The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 01 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 1992 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings~ Jeff Farmakes, Joan Ahrens and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Kate Aanenson, Planner II Emmings: We're going to save item number one until the end of the meeting. Those are ail basically organizational items and we'll get right onto the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR SCREENED OUTSIDE STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR PROGRESS VALLEY STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN AND GARY DUNGEY~ JoAnn Olsen presented the staff report-on this item. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Emmings: Gary, do you have anything to add? Gary Brown: No. That's fine. If we go with outside storage, you want it screened? Is that correct? If we do not go with the outside storage, the same with the truck rentals, do you still want the screening? Olsen: We're just asking for the addi-tional landscaping. There is no specific requirement for, as part of the conditional use permit for truck and trailer rental, there's no specific requirement that it has to be completely screened. We are asking for additional screening from the residential for the truck and trailer rental and complete screening for any other outdoor storage. Gary Brown: Now, the only question I guess I would ask then is, are you going to make the parking lot owner across the street here, the hardware store, are you going to make him screen that all the way around? Emmings: We're not looking at that. We don't have to answer that. Here, Gary I've got one question for you. Gary Brown: Sure. Emmings: Last time you were here you mentioned to me that as far .as the truck and trailer rental goes, that you could live with a limit on the number of trucks and trailers. 20 trucks, 4 trailers and no trucks over 26 feet or something like that. Gary Brown: I've got no problem with that at ail Steve. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 2 Emmings: Okay, that didn't get in here and I guess I'll just throw it out for consideration. If some people think there ought to be a limit and the other thing is if your business expanded and you wanted those limits changed, we could look at it again. But anyway, okay. The reason I'm not going to have the staff address the parking lot across the street. That's not your property and we're here tonight to talk about your property. I think we all know there's something going on in that parking lot that's not allowed by ordinance. That doesn't mean we should allow that to happen someplace else. So that's the short answer to that and we're not going to talk about it anymore. Gary Brown: That's fine. Emmings: Okay. Anything else? Gary Brown: The only other thing I'd like to ask is, on number 3 here it says that we shall have a letter of credit to be submitted to cover the cost of material installation for a year. Does that mean you're going to want to hold that letter for a year? Okay. And how much do you ask for that? Olsen: 110~ of the cost. That's typical for what we do with any site improvement. Gary Brown: Okay. I don't think I've got any problem with that. Emmings: Okay. $o as far as the conditions go on all three of these items, it's okay with you? Is that right? Gary Brown: Yeah... Emmings: Alright. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else here that wants to address any of these issues? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. . Ahrens: In practical terms, does it really make that much of a difference if these, the screening requirement. If he's going to have 20 trucks. What did we talk about? 20 trucks, 4 trailers. Emmings: Maximum yeah. Ahrens: If that's visible to the outside neighborhood and from the street, is that any different from having other kinds of storage visible from the street really? Are we nitpicking here or is this a significant difference? Olsen: We discussed the last time that the truck and'trailer, those are actually outdoor storage and how do we treat that. The way that we looked at it was that the ordinance specifically designates truck and trailer rental as a conditional use permit and doesn't require that it has to be completely screened. That other miscellaneous outside storage does and that's just to be consistent with-what we do throughout the other Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 3 districts. It's a difficult one yeah because...naturally screened. Ahrens: We're just trying to fit this into our current ordinances? Olsen: Trying to be consistent as best possible. Ahrens: But in practical terms it really didn't make much of a difference. I remember when we went through this last fall. I guess I don't have any, I'm going to go along with the staff recommendation on this. I think that the request is reasonable and the conditions are reasonable. Emmings: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to go along with staff on this. I think we've discussed it enough. Emmings: Do you want to get your feet wet? Ledvina: Sure. I had a question as to the Phase III. It says here that the outdoor storage will be removed when Phase III is completed. Is there a time line for that? Gary Brown: When we need to put Phase III in. I'm hoping in the next 2 years. We're just constructing our fifth building down there right now so there's room for 3 more buildings. And if things keep going good, yeah... next few years will build out. Ledvina: Okay. Otherwise it looks reasonable. Emmings: Alright, Ladd. Conrad: Everybody's so brief. That's just terrific. My intent at the last meeting was to challenge staff and say what does outdoor truck rental look like. And as I read my Minutes, I couldn't tell what I said. But I'm still, truck rental and trailer-rental is something that you have outdoors and people pass it and it sort of stimulates that's where it is. I guess I kind of thought we were going to look at that to decide if we had the right parameters for truck and trailer rental in terms of our ordinance. And based on what the staff report came back and said is, we don't have any guidelines and therefore we're going to, we don't have any guidelines right now. My point last time we talked about this was, should there be? Are we trying to scr.een truck and trailer rental and I never thought it should be- personally but we didn't have a reaction from staff on those points and I don't know if we all thought about it but my posture was that if there's a place in Chanhassen for this kind of operation, it's down where Gary has his operation. A specific question that I couldn't tell based from the staff report, and 3oAnn maybe you can tell me, you've got the truck and trailer rental screened in the southwest corner and that is from a neighborhood standpoint? Olsen: From the residences. Conrad: So I guess the question that I pose to the Commission is, that's sort of a token type of thing and I don't know how much, that's not a Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 4 significant screening effort is it? What's your perception of what that would, take? Olsen: To screen it? Conrad: To screen it on the southwest corner. We're talking evergreens over 6 feet and we're talking 10 evergreens or any idea JoAnn? Olsen: There's some existing landscaping %here now. We just wanted them to add to it. It is going to take the evergreens. My intent I.don't know that we could possibly have it totally screened, even from the residential side. The way it's located and the fact that it's in t~e middle of a large open site and the site has just the chatnlinked fence at this time. $o the existing conditions really kind of limit how far we can go. Conrad: So we screened it to a degree from the one or two neighbors. There aren't many neighbors down there. Residences but still, and then one happens to be one of the owners. Gary Brown: I was going to say. -The part that we're'screening is Where my partner lives. Conrad: He could sell his house. Gary Brown: I guess now that we talked about this, it kind of refreshes my memory too. I would like to ask one thing. When we planted all ~he evergreens the first time, we planted I don't know a dozen or 15 six- footers which we were able to save one out of all. We planted 50 or 60-3 footers and we never lost one. Emmings: What year? Gary Brown: We put them in 1987. Emmings: So that was the dry years, '87 and '88 that you had the problems? Gary Brown: Yeah, we replanted a couple of the 6 footers the following year. We couldn't keep enough water for them because it's all sand down there. Emmings: Yeah. We talked about that last ~ime you were here. Gary Brown: Yeah. We'll do our best to make them grow but we could have a little problem there making those 6 footers. Ahrens: I think we should be more flexible. Emmings: Yeah. Gary Brown: 3 footers I know we can make grow. Emmings: Well and this doesn't specify. It specifies that you have to have a landscaping plan that's acceptable and I guess if'you make that point at the time you make your landscaping plan, I think people will be Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 5 reasonable about that. If you had luck with that soil with 3 footers and not 6 footers, it's kind of dumb to have you plant 6 footers. 8ut anyway, go ahead Ladd. Conrad: Is our posture in the city that if you have a-truck rental or trailer rental operation, that it should be screened? Is.that what we're going to do with a car lot? We'll screen the cars? When a new dealership comes into town, same thing. They're selling cars. Primarily they're going to be inside, if there is one coming in. I don't really know if that's happening anymore. Same operation· I guess it's a little bit dissimilar but is our posture to screen? Emmings: Isn't it to screen to the extent necessary depending on the site? Isn't that what we're doing here? That's what I thought. Conrad: I think the policy to screen from the neighborhood is just absolutely right on. Even though it's one of the owners, I think if we do a little bit of screening, I think that makes a lot of sense· My question is, right now in general, and it doesn't really pertain specifically· Well, in general what's our philosophy on screening truck and trailer rentals? The ordinance says screen them all the way around. Emmings: No it doesn't. Olsen: That's outdoor Conrad: Well you classified this as outdoor storage though. Emmi rigs: No · No we ' re not · Ahrens: No. That's what I don't understand. .. Emmings: I think what we're saying here is this is more like a retail service. Conrad: Right. It should be. '. Emmings: It's not like, even though you're storing big items, this is not outdoor storage. It's a retail service and since it's a conditional use, we're always going to have an Opportunity to look at it and screen it to the extent that's necessary depending on the site. That's the way I'm looking at it. Now I don't know if that makes sense. It's a pretty fine line between a truck as some kind of retail service. Conrad: But wouldn't you want to have an ordinance that would tell you how to treat truck and trailer rental in terms of. Farmakes: How's it any different than a new car parking lot? New car lot. Conrad: Jeff, yeah. I don't know. Emmings: Here's the thing though. If we've got, if we know there's, going to be some screening associated with these when they come in as a conditional use. Now we're back to our old argument that we get into every Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 6 time. Some people want things very specific and itemized in the Statute and some of us like them very vague so we can deal with the problem that arises. I always tend to like the vague be'tter. That's why I want a principle. Principle is, if you're going to have this kind of retail service and we're not going to call it outdoor storage and not make you completely screen it, then I want to have the ability to tell you how much you've got to screen it depending on the site. Conrad: So you don't like standards associated with truck and trailer rental? .. Emmi~gs: Yeah. Conrad: There are no standards? Emmings: The standard is, it's a conditional use and it's .going to be screened to some extent but the extent will depend on the site. That's the way I like it. If you've got residential all around you, well you're probably not going to be able to have it at all but if you did across the road or whatever, we might want to screen that completely, at least on 3 sides. But I think down where Gary is, it just doesn't matter that much. I think it's a good idea to beef up the screening a little bit. Just on general principles but I don't think you have to do anymore than that. Conrad: I think'the staff report for this particular application is acceptable. Emmings: Are you afraid it's going to limit us in the future? Conrad: It's just sort of willy hilly. Emmings: Maybe it's site dependent. Conrad: I don't know. Why? Retail stores are not, they have standards for retail, commercial. Here's another application for a retail use. Emmings: Nhere else can we have truck and trailer rental? Olsen: I think it's just the Emmings: BF. Paul Krauss: It also must be the BG. In fact Market Square, when they go over, they're going to be bringing their rental but it's conditioned in the PUD agreement that it 'be in a masonry enclosure behind the building. Emmings: What? Paul Krauss: 'The rental business-. Conrad: So we have no ordinance, no standards that'might govern something that's happening down the block? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 7 Paul Krauss: If I could interject something. I think Comissioner Ladd has a point. We have a number of conditional use permits that ideally when you review a conditional use permit, you want to review it against some kind of coherent standard and then when you flip the ordinance to refer to a standard it's blank. And you just have the mom and apple pie stuff and the general guidelines to go by. All the conditional use permits that we've, we haven't done that many but the IUP's and CUP's that we've done over the last couple of years have very specific standards attached to them. That would be my preference in the future. Yes, we do exercise control in the site plan too. We sure do. Emmings: If you could write a standard for a truck and trailer rental service dealing with screening, what would you say? Conrad: Generally they could be very ugly and generally. Emmings: Screen as appropriate depending on the site and can't we do that now? Conrad: I don't know Ahrens: Isn't that what it is now? Conrad: Yeah. Emmings: I'm comfortable with that but I don't think you are. But I don't know how else you'd say it. Ahrens: We either have to go with total screening. Conrad: You could have different landscaping requirements. You can have minimums. You know you're talking about minimums and maximums or how many trucks that could be parked in one spot. I think there are some things that might be different than we're used to. I guess what I'd like to 'do, again I think what the staff has designed here Gary is probably appropriate for your facility. I don't think it's detrimental to your operation financially as I looked at it. I think it's probably some common sense stuff so I think to get off the dying here, I think what I'd like to do or I agree with the staff report but I would like to have the Planning Commission spend a few seconds one night discussing whether we should take a look at any kind of guidelines for truck and trailer rental later on. Emmings: Why don't we just do that. Krauss: Add it to the list? Emmings: Yeah. I think we should.. If it causes us to talk about it this much, than it's worth talking about it and getting it settled. Conrad: Everybody else was so brief, I had to. Emmings: I don't have anything more to add. I would like, under the truck and trailer rental thing, to put down a fourth condition. That there will be no more than 20 trucks or 4 trailers and no trucks exceeding 26 feet as Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 8 a condition of that approval. Otherwise I don't have anything else. Conrad: And you like that because why? Just because if the operation expanded you'd like to take another look at it? Emmings: Yeah. And we might want to do more screening then. If it's going to be bigger. Size changes the character of things to me. This is something kind of new to me and I feel more comfortable having some kind of a limit. I don't even know if it's a reasonable limit but it's not going to cramp his style, it gives us some kind of a limit so it doesn't become trucks from one end to the other. Alright, is there any more discussion on this? If not, is there a motion? Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning'Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit ~87-2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the conditions listed in the staff report plus a condition number 4 limiting the trucks to 20 and trailers to 4 and that no trucks, be larger than 26 feet. Is that what you said Steve? Emmings: Yeah. I'll second it. Is there any discussion' on this one? Conrad: 3can, you mentioned you didn't like the 6 foot high evergreens. You're leaving that in? Ahrens: Well it says a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission. I assume that you're not going to hold him to the 6 feet? Olsen: It's still in condition number 1 but we should... Ahrens: Oh I see. Yeah, I'd go along with taking that out. 'Do you want to just say a landscape screen with evergreens? Okay, anything else on this? Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the following conditions: The applicant'shall provide a landscaped screen with evergreens along the fence line at the southwest corner of the site. 2. The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined to the area as shown on the site plan and the area shall have a gravel surface~ 3. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one year warranty. 4. There shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks can exceed 26 feet in length. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: Me'Il go onto the Zoning O~dinance Amendment. Is there a motion? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 9 Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92-1 to add Article XX, BF, Fringe Business District, the following to Section 2(-~75, Interim Uses as it reads in the staff report. - Conrad: I'll second that. Emmings: Okay. Also under that on Joan there's an amendment to Division 4. You're moving for everything that's in the staff report there under that recommendation? Ahrens: As Steve says. Emmings: Well I'll second that. Ahrens moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend' approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92-1 to add Article XX, BF, Fringe Business District, the following to Section 20-775, Interim Uses: (3) Screened outdoor storage. Amend Division 4, Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and Industrial Districts by adding the following: Section 20-294. Screened outdoor storage. The following applies to screened outdoor storage: (1) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with 100~ opaque fence or landscaped screen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. . Emmings: One more item here and that's the Interim Use Permit for screened outdoor storage. Is there a motion? Conrad: I move the Planning Commission recommend'approval of.the Interim Use permit ~92-1 to permit outdoor storage with the conditions as listed on the staff report. Emmings: I'll second it. Any discussion? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend . approval of Interim Use Permit #92-1' to permit outdoor storage with the following conditions: 1. The outdoor storage shall be completely.screened by a 100~ opaque fence or landscaped screen. 2. The' area for screened outdoor storage shall'be improved with a gravel surface. 3. The outdoor storage will be removed from the site upon completion of phase 3 of the mini-storage fac'ility. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page lO 4. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one year warranty. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: This goes to City Council on February 10th. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING NON-¢ONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS AND TO RECEIVE A NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT. Kate Aanenson' presented the staff report on this item. Emmings: This is not a public hearing or was there a public hearing on this before? Aanenson: You had the public hearing and the hearing was closed. Just the ordinance itself, the passage was tabled. Emmings: Alright and now though you're recommending this alternative ordinance and was there ever a public, is this %he first time this has come before us? I missed the last meeting. Krauss: No, it was published and had a public hearing that you opened in December I think it-was. Aanenson: December 4th, yes. Krauss: The alternative is a modification of the original. The public notice would be no different. We also did take great pains to notify everybody. We sent copies of both ordinances to all homeowners associations. Emmings: Okay. So the only difference between the one that you're recommending now and the one that was on the table before is using 1991 as a baseline instead of 19827 Aanenson: Correct. Emmings: That shouldn't hurt anybody. That will make them happier than anything I assume. Krauss: We should also add Commissioner Emmings that we did make a lot of modifications to the ordinance itself based upon comments we received but that's in either alternative. Emn~ings: Okay. I was wondering if there were any, do you feel that you have to do the same thing for each beachlot? They're all going to have to have a baseline of the same year? Krauss: Yeah, I think equity demands that you do. Ahrens: What were you thinking? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992.- Page ii Emmings: I just wondered if there were any beachlots for 'which you felt you had good information, whether it was from 1982, 1985 or 1988, why wouldn't we use that information? Olsen: Ne discussed doing that because there are a couple of cases where we do have the documentation but again Roger was saying it is difficult to treat them differently. He just felt it would be difficult to do...choice do you have? That was one of the things that we discussed of being able to do. Emmings: Okay. So it's just kind of out of some sense of fairness. Aanenson: Yeah, equity. Emmings: Is there anybody that has any comments on this? Is there any discussion on this? Conrad: I do. Because I don't know what we're, as we changed that date, on the surface it seems something that we have a better grasp of so 'I understand staff's comments. Yet on the other hand, I don't know what that does. If I'm voting to allow a use that-I think is real inappropriate then I'd feel real uncomfortable doing that. -If on one particular day we. surveyed a beachlot that had 8 boats on it' and it was appropriate for 4 or whatever and beachlots that had come under the ordinance and met those standards over the last lO years, or whatever the number is. I have a hard time grandfathering in something that wasn't appropriate for that lot so on one hand I like the idea of having something more substantial to document it. On the other'hand, I don't know what we're doing. So before I could vote for this, I would have to know what I'm sanctioning. Olsen: Nell yeah. Ne got that documentation...the expansion of the- beachlot... Emmings: It's sort of my impression that the situation is what we're, we're getting a handle on it as soon as we can but what I hear them saying is we can't go back. If there was a level of use that would be inappropriate under the Statute today, and that level of use was there in 1982, there'd be nothing we could do about it. Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. Emmings: But I think what Ladd is saying, if the level of use would even be appropriate under the Statutue in 1982 but since then has grown to' a level that's inappropriate, it does-n't seem fair to those that have come under the Statute and complied to allow this one to come'in that now has built itself up to a level that isn't appropriate. That's why I was asking, that was part of the reason I asked questions in the beginning~ If there was data that showed, if we had good data for a level that was there in 1986, I'm just picking a number out of the air. I don't see why we couldn't use it because the principle again is getting your hands around it as early in time as you can. Ahrens: I agree. Why do we have data on some and not on others? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 12 Aanenson: Have what? -' Ahrens: Why is the data incomplete from 19827 Aanenson: It's not that it's incomplete. It's just that it was field's checked on that one specific day and we can't guarantee that all' the boats were in the slips the day that someone went out and field checked it. $o the process is they come in and say this is what we say and the staff says this is what we have inventoried and then we listen to who's 'information is better on each one. Emmings: Why doesn't that same argument apply to 19917 Aanenson: Because we're assuming that almost all of these have increased at least a little bit so we're'giving them the benefit of the doubt. Allowing them to maybe slightly increase and therefore there should be less argument. Emmings: But you sat down with all of them. Aanenson: We've met with each of the homeowners associations and passed out the information as to what we had in 1982, 1986 and 1991. Emmings: Do they agree with the numbers? They all agree with the numbers you have for 1991. Olsen: What they were going to do is send us back that form with what they...what is out there. So it'd be kind of...the data but also from what they documented they had... $o it still is kind of. Aanenson: To answer your question, no they haven't commented on that. We haven't heard whether or not they agree with that information. Emmings: Do they have, when will that? Aanenson: That's the process of meeting with each individual association. Emmings: And presumable will we get to the heart of that through the application process? Aanenson: Right. After we adopt the ordinance. Amended the ordinance. Olsen: And there's only one beachlot that we do have good information on and... Emmings: That's on Troiis GIen. OIsen: Yes. And aIi the other ones, no. It's just one... Emmings: Let's take depositions of aiI of them. Oisen: But that's the onIy one we have good information on. The re~t are... Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 13 Conrad: Well I'd like to see, before I could vote on this, I guess-I'd like to see what the non-conforming lots would be allowed to have. Emmings: On each one? Conrad: On each one. Emmings: But what is it, you want to see the number of boats? Conrad: Whatever it would be that they would be, that would be going over our beachlot ordinance requirements. I'need to know what-that is. -In other words, if the beachlot ordinance under today's rules it says you can have 4 boats docked in a day and they're- coming in at 12, I would feel real uncomfortable that I could allow that. Because of 1991 data. I don't think I could go along with that. Emmings: And what would be the alternative? Conrad: The alternative is as we've discussed it in the past. Here's what we believe. Here's what's grandfathered in as of 1982. You have to prove to us that it was really something different and it was up to them to prove. If they can't prove it, then it would be our best records. Emmings: Do you have the overhead projector down here s-o we can all look at that at once? Olsen: We can make transparencies. Aanenson: I could make copies really quic. k. Olsen: Another concern we've got is requiring them to prove what was there. I think the burden comes down to us to prove it. We're just admitting that we really don't have the documentation to really have a good case. Conrad: So for something to be grandfathered in is our proof? . Krauss: We're the enforcing agency. If we issue citations. If we took them to Court, we'd have to make the case. Now we're not unwilling to try. Our data may be as .good as anybody else'S.