The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1993 01 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY ~, 1993 The Planning Commission interviewed applicants prior to the regular meeting. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:55 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENI: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: LAKEVIEW HILLS NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL 8EACHLOT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY. Public Present: Name Address Donna Bohn Craig Hertz Bob Peterson Delbert Smith Don Sitter Ray Lewis 9201 40 1/2 Ave No, New Hope Suite 1100, 120 So 6th Street, Mpls 55402 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 lake Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: We didn't get the nifty little summary sheet that we normally get of what they're asking for. Did you guys get it? Krauss: No. You mean where we had the '81 survey. What they're asking for. No. I gather Kate didn't do it that way this time. It's pretty much limited to what you see in the conditions. Batzli: Let me ask one question because after I read the attorney's letter, the sheet that has the three columns. Emmings: Oh right. Batzli: It appears to me that the applicant is, well the attorney is submitting an application on behalf of the applicant, they then go onto say that they're really not, they're not subject to this ordinance. Are we comfortable, by the time we get done approving this and the City Council approves it, are they then subject to this ordinance or are we just approving them promelgating certain rules which will take care of the noise and nuisance that's been going on there? Krauss: Well, we will ask the City Attorney to clarify that when it gets up to the City Council. I believe Kate was in contact with him and he didn't seem to think it presented much of a problem. That they would be Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 2 obligated. They've accepted the conditions and they would be obligated to operate under them. Batzli: Okay. So this, okay. Is the applicant here tonight? Craig Mertz: You bet. I'm Craig Mertz and Donna Bohn is here from the management company also. I'm here representing the Lakeview Hills Investment Group, which is the owner of the project. Some of your past paperwork refers to a Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association. There is no such thing. Never has been such a thing and if you thought there was an association, you were misled. This is strictly an apartment complex. There's approximately 170 units in this. -The position of the owners is that they have the status of a valid non-conforming use and they are entitled to continue to do what they were doing when your ordinance was adopted but in the spirit of cooperation, we have advised staff that what we want to do and plan on doing is continue to use the property just as we had in the past and without any waiver of those rights, we're willing to promelgate the 4 conditions that I outlined in my letter. The first was the gate and the second was the change in the overnight boat storage situation. The third was that those people who did want to store boats overnight would move them up to the parking lot of the apartment complex itself at night. Fourth, we'd limit the dock length to the 50 feet. Another way of saying it is we plan to continue to use the boat launch. We plan to continue to make the property available for resident picnics, barbeques, portable barbeque grills, daytime boat storage, docking at the beach, swimming, etc. but we will impose, or agree to impose those 4 conditions that I mentioned in the letter. We've given you some historical material. You've seen the 1977 picture before. It isn't in today's packet apparently but that depicts a dock. We've given you copies of the advertising copy relative to the past dock on the property and we've given you two affidavits covering the historical situation on the property. So with that I guess I'm open to questions, if that's what you want to do. 8atzli: I guess I have one question and that is, is it your position then that you're waiving the rights or you're not waiving rights and so you could take back your promelgated rules and allow these 4 things to occur. Are those the rights that you're? Craig Mertz: Our position is that we'i1 agree to do these things and carry these things out but it's our decision and not your's. That you do not have the authority to impose this on a valid non-conforming use. Batzli: These additional things which weren't occurring on, in other words. What this originally, what we were attempting to do was to get a handle on what level of activity and intensity of use was occurring on the various beachlots back in '81. I understand your position that you feel that you're not subject to this for a technical reason that there was no homeowners association apparently. So are you submitting an application here today? Are you not, do you somehow feel that even though you're going through the application process and we're trying to bring you into the fold as a conforming use under our new ordinance, that you're not subject to our new ordinance? Is that your position? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 3 Craig Hertz: Our position is notwithstanding this procedure, we have valid rights as a non-conforming use but nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, will go through this process and register the historical level of useage, if you will. Batzli: Does anyone else have any other questions before I, okay. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this particular issue. Feel free to step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address please for the record. Raymond Lewis: My name is Raymond Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. I've been here and participated in the last two hearings on this subject. I have a couple, several recommendations I'd like to make. The first recommendation is that it was my understanding that the proposed gate was supposed to be locked only at night. I think the Gate is an excellent idea but it's been my observation that there's uncontrolled use of the launch ramp during peak hours where the public access is being used. And so I think that the gate should be locked at all times, whenever the residents are not using the launch ramp. The second thing is, and this is a point that I brought up at the last hearing. The launch ramp is undeveloped. It's unpaved. It's basically soil with some gravel on it and if you look at it, it has deep gullies and ravines and it's very evident that there's been erosion. Erosion that's silting in the lake are a source of nutrients and reduce the water clarity and I think that the Lakeview Mills should submit a permanent erosion plan and enact it to make sure that future erosion doesn't degrade the lake. And the last thing is that in the last 2 years, Lake Riley has been innudated by Eurasian Milfoil. It's a big problem. It's a particular problem in the north bay where the water adjoins this beachlot property. And I think it's reasonable for the Lakeview Mills to participate in water quality programs and lake weed programs that are initiated by the Lake Riley Homeowners Association or Lake Improvement Association and by local government. And I'd like to see the Lakeview Mills participate as members of the community. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Also a homeowner. I guess I have to ask some questions. Excuse my ignorance. Do I understand that there is an ordinance for the beachlot control and they do not feel that they are bound by this ordinance? Is that what I'm hearing? Batzli: There was a first beachlot ordinance passed in the 80's that in essence excluded existing beachlots. Right Paul? At the time they were an existing beachlot and for a technical reason, apparently there was some language in there which included homeowners associations owning the beachlot. They do not have a homeowners association and so they feel that they would not even come under the purview of the current ordinance, which this is all part of the process of getting these non-conforming beachlots to a certain level of activity so that we can regulate them. They can't increase that activity. I don't think they're saying that they can expand over what their level of intensity was, but that due to Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 4 some language in the ordinance, they don't fall under the prerequisite for this ordinance. I'm paraphrasing I think what their position Don Sitter: Okay. And I'm trying to understand if they're trying to fall under the ordinance or if they're saying they are doing this .just out of the goodness of their heart and we basically have absolutely no control over this beachlot and I'm still, l'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Batzli: Well, the level of control that we have on beachlots under this process is we're trying to freeze the level of intense use at any of these beachlots as to where it was in 19Sl. We did not survey this beachlot back in '81 so the City has very little evidence of what was taking place on the beachlot back in '8i. I think that they're saying, they will go through the process and they will implement certain rules to try and develop a level of activity that was occurring back then but if they want to change those rules, they can. That's their position. I think the City's position is, they do fall under this ordinance process and they are subject to it. Don Sitter: So if we approve them to fall into this ordinance, we're trying to I guess gain the control that we think we're gaining under this ordinance. Is that right? Batzli: Yeah. Don Sitter: Okay. I guess I'd like to second, raise concerns of I think the gate is a wonderful idea and I think control is a big part of keeping this. Working with the community. My question is of enforcement. Who will enforce these rules? Who will make sure the gate stays locked? Is this something you'd call the police on or is it something you'd call the apartment? Who enforces something like that? Krauss: Well you know, we need a clarification again from the City Attorney when this gets up to the Council. What we have here is lawyers doing lawyer things and reading innuendo and meaning things that may or may not be there. The opinion we have thus far from our City Attorney is that our ordinances are enforceable. Craig on behalf of the beachlot owners dispute that but that's something that you know, if we have to decide that in court, then we'll do that. If we have to chan~e one word in the ordinance, then we would do that too. The fact of the matter is though, is that they're being cooperative in proposing it. However they get there. We believe that in the future henceforth, if there is a problem, that it's the kind, they deviate from the conditions, that it's something that would be enforced through the City. Don Sitter: Through the city, okay. And I guess I'd like to compliment you on putting the gate or the sign that you did put up there. I thought that was really helpful. I also agree with Ray with the erosion control, and I guess we're basically asking you to put something in to help with the erosion control. And is there anything in the ordinance on toilet facilities being required at something like this? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 5 Krauss: No. Toilet facilities can be installed at the applicant's request and it's a conditional use permit. We do allow it but we don't mandate it. Batzli: It goes through a process like this. A public hearing. Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I guess I'd like to turn to you and ask you. Craig Mertz: We're not asking for toilets. Don Sitter: Okay. We'd sure recommend some kind of toilet facilities. If that's at all possible, I guess we're asking you to do whatever you can. We'd like to ask you to install a Satellite or something on the property. Craig Mertz: ...didn't want a Satellite. Don Sitter: A Satellite or something like that would be much better than having people going in the woods uncontrolled. And we've all seen the size of the parties that end up there on Friday nights and it would be nice to have some'place for them to use. So and thank you for your time. Batzli: Thank you very much. ts there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Craig Nertz: Hay I respond to a couple? Batzli: Sure. Craig Mertz: We have no intention of expanding the non-conforming use on the property. Certainly the city, if it felt that expansion is taking place...enforce the ordinance against the owners of Lakeview Hills. Regarding the access to the lake, the owners have no intention that this would be a public access for anyone to use. To come on the property. It's an access point for our residents and their invited guests. We're attempting to control the access and keep strangers off of the property. The toilet facilities, I don't think that's part of this particular process. That's something we can look into. Batzli: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have any? Ahrens: Just to clarify something for the neighbors here~ These items that are listed as voluntary, I don't even know what to call them. Batzli: Promelgated rules. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 6 Ahrens: Voluntary promelgated rules. That these aren't going to be conditioned on any permit because Roger says we can't put conditions on a permit right? Krauss: There's no question that the one dealing with boat dockage should be and is a condition. That was the intent of this whole ordinance. Ahrens: Let's talk about the gate issue. That's not a condition we can put on any permit. Krauss: The gate probably gets into the area of voluntary compliance~ Ahrens: Right. So there's really no enforcement of that. You can't call the City. You can't call the police. You can't call anyone to enforce that kind of thing. Krauss: That's, unless Roger tells me differently, that's probably true. Ahrens: Okay. Is that clearer? Don Sitter: That's what I was trying to ask... In other words, they're doing this voluntarily? But if they decided to change their mind or take away the lock or just don't lock it at all, there's nothing we can do about it? Is that right? Ahrens: That's right. Okay. A question on the application itself. I'm kind of confused about, this is a statement of first of all of what existed on the beachlot in i981. Number 7 says the number of boats docked overnight was 0 in 1981, as I understand it. And then number 9 said, so there were no boats docked but stored on land it says there were 8 to 10 in canoe racks. Or they were on land or in canoe racks. And then number 11 says that, the number of boats on land overnight were as many as 15. What was the actual number of boats on land in I9817 Do you understand that? Or am I looking at something wrong? Craig Hertz: It should have been 10 that were overnight... Ahrens: 8 to ~10 or 107 Craig Hertz: 8 to 10. Ahrens: So you're asking for 8 to 10 boats on land... Oh, you're saying that that's what existed in 1981. Okay. I understand the concern of the neighbors. I'm not sure, the purpose of our hearing tonight is the establishment of what the use was in %981. I'm not sure that's accomplished by the affidavits that are attached to this. With this application it's evident by the pamphlet that there was some use in %98%. What it was I don't think can be established. The affidavit of Sandra Durand just says there was use...so we're back to this guessing game. Really all we have is the application that states what the use was. We don't have any kind of documentation as to what the use was. I feel kind of, I don't know where to go with this again. If anybody else has any ideas, I'll listen but. Planning Commission Heeting January 6, 1993 - Page 7 Batzli: Okay. So your position is? Ahrens: I don't know yet. I mean if someone else has some clear idea of what the use was. It doesn't make much sense to me to just look at an application and say this is what they say it is when there's really no other documentation that states what the exact use was. Sure there was a use but what was it? Nothing in here states what the use was. The numbers of boats docked. The numbers of boats on land. What was, how was that beachlot being used? We don't have any documentation that specifically states what the use was. Conrad: Are you comfortable with their requested use? Emmings: And let's just stop here and make sure we all understand what this requested use is. t see this as 5 fishing boats or sailboats and canoes. Is that what you're thinking? Because that's what's on the application on the number 7. Conrad: Well the application states '81 useage. I'm reading it real literally in terms of what they want to use and that's one canoe rack, 8 to 10 boats. Daytime useage. So no overnight storage? Emmings: Right. Well, but in number 11 it says overnight as many as Conrad: But in my mind this kind of supersedes what they had in '81. Emmings: Oh okay. Conrad: And I don't, I guess I don't have a problem with this document that they're submitting. In terms of their current useage. Emmings: Okay. Conrad: I don't know, Joan's comment might be right. If we agree to that level of useage, does that also mean that we've agreed to the useage that they had back in '817 Krauss: I think that's an important point. You may want to add a condition. You're right Commissioner Ahrens. You're being asked to accept something at face value that's somewhat difficult to dispute. Clearly there was something there. But you may want to add a condition, if you're comfortable with it, that says that for the sake of interpretation of this ordinance, that you have defined that the level of use for the purposes of this ordinance in 1981 was 8 to 10 boats. Irregardless of what's on this application. If you define it in that way, it gives you some way of enforcing that into the future. Ahrens: Can we do that? Krauss: There is nothing, I mean the hardest part of your job was to figure out exactly what was there in '81. It seems to be an impossible task. On the one hand you're being asked to take the ballpark, well it's 10 to 15 boats. On the other, you're saying that consistent with existing uses, it's more like 8 to 10 boats. There doesn't seem to be Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 8 any clear guidance. Where there's no clear guidance, I'd take a shot at it. Craig Mertz: The question from our standpoint is which day in 19817 Every day is different. Emmings: We let you pick it. Craig Mertz: Well we'd pick the 4th of July I guess. Batzli: Well, are you guys currently comfortable with 8 to 10 boats? Craig Mertz: Yes. Ahrens: Okay. I guess I don't have any choice but to go along with it. We have no other alternative. Craig Mertz: I think the situation is, this gate thing is for our benefit also. We don't want strangers coming down there using, the facility. This is supposed to be for our residents and their invitees. And we don't want third parties down there making trouble...and the overnight restriction is for our benefit also. That's going to keep the useage turning over so they're not the same residents that are using that lake access day after day and hogging it, if you will. We're rotating useage through our residents by having this park it up at the building. Ahrens: Do you have any objection to locking it during the day, like these people asked? Craig Mertz: No. Ahrens: Do you change the locks once a year because of the rental building? Craig Mertz: We can gate it in the daytime. It's not a big problem on our end. Batzli: Jeff, do you have any comments? Farmakes: I think this whole thing needs a big dose of pragmatism. I like Mr. Lewis' 3 issues. It seems that the applicant is not adverse to doing that. And it discussed the milfoil issue but if they're a property owner on the lake, I'm sure they're interested. Clearly that particular lake is quite subjected to that type of damage being that it's quite shallow. I still get confused when we talk about this, not being an attorney. It was my understanding that this whole thing that we have been discussing so many times...such a long period, is the issue of expansion of use and what we get thrown in along with this is citizens coming in that are adjacent to the property complaining about current use. They don't like so many people parking here. They leave garbage cans. Or beer cans or they build fires and things like this nature. it's my understanding that just to focus this that if we are to evaluate, this is the use you had in 'el and this is what you've got now. This is Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 9 the difference. You have to make an adjustment to that. It's not very clear as to what the existing use was there. I agree with Joan. I think the City should come to an agreement or an arrangement as to what they're comfortable with. And as to the legal interpretations on it, obviously I support the City on whatever direction they take with that but it seems to me that the client is willing to take care of the issue of irresponsibility in using that access, in that case. To get the problem solved there and at the same time it would seem to me to come to a. pragmatic agreement as to bow many boats they can have there. I'd support that. For 170 units, it doesn't seem to me to be out of line. Although what I'm doing is undermining the issue that we've been dealing with with the other associations, and I realize you're claiming you're not an association but non-conforming use beachlots is that the issue of use in '81 versus use now. I don't know how else to get around that since we can't define use iD Batzli: Would you support 8 to 10 boats? Or don't you know? Farmakes: Well I have nothing to base that in. I think unless we can come up with some evidence to the contrary and an agreement needs to be cut between our staff and the applicant as to what is acceptable. Within the realms of safety and... Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. Emmings: I basically agree with what Jeff just said and I think that approving them for 8 to 10 boats stored and the rest of the conditions that are set out in this request and perhaps adding to it. Do you have a swimming beach there? Craig Mertz: People do swim there but it's not a particularly attractive place. Emmings: Alright. And that's an activity that's 9one on I supposed so that maybe should be approved. Is there a raft? Craig Mertz: Not at the moment but in the past I understand that there was...and I think there was one in i981. We have no plans to put in a raft. Emmings: Well okay, alright. So we can leave that out. Alright. So we're going to do nothing. There's no way to do anything but go round and round on this and so I think we just have to set it and to me what's being requested here seems reasonable. Batzli: Okay, Matt? Ledvina: I had a question. Maybe Paul can respond to this. Does the DNR have specific requirements for maintaining access ramps to lakes, in terms of preventing a situation such as this with erosion? Krauss: I'm actually not certain on that but we could sure find out before it gets to Council. Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 6, 1993 - Page 10 Ledvina: Okay. Because maybe there's something that we can make the applicant aware of that, some standards that they can use to help improve our situation there. If that's possible. Let's see, otherwise I think it appears reasonable in terms of 8 to 10 boats. There's just the boats, these will be canoes and then they'll be fishing boats. Will there be boats on trailers and that type of thing as well? Do you anticipate that use? Craig Mertz: ...lead them down to the water on trailers. Ledvina: Okay. So you'll have boats on trailers stored right on the beachlot then? Craig Mertz: No, no. We'll have people coming down in the daytime and who will put their boat in the water and they may bring the trailer back up to the apartment parking lot or they may leave their trailer on the lot. But overnight, they have to get their boat and their trailer up to the apartment parking lot. I should mention here, when we're throwing out this 8 to 10, what that means to us is that there might be 8 to 10 parked there either hooked up to the dock or beached or up on the beach itself at a given point in time but we might have 15 boats using the water. There might be 5 out in the lake and I0 on the beachlot. Ledvina: Okay. That helps to clarify that. No further comments. Conrad: I think the applicant's done a good job of taking care of most of our concerns. If we can have daytime, if we can lock the gate during the daytime, I think that's the only addition that I would impose. I think the neighbors, the two other points, ! just don't think they're part of this process. They're important but I don't think they're something that we can deal with in our realm right now. I do have a problem approving the beachlot application that stated what the use was in '81 for line item 9 and _1.1. Now I'm trying to understand, does everybody else feel that that was a documented? Well I now you don't. Some of you don't but are we saying that that useage, on number 9 and is acceptable? Craig Mertz: Can I clarify that since...? Part of the trouble here was understanding the form that you have. On number 9 what we're asserting is that in canoes there were between 8 or 10 of them overnight. Some of the people might have put them in the racks. Some of the people might have had them laying on the ground. When you get down to number That we are asserting that as many as 15 of the boats, or watercraft if you will, the all inclusive term, were up there overnight. So I explained it wrong. Batzli: So you had as many as 15 on the property. Watercraft. Craig Mertz: We believe in 1981 we had as many as I5 watercraft up there overnight. Batzli: And that would include the 8 to 10 canoes? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 11 Craig Mertz: That would include those canoes. I think the canoe rack had a different configuration. Conrad: Okay. Then I can accept number 9, that Craig talked about. Basically I don't care. I think that canoes are not a major issue. Now my only concern is number 1I. Obviously they've said in their statement to us that that's not going to happen. They have a different anticipated use but I guess, the 15 boats stored, I don't want to say that I agree with that right now. I don't want to debate it. I just want to make sure that if they go back on what their recommended use is, that I'm not locked into point number 11, saying that I agree with that. Batzli: If we find 8 to 10 boats, and we're going to grant 8 to I0 canoes, no overnight parking of boats, then that solves it. (~s far as if we, at least if we determine in our devine wisdom that that's the level of. Conrad: It solves it based on our agreement. But it doesn't solve it legally. Because if they decide that they don't come under this ordinance, if they decide they don't come under this ordinance I guess this is just folly anyway. ~ Emmings: As a suggestion Ladd, maybe we could ignore the application and just say what we're approving for them under the non-conforming beachlot in terms of what they're written. Ahrens: It's not really an application. Emmings: So that we don't have to take a position on this thing. Because I feel the same way you do. Conrad: I like what you're doing. I guess I don't want to say we've done a good job of backgrounding. Batzli: Well, as part of the whole original ordinance process, and people coming in here, the burden was intentionally placed on the applicant. To the extent that the applicant is unable to prove that they had 15, we can find that we think there was only 8 to 10. And if you want to find that you can. Emmings: Not without a rational basis you can't. You have no basis for that whatsoever. And I don't think... Batzli: Well, then your other choice is not to approve anything. Conrad: No. I think we can approve what their request is. I think we can acknowledge their beachlot application except for point number i1. Therefore we're acknowledging that everything on their application we may believe is true, except for point number 11. So if they withdraw their recommendation use and then they go back to default some other use. We can say, well we never really said that you had i5 boats. Batzli: Okay. My comments are, I'tl buy into your proposed plan there Ladd. I don't think they've necessarily given us data to make a final Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 12 determination and I guess I support the City's interpretation so I'm going through this exercise as if they are becoming subject to our ordinance. Is there a motion? Is there any other discussion first before someone makes a motion? Conrad: I'll make the motion but I don't know what I'm going to make the motion. They have not, are we making a motion for a non-conforming beachlot application? Is that what it is? Okay. I make a motion that we approve the non-conforming recreational beachlot application of Lakeview Hills Investment Group with the recommendations that are found on the staff report dated December 28, 1992. That a change in number 1, which would have the gate being closed or keyed also during the daytime. And then maybe a sixth point. A sixth point would state that the Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the application itself. But all other historic information has been agreed to. Batzli: Is there a second? Emmings: I'll seco nd it. Batzli: Discussion. No discussion. Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lakeview Hills Apartment Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with the following recommendations: Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management); 2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohiit overnight boat morring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe in canoe racks (application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored); 3. All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Bird) and other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment building; 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; 5. Continued use of the boat launch; 6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the application itself but all other historic information has been agree¢ to. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Satzli: When does this go to the City Council? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 13 Krauss: I believe the 25th. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in everyone. Craig Mertz: Paul, is that February 25th? Krauss: I'm sorry, January 25th. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed. I'm sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you. We had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon. Their attorneys called us to pull from them from the agenda. It's item number 4. Batzli: So that one's gone, okay. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 10UTLOT ON ProPErTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JUST NORTH Of NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEWOOD ADDITION, STUART HOARN. Public Present: Name Address Julius C. Smith Dan Rogers David Lundahl W. Pat Cunningham 7600 France Avenue So, Mpls 55435 6500 Nez Perce Drive 6501Nez Perce Drive 865 Pleasant View Road Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith. I'm here representing the landowner to the immediate west of that property. Emmings: Who is that? Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr. Now I can put it in the negative or the positive. I'll take it in the positive. We don't object to this, provided that it doesn't negatively impact the lots to the west, which my client owns. He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hope that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who is being benefitted of course, because he's getting two lots out of one, that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers~ And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be done or we should establish or the City should establish a 20 foot conservation easement certainly along our side. We've spent a considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation district where they can't remove the trees. They've done it with my client on several parcels. The other question, the other thing we're concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road. Under the initial platting, Lot 2, the original Lot 2 was required to go to Nez Perce Road, and we don't have any .problem if both lots go to Nez Perce Road but we don't want, we would object to any authorization allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outtot A. Since Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 14 that was prohibited before, we would like to see that prohibition remain. And make that a condition of approval. So essentially we don't have a problem with it provided they don't tear all the trees out next to our lots. Our lots to the west and we would hope the City would apply the same requirements that they applied to everybody else with regard to trees and replacement thereof. Or if it's not possible, because you're going to put two houses in there, that there at least be a 20 foot conservation easement along the side, on the west. Batzli: Paul, could you respond to the tree replacement and the access on Outlot A and the buffer. Proposed buffer, Or he would like to see a buffer. Krauss: Let me take the easy one first. There is no access being proposed to Pleasant View Road. A condition backing that up is certainly fine with staff. I believe the old driveway to Pleasant View Road, there was no anticipation of using it. It's a remnant outtot that was left over from the subdivision. We preferred at that point that it get incorporated into adjoining lots and there was some presentations by the property owner, the developer at that point that he was going to offer that for sale to adjoining properties and apparently it's never been done. We're still requesting that that be done. So again, I think you can put that to bed by just adding a condition that neither of these lots should access to Pleasant View Road. As to the tree preservation issue, Mr. Smith is correct. As far as subdivisions go, we do have a tree replacement policy. We do do that. However, on single family lots, which these generally are right now. I mean we're taking one lot and splitting them into two, typically what we do is establish tree preservation, a no cut area, around the homes to minimize cutting. That has been done. There is a condition to that effect. It states that landscaping, tree preservation, home placement plans, shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. As to the question of buffering single family homes in the Troendle Addition, that's somewhat more problematic. First of all the location of the driveways that are being illustrated on the plat would preclude that~ I suppose it's possible to kick those driveways over somewhat to save additional trees. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been up there. Unfortunately, Kate could be here tonight. She was ill. But if there are trees on the property line, we can certainly work to incorporate some of those to some extent into there by kicking the driveway over. But the fundamental issue of buffering between one single family home and another is not something that we've gotten into in the past, and I really wouldn't advocate that you launch into that for the future. These are not, I mean the homes that are built in Vineland Forest area are not insubstantial. I think the neighborhood has developed quite attractively and people typically do significant landscaping. So if there is some desire, I think Mr. Smith is right. I think there were some trees along the old Troendle driveway, and I'm not sure who's side of the property they're on. Julius Smith: Troendle is again another bunch of lots over further west. Krauss: No, it's this one. Oh I'm sorry, you're right. It's after one more. It's the homesite. If there are trees within 10 feet of the Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 15 property, I think we can do something like that. But it's kind of hard to see on that drawing. But if you look at the larger sized print, the driveway that's being illustrated virtually butts up against that western property line. Batzli: But there's two driveways illustrated on this. Wouldn't that shrink once we go with the single driveway? Krauss: Yes. Well, the condition though that's been applied by the engineering department is only that they have a single curb cut. It gets split out into two driveways. We can, and probably ought to because it's in our subdivision code, require that they share a common driveway beyond House number. Batzli: When it says the applicant shall utilize a single driveway access in condition 5, that means one curb cut? That doesn't mean one driveway? Krauss: Yeah. Ahrens: That doesn't even make sense actually. Batzli: And then you require a cross access or driveway easement. Why would you require those things if they have two separate driveways? Krauss: Because at one point they will Y down and run together. Batzli: This is the property line there. He doesn't come over it. Emmings: Oh, you're right. Krauss: What you will do is you'll have a single driveway that will branch off at some point, so there is a common section. Ahrens: That's not how it shows on the plan. 8atzli: The plan shows two and it shows. Krauss: That's correct. The plan is wrong. This is a condition to remedy the plan. But an alternative in this is to require that you, we're spinning our wheels with a lot of concrete here... If there's a common driveway that runs something like that, them you do have more clearance. Batzli: Is the condition the way it's worded now require the red line? Krauss: No. The green line. Ahrens: Why not require the red line? Krauss: I honestly don't have a problem with that. Batzli: Now explain to me one more time why you would require for your green lines, why there has to be a cross easement? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 16 Krauss: You've got this common point of intersection where they're both using the same piece of blacktop which may be on one or the other properties. Batzli: Have you looked at the way this is drawn on the map? Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: I mean this second driveway from Lot 1 never touches Lot 2. Krauss: It doesn't the way it's drawn. The way it's drawn is not the way the engineering department is asking for it to be drawn. Batzli: Okay Krauss: I mean essentially what you do. If you see that little diagonal, this corner of the lot? Batzli: Yep. Krauss: That would be almost the center line of the common driveway. So you'd line up 10 feet on one side of it you know...5 feet on the other. Batzli: I feel like I'm not communicating well here so we'll go on. Conrad: You're right Batzli: Where were we? Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive, which is basically on-the inside of the corner that you can just see of Nez Perce there. A number of the residents there are concerned, myself included, about the type of homes I guess. We would also like to see that those homes conform to the covenants that we have conformed to, due to the proximity of this lot to our development. I'm wondering if, has there been any type of plan as far as the size and style of homes submitted yet? Batzli: Let me ask something. Are you to the south of this or right to the west in Vineland? Or are you across the street? Can you point there? Dan Rogers: I'm there. Batzli: Oh, you're across the Nez Perce. Okay. There's been nothing in regard to style or cost. Emmings: We can't impose covenants from one development onto somebody elses land. Don Rogers: Right, I understand. From listening earlier that this portion was originally a part of Vineland Forest. Did I hear that correctly? Planning Commission Heeting January 6, 1993 - Page 17 Krauss: As I recall, it was one of the lots that was split off from Vineland Forest but I think Frank had an interest in it. Julius Smith: No, that isn't correct. This property, if you don't mind... The property line for Vine'land Forest was here. It stopped. This was all one piece and when Van Eckhout did then with Vineland Forest, he bought this chunk from this guy to get access from Vineland Forest out to Pleasant View. And he had three lots here plus a long road coming through. During his hearings, that road was eliminated and Mr. Beddor objected to that road and so Mr. Van Eckhout had three lots here and Frank bought those lots from him. This used to be all one piece so this never was part of the Vineland Forest property. It was a totally different ownership. Then this parcel split in two with the back half going here. This was required as a part of the Vineland Forest plat. Krauss: That was done in the Vineland Forest plat. Julius Smith: So that there would be an access, you know however that might develop. So that this lot would come south and not go up to Pleasant View. Dan Rogers: I'm not terribly familiar with how everything works at the City. Is it the Plannino office then that approves housing plans? Krauss: Nell, yeah. The Building Department does review housing plans. Ne review them as well. Ne review them against Code minimums. That doesn't get at what your issue is. Typically covenants, and I'm not sure what the Vineland Forest covenants are, is that the house value should be $180,000.00 or whatever. Dan Rogers: Or square footage. Krauss: A certain size and have so many garages. That's not something that's enforceable by the City. Nor is it frankly legal for us to demand that there be a certain value. The market dictates that it generally happens but we can't assure you of that fact. Dan Rogers: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Let me see if there's anyone else that has a comment first okay? Yes, please. Dave Lundahl: My name is Dave Lund'ahl. I live at 6501Nez Perce. I am the lot exactly south of there. The first thing I would say is that I would, I guess I would like to see the red line driveway. I would much prefer that to the separate driveways. Ail of the trees and stuff that are where that driveway goes right now, happen to be some quite large oaks so I'm disappointed to see those go. I understand that probably can't be changed. But I would also ask if there is something that can be done to preserve some of the trees along the lot line on my side of this piece of property. I'm also concerned of course about what type of home is going to go in there and will it conform to the rest of the neighborhood since there are only going to be 2 homes alongside of a Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 18 development that's already there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we ask the developer to conform to similar type convenants. Batzli: Well you certainly should talk to the developer and see if you can, it's something that we can't necessarily do but often times neighbors do have a large impact on a. developer's plans so. Dave Lundahl: Is there any information about the number of vehicles per household that we could expect that would help us to insure that there's only one single driveway there? Emmings: The number of vehicles per house are the number of spaces in the garage plus 1. If it's anything like my neighborhood. If you have a 1 car garage, there's 2 cars. If you have a 2 car garage, there's 3 cars. Conrad: I don't think there's anything you can hang your hat on to help in that issue. The issues you can deal with are what we're talking about right here. You're kind of don't have control. Dave Lundahl: Well, I would reiterate my desire to see the red line type driveway recommended. Batzli: Thank you very much. Yes sir. 3ulius Smith: 3ust as a point of clarification. It's my understanding there's no access to Pleasant View authorized by this and also that tree replacement...ordinances don't apply to single family plats. Did I read that right? Paul, is that what it says? Krauss: Jules, they have not been applied to single family lots. Once you're looking to site a home, once the plat, the lots are created, we require that roads be moved to save trees. We require that lots be reconfigured to save trees. Where a developer has asked to cut them down, we require replacement. But when individual homes have been built, it's one of those things where something has to give someplace and what's been done in the past is that the home is allowed to go in. They establish a no cut zone around the home and make sure that the equipment doesn't go outside of that area but you have to make a lot buildable. 3ulius Smith: Well, except they're going to cut down all the trees along the west line. Krauss: Well I think that can be addressed. Batzli: Well can we make it a condition that the driveway that we approve minimizes disturbance of the trees at the entry point onto Nez Perce and on the western line? Krauss: I think that you can do better than that. Frankly, I don't offer this as an excuse but this was, there was something that I caught reading this tonight. I mean we have an ordinance that says when you have flag lots and you share common driveways, that you use a single driveway. That it be paved 20 feet wide to a 7 ton design I believe. In Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 6, 1993 - Page 19 this case, I mean it doesn't, they checked with the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal was willing to accept this because both homes are within 150 feet of the street which is the distance they can lay a hose. But yes, ! think in the interest of tree preservation, you can insist that they share a common driveway over Lot 2. Going down to a single driveway on Lot 1 and that that driveway be designed to avoid impact to the trees as much as possible. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Discussion, Ladd. Conrad: Are we obligated to allow that lot split? Krauss: It has no variances. It conforms to your ordinances. Conrad: 3ust reading through here. The driveway that gets to Lot 1, is that an easement? Krauss: No. They've actually platted it as a neck. Conrad: And we can allow that? I guess my biggest problem with this is that access that is forced into the tree line. A-nd so if we can solve that problem, I guess I am comfortable with it. But I'm not sure what we're solving here. You know I'm saying those words and I haven't given an absolute, I want to save this. I guess we're coming up loose to staff. Ledvina: We don't really know where the trees are. You know if we moved it one way or the other, that's impossible. Krauss: Well however though, when you go from having two i0 or 15 foot wide driveways to having a single common 20 and you lose the dead space inbetween, you've got a lot more flexibility. 8atzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: A couple of technical things here. The subdivision number, is that 92-13 or are we using 93 numbers now? Or is this a holdover from last year? Krauss: It was submitted last year. Ledvina: Okay. And then condition number 3. There's some verbage missing. On the first line it should read, the applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road right-of-way. That was in Dave's report but didn't get in here. Krauss: Well actually no. If I remember right, Pleasant View Road runs on the bias through there and the condition that we've been using is Planning Commission Heeting January 6, 1993 - Page 20 actually accurate. That they will dedicate over Outlot A whatever it takes to make 40 foot on centerline. Ledvina: Okay. So you're...7 feet, you just want. Krauss". That's the approximate amount but it varies from one side to the other . Ledvina: Okay, that's fine then. Batzli: Then just take out the word "of". Ledvina: Yeah. Additional road right-of-way, okay. Because it looked like something was missing and I thought that could have been the problem. I guess I would generally support the discussions regarding the access or preventing access to Pleasant View and then the driveway situation. Batzli: That's it? Okay, thank you. Steve. Emmings: I have nothing additional and I agree with the comments that have been made so far. Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: No comments. Batzli: Brian. Okay. Thank you. Can we force this condition number 4 to happen? Krauss: I don't believe so. We had the same problem in the past. I'd like to double check that with the City Attorney. Batzli: But we wouldn't necessarily have to approve this if we didn't like the fact that this had an Outlot A in it, correct? Or because everything else meets our ordinance, we would have to approve it? Even though we've got this funny little Outlot A sticking here. Could we require that that be part of something? Krauss: You can certainly try and I wouldn't be opposed to it. I tried to get that done 3 years ago. It's certainly, if it's legally upholdable and we'll let the City Attorney discuss that. Batzli: I just don't like to let them split this and leave this problem here. Krauss: Well it has no purpose. We had a condition, in fact I think you might have approved the condition, with Van Eckhout originally when this went through 3 years ago. At that time Van Eckhout made representations that he had every intention of selling Outlot A to the property owner Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 21 either to the east or the west but if we obligated him to sell it, them it wasn't worth very much. Well apparently that's never been resolved. Ahrens: It's not going to be worth anything... Krauss: Of course not. I'd support you trying it and if it's not 3ustifiable, our attorney will tell us to pull it out. Batzli: Well, I would like to make it stronger than what you have it worded I guess. Not should be deeded but it shall be deeded prior to giving them building permits or something. Emmings: Or final plat approval? Batzli: Yeah. Something where, this is kind of wishy washy and we don't solve the problem that we have hangimg here. Krauss: Or it shall be deeded and combined. Ahrens: Why do, if we're not going to give them the access, what do we care what they do with it? Krauss: What do we care what? Ahrens: What happens to Outlot A. Batzli: I guess we don't want little fingers all over the city. Krauss: When you have remnant parcels, they're not maintained. Certainly nobody's going to mow that thing. It's the old driveway. It's no man's land. Ahrens: But there's no incentive for him to take half of it either. Krauss: No, and then what happens when is it goes tax forfeit after 7 years. Emmings: And one of the neighbors buys it. Ahrens: Yeah, one of the neighbors buys it anyway. Batzli: So then we live with it for 7 years? I guess I'd rather clean it up when we have the opportunity. Ahrens: If you can force them to sell his land? I doubt that you can do that. 3ulius Smith: Hasn't Oultot A in fact been sold to the owner of Lots 1 and 2? I believe it has. Krauss: That's the issue. Julius Smith: I think it has been I mean. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 22 KYauss: It's part of those lots. Julius Smith: Mr. Van Eckhout has sold this to this guy. Krauss: So what you've done is you've eliminated the problem over Lots and 2 but you still have the problem over the remainder. Julius Smith: Right. So when you say combining, you mean Outlot A with Lot, what is this 17 Is that what you're talking about? Krauss: Elther that one or the one that's labeled as Cunnlngham to the. Julius Smith: Well of course Cunningham doesn't own it but the guy who owns this owns Outlot A. Krauss: That's not clear. Ahrens: What if they don't want to buy it? What if the neighbors don't want to buy it? You can't force them to sell something that somebody, then you're forcing somebody to buy it. Emmings: Well how about making it part of Lot 1, to give Lot 1 responsibility for what happens to it. Taxes and everything else. He may have more incentive to try and get a deal with one of the neighbors if he doesn't want it. Krauss: Sure. Batzli: See, I just don't like creating an outlot here that's you know. Ahrens: I think Steve's solution is the best one. I don't think we can force him to sell it and force somebody else to buy it. I guess we just have to hook it onto another lot and make him maintain it. Emmings: Then he'll have to pay taxes on it and everything else until he does something else with it. Ahrens: Right. Emmings: Except the only trouble with that is, it would make him go through another proceeding to split it off. Well, they'd have to wouldn't they? Ahrens: Is this registered land? Emmings: Well, wouldn't they have to go through another platting to make it a separate parcel to sell it? Ahrens: No. I don't think so. Emmings: Do it by metes and bounds? Krauss: Sure. Metes and bounds...you're not creating a new lot. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 23 Emmings: I wonder what the applicant will think of this~ Too bad he didn't show. Conrad: That will show him. Emmings: Let's turn the lots too while we're at it. Batzli: Okay. Otherwise I support the language to have the common driveway and preserve as many trees as we can to the west and to the south and where the driveway... That's all I have. Is there a motion? Or you want to discuss first? Emmings: Yeah~ What do you want to do with Outlot A? And then do you really. Batzli: I don't want to allow the preservation of an Outlot that they're just screwing around with and they're not going to finish this piece up. I don't feel like this is good planning to let them create a new outlot. Emmings: But do we gain anything by making it a part of Lot 17 Batzli: Well I think you force the issue that the applicant is going to go to the Council and say, I can't sell this with Lot 1. Or at least it's going to, it will force them to do something with it. I think. Emmings: Well, who's going to own Outlot A? That's what, I'm not clear on that. Pat Cunningham: That's'why I'm here. I'd like to. Emmings: Who are you? Pat Cunningham: I'm Pat Cunningham. Emmings: And you live? Pat Cunningham: I'm directly to the east. Emmings: Oh okay. Have you talked to him? Pat Cunningham: Yes. I've talked to him. I've tried to buy it for the last couple of years and I got a call about 2 months ago from Mr. Van Eckhout, I think you pronounce it. He said, I'm not going to sell it you because I can make more money selling it to somebody else. Ahrens: Who does he figure he's going to sell it to? Batzli: He ,sold it to the person that's splitting these lots. Pat Cunningham: He sold it to the first, the larger of the two I'm guessing, and that man owns, as I understand it... Julius Smith: Is it my understanding that the guy who owns Lot 2 is not the same person who owns Lot 1 anymore? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 24 Krauss: No. Julius Smith: Then perhaps the owner o¢ Lot 2 also owns this. Krauss: Actually my understanding is the individual that's buying Lot i is also buying Lot 2 to build a home for his mother. Emmings: He couldn't own Lot 2 now because there is no Lot 2 now. Krauss: It's in one ownership. It's one parcel. Julius Smith: This whole parcel has got, there are two lots. Krauss: Right. 3ulius Smith: I'm talking about the old plat. The original one. This has been divided into two lots. Now they want to divide Lot 2 of the original one into Lots i and 2 and making the new plat. Krauss: Right, exactly. Julius Smith: My question is, Outlot A, the fellow who owned Lot 2 before this plat. I mean the guy who's platting it, Lot 2 of the old plat. Owns Outlot A as well. You can't very well, if you put these two lots together, he's going to have access and I don't know how. Krauss: That's not clear to me Jules. I think that this outlot is still merged with this underlying lot. Julius Smith: That's right. And that's why you almost have to leave it an outlot because if you say we don't want an outlot. It's got to be put with this lot. Krauss: Well, but what the Planning Commission seems to be saying is, why let it be an outlot at all. Why not make somebody take responsibility for it? Oulius Smith: I don't know that you could force somebody to sell it though. Krauss: No, but you don't have to allow it to be replatted and maintaining it's outlot status. Julius Smith: You could just leave it as nothing. Krauss: You can make it part of Lot 1. Emmings: But what do we gain by that? It was my suggestion and I'm not so sure we really gained anything by it. Because it still is going to be owned. Someone's still going to have to pay taxes on it. I was thinking we could. Batzli: But that person's right there. Planning Commission Heeting January 6, 1993 - Page 25 Emmings: What do you mean? Batzli: Well if you hook it up with Lot 1, whoever's in that house is going to own it. Krauss: They don't have the ability to just sever it and forget about paying taxes on it. It's part of their lot. 8atzli: It's part of their house. They're going to pay taxes on it. 5mmings: Haybe we'd be doing Hr. Cunningham a favor if we do it that way. Ahrens: This underlying lot, this Dot I right here. Batzli: The original Eot i. Ahrens: The original Dot 1. Who owns that? Satzli: Do we know? 3ulius Smith: A fellow by the name of Edwards used to own it. I don't know if he still does. He was the platter, he was the one who did the original split into two lots. 8atzli: Well from a sound planning practices viewpoint Paul, should we hook it up with Eot 1 or not? Krauss: I'd prefer that you get rid of it one way or the other. Either we force their ha~d into merging it with an ad3oining lot, if that's legally 3ustifiable. I think probably that's questionable. Or you eliminate the outlot status and combine it with Eot i and put the onous on that property owner to resolve it by selling it or maintaining it. Ahrens: /hat's what you have to do. 8atzli: I guess I'd, oh okay. Yes. 3ulius Smith: I have only one concern with that. If you split, if you put that Outlot A into Eot, whatever his new one is, Eot 1 of the new plat, that outlot, that Eot 1 is going to be aD E shaped lot and I don't believe the city has bought the access onto Pleasant View Road and I'm not so sure that if his lot abutts Pleasant View Road you cad stop him from using it. If it's a separate lot, you can prohibit him from doing that. Emmings: But if we make it a condition of the plat, can't we do that? Tell him he's got to have his access on NeT Perce. Krauss: Yes, for sure. That's true. I mean you've already resolved that. Ahrens: We're already doing that. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 26 Emmings: That's a condition of the plat. He's asking for a plat and we're making that a condition. Do you think that's alright? Julius Smlth: Well yeah, if he agrees. He in a sense is givlng up his right to the access to Pleasant View,.. Emmings: Well but that's even what he's drawn on his own plat. So that's what he wants. We're not making him do anything he hasn't. Batzli: I guess what I would recommend is that we say, the remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined with one of the adjacent parcels, or be combined into Lot i prior to final plat approval. Emmings: I like that. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision ¢92-13 with conditions in the staff report 1, 2 and 3 as they exist, and striking the word "of" in number 3, as discussed in Matt's discussion. And number 4 will read that Outlot A, striking the words "remaining portion", that Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot i prior to final plat approval. And then conditions 5 thru-8 will stay as they are in the staff report. There will be a new number 9 that will say that neither Lot i nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. And a number 10 that says that the Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval to city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. Ahrens: Second. Batzli: Any discussion? Ledvina: I think this is one item, I think you used the word should in your. Emmings: Shall. Change should to shall. Ledvina: Okay. For item number 4. Batzli: Would you like to, I think that our neighbor to the south indicated there were some trees there. Would you like to extend your motion on the driveway access to try and be considered to the trees on that side as well, or are you just concerned about this west side? Emmings: I'm concerned about the west side only because we've got an opportunity by the location of the driveway and I don't know what. They do have to submit a tree removal plan right? Krauss: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 27 Emmings: So you're going to have some input and you can look out for the neighbor to the south maybe to some extent there? Krauss: Ne can try, yes. But we should be aware of the fact that these lots are big enough to accommodate a 60 foot wide home and the increased sideyard setback on a neck lot, which goes from 10 feet to 20 feet. So you've got to assume that it's probably going to be down to the minimums. You'll have a home 20 feet back from the property line. Batzli: But they're going to have 20 feet of buffering from the property line. Krauss: Yeah, and what we try to do is to make sure that as much of that 20 feet as possible gets preserved because you don't just out it off their foundation line. There's usually abutment that runs around Batzli: Any other discussion on the motion? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approvaI of Subdiv~s~on #92-13 with the following conditions: The proposed house location meets the flag lot requirements. A landscaping, tree preservations and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional road right-of-way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one-half the total right-of-way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards/Vogel Addition. Outlot A shall be deeded or combined to one of the ad3acent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross-access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two parcels. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. The applicant shall contribute $1,800. to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 28 9. Neither Lot i nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. 10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the intention bein~ that the trees alon~ the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When does this go to City Council? Krauss: January 25th. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED SET8ACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET, ON PROPERTY ZONED 8H, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Klm Jacobsen: I'm Klm Jacobsen. I'm representing the Americana Bank. Randy Schultz, the President of the bank gives his condolensces. He couldn't be here. He's got a bad back tonight and he's in bed and maybe going under surgery but needless to say, we did request that the sign be approved as I guess we're presenting it now. We did go through the City Council and we went through with the Planning Commission. We never tried to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line. We came from Market Square. It's a PUD. If you can recall, we were here once before with a development. During that time we had a monument sign. It was located within a few feet of the property line there. When we came down to Market 81vd, we again represented a monument sign. Never tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built a base as part of the general construction package where the contractor built the masonary base, which happens during the construction. Came at that point to apply for a sign permit. To put the signage on top of the base assuming we had no problems. Everything had gone through. Construction plans had been reviewed. Had been approved by staff. We looked at the situation and I guess what we've got to say is that we don't feel we're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of this case. I brought along some photographs. One is the photograph of our base, which is sitting here. But I think the important thing to notice about it is that we are about 20 feet.from the street. We're a good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the background of this photograph, you can see the Market Square sign. The one I've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd. It sits within a couple feel of the sidewalk. Within 10 feet of the street. It just seems like, to the average person, a precedence has been set. I mean they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is proposing and the situation we have been brought into, I don't see that Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 29 anyone is going to interpret that you're breaking any precedence or setting any precedence and I think that from where we're at, we all got into it innocently. So what I'd like to do is pass along a couple of photographs. Way in the background you can see the Market Blvd sign. This is a photograph of the sign. Emmings: Can I just ask. Is Miles Lord one of the people that are going to be on the sign? Klm Jacobsen: Yes. Emmings: I have to disqualify myself.' I'll get out of here because I work with him on a daily basis and there's no way I can take part. Batzli: Okay. Klm Jacobsen: And this just shows a picture of the bank. The sign' that we proposed was 9 feet in height. I did some drawings real quickly. The sign company did a drawing that has what was proposed.~. We add about 3 feet in height to get to this cap and I guess I don't feel it does anything for the signage itself. What we tried to do, after looking at this proposal, and I'll be very honest with you. This was the first drawing that was done and presented to the owners. We looked at it and decided that heightwise it was very obstructive. We took 3 feet off and lowered the top down. The building also is housing a lot of professional people. Right now we've Got 2 taw firms that have taken tendency.. Of the two signs I feel overall this sign is less intrusive for the city. It fits the building well and so that's why we're still asking that we get this signage approved and allow the variance to leave the base where it's at and put the sign on it. When you drive along there are no...to the automobile. At least that would be the one thing that if we thought there was something that would cause us some problems, we would definitely say we should move it. Ledvina: If you were required to move the sign, could you meet the conditions of the sign ordinance with that 10 foot requirement? Kim Jacobsen: Yeah. To move that sign, what has happened has been that we ended up putting more mechanical equipment. They upgraded their mechanical equipment and to do that we swaled the sidewalk around. To move it back, we're going to lose that sidewalk on that side of the building which, that would be the worst case. We can move it back, yes but we're going to lose our pedestrian walk from that side of the building in. Ledvina: And that parking lot. Klm Jacobsen: From that parking lot coming back on through. Ledvina: But you would still locate it in that relative position? Kim Jacobsen: That would be my guess is yes. I think they would opt to locate it, just moving it back that extra 8 feet or whatever the actual measurement happens to be. Planning commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 30 Batzli: Any other questions of the applicant right now? Farmakes: I have a question. What was the thinking behind adding height to the base...top? You're saying that the trade-off happened between the two drawings that you're showing. Klm Jacobsen: We're still kept within the 9 foot height whether we put the roof on it or not. Farmakes: ...the lettering or? Kim 3acobsen: No. Farmakes: You woke up one morning and decide to. Klm Jacobsen: Well let's back it up-. When a preliminary set of drawings was done for the city, the signage was not a developed part. It was developed to the point that we knew there was going to be signage. We wanted a monument sign but if you took at the quality of the sketch that was presented and everything else, it was a concept. After the building was fully developed we came back and said, we feel the sign is going to look better with a base to match the building on it. During construction drawings it was represented that way. Like I said, it did appear on all the construction documents that were approved through the city and that's why when all of a sudden out of the blue we came to, as soon as we were going to put the signage on the top is when we came to apply for the sign permit and that's when we were notified that we were at, you know too close to the property line. Farmakes: This is a while ago and I tried to read the information to bring me up to date but as I recall we had a discussion about that at the time. One of the representatives of the bank was asked, what additional signage would be going on there, and they thought a couple of major tenants. And I see that there's a lot more major tenants in the building. Kim Jacobsen: I think it's always been represented that there would be approximately 6 tenants. Farmakes: Right. But I guess the difference wasn't how many tenants but I believe in the discussion as I recall it, that it was the major tenant that would be built rather than a monument sign. Kim Jacobsen: I've got to be honest with you, I don't remember that 3elf. Just to be totally honest. Farmakes: I see that in addition to the tenants, the 6 tenants, that's why I'm assuming the 6 tenants...copy is referring to the total of 6 rectangles underneath the Americana Bank. There's also an instant cash card. Again, I'm going to ask, was the base added to raise the type. Did whoever was advising you suggest that you raise the height of the sign? Kim Jacobsen: No. Not honestly. The base was put on from an architectural standpoint. Not from a sign standpoint. We felt more than Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 31 anything was we wanted it, the sign as I see the sketch originally, did not tie itself to the building other than the green roof on the top. And we felt overall that the sign improved itself a lot by putting a base on it and that was what I guess the thinking process was through it. We architecturally wanted to tie it to the ground a little bit harder, like the building has been. Batzli: Let me ask you something that's not intended to be argumentative but it may sound that way. You've just Gone through teltin9 us that all this was preliminary and conceptual and everything else and yet you want us to believe that the location was dead set in concrete, if you'll forgine the pun, even though everything else about the sign is conceptual. Klm Jacobsen: I think the size, we're real close to that so conceptually yeah. I mean we were conceptually very close to that placement. And that's as best as we can Say. Is that we laid it there. We looked at it and overall I think that, it was not an issue to be very honest with you as we went through it. No one at staff noticed it. We didn't even pick it up as we looked through the plans. Batzli: Okay. Well we'll probably have more questions for you once we close the public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? The record will show that there's only planning staff and the applicant in the room. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. /he public hearing was closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have comments, questions? Ahrens: You know I don't know which sign would look better, to tell you the truth. I mean I know the issue is. Batzli: Well let me ask a question. Are we even, you know the sign process. Permit process. We're not a part of that right now. The only issue that we're really looking at is the variance? Al-Jarl: The variance. Batzli: Okay. Do you want us to look at what kind of sign they put up? Al-Jarl: It would be helpful. What we will approve is what you approved originally. Batzli: Okay, unless we tell you differently? Al-Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Ahrens: So the variance is just on the location of the sign? Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 32 Al-Jarl: Correct. And the height not to exceed 8 feet. I just heard the applicant mention that it's 9 feet? Kim Jacobsen: No. Right now it's only at...6 feet. It was if we added the top on it...3 feet if you added the top. Ahrens: I realize it's a self-imposed hardship by the applicant but I'm not sure it's a real big deal, considering the location of the Market Square sign. Batzli: From the standpoint of setting a precedent you mean? Would you want others to be able to do this? At least in a PUD we can rationalize it's in a PUD, can we not? Ahrens: Ordinarily I would agree with you but they are, they have the base and they have all the mechanicals in place. Batzli: So to play devil's advocate. In order to get a variance you just have to put in part of the project and then apply for the permit? Ahrens: No. No. 8atzli: How do we distinguish this? Ahrens: What I think that they've done, I think they've done a nice job with the building itself. I think that, I don't see this as an intentional attempt to. Batzli: I don't either. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and figure out, how do we justify giving them this other than we think it looks pretty or it doesn't hurt. I'd like to come up with some sort of rational if we decide to approve this that would allow us to say, we're allowing this because of some rational reason that we can come up with. Ahrens: Because I think it does not have a negative impact on the... building or the project. Or on any other project that's going to be developed along here. And the location, as I understand this is similar, the location of this signage is similar to the location of the Market Square sign which is across the street, is that correct? 8atzli: And so you may be going on the condition of granting a variance that allows, made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet? Ahrens: Yeah, that's it. Batzli: Jeff. Well let me back up. Did you have a preference as to requiring them to put the original pitched element on there? Ahrens: I think we should keep the original pitched element on. Batzli: Then they may require a variance for the height. Ahrens: Variance for the height. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 33 Kim Jacobsen: Ne could probably lower the pitch. Ahrens: They only have the base on. I don't know why they can't lower it. Kim Jacobsen: ...somewhere within this we can live... Batzli: Does that still tie it into the building? Does the pitch look silly then compared to the building if you lower the pitch? Kim 5acobsen: ...I'm speaking off the top of my head... Batzli: Okay. Jeff Farmakes: This started out where I thought that they were adjusting pretty good to our original comments on the building. I particularly liked the plaza that they were putting in there because I thought it was an important spot in town aesthetically. As the actual building went into fruition, the plaza became less and less. I'm not sure if they were all modifications but in essence it became a little less, by the time it got to Council it became less of a plaza. I'm looking at the architecture for the sign and I guess I can say the same thing. The sign has been downplayed as far as architecturally. It now becomes more of a utilitarian sign. It's reminiscent of when you go up to the cabin up north and you see the listing. They're just sort of chalked full of little items and I'm assuming that if a potential client or professional service there, just driving by and that person tells them I'm in the Americana Community Bank building, as many of them do. You're looking for some identification there that Miles Lord practices here or you're looking for Advantage Travel~ I guess what disturbs me, going back to the generic implication of this is that we often see these types of signs where oh yeah, it's a couple of tenants. We're going to have a couple major tenants in here. And you look at that and you're saying, well there's 3 names there. That's pretty conservative. You don't see much of an impact from that. But when it actually comes down to it, in an effort to sell many of these leases, you see a motivation on the part of the leasing agent of the building to offer signage. To offer advertising. I question whether or not the professional services that every professional in the building has to have a shingle outside. It becomes more of an advertising issue than a location issue. Particularly if it's a predominant building. They do it downtown all the time. I mean you don't see a big list of shingles outside the Northwest Bank building and there are hundreds of professionals in that building. Ahrens: Actually there's one...Minnetonka City Bank...brand new building in Glen Lake and they have, there are seven attorneys in there and other professionals...and there is no signage whatsoever out in front. It just says Minnetonka City Bank on the front of the bank building. It's a beautiful building too and they don't have any identification of anybody who's in that building. Farmakes: Well certainly, if a client's trying to find you, it often says I'm in the so and so Medical Arts building. Or so and so bank building. So I think as a matter of practicality for the argument of Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 34 identification, the City isn't that big and the issue of identification and location seems to me, if you're identifying the bank building, you've done 99~ of the job that's required. I'm a little worried that it looks like everything but the kitchen sink is tacked on to this sign. As to the mathematics of raising the base,'getting rid of the top, if you put the top back on and keep the base where it is, whether it was intentional or an oversight, that you ignored the signaGe plan, and I recall the discussion. That was an item to be taken care of at a later date specifically of what that signage was going to be. So I Guess I don't have, I'm not uncomfortable with the staff's position on that. It is a significant difference, and again I think it's unfortunate that it becomes a much more utilitarian sign that as a part of the architecture. As I recall the original concept of that buildinG, that's what the problem with the building was. It was a very utilitarian building. Very massive and very, what I'd describe to be as an unfriendly structure. And I'm Glad that you re-looked at that issue and changed the building-. I think that I've heard comments of people going through town that them like the buildinG. They like the look that it's projectinG, and I'd like to see that-in siGnage. I realize what we're discussing here is, or what I understand the issue to be is that somebody went ahead and built this thing up according to your plan on a misunderstanding and that's where it was in the plan, and basically somebody came back from the City and said, hey. This is not conforming with our ordinance. $o you're trying to get it to be used. Being that it's sitting there right now as we speak. I Guess I would, as a pragmatic situation, since this is, as I understand it. Paul, has this been approved? With the 6 clients. Is that part of what was worked out on the City Council level? A1-3aff: No. Krauss: There was no deviation from what you saw. Farmakes: So as I recall the discussion, and again we were going to deal with this at a later date once they applied for the signs, it was being brought forth that, as I recall the conversation, a couple of major tenants in the building were going to have signs. Krauss: Well you have the illustration. Is that in their packet? Al-Jaff: Yes. Batzli: But we don't have the Minutes. Al-Jaff: This is what you approved. Batzli: From what we discussed. Farmakes: Well that drawing conforms to my recollection of our discussion. Krauss: Right. But there was no intent to bring it back again. That was going to be the approved sign. A1-3aff: Two tenants only. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 35 Farmakes: But again, what I understood it to be is that we we're going to have a couple of names there, and not 6 which is a considerably percentage increase. In addition to that, there is an additional advertising item on the sign. Is that also consistent with what we're doing with monument signs? Krauss: You mean the instant cash logo? Farmakes: Yeah. Krauss: That's arguable. I mean we've allowed people to have... Farmakes: Is that a business logo or service logo in addition to? Krauss: It's probably a service logo. It's probably like Target sticking Pharmacy up in the right hand corner of the building. It's an advertisement for one of their services. Ahrens: At least it's not an ear. Farmakes: I'm going to stop taking up the time here so we can get going but I really am concerned about these monument signs. That when we actually leave the general concept with you and then they actually come and are built, they are different. And the reason that they're different is pretty obvious. There's a motivation factor on the part of the leasing agent to give as much as possible to get the lease. What you get is everything and the kitchen sink tacked onto these signs. I think we should be much more specific up front as to what's going to happen. Krauss: I think you were. I mean I think you approved that sign. Those were the reader boards that you approved on that sign. We were quite specific. I mean this was an attractive looking building. The sign was part of the package. That was the sign. Now the sign got shifted, and argueably there's some question as to where the base actually might wind up but it shouldn't change what it looks like. Nobody ever gave anybody any authorization to do that. Farmakes: I'll leave it with that. I think I've made my point. Batzli: Matt. Thanks Jeff Ledvina: I agree with Jeff's comments as it relates to the signage. I would support the original design of the sign but I think the key to the variance is where is the sign located. I have a question for Sharmin. Is the Market Square sign, is that non-conforming or is that? A1-Jaff: Part of the PUD. So the setbacks were different than. Ledvina: But the setbacks would not meet the requirements that would be imposed on Americana Bank? Krauss: In a standard zoning district, no. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 36 Ledvina: Okay. So there have been, you know just from a general perspective, there are other signs in the area that are variant of the ordinance? Krauss: Relative to location. Ledvina: Right. Krauss: But you shouldn't forget the fact that Market Square was required to come in with sign covenants. There's only one pylon sign on the entire property and I think there was a limitation, we weren't going to allow. Al-Jaff: Outlot A was going to have one. Krauss: One, but there's two or three lots, outlots that were going to have nothing. So there was a give and take on that one. Ledvina: Okay. And then in terms of the specific location of the sign, are there any utilities that are directly below it or how close are the nearest utilities for that? Al-Jarl: There aren't any utilities underneath it. But we're still requiring that should you approve this, that the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement. Ledvina: But how close are the nearest utilities? Do we know that, in terms of the water or the sewers or anything there electrical? Al-Jaff: There aren't any utilities. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think 'that this does qualify for a variance. I would support that. I guess looking at, you know some of the findings that the staff is contending that really don't apply. I think that you can stretch the criteria and make these, you know make the variance allowable here for items a and also item c. That's my opinion. So I guess specifically then I would support the variance with the two conditions that the staff has recommended here. Batzli: So you would limit it to the Americana Bank and then the two tenants? Ledvina: Right. Yeah, I think that we should go back to what we originally approved in terms of what we thought was going to be on that sign. And then also the actual, the design in terms of the pitched roof. Where the pitched element of that sign. Batzli: Joan, I don't even know if I asked you. Did I ask you whether you wanted 2 or allow more names on there? Ahrens: I think we should approve the sign as it was approved originally with .just the location. Planning Commission Meeting January 6,-1993 - Page 37 Krauss: I think you understand there's also a significant difference in size. The sign. Batzli: It's 5 feet bigger? Krauss: Well it grew by 10 square feet but the base of the sign is approximately 4 feet wider or longer than it was before. Ahrens: We'll have to change the base. Farmakes: They basically turned it upside down from the roof now is the brown. Krauss: Below the ground. Batzli: But we approved a 70 square foot and they're asking for 75. Ledvina: Is the base part of the footage of the sign? Krauss: We typically don't calculate the base. Batzli: Ladd, make sense of all this for us. Conrad: I don't see any harm in allowing the variance. There's nothing to be improved by making them move the sign, from anybody's standpoint. Batzli: What about the changes? Conrad: Now we get into some philosophy of stuff here you know, and I think what I'm hearing 3elf say is real true. If there was a signage that said Americana Community Bank and everybody knew who was there, that becomes a landmark, and we don't need details. But you also take a look at every other building in town and every tenant wants name recognition. They want their name outside, and we've allowed it. Again we're being real naive, and we don't see all the facts when things come in for site plan review. But it's just a fact of life that people want their name out there. And I don't know that it's a bate and switch. To a degree I think sometimes developers come in and say here's something and they get their foot in the door and they come back and they ask for a little bit more. Obviously that's a trick they play with outlots and stuff like that. They can do that with this also but also you don't get definition to who you're tenants are going to be. You're proposing long before you have a tenant mix. So there are reasons for changing things. I don't think what's been proposed is necessarily attractive but I also don't think it's necessarily worst than other things I've seem in town. We're reviewing things on a real arbitrary basis. We really are. You know it's sort of a willy hilly type of deal and I'm just not, from a standpoint of profile, one would think that what was presented right now is better. A lower profile. Less obtrusive. I don't think it works for the tenants. Even at 30 mph driving by that sign, I think it's tough to read. Letters, I can't tell how big the letters are. Batzli: They're a foot Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 38 Conrad: The letters on the top for Americana, you know if I take a look at the block is 12 inches so the letter size is & inches. And therefore the ones below it might be a little bit less. So 6 inches, in the business, if you create a letter under 10 inches, you can't read it at 40 mph. Well I don't know what at 30. So I don't think it's real useful but the tenants are asking for this stuff. I'm babbling here. I don't think it's attractive but Z don't have a problem with it in terms of taking down a profile. I don't like a 9 foot profile sign. I think that's more obtrusive than what we're seeing here. This is not necessarily pretty but it's in my mind less obtrusive than the other one. Think of what you can do. If we put 2 tenants on the other one, big. I don't know. We're going to, when we see the sign that, or we may not see the sign but it's not going to be attractive necessarily. But we're saying that 6 small type faces are worst than 2 big type faces. I think that's kind of arbitrary and I think we have this conversation every time a sign comes in and maybe we should try to figure out what we want to do with this type of stuff, recognizing. You know I'd like to make it consistent throughout Chanhassen. I feel Market Square, everybody get's their, they're listed aren't they. On the monument sign. Isn't everybody listed out there? Krauss: Festival is listed but I don't know if anybody else is. Ahrens: They don't need it. Conrad: Because they have visibility with their signs on the face of the building, yeah. Farmakes: Are we differentiating retail? Conrad: Again, I'm not sure that service versus retail, service versus product is any different. A sign brings people in. A sign to pick up charcoal is the same as a sign to go to a dentist. Not quite. I would have a tough time defending that a whole lot but it's close. Anyway, it's not worth me talking anymore. So again, the variance is aceptable to me. I think there's just absolutely nothing to be gained by switching the thing. I would vote for the, I guess what I'd like to do is to see the sign, the applicant bring in a better version of the sign so I could make a realistic, a better decision. I guess I'm not real fond. I guess I'd like to see something better brought in before I make a decision on how it looks. Batzli: Well you didn't make sense of it for me Ladd. Conrad: Let me just say one thing. Long term, we should get a grip on visibility for businesses that move into Chanhasse~. Ahrens: We said that 2 years ago. Conrad: I know, and we're still talking about it and every time somebody comes in, we argue. We make decisions and I'm not sure how we're making them. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 39 Farmakes: It is an issue that's being dealt with with the sign ordinance .... that, it's grouped with a lot of other... Krauss: The part about who gets signage and how many tenants should have are something that the sign ordinance should look at. What districts have signs and what not. The part that bothers me is that this is one of the first buildings where design of the building and the site plan and it's relationship to downtown was a fundamental element at it's approval. And the building works real well but all of a sudden, because this is a sign. It's a structure but because it's a sign we're saying well, you know. A square box is the same thing as a pitched roof and we're losing the design continuity between the site and it's relationship to other sites doesn't matter anymore. The variance for the 2 foot setback or whatever is really nominal. I mean I'd rather it not be there but that really is fairly inconsequential. But it does seem as something of a setback for us to be moving in the direction of having a design review ordinance where these kinds of things grow in importance and we have the first case where we actually did make the attempt to consider all those things and it just goes by the boards because they decided to change their mind. See I don't know what names should be on the sign but I think I know what it should look like. Farmakes: I believe we have the tendency here to spend far more athetic time talking about trees and bushes and the amount of square footage that they take up and totally ignoring the amount of square footage that we're adding to this city in the areas of backlit plexiglass and attractives that are serving the purpose of advertising and not serving the purpose of it's implication. If we're going to use the basis of what we used last year or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, I don't think we're going to improve as we go along and as we become more sophisticated in our development and as more and more large corporations come in here, they're not only going to incorporate these issues in monument sighage but even bringing signage into our architectural building itself. Through in essence make a building that is in itself a sign, and that's what you're seeing more and more in the directions of franchising. We've got to readdress this issue, because it is an important one for the overall community in what we see here. It's our perception of where we live and it's too easy to forget about that. Batzli: Let me ask the applicant. I assume that the old sign doesn't fit on the base that you've constructed. Klm Jacobsen: I guess conceptually it could just as long as it fits on the ground like it is there. We have 9 1/2 feet of height on that sign as it's drawn in that conceptual sketch. 8atzli: My sentiment is this, and then I'll let somebody make a motion. I think we're in agreement that we're probably, we would allow them to build on the base they've constructed. I think the consensus seems to be that other than Ladd, we would like to see the pitched element. I don't know that we're concerned about the overall height but if it's within reason, and it sounds like there's a consensus that we're limiting it to the Americana Community Bank advertisement for itself and then 2 main tenants. I guess I would, I don't know. Going to a lot of different Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 40 companies and a lot of different professionals, from my own personal standpoint, I kind of like to see the names out there so I know who I'm visiting and that I'm at the right location. But I guess I don't quite view this as being as structurally significant as someone telling me they're in the IDS or the Medical Arts Building. When I'm going to a small community and I'm not familiar with it, I guess it is more convenient for me personally to see a name on a sign so I know where I'm at but. I'd also like to see on condition 1, if we do approve it, that we're not held liable for damages done to the sign while accessing traveling over or otherwise performing maintenance within the utility and drainage easement. In other words, if we have to go over the easement and there's damage done, even though we're not actually performing maintenance at the time, we should still be held liable. So does someone have a motion? Ledvina: I'll move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to Sign Permit ~92-11 subject to the two conditions in the staff report with the first condition being modified to include any other activities that the city performs within the drainage easement that's associated with the sign. And 2 as designated within the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. 8atzli: Discussion. Conrad: Was there a second? 8atzli: 3oan seconded it. Conrad: Discussion. So, point number 2 says, incorporate the pitched element in the sign. Batzli: I don't believe that it says limited to the 2 tenants. Ledvina: Well, the original design shows 2 tenants so again, specifically doing that. Farmakes: Address that separately? Batzli: I don't know. We have a new proposed sign design. Ledvina: We're not approving that sign design. Batzli: Well, but it seems like we're talking about it when we say we're incorporating things into that sign design. This to me is the request for the variance. This sign. So I feel like I'm approving this sign with these conditions. Is that fair reading? Ledvina: Okay. Can I make an amendment then? Batzli: Well you can move to make an amendment. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 41 Conrad: Can we make these two separate things? Can we talk about the variance and then can we talk about a sign? How come we're talking about a variance? Is the changing of the design of the sign a variance? Krauss: No. It's deviation from the site plan approval. Batzli: So we should separate the two? Okay. Would you like to withdraw your motion to make a new one or do you want us to vote on your motion? Ledvina: No, I withdraw the motion. 8atzli: Do you withdraw your second? Ahrens: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. Ledvina: Okay, so we want to just, with this variance, just have condition 1. And then did you want another motion then? 8atzli: I think then we have to talk about what the sign looks like after we approve the variance. Ledvina: Okay. Well I would move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to Sign Permit 992-11 subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement which may also include maintenance. Conrad: I'll second that. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to the Sign Permit ~92-11 subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement, which may also include maintenance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Satzli: Now Paul, as far as what we would then move or recommend approval of is a change to the site plan? Krauss: That's the way I would see it. You approved that sign as a part of the site plan. Batzli: But we don't know the site plan number. Al-Jarl: Yeah we can get that. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 42 Krauss: Leave it blank. Oh, we've got it here. Batzli: Okay. Does anyone have a motion regarding? Conrad: Actually I'd like to table it but I don't know if that serves. Klm, do you want us to table it and come back or do you want us to act on it now? Or what's your recommendation. Kim Jacobsen: I guess I'm in a real great quandry. I guess I'd-just as soon have you act on it and go from here to Council because I think we're gettlng very arbitrary as far as, it's hard for me to look at something as being a sign and say, within your ordinance I don't think you stipulate the number of people that are on a sign. You stipulate the square footage that you can put on a sign, and I guess if you're going to restrict me by square footage, I'd say fine. But we're rewriting the laws as we go forward because in...concept again we said, tenant 1, tenant 2. There's no reason there's 2 tenants on there. There's more words on there. It could have said 3oe Schmoe, Sam and Larry. We had nothing to do with...to be very honest with you. Conrad: So you want us to react right now? You'd rather not. Klm Jacobsen: I would rather go forward from here and...at City Council because I really think they're rather arbitrary points t.hat right now within your ordinances I'm not exactly sure what we're restricting. You're writing a new ordinance as we're sitting here is my impression. Krauss: I think that Kim is possibly right relative to who gets signage space on a sign. There is nothing in the ordinance that dictates that and argueably one word is no different than the other in what you've approved. What I do think you did approve as part of the site plan is the size, location and the shape. Batzli: But we just changed the location. Krauss: Changed the location by variance. Satzli: You think he would have been happy for crying out loud but he wants more now. Okay. With that understanding and the understanding that he wants to move forward to Council, is there a motion? Ahrens: Why do we need a motion? Al-Jarl: You need a site plan amendment. Batzli: If we wanted to amend it, we could. If we wanted to approve his change. His request to change. To not have the pitched element. To change the square footage of the sign from 70 to 75. Ahrens: Ladd is the only one who wants to do that. If he wants to make a motion. Conrad: No, I'm not sold on it. Yet. I'm not sold on it yet. I think I could be, very easily. Again, my point is, anytime you take down a Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 43 profile sign, you're improving aesthetics and you can junk up a sign so easily that we're playing arbitrary games here. 2 tenants versus 6. A good logo versus a bad logo makes a whole heck of a lot of difference so we're in never never land here on this. But at this point in time, I guess I can't say to change this. I can't say to change the specs of the sign. Batzli: I'd be perfectly willing to entertain a motion to deny his request to change this signage, as approved in the site plan. Or we can give the Council absolutely no guidance and let them deal with it. Ledvina: Isn't this actually part of the sign permit then? Batzli: Yes. Ledvina: And so they can deal with it with the sign permit. We don't give sign permits here or approve sign permits. Batzli: I don't think the Council does, unless. Al-Jaff: No, that would be done at staff level. Ledvina: Right. So you have everything you need, based on what we approved previously to take it forward right? Al-Jarl: Correct. Ledvina: Okay, it's just the variance that we need to deal with. Batzli: If the applicant has requested a change to the site plan, as they have, have they done that properly? Do we have to act on that tonight? I mean they requested a variance for the location. Do we have to act on their request to change the site plan? Krauss: Do you want to make your feelings known to the City Council? Do you have to do it, no. I mean that's not technically. Well, I don't know how you could avoid it. I mean he is asking for a different sign and the location is different but it's- a different sign. Batzli: But is that the process as part of the sign permit process? That he went to you. You guys said this is different, so do you come to us? Krauss: I guess theoretically we could ask him to come back in with a separate request for a site plan amendment. It would be the first time we did that but that's technically what we're doing right now anyway. I'll leave that up to you. I guess if it's going to go to the City Council, the likelihood the Council, I mean it's not an earth shattering issue when taken in context and the Council's likely to want to move on it and get it out of the way. Batzli: Okay. What I'd propose we do then is, if we don't have a motion, I would like at least for us to give guidance to the Council how we feel about it and I'll just ask everybody how they feel and you can let the Council know that that was our thoughts and they can yea or nay Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 44 it. So if there's no motion. 3oan, what I'm looking for is increase the square footage, pitched element. Those are the two changes. Do you want to see that? Those things on there. Ahrens: I don't think the square footage should be increased. I like the pitched element in there. I don't think there should be any change to the original site plan approval. Batzli: Other than the 8 foot variance? Ahrens: Other than the variance which we just made a motion on. Farmakes: I'd agree with that. I'd also question the issue, if you're going to change the signage ~tself and you're going to do a far more technically proficient drawing on the signage you have changed compared to the sign that was originally on the site plan, which has no, only a scale referring to the issue, amd I believe that the surrounding elements are out of proportion to that size. I think that if we're going to get into a site plan, and I was here at the time and I recall we discussed this. We're going about this the wrong way and to approve something like that would be to make a farce of that process. I wouldn't do that. Ledvina: I agree with Joan and 3elf. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think the footage should be the same as we approved. I think the applicant should submit a better rendition or illustration of the proposed sign. I think a lower profile sign is preferable and I think more tenants is acceptable. Batzli: My sentiment is, I would, until I had better reasons, I would say go with the old sign. I'm not adverse to allowing more tenants on there but I would prefer to see the roof element incorporated, unless we did have better reasoning as to why it's not on there and a little bit better renditions of what all this will look like, because it is a change to the site plan and the perspective as to what it's going to look like on the site plan, the new one, I don't think we've been given enough information so, I guess that's what you can take to the Council. Conrad: I just want to echo a footnote. Developers don't know what the mix of tenants are going to be. They don't know that when they build it~ They're hoping. Somebody comes in and says~ I'll take 5 square feet and somebody says I'll take 12. They don't know it until they build it so. Batzli: I'm not adverse to that but I think the applicant.should at least present to the Council that information that we would have liked to have seen, at a minimum. Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. And this variance will go to the Council when? Krauss: 25th. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 45 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20-1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Ahrens: For the record, I agree with Brian's comments on this. 8atzli: Which ones? Ahrens: The ones that are in the Minubes. 8atzli: Oh. I was on a roll. Are you leaving us? Are you going' to be here next time? Ahrens: I hope not. I'm not supposed to be... Batzli: When will the Council approve our replacements? Krauss: I'm going to try and get on their Monday meeting. Emmings: I'm going too. Batzli: Okay. So we're losing our two departing persons, never to be seen again. I feel like we should say something...Well come visit us for crying out loud and I move that the Planning Commission recommends good things to these departing personnel. Conrad: Well, good things to 3can. I think Steve deserves what he gets. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Did you look at the fence across from me in Fox Hollow? Al-Jarl: Yes I did. Batzli: And would that conform to your new ordinance? Al-Jarl: Yes it would. Batzli: Because it doesn't encroach the 60 foot? Al-Jarl: Correct. And when I read the Minutes, I understood that that was the only issue. Batzli: Well I didn't like it. That was just my one that I could think of immediately. I'm trying to think of another while we sit here. Is that it Sharmin? Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing that the room is bare. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Satzli: Ladd~ lead off. Conrad: No, I'd rather wait to hear your comments. I'm okay with it. Planning Commission Meeting ~anuary 6, 1993 - Page 46 Satzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I would defer to the staff on this. I don't have a lot of experience in this and if they think it's a safety issue, I think that they're probably in a good position to make that call. I did have a question regarding the wetlands~ Staff is proposing to add the following regulations to regulate fences near wetlands. Doesn't our wetland ordinance, the new ordinances that we just passed, don't they have no cut zones and like 50 feet or something and requirements prohibiting fences and all that? Or am I wrong in that? Krauss: I honestly don't remember Matt. We should double check but ! think if that's the case, then we have two parts of the ordinance that are at odds somewhat with one another. Ledvina: Yeah. I don't know what the specific requirements are but I do seem to remember discussion of fences. Krauss: I don't remember. We may have. I know we've had issues in the past with people building fences... Ledvina: Right. Does anybody else recall that? Batzli: I'm not clear what clause you're talking about in the wetlands ordinance. Which one? Ledvina: Well a clause that would prohibit the construction of fences at the ordinary high water mark, or whatever. I think there was some kind of setback that we had from that level or. Batzli: Well there's a buffer and we said you can't do a lot of things in there but I don't know'if that included a fence. We said you can't cut. You can't mow. You can't dump. You can't spill. I don't think we ever said you can't build a fence. Ledvina: I may be wrong in that but. Krauss: We can double check and if it's redundant, we'll drop it. Ledvina: It's a good consideration certainly. Batzli: Do we have any wetlands inside of pasture areas left in the city? Krauss: Sure. Batzli: Any that border a pasture? Krauss: I don't know. I haven't walked all the farm areas of the city. We don't have that much open pasture left. Batzli' I just, you need an L shaped fence going into a water thing to turn back a cow. I mean you have to have a fence up to the ordinary high Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 47 water mark and you have to go in there because cows can swim and they go around the fence. Krauss: I could be wrong but I believe we only have 1 or 2 operations left that have cows. Ledvina: No further comments. Batzli: Sorry, I was just. Ledvina: In the interest of brevity. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no additional comments to make on this, other than the wetlands issue that was brought up. Batzli: So you like this? Well okay, my pasture one didn't work. What's, in your definition of front yards, or in paragraph 2. Fences in required front yards. Should that word required be in there? Krauss: It should just say front yard. Eliminate the required. Batzli: Now do we allow, we still allow under this ordinance that it be built within the setback area right? Al-Jarl: Correct. Batzli: Now what do we do with existing fences that don't conform to this or hedges or whatever we do? I mean whatever. What happens to? Al-Jarl: They're grandfathered in. Krauss: Until they fall down. Batzli: Well you can repair~ right. But if they fall down and they're gone for a year and then you try to rebuild, that's when you get in trouble. So we would enforce this at the permit level but most people don't come in to get perrnits to plant hedges I would imagine. Krauss: When you become aware of... Batzli: If I could delay this until next summer, I could put in a couple more bushes. Conrad: You're going to beat this one to death. Batzli: Yeah, okay. Well, I think that this is okay as tong as a fence like by neighbor has is legal under this ordinance because I think he does, and those types of lots do need the ability to put up larger opaque fences. So if a fence like his is legal, where he can use his backyard, then. Conrad: And it is. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 48 Batzli: Yeah, it is.. Then I guess this, it's intrusive but there is a valid safety issue with the sight lines at intersections and I think that's what we're taking care of. Ladd, do you want to make any other comments? Conrad: No. Batzli: Okay. But I still believe it is intrusive and I wouldn't want to do it other than if there were real safety concerns. I think this is kind of, we're making it for ourselves. There's other bigger issues that we could tackle. Al-Jarl: We're really not changing that much from what is in the ordinance right now, other than the sight triangles. Batzli: Well, we've allowed fences, higher fences up through the sight triangles before, as I understand it. Krauss: There have been no regulations prohibiting. Batzli: Right. But we're adding that and I'm just in, in a small PUD situation is where I'm more concerned about it than anything else. If somebodw's got a big yard, it doesn't matter too much. But in a smaller lot setting, you can't use a lot of your yard potentially. You put in a dinky lot like that guy's got across the street, and it sold right away though. He put it on the market, a week later. So some people like them. I don't know. Anyway, is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences, as noted above with modification to item number 2 of the first line. Delete the word "required" Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Okay, any discussion? Just to go on record, and you guys are going to look at how this pertains to the wetlands stuff that's already in there? Krauss: Yes. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences, amended in item number 2, Front Yards, first line, deleting the word "required". All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 49 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated December 2, 1992 as presented. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p~m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim