for turn about on Highway 7. Should they allow a pylon sign. Only the commercial can have...are not allowed a monument sign anyway. I guess some other issues as far as legal non-conforming signs, that's ctm'enfly addressed in the code. If we have any legal non-conforming si~s, you can change the copy but you can't change the sign itself as far as the structural changes. If you're going to change the copy, that's acceptable. That's already existing in the code... The next question about allowing...we don't allow anything like that in that currently. I mentioned the request for a trmporary signs. We don't support that. Again, there was a concern about the formula that staff has. This is one of the bigger changes is the relationship between heights of building, percentage of wall sign and scale of the sign. What we did to change in this ordinance to try to make the size of the sign have a proportional relationship, to the size of the building, which is not...now and that is a standard change and there is some concern that that would be too reslfictive. Stuff supports what we have in here in this document as far as reconvnendations. There are a couple of 45 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 points that were raised. There are some... They asked that signs closer than 200 feet, that maybe 100 feet. Farmakes: Where are you looking Kale? Aanenson: On page 1. The first page. Under change (d) to read closer than 100 feet from residential and... That may be acceptable. Another one, as I said, you can't have a sign facing a residential area. That's...completely facing residentiaL .. some areas you can see Byerly's from the wwnhouses behind__ That may be too restrictive in certain areas. We can look at this...I'm sorry, I have a lot of notes in here but those are just some of the...so just some overview thoughts. Scott.: Comments, questions from commissioners. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Please step forward. Identify yourself, name and address and if you could, if you feel similarly to someone who has spoken before you, please state that if you like. No one's allowed to use the word reitma~ but please stick to specific issues. And as best you can, try to keep ~ack of what's already been discussed because this is a very important session for all of us and we want to make sure we get your comments. My sense is, and please correct me. We expect a ~remendous amount of input. We may need to continue this to another meeting to have staff time to react to your specific conunents, which the way I, speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission, appreciate what you've done. Typically in public hearings on occasion, we have members of the public who are not as well prepared and it's very ~t for us to try to juggle all the information so thank you in advance for that. Who'd like to go first? Kevin McShane: Good evening. My name is Kevin Mcihane. I reside at 180 South Shore Court in Omnhassen. I'm also involved in busines~s in town with the State Bank of Chanhassen. And I'm also currently the President of the Chamber of Conunerce for this year. Mr. Ctmirmsn, members of the commission. Thank you for the opporumity to visit about this tonight. We did, as a chamber, spend a lot of time and effort with a variety of people putting together these comment~. To go back to Kate's comments, I was one of the chamber members involved in the original subcomnfittee that reviewed thi~. The two people who were involved were retailers, myself and Gene Borg with McDonald's in Wwn. This obviously encompasses a lot of other businesses, developax, commewial people, industrial park type folks and certainly we're going to hear some con'anents from some of those wnight. My Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 comments are more general from the standpoint that I do believe that there needs to be some additional work on this and possibly a way to approach this is to get a subcommittee of sorts of the commission and business people to really work through a lot of these issues. There has been a variety of drafts done on this. I've been looking at it for 2 1/2 years. There was a period of time where not a lot happened on it and other people looked at it so the original group was somewhat resurrected about March of this year and between the time, the last draft we saw as Chamber members and so about March of this year, other groups had seen it and there had been changes. And each time there's a change, people need to be able to react to it and hopefully we're to the point now that we can narrow in on it and talk about the specific issues. There are some comments in here that relate to the existing ordinance. I think as we went through, at least my version of it is not only look at the existing ordinance in terms of some of the specific changes but if there are other things in them that people wanted to comment on, that was the way it was approached. The people that were involved, Chamber and non-Chamber members but basically business people in town, did lake the approach that they wanted to do this in concert with everyone. You know we don't necessarily want to stand at a public heating and hash through every issue and so therefore I think it may make sense to get some rooms Wgether and do sorrg more work on it. There are a number of people here tonight who have spent time on it. Would like to comment on specific things and we'd like them W have the .opportunity to do that. I think the key is, as a business person, signing is a form of advertising and a form of marketing and those are some of the most key things in your business that you do. You can do a lot of bac~und things. But really to let the public know who you are, where you are and get an identity, is what marketing and advertising is all about. Signing, with the amount of money spent. I know our sign, I tried to find the exact numbers. I think it was in the neighborhood of $25,000.00 for a moving sign. It gets to be a siL-mificant investment on the part of a business. And you spend a lot of time and effort maintaining that. I think we're all aware of bad signage and good signage and certainly we can all come up with examples of that. I think the intent of the current business committee is to, as they've upgraded businesses, we've seen a lot of redevelopment. People have not used their old signs. They've spent money on new ones. I mean that was important to their business and I think the spirit of the business commnnity is evident in what we see on main street today. And in the induslrial parks, etc. So I would encourage this group to set aside some time and re. ally go through each one of these issues because they're important to all kinds of people in this room. With that I'd like to turn it over to some of the other folks that have specific conumnts about specific areas in the Scott: Good, thank you. Kevin McShane: Thanks. Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Dan Herbst: Good evening. Chairma~ members of Planning Commission. My name is Dan Herbst. 1 live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen and I'm coming to you from three perspectives tonight. I served as a member of the Planning Commission and Omirman back when one of the first sign ordinances were proposed and I know what it's like to be screamed at in a room like this that I was anti business and I know what it's like to be screamed at other places worse things but I know what you're going through. It can be a contentious issue, I also have been in the land development, housing business. I have a company called Perntom which has been in the housing land development business ~nce 1963 and I'd like just touch on the perspective of some speci~c information we have given to staff and included in your information. Thirdly, I also own Cheers Wine and Spirits in town and I want to just briefly talk about the impact of this sign ordinance on that business. From a historical perspective, I tbinic you know, I mentioned on previous occasions to some of you that we were the commission who drafl~ the land use plan and ordinances when nothing was going on out here. We were actually encoura~ng businesses and you're looking at a whole wave of activity. I think you find it very threaI~g but I think the important thing is to look at what other cities have experien~. Right now we're meeting as a core city task force with the Mayor of Minneapolis, Mayor of St. Paul to look at how do w remove barriers for businesses and housing. So I think it's important that you don't turn the screws too tight not only in the sign ordinances but other ordinances as you're proce~ng through this process. Even cities such as Edina have problem~ with 50th and France. They had to look at all their ordinances. Bloomington out at 98th and Lyndale. Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park. So many times you're flooded with an onset of development activity and signage is one of them and you tend to make ordinances tighter and tighter and fighter and all of a sudden businesses are failing and going other places and you've got to go back and relook at it. So it's a very costly process. And you've got to go through TIF and things like that to bring businesses back or relook at your ordinance so I think if you ezr on anything, you ought to err on the side of being more liberal instead of being conservative and tightening the ordinance up. From the land development perspective and the housing. I guess I'd ask you to think about when you first purchased your own home out probably in Chanhassen. Signage is extremely important. Study after study that we've done, you think people come to you because you're Perntom or you're Lundgren or whatever the case may be but basically people get in their cars and they drive on a Saturday and Sunday and they start looking for housing in the area that they think they may want to live. And directional signs, model home siva, are very, very important. Parade of Home signs are very hnportant. Weekend signs. You don't see builders, realtors climbing out in 20 below weather sticking out signs on the corner because they want to do it. It's not a fun activity but if you sat in a model home and didn't have signage up, you would realize how important it is. So we have given some language that's been adopl~cl recently by Eden Prairie and by Burnsville and it's incorporatecl in our comments that Kate has and if we could have that same perspective on lhe weekend going up at the set time when we put in our comments. The Parade of Home signs. That Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 would be extremely help~ because it's not only helpful to the business person. It's extremely important to the consmuer. Thirdly, and I don't know the pylon sign. I would not have leased the space I have without the pylon sign. It's very, very impomnt. The window signal{e, you know no one probably dislikes it more than I do. I don't even like to pull up in front of my business but it's a business where from the Liquor Contwl Commission, you are not allowed to advertise price in the newspaper. You cannot put anything in these valpacks. And your ability to advertise wines and liquors are extremely, exlrerr~y limited. That's why you see so much going on in windows and that's the only way consumers are going to be able to compare. I think one of the key elemen~ we brought to town when we opened up Cheers was that we added a stwng element of competitiveness to retail part of wines and spirits. But signage is very, very hnporlant to us and it's the only way we could lmsic, ally advertise what's going on inside that store. So I know the existing ordinance or one of the drafts had no window signs. Now it's 33%. As far as this particular swre that I have now, the whole store is windows so it's not going to hnpact us. There's probably a number of people here that 33% is not going to be enough to help them conmmnicate their business so I again, I'd like to also repeat what Kevin said. If a couple of our committee, a couple of the Planning Commission and also someone from staff could get together and fine tune this thing and bring it back, I think it would be much more beneficial than not. There's a lot of people very upset going all the way up to Council and having the process work very contentious and then having a system where you' have a lot of signs that are not in keeping with the ordinance and it's really impossible to go out there and picking up and taking down signs and sending people letters and all that kind of stuff so I think again, it's better I think if you err on the side of leaving the sign ordinance as little as possible. Let the people who advertise their business for...Thank you very much. Scott: Thanks Dan. Vernelle Clayton: My name is Vemelle Clayton and I know I can't say reiterate but... Scott: Also. And I agree with. Just don't say reiterate. Vernclle Clayton: I participated in a number of the meetings that were held by thc group comprised of thc Chamber committee that it was sort of a revolving door. We had some people at some ~gs and others at others and there were some...Therefore we had a variety of input but there were some things that..~g through all of them. One of the ones that hasn't been discussed here, one of the points that hasn't been discussed by the various speakers is one that I'll touch on first and then I'll just be very brief after that... And that is the language relating to a violation becoming a misdemeanor. I think while you have heard that most people...window signs and certainly they are, I think that this sends a very negative image and...formulate a response that goes kind of like with this. We have a cooperate spirit. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 They would like a cooperate spirit and they don't need to be presun~ to be a person that would directly or a person aifect~ by signs but a lot of people... These are our neighbors, our friends, the people that we shop with and work with and to think that the city needs to create a situation where every day they have somcthing out that strong, it's a mi_sd~or is kind of the message I don't think you want to send. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? Any violation of the city code, anything in the city code, anybody notified, violation... VcmeUe Chyton: This was new language that was added. Aanenson: Well anything, if you're cited for a violation of thc code is a Chs~ B misde~or. Mancino: So that's just clarifying. Aanenson: It's just, we pulled it into that section of the code but any violation. If we send sornebody...get a permit, then we send a notice they didn't comply and we would have the right to, normally our procedure is we send them a letter then we send a follow up letter saying you've got x number of days and then if we don't get compli~ce, we turn it over to the City Attorney. And yes, ultimately that could be...Class B misdemeanor but that is any Vemelle Clayton: Is each day added for this, per this ordinance... Aanenson: Yes. h's applied city wide. If you're in violafiom..that that could happen. Vemelle Clayton: So that's even. Well let me say that. If it's possible that..mi~clemeanor could be deleted fwm this section of the ontinance if we'd like that. If it's possible. If not, the for each day, we cerufinly would like that. Aanenson: Well we could take it out of that section of the code but it's still in the city ordinance. I think we put it in there so everybody's on notice. It's in the code. At the beginning of almost all the city ordinances in thc city code book. Vemellc Clayton: You know the attitude that I just expressed the attitude that thc group expressed and so you cam Aanenson: I don't thin~..normally the proccd~ is to send a letter and we usually get CAx)pcrationo o o Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Vemelle Clayton: And that's the point. The point is that our solution was that the ordinance should be the type of ordinance that represents a cooperative, friendly and helpful attitude for the businesses. I think unless it is so restrictive, there is probably not much change that you can continue with that type of rneasmw to enforce it. And that was our point. I would like to address perhaps the way the planning...a bit because most of the folks limt I wozk with on a daily basis are merchants who are affected by the window signage. And I would also like to say I tbini~ if we can, I can parallel my experience perhaps with your's in that we work in brin~n§ plans of building to completion. We have beau~ plans in multi color, chalk and photo and so forth and we've conjured up a mental image of what this project is going to look like when it's done. So do you. You approve a building that has x number of square feet and the windows are here and...and so forth and...beautiful building. And then it's built and people move in. At that point it's no longer mine. It's no longer your's. Now we've turned it over to other folks who have another idea. Another use. And they put it to use, in this case, ...for it's intended use which is retail The windows are used to display merchandise. In some cases they put up signs that are very i .mponant to them. I might not like it. There are several signs around town personally that I don't like. But it's none of my business. It's a little bit of my brininess since I have something to do with managing Market Square but only to the extent that something that any individual tenant might do that would be detrimental to the overall hnpact or image of the entire shopping center and not harmful to some of the other Imumts and their reputation. These folks, this is their livelihood...but as taxpayers in Chanhassen, we cerlainly depend on them to wsire sure that each of our individual taxes on our individual homes are not as high as they would if we didn't have iradl and industrial community. And we're I guess, I'm speaking about messages. I'm speaking about lettin§ go. I'm speaking about letting the merchants make some of thek own decisions on what kind of image that they want. It might not be my image. It's their image. If they feel it's tacky, they'll go out of business. That' s. ..run through several times in our meetings. That maybe these guys should be making their own decisl'ons. If they have a tacky shop, they'll probably be out of business. So to summarize, I'd encourage you to k~zp it simple and practical. Keep a ~ attitude and yet we did add,ss sections of the ordinance that have not been as a body of the repolt So it was intentional. There weren't any reference to making some changes in the area that we thought needed to be changed. Or had been in... Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else? You don't need an invitation. You can just come up. Would anybody else like to speak? Clem Springer: Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Clem Springer. I manage the Town Square. My address is 1550 East 79th Street in Bloomington. I support in general the comments and recommendations that have been made by the Chamber. I had an opportunity to read those just recently. I was planning on making some specific comments 51 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 about the ordinance but to start that I don't have the cummt one. The one I was sent was dated back in May and I've not been recei~g anything ~ since that time. Again, I'm most concerned about the interior sign conu'ols. I think this goes beyond the public safety and welfare that's usually the reason for a dty being involved in sign ordinances. And I think there's been an over reaction in part to some existing problems in this city. I've managed property here for 6 years and I've felt, as one of the new people in town, that I'm being restricted in ways that existing people are not being res~ in terms of the kind of signage that they have. I was wld for example when I came to town that I could not put a sign on my shopping center for rent if I didn't have at least 20% vacancy. I see signs other places in the comnmnity that have been up for 6 years saying they're for rent and that kind of bothers mc that uneven enforcement I think of some of the ~S today and I think that if some way was found to bring up the code enf~t on the ones that are there today, that you'd probably be less concerned about what's going to be done in the future. That you'd probably find that you rid yourself of a number of problems. I see pylon signs for example on TH 5 that advertise off site premises. I see si,gn.~ that welcome us to Chanhassen as we come. And I think those kind of signs have to be taken into consideration in your ordinance and make sure that what applies to the public also applies to some of the things that the city is involved with. I thing the main thing that's being stressed is that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in the context of what's economically reasonable for the business people as well as what gives you the kind of impact an aesthetics that you want in your city but I think you have to have advertising, marketing of the businesses w be able to have them success~ and pay some pretty high taxes. The center that I have here in Chanhassen has the higher tax rate of all the centers that I've managed. More than 50% more than the other centers and that imposes quite a burden on the retailers. Thank you for your time. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anytxxiy else like to ~ aJ: the public hearing? Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail I'm with Lotus Realty. I guess my only real concern about this, and other things that have been going on within the city is that we've brought 40 businesses to the community and along with Clem and others, are concerned about their survival. And I have been in business a long time and normally when you change an ordinance you first of all state your mission and I don't really care how you personally feel but I think for your own conunents, if you're going to comment, so I want to know if you're pro business or anti business. Because I perceive the documents that I've seen so far on this are anti bu~ness. And that's why you have these people here. That's why they've probably spent 100 hours on this particular thing and I really don't care. If you feel that you're anti business, you're not concerned about the people in the community that pay 5 times the taxes you pay as a homeowner. The people that really are here putting out their life, that's fine. I want to hear that because I think that's the key issue here. The issue is, if you look at Guys 52 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 and Dolls, how do you like their sign7 h looh pretty good right now. Herb has put a lot of money into that facih'ty without your asking to change the look of that particular building. Over the last, and the signs are being changed. All our buildings that we have built have gone along with what the city has. Aanenson: I'm sorry but I have to conunent on that Brad. That Wok a lot of wozk, since I've been with the city, to get some regeneration of those signs that are up there. We got in a big dispute with...where we were very offended with their corning to the city and we wouldn't let them have the sign they wanted so. Brad Johnson: I'm not disagreeing with you but I think Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with your comments you know but I just want to make sure that it's clear that we worked very hard to try to get those signs changed. Brad Johnson: I'm not, I'm just saying that the signage in the community dnce I was here for the last 7 or 8 years has changed dramaticaUy. Each new building that we have come, we have met your requirav, ents. We've agreed on signs and I think we're getting there but I think the botwm line is that you have to decide if you're pro business. Are we encouraging busing. We compete with Eden Prairie and 1V[inn~ and other communities. And these people have to survive. That's all my feelings are and I'd like to hear, as you comment on this, the first step I want to hear from each of you is are you pro business-or anti budness. Thank you. Scott: Any other commits? Debbie Stacionis: Hi. I'm Debbie Stacionis and I guess I apologi~ for not, I haven't seen the latest proposal. I just have a question and some clarification on the signage. What, as far as how much of windows can be covered or has that been...? Harberts: I think the question is, has it been proposed. Aanenson: What we're recommeadiag, it's 33% but then also there was a cap put on there based on the fact that we capped your wall si~t, na so what we decided is that you went to 33% the area of a window sign. So you have ia~ it as a total window area for that space of the building and...tolal window sign area exceeded the wall sign area...so there's a formula for that and... Debbie Stacionis: So 33%... 53 Planning Commission M~dng - July 20, 199~ Aanenson: There's a caveat with it toud wall sign... Debbie Stacionis: Well okay, I guess my question is. Aanenson: I have to know the size of the fl'ont of your bnilding. I guess I can't answer that completely. Debbie Stacionis: My question is, are you looking at the total sign? I'm thinking of my sign in particular which are very large however if you're going to consider only the neon and consider the area of the neon, it would not be so I guess I'm trying to figure out where I stand. You know what I'm saying. It's not a solid sign. So how is that going to be ~ntcrpret~? Aanenson: The way it's intrrpretcd is we tak~ the outside area and that would be the square footage. Debbie Stacioni~: Even though the square is empty. Aanenson: So maybe that needs to be an area that might need some clarification. Neon v~'sus. Debbie Stacionis: And how did...that certain percentage? How did the 33%? Aanenson: Surveying other commnnities and through the work that thc Planning Commission discussed it and that was their recornmen_ O~tion. Debbic Stacionis: Thank you. Scott: Good. Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close thc public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Just a question. Do you have, I'm trying to think if whether it would be appropri~e to continue this p~ issue to the next meeting to give, do you feel that staff needs time to digest some of these co~ts? Aancnson: Well I guess I'd like to hear some of your commcnts...givc me some direction. Scot~ Okay. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 199~ Har~: I'll start. Scott: Oh, okay. Harberts: I would reco~ that Kevin's comment eadier about the partnersh'? and addressing this issue, with the importance that it has on the comm~'s vitality, both in terms of the look as well as the survival of businesses...l would ccn'lainly encourage that they continue with a round table discussion made up of staff, commission mem~, chamber members, the business community. And just come to, try and come to an understanding or agreement or compromise or whatever that everyone feels is a win/win situation. That's my comments. I do not feel comfortable with moving this on and I think it's very i .mpmlant that we take into consideration the comments from the people that this is most affecting. Given the amount of work and interest that they have portra~ here. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: I would echo Diane's comments. One I think, I'm real impressed with the Chamber. I told some memben this already. I really appreciate the involvement. I think it's si~rmificant. It's obviously not in line with what the proposal was but I think that's good just to have their involvement in a real organized way. But my recommendation, there are so many. I have my own issues and I see some issues that I think need some time to take a look at and sync it up with our ordinance or kick it out but I think that's son of, that's a work session. And I've been trying to think of the formulation for that work session. How does that work? Is that a little committee? Is that a Planning Commission work session? And I'm not totally sure but yet I might, I would propose that we get two chamber members, two Planning Commission members, staff and maybe somebody at large. Maybe somebody from the public community that we could bring in that might be a little bit non-biased. Might reflect some community thoughts. And see what that work session could turn out. I don't know that there's going to be agreement in that. But on the other hand, I think we could probably get fid of some of the issues in that work session and come back with, to staff or come back to the Planning Commission with somethin§ that's closer. Harbens: I would just also comngnt that I think the cn'dinance that staff has tkaft~ or framed is also good. $o it's just in a sease finding that balance ~ what tho city's trying to be guided as and what the business community needs to meet their concerns. So I think, you know I'd have to also endorse the efforts by staff. Conrad: I think it's interesting to see reality. What you're seeing is an ordinance that might be drafted in nice philosophy but now we're seeing it tested in real situations and maybe we can learn some things. So again, I do believe we need, there's no way we're going to be fair 55 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 if we try to go through this point by point tonight. I flfiuk it does need some more work. Scott: Good. Matt. Ledvina: I would agree with Ladd and Diane. But as far as a work commitIee, I think that's a good idea. I don't know the exact formula for that but I would be receptive to seeing the whole Planning Commission involved since it's ~lly at our, it's our responsibility as a whole group. You know to ts~e. it from this point and bring it to the Council. Or forward it to the Council with the changes. The necessary changes so I don't know. Conrad: That'd be alright. I think. Nutting: A Phnnin§ Commission work session and in support of that in that small group maybe more, put all the commissioners inw that, either way. Farmakes: All of the work sessions were attended by Chamber representatives. All the work sessions that I've attended had a Chamber representative sitting in observation anyways. Scotg Ron. Nutting: I guess I support the comments made already. I guess I'll leave my other comments to later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I think this needs more work. There are seveaal areas that could be ~ in a work session. I _think it's good to get it out in front of the group that's concerned about it. Find out where intea~sts are s_nd where reality is, as Ladd has said. However, I do want to make a comment. I don't think the issue is pro business or anti business. I think the issue is pro community. And that's why I'm here. Why I'm volunteering my time. These issues of signagc are really can be quite overt and they can be very subtle. They ~ the flavor of a community and it's not always based on the dollar. Some of you who §o to Wisconsin Dells, where it's essentially wide open compcfitiom Every signage badcally can be put up and you get a prolifcry of tacky signage. It's left up to the individual, the store manager. The process that we have here is not to leave government up to the store manager. It's a process of commenL Process of community involvement. And it's a process of the profess~nal staff and advice. And I think it works best when we wozk together to sell this pwpa~. Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion please? 56 Planning Commission Meeting - July :20, 1994 Harber~: I would move that the Planning Commission table the sign ordinance and that staff work to develop this type of task force or sign commission work session, whatever is appropriate. I think the Chamber's certainly been a real key player so I would support the comments made by Ladd with regard to make up. Scott: What is our schedule look like as far as work sessions coming up7 Because I think it would be advantageous if we could schedule that while these folks are here. Audience: Are you inviting our comments at that work session7 Scott: Yeah. Audience: I mean are you asking that we be vocally involved7 Scott: That's conect. Just like I know you and Kevin cam~ to one of the work sessions and that's basically what it is~ It's not neces~y a published public hearing but it's more of an informal, and this is very formal and I think for something like this, there'd be more interplay. Anybody who wants to come is able to come. Audience: I think we were just under the impression that we've been allowed to sit in on a work session but we weren't allowed to make connnents. Aanenson: That's not true. We've asked for your comments and been waiting and waiting and waiting. Scott: But perhaps that wasn't obvious and that's, as the C~i.~rso~ that's partially my fault but. Audience: So we can join in at a work sessiou? Scott: Absolutely. Audience: Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Scott: Yeah, okay. Aancnson: That's why we invited you up to the table... Audience: Oh, see I was really under the impresdon, and I think we all were, that it was kind of a you could be seen but not heard. That this was a work meeting for you guys 57 Phnn/ng Commission Meeting - July 20, 1~ where, with a lot of community involvement k was really going to just become_ a public heating without notice. So we were under the hnpresdon that we weren't allowed to make comments or put input in until this stage and I think that's the impetus to asking for real direct dialogue between, so instead of just having something on paper, we can say thi~ is why we're looking at it from this angle. So I guess there's been. Harberts: I don't know and I don't know if a work session is the right environment or if it's just a task force in terms of the in~ Scott: I don't really care what it's called. Let's schedule it. Harberts: No, I don't either. Aanenson: When you start breaking it down, to have some people that don't undersmm/the rationale as to how we got to where we are and I agree with, I _think Matt's right on. If you don't ts ire everybody on board to understand the rationale, why we have the ordinance we do, we're back trying to educate the rest of you as to why we're...so I appreciate Matt's comments. I think we all need to be there to be hwught along. And the same with the Chamber. Now you have to reco~iT¢ that there's competing interests out there and if you take the narrow focus of your spokespeople, you've got to make sure those people who have different interests than the people that are leading it, that they're attractin§...too. Scott: Well if I can suggest. I wean it was the way it was handled today, I think worked really well. I mean the President of the Chamber of Co~, who is also a business. We had retail. We had developers. We had mall managers so I think amongst yourselves you can probably identify, get the broad brush and maybe we're talking half a dozen people. I'm not going to tell you want to do but I think you can figure it out. But how does the schedule look and I would think like a 5:30, couple hours before one. Next ~me? Is that okay, August 3rd? You're all invited. So it will be 5:30, Wednesday. August 3rd and then what we'll do is we'll give it 2 hours and if we're not where we want to be, we'll be doing that on the 17th. And probably figure within this kind of focused effort, 4 hours we should probably be able to at least get it to the point where we can bring it back to another public hearing and possibly resolve it so. Great. And ~'s a motion that has not been seconded. So can I have a second please. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Comn/ssion table action on the Amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance for further study. AH voted in favor, except Commismi~'oner l~o who had left the meetin~ and 58 ~g ~ommission Me~flng - July 20, 199~ the motion cnrried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Harbe~ second~ to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated 1uly 6, 1994 ns presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: We've got a lot of things to talk about. They approved the second reading of the Highway 5 overlay zone so it's just a matter of publishing. We have a Highway 5...overlay district itseff. The approval of the Marcus Corporation, the Kin~ request was approved subject W a letter from Councilman Senn indicating that he has no financial interest in the project Scott: Can I ask you a question about that? I talked with Roger a little bit about it and that document was going to be put together, or maybe has been put together by stuff. Because I was reading. Aan~son: I believe Roger was preparing that Scott: Yeah, see I read in the paper that Roger was going to do it. And then so I gave him a call and he said, what? And then I wasn't trying to, you know I thought that was, I mean I read the thing and I went wow, this is kind of interesting. So he went, oh wait a minute. And I said well gcez, you know I d_idn't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thing but I said if you're going to talk to staff shortly, you might want to, bcca~ that needs to get done. That needs to get resolved. Aancnson: It will be on the... Mission Hills, Tandem Properties was given preliminnry plat approval. I tom you that they did modify the park area. The issue that thc Planning Commission raised. I give Todd Hoffman a lot of credit because he really went to bat on that project and took a lot of heat and I think we're going to have a lot better quality project based on areas what you talked about and...did a great job there. The Oaks at Minnewashta was given preliminary plat approval That's the one on Kings Road with Rte par~ 1ust for your information, the residents south of Kings Road have asked that an EAW be done. They're concern~ with the wetlands. Mitigation... Nutting: What happens to that request? Aanenson: It goes fight to the EQB. They have a number of days to decide who the ROU...back to us and then when it goes to the City CotmciL we can go through the issues that they bring and whether or not we support. Whether or not it should have an EAW. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes. The applicant wasn't there. He indicated that he didn't get a copy of the packet in time...so that will be on City Council on Monday. The City Council did amend the CB D zone to allow for the schools. They did the first and second reading based on the fact that they're not going to have more than 3 people at the meeting. For a code amen~t they need 4 people so they did that The telephone switching was given approval and the first re~__ding for the acces~ ~ was also given approval. The next agenda will be light on the Council because they will only have 3 people there. anything that needs a code amendment, which is the shoreland regs, we couldn't put on. We need 4/5 on that. The next Planning Cowmi~ion meetings, we have a couple of subdivisions on there. We just came in with the rest of the, or two of the outlots on the Target so you'll be seeing that on your August 18th meeting. The Perk-ina and the Taco Bell And going to HRA tomorrow night is conceptual design...entry monuments if you're in, rested in that... Scott: Okay, good. Aanenson: Oh, and I just wanted to say. We did hire somebody. A Planner L He'll be starting on August 1st and we're real excit~l. His main primary responsibility will be code enforcement and. Scott: That's a first, isn't it? Aanenson: Well when I was asked, part of being Harming Director, that was one area that... Scott: Yeah, if we're going to make them up. Good. We don't really have any ongoing items do we? Aanenson: I need to put something in the packet. We have a list of ongoing items but I can knock a lot of those off so I'll put that in next time. I've just been so busy that I haven't been able to do that but we've got the Highway 5 stuff done. We're...the shoreland got done, so we're really... Oh some other good news. We've been appwved for the underpass. On Highway we put in on some ISTEA money that we got...Bluff Creek and we just found we did get approval for that so when we build that segment of road next year, we'll have the Scott: That's great, and that's Bluff Creek? Aanenson: Yeah, the south frontage road... Scott: Okay, I guess the next item is open discussion but I hear briefcases so hopefully we won't. Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 20, 1994 Conrad moved, Harberts ~conded to atij~ the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Submitted by Kat~ Aanenson Planning Director ~ by Nann Oph~n 61