- Maybe it's not. Conrad: See I don't know what we're talking. I r~ally don't know. At this point in time I don't have a clue if we have a problem out there. We have a problem on a couple beachlots probably and most of them are being handled quite well but on those couple, I just don't have a clue what we're saying here. Krauss: The fundamental data we have here is 9 years old and it was based upon a one time survey that was never opened to scrutiny. It was just done and put into the files is my understanding. Conrad: For the 2 or 3 beachlots that we have a problem with, I don't really have a problem bringing them in. I don't know. Maybe we do have a problem proving something. I've sat through some cases on Lotus Lake where Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 14 people were proving they had docks and they had, but in that case the burden of proof was always on them. I. didn't recall the City proving that it wasn't, there so I guess I'm amiss in not understanding how something gets grandfathered in. 8ut you know Steve, I don't know how you want to handle this. My preference would be to have staff point out, we could do it now or we could table the thing and go through it after we took a look at the specifics and they're right here. 8ut I hesitate to go through. something while the meeting's open that we haven't looked at before. Emmings: Let me ask this. In 1982 somebody did a survey and in 1991 there was a survey done. Olsen: And in 1986. Emmings: '867 What was done on that occasion? Olsen: Same thing... Emmings: And is the problem with the i982 and 1986 data, is that the same? You're not willing to rely on it. What makes it different than the 1991 data? I know you now have videotapes but apart from that, what makes that information any more suspect than what you've got? Olsen: Again I don't think we're 3ust, I think we're saying that that data is the same. That we were going to be as part of the application...what is listed in 1991. So it wasn't necessary... What we've got from 1991 but we're still going to work with them'to come up with a compromise and agree. If they say that they've got 14 boats out there now and we saw 13 or whatever, we'll...the ~4. Krauss: But we will be able to, and we'll probably ask them to provide us written verification from everybody that was out there. This is not 9 or 10 years ago. This is today and these people who have had docks the~e and boats there are presumably available and are going to be able to demonstrate somehow that those are the ones that we saw out there. Emmings: Can you tell me off-'hand, what's the greatest number of boats that any one of these non-conforming? Aanenson: It's like 16 at one of the Hinnewashta. Emmings: Is that the Minnewashta Heights? Aanenson: Yeah. Emmings: I've lived next to that one since 1983 and I know it's grown. I'm 3 houses away from it and it's obviously.grown but I have no idea how much. olsen: That's one that's 3 times as big. Ahrens: And we're going to say that's okay? i mean is that what we're being asked to do? If they had 16 boats in 19917 Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 15 Olsen: That's a case where they agree that they've expanded so...pull them' back to what they were. Ahrens: Which is? Aanenson: Six. Six dock slips. Conrad: Well there are 2 or 3 in here that I just don't see acceptable. I just have a terrific difficulty in accepting that until I've heard what's going on, compared it to the 'land that it was being done on. I know a couple of the cases and it just doesn't seem like appropriate use of the land. Emmings: Minnewashta Heights is the example of that Ladd. I don't know how wide the lot is but I think it's 25 feet of lakeshore. But I don't know that. I could be wrong. Aanenson: It's 50. Emmings: Oh is it 50? With 14 boats in front of it so I don't know. Ahrens: But they're saying that's unacceptable. That they have to go back to the original 6 that they agreed on. Emmings: The other thing we could do here I suppose is, if people are interested in the alternative ordinance that uses 1982 as the baseline, then we have, we go through the application process and do the negotiating on the number of boats that will be there and if we've got good'information on some of them, we can stick to it and if we don~t, maySe we have to compromise. The question of whether you want to start with the 1991 data or start with the 1982 data, is that a fai~ way to look at it? Krauss: That's basically it. But you almost need to make that decision before we can bring anybody in here, We're asking people to apply for a permit that doesn't exist until you process the Ordinance. Emmings: Right but there are two ordinances here in my packet. One uses 1991 and one uses 1982.and that's what we're talking about.. Krauss: One thing we should also add,-and it might complicate things too much, is that the Council approved an ordinance that came through the Planning Commission last fall for water surface use. Councilman Wing advocated, there was always a dock setback area. That now applies to moored boats as well so if you have an exceedingly narrow beachlot, the extended property lines of that beachlot out into the water, there can't be any dock or boat moored within that lO foot setback on either side of the property line. Now somebody's really pushing it if they're in front of somebody else's property with a dock or overhang that area. That's another problem that they'll have to face. And that isn't related directly to this ordinance at all. That's a separately enforceable standard. Emmings: And there's also limits on the length of the dock. But is ther, a limit on the length of a dock on a beachlot? Sure. Sure there, is isn' there? Wouldn't the dock ordinance apply to a beachlot as well as any Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 16 other property on the lake? Out to 4 feet. Acer. tain number of feet in length or out to 4 feet, whatever is necessary, l'Okay. SO 'those, on narrow ones, the side yard setbacks as it were or the dock ordinance is going to limit them to some extent. Okay, you've still got the floor believe it or. not. Conrad: I don't want it anymore. Just the iast comment. There aren't that many probIems here. There are onIy a coupIe.. Emmings: Yeah, right. Matt. Ledvina: Nothing. Emmings: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: No comments Emmings: Joan. Ahrens: Well to tell you the truth, I'm kind of confused as to whether there's a problem or not. I mean I really don't have any idea. Ladd seems to think there's a problem. I don't know what that's based on. I don't know how inaccurate the information is from 1982. To tell you the truth~ I wouldn't have a problem going back to the 1982 standard if anybody feels more strongly about that. Feels more comfortable about that. I guess I'm vacilating this issue because I don't know if there's a problem or not. I don't know. Farmakes: Isn't there some question as to how reliable your 1982 information is? I mean that's just what you said. Somebody filled out a card and put it in a drawer somewhere. Nobody knows who and the City's willing to back that up. Ahrens: But I don't know if that's for 2 of the beachlots or 3... Farmakes: Or is that just the problem lots? Olsen: It's all the same for all the surveys were the same for...whatever happened to be out at that time we marked down. Boats that were being moored there...so it's the same for each. All three different surveys. Ahrens: The information is the same for ail three? Aanenson: I think she's saying the margin of error is probably the same. Because you did a one day check and the boats may .or may not have been moored at the dock. Ahrens: So you're saying the ~992 information is probably as inaccurate as the 19827 Aanenson: Except that the time lapse isn't so great so there might be more personal recordation. Like Paul's saying you can verify who had their boat in last summer and get them to give us a written letter or whatever. People may not have moved and that sort of thing. Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 15, 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: But you've also got a video tape and the video tape is going to show somebody's gone with their boat during the time the person's there, you're going to see an empty slip. Or something like that. Or a space anyway where a boat would go. But I think that's probably a little better information. Farmakes: It's based on a slip correct? Not the fact that there happens to be a boat parked in it. Aanenson: No, it's just how many boats are there is what we counted. measured the docks. It's hard to tell how people are tying up their boats. The fishing boats, people just tie them up on the side of the docks. People have slips if it's a motor boat. And then there's Canoe racks and sailboats and all that sort of thing too. It's hard to tell whether or not there's actually a sailboat that's being. Emmings: It looks to me like we have two ways to go on this. Or three maybe. I'd be inclined to say, if we've got data from 1982, and if that's when the grandfathering takes place, I don't know why we'd ignore it. I realize that bothers people that's come to town since and'have a boat. But still just from looking at the problem and that seems, and then'as we're looking at each one separately under the application process, if we feel that our information isn't good, we may' have to compromise and go with the 1986 data or even the 1991 data. But 'I don't know why we wouldn't ~tart with the 1982 data. Ignoring what we have doesn't seem to accomplish much to me. But one thing we-could do here was to distribute the information that we have. Show us what information we have for 1982, 1986 and 1991. Now is that what's here? Aanenson: Yes. Emmings: If anybody thinks that. will change the way they're thinking about this, we could table this and look at that data for the next meeting add look at it then. My personal preference would be to take some action on this. This is one of those decisions that has a lot of political kind of overtones to it and may be better handled at the City Council on that decision but we can tell them what we think about'it. The City Council, I can imagine there will be some people who for sure will want to have it at the 1991 levels because they're higher. But I don't know. Let me just ask, is there a motion? Conrad: I would make one Steve. The only motion I would make is that we use 1982 data to establish the criteria for grandfathering. Other than that, I'm trying to figure out which. Emmings: That would be the second one of the two? Conrad: Yeah, that would be my motion. That the 'ordinance be updated f, non-conforming beachlots per the second example we have in our kit. Emmings: Okay, I'm going to second the motion and I guess the way I see this working. The second is with the understanding and ~ don't kn0' you see this the same way. That we'd start with the 1982 baseline and we felt that, as each one of these comes. Each one of these is going Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 18 come before us, is that right? With the application and at that time we can negotiate anything that we want to based on how sound we feel our information ~s. Is that right? - Krauss:' That's true. Just as a point of order. You technically held the public hearing on this in December but, and the ordinance is somewhat different but I know there are a number of people who came to'night probably wanting to comment on this. They haven't been able to yet. Emmings: Well, it's not a public hearing. -Do you think'it'd be appropriate? Krauss: I would think from a more technical. Yeah, technically I think you've continued the public hearing. Emmings: Oh did-we? Ahrens: I don't think so. Krauss: You closed it fully? Ahrens: Yeah. Conrad: You might want to take a few brief comments... Emmings: Let's do this. I'll open it up for public comment. I think it's a good thing to do. If people would just state their position. I think you can see what the issue is and why don't you give us, come up here and give us your name and your address. 'If you're a member of a beachlot, I'd like to know which one. Tell us that and then let us know what you think. Does anybody want to do that? Peter Harhol: My name is Peter Ha'rhol and I. live in Pleasant Acres. I guess my question is, some of these docks that are out, new properti'es or new developments weren't here in 1982. Does that mean they don't get anything? And as far as we are, we expanded and we'd like to go with the 1991. Emmings: Sure. Now when you say there are docks that weren't there in 1982. Peter Warhol: Like Stratford Ridge you know. There wasn't any houses there in 1982 and there wasn't any docks and now there's about 4 or 5 boat., on the dock there. I 'm just wondering what happens to those people. Emmings: Okay, let's just talk about that one. Stratford Ridge, do they have a beachlot? Aanenson: Yeah. Emmings: And they came in under the new ordinance. Olsen: They got a conditional use permit... They're not grandfathere,°' they've got a permit. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 19 Peter Warhol: And we've got 150 feet of lakeshore and we have like 16' I think, boats there. Emmings: And under the present ordinance, you'd have to have 200 feet of lakeshore and you'd get one dock an'd 3 boats. Peter Warhol: I mean we were grandfathered in. I don't know what the grandfathering was back' in 1982 or 1986. I didn't live here then but I do have a boat down there. I'd be anxious to know what's going to happen. I mean it's a pontoon boat and it's not one that I, that you take in and out each time. So if it isn't tied up on the dock, then it's probably not, I'm not going to have it. There's a couple others that probably won't, have one either. It's too big to monkey with. But I mean that's my comment. Emmings: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes sir. Joh.n Metz: My name is John Metz and I live at 3900 Cedar Lane. 'I am a member of the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. I also own property adjacent to my house which is on Hawthorne Circle so I have the unique position of being able to address this issue from both a riparian and a non-riparian position. I strongly urge, and I won't go into the lengthy... that I wanted to but I strongly urge the adherence to the 1982 baseline. I'm a member of the Homeowners Association and as such I have the same rights as all the members of the Association. It would be an injustice in this case to deviate from the 1982 baseline. It's clearly documented by a lengthy court process which we endured last year and the 1982 basel-ine would say that we have one dock and 2 boats at that time. I happened to be present when the 1981 survey. It was done in 1981 by Scott Martin. I happened to be there when Scott did that survey. When that survey was done on Trolls Glen there were no boats and no docks. I happened to own a boat at the time I moved into Trolls Glen and I chose not to put one there and shortly thereafter my neighbor, Dr. Tester and I purchased the property on Hawthorne Circle. So from one perspective I would look at it in ~aying that yes, I would love to have boat rights at Trolls Glen Association. I personally don't think that that'd be the case. It's far from being conforming. It's only 65 feet wide. It's got tapered property lines come out at a point of 200 feet from the departure of the high water mar There's no property left because they tapered in and this particular cas~ if we went to the 1991 baseline, would be an-injustice from the standpoi of safety of use of this piece of property. Environmentally it's not. or am I concerning with Lake Minnewashta but I was here in these chambers ~ the ordinance was passed on the park and believe that was a long and arduous discussion heated from both the lakeowners and hon-lakeowners. people involved with the park as to the water useage. Quite truthfull> Lake Minnewashta we have a 650 acre lake which under the DNR guideline, calls for 1 non-riparian boatslip for every 20 acres of water. Simpl~¥ mathematics tells you that's down to 32 I believe and in the park pre~ we originally under the park ordinance, conditional use permit it was,ce issued for 10 boats on the upper parking lot and 25 in the new lot. that time it's my understanding that that's been increased to 50. F¢the lakeowners on Lake Minnewashta, and I wish I could address this for - just Lake Minnewashta. I wish I could address it for ail lakes beca~ it's environmentally a very important concern to all Of us. I'm cements that the condition on most of the 'other lakes in the city of Chanha~en Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 15, 1992 - Page 20 similar to the Minnewashta case. The growth since 1982 has been significant. We've all seen it. We can all turn our heads and hide from it but the intent of those long and lengthy debates in these fair chambers were that we'd stop it in 1982 and it's grown beyond it's bounds. It's not just for the 3ohn Metz' or the people of this generation but we as a planning committee and body have to look out beyond our own personal needs and say hey, this is for we have a beautiful little lake in Lake Minnewashta and I wish I could address the rest of .them in Chanhassen but it's a jewel. It's a jewel in Minnesota. It's a jewel in the whole world. To go beyond what it's technical limits and capacity of holding boats but expanding these beachlots and abandoning what people in 1982 fought long and hard for, to my position would be a terrible injustice and I'll cut my comments short at that. Thank you very much for your time. Ann Cathcart: I'm Ann Cathcart. I'm the president of Trolls Glen. Live at 3895 Lone Cedar. We bought the lot in 1985. Built in 1986. Moved in in 1987. We bought the lot because we knew expressly that we could dock a boat. There was a dock there. There were 2 boats there. There was room- for more boats. It was a quirk of fate that the people who owned the lot before we bought it didn't have a boat there. I think they lived in Tennesee or they lived'somewhere else or they had their boat on another lake or something. So I look at it that way. -3ust fate that there wasn't a boat, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 boats there in 1982 because all the lots weren't built even though it stated specifically in our Covenants that we had rights to more boats. It's part of our deed. It goes along with our property values. Mortgage companies know this value. So it's expressly indicated in our mortgages and our values and in our deed that we have the right to moor. I know for a fact that we couldn't moor a 50 foot yatch. We can't have six 30 foot boats.' Speed boats. We can't have 10 boats. There's not room. W~ have what, 69 feet of lakeshore so there is specifically only a certainly amount of room. We as an association hav~ goverened ourselves I think very well over the past, well since I've lived there anyway. We've kept up the beach. We haven't had accidents. We've used our boats prudently. There are small children so safety is a great concern. I think the 1991 ruling I feel is more equitable basically because the lake has grown in population. It is now fairly stable, especially with the recession going on. There isn't a lot of building. The planning is done. We know what's going'tO be there. What's going to be for sale as farmland on the western side of Minnewashta Parkway has been up for sale. We know what kind of beach is going to come up there. If it would be conforming or non-conforming. This is a specific non-conforming beach and it was sanctioned by the City'in 1977. The covenants were and it was subdivided to the point where there were 12 association members. 5 are on the lake and 7 are not. It said specificall, y that we do have a right to moor our boat and that is our goal. Thank you. Emmings: Okay, thank you. Bernie Schneider: I'm Bernie Schneider. I live at 7501 West 77th Street in the Trolls Glen Addition. It has always been my understanding that when the city of Chanhassen approved ~he Trolls Glen subdivision in 1975, they also approved the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions.- And with that we were granted boating rights. Mooring. rights. So whether we are grandfathered in or not, this is a right under the Abstract. That's what I Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 21 believe should be considered. It's admirable that 3chh Metz is concerned about the ecology but he also has 3 boats on his dock and I think if any boats should be removed then possibly he should start thinking about cleaning up his own act. Ne have a letter here to the Planning Commission stating our position and I will leave that with you so you can take this into consideration at the time we apply for the permit. But again we have · 7 people that have need for a lake access and moorin9 rights. Not all of them want it but at the same time, it's still their right to moor the boats there. I have one question also on the hearing that states that property owners on the lake be notified in writing of'proposed hearing on the ordinance. Emmings: Bernie, tell me what page you're looking at? What are you looking at? Bernie Schneider: I'm looking at. Emmings: Hold it up so we can identify what you're looking at. Bernie Schneider: I don't have it with me but on the notice of the ordinance here it's stated that notice shall be mailed to all property owners on the lake and this was a considerable expense. As I understand it, there's over 2,000 property owners and if everybody has to be notified of a Trolls Glen hearing, the expense is going to be in excess of what, $400.00? $500.00? Emmings: Who does that notice? Is it required of the applicant? And is it notice to everybody on the lake? Krauss: Nell, what we normally do is we require the applicant to give us a list of names and addresses and we send them out. But there's only 5;000 properties in the entire city. We're not talking anywhere near that'kind of number . Bernie Schneider: Well I don't know. tt says property owners on the lake so I have no idea. Krauss: On that specific lake. Bernie Schneider: Yeah. A figure was tossed out that it was 2,000. Over 2 ' 000 I Emmings: Paul's point is that if there a~e 5~000 lots in the city, 2,000 of them are not on Lake Minnewashta. It's probably a substantial smaller number. I'm sure it is. Bernie Schneider: I should also mention that in 1981 the Trolls Glen Association passed a resolution authorizing 4 boats to be moored at the dock. The Association dock. This resolution was passed and so prior to your City ordinance, one year prior to the ordinance we already had authorized the 4 boats. If additional boats would be required in the future we would make provision for that but this is on record prior to the 1982 ordinance or the amendment now. So I will leave this with the. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 22 Emmings: Sure, just give it to staff. Thank you Bernie. Anybody else? Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502 West 77th Street. I've had a cold and have somewhat of a voice problem but I do wish to add a little something. One is I think when 3ohn Metz was up here stating that he has rights within the Trolls Glen Association the same as the other members, that is technically not correct because at the moment he doesn't have any riqhts. He doesn't have any voting rights. He doesn't have any right to the outlot at all because of not having paid assessments that were assessed quite some time ago. He was the one who inltiated the lawsuit amd we encountered a lot of expense in fighting that lawsuit and succeeded in having it thrown out. So when he speaks of having th~se rights, he doesn't have them. I have lived at 7502 since 1977. The lake outlot wasn't really prepared for use until some years later. It was just kind of wild. Eventually it was cleared and I think from the time we put a dock there in 1981 and put boats alongside, I don't think anyone has spent any more time in keeping up that outlot than I have. We did have this rule established in 1981 and that's part of the. Declaration of Covenants that was accepted and we were to regulate our own outlot so that'becomes a part of our governin9 documents and to comply with that this past summer there were 5 people who had boats and would have wished to have them at the dock. kept rny boat in storage all last summer so.we would abide by our own regulations. And I feel I probably have as much entitlement to a boat at that. dock as anybody. However I relinquished by position for the other 4 people who chose to have their boats there. I personally don't feel 'either that the 1982 is a fair and equitable allotment f'or our association because again as Ann stated too, not all of the lots were built upon. It was everyone's understanding when they did build that they would have the right to have a boat there and that was definitely mY' purpose, in purchasing that lot in the first place and I'm sure it was with most of the rest of them. I think we would be unfairly penalized if we were to be restricted to the 1982 allocation that was there at that time. Thank you. Emmings: Thank you. Terry Johnson: My name is Terry 3ohnson and I'm also part of the Trolls Glen Association. I live at 3898 Lone Cedar. I would agree that the 1982 should be the baseline. At our association we have good documentation to show that there were 2 boats at the time. I guess my point would be that it was non-conforming at the time for what the city thought was safe and to expand upon that to the 4 or 5 or 6 or 12 boats' that the association or some of the members of the association would like to me would be very unfair and unsafe. To me that is the main issue is the safety of it. It's a 60 some foot lot and when you start adding 3, 4, 5 boats there and they've got water skiers coming in there and of course there's a lot more boats in there on Saturdays and Sundays, weekends'and people are.wanting to drop off their skiers on that 60 some foot lot, it's a very, very unsafe situation. I border the lot on one side and there have been numerous situations pertaining to me and my wife and my children and I know of other situations with other neighbors where it's been very unsafe and very hazardous. Some of them have dealt with some of the individuals that have just talked to you that managed to ignore to'tell you about that. 8ut I understand that they want more boats there. I understand that every association is going to want to have more boats there. Mainly even if Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 15, 1992 - Page 23 they're not using the boats, if they go to sell their homes it increases their value. Some people have said it's worth-$40,O00.O0 or $50,000.00 to the value of their home. I understand that and I hate to be the one to try to deprive them of that and I know it's a tough question that you're havimg to deal with. But two of the individuals that have been up here already have stated that they plan on leaving. Moving their homes as soon as this ordinance is passed. It's telling me that they doD't want this non-conforming issue expanded for their own use. It's for the sale to increase the value of their home. And I guess because of that and the fact that it is non-conforming, it seems unfair to the rest of the property owners on the lake. Thank you. Emmings' Thank you. David Tester: I'd just like to speak to the issue. Emmings: And what's your name? David Tester: David Tester. I'm in the Trolls Glen Association and I've been there since 1976. I moved in in 1977 and I was a joint owner i'n that lot with 3ohn but we had an uncomfortable situation in the nei.ghborhood. There's been a lot of acrimony because of the lot but really actually the beachlot doesn't get used an awful lot. I don't think I saw water skiers down there maybe once or twice last year on the beachlot. It's not a high traffic area. The people who use it are considerate of the people around. I think it's not that we're trying to increase the value. We're trying to maintain what we have. I mean we feel like.something's being taken away if we're not given this because it's really something that's subtracting. It's not that we're trying to maintain this. I know before Terry moved in, Terry moved in in 1985 but in Terry's present house Chuck Crompton was a member of the association. He was secretary of the association before he moved to Indiana and there wasn't a lot of problems there but I think recently since there's been.the last lots have been built on, that's maybe created the feeling that where's it going to stop and these people are maybe expecting more boats but we tried to govern it. I think the most boats that have been there have been 4. And if I understood your saying before that Minnewashta Heights has 50 feet and they've got 8 or 6 slips. Well we've got 70 foot of frontage or 69.5 foot of frontage and it's always been, it hasn't been overused. I mean there's not a lot of activity down there. I just guess I would think it would be sad if we had this taken away from us because it's something that's on our title and our abstract and it's not something we want given to us. We just don't Want it taken away because we feel that we were in the right. Emmings: That's obviously the issue. Going back to 1982 levels is going to feel like the City is taking something away from people that they presently have. But if you turn that around and look through it from the other end, when something is grandfathered in it's grandfathered in at the level of use at the time of the grandfathering. So to the extent that there's been expansion of the use over the level at the time of the grandfathering, you're taking something in a sense that you didn't have a right to. So like I say, you look in one end and something's being taken away. You look in the other end and you're taking something you weren't entitled to and that's, for that reason it's a very, very difficult issue. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 24 I don't think the City wants to take anything away. I think the comments about, I know on Minnewashta, I don't know if it's happened on other lakes. John mentioned the fact that the DNR did a study of the lake in deciding how many boats were going to be allowed in at the Regional Park. They looked at the level of the use of the lake and said we're going to restrict the number of slips because the lake can't handle more so allowing beachlots to increase is also overloading that lake in a sense. And I live on that lake too so it's part-icularly near and dear to my heart in a personal sense. And I have to also say we've got a number of beachlots o.n our lake and even at their present level I don't think they cause problems on the lake. I live within 3 houses of one that's very over developed in a sense. 50 feet with 16 boats or whatever it is and it doesn't bother me. But that's not the issue. The issue I think, well. The City has to decide whether it wants to preserve what exists today or whether it wants'to go back and enforce what existed at that time of the grandfathering. And from my part here I'm going to say we should go back to the time of the grandfathering but I can well see the City Council may feel differently about it. But anyway, is there anybody else that wants to talk. Ivan Underdahl: When the application is made for the permit and there could be negotiating at that point but are you implying that it cannot be in negotiating above what it was in 19827 Emmings: No. I guess when I say that I'm thinking that if there's data from 1982 that's very sound. That we're very comfortable with, I guess there'd be less inclination to compromise. If'we don't think that our data is good or our homeowners association could show us that"it was-inaccurate for some reason, then we might compromise going up. 'I guess from the City's point of view it seems to me that .we want to put some of the burden on the recreational beachlot owners to get us to have an upward departure rather than starting high and trying to get people down lower. We're'going to have a lot less luck with that I'm sure. 'But I think it should be done on an individual basis. I think we have to look at each one of these. Ivan Underdahl: ...negotiating from a standpoint of wha't is equitable for that situation. Emmings: Don't know. Probably. I mean when it seems equitable, how can I say no to that? You're putting me in a position where I'm going to say I want to do something that's unfair. I guess you can either take a very legalistic point of view and say if 2 is what you had in 1982, that's what you get. Unless you want to come in under the new ordinance. If you have enough land and everything else to come in under the new ordinance, maybe you can get 3 but sure. You want to do something that's fair but I don't think, if you're going to treat everybody the'same, then you've got to approach them all the same. And it wouldn't be fair to say well, we like you better so we're going to give you more boats'or you've got more land so we're going to give you more-boats. I don't know that we'd want to get into that. I don't know. David Tester: I just wanted to say, you talked about Hinnewashta Heights. If they had 6 slips at that point in.time that they were supposed to be using it, if they were down to have 6 and at the time it was done there's 14 boats there but now because 'in 1982 there's 14 boats there and there was Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips, now because they had 14 that's okay. Is that what you're saying? Because these are your neighbors. If you go back to 6 boats to what they're supposed to have, wouldn't that create a problem? Emmings: You mean they'll burn. my house down? David Tester: You live right next to them. Emmings: No, I know. Yeah I'm putting all that'out of my mind. I'm not going to sit here, I'm sure my neighbors would hate. me if I said I'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door tO a lot of them, I know a lot of them and they're going to hate me.for saying well back to 1982 level. I have no doubt about that but that's not going to influence me. But maybe they hate me already f-or other reasons. Now they have another one. Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay...and I seconded it and just so we're all on the same page' because I forgot, we're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline. Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I'll call a question. Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent of the recreational beachlot in the summer of [982. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings: When will this go to the City Council? Aanenson: The lOth. · Emmings: So if you're interested in this, follow it on up. Conrad: I think just as a footnote. When these start coming in and if they come before us, we should know, and I think there's some common sense that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and i don't know, which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats or picnic tables or whatever. I'd like to know that. And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in. The idea of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things. It's called safety and protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff. And sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots. I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you're concerned with. The people that are part of the association or the beachlot. I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work. In some cases it's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I-think we should be able to reach some pretty good decisions. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNINg, PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: I'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian because they both had a lot of good things to say about this. but I don't Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 26 know if they'd have additional things to say. Maybe we're all kind of talked out on this issue. I don't know. Ahrens: The PUD, I think so. Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item and I don't know what to do. What do you want to do? Conrad: I wouldn't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it. Emmings: Okay. Ahrens: I'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later. I mean we've talked about this a lot. Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round. Ahrens: I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about it again another night because there ate a lot of issues involved... Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last longer. Jeff, you go ahead. I've talked more. Farmakes: What basis are we using from the 9,000 to the 10,0007 What is the basis that you picked that figure? KrAuss: It's highly scientific. Farmakes: This isn't like 3 trees is it? Because it's mote than 2? Emmings: Because he feels resistence at 9,000. Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage.. Krauss: To be perfectly honest, Kate and I saw a concept that had been prepared by somebody who's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot subdivision over off of Salpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was, it's in the Volk. Yeah, the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower is. And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a 'number. of cul-de-sacs and in those areas where it's just open field he figured that he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he proposed at 10,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills near Timberwood he came up with 15,000 to 25,000. Well 25,000 to 30,000 square foot lots which fit in quite well with the 'terrain and the desire to protect those trees. Because if you plowed in your normal 15,000 square foot lots on a suburban type pattern, you're going to plow down most of those trees. I thought the trade 'off made some sense. It seemed to be from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal candidate to do and that one used 10,000 square foot minimum lots. And the average lot size was in excess of 15,000. It seemed to be a reasonable plan and I said well, I've tried this 3 times before the Planning Commission. I'll try another time. Now your comments about Commissioner Batzli and Erhart are accurate. They have been somewhat the leading Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 27 proponents or opponents of this. I've had some conversations since with the Mayor and Councilman Wing. I. think that they're somewhat, well they can speak for themselves but they've indicated to me that they're not in favor of the decreasing lot sizes. We're getting to the point where some guidance would be nice. We're getting asked the questions a whole lot. it's 15,000, it's 15,000. If you have flexibility, we do. Farmakes: I still have just one question with the basis of understanding this. If you don't give up some lot size, what is the advantage to the developer doing this? Krauss: Well there isn't much. If you don't give up lot sizes you have what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/ Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because conventionally configured lots didn't fit because of all the wetlands. That conventionally configured streets didn't fit because of the wetlands and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that. But that average lot size, granted between useable and non-useable, I think it was 30,000 square feet was the lot size and 18,000 to 20,000-square feet was the useable site. Those are pretty unusual cases. Is that ever likely to happen again, I don't know. Maybe. Farmakes: Well I, in that particular development, I guess I thought it was a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller ones. I still,' if you were looki'ng at 10,000 or 12,000 square feet, I mean again it seems an arbitrary number. I haven't seen the development that you're talking about and I'm having trouble understanding if you had an · attached garage with a pad that size, you'd be looking at about a 40 x 40 house and attached garage wouldn't you? Krauss: We tried to define that a little bit more here. Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is, if you put an attached garage to it, that doesn't leave you much left for the house. Krauss: Well yeah, if you have a 60 x 40 pad. Each house in Chanhassen is required, well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car'- garage. Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from. Aanenson: What we'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models but a lot of homes have the punch out'garage with the floor space behind. Krauss: What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back 'yard. You can't play baseball in it but. Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it. I mean they did in Near Mountain and then we know that .they can have decks on houses and we know that they can have the right sized garage. I don't think that's really'an issue. I think the issue is just what we want. Planning Commission Meeting JanuaYy 15, 1992 - Page 28 Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage difference do you see with a house iike that next to a house'on a 35,000 square foot iot? Percentage wise and pricing. Krauss: See I don't think pricing is, well I wouldn't sell this to you, in the past the City's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the premise. The builder came to you and he said, let me put these things on 9,000 or 10,000 square foot lots and I'll give you cheaper homes. I don't know if they intentially lied but they'weren.'t cheaper homes. The homes got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and'the City had no protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks could fit and that people had reasonable back yards. It's a pretty tough situation. I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board of Adjustments and it's because he's seen almost monthly he sees the r~sults of those PUD's. I think you can do it without it. Now what are the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot. There's lots of them. Yeah, maybe they are a little less expensive. Maybe the lot price is $25,000.00 or $30,000.00 instead of $40,000.00 or $50,000.00. I can't guarantee it but it's reasonable to think it. might be. I-know in the case of the developer we talked to, he clearly intends to make his big ticket purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill, which makes sense. It lays out well. You also have people that don't want lots .that are that big. Most people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every Saturday. They want something a little smaller. Not everybody has 3 kids. I mean there's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we've heard some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected me from myself. You should never have let me buy this lot. Well, I have a little bit of a tough time with that. You buy what you'buy because that's what you think you want. But having said all that, I mean I think the flexibility from the design standpoint, the ability to save trees. The ability to work around water features. The ability to lay in streets nicely. The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit. Can we develop without that? Sure. You have in the past. You will in the future. And we're not here to you know, I think there's a valid case to be made for using PUP's but if there's not a comfort level with it, then let's move on and work with it the way we have it. Emmings: And that's the problem. The way I feel like, I'd like to look at everything as a PUD and hone of them as a straight subdivision really because you feel like you have some flexibility. I don't know if you really do wind up with any but you feel like-you might and at least the potential is there. That's why in a way I'd just like to say we've got net' density, or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the property. Design whatever you want. Just give 'them a density and say here, you design whatever you want. Conrad: That was my question. Why didn't we go with a gross density versus? Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do things, the trouble is Ladd I think, And maybe I'm wrong. You can probably answer this better than I but I'm afraid if that developer does get Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 29 creative and has some 9,000 foot lots, he's going to wind up bringing that in and it's not going to get approved because there are some people who just plain don't like small lots. Even though it preserves a lot of open space. I don't know that but I think I've had some people call me this week who said just that. I think Brian has argued that, whether he. meant it or not. Whether he was being.a Devil's advocate or really meant it. Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from my~elfi Emmings: Well a little bit but he doesn't want a little lot, and I think · there are a lot of people who feel that way. And I wouldn't want to dangle that out in front of a developer. But if we want PUD's, we've got to offer them something. W'e've got to make it attractive to them and.I think the way we do that is by saying you've got a density figure to work against. Ns're ~oing to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and that you don't destroy the natural topography and everything else. Do your best and bring it back and take a look. Krauss: You could work it that way. I'd still stick in the provisions though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your satisfaction or the Council's satisfaction that every lot that's created, · bar none, can accommodate a reasonably sized home, deck and a back yard. When you're talking about some creative developers, I don't know that that's the right adjective for... Emmings: Well wait. What if a guy wants to do 'zero kot line-stuff? Krauss: Oh well, I think that's a different. This is an animal of a different color. We cover that in here. Zero lot .'line homes are certainly a valid housing concept. They're in demand in a lot of areas. Emmings: Or what if you want to do a ret:irement thing where you have maybe 3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul-de-sac with a whole bunch of open space around it. How do we encourage people to do some things like that? Krauss: Nell, you can encourage that and the ordinance'does provide for those to go in areas guided for medium density housing. Most communities have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept. Being allowed to go anywhere in a single family neighborhood. Even though I fully agree with you that the density cap is the same, that number of units 'isn't going to increase over the normal style. It looks like a different style of development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single family home. So most of the time you find that those zero lot line- developments ar~ segregated somehow. Oftentimes they're in a higher density area. That's the way it's done in most the communities I know. Ahrenst: I think we should look at creative development. I like PUP's and I think there's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the only, you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and if you drive behind it in Pleasant View, it looks okay. The houses that sit on the little lots. But if you drive inside of it to the front of those houses, it's crowded in there. You just get a feeling of being crowded in there because the houses aren't small. The houses are nic~ Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 30 sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it's crowded. And there's barely room for cars to park between. If you have, I mean in suburbia everybody's has lots of cars right? Especially when you have teenagers. There's no room to 'park even between the houses let alone on the street. It's really small. It's really tight in there and I think . we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot. Well sure. You can get a house to fit on a l'ot and some people don't want to have to mow the lawns and stuff but how does it look and how is it going to look 20 years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little- lots? I don't know. I don't know if aesthetically that's going to be too great and if it's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they can fit them nicely into their driveway. I mean it is crowded in there' I don't know if you've ever driven in there but it is. And the houses look nice now because they're brand new houses. I mean it looks okay now. I don't know. I don't know how it's going to be. I think I've changed my position on the small lot size. I didn't think it was a bad idea at first but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren, I'm not sure that it's the best kind of setup for Chanhassen. I don't think it's so great if you have a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice park 3 blocks away. Is that a better development than having all 15,000 square foot lots? Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum lot size then? Ahrens: I do. Emmings: And what is your figure? Ahrens: I think it should be 15,000. Emmings: Okay. Now if we did that, if we said we' want a minimum 15,000 square foot lot size, would there be any incentive except for the odd piece of property like Lundgren ran into over here. Would there be any incentive for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he's working in the subdivision ordinance. Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning. Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind of conditions they apply on a rezoning, action. Developers are business people. They're not going to plat. If the developer brings you a plat without any variances, you're obligated to approve it. No if's, and's o'r but's. You can add some reasonable conditions but you can't be arbitrary or be creative or whatever words you want to use. The PUD opens t-he door to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where these hills are. I'd like you not to build where these trees are. Whatever. . ~hrens: You can't say that if a developer comes in and you say, you're required at 15,000 square foot lots we can't say you can't build on that crest of that hill and you can't, you have to have so much parkland. We do that now. Krauss: Yeah, but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over the grid ~ystem that you see in Minneapolis. Not much. I mean it's 1920's Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 31 technology versus 1940's technology. You know curvalinear streets help and you like to think that when you have a 15,000 square foot lot or better you're able to save a few trees that you don't have to tear down when the house gets built but basically it's a very land intensive and often abusive way to develop. Emmings: This underlines, Brian said facetiously I think. Maybe not. Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and then we'll have all PUP's that we can do what we want to. That's not a bad idea maybe. This is like quitting smoking. You do like 100 times. Conrad: There's a good article in the planning, whatever the planning magazine is that we get on this same thing. I don't know if anybody read it. I guess the forecast is going-to, people wanting big lots in the past and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD's can be handled. Emmings: How small is small? Conrad: I don't know if they really said a number. Yeah, I don't know. But it was really appropriate in light of this thing. I've vacilated because I've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand, over the years I've seen less and less advantages to the large lots. If you can preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we've never been .able to figure out how to preserve this other stuff. You open up some land, what are you going to do with it? Farmakes: Demographics are changing and the market. We're all getting older. Emmings: Not all of us. Farmakes: Well I'm not but you guys are. Ahrens: But is 15,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we're not talking about. Krauss: It's a highly personal choice. I mean you know what you bought and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and your family to decide. I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint, we've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area. Now Minnetonka, one of our neighbors, has the largest one but there's not. a home built in Minnetonka today for under $350,000.00. Emmings: But the reason 15,000 is significant only because that's in the subdivision ordinance. I mean that's why you can move the numbers around but they are arbitrary and 15,000 has significance only because that's the number iT1 the subdivision ordinance. Ahrens: Right but everyone talks about 15,000 as a large lot. Emmings: No, it's only significant because it's in the subdivision ordinance. I think that's the only significance of it. Big and small, that's all relative. Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 15, 1992 - Page 32 Farmakes: What about 127 I mean I'm still getting back to my original question when you picked lO because you saw a development you'd like. Would 157 127 Is. there a commercial level where it no longer makes se.nse for a developer? Krauss: I don't know. Maybe in fact there is. If they do their proformas and they find out. Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to' save on linear street frontage. To save on linear utilities and. to theoretically, if you allow them to and we didn't plan on it but if you wanted to get more lots in, then they make more money. That's the way the developers all see it and we've had people come'in the door saying you're not going to let me cram 10,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no amenities. Chaska would let me do it. We've told them to leave because we weren't interested in that kind of development. The only context we saw was getting the higher quality. I don't know what the break point is though. The presumption that-we've had is that the developer may in fact get some additional lots out df it, especially when you're at the lower end but everytime we've considered the lower lot sizes it's been with added conditions like more open space and we're going to protect more of the trees and we're going to do this and that. $o it's always been a trade off. Developers also don't like to have-all their eggs in one basket. You don't like to have only 15,000 square foot lots to sell. You like to have a variety of home sites. Emmings: The market may change during. That makes sense. I don't see how we can, it seems to me we've got to offer them something and if it isn't lot size, I don't know what it is. Otherwise I think we're wasting our time. On the other hand, I don't like 10,000 square foot lots. Farmakes: You don't have to accept it in the development proposal though right? If you don't like the way it works out in the percentage; then this is a guide correct? Krauss: Well, under the PUD You have a great deal of latitude. It 3ust occurred to me too when you're talking. 12,000 square foot, the ordinance up until the time we start tinke~in'g with it allowed PUP's on 12,000 average lot size? 5mmings: No, wasn't it minimum? Olsen: 13,500. Emmings: Wasn't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or over average? Olsen: I think it was like 13,500. Krauss: And did anybody, did we determine that nobody used that? Or does that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD's that you had in town predated the imposition of that 13,500 average. I think they did in the later phases but they predated... Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD. You'll never convince anybody who was up here at the time that that was a PUD. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 33 Olsen: And you didn't pass it. Emmings: Planning Commission didn't. City Council did. Conrad: Nell it's sure sounding that there's lots of folks that say we don't like the small lots. We've got two people missing that we know that's their posture. Joan for sure. Jeff you're sort of bordering. Farmakes: I think it's a dilemma for me because I think it's a very smart idea to do this. However, the problem is-that if you don't offer them something to do it, why would they do it? It makes no sense. Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance. Nobody was doing it under the past ordinance. It was motivating nobody. Farmakes: It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types of properties. And if you don't give them that smaller lot size, again they're not going to do it. Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15,000 foot on average and the 10,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we've been running with and we've been going a pretty good job"no matter what. Sometimes there hasn't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it's really not bad what's been going up. $o the ~5 in my mind was to maintain what we had. And the 10, I think you can still' do things in the future at 10,000. It's cramped. It doesn't meet my style. I wouldn't like it but I think some people would and if that's what they would like and if I preserve what I 'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen, then I'm not going to get-in their way of a small lot. What I was concerned with before, the way the ordinance is written, is we simply downsized the lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard. 8ut now that we have a 15,000 square foot average, that still may not be motivational enough to the developer. I don't know but it may appease me. That was when my question came in, why don't we play with overall density versus a specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don't care how somebody bundles it together. Farmakes: Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking about the 10,000 square feet? Krauss: We haven't really waved it around. Ahrens: Having an average lot size, that means that you could have like 6 huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and s'ti~l, meet the? Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10,000, yes. Conrad: But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent.statement. The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots. So what you're doing is telling a developer you're not looking to have 3/4 of the development and 10,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380,000 square foot lots. You could communicate what you're looking for upfront in an PIanning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 34 attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to accommodate. Farmakes: Aren't you telling them. that though with t-he average lot size. You've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing. Doesn't that determine a percentage like this? Conrad: I'm not sure. It probably does, yeah. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) · Emmings: ...all these 10,000 square foot lots in one area leaving. Conrad: But you wouldn't have 'a problem dealing wi-t~ that if' it came to you because if the intent statement is there, we know what we're looking for and we all have this grandiose, cluster this over here. Open up this space over here. We just don't know how to get there so what I want to make sure is that we're communicating to the developer so he or she has a concept of where we're going and we're not leading them in the wrong direction. They .come in and say oh, that's not what· we.'re looking for at all . Ahrens: But then we have some people saying, well I kind' of like that and I kind of like this but that's not really my idea of what it should· look like. I mean you know it's so subjective that way because a developer's standing there saying well, we still have a 15,000 square foot average lot size. Emmings: But I think 3oan,.if you'd want to take the subjective element out, you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity. If you want to maximize creativity but you want to.encourage some clustering and leaving larger tracts of open space, I think you're always going to have the subjective element to deal with. And I .think good developers are going to do it right and you're going to know it when you see it. Ahrens: True but we're not always going to get good developers. We're going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land. Emmings: But on a PUD. Krauss: You have a lot of latitude to object.-Also two other things. First of all the intent statement, the way it's worded right now and this is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up. The intent statement says that the applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes·are consistent with average building footprints that will concurrently be approved with the PUD. 3o Ann also points out that you can.put a ceiling on what will be counted. The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average. You can say nothing over 20,000 or 25,000 square feet will be counted towards your · . average lot size. There's no basis in making a one acre lot. Farmakes: Is that buildable square footage? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 35 Krauss: Well we've got stuff in here about that. Now maybe the way, you know. Farmakes: But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road. He had the plot marks going out to the middle of the wetland.' Krauss: Yeah. Your buildable square footage concern's a valid one but it's not just valid in PUD's. I think we should address that for every lot in the city. Subdivisions, PUD's or otherwise. Farmakes: I agree. I agree because it's really deceptive. I mean it may or may not be the intent but when they're coming up and when they did those graphs and so on, as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal development, that they could not build on. And it seemed to me like they were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were. Which they weren't. Emmings: Well they were using that two ways. On the one hand they're saying we're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they-'re saying this lot has this many square feet and they're counting some of that open space and it just seems real contradictory to me. Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out, the table got quite exacting. I mean it said this is a 30,000 square foot lot. 20,000 of it's outside the wetland. We figured the average both ways in fact. Emmings: Yeah. I know you did on that one. And maybe it's okay as long as that puts everything right up front so there's no deception there. Farmakes: On the one table I figured out, besides the wetland there's the setback back from the wetland plus. Krauss: But that's useable back yard area. Farmakes: Right. That's what I'm-saying. But it's useable, how much useable square footage that lot was really, going to be and I figured, just guesstimating that the one was under 10,.000 feet. Krauss: But that,s for the building footprint. 8ut for your kids running around playing frisbee or whatever. Bar-be-que pit or whatever you want to do, that's all high dry ground. Farmakes: Still, anything outside of that you're going to need a variance for it right? .- Kragss: To build a structure. Farmakes: Yeah, air conditioning unit, what'ever. Conrad: That's too bad Brian and Tim weren't here because we'll probably repeat this same conversation. Planning Commission. Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 36 Emmings: We've done it 12 or 15 times haven't we? Conrad: I know. Ahrens: Are we finished on this? Conrad: This is going to be close. We do have to wait for them to come back. Farmakes: This is still, the latitude that you're saying to'reject this or reject these plans, do you. feel from a Practicality standpoint that we can basically reject just about anything? Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight. He's stuck in his driveway. He could answer that question more directly than I, but yes. You've got a great deal' of latitude. Emmings: We're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway? Krauss: With a Volvo. Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really does meet the intent of what that's going to be, he can do something really nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community. But the thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in. If small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is, like you said, you're going to build one 35,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going to be 10,000. Krauss: You've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you don't have on a subdivision approval. Emmings: Okay. That's important insurance. That makes me comfortable. Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse? Conrad: We should do it. Emmings: We should do what? Conrad: Table it. Emmings: I like that. What a decisive person. Alright. Do we need a motion to table it? Krauss: No. I'm used to it. Ahrens: Should we save these so you don't have to reprint all of these again? Krauss: No, I'll have to reprint anyway. Mayor Chmiel: ...Robert's Rules of Order. Emmings: We don't follow Robert's Rules of Order here. Planning Commission Meetin~ January 15, 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: It's Emmings' Rules of Order. Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman. Krauss: It's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on. That's because our next meeting we have one action item. 90~ of the meeting's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor. I've got Bill Moresch who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you a presentation on what that task force...that we're looking at in terms of broad concepts for TH 5. I think this is going to become basically-the Planning Commission's baby from here on out. We need to make some decisions on how to structure the program. Set some goals for.it and get going on it so that will be'our next meeting. The meeting after that looks like a very heavy agenda. We've got Rosemount is coming in for a la~ge expansion. · We have potentially a PUD, an industrial one. The one in front of Timberwood. The office park. It's looking like that's Coming in. That's going to be a very complex proposal. Well, that will be next week so we've got a few things.cooking so we'll get this back on as soon as we can. Farmakes: I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here. How that was going to affect their operation. Krauss: I'm not sure. We really need to contact them because they're most curious about it. They're not going to vacate the facilities. I understood the article is they bought the facility because it's the most efficient baking operation in the country.. But McGlyn~'s also has 35 acres that's been on the market and I'm not sure if that stayed within the McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they're going to be more disposed to sell it now. -It's a very important corner visually from TH 5 standpoint. Emmings: As far as this goes, we could maybe approach it this way. That folks should just come in. Next time this is on the agenda, just let people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then have a motion and pass or don't pass something. But we've talked about it enough. So put it on and then we'll just make sure, we'll'sit here with an alarm clock. Farmakes: Egg timer. Emmings: An egg timer. That's in Robert's Rules of Order isn't it, an egg timer? Alright. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Emmings: We've got a report from the direGtor that says there's nothing to report. Except he wants to talk about goals. Then there's this, what's the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing us? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 38 Krauss: I was trying to scare you actually. Emmings: Have those properties disappeared? Krauss: No. What I wanted to do, for the entire time we've been doing the Comprehensive Plan, since then I've been telling you that you're going to get confronted with a whole lot of stuff in the very near future... The properties that I outlined in black are tho~e which people have been talking to us about developing. Either we've seen a development proposal or we've approved one or we've started, talking to people in-house or they petitioned the City Council for an extension of utilities. Now that's not to say everything is going to happen in 1992 but it's looking like a good bit of it may. Ahrens: Where is that map? Krauss: It's attached'on the back page of the Report from the'Director. Emmings: It's a lot of important property. What do you want to do on this? Krauss: I guess I felt rather good writing this thing. I was able to spout off a paragraph about all the stuff we've accomplished in the last couple years and it's been quite a bit. I seriously do believe that you've got to be proud of yourselves because we've used the last couple years, which have been slower in terms of new development, to the city's best advantage. I mean this is not the community it.was in terms of planning. It's not the community it was in terms of the goals that the Planning Commission, the Council and the HRA had for the city anymore. The expectations are raised and our ability to regulate developments-is greatly improved. But as the last page indicates, it's coming. I~t's going.to be taking a lot more of your time to work with that kind of stuff over the next year. In terms of goals for the year, we do have our ongoing issues list. If that suffices as what you'd like us to be doing for the coming year, I'm just asking you to re-examine that. That's fine. We'll try to work on these. Emmings: What we've done in the past I know is put together a list and then send it to the City Council for their reaction to see if there are things they'd like added to the list or whatever. I don't see why we can't do that with our ongoing issues list. If anybody else has any issues, we can add it to there. Send it up to them saying here's our ongoing work list. If there are things that should be moved up in priority, let us know. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: That's fine. I don't have anything. I think we're working on the right stuff. And it's listed. Emmings: Is that alright? Krauss: Yep. Ledvina: Does the order represent a priority? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 39 Emmings: No. Except maybe, well up here. Those Comprehensive Plan issues, at least number one is a high priority item and some of. the rest of those are done. I don't .know why they don't get of~ there.