Loading...
PC 1994 11 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBER~ PR~ENT; Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT; Nancy Mancino and Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; $ohn Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director PI. JBLIC HEARING; PREIJMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FA_M]LY ~ ZONED RSF, RF~IDENTIAL ~;INOLg FAMnJY AND LOCA~ WF~T OF m0HWAY 7, EAST OF NENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAH..RQAD AIfFHQ~ AND SOU'I~ QF PIPEWOOD CgJRVE~ 4131 PIPEWOOD CURVE~ LYLE DELWI(~I~ DELWICltE ADDITION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions for staff or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Kate, you said that they had conceptually given approval? Aanenson: They do their subdivisions a little bit differently and on conceptual... Ledvina: They have a conceptual and then preliminary? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. So it has ~ the formal process through Victoria? Aanenson: Right. So it has to be given the final City Council approval...That would include the cross over easement and accommodgtion of those two lots...They wouldn't want to make a lot and...Victoria would landlock that Lot number 8. Scott: Good, anything else? Would the applicant like to make a brief presentation? Lyle Delwiche: We're really here to answer any questions you might have. Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Scott: Okay. Any questions of the applicant from commissioners? This is a public hoaring. May I just briefly see a show of hands for people who'd like to speak at this public hearing. Let the record show that no one is here to speak on the public hearing. Therefore I would like to get a motion to waive the public hearing please. Ha~berts: Moved. Scott: Second? Could I have a second to that motion? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we waive the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye? Ledvina: Discussion? It's going to remain a public hearing, was that okay? Aanenson: You opened the public hearing. You just closed it. Scott: Let's open it. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina: We probably should withdraw that. Harberts: I'll withdraw. Scott: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: There's no one here for the public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Harherts seconded to close the public hearln~. All voted in favor and the.- motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments? Diane? Harberts: I'm okay with it. Scott: Besides from the fact that I need a book of Robert's Rules of Order. Planning Commission Meeting - Novembor 16, 1994 Harberts: I don't have any comments. Conrad: Nothing. Ledvina: No comments. Farmakes: No comments. Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision ~94-17 for the Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Scott: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the P]annin2 Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-17 for the Delwicbe Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. . The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development and will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 4. A cross access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1 via the existing private driveway. Planning Commission Mooting -Novombor 16, 1994 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City on the final plat a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over tho existing drainage ditch. . Lot 2, Block 1 will bo respond/bio for a hook up and connoction chango of $g993.42 (1994 figuro) for connecting to municipal utilities. This leo will bo payable at time of building permit issuance. Tho fees may also be assessed. 7. Tho applicant shall escrow with the city $300.00 to cover the city attorney's timo for review and recording of the final plat. 8. Approval of the plat from tho City of Victoria. Ali vo~ed in favor and ~he motion carried. PI./BLIC HEARING: 0RDINANC~ Public Name Adttm~ Randy Herman Vernelle Clayton Leon~d Thiel Roland Danielson 2792 Piper Ridge Lane 422 Santa Fe Circle 5643 Green Circle Drive 6209 Lockmoor Drive John Rnsk presen~d lhe stnfl' report on this i~em. Scott: Questions or comments. Harberts: I have a question. Who's your contact at Eden Prairie? Rask: Gotchya. Harberts: That dog. I take exception to the information ho provided you. He's incorrect with Rask: Okay. He is. Planning Commission Meeling - November 16, 1994 Harberts: He is. He even sits on that commission. Rask: Well he said I should tell you so. Harberts: Pardon, what did he do? Rask: He said tell Diane I told you so. Harberts: Well I'll tell him something. Alright. Scott: What is the correct info? Harberts: Well there are benches around Eden Prairie. There's one at our site in Eden Prairie that had advertising on it. Southwest Metro Transit has their own internal policy where they do not allow any advertising at their park and ride sites. Bus shelters or anything. That's an internal policy within Southwest Metro Transit. And I don't know if it was misunderstood or whatever but I know in Eden Prairie there are benches through the American Bench Company that have advertising on it so, but with regard to transit, it's a decision made solely by Southwest Metro and not by the City of Eden Prairie. Ledvina: Let me try to understand this. Then are those benches not allowed by ordinance then or what? What is the situation? Harberts: I don't know what Scott was talking about. Ledvina: Are those against the ordinance then or what? Rask: The way it's currently writ~, signs...bus benches in Eden Prairie. There aren't any benches. Ledvina: That is their ordinance? Okay. Rask: That's the way I understood it. Ledvina: Okay. Farmakes: I'd like a clarification on page 13 where it talks about the, these features shall be applied toward the maximum allowable sign area at the rate of one-third the architectural feature area. What exactly does that mean? Plmaning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Rask: It's talking about the color band. If those, if the bands say occupy 100 square feet of the building area~ If you take 1/3 of that" 33 feet would be taken away from the ma~rimam allowable signs. So if you had 150 square feet of sign area was allowed by ordinance, and you had your color bands that occupied 100 square feet, you take 1/3 of that. You're at 33 feet and you'd subtract that. So then if you have a sign, wall sign would be allowed approximately 117 square feet. Farmakes: If we had a sign limited to say 80 feet on Taco Bell and attached to that sign, or running up to that sign are large color bands of plastic. Are we defining that we only count 1/3 of that towards the maximum square footage of the sign or? Rask: Correct. Farmakes: Okay. I was just wondering what the reasoning of 1/3. Why woulcln't we apply 100% to that? Rask: Well I think that's all been, it's difficult to regulate some of these features within the sign ordinance. It's better addressed through architectural review standards...on Highway 5 corridor into, to pull this into the sign ordinance makes it difficult Farmakes: I served on both committees and it's sort of catch as catch can but in the architectural committee they said, well we'll address that with the signage ordinance and now we're saying we'll address that in the architectural stipulations so. If we discussed the issue of dealing and evaluating a structural tie in to signage. What you see currently, and Holiday just redid their banding. If you're discussing that as an architectural feature, it's not. It's part of signage. It's meant to be, have the building seen as a sign. So my point is, if we're going to apply the banding say around Holiday and get any type of moderation, if there isn't a cap and allowing a vendor to have some discretion on how they use that, the interpretation of putting bright stripes on a building. Saying it's really for the purpose to make the building look better and not to attract. Or the intent of serving the purposes of a sign, what point are we solving. We're not moderating anything. Because if we have like an 80 square foot maximum to the wall sign and we're allowing them 1/3 of the architectural feature area, that may double that. Would it not? So what have we moderated? Aanenson: We stumbled over this for 2 years. We~ve been asking for direction on this. We're not sure how to handle this. We're not sure if tho architectural features are being... If you want to include that as part of signs, ge... Farmakes: I think currently as I see in architectural, particularly in fast food operations and gas, what you're seeing is the back lit striping and in some of the fast food areas, the back lit Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 canopy area. That's where they're connecting with. Adding an architectural feature that is imposing as a signage attraction and again, I don't know if the way to approach that is to prohibit that or to moderate that on square footage or if it's to interpret, just list those items and say that these count as signs. As your signage maximum. Use them as you wish but this is the maximum that you can use based on the size of the building. Just like we moderate signage. But it seems to me that again, the intent in desi~oning those buildings, to uso that as a signage attraction, that we should deal with that for what it is. And call it what it is. Scott: Well I think what you're getting at is we talk about the intent statement is that a business needs to identify their location and I think if the signage is used for that purpose, it doesn't really matter if it says Joe's Bait Shop with blue lines around it. I mean if I were faced with a situation with my business I'd say well, I think what I'm going to do is trade my color banding for the name Joe's Bait Shop and make that as big as allowable by the ordinance and I think maybe that's what we want to do. Is we want to encourage people to focus on making it a real sign and then not try to get bonus attraction based upon colors. I think that's, when I look at the intent statement of the ordinance, we want businesses to have an equal playing field when it comes to identifying their location. But then I think we run into the same situation, people who have more windows can get more window signage so I think this will even out the playing field for those who don~t use colors in their, the Super America's, Holiday's, Block Busters, etc, etc. so I think I would agree with you in that we need to apply the banding 100% against the sign area. Farmakes: Well the other thing is that in reality, when you get the applicants to come in together as a group. Say you get a grouping of fast food restaurants like you would say on 78th over there. You potentially could have one building here with green or bright green, orange and red striping and the building across from it would be lime green and orange and a purple striping. You get, there's no. Harberts: Continuity. Farmakes: There's no relief there. You're getting a bunch of buildings screaming, look at me first and you're getting concentrations of them and it's certainly not an attractive, positive issue for the city I don't think. I-Iarberts: But with something like that Jeff, are you saying that you'd rather see with a situation like that where they're kind of uniformed, kind of consistent in building in their signage. You know Eat at Joe's. Shop at. Farmakes: I think we should allow the vendor the discretion of how they want to do it. I think Wendy's did a good job on it. I think we say Taco Bell come in here and there was a Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 perception that they weren't going to have the bands on there. When it came before the Council, they were going to have the bands on there. And then the response was made, well all Taco Bells have the bands on there and that's not true. Several Taco BeLls don't have the bands on there. Scott: Yeah, Minnetonka. Farmakes: And I think we keep on seeing this over and over again. Whether it's a tire center. or whether it's a gas station or whether it's, I think we should make an attempt to deal with that issue so we have an intent of what the final outcome's going to be once all the buildings are up. And again I think the issue is not to exclude but to moderate. Harberts: Well I would tend to agree. Conrad: I don't agree at all so, I don't think that this is, we're not talking about signage. This identification. There's no difference in a style of a building. That's identification. That's why chains build the same style so it's identification. A stripe is the same thing. I don't perceive this ordinance regulating design. This is a sign ordinance. It's words. The whole intent was to structure how many, what space you can put sign.~ in periocL It had nothing to do with design of the side of the building. So it's, we'd have to start, if.we're going to now start putting in design into the criteria, we'd better go back to zero and start again because none of the rules apply. Farmakes: How we design say in the Holiday where you have plexiglass striping on the top of the building constitutes a major part of the building. Do you feel that thafs architecturally relevant to the building or is that there for an attraction? Conrad: Is it architecturally relevant? It's their design. It's their style. It's not signage, in my definition. It's not regulated by this ordinance. Ledvina: It's not in the definition of sign does not identify architectural elements or colors or. Farmakes: If a wall sign is attached to a building, the striping runs and connects to it, how is that any different than typography that's in color and the red striping.and the blue striping-. running to it any different. Conrad: Well then you could take it further. Is brick, you know, does brick do something for identification versus a striping? You know, I don~t think anybody starting from day one when this was reviewed, really considered that type of architecture impacting the sign ordinance. I really don't. I don't think we~ve really taken a look at that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Farmakes: But I think it is evident that developers and business, particularly chain businesses, are addressing the issue of maximizing presence by dealing with that through architectural add on's. Conrad: I'm not debating that. Farmakes: So I don't think we're addressing that in our architectural issues because we did make the assumption that we were going to de~l with that in signage, or define that. And define it in such a way that it could be moderated. Conrad: Boy I'd be real, here we are again trying to get this through at~er months and this is the first I've heard of it Jeff. I've gone all those extra sessions and I just haven't paid attention to that. I would have considered all the ratios, all the square footages entirely differently. I would have found it terribly complex. I addressed all these in terms of what does it take to get a word message out on a building basically or for it to advertise a service or a product or whatever. I never considered it in terms of how the side of the building overall should look and whether the impact had a bearing on the size of the sign, or the materials of the sign. But if we were doing that, we should have, geez we should have looked at it a long time ago. I'm real uncomfortable with bottling it in. I really am. I thinl~ it makes it terribly difficult to understand. Scott: Is that something that should be regulated? Conrad: You know the whole issue goes back to design. Do we want stripes on buildings? You know, that's really the issue. If people put designs there because they're doing exactly what Serf is saying. They want identification. I don~ care if it's stripes or if it's brick or if it's an arch for, you know if it's an arch on the top of your deal or a giant football, like those restaurants to have. I think design criteria regulate that. I don't know. And they're not bad issues to deal with. It's good to make the city determine if it wants to get involved in the architecture game and simplicity might, there may be some simple things that we could agree on but I know it's a complex issue and I don~t know if we could really, I don~t know if we could come to some kind of consensus. It's terribly confusing to me. Ledvina: I think the definition of sign as a whole meaning and it becomes a very fuzzy thing. What if my colors happen to be like a tan and a nice forest green and I want to put some colors on the building. If I can't do that, even though it looks great because it's considered a sign, I don't think that would be fair. I'm tracking with Ladd because I think that bands on buildings are an architectural treatment. I don't see that specifically as a sign. At least not the way we've defined it up until this point. Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Scott: Does it matter if they're lit or unU~ Like a back lit band versus tile. Ledvina: No, doesn't matter to me. Scott: What do you think Diane? Harberts: I think it does. I think when it's lit... Conrad: That's an interesting. Scott: I can see where Matt's coming from if it's architectural. I mean is it an attractant or isn't it? Well ifs more of an attractant when it's back lit and it's plastic and all this kind of stuff but if it's something, I think there is a difference, at least in my m/nd, between an architectural. When I think of an architectural detail, I think of something that is "built into the building" like whether ifs the brick or whatever. Something thafs then architecturally versus something that's signage is something that after the building is built, it's stuck onto the building. Harberts: Well I think the colors are just as important, especially a franchise or chain type store as the word, and even to some extent more the colors and the. placement than the word itself. I mean you know when you're driving and oh, remember you just look for the golden arches. You know you don't look for McDonald's. You look for that identity piece. I understand what Jeff is saying when you, in terms of what we're trying to achieve in Chanhassen. Do we want to, in a sense control that so ifs more of a moderate or blended look versus a piece that stands out by itself? You know in some of the places that I have visited, such as Martha's Vineyard, they have no identity in terms like a McDonald's or whatever. It's certainly the Cape Cod look and a little sign out front and that's all you see is one continuous type of architecture. You don't have the individualities in terms of the franchise or whatever. Scott: Is that, do you feel then that's a pretty equal playing field? Harberts: Well I don't know about equal playing field. It certainly added characteristic to the island. It was a little hard adjusting in terms of you just cant pick out the golden arches or something. You have to kind of look for it. That was the only thing I was struggling with but I kind of like the characteristic it brought. Scott: I don't know, there's a development that you can see from, I think it's on Weaver Lake Road and 494, Maple Grove I think is where it is and what they've done is there's no banding on any of these buildings. They're all brick and everybody gets their so many square feet. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 So whether it's McDonald's or Poppin Fresh or a Burger King, and they have them on very short pylon signs. So I think if you're looking from a consumer standpoint, if the consumer is being bombarded by all sorts of huge signage, trying to find a place can be difficult. But if there's an equal playing field like what I~e seen in parts of California and Maple Grove's a good example, everybody knows that the loges are going to be about this far off the ground and they're all going to be about this size. But there's an equal playing field and judging from the parking lots of the place, I don't think any of the retailers are suffering. But they all know what the rules are. Harberts: But the burden then is on the businesses to somehow make themselves distinct within those parameters because you don't get that immediate recognition. I mean when you see that wave on a Coke can. The Coke words does not have to be there but you see that wave and fight away you think about Coke. Scott: Well it all boils down to our definition of what's a sign and what isn't Harborts: Right, exactly. Scott: And is that the thing that we need to recraff? I-Iarberts: Well I think it's the real, to me the question is, what are we trying to achieve and I think that's again, it comes into the balance of being responsive to the business n~ds as well as being responsive to the residents. You know I don~t want to see a pink and green building fight next to each other because that's what the/r corporate colors or trademarks or whatever but I certainly am sensitive to, I don't want to really place an undue burden on the business climate because of things like that. I think there is a moderate or a compromising there. I don't know what the answer is but. Scott: Well that's what we need to do is to have an answer. Farmakes: An example I think would be the ~v~innetoRka Wendy's over there on TH 7 and TH 101. They have a red, large red band going around that building, back lit where Wendy's is on and the differences to the one they built here. I think this one's a much more attractive building. It's a more moderate signage and I think there's just different outcome of what we got there. Overall I think we're betting off having something like that, the perception of higher class in this city than a piece of being a strip mall version over on TH 101. Ledvina: There's a couple of dynamics that are working there though. That's an older building. That's 6-7 years old and I think Wendy's is going more upscale with their clientele and I think that's the reason why we see a better building. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Farmakes: But the point is, when that building came by, we worked on that building. There wore red bands on that building so my point is that if I'm given a design assignment and I'm told to try and maximize the presence of that building and there is a cap on signage, I'm going to find a way to get around that cap. And the first thing I would recommend was to incorporate an attractant into the architecture. Into the feature and create the banding and if you look at Block Buster Video, they have a large blue back lit awning and a large blue stripe running around the building. The intent of that is to attra~. It's nothing to do with architecture. It's not there to make the building look better. Ledvina: But it is part of the architecture. Farmakes: So is the wall sign. It's attached to the wall. If you're going to define the word architecture, it's the overall presence of the building looking at it. I mean it's, to me the intent of the brick is not to create an attractant" It's not to pull your eye. And if you're looking at the outcome of a building and it's purpose, there are buildings where the signage and intent of the building sort of proceeds tho architecture. And you'll see that in a lot of commercial areas where what you're looking at is signage and you're not looking at buildings. Because we're building a downtown supposedly and not a strip mall, that's something we should be concerned about. Harberts: I think colors and design like that is a very important element of signage. It's not just words. That's my feeling. Scott: Well what about something like this. We're concerned about what's architecture and what's signage. What about if we say if ifs tenant specific? If the tenant of the building changes, like if Block Buster Video in Eden Prairie decides that they want to move someplace else and Edina Realty goes in, is the blue banding going to come down? Sure. Sure as hock will be. Maybe if it's, because signage is tenant specific and architectural features are not. Now I'm not stating that as a fact. I'm throwing that out. I mean is that kind of' what we're talking about here? If it's tenant specific, it's signage, ff it's not, it's an architectural feature which means, I think we're talking from a lease hold agreement, it's a fixture or a lease hold improvement versus the physical building. Conrad: We're not going to solve this one tonight. The issue is, do you want to, it's architecture. We're talking pure and simple architecture. It's definition. Some want to attach it to a sign ordinance but we're taJldng architecture. Talking, does it fit? Are we mellowing our architecture in so it's sort of the same in Chanhassen? Thafs sort of the direction that I'm hearing. And stripes don't do that. I can't, you're not going to be ablo to give me something to vote on that says, by a definition we're going to solve this. If we bring architecture and this into this ordinance, somebody else, not me is going to have to go through this. I can't 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 vote positively on the ordinance tonight and there's been a terrible amount of work put in on it. It's just different definitions which means all this stuff has to be relooked at. If we change the definition to say that if ifs tenant related or whatever, we still have to go back and say okay, now what are we talking about? Does tho same 80 square feet that we allowed for signage, is that the fight number now that it's incorporating stripes? Or now that it's incorporating neon. You know how about, we get into other cities where you have a lot of lights. I like neon by the way. I think neon's a neat architectural element. I don't consider it signage. I think it's architectural and I think it's generally pretty neat. But I think for tonight's purposes, if we're uncomfortable that this ordinance is not incorporating enough, then it should go back but I don't think we're going to come up with a resolution on it. Farmakes: Is your point that you're making that the Highway 5 overlay architectural standards should be changed or amended to address that issue versus... Conrad: See what you're bringing up, you know what you're bringing up Jeff is, in my mind, architectural standards and I don~t know if there's a difference between Highway 5 or the commercial or the CBD or Highway Business. I don~t know the difference between architectural standards in the different areas. Farmakes: There isn't. I think that this area is intentionally brought together. The way that you get around the limitation is to incorporate it into the architecture. That's the motivation for doing it. Scott: Ladd do you, do you believe that there need to be guidelines for the banding? Your thought is that this is probably not the place for it. Conrad: I think the sign ordinance should be looked at simply for signage and if we want an architectural standards to apply, those standards can, somebody can develop that and the City Council can review those standards as they apply to this. Scott: What, from a Highway 5 standpoint and I've kind of lost track where that is Kate. Where is the, is there an ordinance? Aanenson: Correct. Scott: So basically we'd have to include the banding as an architectural piece. Aanenson: Right. Scott: That would have to be an amendment to that ordinance. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Aanenson: I think there's language in it that covers this issue. It's the City Attorney's opinion too that really what we're doing, as Ladd indicated, we're pulling architectural issues into the sign ordinance and we're really kind of getting into a gray area there. Scott: But we do believe that there need to be some specific guidelines for it and as long as there's a home for that, because I don~t want to, I mean I've seen a number of in~qances were we'll have an applicant come in and they'll say, I have several pieces of information between this ordinance and that ordinance. Does that mean that I get two signs or you know, and if the applicants can't figure out the ordinance, you know we just need to know where the guidelines are so these people can como forward relatively quickly. Know what we're expecting and deliver a product that we can approve. So I moan if there's a home for it in the other ordinance, I think that will serve what you guys are doing. Or want to do is signs, ge here as defined as loges, service marks, sales marks, that kind of stuff. Banding and so forth become. Aanenson: I think this will be more clearly defined in the Highway 5 overlay. It's in there but it's not to the extent. The way we had defined it here, we're trying to separate, as you indicated, more tenant specific but what we found is company loges or associated with the company... If someone was just to put a bund on, or an architectural feature and it's not a franchise or it's not associated, we look at that as an architectural feature. Then you have to fred out what are the company colors and it's .... and I think .thafs where you're coming from is more specific to a certain type of business association. So it's our opinion that if you want something like that, then it really belongs in the Highway 5...architecture for the Highway 5 overlay zone. Ledvinx Well we're going to need it more beyond the Highway 5 zone. I mean we need it through the entire city essentially. Aanenson: City ordinance. Conrad: I think that's a real good issue just to float up to the City Council. Seriously. Architectural standards is just a real difficult thing for a city to get involved in. Especially city the size of Chanhassen. But if we believe in those' things, I'd sure like to get some feedback from the City Council so that staff, it's not Highway 5. We're talidng about you know, you don't just have architectural standards for Highway 5 corridor. -You have them for the city. If you want them, you have them for the entire city. I'd like to see if the City Council is interested in doing that, you know and then maybe something can be done. It's still, it's still terribly difficult but. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Farrnakes: The Highway 5 task force had a subcommittee dealing with architectural standards for a year. That's what we were discussing there in that ordinance. That was part of the ordinance for the Highway 5 overlay district. And the standards covered the commercial area of Highway 5. Conrad: But not downtown. Not our CBD. Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: Well, not to the south. Aanenson: Not to the south. They covered, there's two districts. One, the existing downtown area and then the other district is from Powers going west. It does cover all the downtown. There are places in the industrial park... Farmakes: The intent when we worked on it was that it be a blueprint to establish...but that was the point where we had a consultant brought in and discussing issues of how it was handled in other cities. What recommendations they put together from, I forget the consultant's name but we did deal with it for a year. Aanenson: Are you talking about Camiros? Farrnakes: Yeah. Conrad: Do we allow lights shining on our buildings? Spot fights to illuminato our buildings at night7 There's so many things, that could be considered, well thafs a real confusing but down south, that's a real popular thing to do. Real attractive. I doubt that we'd allow it here. Harberts: If you want to pay the electric bills. Conrad: Well it's neat. It's neat. It comes up from the groun& Ledvina: Are you saying we wouldn't allow if? Conrad: I don't think we would. Scott: Well getting back to the issue about what's signage and isn% does it make sense to direct staff to beef up the section in the Highway 5 architectural? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Farmakes: I would recommend that. When we dealt with that as a subcommittee, we dealt with that ambiguously. Tho reason being is...when we dealt with the sign ordinance, that we'd tighten that up. It seems to me that it would make sense to deal with it as an architectural standards because that's truly what it is. It is a gray area because of...ifs a design attempt to get around the maximum requirements. That's what it is. And if you, there's no aesthetic reason to back fight an awning. You do it because you want to be seen from the highway and there's nothing wrong with that but the question is, how much of it do you have. Do you have an entire town of back lit awnings. Ifs jsut a question of what you want to wind up with. Scott: What would be your direction to staff with regards to that. The architectural standards ...in dealing with banding and that sort of stuff. Farmakes: When we're dealing with it as a sign ordinance, if you have a maximum amount of it like you do in a sign, it seems like a logical way to treat that Because that would give the vendor the option of what they wanted to do. If you deal with it as an architectural standard, it becomes far more difficult because you're dealing with square footages. You're dealing with the size of the building. You're dealing with, it's an accent mark that they don~ define that by square. So if you're looking at that for either eliminating it or having it, I'm not quite sure how you would approach that other than to define it by how you would like to moderate it. A percent or eliminate it altogether. Scott: But the home for that regulation is, you're thinking the Highway 5 architectural standards. Farrnakes: We used the terms I think, and help me out here. I think it was bright colors is what they recommended. Unnatural bright colors. Dayglo orange or green or things of that nature. We may be able to address it as defining it as the subject matter, the gray area where it becomes, where the architectural feature becomes a gray area or it connects with the sign or is a part of the continuation of the corporate colors. Scott: I think we all agree it needs to be, there need to be guidelines. Conrad: But it keeps coming up so I think. Ledvina: Right. We should be reviewing it in terms of the direction that this thing should go. Conrad: Somebody should review the subject. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Scott: And the home for the guideline should be in the Highway 5 document. Conrad: Absolutely. Well no, it should be someplace else. Scott: Yeah, other than this. Farmakes: Currently the Highway 5 I think is the only, the two districts are the only ones that are covered by that. Scott: So the consensus here is that we need to give direction to tho staff to apply perhaps the thought process that we used for signage, i.e. print loges. Use some sort, that similar methodology to the banding piece to somehow quantify it and express what you would like to see as a percentage or whatever. But use the methodology that we use to regulate signage in the sign ordinance with regards to size versus the building. And use that same sort of methodology in the architectural standard section of Highway 5 to deal with banding. And then I'm sure it comes with a definition of what banding is. We have a definition of what signage is here. Conrad: Well I'd like to see left go to City Council. You know more than, you know what you're talking about. I guess I'd like you to go there and just address; Farmakes: Thafd be fine. I'd be happy to do that. rd like to see the staff take some photographs of some of the examples of what we're talking about to use as visual aids in defining it. I think that again the intent, whether you're a business person or whether you're just a citizen in the city, the intent is to have a nice looking city. And I fl~ink again, the by word is moderation and not illumination but to moderate the amount of this. Weql have a better looking place and to use an example of the Wendy's to Abra or the Goo~. If you compare those to the same businesses elsewhere in surrounding communities here, we have nicer looking buildings here. And they're still seen from the highway. They're seen from the road but they're not going to make a, cause a car crash or something because they're blinding. Scott: Well the noise level. The-visual noise level is lower because we've established'a lower threshhold. That's why the buildings look better. Farmakes: And as you group more and more buildings together, that becomes a factor in defining the character of the city. And that's my point. Scott: Okay. So we know where we're, is everybody clear on where we're going with this and stat~ Okay. Any other discussion? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Harberts: Here. Scott: Yes ma'am. Harberts: I would really recommend that on page 5, number (d), that bus benches, that (d) be changed to bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as defined by the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, or take it out entirely and have a different ordinance. I think staff should put outlined and emphasize that cities have not had problems with it and it is considered a benefit to the community. That's all I'll say. Ledvina: Just a question Diane on that. Now that would relate specifically to...benches Harberts: At transit stops. Aanenson: So they can't just be anywhere. It has to be a designated stop. Harberts: And it would be as designated by the Transit Authority which would include then, we would let the city know what we're doing because we have, we get approval from the city when we do that. Farmakes: I have a question on the, are we done with that? I-Iarberts: I think so. Ledvina: Well how do you reconcile the City Attorney's opinion then? That this is exclusionary. Conrad: She included anybody. Aanenson: She included anybody so, if somebody wanted to get a permit and you came to the city to have a bus stop here, at a Southwest Metro bus stop... Ledvina: Oh, I see. Scott: Because I know one of the things that Diane is talking about is the public/private. I mean if the taxpayers don~t have to pay to put it up but because these are, I mean they're a public benefit but they are predominantly beneficial when they are, in my opinion, they are only, or they're predominantly beneficial when they're associated with a transit stop. That allows you to take advantage of that. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Harberts: Right. And again, I would say that except at designated transit stops that are designated by the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And I want to assure that that interpretation includes that Southwest Metro Transit Commission is responsible for working with the city and with any particular locations. There may be some transit stops where we don't feel we want to see a bus bench there. But for ingtance at the park and ride lot, I think it'd be fine. Conrad: Diane should there be, I guess the issue is, either to take it out of this ordinance or separate ordinance or keep it as simple as what you moved, Do we need more definition than that? Is it so loose fight now because it's only 10 words, do we need better definitions to make it a separate ordinance or is it, are we comfortable enough as. Harberts: Well the intent of my statement is that it allows for advertising at benches that are located only at transit stops and I don't want to use the word regulated but I don~t know of any other word at this point. Scott: As designated by the transit authority, whoever that may be. Harberts: Right, fight. Because on practices that we chat with the city about that because there are liability issues with regard to sight lines. Do you.even want to have a bus bench there and things like that. So that's why I wanted to make sure that whatever wording, it makes those, reaches those intents. Conrad: The other thing though is don~t we want to have permission from the land owner? Harberts: Oh definitely. Conrad: Now is that. Harberts: That's why as designated by Southwest Metro. We would take on all of that responsibility to make sure that those agreements are in place because I mean there's liability issues here so that's why, by designated by Southwest Metro Transit Commission, .they take...... on the responsibility to make sure all those ducks are in a row. And again, with something like that, it goes with city approval and consent or something. Thafs how we work. Thafs the relationship. Scott: Any other discussion before we open the public hearing? Farmakes: I do have one definition I'd like clarified. On window signage, when we use 50%, do we define that as temporary signage? Thafs something that the ordinance does but is that 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 what we're expecting when we're expecting 50% of tho window space is covered by signage on a building? Rask: The way I understand it, it would be, it could be temporary or permanent. You just can't cover more than 50%. Farmakes: So we potentially could be adding several hundred square feet in a large building of signage from the projected out from the building, correct? Rask: Correct. The way it is currently written, yes. Farmakes: Is that the intent of what we want to achieve? It's my understanding when we're dealing with window signage, that we're dealing with temporary signage. Sale specials ...displays, that sort of thing. We weren't dealing with permanent signage and I'm seeing more and more of the back lit and the neon supplied by some of the franchisees where they're mounted into the window as permanent signage. I'm wondering, what's the difference of putting a moderation on signage, on the wall sign up above or on the pylon and then you're adding several hundred feel in the window space of permanent signs. Should there be a definition there between temporary and permanent? Rask: I think one of the reasons it wasn't addressed more is the difficulty of enforcing a condition like that. We'd have to control and see how long...limit temporary signage say to one month time, we'd have...it'd be difficult to enforce .... put that in there, limit the length of a,..window sign. I think that was the original concern brought up. We're trying to keep this ordinance simple. Ledvinaz What would you suggest Jeff? Farmakes: I don't know. It's my understanding from talldng to some retail that's in town, they're concerned about temporary signagn. MGM for instance. Scott: That's 100% now. Farrnakes: Well they're 100%. There isn't that much permanent signage in'the windows. There are a few companies that don't have much-window space.like-Chan Lawn : &.Sports that_. : .. do have the opportunity to put up a lot of back lit supplied franchise type signage that's provided to them but they don't happen to have much window space. Festival puts up a fair amount of specials in the window. I don't think they have any permanent signage...in their windows. Byerly's I'm assuming will have none by the looks of things.. Target also none. I guess if there are no more large scaled buildings with a lot of signage in windows to put up, 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 the commercial buildings in Chanhassen I guess really isn't a major issue from what I can see but there's a potential there if you had a building that had several hundred square feet of window space. Half of that could be a permanent sign projected out to the street. Ledvina: Are you saying all of a sudden they're going to look at this and say whoa, and put up all kinds of signs? Farmakes: Well no. That ordinance allows you to put up half of the square footage of the window space. If I was at the Riveria, we'd have a lot less signage available to us because the structure of our building does not have much windows. Another structure that has a lot of window space like Subway. I'm not sure what the covenants within their lease are restricting them to but they have I think 3/4 of their wall space is glass. Fully able to project to the Gstreet there. I'm not sure how many hundreds of square feet it is but the ordinance allows them to have it. Scott: I know from a, is it to make a definition between temporary and permanent with regard to window signage, you're right~ I mean the sign police would be a full fmc job. And I think ifs really kind of, from an enforcement standpoint, you say 50%. It doesn't maxtor if it's permanent or temporary. I think if someone is going to uso window signage effectively, the purpose of window signage, at least in my view,.is it's a rotating product oriented temporary usage. At least that's what I fl~inir it is and it's a question of how heavy does the regulation want to get. I think 50% is, and don~t make a definition in between whether it's permanent or whether it's temporary. I thinlr the ge, st of what we want to do, we want to moderato the amount of window signage. 50%'s pretty easy to eye ball and whether it's temporary or permanent, it really doesn't matter. So what? Any other discussion? Okay, can I have a motion to open tho public hearing please. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded t~ open the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was opened, Scott: Anybody who would like to address the Planning Commission, please step forwar& Introduce yourself. Yes sir. Introduce yourself. Give us your address and let us know what's' on your mind. Leonard Thiel: Chair, members of the commission. My name is-Leonard Thiel. I'm-at 5643 Green Circle Drive in Minnetonka, ~v~innesota. As I~ve stated to you the last time I had a chance to visit with you a couple three weeks ago, I told you that the principle, Mr. Danielson, President of the company was out of town because we had changed, you had changed the date of the public hearing and so he had made other arrangements and couldn't be here. Ho wanted to be here so he'd like to address you tonight just for a couple seconds to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 cover our viewpoints. Roland Danielson is the President of U.S. Bench and he'd like to speak. Roland Danielson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Roland Danielson ...mentioned and my brother and I own U.S. Bench Corporation and we've been in business for 48 years. And I just wanted to support tho motion that was made by Commissioner Harberts relative to benches at bus stops .... that's the essence of our business, and we have been...serving the mass transit rider all through these years and we feel very, very strongly about it being at a transit stop and no other place. And the whole idea and tho whole promise ...local firms and local companies to help support the potential service...As a matter of fact I got a couple of letters today from...so that's kind of the premise in which we work and we have been doing that... I also wanted to mention that we insure all the benches for $3 million... They are covered. That includes the transit company. It includes the city of Chanhassen and it includes ourselves and it includes tho sponsor so we're very conscientious about that...so we feel that the bench system, that really works well can be enhanced by a bench ordinance. We've had a number of ordinances and wo..submit some and that just spells our pretty carefully, very carefully, very rigidly how...good bench system would work... I just wanted to touch on a few things there and show our support...Thsnk you very much. Scott: Good, thank you very much. Leonard Thiel: To reiterate...ifs not a sign company. It's rather a convenience for bus riders and an economical way for a small business in your community to advertise in an unobtrusive way. Scott: Thank you. Anyone else? Randy Herman: Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Lane. I didn't intend to do this tonight but I'd like to speak kind of as three people. I'm a resident, I'm a business owner. I'm also a member of the Chamber that worked with you guys on the sign ordinance. As a resident, when I sit and listen to these kinds of discussions, I'm bothered by what I see as an ever increasing role of the city to kind of mandate everything bland. I get the impression that if it was totally left up to certain people, we'd have nothing but beige and brown and tan. And I'd like to speak for myself and I think a number of other people, I like a little color. I think . back lit awnings, with or without advertising are nice 'looking. I think they dress up a building. I like to drive through the city and I like to see well lit, nicely done buildings that might be green. That might be pink. There was mention of Highway 101 and Highway 7. There also now is on that corner a couple of restaurants and a bank that use neon as a highlight. They are great looking. They look ne~ You drive down the highway, they stand out and son of a gun, you actually know who's there and what business it is. At the same 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 time, I think they add flavor to that comer. I don~t think everything nemts to bo bland. I don't think it does anybody any good. As a business owner, it's a control issue again. I think if you want to limit the amount of signage, I think we,re tried to do that We've sot criteria about maximum allowables. I don~t think it should be the business of the city to mand~e the color, tho form, the graphics. What is good advertising taste. What is poor advertising taste. Let the businesses do that. There seems to be an assumption that businesses will always do the worst thing and I think if that was true, every building in the city that had a business in it would be dayglo orange or dayglo pink but thafs not true. Businesses try to present themselves in a certain manner to attract a clientele that they perceive as their clientele. If you think they're doing business in an upscale community, you'll probably try to present your building and your business and your signage in an upscale way. And I think that what the city needs to do is set solid criteria~ MaxJimu~im allowables. Square :footage, whatever, and then get the hell out of the way. I mean leave it up to the businesses to decide what they want to do from there. And again~ as a resident, it doesn't bother me that Fina or Super America wants to put a band around their gas tanks or above them on tho awning. I think it looks well lit. It identifies where they are. It identifies what they do. There's way too much personal opinion that can get entered into this idea of what's tasteful and what isn't and we~ve got to leave it alone. It's up to the businesses. If somebody wants to paint their building an ugly color, it's likely that they'll attract less clientele. It will balance itself out. As a Chamber member and someone who was.at the meetings and worked on this, I'm floored. I mean when I saw some of the things that got entered into here, I just kind of wondered what were we negotiating. What were we working on that whole time? Again, if we're going to talk about architectural treatments, and maybe that's a moot point at this point, but to mo it opens up the whole thing. I mean we dictn~t talk about mmdimum square £ootages based on that there might be a restriction on the amount of graphic banding or color a building could uso or whatever. We talked about it based on signage. And maybe it's a moot point, I don't know. But it got thrown in there theoretically because that was brought up last tiime but that was not the intent I understood last time when we mot here as far as what staff was going to work on. The very first thing that hit me on the very first page under purpose, is we changed the language which allows, permits busin~es a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise period. To advertise the location of a business. I mean what the hock. Signs are to advertise what you do. I don't want to just put Moore on the front of my business. I want to put Moore Signs. Merit would like to put Merit Heating. I mean if we want to do that, why don't we just put big numbers up and we'll have a key and you look for number 2000 is Byerly's. I mean signs are to advertise. It's a basic premise of the sign. I don~t understand. Why would you want to restrict that? And I don~ understand where that came from. I mean it's just foreign to me that it got thrown in there. Ah, there's a lot of them. On temporary signage, page 6, number 9. This wasn't an addition but it got talked about last tiime. Nothing was done with it. We talked about it and came up with a possible solution. This section allows a 64 square foot sign under certain circumstances. A temporary sign. There was 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 concern that if that sign was allowed to be 10 feet from the property line, which is the standard throughout the ordinance, that a 64 square foot sign could fall over and be over the property line. I think that's a legitimate concern. Our suggestion here would be, and this section only allows a maximum of 64 square feel It doesn't mean every sign will be 64 square feet. Our suggestion would be, set a minimum setback here of 10 feet and add one foot of setback for every foot that that sign exceeds 10 feet in height. That's a simple formula that will just say if it's 15 feet tall, it's got to be 15 feet back. Everywhere else pretty much in the ordinance where we've got a temporary sign and weXre set it's a maximum 10 foot tall sign, we've said it's got to be a minimum of l 0 fee{ back from the property line. Page 8, (c)(2). There's a restriction that allows only 4 signs per intersection. This is an off site directional sign. I'm curious what we're going to do about the fifth developer that comes in on that corner. Is it first come, first serve? Or what? I mean I'd hate to be that fifth or sixth guy if I can't have an off site directional signage and the 4 guys before me could. (c)(7), such sign shall be removed 12 months after the sign has been erected. It seems to me it should be period there. And the developer may not apply for a second off premise directional sign permit, there's no permit necessary over this section. Banners at 100 feel I'm sure there's a lot of people that think Byerly's banner currently is too big. I don't. I don~t think it's too big for the building. I don~t think it's toO big for the purpose. I don't even think it's ugly at the size it is, and it's huge. It's probably 300 feet. It might be 4. We've allowed a maximum of 100 square feet. That's a 4 foot x 25 foot banner, which can't be read very far. I think that ought to be increased and that was something we had talked about in the initial discussions. Ledvina; I'm sorry Randy, the size of banners?- Is this page 9? Randy Herman: Yeah that was, yes. Page 9. Page 12 (a). The second sentence is no sign shall be placed within any drainage utility easement or utility easement~ In (c) there's been a collection made to say, it can be placed in a utility easement, if approved by the city. I think that was the intent in (a) also. Because I think wetve all determined that signs need to be in utility easements. I mean that's where the majority of our permanent signs on main street are and where most of the temporary signs go. I think it's VOry unusual ~ a city would ask for permission to put a temporary sign in a utility easement but I guess that may be the way it's going to be. I'm not sure what the concerns are. A temporary sign means temporary, ff there needs to be utility work, it's easily removed. 'Maybe instead of having to have everybody come in and ask for permission, maybe we could just say tho same thing-that we did with political signs for some of the other directional signs. Put a name and phone number on it. Who's responsible for it. If it needs to be pulled, call. Have it pulled. The last session we talked about window signage. One of the concerns I hear Jeff bring up was what about somebody like tho Riveria The Riveria, they don~t have any windows. That's unfair to them. How about a minimum allowable? How about if we say you can have 32 square feet 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 of window signs regardless. And if youNre only got 10 feet of windows, well you can at least have, you can use them to their fullest use. When you get over a certain point, you've got a lot of windows, then the 50% maximum applies. The whole architectural sign feature, I thought that was all very vague and again it just kind of places the city in the control of colors and everything else. I don~t agree with it. Maintenance and repair. To me this is almost the heart of this whole ordinance. We don't have a lot of bad signage in Chanhassen. Most of what's bad is bad because it's deterioratecL It's falling over. It's falling apart Some of the worst signage that exists in the city is on property controlled by the city. I-Ianus' sign. Isn't that property controlled by the liRA? That's the Hanus building sign with Toll Welding on it. It's the entrance to the city. It's the ugliest sign in this town. I mean that sign should go. But it shouldn't necessarily go because of it's. Aanenson: It's going. Randy Herman: Well I mean that to me it's fight here. Take care of whafs falling apart. Make people maintain the signs. But don't put undue restrictions on them. It's been added that 10 days after you get a notice to make a change, remove or alter, you've got to have it done or you start getting fined. You start getting a violation. I'm here to tell you that 10 days is not going to be enough, l0 days to get a sign company out for a major sign repair, it won't happen. It's got to be longer than that and l0 days is, ! mean 30 days in the life of all of us is plenty of time. I guess that's it. Again I feel like a whole lot of issues just got opened fight back up again after I thought we had pretty well resolved everything that was in need of resolving. And I mean if all this stuff is back in and here to stay, two things. One, I can tell you for sure this isn't going forward with any kind of Chamber support, and that may not make a difference one way or the other to you. The other is that I feel like if we're going to start adding things at this point in the game, let's go back and start talking about them again. Let's open up the discussion about what makes sense. Lefs get some counter points in. I stood here last time kind of saying I thought we had come a long way. I take it back this time. I think we've gone backwards and I guess I really don't understand why or where it came from. Those are my comments. Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton. I live in Chanhassen at 422 Santa Fe Circle and I have been involved in the, I'm sure as everybody else here...been involved with the Chamber group too and I guess I have to echo a little bit of what Randy said, although. I was not able-'-. to make the last meeting so he's had a little more involvement than I have. But we-felt very . good and we told all the people that we represented, including in my case in addition to participating as a Chamber member, I was...representing Market Square in my participation. One of the things I tried to do was keep it as orderly as we could and as efficient as we could when we had our 3 work sessions and more than that work sessions on the part of the chamber. And who you represented, and the folks that we would represent...so we didn't have 25 Planning Commission Meeting = November 16, 1994 a room full of people every time. We thought we'd have it orderly and I think that you said that you appreciated that and we just feel a little biL..I feel a little bit like we wish that these things had been available to us in those round table discussions so that we didn't have to stand here and make objections. I will try not to discuss the same things that Randy did but I wanted to...just a couple. I do agree with him that the message these days that America is giving everyone is let's let government leave us alone. I think it came through loud and clear on Tuesday not too long ago and I think that's what Randy's saying here and that's what the business people have said to us. I think the location of a business here, it's pre, sense here tonight in this draft, I would like to think stems from perhaps whoever put it in or whoever decided to put it in or the group that did may be a little too close to the issue. I think saying that means something to you, or to whomever put it there and I kind of picture what they're thinking but I think to the new person or the business person picking up this document, it's going to look crazy. Because they're not just advertising their location of their business if you take this literally. As Randy said, they're advertising their business. I think this is not something that caused us a problem in the past. I think that...will do what we're talking. Signs are an advertisement and it's really...So that would be my thoughts there. I had a couple other specific things. One is, I think this could have just been an oversight or again an interpretation of a word or two...appears in two places. At the bottom of page 6, item (g). And it appears again at the top of page 7. The work is completed...when we're saying a project is completed, we're... That means different things in different situations. OPam to the contractor, the builder whoever's doing it...and I think what we talked about in our session and I think...I guess Randy mentioned the issue that...on page 8, item 7 where we take a portion out that relates to the fact...I guess I would like to suggest that we do treat this situation the same as we treated the former situation on the top of page 7 where it gives front and. back sides some latitude ancL., have been suggesting to eveoyone that if we're going to use a banner for a short period of time to make an impact, then let's let tho people make an impact. Let's regulate this in a time period. 100 foot banner does not make an impact. It's just, it's more, it just creates in my mind more clutter than a big oversized banner that you know is only there for a little while. A smaller banner looks like it's kind of a piece of paper on a big building... Now I don't think Byerly's banner looks all that bad and it's enormous. It would never fly under this ordinance. Ledvina: Excuse me Vernelle, which section are you speaking to right now? Vernelle Clayton: ...I should have stopped. It's on page 9, number...Again, the Chamber's . position was that, the underlying position I think for the Chamber was let's have an open mind in this special promotion kinds of things. This is what creates the fun, creates excitement...commercial area. I have a sticky little point here on item 4...but I think that my ear perk up every time I get to the point where it says that the city should do something, or remove it upon complaint. Because we kind of respond to a lot of things that are going on in 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 the city right now that are responsive in nature. We say okay, you can do it unless somebody complains. And as soon as somebody complains...if it was a good idea. It's a pretty negative kind of way of doing things and also I happen to know from the work that I do with a lot of the folks at Market Square, that. Jove to complain .... from adjacent residential areas. If there are complains from people from residential areas. If I put up a..on some vacant lot that was...put up a large flag, I sure don~t want to have to take it down because somebody that parked in the parking lot on a Tuesday afternoon when it happened to be blowing at 50 mph...and so that's a lot of words about a very little point but I'd like...don't have any other specific things to say here. Maybe I have one more. I passed by and...discuss the part about architectural features... Architectural features is not defined. There was a lot of discussion tonight that meant bands and anybody walking into this room not knowing...felt about sign bands would not know from having read the rest of this that they were related to bands. 10 or 15 years ago there was...I think it's the type of use that we typically are using to th/nk now when we're dealing with it. As you recall Midwest Federal a few years ago had round buildings. In that case...that would have been 100%. The last thing, also I think if we had this in place, Wendy's would not look like it does today. They were asking for very little bright red. We could have saicL.. Under the current ordinance we were able to get those u-nits burgundy. So I'm not sure, I think they're right... I~re been involved in writing several sign plans for various developments. Three of them in town...in each case we used individual letters. Back lit letters or... There are three buildings or shopping centers that probably have up to 35, the possibility of 35 different signs. Different tenants that have the right...individual letters or loges in their signs. So I guess I would question if this were to pass the way it is, what happens if the...leaves and a new one wants to put a sign up that's like the other people had...some loges there. More of course I think the ordinance should say loges. If we have... or other little things that various people use, the little ice cream thing that...using for the i, if they have those, then I think we want them back lit. I don~t think we want thom off to the side, possibly not lit. I think we want them all to be consistent. I'd like to have you look at that because I think when I look at these signs, if we put it the way those sign plans are written... Ledvina: Where would that be addressed? Vemelle Clayton: I have now wandered all the way over to page 14. Ledvina: Did you have a specific suggestion for that? Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Individual dimensional letters and/or loges. Randy Herman: What about the industrial type buildings? The industrial building like the one I'm in. There's no need to have illuminated letters. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Vemelle Clayton: Well I think this says back lit letters. That's the proposal. It's been my understanding that we're proposing all back lit letters all over town?...okay, so individual dimensional letters and/or loges. I just think it has to be in the sign...could be back lit. Thanks. Scott: Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harherts seconded to close the public hearing. All voled in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Jeff. Farmakes: I'll just be brief here. We've talked about this now for...2 years. I'll start out just with the premise of a couple of issues. One is, I certainly think that the city is acting as it should in regards to this issue. I don't think it's over stepping it's bounds. Certainly Chanhassen's been a planned community for a number of decades and signage as an issue of planned communities is a given. It's not an imposition on personal rights or individual rights. It deals with the issue that the common good proceeds individual rights and certain issues of planned communities. It's been to court and the issue at court, has been established. What. --- we're looking at here I believe is the same premise that an independent developer uses when they have a criteria covenant within that lease for that business that they have to cover signage, as Vemelle just mentioned. She's been involved with three of them. It does a number of things. It protects the investment of the developer. It protects the other lease holders from abuse by another leasee. I don~t think that the city's any different except instead of one development we're dealing with many and I think the intent is still the same. To protect the community's investment and we have an obligation to do that. I think we'd be walking away from that if we treated that as saying, well you go ahead and do it and let us know when you're done. We're certainly taking this opportunity here for this commission to have that input. We've been working with it, city staff and numerous consultants here for a number of months and I also believe that, what have we got here. Five out of a rather complicated ordinance. Actually if this was representative of the amount of work that we've done, it'd probably be 100 pages long. I think that it's been good that we~ve been with tho Chamber and that we've smoked out some of these things.. Some of tho nuts and bolts applications. I think that there were some compromises made in the issues that were sent Starting out with the issue at the top of the list. The issue of the philosphical intent. The issue to identify a location versus just the word advertisement I'll take the benefit for that, as requesting that in the last meeting and I think the reason being is that it certainly wouldn't preclude if there was a sign saying Merit, to saying Merit Heating. That doesn't preclude that. The issue of the intent would be what is the intent of the sign. If in the city regulating 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 it are they trying to keep a business from identifying it's name or it's location. I think that came up with American Family Insurance. They wanted to put the logo and they wanted to put the word Insurance on there. All of that would seem to me as part of identifying a location of a business. However, if you get in and look at Byerly's and you look at Byerly's, Fine Food, Open 24 Hours, Wine and Spirits, you get into another can of fish. If you look at Holiday, you start talking about Cold Beer and Cold Cuts and the issue again is whether you have an equitable opportunity to explain all their services and all their goods. When you come back and say, well I can put signs all over the building saying that, you know like a special on beer and you can't regulate that. You can't tell me I can't put that up in the window if I need to. I think again going back to the issue of what is it that the sign does. I think that it identifies in a community a location of a business and that is the intent of signage. The intent of advertising is to advertise goods and services and that is a sub-issue in here within temporary signs and other forms of discussions for bus back advertising and things of that nature, which defines it differently. For instance Merit Heating might say, list a number of units that they sell or something of that nature. The unn~sary duplication of signage in this ordinance, I'm still not sure whether or not we've covered that. Pm not sure even if we had a statement on that, that would allow the city to deny a signage based on a duplication for a sight line. I use an example of the Byerly's up here next door. That's a duplication of signage, even though there's two different frontages. To me it's duplication of the same sight line and it's unnecessary. But I-'m not exactly sure how we could word that into the ordinance. I have no problem with the issue of the banner. I think that perhaps the banner issue is probably a well made point. We may be able to deal with that as to say three different sized buildings or however we deal with the pylon issue constitutes different sized signs for different square foot buildings. Obviously Byerly's used as an example is a 60,000 square foot building. There aren't a lot of those in Chanhassen. Perhaps we could come up with something relevant there. I _think tho minimum probably on the signage is a good idea to establish or look at that at least in dealing with the issue of fairness. For some buildings that even have little window space. The pylon sign issue that we haven't addressed. I'm not sure how to work that in but I think one of the big mistakes that the City Council, in their wisdom have made was making an exception to the rule again with Byerly's to putting a pylon sign on 78th or an intent of the pylon sign. I think that the purpose again was over kill. It's not necessary. You can certainly see it from the sight line and speed of 78th in the distance. Again, you're hit with 3 Byerly signs from the same sight line. Do we need that? I think that Target followed a good example. You have a large building. That'sign is readily seen from several hundred feet away. You know where to turn in. · It serves it's purpose and I think again as an example, we drive through the city with this moderation and the height of monumentature, we can see, actually see the buildings instead of all the buildings being covered up by pylon plastic. And again, it helps enhance the issue of a city. Small town without the numerous expanse of cars and covered with plastic. Anyway, I would like to see that if there is a way, and I don't know how, if we could put that forth to the Council. I'd 29 Planning Commission Me~ing - November 16, 1994 like to see that maintained. I think that's a good idea that perhaps almost by I think circumstance that started off of the SA over on TH 41 and TH 7 where they lowered the monumenture down. That really cleans up the look and puts it out towards the building rather than being blown away by a big cover up in front. And again though I support the pylons on TH 5 simply because it serves that purpose. Thais a much faster highway. Much farther sight lines and so on. It's a different sign assi~ment and again, it's not that I'm against signage on 78th or Great Plains or any of the internal drives, but I think it serves a purpose. I mean you literally drive fight by the sign and it doesn't need to be 20 feet tall. Oiher than that I think the majorityof this ordinance is good. That's not to say that everybody's going to agree on everything. I do have one final comment on an issue of, I've designed actually put together bus benches and bus backs and internal boards on MTC and I'll tell you, I never knew that I was doing a public service. I was doing it for the money and the businesses that I was doing it for were doing it for the money. It's a business. It perhaps this is so much a public service we can donate all the income from it to public charities here. Harberts: It's called transit charity. Farmakes: Right, transit charity. I do support staff on this issue. I think the way to treat this, rather than be industry specific, is to-treat it, either you have it or you don't and I see this as outdoor advertising is what it is. And I think the less of it the better. In this case, if there was a way to legally do it where it was fair, because of it's limitation to bus backs, I don~t know if, or bus benches, I don't know if legally there's a way to do that. I would support the staff's recommendation of eliminating it. That's it. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: A couple quick points. Under the definition or the purpose, I'd sure like to change and instead of saying the location of the business, I'd like to say the name and service. I think that just makes, I think that's clean. I agree with some of the points made to date by, at the public hearing. I think we need to, I do believe that bus benches, transit style type of signage should happen but it should be controlled so I can't, so the staff report as it stands I don't agree with but I think there's a way to solve that. On page 6, points (c) under 9. I think the Chamber's talking about a setback of 10 feet with an escalating setback for height, Does anybody have a, I'm not sure exactly what the formula there is. Kate, didn't we O~ink that l0 feet was acceptable? Aanenson: With this item...that's fine .... 10 feet and if it's higher than that, 1 foot for each additional foot of the sign. Conrad: Does that make sense? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Aanenson: Yeah. Randy Herman: It will be hard to have a 64 square foot sign that's only 10 feet tall. Ledvina: But it can be 15 feet tall...right. Conrad: So Kate, what would you say/n terms of a 10 foot setback and then 1 foot. Aanenson: Plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot on the pylon sign. Conrad: Okay. There's some semantic issues that I think c, an be dealt with fairly easily. I think page 8, point 7. Aanenson: That's fine. Strike that... Conrad: That makes sense? Page 9, I think the banner issue was sort of nobody knows what the right footage is. Aanenson: And that just came up from what we used... Conrad: I would recommend, because temporary stuff is just thaL It's temporary. It's going to be down. It should have some kind of impact but when, I think it's not bad to have some, a little bit of control there so I guess what I'd recommend is a 4 foot. I'm thinking real and Randy works in the real world and maybe some of us don~t always think about that but if you- had a 4 foot sign, height wise, I think that gives you some decent letters. And it works in terms of probably dimensions of this fabric that he works with and if you went to 35 feet long, that would create 140 foot, square feet and I think that's going to, it may not bundle in the Byerly's deal. I don't know. I'm just kind of interestecL So instead of 100 feet, that may be not right. 3 x 33. That might not work but I'm just throwing around the 4 x 35 and I bet you we could play with numbers all night long. I'm probably going to make a motion and I'm just throwing that out right now that 100 foot, the way I got to 140 feot was 4 foot by 35. That's how I. Ledvina: If you recall from our work sessions, I think we started at 60 feet.- We went to 80 and then we went to 100 and that's how this has progressed. I'm not saying that 140 is bad but we have. Conrad: We have gone up. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Ledvina: We have worked with this number but, and if there's a good rationale, a 4 x 35 foot sign as a temporary banner, I'm okay with that. Conrad: Well let's just take visually. That's a 4 foot height fight there, is my guess. Is it 3 or 4? Scott: Remember when we first started talking about banners we said well let's think about examples. We talked about St. Huberts. Fine. Well I hadn't seen anything as big as tho Byerly's when I drive past it every day and I went, fine. I mean it's like we have to sanity test it and when we see it on an application and you go, you know. Thay're hiring. That's good to know. It's open house or something. I didn't fine that. Conrad: I don't think whatever this number is is abusive. I don't think you know if it's, I don't know. And again, I'm just looking for something that makes sense and we have gone up, Matt I agree, but I think we started at something really ridiculous. That meant we outlawed banners and I don~t think thafs really been the intent to do. So I'm saying, 4 feet by 35. 35 feet probably stretches across a street. Probably on the front of a building, that's a couple hundred feet wide. It's not much of au impact. It's just not. So again, that's my feeling on that one. I do throw out another, I &ink Kate and staff, page 12. General location restrictions. In point (c) we said, unless approved by the city.- .-. Aanenson: Well and duplication, okay. We can take out in (a) where it says no sign shall be placed... Conrad: Okay. At the bottom of that page. I guess I was pretty comfortable just with the statement. There's been a statement tonight saying well, what about the folks that don't have many windows. Should we govern that? I guess I'd liste.~ to somebody talking or wants to talk to me about governing. You know not having this cover buildings with window areas of less than 32 square feet of something. I don't know. From a, I don't know. It's another number and if somebody has some input on that, I'd sure entertain that. I don~t think I need to regulate 32 feet on a building. I guess whoever made that comment, I guess I could go along with it unless there's a good counter point to it. Scott: We're trying to even the playing field. Conrad: Yeah. See I'm not sure Joe if I agree. People buy buildings based on what thay see. I guess I don't need to, I personally don~t need to level it. But on the other hand, I don't need to get into somebody's back pocket either and say, I'm going to manage your 32 feet. I really don~ feel I need to do that so. I may make a motion to that effect that we go down. That we do not go down to that are~ Under 32 square feet of window area is not regulated 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 by that ordinance. That's probably what I'm going to say unless I hear some discussion coming back. On page 13, I want (h) deleted, left, I'm sure I just lost your vote on that one but I really would like to accomplish (h) through a different mechanism and not here. I think Randy brought up a good point in terms of signage. On Section 20-1266. 10 days is not realistic. I can't get Randy to make a sign in. Scott: Sounds like there's some... Conrad: No, realistically in that business, if you want a decent sign to replace something, you're not going to get it done in 10 days so I want to encourage quality. I really agree. This section to me is probably the most important, or one of the more important ones. I think we want to regulate signage on how big it is but I think we also want to regulate how well it's maintained. It seems like we've had the easiest time over the maintenance, or this section hasn't caused us any problem and it's probably one that has, if I want city staff to be really monitoring anything in this ordinance, this is the one. This is where we can make an impact. This is where the citizens do care and this is where I want staff out there looking. That's just a personal deal but that's major. And the rest, that's real significant. So bouncing that number up to 30 days seems reasonable and even that's tough. I think thOse are tho comments and if I get to make a-motion, they're probably going to go that direction. Farmakes: If you make a motion, on (la) being dropped. Conrad: I will cover it in terms of. Farmakes: Will you cover that with a direction to incorporate that into the architectural standards section? Conrad: Yeah. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I would support comments made by Ladd. Emphasizing that (d) on page 5 be amended to read that bus signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as designated by SMTC, Southwest Metro Transit Commission.. And then to strike, 'or to amend I' guess on page 11, number 8 to read the same. I guess based on the comments of' the public hearing, on letter 8, I'm going to sit on the fence and see where it goes. Those are my comments. Ledvina: The comments that were made by the Chamber are all good additions and modifications to the ordinance that we have here. I would support Ladd's comments, 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 especially as it relates to item (h) on page 13. I do feel that it's appropriate that that issue be tackled in a different, or using a different mechanism. That's it. Scott: Okay, can I have a motion? Conrad: Sure. This is real exciting. Not that we're doing the fight thing but it just may not be back here. Scott: Hopefully you're properly att/red to make this motion then. Conrad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised sign ordinance, Article XXVI, as drafl~ in the staff report. There's not really a date on here but, okay today's date, with the following changes. On page 1, item 1. We changed the wording, location of a business to name and service. On page 5. We revised under Section 20-1255(d), we revise the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Does that work? Harberts: Yes, I'll take it. Conrad: I think legally that's the best way to do it On page 6, point 9, item (c). Revise the wording to say, such signs shall be 'set back not less than 10 feet for signage 10 feet or less. Staff you're going to have to clean this up. Plus I foot of setback for each additional foot of sign height. On the bottom of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased. Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased. Page 8. We would strike point number 7 under (c). We would strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise directional sign permit. Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100. Page 10. Item number 4. Add from surrounding areas to the end of that sentence. Scott: Do you want to say residential? Are you talking about a complaint from a resident of a leasee versus someone who's just driving in... Conrad: Yeah, and I'd leave it open to busin .ess complaints as well. Page 11, number 8. Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Page 12, item under Section 20-1265(a): Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs in the utility easement when approved by the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a final statement that says, this section does not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet of window area. Page 13. We're going to delete (h) altogether but with a note that says, but with a recommendation to the City Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the architectural ordinance in the Highway 5 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Overlay and determine if the architectural standards should be reviewed by staff and Planning Commission for a separate city wide ordinance. Section 20-1266, fifth line down. Change the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down. Add afar the words, individual dimensional letters add the words, and loges. That is the end of my motion. Scott: Okay, is there a second to that motion? Ledvina: Second. Scott: Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded flint the Planning Cornel,sion recommend approval of the amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance with the following changes: On page 1, item 1 change the wording, location of a business to name and service. On page 5 revise under Section 20-1255(d) the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. On page 6, point 9, item (c). Revise the wording to say, such si~,n-~ shall be set back not less than l0 feet for signage 10 feet or less, plus I foot of setback for each additional foot of sign height. On the bottom of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased. Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased. Page 8, number 7 under (c), strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise directional sign permit. Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100. Page 10. Item number 4. Add from surrounding areas from residents or businesses, to the end of that sentence. Page I l, number 8. Bench sins are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Page 12, item under Section 20-1265(a). Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs - in the utility easement when approved by the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a final statement that says, this section does not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet of window area~ Page 13. We*re going to delete (la) altogether but with a note that says, but with a recommendation to the City Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the architectural ordinance in the Highway 5 Overlay and determine if the architectural standards should be reviewed by staff and Planning Commission fora separate city wide ordinance. Section 20-1266, fifth line down. Change the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down.. Add after the words, individual dimensional letters add the words, and loges. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: City Council? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Aanenson: It will be on the 12th. Scott: The 12th? I'd like to thank the members of the Chamber of Commerce for coming in and assisting yet once again. I don% suppose you'll be at the City Council meeting. Thanks very much. PI.~BLIC HEARING; RF_Z~NING QF 39 ACI~g-q OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTI~RAL E~TATE T~ ~, Rrsm~rO, L $iNO~,g ~AMILY, ~7~mN~Y PLAT TO CR~T~ 4S FAMILY LOT~ AND 3 QI. ITLQT~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FQR MmGATION 0~ P0~OING AR~S, A~O ~OmONXL USr P~rMrr ALTERATION OF AREA~ ~ A FLOOD PLAIN QN PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN ~ ~ WESTERN RAILRQAD TRA~ WE~T OF BLIrIFF ~3~EEK AND ~AST QF TIMBERWQQD E~TATI~ AND STONE (~REEK~ CREF. KSIDE ADDITION (I~)RMERLY HEIUTA(~E FIRST ADDITION)~ HERITAGE D~PMENT COMPA~o Public P~sent: Name Add.ss ~/ohn Dobbs Lloyd Grooms ~/ohn Dietrich Steve McCurry Stan Rud 645 5th Avenue 1691 Lincoln Avenue 922 Mainstr~ Hopki..~ 2050 Oakwood Ridge 2030 Renaissance Court Bob Generous presented fl~e stmq' report on this item. Harberts: Question. On what page, 25, under subdivision. That number 2. What is that telling me? Number 2 that has a line through it. Generous: Oh, I started to renumber this whole.thing and then I redecided not to. How you .' were going to vote and then... Harberts: So 2 is included? Generous: Yes. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Aanenson: What we attempted to do is for your edification is to show you how this has changed. When it goes to Council, then we ...so you can see where... Scott: Okay. Would any of the other members t¥om city staff like to make any comments about this development? Hempel: I did want to make a point of clarification Mr. Chairman...the applicant with regards to condition number 32...At this point I guess I'm open to deleting the condition with the understanding that the condition may be brought back and put in the development contract once it reaches the final plat stage. When the numbers are a little more... Scott: So instead of having a blank check, which is essentially what that is. Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: So you can do it at that point? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: So basically the condition would be used when the specific numbers or when the developers or the applicant's exposure to special assessments is quantified by the city, then those numbers will be included as part of the development agreement. Hempel: In the...deleted at this point. Scott: Okay. Do you have any comments Todd? Hoffman: Chairman Scott, members of the commission. Last night at the Park and Recroation Commission meeting the members did discuss the applicant's unwillingness to show the additional park property which they had requested. They instructed me to bring a message to the Planning Commission that they felt very strongly in that regard and that they would uphold that requirement... Scott: Okay. I' also, I had a conversation with-~Iim Andrews regarding the subject of double credit for the trail and then the...if you could perhaps. I don't know if the other commissioners are aware what the concern was for that. Hoffman: The Park Commission had asked for an easement, a trail easement. The applicant is showing that as a long, linear piece of park property which may have some merits as far as 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 the dedication process and determined through the negotiation process once it reaches that point .... Scott: So was the concern that the easement for the trail was also counted as park? Hoffman: Co.oct. Scott: Okay. And the position is that an easement's an easement and a park is a park and they're not the same thing. Hoffman: Typically, in past developments when an easement has been required or asked for, they've been given to the city and not counted as park dedication. Scott: Okay. Can you think of a reason why, since that appears to have been the mode of operations with easements versus parkland, do you see any reason why this development should be different? Hoffman: No, I do not. Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments? Hoffman: No, other than I just happened to have a photograph which shows the triangular shaped piece of property of trees which is of interest to the park commission. Members of the commission and staff and members of the staff and the apphcant walked this area. Ifs somewhat unique in that the Bluff Creek corridor is in a location which is definecL..from Highway 41 south... Throughout that experience if offers a variety of environments. One thing which is beneficial to a trail corridor. Does not just have one type of experience.., open areas and wooded areas, is one of the aspirations of the Park and Recreation Commission in acquiring this particular triangular shaped piece of woods would allow for that... Harberts: Todd, am I understanding then that the apphcant, and I don't know if I'm understanding the process here, would prefer to pay park dedication fees instead of providing the land? Hoffman: No. What they're showing is the park.dedication as the long linear strip along here.. to accommodate the trail. And if indeed that was determined to be a taking, we'd be willing to go ahead and give them credit for that. But then we would also like to negotiate a purchase, and which we have communicated with the apphcant, for the remainder of the property. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 I-Iarberts: Okay. So what they're proposing is that the trail easement be considered as land dedication without any additional park fees. Hoffman: Correct. Harberts: Okay. And the question that Joe had asked you was that in previous developments, that there have been situations when there's easements given for trails as well as either land for the park or park dedication. Has there ever been a request that you're aware of, similar in nature to this one? Hoffman: ...full park and trail fees. And then also providing...around the wetlands which is very similar to this one. Harberts: Fine, thanks. Conrad: A question on wetland classification. Wetland A15-15. That's the one that you hit fight when you dump off of Stone Creek I think. This is designated as an ag urban wetland? That is really a pretty wetland and we have a street running. I guess I'm kind of amazed that we have a street coming fight to it and obviously to continue that we're going to fill, and that's what the applicant has to do, but I'm not sure I have a problem with the road. It's got to go where it's got to go but I'm really kind of miffed that we allowed a road to get to this quite nice wetland. If you took a look at it, you'd just be amazed and I guess when I see it classified as an ag urban, I'm amazecL Aanenson: Can you clarify that... Hempel: Sure. The roadway alignment, the initial view of that is...Stone Creek platted when Hans Hagen...sort of set in stone. In order to make the design curve to maintain the standards...small portion of this wetland area~ There has been, created a storm water pond adjacent to this for the wetland area to pretreat the storm water runoff portion of this particular development as well as the development of Stone Creek. We have tried to minimize the impact to this wetland and continue that with a future road for this plat. Aanenson: If I could just add to that. That was part of the reason we...and the applicant got caught up in that whole process...we see this whole Bluff Creek corridor and adjacent to .... wetlands...and as Todd indicated, it gives different opportunities... Conrad: Dave, help me again with what went wrong. Did we anticipate the road really missing the wetland? I'm not really pointed at ~his issue. I just guess when I do get out to a site and I see something happening like this, I'm wanting to figure out what my role should 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 be and what you told me was when it really got delineated where tho road went~ Start me there. When you saw where that road really went, it was too late to change it because. Hempel: We were aware of the wetland outside of the Stone Creek plat and at some point we knew we were going to have to nm a road adjacent to it or try to minimi~,O tho impact to it. And based on the topography is how this was explored. We actually got out, it was probably a drier year when...than actually it is this year. But the applicant with this proposal...roadway itself. Normally within the right-of-way... Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Harberts: I do. Again, going back to page 25. That number 2. When it says that shall attempt to retain. That doesn't give me a good comfort level. Although this certainly isn't my area of expertise, I'm just in terms of what kind of guarantee or is that giving us. I don't have a comfortable level with that. If we were to consider shall retain, is that too restrictive given what needs to happen? I don't know but this shall attempt Who's going to make that determination where that level of attempt is? Hempel: Well that condition itself, you're right...may not be appropriate. This goes back to previous plats that have been before yo~ The issue of what is considered excessive grading on this site. What are natural features? To what extent are we trying to retain them. When we put in streets, utilities and so forth, there is some compromise. There is...involved. I guess staff has reviewed the plan. The applicant has made suggestions. The applicant has not yet made those changes to improve, maintaining the knolls, the higher areas. He's still not sacrificing or compromising on the street widths...in that approach. Harberts: What if we took the word attempt~ You know attempt to. Take that out and just say, shall retain. Does it still achieve what you're speaking to with regard to the discussion staff has had with the applicant or again, is it too restrictive given what you reviewed on the plans? Hempel: I believe ifs restrictive and ifs also interpretative... Aanenson: I think what Dave is saying is correct is that we~ve moved in this direction.. We've made recommendations...street grades. Try to bring up the street grades... I think we're...compromising on those issues...This was targeted to that point and we think it's pretty much...as Dave indicated...pretty vague. Maybe at this point it may help... Harberts: But is it better off then that we leave it in to give I guess the city the opportunity for interpretation on that, or not? I don~t know. I'm just, again I was just uncomfortable. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Hempel: Or should we rephrase it to say that the applicant shall for the most feasible engineering practices or something like that, retain the nstural topographic features. Scott: Well what about, it seems like the major disturbance is going to be caused when the streets and utilities goes in. I mean thais a given. Perhaps what it is, the applicant shall retain the natural topographic features undisturbed by street and utility construction to preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. Then at least there's that, we know there's a given that's going to happen. I mean obviously pads have to be put in, etc, etc but what we don~t want is, you know unne~ary grading. We're dancing around this thing but I know where you're coming from is that that's meaningless. Well we tried, you know. I-Iarberts: Right. Conrad: But Joe, they're moving a lot of earth. Scott: Oh yeah, I understand. Conrad: So I kind of like the vagueness at this point. You know bottom line is, they're moving a ton of earth here and it's just like, this is, and the staff represented this very well. This was some perspectives that we wanted in the very early parts and gave that direction. I think the applicant has tried but they basically are saying we've got to move a lot of stuff to fit our houses in there. Harberts: And I'm understanding that the staff has understood that and you~'e reached agreement. Aanenson: As Ladd indicated it may not hurt if you wanted... Harberts: Right. Scott: This is superior to the one that came to us tho first time. And that's what the job is. Alright, any other questions or comments for staff? No? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RIX Associates represonfi-,g Heritage Development. I would like to thank Bob for going over the number of issues that we did work on based on the comments that you had indicated last time. And we have addressed the concerns we feel to the best possible solution within the confines of tho city code requirements as far as road grades, house pads, yards, side slopes that need to be addressed if 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 this site is to go a residential single family development accorcling to the comprehensive plan. The issue of site grading and cross sections, I have graphics and overheads if anyone has any further questions, we can go over those so...hit on a couple of the other issues. The roadway alignment, we are going to maintain the roadway alignment as it is proposed. I think Mr. Conrad makes a good point on this wetland. We have to do a delineation as part of the site preliminary plat requirements and with that we would like to avoid that as much as possible. With the roadway alignment where it is, it will be shifted a little bit within the right-of-way to try and minimize that. We will definitely do that As we would move through the wooded area on the south, this alignment does make the most efficient use of coming through that wooded area in order to minimize the tree loss which we also want to do. And with the curvalinear fashion running through the site with the undulating topography, we feel that has s~..set of aesthetics for both the users and the residential access would be placed on either side of the street. In terms of the overall improvements to the site, we have a great opportunity for the storm water pending areas, identified as Outlet C and Outlet D to capture storm runoff prior to it's discharging into the wetland itself and the wetland in the center portion of the site. The opportunity to have a higher water quality element for this site will be one strong outgrowth of the platting and development of this site. In turning to the parkland dedication I would like to touch on that for just a minute. First off I would like to go towards the final recommendations that are in the staff report. On page 28 of the staff report...just a couple of clarifications in terms of the recommendations. The first one is item number 28. Staff recommends that the cul-de-sac at the southern end of the site be a private drive. We~ve looked at it in terms of a public drive. We feel it functions best as a complete public system roadway but we will be willing to look at that as a private drive to try and close down the space and a little less impact to the trees. Number 29. The extension of an 8 inch sanitary sewer along the creek. We are still not convinced that that is the absolute best location. I know that engineering wise it would be great if we could work it...creek preservation elements that would have to be looked at with that sanitary sewer line runs along the center line of the creek. Thirdly the item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each of the wooded lots. We fully would intend that to be ' the case because these will be custom graded homes and they have been designed as shown on the grading plan submitted that the builcling plans will work with the grading out there. It should be noted that the woodland management plan which increased the number of replacement trees...did account for the areas within the building pads and the driveways to-be removed so that as an application would come in to those individual lots, they would have the... fight to remove the trees within that area because the replacement trees are being taken care. of at the time of the approval and are being replaced as part of the landscape plan and woodland management plan. Item number 33, with the trail alignment along the wetlands and Bluff Creek corridor. The proposal is that the trail alingment would follow within the 20 foot minimal with parkland dedication running north and south through the site and that the trail would remain along the eastern side of the pending areas, generally in the location that is 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 shown. We will gladly work with staff and a soils consultant to place that trail in ifs most appropriate place along that trail corridor. And Dave Hempel has indicated on number 32. We'd be happy to look at that as a part of the developer's agreement. I~d like to then switch to item number 12, the Park and Recreation Commission's condition. In terms of the parkland dedication. The overall site of 39.5 acres identifies up to 8.2 acres of outlet wetlands that would be considered, that will be turned over to the city for... In addition to that 8.2 acres, we are proposing that we will meet code, or actually exceed code by having the parkland dedication...for this site. Based on the 48 residential home sites on this subdivision, the requirement is 1.92 acres of parkland dedication. It is our full intent to dedica~ this property to the city in lieu of park dedication fees. We will donate the property as we had suggested in the plans submitted. With the plan identifying the north/south trail corridor, or parkland dedication corridor, the comprehensive plan identifies...rnnning north and south along the Bluff Creek corridor throughout the city. Bluff Creek corridor in the comprehensive plan is described as a linear park...and as part of the parkland dedication, trail opportunities are described as part of the parkland dedication and we feel the dedication of this 2 acre parcel running north and south provides the greatest experience for trail users to experience woodland areas, wetland areas of a high quality, open space, wetland area vegetation and then coming up to the north area, a chance to start having undulating trail system and then into the ravine that is along the northeast side of the site. The trail would have to be carefully constructed and maintained in that corridor to bo in conformance with the bluff line protection area. The parkland dedication ordinance determines what is proper for the parkland dedication. And your ordinance also stat~ that a trail is to be included as parkland dedication. The plat as submitted shows 2 acres of the dedication parkland. The Planning Commission has stated that it is interested in more parkland than the Heritage subdivision has indicated and in the instance where the city wants more land than the developers are prepared to dedicate, the ordinance states and has been identified in the staff report, that the land can be purchased or condemned. Accordingly if the commission desires more parkland than this subdivision identifies, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve tho plat as submitted with the recommendation that the city consider purchasing the wood lots in Block 2, Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11, located at the southeast comer of the plat which would essentially be this area here. The subdivision presented to you tonight has been a culmination of over 12 months of work with numerous redesigns, reconfigurations of roadway. Considerations of the environmental aspects and the number of lots that could be properly set into this north/south undulating topography site. It is our intent that this plan is the best solution-for a residential. subdivision within this site and it meets all objections of the subdivision ordinance for the city of Chanhassen. The plat as submitted with the 48 residential lots meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and we would request that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit and conditional use permit necessary in order for this preliminary plat to move forward and on up to City Council. With that I can answer any additional questions. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Scott: Questions or comments for the applicant? Thanks. $ohn Dobbs: ...John Dobbs, I'm...Hefitage Development. As Mr. Hoffman mentioned...we've been having conversations in one form or another about what this creek corridor parkland is going to be like for some months now. Because for the reasons that Mr. Dietrich stated in terms of what we believe the trail is in terms of park, a linear park...that discussions follow if there is more land required or desired by Planning Commission or City Council and staff other than what we're dedicating here, we can discuss the option of purchase and...you always have the right to condemn and go forward and we've had that conversation for quite a while so I'm in no way saying that either one of those options is something we'd be happy to look at... But in the end it ends up basically being an issue of park or a trail easement is park or whether ifs a taking... Thank you very much. Scott: This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canted. The public hearing was opened. Steve McCurry: My name is Steve McCurry and my address is 2050 Oakwood Ridge and I just had one question. I missed the previous meeting .unfortunately and.so I'm a little puw~,eled about item one in your list of five things. The transition between Timberland and this development. I have one very tangible question and that was, if preservation of a gain of 4 feet in elevation doesn't help since I don't know where we stm'ted from, and then some very general questions. I'd like some general information about the original plan. Generous: This is the Timberwood Es~es subdivision and this is the proposed new grade for this development. This is another cross section within the development. The existing grades. Steve McCurry: Where is that on the map? Just in the entire cross section... Generous: They're both in the northern third of the property. Hempel: By the cul-de-sac. Scott: If you can show where the section goes through. Mr. McCurry, are you primarily. interested in identifying where your property is? Steve McCurry: No, I'm curious in general about the, there was a comment about maintaining the aesthetics of tho transition between Timberland and...and I'm curious to know what the opinion was about what the aesthetics are and then I had a very specific question 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 because there are, there was a lot of discussion about...and how much earth had to be moved and so on and...certainly true. But knowing that it was 4 feet higher than it was... Scott: Did you get your question answered? Steve McCurry: I think so. My house is right on the bottom there. Generous: You'll overlook this development. Steve McCurry: Yeah, and I do now. I was just trying to get some understanding of how low the hill was going to be. It doesn't look bad. Thank you. Scott: Certainly. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Stan Rud: I'd just like to... My name is Start Rud, 2030 Renaissance Court. And it was mentioned on the transition there. Is there any landscaping or any trees or anything that are going to be put in as a buffer to Timberwood? Any evergreen type trees or will there be just power lines on the east or west of the power lines, because you can't climb under it... Generous: Just from the east side of, it's a mixture I believe. Stan Rud: Is there any kind of a landscaping picture or anyflaing? John Dietrich: ...in the wooded area.. Scott: Good. Anyone else? John Dobbs: John Dobbs again. Just briefly, NSP does...contact the people when they come back to do...so they will have to come back and contact people when they're cutting through to trim trees... Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Harbem seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heming was dosed. Ledvina: I think there have been some changes in the development plan. I think the applicant has worked with staff in making many of the changes come about. I think that after walking the site and having an opportunity to see the si~onificance of the, and the innerelation 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 between the Bluff Creek area, the wooded area and the wetland in the southern portion of the site. I feel it would be a tremendous amenity for the future residents in that area so I have to, I strongly support staff in their specific condition as it relates to the trail and the park in that axe& As I was reading through the City Council Minutes when this thing was evaluated as a PUD, I noted that the Council members were very concerned with the scr _eening and tho transition from Timberwood and I share that concern as well. I think the real concern occurs pretty much along the northern 1/3 of the property boundary with Timberwood and affecting those two residences. I know the developer has developed, or prepared a landscaping plan which somewhat intensifies the plantings in that area but I guess I feel that I would like to have this re-evaluated in light of the new grades. If we move things up. I don~t remember seeing this exact planting scheme so I don~t know how it compares with the previous plans but again I would like to see if there's an opportunity to intensify the plantings along that northern third of the property boundary and I'll leave that up to the applicant to work out with staff if that can be done. I think as it relates to the public improvements, we can handle that with the development agreement. I would support eliminating I think it's condition 32. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I'm comfortable with the transition between Timberwood and this parcel. When Matt and I walked the site there were two lots we were concerned with. Matt, I don't know who's going to make the motion but there were two lots that I think if I were in Timberwood I'd have a little bit of concern but other than those two, I think everything's fairly, there's enough distance there so I think staf report in general and the applicant and the staff have done a good job in making sure we have the right transition so, but again Matt, I don't know if your comments relate to those two. If they do, I would support at least a relook at what's appropriate for those two parcels. Kate, did we save any trees in the middle part there? The oaks. Aanenson: We've got one. Conrad: They all coming down? Aanenson: All those are down. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Conrad: I'll re-echo Matt's point. I think the park, as requested by the Park and Rec Department, the trail system and the park there, I think it's real appropriate. I think it is a good amenity. I think it should be purchased or condemned or whatever the appropriate vehicle is. I think that is something that Chanhassen should have for the residents. Other than that, my only other comment is, and I'm not sure how to do this. The one wetland that I referenced before. It is a classic pretty clean wetland and I guess I don't have the right motion to make but I guess the best I can do is to re-echo to staff that some great care I hope can be taken when we go in there and put a road in it because it will be-in it. Thafs all. Scott: Thanks, Jeff. Farmakes: I don't have much new to add. In fact nothing. I support the city being aggressive in regards to the park. I think that considering the amount of work or planning that's gone into the creek... The issue of the elevation plans, YI1 just support the comments that have already been made on that... Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval. I'm sorry, recommend preliminary plat approval of Subdivision ~94-7 subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 44 lots and 4 outlets subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following conditions. Elimination of conditions 1, 5, 11, 32 and addition of condition number 37 which shall read, applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further intensify planting along the nor&em Timberwood property line to enhance the screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge. Condition number 38. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel to adjust the roadway ali,.onrnent at the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-way to minimize tho impact to the existing wetland in that area. Scott: Can I have a second please? Conrad: I'll second. I.edvina moved, Conrad seconded flint the Plannln~ Commission recommends preliminary plat- approval of Subdivision #94-7 subdividing 39.~ acres of land into 44 lots and 4 outlets subject to the following conditions: . The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 . , . . 1 , . A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, ln~ections Division for review prior to final plat approval. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshall for approval. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to in.~ure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9-1. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. Park and Recreation conditions: The land bounded by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlet B on the west, and tho arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash. b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek Corridor/wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat. The alignment of the 8 foot bituminous trail be amended to reflect the .direction given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection with the railroad underpass.- Said trail to be constructed-.- with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Department prior to construction. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100 foot setback buffer around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber'blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type l'rl erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion control is required. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality pending design calculations shall be based on Wa[keYs Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial secur.i.'ty to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. the applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDot, and comply with their conditions of approval. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi- 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils en~neer shall be provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and pending areas lying outside the fight-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the pending areas. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permik Water quality fees will bo based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans. The applicant shall report to the City ENgineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turn around in accordance with' the- Fire Marshal's recommendations shall be provided. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 3). 5O Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 27. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan. Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included. 28. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security to gn~rantee the roadway extension will be completecL 29. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer. 30. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the city as outlots as well. 31. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss. 32. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line. 33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans t~ further intensify planting along the northem Timberwood property line to enhance the screening effect from existing Timbenvood development, particularly those dwellings at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge. 34. Applicant shall adjust the ali.onment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel to adjust the roadway alignment at the southem end of the parcel within the right-of- way t~ minimize the impact to the existing weflmui in that ~ All voted in favor and the motion carriexL Ledvina moved, Connul seconded that the PLanning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 094-4 to permit rifling and seplacing wetlands on the site subject to the following conditions: . The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the wetland located at the southwest corner of the site. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that dhe Planning Commission recomrr~nd approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 094=4 to pe,rmit idling and mldaeing wetlands on the site subject to the following conditions: o All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. , Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50 foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a 50 foot building setback. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. Kate Aanenson asked for clarification on the previous motion of Matt Ledvina~ Ledvina: That motion would include the Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit with the items identified in the staff report APPROVAL QF MINUTES: Harberts moved, Lodvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNC3L UPDATE: Scott: Could you give us a City Council update? Kate Aanenson stated that there was not a written update. Scott: Well the significant matter, I got in at about 8:00 and bas!cally the-discussion centered around reconsidering the Council's decision on the Ryan property. As you may recall, the Mayor voted for denial. I believe Councilman Senn voted to approve. I believe Councilman Wing voted to approve and I belive that Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained from voting. Ledvina: Wing also abstained. Mason voted for. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Scott: Okay, good. So what Councilman Mason made a motion that the Mayor and the Ryan's get together and bring ail the information to the table. I guess they were somewhat put off. The concern I know Councilwoman Dockendorf was concerned that a lot of new information camo to the table at tho City Council meeting and that they were put into a situation where some of them felt they had made a bad decision. A bad decision to one that could have been better if it were better informecL So Councilman Mason was concerned to make sure that his motion said that they wanted to basically reinforce the decision that they made to approve the development. However, it was not to specifically reconsider it for the purpose of reversing their decision. So I mean it was very specific in that they didn't want to give the impression that they were going to be over turning their decision. But they wanted to re-investigate ail the information and see it with enough lime so basically the Mayor's going to be getting together with the Ryan's. Aanenson: That's aiready happened today. We met with the applicant today so woql see, reaily what we're asking to do is to provide a little bit more detail... Ledvina: What's that? The 28th? Not our meeting. Scott: No. Aanenson: No, no. City Council. We won't be meeting again until December 7th so that will be our last meeting for the year. Scott: And that was really it. That meeting was over with at about 10 after 8:00. Aanenson: ...everything else was on Consent. And that came up I think,.. Scott: So that was to the best of my recollection on that one. Aanenson: You will have a largo agenda tho next meeting. You did table Lake Ann Highlands. We met with the applicant and neighbors. Bob and I did go out and look at one...so we've asked them to provide, looking at the knoll on there and see if they can revise the grading and give us some aiternatives. We 'have some additionai landscaping plans but '-- we just think... Farmakes: Was there any involvement from the citizens over there? Aanenson: Yes...there were two spokespeople that were at that meeting and Brad has set a neighborhood meeting with that group for November 30th. Neighborhood meeting to try and resolve some issues. I think it was a productive meeting. There's a lot of feelings... 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Farmakes: Do you feel that the spokespeople understand how the process works now? I got the impression from the group. Aaneoson: We tried. I'm not sure they do quite yet. We tried to work on that. Scott: Let me just ask a question. It's my perception that only in a few in,~ances are neighborhood meetings held motivated by the developer wanting to. I mean it seems like a lot of times. Aanenson: We always ask if there's a large neighborhood next door, like we did with the Oaks. They worked very closely with those people. If there's a large neighborhood next door... Scott: Yeah, it seems like the motivation does not come internally from the developer. It's more city staff. It's more tabling. Aanenson: It depends on the developer but generally if there's a neighborhood... Scott: Okay. Do we have any ongoing items'? Aanenson: No. I talked to you about, we're working with...We'll be working on that and then this Highway 5 thing and trying to get that resolved. The corridor. That's part of the other problem is the neighbors are concerned about we don~t even know where the road's going to be...and now we're getting into a new year. We,re kind of lost that learning curve... thought process there. MnDot is...we've got development happening and we need to know... Scott: But that falls in the Council's lap. Ledvina: But yeah. So is that decision going to be made? Aanenson: ...MnDot make the decision. Whether or not... Harberts: What's the approval time line? Aanenson: Well, they're saying it's a 1998 project. MnDot's trying to get...already got pushed back... Ledvina: I had a question. I saw in the Chanhassen Villager that there were 3 seats that were available with the Plsoning Commission. I thought there were 2. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 Aanenson: Yeah, we had to advertise. There was an ordinance that was passed that said that the Council will always advertise positions. I mean the three that are up, rye told them that you're interested. I have to get back to them to find out exactly what they want to do as far as, Lq the past they've always interviewed but that was because there was a vacancy... Ledvina: Yeah, there aren't any vacancies. Aanenson: But they still always advertise. Scott: Well yeah, that's fine and if people, I think as long as people know that the folks who are here want to do it. Aanenson: We put that in the ad too. The ad did say that all three... Scott: And if someone wants to be interviewed. Aanenson: ...but that's one of the resolutions... Then we will have just one meeting in December. Ledvina: I can handle a 1:00 o'clocker. Scott: How about open discussion? Harlem moved, Conrad seconded to mijoum lhe meeting. All voted in favor smi ~ motion carded. The meeting wm ~djoumed at 10:40 ixm. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 55