- I hate seeing things on a list that are already done. Krauss: We knock them off every month or two. DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUES. Emmings: Next thing I've got here is an issue paper on the sign ordinance.' Aanenson: I was just going to make a coupl~ comments'to that. We were supposed to start meeting in November. Unfortunately we didn't' get this to you until this agenda. What I've done is just outline some of the major issues that we'll be looking at When the committee gets together. I know 3elf's on that committee. Some of the major issues that we're going to be looking at is what's currently in place. There's no, as far as the acreage, the size of the parcel. No compatibility with the size of the sign. That's a big issue and that needs to be addressed. Also for like a plan center or multi-tenant building, there's no regulation as far as compatibility of the signs. Whether they all go to chain letters or if they go with box style so it's kind of a compatibility. And they come in with a sign package. We're looking at them now when we do a PUD like we did with Ryan on that industrial park. That they come in with a sign package. You have to have it uniform so when you come into a plan center or industrial park you know that they all belong in the same area. The other thing we'll be looking at is some of the new technology. Canopies, neon lighting, windows and that sort of thing. And then also just our own administrative policy. The way that we've been reviewing signs in house. So this is for you just to review some' of the issues we,ll be looking at if you have some comments. Some areas of concern that.you wanted the committee to be looking at. I'd like people's comments. Emmings: It looks like you've done a lot of work .... a very cursory reading I'll admit. I.didn't.study it in detail but it looks like you've done a lot of work thinking' about this and it looks like these are, this like lot sizes will just go round and round about. I just wish you good luck. It's tough. I'm glad 3elf's on the committee and not me. Conrad: Are there any problems with temporary signs in Chanhassen? I haven't heard many. Aanenson: I don't know if we've had too many. What we're looking at is trying to limit those to like Grand Openings because they do serve a function. Special event kind of things. Krauss: The way that. it's handled now it's tough to administer and it becomes quasi-permanent. If my memory serves, each tenant in a multi-tenant building is entitled to it for a certain, period of weeks every year. Aanenson: 3 weeks I believe. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: So 30e gets it these 2 weeks. Mel gets' it those 2 weeks, The flower shop gets it and Ahn-Le gets it and then let's go back through the list again and it's there all year you know. That's not the idea. They're ugly and sometimes you've got to get after them because they pull it .out onto a sidewalk and that kind of stuff. Then you've got temporary signs hung on the rental trucks in front of Merlyn's, Farmakes: You have the inflatable signs that are sometimes multi stories tall. Aanenson: That goes back to the center concept. I think what we'd like to go with more of a plan center. Ahrens: ...What did 'I tell you? First we talked about having'the big ear on the building and now it's the vein on the building. I knew it would be all downhill. Farmakes: One of the things I'd like to discuss when we get into this is not only the signs themselves but how many. How many is necessary. Aanenson: Yeah, I talked a little bit about that too; Farmakes: If you get signs for each story, you've got 40 stories, you've got a lot of...with plexiglass sitting around. The question is how many sight rates do you really need and how many sight lines do you really have to look for to be a competent business presentation to identify a store. Krauss: I think we've also been talking a lot about a downtown image. Does the downtown have a special sign criteria?. Another question that we've come up with is, do we all agree with Brad'Johnson that an office building is so many retail tenants waiting to be seen. Ahrens: No. Farmakes: It depends on where the market is at the time. How they want to sel 1 it. Ahrens: Speaking of Brad Johnson, when's' the ground breaking for the? Krauss: You know, it's getting awfully close. Ahrens: I find that hard to believe. Krauss: We ail have but the bank, they're supposed to have started closing procedures today. On the loan which means they could break ground in several weeks. Except I have to finish writing the sign covenants. It's on my desk. Conrad: What's the concern with a sign communicating to TH'5 traffic the next turn is downtown Chanhassen? We have the Chamber of .Commerce sign'out there with all their little listings which is pretty bad~ But do we have a Chanhassen sign and is that governed by our sign ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: Well the HRA has an ongoing program that next summer you'll see it. In conjunction with TH 5 improvements, all the major entrances into the community are going to be landscaped, monumented and signed and it's going to say Chanhassen. It's not going to say, Joe's Mighty Fine Snowblowers you know. The importance' here is that you're'coming into Chanhassen's downtown and you should know you're arriving and you should know where to go. Farmakes: They touched on that on the TH 5 proposal a little bit didn't they? Krauss: Right. Barry Warner from Barton-Aschman was the fellow who designed the work and the features, common elements.' Silhouettes of the towers. The same kind of stone work that you see in other parts of town that they sometimes where there's room they have landscape amenities with benches where you can sit. I think one has a fountain. -It's going to be quite nice. Conrad: Jeff, monument signs are neat if we do them right. We don't have anything in town, we don't have anything that looks good saying here's Chanhassen so maybe this is solving the problem. My concern.was that our ordinance allows it. It did save a little bit of stuff we've got to prevent but it's like Lundgren coming in and their comment is real valid. make a statement with a sign. They like to cluster their stuff and make things look big and impressive and there is something to that philosophy. If you don't do it with signage, especially with the Chamber of Commerce sign, that's not helping Chanhassen and it's not helping the businesses either. That's a waste of their money. Farmakes: I think it touches on a really important point. One as I said before, there's a difference between identification and advertising. I don't know if we've really discussed that maybe with some of the business people here in town because there's differences of opinions there as to where your best buck lies. And as to wher. e you're going to get your most effective use. Same thing with these boats. You're going to be hitting there what's in their interest as best as they can. That's understandable. I would too. You're going to want to advertise, if you're competing in the market you're going to want to advertise anyway you can. Just what is reasonable and have a goal in mind rather than just plaster up as many signs as you can get. Conrad: Well the point on TH 5 is to have a foot high sign for traffic going 50 mph. And they're charging the members for that? What we want to do is say, Here's Chanhassen. Come on in. Krauss: You may well want to prohibit, I don't know...pylon signs on TH 5. Every property owner is going to make an argument as to why they need a 25 foot high pylon sign that says whatever and it's going to be bigger or placed so the next one down doesn't cover it up and you wind up with one of those University Avenue types of vistas. That's everything we don't want - to have happen here. When I look at the sites that you have in downtown Chanhassen from the time that you hit the garden center going through past Holiday and everything that's going to happen in that area. Around past a new shopping center now out to Burdick's where Burdick has 12 lots there. Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 42 Every one of those develops and every one wants their own pylon sign bordering on Th 5. That's a real visual impact. Ahrens: Speaking of visual impacts. Is the landscaping done on the Rapid Oil Change building? Is that what it's called? Olsen: Valvoline? Krauss: Valvoline, yeah. Ahrens: It is done? You know I was just laughing to myself as I was driving by the other day. We spent so much time on the landscaping plan for that building. I don't know if you've noticed it but it' sits way up on a hill and the plantings all look like they're 2 1/2 inches high'. It looks like it's going to be 50 years. It looks ridiculous. I mean it really does. It looks like, we thought this was going to be some great' landscaping design that we worked so hard on. Emmings: The City Council beefed up the landscaping. Farmakes: If you go back to the Minutes, his response to questions about hanging banners, that they wouldn't be putting any up. They've been opened now for a while. Those banners have been up'. They'll be there for a year. Krauss: There shouldn't be any. Farmakes: I think that's.a mode.of operation for them because they use it in their other franchises. They open Up those bays and i~ there is sitting those big hanging banners. Same effect. Ahrens: ...the Valvoline shop on the hill. It's like. Krauss= What made that site look a lot tougher too, or it really changed the perspective is when they sliced into the.hill for the new lanes for the highway. Also their grading plan turned out to be in error. They put the building in where it was supposed to be and'then they found they had to build a retaining wall against the west side. A stone retaining wall there and that wasn't on the original plans. I think the building turned out to be 3 feet higher or something like that than it was supposed to be. Ahrens: Well it's bad anyway right at the entrance of Chanhassen. It looks really tacky. Conrad: Yeah, it's not a pretty picture. But we allowed them, we did it. Ahrens: Yeah we did it. Farmakes: Visually that may change or soften up a bit when that development comes in farther down. I think the natural area it seems to enter Chanhassen will be there. Krauss: Well the Red-E-Mix and Taco, are coming down this spring and there's going to be a lot of open space and plazas as ~ou approach that. There's also a very good chance that we'll be able to get some improvements Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 43 hopefully to the facade, certainly to the landscaping on the Hanus building which really dominants the thing. And the buildi'ng behind 'that. Then on the corner by Amoco/Holiday there is one of those entrance features. Ahrens: It's going to be a plaza where the Taco shop is? Krauss: There's a lot of open space there where, actually where Taco is it's going to be a road. Ahrens: Yeah, that's what I thought.. Krauss: But just beyond that, the road kind of hooks and turns this way. and there's a big open space. It will be a big open, publically owned area for landscaping. In fact there's several of them around that intersection. Ahrens: Okay. I don't have anything else to say.. Conrad: We can move the old City Hall down there. Emmings: Turn it crooked. I should talk. I can't talk about that thing because I turned my house crooked on my lot. Sort of like they did to that thing. Okay. The last thing we've got here is organizational items. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 1992. Emmings: I'm a little disturbed about this. Again without Tim and Brian being here because in my mind there's a .logical new Chairman and Vice Chairman between the two of them. So I don't know what to do. Conrad: Steve, we've all'fetl comfortable with your leadership so I'm going to, no I'm not. Emmings: I'll gavel you down. Directly to your forehead. Conrad: Publically I think you've just done an outstanding job over the last year. Ahrens: I think you did a really good job too. Conrad: For the 3 people who are watching, I'd like to applaud Mr. Emmings. Emmings: And I'd like to sing a song. Conrad: But no, just a fine job 'and would be comfortable if you led the Commission another year. However as we've talked, I think it's always a good opportunity for other people to lead. Emmings: I would like that to. happen. Conrad: But I say that and then the 2 people who are probably the ones that might be next who I still feel are competent in leading.the Commission are not here so I guess the debate is, shall we do something without them or defer? We more than likely could take it up as a first item on the Planning Commission Meeting January 15, 1992 - Page 44 agenda at the next meeting if those two are here and solve it at that time. Emmings: Is that agreeable with everybody? Ahrens: That's fine. Emmings: The way I'm thinking about this is, I think it ought to be passed on. I think it's something that's worthwhile doing after you've been here a while. I think everybody ought to do it and I would sort-of like to advocate a system of you kn6w Tim is Vice Chair. He's been Vice Chair for 2 years. If he does have some time constraints and maybe doesn't want to be Chair for that reason but that aside, if he does, I would just assume see Tim be Chair and maybe Brian be Vice Chair and the next year have Brian be Chair. I don't know Lf we want to go to that system. I lot of organizations do it that way. We can do whatever we want. Conrad: There's some real logic to what you're saying. On the other hand, if I guess we don't feel the commitmeht by those other two members to be here Steve, I would sure hope that you would consider taking the Chairman. Emmings: Or you. Conrad: No. I've had my time. But I think you would, I'm very comfortable with you leading us so I guess they're not shoe in's right now. They kind of have to sell me that they can do the job. They're going to be here. And if they can't, then I'd like to think that you could still manage the group. Emmings: Okay, we'll take it up next time when we come. - Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting Nas adjourned at 10:05 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim