1992 11 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings,
Brian eatzii and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering
Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO PLAT FOUR ~OTS ON PROPI~RTY ZONED BH. HIGHWAY BUSINESS
DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. SOUTH OF THE CHICA~O, MILWAUKEE,
ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRRCKS AND EAST OF HIGHWAY ~01 ON 7~TH
STREET, GATEWAY FIRST ADDITION. LOTUS REaLTy,
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order.
Conrad moved, Erhart s~nded to cl~ the public heari~. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing 'Nas closed.
Batzli: Tim, why don't we start at your end here. Do you have any
comments? Questions?
Erhart: Other than this cash in lieu of parkland dedication. That wasn't
done in the previous action. A duplication?
Olsen: No.
Erhart: I guess I don't really have anything on it.
forward.
It's pretty straight
8atzli: Ladd? Matt?
Ledvina: Yeah, I had just a general question. Why are we doing this at
this time? Or what's the advantage to the City?. For the developer?
What's the purpose of this?
Olsen: Well it was a condition of the approval from when the Valvoline
site was created. And the benefit is because right now there's metes and
bounds descriptions. This makes it a lot cleaner. We are able to get
right-of-way that is required for access to Lot 4. It's getting rid of
two outlots. Two remnant pieces that are unbuildable so now it's
combining them with adjacent properties. That's the main reason that we.
Ledvina: It's mostly to clean up the title and straighten out the
right-of-way?
Olsen: Exactly.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 2
Ledvina: Could this be done at the time the Red-E-Mix parcel is purchased
and developed or is that not?
Olsen: It'd really be hard to tie that in with this. At this time the
owners of these properties knew that they did have to go through the
platting procedure so otherwise it'd be hard to bring them all back in
once Red-E-Nix is under our ownership. ~t this time they're all willing
and cooperative.
Ledvina: That's all, thank you.
Emmings: I don't have anything.
Batzli: Okay, you're going to wait for me to ask the question. Okay,
3elf.
Farmakes: No comment.
Batzli: I have one question for Dave. The right-of-way description. How
did we come up with that description of the additional right-of-way that
you needed? Did our attorneys prepare that?
Hempel: ~s far as the condition number 2?
Batzli: Yes.
Hempel: On the plat there, the right-of-way on the cul-de-sac. Right now
there's no boulevard space to speak of with the existing cul-de-sac that's
out there. What we wanted to do is get an additional 10 feet east of that
cul-de-sac to give us a boulevard consistent with other typical
cul-de-sacs in the city. The description of it was prepared by myself
upon review of the plat.
Batzli: Okay, I am not a real property attorney but we should make sure
that this accurately describes what you're trying to get. I note the
intent of the parties and everyone's agreeing but this didn't make sense
to me.
Hempel: Okay. With the final plat we'll make sure that the additional
right-of-way is being granted or conveyed with that final plat document.
Batzli: Okay, that's fine. Those are the only questions I had. Is there
a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #91-1 as shown on the plans dated October 19, 1992 with
the 4 conditions as shown in the staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Planning Commission Heeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 3
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #91-1 as sho~n on the plans dated October
1992 ~ith the following conditions:
1. Lot 4, Block I shall be platted as Outlot A.
2. Right-of-way shall be dedicated along the northerly 60' and over the
westerly 10' of the northerly 65.89' of Lot 3, Block 1.
3. Cash in lieu of parkland dedication shall be required at the time of
building permit issuance.
4. The plat name of Gateway First Additional shall be changed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEISSNER, LTD. PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ~OODYE~ TIRE AND RBRR
FRCILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGH~AY BUSINESS RND LOCRTED SOUTH OF
HIGHNAY 5, NORTH OF L, RK~ DRIVE E~ST R~) ERST OF THE CH~%NH~SSEN EMISSION
CONTROL STATION:
Public Present:
Name Rddr ess
A1 Beissner
Randy MacPherson
Tom Kotsonas
Gerard & Lindsay Amedeo
6100 Summit Dr, Brooklyn Center 55430
Abra
8001 Cheyenne Avenue
8007 Cheyenne Avenue
Sharmin A1-3aff presented the staff report on this time. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
A1Beissner: I'm A1Beissner and I'm the applicant and real estate
developer. We have entered into a purchase agreement to buy the 2 acres
of land and develop the Abra and Goodyear site as outlined. We've worked
probably 4 or 5 months with the city through maybe several site plans to
develop what we thought was compatible. This presented a little more of a
challenge than we initially thought because we're actually facing 2 front
doors. Highway 5 is a front door and Lake Drive is a front door. And it
was difficult to determine which should be the front so in essence what
you see on the plans that we've submitted, are basically we have metal
facia on Highway 5 and we have metal facta on Lake Drive. And we've tried
to treat one as the other one because we didn't know which would be the
front door. If it's a neighborhood, they think Lake Drive is a front
door. If it's the City of Chanhassen, they think Highway 5 is a front
door so we were very conscience of our development of that. A couple of
things that I'd like to point out about the efforts that we put forth here
is that, the two buildings as they are.proposed, really is a lot less
building coverage for the land than what it is zoned for. That'is -
Goodyear wanted double the parking requirements and that required more
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 4
land obviously. MoTe green area so we have about 11,000 square foot of
building on 86,000 square feet of land. If we were to develop it to it's
max, it would have had much more coverage. We've also been sensitive.
Your ordinance requires some guidelines for landscaping. Minimum dollar
amounts. We have, our bids have come in and our landscaping cost will be
more than double what your standards are for the property so we've taken
that effort. We haven't completed the complete development of the pond
yet but we will be landscaping that. We don't have a plan for that.
Generally speaking we are in agreement with the staff report and can
comply without objection to most everything in it with a couple
exceptions. The dormers that were requested by staff.. Goodyear hasn't
approved dormers yet on their gabled roof and they don't have it in their
plans. In dealing with Goodyear, they have like 8 sets of standard plans
that they think meet all the standards and we have sent to Akron for a
request for the dormers to sort of offset the gabled roof that we have on
it and we have not heard back yet from them. Akron, Ohio and corporate
Goodyear is apparently substantial so it may be a while before we hear on
that. When we developed the rooflines, and this seemed to be a very
sensitive issue, we had the Abra standard roof plan, and Randy
MacPherson, president of Abra is here and woold like to address you also.
Abra had their standard building that they've developed kind of like
Goodyear had to develop their standard building. Fortunately for us I
guess, Goodyear has a gabled roof on this particular building and not a
flat roof. The standard Abra roofline and standard Abra building did not
meet with the staff's acceptance when we walked in the door. We've worked
through I think 4 or 5 different plans and elevations for it. And in fact
we've probably added a good 4~ or 5~ more to the cost with the two front
doors if you will. By putting awnings on both Lake Drive and on Highway
5. There was a strong sentiment about having a pitched roof or a gabled
roof or something other than a flat roof on the Abra store and we thought
we came to a reasonable compromise. The President of Abra would like to
address it. They're trying to develop their own standard roof line and
this design that we came up with doesn't meet quite their standards yet
and we're still talking to them about it. Otherwise I think everything in
the staff report is acceptable and fine with us. We've spent a lot of
effor{ and time trying to meet all of the requirements and we think we've
done a good job of it and we were sensitive to the landscaping. We were
sensitive to the coverage. We were sensitive to the two front doors and
we hope that we can continue on. There will be, we will be putting in
substantially more trees than what we ever anticipated and that's
satisfactory with us. So I don't, different Planning Commissions function
differently. I don't know what you want for a report or want me to say
but that's kind of what we went through. And I think the staff report
adequately reflects the number of meetings we have had and the changes
that we have gone through on trying to meet your requirements.
Batzli: We may have questions for you later. What I think we needed a
sense of was whether you had seen the staff report and agreed with those
conditions. $o you've answered that.
A1Beissner: Right. The only other thing in the staff report, we were
originally scheduled I think for October 14th and then we didn't have a
quorum. Then we were scheduled for 2 weeks later and that didn't work and
so the condition number 11 is a condition that wasn't in the October 14th
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1992 - Page 5
one. And what that is, it's an $8,700.00 charge for water retention
downstream. When Schoell-Madsen, our engineers designed this, they though
that the water retention downstream was free and so they designed it that
way. The sellers of the land aren't so sure that they wouldn't rather
store it all on the site as opposed to downstream and we would like to
meet again with staff to determine whether or not we can deepen the pond
and berm it more so we don't have to pay for downstream retention or if
they would rather pay for it and keep the pond as it is. $o that's the
only condition that we are up in the air on. At the October 14th meeting
we didn't have a number. Didn't know what it was coming out. Would this
be the appropriate time for?
Batzli: Yes.
A1Beissner: Okay. I have brought, not good plans but plans. The first
plan we had for the Abra store. The second one. The third one and the
one we wanted and then the one we ended up with so I'll let Randy
MacPherson address you.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Randy MacPherson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commission members. My name is
Randy MacPherson. I'm the President of Abra Auto Body and Glass. First
of all I want to assure you that we share your same concerns about the
appearance and the quality of our operation. This facility will be.one of
our national prototypes. It will be our national role model. We have
people flying in from as far away as Europe to view our facilities so the
apperance of this facility we share your same concerns. And one of the
things we want to do is make sure that we present ourselves in a very
professional manner and that we become a very good neighbor in the
community. I think you have one picture which is actually a facility that
we did several years ago but we have done another facility similar to that
and I wanted to show you the difference. I think you have this picture
here and it shows a...on the roof and we have since, I'd like to give you
another picture which actually shows a different, we extended a rolled
masard up on the roof as well. And one of my concerns with this pinnacle
and I'll pass this out to you, is that actually having this false roof we
think actually attracts more attention to it. And it's maybe a matter of
taste but we have worked very hard and diligently to try to create
something that's not obtrusive or not going to stick out or not going to
draw attention to it. And so what we would like to propose, we are happy
with the city and with the conditions. We're 3ust asking that you would
allow us to build a building that's more consistent with the appearance
and with the quality of image that we're trying to accomplish. $o if you
can pass that picture around and I didn't bring more. I probably should
have but anyway, we share the same concern and we're 3ust asking. This is
national role model for us. A national prototype. Minneapolis is our
headquarters and we're expanding all over the country now and it's very
important that we have a uniformity consistency. It's something that
every city will be happy with so we share you concerns and want to be
willing partners with you in creating a facility that everyone will be
happy with.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 6
Batzli: Very good, thank you. This is a public hearing. I'd like to
open it up to the public. If anyone would like to address the Commission,
I ask that they step up to the microphone and give their name and address
for the record prior to addressing the Commission.
Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne in
Chanhassen Estates. I also have some pictures to pass around. The
pictures that I'm presenting are of current establishments around the
western suburbs and all of these, after looking at these, I have some
grave concerns, at least what exists at the present time with Goodyear and
Abra facilities. Questions such as what happens to the automobiles. As
you can see in the pictures, when they circulate the storage of
automobiles on the outside, a rather unsightly view in all those cases.
Most of those pictures were taken this weekend-early in the morning so
those cars are there and they're 'not stored away at night. They're there.
There are a number of concerns besides that that I have on this
development. To go through them in a sort of a manner here. One, is the
increased traffic that this site is going to bring to our neighborhood.
Or line our neighborhood. Noise. These types of businesses bring a great
deal of noise with them. Air and the auto pollution was already talked
about. The trash and all of these businesses except one had outdoor trash
sitting front and back. Storage overnight. And these would, be something
that we're worried about. Obviously loss of privacy in'addition to what
we already have. The general destruction of the trees in that
neighborhood that are there. Nhich is something in a natural environment
which we'd much prefer to stay. That negative impact on the mini-park.
To have those businesses right there. The amount of traffic going by. I
can't imagine many couples or many people wanting ~heir kids to go down.
Young children to be playing there when that traffic, that increased
traffic is there. There are some pictures of the entryway into Chanhassen
and I don't see how this is-going to enhance the entryway into Chanhassen
on the east side. That I read in the paper and it seems like the City
Council and the Chamber and this group and others are very concerned with.
Nothing seems to be being done about it. There's a lot of talk but
everytime something goes in, it doesn't seem to be something to help out
in that nature. And the other things we're worried about of course are
outdoor signs. Flags. Ail of these places have banners flying. Sale
signs. All these types of things that again, make it very difficult and
make it very unsightly for our neighborhood. And the other things that I
would like you to consider is, how is this business compatible to the
neighborhood. I think we as residents and long term residents. Myself
I've been there over 10 years, and some of the other people in that
neighborhood have been there as many as 20. Ne feel that we deserve also
to be considered in this. It seems that every time a business comes along
they have the top spot or top billing or however you want to say it and
then we get sympathy and then after the sympathy, the vote is taken and a
couple trees are put up and away we go. And also the feeling in the
neighborhood is that there's a big push to develop this and whatever
comes, let's get it in there. Let's get this plot of land developed and
then we'll be done with it and we'll be onto something else. Ne feel that
we're entitled to be recognized and entitled to be considered in what goes
in and what kind of businesses. Automobile repair facilities do make
noise. They are unsightly, and with the other things that go with them.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 7
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
Lindsay Amedeo: I'm Lindsay Amedeo, 8007 Cheyenne. Chanhassen Estates
also. Of course, anything in the automotive industry is not the business
of choice to back up a residential neighborhood but I also understand that
the zoning for that area allows for this type of business and we
understand that the city needs the funds. And so the remaining question
for me is, like Tom said, what will be done to reduce the visual and the
audio disturbance that is brought'by this type of a business? . They are
unsightly. This type of a business is extremely noisey and that's my
primary concern. Although to also repeat what Tom said, the natural
visual barrier of the evergreens that are behind, inbetween my property
and the proposed site, is dying out and there is no visual obstruction
there right now. So I'm real curious to know what the plans are to
decrease the visual and sound problems that this type of business will
bring.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? I
apologize, we took some of your pictures apart and there was glue on them.
Tom Kotsonas: That's okay...
Randy HacPherson: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I don't know what
pictures are being circulated but we share the same concerns as the
residents do. In fact many of our good customers live very close to us.
We have 16 locations in the metropolitan area. Many of these are by, some
of them right next to restaurants. In Coon Rapids we have residential
homes in less than 200 feet. We're in Nest Bloomington, we have
residential housing with less than 200 feet. Ne have 16 locations and
have never had, we've never had one complaint to any city about our
activities. Ne operate our businesses and we've had OSHA out to test
noise levels and everything and I can assure you that we will not be a
disturbance and you can check our facilities. And you can check also
other cities that we have been in and find that to my knowledge we've
never had one complaint. And we just opened up a new facility in Nest
Bloomington and it's always an issue and ! can understand. Especially in
auto body. You mention the word auto body and it sends shivers through
many residents and also Planning and City Commissions because of the
concern. Because the industry. The image of the industry. Frankly the
reason why we have p~ospered and done so well in this industry is because
of what we've done. We've raised it to a new level. Ne have brought the
body shop business from back street to main street, USA. So the-noise
level, the sounds, the odors, we have to abide by very strict government
regulations. We've just had OSHA through again checking to make sure that
we're doing everything appropriately. And we have not, this concern has
been raised before and after we come into the community~ it's neveT become
an issue. So we share the concern and again, we want to be a good
neighbor in the community and we certainly don't want to offend some of
the people close by who could be potential customers of ours and so we
share that.
Batzli: Have you had any meetings with the local residents?
Planning Commission Meeting
November i8, i992 - Page 8
Randy MacPherson: In going before the City of Eagan, we went back and'
resurveyed people in the West Bloomington market and none of them had a
complaint. I didn't do this. It was hired by the-people representing us
in Eagan.
Batzli: But in this particular development, you haven't had a
neighborhood meeting to explain the development?
Randy MacPherson: We have not personally had one, no.
Emmings: Do you have any need to store anything outside? Other than your
trash perhaps.
Randy MacPherson: Nell I'm as sensitive to that as anyone. We have a
general philosophy of not having outside storage and once in a while
someone will drop off a customer, a customer will drop of~ a car after
hours and leave the key in the key drop but we do not want wrecked cars
stored outside.
Emmings: How about anything that, anything that you use in your'
operations? Do you need to store anything outside?
Randy MacPherson: Nothing. We don't want anything outside.
Emmings: $o if there were a condition that nothing could be stored
outside, that would not be a problem to you?
Randy MacPherson: That would not be a problem.
Krauss: Commissioner Emmings, we do have a condition that says no damaged
or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight.
Emmings: I'm talking about anything. We've got trash and we'll get the
trash enclosed. There will probably be some vehicles outside but I just
wondered if there would be, I don't see any reason. He doesn't have any
need to have anything else stored outside so we can put a condition on
that nothing else will be stored outside.
Randy MacPherson: I don't want anything stored outside. I'm just as
concerned about that as anyone.
Farmakes: Where is a damaged car stored? When I bring it in.
Randy MacPherson= We keep it inside.
Farmakes: So when a wrecking car, you don't have like a central area
somewhere else where you store these? They b~ing in a wrecked car off
a wrecking truck and it brings inside and it spends it's entire time
inside?
Randy MacPherson: There may be a short period of time during the day when
it's dropped of~ and then it's, they'll tow a vehicle. Sometimes an
inoperable vehicle wii1 be towed to us and it may be outside for a short
period but it's brought in by night. And we work very hard to schedule
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 9
appropriately. The other thing that I want to point out about Abra, I
can't speak for Goodyear but we, most of our facilities do not, their
average traffic, I mean the amount of cars we produce a week is not much
more than about 20 cars. We are not doing a lot of small, you know we're
not doing tune-ups or anything like that. We do a lot less volume of
repair and so, and we do not, especially in a location like this, we do
not specialize in heavy collision. We're not doing the heavy, really
severely damaged. Most of it is, if we have a vehicle that's damaged like
that, we'll bring it to one of our larger facilities where we have more
storage, including Eden Prairie. We have a larger facility with storage
and it's tucked down behind where we can store some vehicles down there.
Farmakes: How do you deal with the damaged automobiles as far as leakage
of oil or battery acid or any of these other types of things that are
stored on site?
Randy MacPherson: We have an EPA license. We have storage containers
which are removed and we have to keep track of all potential, we are
considered a small quantity generator. We're not a large quantity
generator, but even so, we are very regulated by the government on
anything. $o we have the appropriate, if the oil spills, we have the
appropriate product to clean up that and the proper way of disposing of
it.
Batzli: When you're doing minor repair work, maybe pounding out dents and
things like that, during the summer months do you typically have the doors
open to your facility? The bays open.
.
Randy MacPherson: We tell our people that they cannot have the door open
more than 12 inches. And there are some facilities where we have, I think
our Eden Prairie facility, I don't know if you've been by it.
Batzli: I'm looking at pictures of it.
Randy MacPherson: Okay. See that's tucked, you can't even see that from
the road. That is tucked behind. I don't know if you're familiar with
the Modern Tire building.
Batzli: Yeah.
Randy MacPherson: But it's back behind that. .And that's a different
location. That's more of an industrial facility. And that's where I said
we will do more of our heavy collision amd repair.
Batzli: Thank you. We may have more questions. This is a public
hearing. Does anyone else wish to address the Commission? Is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Jeff, we'll start with you here.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 10
Farmakes: Paul, can you talk a little bit more about three of the general
issues. Standards. To be designed to construct...so it will be
compatible in the appearance with the existing and intended character of
the general vicinity. We've had a lot of problems with that area in the
past, being that it's so close to a single family residential area. Some
of the intents of the things that we're working on with the Highway 5
development. What concerns me a bit I guess is now that the highway is
completed, there sort of will be a general development I think is kind of
indicative to some of the stuff that we're seeing and these types of
buildings appearance generally take on a light industrial look. With the
block and the comments that have been made in the past by some of the
other applicants for these types of buildings. Valvoline for instance.
Putting the money into the building is not probably consistent with good
business practice with these types of operations. The problem with these
types of buildings is that they're positioned of course into a very
sensitive area and I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that that's the
entrance to our city and so on. How'does this relate to the intent of
what we're doing with Highway 57 I read your paragraph there but it
really doesn't address sort of the work that's been working on for a year
and a half.
Krauss: Well, Commissioner Farmakes, I'm sure as you're aware, we've had
a lot of intent in the last year to do a better job of development along
Highway 5. It has yet to pay dividends in terms of having a new ordinance
with some specific guidelines. Now we went through an exercise with
Target that you're all familiar with where I think we did employ a lot of
the concepts that will become a part of the Highway 5 project. But again,
Target it was in the HRA district. There were financial considerations.
It was done as a PUD. It was a modern day project. In a lot of respects,
I think I indicated this at our last Highway 5 meeting, this site is
something of a throwback in terms of the way it was handled. I mean this
has been a platted, commercial site since McDonald's went in. The site's
been appropriately zoned for this type of use. Lake Drive is a frontage
road through there, is completed. We do have concerns with the way these
buildings look. We'd much prefer that they take on an appearance more
consistent with the development standards that we've had in downtown
Chanhassen. We think the PUD standard provided some latitude to do that.
Probably not as much as we would have at it if the Highway 5 project was
completed. I'd note that, I recall when the emission control station came
before you, you were told that they had a prototype that they built 11 of
and their contract with the State said this is all they built. And in
that case we would have preferred a pitched roof again but we settled for
a mansard condition on there and we settled for considerably more
landscaping than they put in elsewhere and I think if you look at other
emission control stations around the Twin Cities, it's probably one of the
better looking ones. What it all boils down to is, I think the fact that
this is a CUP and that there are conditions like this in a CUP, gives you
some latitude to demand better than average. But since we don't have the
Highway 5 program yet up and running, I'm not sure exactly where the gray
area is of how far we should push that. We've worked, given the fact that
this is somewhat traditional site planning, we've worked with Beissner on
and off as he indicated, for many months you know, trying to get a handle
on where Highway 5 is going. Trying to do the best job we can within the
existing ordinances. Again, we wish that we had a little bit different
Planning Commission Meeting
November i$, 1992 - Page ii
architectural style but beyond that, We'd like to hear your comments on
where you think we should take it. I'm relunctant to, ah. I guess I've
said enough on that.
Farmakes: I wanted to know what you could do'in regards to the
architectural standards. And I guess I'm going to have to rely on your
expertise with that because it is interpretative at that point. I think
it's unfortunate that one, you have to ask an applicant to do something
that's far more costly and the type of building that maybe in general
terms in servicing is, from their standpoint, a waste of money. From our
standpoint I think it's one of aesthetics in the community that we live
in. We keep on bumping up against this problem and particularly in the
car care industry. I really don't mean to single that out but I'm sure
that this isn't the first time that you've heard that. The type of
architecture that we're getting is corporate led franchise type
architecture. It is basically bare bones type of architecture that is
meant to put up a workable facility for the least amount of money
possible. And unfortunately, when such facilities are taken out of the
light industrial area and they're put into a commercial area that, for
instance car care where they want to be next to the highway. They want to
have a visibility that a light industrial area is not going to provide
them. We get into a situation where we're getting the bright plastic and
the graphics and the cinder block type buildings. I think that that's
unfortunate in this particular area. This is an incredibly sensitive area
I think because of the zoning mistake that was made...past that we're all
familiar with that in this room. I don't really know again getting back
to that gray area, what we can do there but I would really like.to see
more done with the style of the architecture in trying to take it away
from the light industrial look. I realize that you've done work on that
and the applicant has been working with you on that to try and stick with
that. I don't know if there could be any additional work done to clarify
detail, perhaps what that could be. We've had problems in the past with
architectural standards. If you have any ideas with that, I'd like to
hear them. I think for sure at least that there's further work that could
be done in softening the roof line. I am concerned about the storage on
site. People driving into our community. I certainly hope that they're
not going to see a line of smashed cars as they drive into Chanhassen.
But I guess I'd also like to say to us in general, as a warning, that we
need to get this overlayment district done. And do it well but do it as a
priority because these types of developments are going to follow this
highway completion very, very fast and I kind of see us in a position
where we may be putting up things that we don't want to live with long
term. If we can get any additional type of negotiation position for the
types of properties that are going to be developed here, we're going to
need more than what we have.
8atzli: Jeff, help me out a minute here. On the roof, you're suggesting
that we should do what with it?
Farmakes: Well I'm not an architect but basically it looks like an
airplane hangar. The comment Goodyear made I believe about corporate
directive, there are thousands of different Goodyear operations and
architectural styles throughout the country and' I know in Ipswitch, a
small town in New England. Massachussetts, it's in a historical zone. It
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 12
looks like a historic building. They basically had to conform an auto
body section care area to like a salt box type operation. These types of
things can be done if there's a community that wants to have them done and
have the type of ordinances that support that type of development. And
again, I'm going to have to defer to you because we get into a gray area
in negotiation and I'm not sitting there at the table. But I think that
in the area of the ~bra facility, actually the stone work there is fairly
nice. I think the problem there is the roof line and sort of the
contemporary, you have a box industrial look with a flat roof and again,
these types of structures, even though we put a lot of trees around them,
still wind up looking like light industrial type buildings. And without
changing that and putting them close to a single family zone, and in the
primary entrance into our community, we're going to wind up with car care
area that extends down the highway which is what we did not want working
on our general corridor.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. Oh, sorry.
Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes. It would be useful you know if the
planning Commission had some specific recommendations on this and I don't
say this because we couldn't come up with them but we had a series of
meetings with them over a period of months getting small incremental
changes here and there and you sometimes lose the forest through the
trees. We went through a similar process on the ~mericana Bank as I
recall. You gave quite an astute dressing down of the architecture of
that building. I think it resulted in some modifications. I believe that
you clearly have some latitude. Some degree of latitude and agaih I don't
know where to tell you to stop but in terms of this being a conditional
use. It's clear that Chanhassen is developing a set of standards and
expectations that are somewhat beyond Bismark or Mandan. You know simply
because there's franchise architecture doesn't mean you have to take it.
For years we've been telling people like Hardee's that orange buildings
don't fly in Chanhassen and you do have a right to do that. So don't
shoot too low either.
Farmakes: Well I, of couse when we deal with some of these things, when
we sit up here and we start saying, well why don't you move that over here
and why don't you bring that up here. We're up here for an hour.
Arbitrarily when we look at these things, we of course go over them but
they're small schmatic type illustrations. Some of the things that we are
suggesting or have to be responsible about, they're obviously costing
someone thousand, tens of thousands or many thousands of dollars. I want
to make sure that perhaps maybe we can sit down later and talk in more
specific terms of architecture. In terms of general ideas, I find that
it, when we sit up here and we say, no we want four gables up there or
something like that. It doesn't serve a lot of purpose and sometimes
confuses the issue. Perhaps maybe we can discuss this later in regards to
changing the architecture but ! wanted to be on record as thinking or
making the statement that we could improve this type of structure so it
does not have a light industrial appearance as we drive into Chanhassen.
Batzl i: Okay. Steve.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 13
Emmings: In general I agree with what Jeff has said. It's frustrating to
sit and look at these buildings on the one hand and think now we're going
to have McDonald's and the test station and this building and this
building and it is the entrance to Chanhassen from the east and it doesn't
seem to be going very well. But I don't know how to change it. I don't
know now, you know these kinds of businesses are businesses we all use and
it's not the kind of situation where you want to say, well they can be in
somebody else's community or something. And there ought to be a solution
in it but I don't know what it is. The way the land is zoned now, it's an
appropriate use I think for the area. $o in general I just think it's
kind of frustrating to look at this. But a couple of things that were
brought up. The pictures raise a point. The one Goodyear facility had a
huge stack of tires outside of it and is that addressed here somewhere?
There just will not be any outside storage.
Krauss: It's addressed but it's not addressed as well detailed as it
could be.
Emmings: I think it should probably be under the conditional use permit
portion.
Krauss: Yes, exactly.
Emmings: And we may...broader condition that just says, there will be no
outdoor storage. Now they've got trash, that will be enclosed right?
KTauss: Yes.
Emmings: Trash containers, that will be enclosed. There shouldn't be any
outdoor storage of anything on these sites. We can leave the condition
that there's no damage or inoperable vehicles stored, even though that's
kind of mushy. I'm not sure exactly what that means. But I can see that
they would sometimes have to park cars outside if it's not a lot and
they're not in terrible condition, if they're not all smashed up, I guess
that can be all I've got. The other, somebody raised, one of the people
who spoke, raised the question about having banners and sale signs. That
does seem to be kind of something that you associate with a business of
this kind. Is that regulated under our sign ordinance?
Al-Jeff: Yes it is.
Emmings: Okay, what can they do?
Al-Jaff: They can have streamers. They can have banners as a temporary
sign 3 times a year, lO days at a time for a total of 30 days per year.
Per site.
Emmings: And do they have to come in and tell you when they're doing it?
Al-Jeff: Yes.
Farmakes: That's being modified somewhat.
Emmings: What will the new one say?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 14
Farmakes: Well, we haven't met in quite a while but essentially it limits
some of that to a new opening. And modifies it somewhat.
Emmings: But it's limited anyway so it's not...
Farmakes: It deals pretty much with the banner and the amount of what
goes in the window. It would say temporary, the Valvoline would change.
Would temper that down somewhat. That type of useage.
Al-Jarl: Does that cover the streamers as well?
Farmakes: Ah, I would be, I don't feel comfortable quoting that because
it's been a while since I've worked on that particular thing. Maybe 4 or
5 months. I don't want to quote that off the top of my head.
Emmings: I don't really have any other specific comments on this.
Batzli: Thank you Steve. Matt.
Ledvina: Well generally I would say that I believe the site does fit into
the land use that's in the vicinity of the project. I would also agree
with 3elf's sentiments as it relates to the Highway 5 overlay and I think
we should also try to expedite our development of an overlay to more
adequately deal with these types of buildings that are going in. I'd
support the efforts, continued efforts to improve the roof lines of
certainly the Soodyear with the use of the dormers where we can and also
staff's recommendations regarding Abra. One of the residents mentioned
the situation with the traffic and I think that these types of uses really
won't provide a tremendous intensification of the traffic and so I don't
know that there will be that much more substantial traffic or pbllution
resulting from this. Being that you have the emission control center just
next door and hundreds of cars go throdgh that line so.. I wanted to ask
about one of the elements in the staff report and find'out whether maybe
we wanted to add a condition as it relates to the Highway 5 task force
providing some input on the site plan review. And I don't know, Paul you
were suggesting that that might be appropriate?
Krauss: Well in fact we had a meeting last week and we talked about the
proposed Opus project and we did briefly talk about this one. The concern
that I have is, some of the Highway 5 issues may be out of the legal
context of the current ordinance. I mean I think you should push the
envelope within the current ordinance because you have a standing to do
that but the Highway 5 Task Force is looking down the road towards a new
set of guiding principles that don't quite exist yet. We'd be happy to
take it to them. I think we have a 'meeting in early DecemkH~r. We could
do that but.they're likely, it's likely to be an exercise in frustration
because they may come up with desires that can't be met.
Ledvina: So maybe they really can't provide additional input beyond what
we're doing right here.
Krauss: I don't know, Commissioner Emmings serves on that. I.mean we'd
be happy to bring it up. And Jeff.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 15
Batzli: Paul, by way of example, give me a desire that can't be met.
Krauss: If there's a statement that, you know we initially would have had
a preference for both these buildings to be identically designed.
seen both uses done very attractively in auto malls that have consistent
architecture where the door's already entered into a ~entral courtyard and
they share a common parking where they do have pitched roofs. Metal
standing seam roofs. Where all the signage is coordinated. That would be
my preference. If that's the recommendation of the Highway 5 Task Force,
my guess is if, I don't want to speak for the City Attorney but if it was
rejected on the principle that that's what you wanted to do, you may have
pushed the envelope a little too far. In terms of what you can demand
based upon the current ordinances.
Batzli: I don't think we would be pushing it too far necessarily to have
design themes that would tend to have you look at one building and another
and say, they resemble one another. Or at least there are design elements
that are consistent. Do you think right now that we have that?
Krauss: I don't know. I mean that was our initial preference that we
discussed with the applicant. I think clearly that's the most appropriate
way of doing it. If we get, and again, we're dealing with an ordinance
that doesn't exist and we're not sure what you're reaction.or City
Council's reaction's going to be on any of these things so it's kind of,
we've got a series of unknowns. If we get a strong indication from you as
to what your desire is, we'll pursue it.
8atzli: Ladd.
Conrad: Three issues which everybody's talked about. Noise. The
architecture. The roof design and landscaping. Noise., the applicant has
talked about a little bit. ! guess I'm not comfortable there yet because
I don't know what kind of noise is generated from Abra. That bothers me.
I need somebody to comfort me somehow on the noise level for the
neighborhood. The pitched roofs and the architecture, I think is just
real important. It's the entrance to Chanhassen and I'm not overly
protective of that visual but I am somewhat. I don't want this to be the
typical and I'd like to stay away from architectural standards as much as
I can but in this case, this is the entrance and there's just no doubt we
have to make it work. I'm not sure that ! need to have the two buildings
looking alike. But I do need to make it look like what we've been trying
to make that area look like and that's a little bit of fitting into the
neighborhood. Even though it's on a highway. I want to feel comfortable
that there's some architectural soundness and that's typically with the
roofline. I think the building materials look f~ne.
Batzli: Let me ask this, if I can interrupt you, and I already have so I
will. Rather than look like a hodgepodge of fast food/franchise type
buildings, doesn't it make more sense to at least make several of them
look like they belong together?
Conrad: That'd be nice. I don't know if it counts. Really we already
have two that, we've got McDonald's so we should make them all look like
McDonald's.
Planning Commission Meeting
November i8, 1992 - Page i6
8atzli: Not identical but at least so one architect is looking at the
other plan. Architects know how to do that. I don't.
Farmakes: The intent though is, I can't speak for the applicant but in
general a franchise directive usually follows that you have to be seen and
they're very concerned about that and of course they seek this type of
confirmation with structure and signage to try and reinforce that this is
a Goodyear or this is an Abra. And they do put a lot of money into it.
It's part of that marketing direction and Ladd, I'm sure you know that .you
can dillute that.
Conrad: If I were the applicant, I wouldn't want to. I'd want to keep
the image constant. Yet on the other hand, what we're seeing is that that
image is a variety of images, out there right now. If you're a franchisee,
we have an opportunity to make a new standard for architecture that others
try to match. The ones that I've seen in the pictures, and those are old,
they're today but they're still, there's certainly nothing, there's not a
standard there that I want to follow. I think the applicant has presented
some visuals that are okay but I think we have to improve upon them and I
think it really, a lot goes back to that roofline. And it also goes back
to you're part of the entrance to Chanhaesen, and that's real significant.
8ein~ part of that good image means you're going to increase your business
and so I think there's a compromise here to keep the Goodyear and Abra and
~ive them their identity if they want but I think'also Chanhassen has to
demand what fits in that area. And the neighbors have never been happy
with that section and I think I want to, it's not an intensive use. It
fits this area I think. My concern is just to make sure it fits visually.
And again, part of that is noise. Part of my concern is noise. The other
part is landscaping, and I don't have any idea what we're talking about.
None. It's just like, I want to see how it fits and that's real
important. And again we're talking, I've looked at the plans and I don't
have a clue and I think staff has asked for more landscaping and I think
that's real appropriate. I do want to, in looking at many little plans
here and I don't know what that is, but that's a big deal to me. I want
to feel comfortable that both facilities have good highway exposure
because that's what they're buying. They're buying exposure to the
Highway 5, and I want that to happen. Yet on the other hand, I don't want
to pollute visually in terms of the cars that are going to be there and I
have to plan for the worst possible scenario and I have to plan for the
fact that there are going to be some vehicles out there that don't look so
good and...for a while so I just guess I'm not real comfortable yet with
what we're doing to that site and I need more information. And I think
it's something simple. I think it's something that, I Just need to see
what's going on and right now I don't.
8atzli: So how do you see? What do you need to see?
Conrad: A plan.
8atzli: You need big plans?
Conrad: No, I guess I'm kind of interested in, when we talk about trees.
Yeah, I need something bigger than this and I guess I need something that
incorporates what staff's vision is in it and I need to know how
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 17
automobiles are blocked both ways and maybe we're talking about elevation
so I can see berming and how the bermlng hides the cars. Cars from the
neighborhood and maybe, I need to feel comfortable that Highway 5, our
vision on Highway 5 or our view on Highway 5 is acceptable. So you know,
it may be an elevation that shows me berming and how cars are. I'm just
kind of nervous that cars are going to be stored there and then again, I
want to plan for the worst scenario and see how we take care of it. 5o
noise, roof line, and landscaping and there are probably solutions that
are on the table right now. I just can't visualize them with what I've
been getting.
8atzli: Okay, Tim.
Erhart: I'll shock everybody and make it short. I can't figure out
anything from these drawings. About once a year we see a set of drawings
like this to represent a plan. I think we all should have the same
response.
Krauss: We did distribute full sized drawings for this but it was done
the meeting that was cancelled because we didn't have a quorum.
Erhart: And we were supposed to bring them?
Krauss: Yes.
Erhart: Then I apologize but I can't figure out what the landscaping or
the parking, or actually the traffic is. So I guess I'd like to see an
opportunity to see a full set of plans. I agree with pretty much
everything on the architecture. I'm not sure what the architecture is.
What it is on this. I don't think it even comes close to the auto
emission which I think came out okay. After we worked on those guys for a
little bit. So I think we've got to work on these guys a little bit and
see if something can be done, better appearance than.this. I'd like to
see them look 'a little bit like there was some thought to put them
together. It doesn't have to be the same. Some consistency. I have one
thing that I'll speak up on on behalf of the developer. Item number 11
under the site plan review where we're asking them to pay a $7,580.00
Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment
downstream. If I read that right, that is asking for something that the
first time any citizen group even reviewed tonight for the first time,
unless I misunderstand this.
Krauss: No. This is.
Erhart: Or is this the off site?
Krauss: This is the off site and it's similar to what we did with Hans
Hagen Homes.
Erhart: This is not the storm water hook-up charge?
Krauss: No, no, no, no. No. This is because the pond that's sized on
that third site is not large enough I think to accommodate the volume and
it's not large enough to accommodate the water quality standards.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 18
Erhart: We're talking about this pond. Is there going to be a pond here?
Krauss: Yes.
Erhart: Is that big enough?
Krauss: No. And Mr. Beissner indicated tonight that they may look to
increasing the size of the pond and that's fine and that would decrease
the dollar but at some point there's a law of diminishing returns because
the lot loses it's utility.
Erhart: Yeah, that would be a surprise if that couldn't be made big
enough.
Krauss: Well keep in mind, this pond also has to serve the emission
control site. That's all supposed to drain through this one.'
Erhart: Okay. Well if that's what that is that's okay. Then again, I
guess we can point out for you Paul is that item 11 on the subdivision,
now which, if we go forward here and add this engineer to handle this
storm water work, we should be incorporating the cost of this into our
development fee structure as opposed. That's my opinion.
Krauss: Okay. To raise the fees to cover it...
Erhart: Whatever. Yeah, I don't think it's right in the long run that we
go to developers and ask them to agree to an open ended thing like this.
At some point we have to make it part of the fee structure so they know
what it's going to be. That's a comment internally here. And also the
conditional use permit. Make sure that we don't have outdoor storage and
I agree. I think it's an appropriate use for the area. I think we just
have to work, we've got to work this architecture out better. Again, I'm
not going to waste your time. No double parking. I thought some of those
photos they were double parking. We want to make sure we don't have that.
I don't think it's on here although in one Spot it looked like it could be
but it's hard to tell. $o my feeling is, other than the subdivision
motion, I think it should come back.
Batzli: Thank you. It's difficult for me to look at this and I know that
we have a condition in here that there's not going to be any damaged or
inoperable cars and again I don't know what that means but clearly there's
going to be cars parked outside these buildings. And I don't think
that's a problem but I don't know that that's what, that there's a meeting
of the minds on this condition as to what this means and what they're
going to do from the standpoint of, I can't believe that Abra is going to
be able to get all the cars inside every night and do that. And some of
them will be "damaged". It's beyond my comprehension that they're going
to actually do that. I don't know that they're envisioning not parking
one or more vehicles at some point in time out of doors and be at least in
technical violation of the conditional use permit.
Krauss: If they cannot, I would ask them to consider another site. You
know I worked with a'Goodyear dealer who was moving from Hopkins many
years ago who had an operation where they had a wrecker and a field full
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 19
of junked cars. It really was in the entrance to downtow.n Hopkins.- It
was a hideous thing to look at. I don't think Abra has in mind doing
anything like that. They've said tonight that they're willing to comply
with it. I'd be real leery of opening the door to having crunched cars
sitting out on Highway 5.
Batzli: Well that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just suggesting that
for example Goodyear I think had 32 parking spots and if we assume for a
minute that there's maybe, I don't know how many people will be working
there but let's assume about 12. 15. There's about 17 more parking
spots. Probably 2/3 of those will be people who are leaving their cars
there that are going to be worked on that day. Some I'm sure will be left
overnight from time to time. Some of them may be "damaged". That's
probably why they're there and I don't think they're going to pull them
into their bays either. And I don't know what, you know I don't want to.
try and kid ourselves that there won't be 'damaged' cars sitting outside
and there will be storage of, I can't envision that places that deal with
damaged cars at some point won't leave one outside. And if this is an
intent to minimize those things, or you know put in place some vehicle.
Vehicle, no pun intended. Method of trying to get them to put them inside
every night, that's fine but I can't see it happening. And by looking at
these pictures, every one of them has cars outside. Now granted most of
them are probably employees in the back. You know I take these photos
with a grain of salt because I don't know. I wasn't there to look at the
cars and see what they were. Whether they were employees' cars that are
being driven back and forth or whether these are the cars that are being
worked on. eut I have a tough time because once again, from our room
concept that we were initially shown in our grand Highway 5 corridor plan,
clearly this is one of the first things when people are coming into
Chanhassen and while I don't mind a couple of cars being left out, I don't
want it to get out of control. And what I really don't want to have
happen is to 4 years later finally get tired of it and go back to this
conditional use permit and have them say well yeah but, you know you let
us go for 4 years and you knew that we had to park some things outside and
our attorney says, well yeah. 8oy, you kind of sat on it for a long time.
I don't know if you can get rid of them now. I would like this condition,
whatever it is to reflect reality because this is such, I believe a
crucial site coming into Chanhassen. I'd love to believe everybody but I
can't believe that if I was the applicant standing up there, you know I'd
probably say well yeah we're going to try our best. 8ut I don't know that
I would have made the statement we will never do that. They will do it.
I can't imagine they can't do it. I mean, do you want to respond?
Randy MacPherson: I'd love to. I think I said that there will be times
that people will drop off cars but we do not store cars outside, and I
think there's a difference. I think that's what it's called, is storing
cars outside. And we share the same concerns. I mean I've got people
coming from all over the country and even Europe looking at our concept.
And we do not allow our managers to store outside. Now I can't ever tell
you that I never have a manager who does not not follow our procedures but
we have people on staff that go around to all of our facilities and
visibly inspect them and do a grading and a report. And one of the things
we evaluate is to make sure that there's nothing unsightly outside. So
that's very important and we have several cities that we have this
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1992 - Page 20
stipulation that there will be no outside storage of vehicles and have
lived by it and abided by it. Another thing is we do have Goodyear next
door. Nell typically the Goodyear customers come and go the same day and
many times there are empty stalls in their facilities at night and we have
worked out reciprocal arrangements where if we have too many, which is
infrequent, to get inside, we simply work out an arrangement with them to
pull the car inside over there over night. And since we a lot of times do
some reciprocal business back and forth, we try to get along real well so
it's worked very well on those occasions when someone did over schedule.
$o I'm not here to try to mislead or trying to lle to anybody. We're very
concerned about that and are prepared to look to that agreement. And if
we have any of our, if anyone from the staff would call me from any city
and say hey, your storing cars, I can guarantee you we'd address it
immediately. $o I can never say that an employee would never do it but I
can tell you we're living under this agreement and our cities have been
happy with us. And they share your concern so. The other thing I want to
point out is that our buildings are not cheap. They're very expensive.
The buildings look more like an office complex than, they do have some
garage doors on the sides of them but they are very expensive buildings to
build and the question with architecture is not really to us a cost factor
because to put that particular peak up, whatever is not any more money
than what we're proposing. That's not any additional money. Our problem
is that we consider it actually more-intrusive and it actually attracts
more attention to our roofline and we don't want it to be, we don't want
to attract attention to that roofline. That's our opinion. That's our
view. The other thing is, you'll never have McDonald's wanting .to look
like Hardee's. I mean it just, I think you said it very well. Ne want to
have identity in the community. And of course we want that identify to be
very positive so anyway, we are prepared to live by this ordinance. And
while I'm up here, if I may address the noise issue. Our buildings are
insulated and our garage doors are kept closed except for a foot. Now
once in a while we do run into a store where somebody has left the door
open. When our people see that, we make sure that they close that door.
Host of our repairs are simply replacement of damaged sheet metal. It's
just take a fender off and you put a fender on.
Batzli: Do you use air?
Randy MacPherson: They call them air ratchets which, you know you would
not, I've never had one noise problem ever. And I drove by the site
tonight and I saw the distance to the residential area and it'd be
virtually I think impossible for someone to hear our activities going on.
And so I'm very comfortable personally with the noise issue and we've
purposely driven ourselves by the locations. Most of the air ratchets
don't make that much noise. There's a lot newer ones that are a lot more
quiet and we're not beating out fenders and those kinds of things because
frankly you can't repair fenders nowadays. You have to replace them. The
sheet metal is so thin, if you lean on them you put a dent in them. So
anyway that, the noise issue has come up many times but after we've gone
into the community, has never come up as an issue. And we have our, it's
enclosed and it's in insulated buildings and has never been an issue.
Satzli: You've been very helpful, thank you. I have one more question.
And that is, since this is going to be a showcase, if you will, for people
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 21
coming in and looking at your concept and franchise, ! imagine that you
don't want to tie it too closely into the Goodyear store. Is that a true
statement?
Randy MacPherson: I don't, you know we want to work with you people.
We're not saying it has to be any particular way. We're just saying that
we'd like to have you recognize that our desire to have our own individual
look, for it to be a professiQnal look, that will represent the community
well. In this picture here, which is the one you got earlier-, that blue
roof there is a Panekoeken restaurant. And that's on University Avenue.
And so we're right next to restaurants o~ main retail thoroughfares and I
think that's an attractive looking facility. I mean and I could be wrong.
You know my wife sometimes has to tell me if this shirt goes with this tie
and those kind of things so maybe I'm the best Judge of that but so
anyway, we would like to have. We are in auto malls that have, everyone
has the same architecture. But this is a free standing building and it's
not incorporated within a building and so we're just asking for you to
allow us to, if we can, to represent ourselves and we are trying to get.
consistent. And I'll admit, that. we do not have all 16 of our metro areas
nor our outside metro areas all the same but we're trying to get more
consistent with our appearance and our professionalism.
Batzli: Well as a trademark attorney, you don't have to convince me'that
you want to maintain a somewhat consistent image, so thank you,
Randy MacPherson: The other issue that I want to make sure too on, you
talked about landscaping. And I appreciate your comments. I don't want
people to see cars either and I don't mind harming. I just want to make
sure that we have people know when they drive by Highway 5 that there is
an Abra facility there.
Conrad: That's real important.
Batzli: Thank you.
Emmings: I have a question for Paul.
Batzli: Okay, go ahead Steve.
Emmings: Paul, the condition that says no damaged or inoperable vehicles
will be stored overnight on the Abra site. Why?
Krauss: It should apply to both.
Emmi rigs: Okay.
Batzli: Go ahead. You've been waiting very patiently.
A1Beissner: I'd like to go through a couple of the issues that I now
hear that are brought out that can maybe you can appreciate what we've
been through and what we're trying to do. Would you put that site plan
back up. What we tried to do and that's our site plan-blown up and you
should have had. We delivered 27 full sets of plans to the City in
September. Whenever we had to so I'm sorry that you didn't get yours
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 22
then. But this is the site plan and a couple things that we tried to do
that, to make it different and better. First of all our setback from the
freeway or Highway 5, a good distance. As far as we could go. With one
major exposure out there, everybody wants to build on Highway 5 so when
you're coming from the east, then you can see the building right there.
We set the building back as far as we could. We turned the buildings also
so that you see just the short ends of the buildings and the garage doors
are facing each other so that if you don't like the looks of garage doors,
you don't like Abra's garage door and Goodyear doesn't like Abra's garage
door and Abra doesn't like Goodyear's garage door but we did that so
there's no visibility from the freeway or from the residential area for
the garage doors. We offset the buildings so not to make them look like
kind of a row house. I mean that's the reason they were pushed back and
forth and we pushed the Abra one closer here because they had a small door
on that end of the building that we didn't want exposed. We also, this
site plan doesn't show it but the emission control site is probably 5 feet
higher in elevation than our site and part of what we're doing is cutting
off the road here and going down. Why that site got built up and is kind
of a beacon up there, we don't know but our's is lower by 5 feet than what
their site is. $o we won't be sticking up and looking that direction. The
third thing is, we do have 3 foot berms along the freeway and so when the
cars are parked, you won't see any hood and grills or whatever from any
normal car. And if there's any foreign cars or smaller cars there, you
won't see them as they're parked anywhere along in here. You will not see
the cars parked from the west elevation because again, this site pad is 4
or 5 feet lower than the emission control site plan. $o basically, and
there's very little parking of this view from the eastern elevation. $o
we were, you know it is your front door. We did work hard, a long time.
I think we originally entered into the purchase agreement in May and we've
been back and forth and when you were talking, I think our frustrating
part and your frustrating part, roof]~ines. I didn't even put on this
board the first roofltne that we had because it was when we walked in, we
walked out quickly because they said that will never work and we got the
hint right away. So we struggled with the roofline thing and we don't
know, when you say what is right. I mean what is right? Is blue suit and
blue tie or is it brown suit and brown tie? We don'-t know and we went
through an exercise where we designed the Abra building with the same
mansard roof that the emission control building has. That didn't fly very
well because it still looks like a flat roof. One of the problems that we
ran into early on in so you know why we struggled with it and why they
can't have a roof like a Goodyear. The rooftop Whatever it is that's over
your paint booth, has to be on top of the roof. Goodyear doesn't have the
rooftop units that they need for ventilation. And the problem lies with,
if you have our building plan and floormlan out there, is that on this
line right here, this is where one of the, that's where that big rooftop
unit is. The other rooftop units are on this side of the building. And
what really throws the thing out of whack is that you want to screen the
elevation that you have. We have a 4 foot screen from the east and the
west so you can't see it from the east or the west but then to make it
have any kind of balance in a Peak, we had to go up so high and that's why
it looked really bad. When Randy saw it he said, you know it doesn't look
right. That's not our first choice, t4e did do these and we have one.
Also signage. When we first came to town and I know when developers come
to town and they're always, we are the bad guys wearing the black hats and
Planning Commission Meeting
November lB, 1992 - Page 23
we looked at the ordinance and we thought we were under the Highway
Business zone and the Highway Business zone allows you to do so many
different things. I think about 45 days into our development work the
city of Chanhassen found out that we, there was a technical loophoIe or
something that we found that we now are under a conditional use and not
Highway Business. In Highway Business there's a whole lot more that one
can do and the City and the staff you know has to I guess abide by the
ordinances in what we can do. Because it's a conditional use permit, we
changed a whole lot of thought process. The sign that you will see on the
freeway is from this site that has 60 square .feet of signage which is
less, or is it 80 feet? 60 square feet or 80 square feet which is less
than what we are allowed. If we would have had Highway Business, we could
have each of the sites had their own pylon sign. We have one sign here
out on the freeway there and it will be done with the Goodyear logo, the
Abra and then the third user which will be this guy down here. And the
sign will be coordinated, color coordinated probably with the Goodyear
building or the Abra building. So we're very sensitive to that. And
those are the kinds of things that we have negotiated back and forth and
come up with and we are happy with and arrived at. This is the same Abra
building with a mansard roof just like the emission control one. You put
a mansard all the way around it and that's how that looks. This is a
modification of their building where we don't have a mansard all the way
around but we have screened on the roof the rooftop units. And we
struggled with that. Ne came up with what we thought was a better plan
and that was closer to what Abra does or what Abra wanted and this is,
this is all the rooftop. These rooftop units, are screened. I think if
you were to superimpose the elevations that we've drawn on say the end of,
the roofline comes up something like that. We have much more roof or
facade than we really need to screen it but to put it in balance and make
it have some interest, you had to. That's what happened here. One of the
rooftop units is here and the other one is over there and that's why we
had to start so far out and to give it any kind of balance. We struggled
with this probably 5 different times to come out with the right balance in
it and so when you're talking, where do we go with the architecture, we'd
like to know where to go with the architecture. It's not something that,
not that cost isn't a factor again but we all estimate how much our
typical architect fees are going to be. Engineering fees are going to be,
etc, etc, etc. If you send it back to us and say okay, let's do it again
and let's try something architecturally different. Who is going to
determine what's right architecturally? That's our biggest concern
because I think, I mean we struggled with this a lot and I'm not sure that
there's a right solution and that's what the problem is. $o we did do a
lot more with the site and I wanted to point these things out to you so
that we did take all this into consideration by moving the buildings back.
Setting then differently. We're lower so it's not going to be something
big and intrusive sticking out there. And we-thought we did a good job
with it. It's taken a little longer than we wanted to take but we
understand that. $o if you have suggestions as to which style of
architecture to use, that's great. But what I'm afraid of is that we'll
go to a committee over here and the committee will try to guess again as
to what is the right look. That's our biggest problem is that we don't
know and there aren't any guidelines saying they all have to be gabled.
They all have to be mansard. They all have to be flat. It's-kind of the
individual choice. I just wanted to point that out but that's kind of
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 24
what we have gone through and this one we thought was attractive. That
was choice, that was go around number 4 I think or 5 but that still has
some flat roof look and I really don't know what to do. This one isn't
balance. We put an accent stripe around the entire building too so it's
not like one solid wall so it won't be straight brick. It will have
accept stripes in it. And the architecture here, we tend to carry the
same accent through the front and sides. We have struggled with it. I
will say this, it's not gone without um.
Batzli: What happened to the roof units when you put the pitched roof
on? Where did they disappear under the pitch? What happened to them? The
last one they showed us.
A1Beissner: This one?
Batzli: Yeah. Where are the rooftop units in there?
A1Beissner= One is over here and one is here. From the side this is...
Batzli= That part is pitched? Straight up and down.
A1Beissner= This panel is pitched up. You can see how it's... If we
didn't have...side elevation looking from east and west. The metal that
is complimentary to the exactly what is the other metal facade is and it's
slanted the roof, tipped slightly rather than...and the unit sits ifacing
here and over here and that's why it had to be spread out so far. That's
why it kept getting so high. If it didn't, then we'd go with this. It
would have to be lower... I wish there were some way that we could do it
architecturally with, that's where our problem comes in because we just
couldn't put the same roof on it that Goodyear has.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
Emmings: Do you have any idea what's going to happen on the other lot
there?
A1 Beissner: No I don't.
Emm i ngs: 0 kay.
A1 Beissner: We tried to do them ail three at once and we didn't find a
third user.
Emmings: Do you expect it to be some auto related something or, not
necessarily?
A1Beissner: Yes. I would think so. The people that we've talked to
have been like Champion Auto Store, Rossi Big Wheel or something like
that. We understand that you kind of want all the automotive stuff in one
area as opposed to sprinkled throughout the community and i't seemed like,
as long as the emission control was there, and if we can do Goodyear and
Abra there, you should make that the-auto center if you will and have that
use there. But we have talked to Rossi Big Wheel and Champion Auto.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 25
Emmings: Would you go back to your site plan? You've kind of detailed
the landscaping on the north, east and west sides and what about from the
view from the south where the neighbors?
A1Beissner: We aren't doing anything down here. The trees that are
there will still be there and until this site gets developed, those
poplars and dogwoods and elms will stay there. We are doing landscaping
around the pond that we have to put in.
Emmings: On the.
A1Beissner: Both sides.
Emmings: Okay, what's going to be on the south side of the pond?
Krauss: Nothing. Just a line of trees.
A1Beissner: Yeah .... as you can kind of tell, we've gone through maybe
4 or 5 different sign designs too that would make it right and compatible
and kind of make it so it's as well as you can make an auto
architecturally compatible with an area.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Let me ask you a hypothetical question Ladd.
Now that we just saw what we saw, if we were to say table this for tonight
so that we could see final landscaping. Maybe there's still an issue
about noise or something that you haven't been satisfied with. What would
you want to see in relation to the roofline/architecture of the building
now that we've kind of at least gotten a flavor of the history of what's
been done on the Abra. What do you think the applicant could do or staff
could do with the applicant to, I mean what guidance can we give them?
Conrad: Well I think staff's always done a pretty good job of working
with applicants. We're not designers up here. I get real nervous when we
talk about architecture. And when we see somethin~ and we're all
speaking, there's some consensus I think amongst those of us who are here
that the roofline is still not comfortable. I think the history is good
to see where Mr. Beissner has taken it but I'm still not comfortable with
the roofline period. The Abra roofline is kind of artificial looking to
me. It just doesn't feel right. And I think staff has asked for some
things with Goodyear that might make sense but again, I'd guess I'd just
like to see a final, and I know what Mr. Beissner's talking about. What
bogey are we shooting for. What is it? What's the standard? Typically
staff has given pretty good direction. I guess when I take a look at,
other than maybe there's a couple cases where I might wonder but-I think
generally they've come back with something. We can't get a consensus here
on architecture. There's just no way e of us are ~oing to do that and I
think staff has at least is one voice. So I guess as lon~ as staff is
going to tell me that the noise is not a problem, I guess I'm not waiting
for the applicant to tell me. I think the staff is sayin~ noise is not a
problem and that's one of the, the reason this is a conditional use is
because you're obviously backed up to a neighborhood and a neighborhood
that's been there for a long time and a real important neighborhood and we
want things to fit in. I need the security of somebody saying, hey. We
don't have jack hammers operating in an Abra thing all day long. That
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 25
would be obviously...and I'm naives on what noise goes on in a place like
that. Second thing. I guess I'm looking for a roofline that, I'm not
trying to bundle costs. I guess I just see some rooflines in the Abra
thing that I don't like. And it seems that there's got to be a solution
to that. And third, I'm looking for some elevations that can show me from
the highway. You know a 3 foot berm is, they typically sink and I guess !
need some security that we have done our job out on Highway 5 to make this
look good. And I guess, if 3 foot are standard, is that the maximum
berming height that we can, our ordinance allows?
Krauss: 3 loot's fairly typical. To go higher than that you almost have
to drop a wail behind it otherwise the grade gets.
Conrad: And I'm not trying to hide your identity. I guarantee you that.
I think it's critical that companies who buy the property have that
highway identity. On the other hand, it's critical that we kind of bury
some of the stuff that is a little bit offensive to the eyes as'flashing
by at 45 mph and that's some cars that might be there. I guess I need
some really crude sketches to show me that we've done our job out there. I
think when you take a look at these, it's a little bit better than what I
was looking at before.
Batzli: But the staff has asked them for things in addition to what.
Conrad: That's my impression. That this, you've asked for more beyond
this. I'd like to see that and then just get a sense that we've done what
we're trying to do and that is to visually take care of cars that are
there and I'm not looking, for standards that we haven't applied to the
emission control folks. 8ut you know it's funny, my impression of that
emission control is pretty good. I think we did a good job of designing
that thing so whether that tells you our taste is terrible or whatever.
I feel that fits some of what we're looking for.
Batzli: Does your wife have to tell you what tie to wear with which suit?
Conrad: Absolutely. No, she waits until I make a mistake and then she
gets me.
Batzli: Does anyone else, before Paul asks his really important question,
have any other guidance for what they're looking for in the roof?
Erhart: Yeah, I like the mansard roof and what I don't like about the two
roofs that we're looking at is the square ends.
Conrad: Yeah. I'd reinforce that. Mansard is acceptable to me. The
square. The wall that. See the wall is a face on a TH 5 and from the
angle that most people, you don't follow and look directly 90 degrees at
it. So typically what you're seeing is a view that it's not real. It's
like a fake.
Batzli: A set. It's a set.
Conrad: You're going to create a fake roof no matter what but still, yeah
you're right. It is a set. So anyway, it doesn't. .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 27
Randy MacPherson: We don't like that wall either. I liked the roiled
mansard. That's what I'm trying to get is the rolled mansard look. My.
problem is with that fake wall. It just looks like a saloon.
Batzli: Right, exactly. I think that's our problem with it too and what
we're struggling with is, by committee we're having a tough time saying to
you well this is what we want. I actually, I think some of your previous
designs were better efforts, at least closer. Something like that bothers
me less than what the one, second one down, bothers me a lot less than the
fake saloony kind of walls that no one's going to look at from 90 degrees.
Farmakes: ...but if I can volunteer this. If the staff wants to meet
later on this, I think we could come up with a couple of quick sketches
that maybe would give a directional point for the client and maybe the
city. But I feel real uncomfortable when we start playin~ with the
architectural drawings in the space of 20 minutes here for something
that's going to be here for 20 years.
8atzli: I agree.
A1 Beissner: Could I leave these drawings with you then? $o that you can
have them to mill around with.
Batzli: What I would suggest is, I'm getting the sense that we'd like to
table this and get some additional information. I know Jeff for one would
be'more than happy to meet with staff and yourself and the architects to
maybe noddle around and kick around some ideas. I'm volunteering you but
I think that.
Farmakes: ...just trying to help.
Batzli: Okay. I guess I'd appreciate a motion at this point from my
fellow, one or more of my fellow commissioners. Oh yeah, your really
important question. I'm sorry.
Krauss: Well yeah, the noise question. Noise is a tough animal to
regulate. There are state noise guidelines. I think the residential
standard is 65 dba daytime and 55 nighttime. We can put a condition on
there that this site not exceed those levels of noise at the property
line. I like the Abra idea of keeping the doors largely shut. That could
be applied to Goodyear. I'll bet you though that whatever noise
guidelines we establish, the highway's going to'drown it out anyway.
Conrad: Well that's an interesting parallel or contrast, yeah.
Krauss: But we can still make them operate to an acceptable level on
site.
Batzli: Two things that, before our motion, I would like to see those
things that you just suggested but two other things. And they were
comments by the public here that maybe weren't brought up again. One I
think, I'm sorry I have just your first name written down. Tom, was it?
You spoke about a mini-park. I'm unfamiliar with the location of that.
Where is that in relation to this?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992'- Page 28
Krauss: It's almost directly across the street.
8atzli: To the south?
Krauss: To the south.
Batzli: Okay. Is there Uncomfort on staff's part at all with these types
of, there's a lot of traffic on that road from DataServ and whatever else.
Krauss: Well and to be honest, I think we pointed this out when emission
control came up, because the same question came up. There's going to be a
lot more traffic on it. It's a collector street that passes through an
office/industrial area. Most of that area's undeveloped right now. Now
since the emission control station came through, we have Dell Road is now
constructed and the signal is operating and I'm not sure if that's
inducing a lot more traffic to come in from that side but that's the goal.
8atzli: Yeah I'd like, I'm going to take another visit to that site
because I didn't really see where that mini-park was in relation to that.
The other thing was, our second 'person from the public. Lindsay, was that
the name? She mentioned something about the screening and we've heard
from the applicant. There basically isn't going to be any. Right now
we're going to rely on natural screening until the site to the south
develops. Is there any reason to require, obviously you don't want to
have them put up screening temporarily which is all going to all be graded
down or cut down. 8ut assume for a moment that this other site doesn't
develop for a number of years, which it very well could. Is there
adequate screening for the neighbors to the south right now?
Al-Jeff: There is a large number of elm and poplars on the site.
Batzli: But elevation wise, are they going to be able to.
Al-Jeff: You won't be able to see them from the neighborhood. You won't
be able to see the two buildings from the neighborhood.
Batzli: Okay. You're comfortable with that right now? Okay. Is there a
motion?
Conrad: I would move that we, well I want to make sure. Let's see we've
got the conditional use permit. You've got the site plan.
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission table the approval of the
site plan review.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Discussion.
Conrad: Well yeah, what's your intent?
Erhart: To come back.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 29
Conrad: Well what are you thinking about for the other aspects?
Erhart: Well I'll get to that when I get there.
Conrad: So you have a strategy. What's your strategy?
Erhart: I'm going to ask these guys if they want to do the subdivision
tonight of if you want to table all of it? For sure with the site plan
review we want it.
Conrad: Right.
Emmings: Well and the conditional use.
8atzli: We're asking the applicant to sum in here, do you understand the
question?
A1Beissner: Yes, I understand and ! don't think there's any reason to go
through the other two...do all three at the same time.
Erhart: Okay, well then I'll move that. we table all site plan review,
subdivision and conditional use until we get to review the architectural
and cover some of the other issues that are still in ~uestion.
8atzli: Okay, who seconded that motion?
Conrad: It was me. Oh, it was Jeff?
Farmakes: I seconded it.
8atzli: Okay.
A1Beissner: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Are there any things' in
the other two that could pose a problem...?
Emmings: The only other one that we talked about at some length was
outside storage.
A1 8eissner: If we're going to table the site plan review but the
subdivision agreement and the other two that you're going to act on
tonight, are there any problems with those two that we should address the
Council at the next meeting?
Batzli: We were really talking about all three of them tonight. And I
think you heard all of the problem areas. Do you accept this friendly
amendment to his motion? I think you seconded it.
Farmakes: All three. I was assuming it was all three.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? One moment while we vote
on this. Paul, is it clear to you from our Minutes what we want to see
next time when it comes back?
Krauss: Clear as it usually is.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 1G, 1992 - Page 30
Batzli: Well then we're golden. Is there any other discussion?
Erhart moved, Farmakes ~econded that the Planning Commission table action
on the Goodyear Tire and ~bra site plan, subdivision and conditional use
permit application fo~ further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Batzli: We did have one more question from the public. I'm sorry sir,
your name?
Gerard Amedeo: Gerard Amedeo. It's not really a question. It's just a
comment after listening to the discussion. It has to do with... One has
to do with the traffic that...and the gentleman brought up that he didn't
think the traffic was going to be much of a problem. I'm sure that these
two gentlemen hope that he is wrong. That traffic is going to hopefully
be substantial. I think it will be.
Conrad: Just responding. When we take a look at the site, and the uses,
compared to a McDonald's or compared to the emission control, it's not
even close. So the validity of challenging that is can that area sustain
additional traffic. That's where you could challenge it. I looked at
that in terms of what we had planned for and nothing seemed to me on the
surface to say we're stressing the site out. Obviously there's more trips
per day. There's just no doubt but when we did traffic studies before, we
knew that that was going to happen. So again, if you know some more
things, I think it's valid to come. back at the next meeting and share them
with us but at this point, it didn't look that way.
Gerard Amedeo: My second comment is that, it seems to me that the flavor
of what I'm hearing all of these gentlemen say is that you're not quite
sure what the image should be. You want it to be something that's
positive for the city but you're not really quite sure what that is. It
seems to me we're a little late in the ballgame to be deciding what that
image should be when you've got a~licants coming to the city with.plans
and drawings. This is what we want it to be and you're still not quite
sure.
8atzli: We have a citizens group looking at that issue. Yeah, I mean
we're talking about Highway 5 from one end of the city to the other. It's
a massive undertaking and we really weren't in a position to do that unti:
the Highway was upgraded and we had our comprehensive plan done which was
done about a year and a half ago. $o we're working on it as fast as we
can and I agree, we'd rather be proactive than reactive 'and unfortunately
on a couple of these early applications that come in, as they just finish
this stretch of highway, we are being reactive and we're trying to be as
cautious as we can on it. But we appreciate that. So this will.be back
hopefully next time.
Krauss: Well we're trying to work around the holidays but we should
hopefully be able to get it on the next meeting. We will send out anothe~
notice to the residents just so they're sure which meeting it's on.
8atzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in.
Planning Commission Meeting'
November 18, i992 - Page 31
~PPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzlt noted the Minutes of the Planning
commission meeting dated November 4, 1992 as presented.
/~OMINISTRATIVlf /~VALS:
Satzli: Any administrative approvals Paul?
Krauss: We only had one. There was a chemical tank of some sort that
was installed out by McGlynn's. On the south side of the building. They
couldn't physically screen it so we had it landscaped.
OPEN P~SCUSSION:
DISCUSSION OF ~E CONSERVATION E.~.
Batzli: Paul, why don't you give us about a 30 second highlight of the
tree conservation easement and then I'd like to have Tim present his case
as for why we don't want to do this. Or at least why we should be more
careful.
Krauss: I wrote this quite a while ago and Tim and I have had several
conversations about it. What we've used these tree conservation
easements to accomplish needs to be clarified. We have not used them to
save individual trees on individual lots. What we have done is where the
city has made accommodations. Large scale accommodations 'in terms of
massaging developments around. Occasionally giving variances.
Occasionally going PUD's. Where we've done that, because we have wanted
to save a stand of trees, we've wanted to make sure that stand of trees
is in fact safe. And we've gone with the tool of providing conservation
easements to guarantee that for all that the city's doing, for all that
we're giving up, that we can guarantee that that natural amenity, that
natural environmental feature is going to be saved. We went this route
large because the standard way of doing it for many years was to have a
condition that said, when you come in for your single family building
permit, come in with a tree preservation plan. All we ever got was a lot
of grief because every time you went-out there you had to do another one.
And all we ever got was, I've got to cut down these, trees because this is
the house plan I have and that's just the way it is. And we never had
any grounds to really change anything.
Batzli: Paul, let me interrupt. These two gentlemen-are here for the
Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association beachlot. Did you get notices
of this for tonight? Oh, you Just got that? That was the last meeting.
When is this going to be back because this was tabled and I apologize
that you sat here tonight.
Krauss: There are some discussions going on with Kate and the Homeowners
Association. We were going to renotify everybody when it comes back on.
Batzli: What I think would be best is if you can write your name and
addresses on the back of a piece of paper and give them to Paul and he'll
make sure you get notice of it for the correct date. Thanks.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1992 - Page 32
Krauss: Anyway, ! think the purpose and the intent is quite good.
think it actually gives more latitude to the individual homeowner because
we've gotten away from trying to save individual trees in a backyard or
on a property line or whatever and just saving the tree marrings that are
real important from a visual standpoint over a large area. Now, we've
been requiring these things for the better part of 2 years now Ithtnk.
Emmings: Which?
Krauss: The conservation easements. And it wasn't until Tim raised the
question that I got a copy of what Roger had drafted up as the tree
conservation easement and I found frankly that I was somewhat
uncomfortable with some of the language that's'in here. I think the
intent is good but some of these things, constructing and installing and
maintaining anything made by man, which includes clothesline poles and
playground equipment which is really sort of irrelevant. I mean if a kid
can't play in the woods, what good is the woods. ! think to some extent
this goes a little bit too far. Tim and I also discussed, is this a
permanent requirement? I guess I have a preference for it being
permanently recorded against the property because then it's a legitimate,
has legal standing. Everybody who buys the property henceforth knows
about it. However, once the development's put in, once the homes are put
in clear of this area, it's highly unlikely that anybody is going to come
in and cut them down. It's just too dumb a thing to do. So it's quite
possible that we could accomplish the same goals by putting on a
conservation easement with some revised language but have it expire 5.
years after the date that the last house is put in or something like
that. That would probably accomplish the same goal and if the concern is
long term being onerous of the property owner, maybe that would eliminate
some of those concerns. But again, you do make significant concessions
in terms of moving roads. In terms of paving roads to a narrow width. In
terms of adjusting setback lines. In terms of adjusting lot areas. All
those things to accommodate tree preservation. If ~e can't guarantee.
we're going to save the trees, then why do it in the first place.
Batzli: What do you think of it Tim? Rebuttal.
Erhart: Well it's a complex issue. There's a number of aspects the way
I've looked at this. Let me start out with the last one you Just
referred to. I'm not sure it makes sense to go and make a development
all misconfigured for the sole purpose of saving 1 or 2 trees and every
development's different so you can't make a rule. But I think we've
gotten tree nuts and what I'm trying to do is get some balance to this
thing. You know I obviously want to save every old oak tree we can but I
think it's also important that we don't go in and through these
developments to make them unliveable. I mean these are for people number
one and their safety and their welfare. Trees are part of that safety
and welfare but it is for people. Trees, as I say, most of these
developments, most of the land is open space. When people get in there,
they do plant trees and in 50 years you're going to have, it's going to
be an urban forest. And so I don't.think the importance that we put on
trees here, if you want to use the last couple years is fine. I think
we've gone a little bit overboard on it. W~'ve forgotten the fact that
most of the trees we have in 30 years are planted after the area is
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 33
developed. The second thing is that, and the number one issue was this
30 foot setback. Trying to convert it to 20 but I see in here a summary
of the PUD ordinance, the City Council I think had the good sense to go
back and say, Iook it. 30 foot setback is the right thing because I
really don't think, as I stated in my letter, that 20 foot setbacks make
any sense at ail under any conditions. Particularly for, I don't think
trees would Justify that. $o number one is the construing of these
developments in an attempt to somehow the trees have become more
important than the people that live there. I think the trees are there to
serve the people that live there and keep that in mind. Two is that, you
know the idea that we have this thing hanging on forever. You've seen a
homeowners found guilty and this perpetual banishment from the forest but
in fact really that's what we're doing. I don't think there's any reason
for it and if it's the developer and the guy who comes in and builds the
homes that isn't going to live there later, the home builder, that's our
problem. Let's deal with him and we have brilliant lawyers on our
commission here and Paul and somehow we could come up with some way to
get a handle. Get control of this home builder who isn't going to live
in this house. Who doesn't care about the trees and get control of him
yet at the same time, the guy who owns the house and is going to make the
payments for 30 years, is going to plant the trees and want to put swing
sets and swimming pools or whatever, you know he's got the American way.
He's got his, that's his turf and by golly if he wants to put a tennis
court and 2 oak trees got to go, well geez, that's too bad but I think
that's the American way. I think it's worked well over the hundreds of
years that we've had. I mean America's the only place in the world that
has individual homeownershtp. It's what makes us America and I don't
like the idea of intruding on that with these easements where ! don't
think we've got a sound basis or experience says that we ought to be
doing, I'm not going to say communism. I just don't think we've had,
there's nothing that says, save that. If I use your terms 'in your letter
about the way you're being treated by the State in the wetlands thing.
You say that we're concerned about the State's going to treat us as
second class citizens. We're not to be trusted and I think that's kind
of what we're doing here. We're treating these homeowners as second
class citizens not to be trusted and I don't think the...has come to that
conclusion. So I'd suggest that we come up with a way to control the
subdivider or the guy who puts in the streets as well as the guy who's
building the homes for spec houses, which ! think is where your problem
is, is it not?
Krauss: Well I'd say building the house period. Once the house is up,
you can almost let it. Keep in mind too, there are some community values
that we've ascribed to trees and wetlands and views that we've generally
agreed warrant some kind of protection. Also keep in mind that you know,
as Brian so often points out, we have some obligation, I mean let the
buyer beware is fine but we have a lot of people who have expectations of
the city as guaranteeing some things to them. Maybe one of the
guarantees is that that oak forest is largely going to remain intact.
You know it's taken, if you look at Post World War II development, it's
taken at least the first 40 years, or 30 years of Post World War II era
to stop development from doing what it always used to do which is bring
out the bulldozers. Plow it flat. Put in a grid street system and pop
i~ houses and yeah, you come back to Levittown today and it's full of
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 34
trees. I mean 30-40 years later it probably looks halfway reasonable.
But we have developers who don't want to do that anymore. We generally,
I would feel very uncomfortable going back to that style of development.
It's really I think a question of being able to provide guarantees. I've
got, maybe there's a better way of doing it but if there is, I'm not sure
what it is because I'm in contact with other communities that have tried
other things. Ne haven't carried this to the extent that Eden Prairie is
notorious you know. You've got to count every tree and you've got to
replace every tree, even for single family housing. We've never done
that. We never would want to do that.
Erhart: Paul, I'm not suggesting that we allow developers to do clear
cutting. I mean and we haven't had any of that since we changed the
subdivision ordinance after the one we had up here. I just don't think
we've had that. What we're talking about now I think is your response
to, you feel that people place homes on lots. You feel, I don't know who
this is, if it's the developer or whatever, your feeling is that they're
taking out some trees unnecessarily.
Krauss: I think that if you have a feature that you want to save, you've
got to highlight that feature. You've got to plan around that feature
and you've got to make sure that the streets and the lots don't result in
that feature being destroyed. And it's like we have, we're fully
familiar with having a lot of lots that border on wetlands. But because
of inappropriate consideration during design, there's no way ~o put a
house on it or a deck without impacting the wetland. Well what we're
saying is, take that feature. Protect that feature. Design around that
and then after the thing's developed, yeah. I think then we can fully
back away because I don't think you're going to find many people cutting
down 30 oak trees in their backyard to put in a shuffleboard court or
whatever. If they do, it's probably their choice but I don't think many
people are going to do that.
Erhart: I guess to end it, I guess what I would request is number one,
we try to figure out a way we don't end up with a permanent easement on
this property. I don't care what we do with the developer and the
homeowner. You've got come up with some process that we restrict him,
that's fine but not to end up with a permanent easement. And two, be a
little bit more understanding. A little bit more consideration of what
the street layout, the usefulness of it and so forth and we not quite put
so much emphasis on these trees in laying out the neighborhood and I
think the 30 foot setback will solve a lot of it in my mind. And I don't
think you can equate trees to wetlands because people can't plant
wetlands. People plant trees so after the development's in, the tree
situation does improve. You're never going to improve .wetlands so I don?t
think it's exactly comparable. The last thing I want to say, I think
there are some places where permanent tree conservation easements are
appropriate and that is, if you have a pseudo public area you know. Let's
say you have a PUD and a guy designates this area sort of as an area
where people can walk in and kind of enjoy the forest. Have that, kind
of semi-public access to it. Although in that case you still should have
some trails. There's an area. Or around a wetland or something that is
special. Or another area would be if you have severe erosion problems if
you have trees removed. I think those are the two areas where it makes
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 35
sense to have a permanent conservation easement. I guess I'd like to see
this non-permanent thing on people's lots being removed at sometime.
Batzli: From a philosophical standpoint, let's use a recent development
that we're probably still familiar with. The Lundgren one on that Ersbo
property. There was Z believe a tree conservation easement at the
entryway when you drove in on the right hand side of the road.
Krauss= Actually on both sides of the road.
Batzli: On both sides of the road. Do you think that was an improper
place to put one?
Erhart: Who owns the property when it's all said and done?
Krauss:
Erhart:
area?
They're all private lots.
Okay, and you're saying that, would those people ever use that
Krauss: As I recall, those lots got kind of long and skinny at that
point so the probably is they wouldn't. But it did wrap around some of
them. In fact it came behind some of the lots next to the wetland.
Erhart: If it could be said that those are pseudo public, okay. That
they represent an entrance monument or something, then I'd be fine with
it but you've got to remember also in that development there was tons of
other trees that put these tree easements around that were essentially in
people's backyards.
·
Emmings: That wasn't all trees. That was a conservation easement for
whatever existed. Right? 3ust to leave it alone. It wasn't just a tree
easement.
Krauss: Well there were both. There was buffer yards around a wetland.
That was the first one we ever did. Buffer yard zone.
Emmings: ! thought we called it a conservation easement.
Batzli: Yeah we did.
Krauss: You did.
Erhart: On the what?
Batzii: But we didn't have individual tree easements.· We told them that
they had to save them but we didn't put easements around the individual
trees on that one.
Erhart: In ~he tree groups we did.
Batzli: The big ones. There were some individual ones we wanted to save
as I recall.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 36
Krauss: Well, there were some individual ones we would prefer to have
saved but we concluded that it really wasn't encumbant upon us ever
buying the lot to figure out what they could save at that point. As long
as they kept the home out of the large mass of trees, it was their call.
Because we didn't go in and pick individual ones.
Erhart: Individual trees?-
Krauss= Yeah. We did not do that.
Erhart= No, but we had masses of trees that we put tree easements around
that ended up in people's backyards.
Krauss: Yes they did.
Erhart: And I'm just saying, I just don't see that it makes any sense.
Batzli: $o you don't think there'd be, let me put words in your mouth.
Erhart= Unless there was an erosion problem.
Batzli: You don't see there would ever be a need for a big clump of
trees to have an easement in someone's backyard?
Erhart: Not unless it's a pseudo public area or if there's a potential
erosion problem as a result of cutting trees. I don~t think, I think
those people want to evolve that forest. They're going to plant trees.
They want to go and trim some of those trees. They're going to want to
cut out the box elders and the Junk to allow light to come in so that the
oaks and the sugar maples can grow and they can shape those trees.
That's what people are going to do. They're not going to go down there
and cut them all out.
Batzli: Well but look at the type of development that that is. See my
fundamental difference with you on this Tim is that what you're
suggesting is that we have a well manicured, attended, we're going to
select what things grow as opposed to natural. I'm a biologist. This is
a natural setting. Let the chipmunks run around and the bunnies you know
build their nests in the scrub. And what I'm suggesting is that that
particular development was billed, and built hopefully, as a natural
setting and what you're suggesting is, is that we will destroy the
natural character that currently exists on that site to suburbantze it.
And that's okay if that's the vision we want for each and every
development in the city.
Erhart: I think there's a continum there. I'm not suggesting.that he's
going to go and make a park out of it. 8ut for example box elder is not
a native tree. We brought those in.
Batzli: Well they're here now.
Earnings: When you're saying natural, you're only talking about a point
in time. You're saying that what's there now is the natural circumstance
of the land.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 37
Erhart: I'm saying 30 years.
Emmings: Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
Batzli: But if you don't do anything, it will be natural.
Emmings: Yeah, but maybe a mess.
Erhart: I think it will be less than optimum. No matter where you look
on that spectrum, it ,ill be less than optimal if you don't do anything.
8atzli: I guess my slant on this comes from, (a) Just wanting to present
the polar extreme to raise some discussion. But also, I have several
biologists in my family who have chosen to let their entire yards go
"natural". Meaning they don't do anything to them. Well this
immediately raises some consternation with the neighbors over stuff
blowing into their yards and they end up having to build fences around
their yards which you could argue certainly isn't natural. It's an
interesting perspective to take that they want their yard. They want to
encourage whatever will grow to grow and they go out and they literally
poke around. You know gee, here's the-mouse trails and they think it's
the most wonderful thing ever. Now that's a real polar extreme from your
person who's going to go out there and shape his oak trees to get them to
grow but.
Erhart: You know what prickly ash is right?
Batzli: Yeah. My point in raising all this is that, from my perspective
a person moving in. Now I argued long and hard that we needed larger
lots in PUD's and I finally backed down because everybody hammered me.
But the interesting thing is, in this case, moving in, these people have
every bit of foreknowledge moving into that lot, that they've got a
permanent easement in their backyard as people do moving into a PUD. That
they're moving into a small lot. And I say, if they want to shape their
trees, then they can move in to a different location where they can. Not
every subdivision we do has tree easements in it and if you want a place
where you can go out and chainsaw every damn tree on your lot, go move .
next door to Mr. T or in the Lake Susan Hills subdivision and don't move
into one with it.
Erhart: You know to counter that, some people aren't going to know that
easement's there.
Batzli: Well that fell on deaf ears with the PUD. You can raise it but
blah...go ahead.
Erhart: The second guy that buys the house won't even know it's there
and he's going to go and he's going to start trimming and it's going to
be.
Emmings: Well what he wants to do on his lot may change over this
lifetime. --
Planning Commission Heating
November 18, 1992 - Page 38
Krauss: I don't want to get hung up on the exact language that's in here
because I know Steve, you've represented that when you moved into your
house you couldn't enjoy the lake because there was so many trees down
there.
Emmings=
weeks.
just took down 3 huge oaks on my property in the last couple
Krauss: And I think that maybe there needs to be Something in here for
thinning and again, I wouldn't mind if it was temporary but the idea that
forests are a transient phenomenon and if you want 30 years you'll get a
new one. While it's true, since most people don't live in a house more
than 5 years nationally anyway, it's not going to do them a darn bit of
good. And I'm not willing to, and I don't want to be flippant but I
don't want to be seeing us write off these resources, be they inherently
natural, which virtually nothing is in this town because it's all been
farmed, but it's still an important and pristine resource.
Erhart: But the point is, people don't mow them down. We're concerned
about something that doesn't, a problem that doesn't exist.
Krauss: People don't mow them down after their house is up. People will
mow them down for their house.
Erhart: Okay, well let's stop them then but then after that.
Emmings: But that's not, Tim said the same thing. You're not saying
something different than Tim did. I think, first of all you've got some
protections built in it seems to me. t'.took down 3 big oaks on my
property. It cost me $500.00 a tree just to drop them and I had to deal
with the brush and the wood laying there and I'm going to have to split
it. That's a significant disincentive to take down trees. The other
thing is, most people like them and they're not going to take them down.
I would be really distressed to own you know a house that I'm busting my
butt to pay the mortgage on and have somebody tell me if 10 years in I
can't cut down the trees to put in a tennis court. I can't cut down
trees to put in a swimming pool or any other damp thing I want to do on
my property. That would be real offensive to me. I guess though, for me
I could see having a tree conservation easement ordinance. I think it
should be used very sparingly. I think an example of places where you
might want to have it would be, you know the back side of this slope
where they want to put up all these multiple houses on top of the hill up
here. The back side of that slope and going down. But there it isn't
just the trees. You want to just leave that as kind of a natural area.
$o I could see putting it there. I could see having it out along the
river bluff where there are steep slopes. The creek. Bluff Creek. It
might be another tool to preserve things in some particular places. The
one place we used it in the development that went in south of Timberwood,
was it?
Krauss: On Hans Hagen.
Emmings: Yeah. The spot we used it there. I didn't mind that one.
That was an okay place to do it as far as I was concerned because that
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1992 - Page 39
was a big, long standing significant stand of trees and ! wouldn't mind
applying it sparingly to a few places like that. I don't know when
you're going to decide to do it or how you're going to write it in but
really think it ought to be used very sparingly for unique situations.
Farmakes: Doesn't the DNR say that only 5~ of Chanhassen is wooded.
Emmings: Well what does that mean though? What does wooded mean?
Farmakes: Well that would at least mean that it would be applied pretty
sparingly.
Emmings: Oh! Oh fine.
Farmakes: When you're talking total square footage of the city, I mean
I didn't do the study.
Emmings: And I assume we're not going to go back and put tree easements
on existing lots. This is something.
Krauss: We don't have the right to do that.
Emmings: Right.
Krauss: We're not going to buy easements.
Emmings= So given that, it doesn't bother me very much as another tool
in the arsenal to preserve some good things.
Krauss: Well let me give you some other examples too. On the Highway 5
corridor, I mean the rooms that Morrish refers to are defined by stands
of trees generally. And those trees in particular need to be permanently
protected frankly because you know, I don't want somebody coming back 5
years from now on the Opus site saying, well I'm going to chop down this
bunch of trees.
Emmings: 8ut you're not talking about, that's not a residential site.
Krauss: But it applies there too.
Emmings: Yeah but I don't think.
Krauss: But there are residential sites along the Highway 5 corridor
where you have the trees up along the creek system or something else. I
mean again, we're very willing to examine the context in which we use it.
We're very willing to ask Roger to redefine this thing so these are
temporary easements generally that would expire and to be somewhat more
liberal in what you can do with it in the meantime in terms of thinning
to get utilization of the lot or improve the growth or whatever. 8ut I'm
still, I'm very relunctant to back away from the preservation of
something that I think is very worthy.
Batzli: See I agree.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 3.$, 3.992 - Page 40
Emmings: I don't disagree.
Batzli: And I say to the people who want to do with their lot what they
will is, it's either buyer beware or it isn't. And I have a little bit
of difficulty with the well, on this case we're going to say that he can
do with it what he will and on other cases it's well, tough luck. You
bought the lot. Move if you want a bigger lot. I really think that in
the instance of a Lundgren or some sort of developer that is developing
the entire development in a way which suggests that it is a preserve and
it is natural features and everyone is going into it with that
understanding, that it is very appropriate. And if it's in someone's
backyard, all they have to do is look around and listen to the sales
pitches and understand that this is the type of development they're
moving into. And I do not want to water down the resulting ordinance or
something else that some one person in that development can go out and
thin to the extent that everybody around them says, you know what the
hell are you doing? This is supposed to be a natural area.
Erhart: Take the development up on Lake Lucy Road that Sathre-Berquist
did. That's the first one I remember where we did this tree conservation
and there we just drew a ring around some trees and say, okay you can't
ever touch those and they were in the back of people's Yards. What was
the reason for that?
Batzli: I don't know. ! think we're becoming more sophisticated and
part of it is this discussion tonight. Because I don't know that we've
applied it in a way that, in a manner that would suggest that we have a
coherent guiding principal as to why we're doing it. But I think that's,
hopefully we'll at least start to be'you know folmented out of this
discussion tonight. But I have a fundamental disagreement I think Tim
and that is, I think there are instances where it's very appropriate,
given the subdivision that we're doing. And including corporate sites
which in my mind, those are the ones you probably do have to put it in
there because they can afford to take them all down.
Erhart: Right, commercial I don't care.
only talking about people's backyards.
from some others.
They're fine in there. I'm
I don't know. We should hear
Batzli: Yeah, what do you think? What do you think Ladd?
Conrad: ...flush out the issues.
Erhart: But what's your opinion? ...We're trying to develop a consensus
and give Paul a steer of where we're trying to, what we think. So we
need your opinion.
Conrad: Rooflines? I think the issues are real valid. I share your
concern with taking away rights and then Brian's representing obviously
the other extreme in terms of preserving what we want to preserve. And
the bottom line is how we apply it. I think the goals are lofty and I
really don't have a need to prohibit somebody f~om cutting down a tree.
I'm real concerned about Steve cutting down 3.
Planning Commission Heeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 41
8atzli: Oak trees.
Conrad: You know that's real stressful.
Emmings: For the taxes I pay I should be able to see the lake I live on.
Conrad: ...But when you have a conservation easement, that we're talking
about, it should be because it's significant. It has a bearing for the
community. If the community is more important and so, you know somehow
it's the standard of how we apply this easement that I'm concerned with.
Right now I think we're fairly good in some of the stuff we're doing.
But I also share Tim's concern about, and eteve's. I don't think I would
want to have, I don't think I need to be in somebod¥'s back pocket
concerning what they do to their property. I don't want to be there. But
if there's an easement there, it's for a reason and as long as we have
valid reasons to protect that stand of trees.
Batzli: But how do we get to those reasons? I mean do we have a little
·
subcommittee get together and say, these would be maybe valid reasons and
this is the type of analysis you look at. These are the factors you look
at or is it I know it when I see it kind of thing.
Emmings: Why do we want to call it tree preservation easement.
Conrad: I think conservation.
Emmings: Or do we just want to call it, I don't know why we don't just
call it a conservation easement.
Batzli: I thought we called it a tree conservation easement.
Erhart: Wilderness easement so when we agree as a group to apply this
thing, we clearly understand what we're doing. Is that we're making that
area wilderness. Because that means you're going to have prickley ash
and nobody's going to go in and touch it. We're not going to mow it.
We're not doing that so when we apply it we-call it a wilderness easement
so it's clear in everybody's mind what we're doing. Because that is what
we're doing.
Krauss: No, I don't think it is though. I mean when you're talking
about that site up on the hill, I had the two bus tours going up and down
the highway and both times, coming and going people saw, there's a stand
of 5 or 6 real signature oak trees right at the top of the hill. And
it's not that massing that you're talking about on north face. I mean
these are just massive trees that stand up in the middle of the site.
And everybody on those buses, both times said we've got to save those
trees. It's the first high ground you see when you're approaching the
city from the west. And we're making the developer pick those up.. I
mean he's created a large island around it. We'd like to make sure that
those trees are protected permanently. Now I don't 'know if you feel more
comfortable about it because it's a multi-family development and not a
single family development. 8ut really it shouldn't make any difference
I don't think. I mean these are owner occupied dwellings.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 42
Ledvina: So why isn't that wilderness?
Krauss: Because it's clustered around a totlot and a swimming pool that
they have.
Ledvina: But that specific area that you've designated as an easement is
left alone.
Krauss: Well they may mow around it.
Ledvina: Okay.
Erhart: ...tree easement around it? There you just set it out on the
plan that says you can't touch these trees. Isn't that what you did?
Krauss: Yeah but again, in that case frankly, we don't want the
Homeowners Association to decide that one tennis court isn't enough.
They want three more and it's right where those trees are.
We actually might put a tree conservation easement on those
Erhart=
trees?
Krauss=
Emmings=
Krauss:
Well yeah they could.
That's a PUD and they can't have things in there.
Well yeah, I mean theoretically we can tie them to that plan but
8 years down the road, 12 years down the road, I think you might be hard
pressed to walk into a courtroom and say that Judge, those 6 trees were
on that site plan 12 years ago and they Just chopped them down.
Emmings: Eventually they're going to die for...
Krauss: Sure.
Batzli: Well how do we get off the dime on this? What do we have to do
Paul?
Krauss: Well I think that I can certainly work with Roger. We can come
back with different language. We may also want to talk to Roger and see
if we can come up with a way of putting this into ordinance with an
intent statement.
Emmings: It seems to me we're talking about two different kinds of
intent here. One is, sometimes there are individual trees in places that
we want preserved because they're special or unique, and other times
there's full stands of trees or whole areas, whether they're trees or
not, that we want to preserve in their natural state. We don't want
people addressing nature to any advantage. We want them just left alone.
Erhart: That's what I would call the wilderness easement.
Emmings: So that's two different ideas there really.
Planning Commission Meeting
November i8, i992 - Page 43
Krauss: But the wilderness bit implies that there is no utilization on
that lot which implies it's going to be owned by the public or'privately
held in common. That's not going to happen on somebody's lot.
Emmings: The kids are always going to play in the woods and that's fine.
Batzli: Conservation or, I mean we can come up with a word for it.
Krauss: And again, I don't have a problem in most cases if these things
expire in residential situations. So.I think we can address it two ways.
Coming up with an intent statement. An ordinance and revising the
easement language so it's a lot less onerous.
8atzli: Yeah, this is onerous. I mean I think you've got to at least be
able to walk through the area that's protected and this would maybe not
even allow you to do that in a lot of instances.
Erhart: Well we should give Paul a direction on what we want to do.
Whether we want them to terminate after a time or not.
Emmings: I would think you'd want to do that on a case by case basis.
Farmakes: If we come up with something that has enough bite to it, it
still has the potential to be misused. I mean isn't that part of what
you're saying? That it can be interpretted too, beyond common sense. So
what worries me though is that if the city, on so many of these-things,
takes a negotiation position that they're not negotiating with something
to back them up. We dilute it too much that basically the cards are
played before they ever sit down at the table.
Erhart: Maybe what we're hearing is, we're looking for some selective
tools. One would be forever perpetual wilderness easement or whatever.
Another one is making sure that the developer and builders don't touch
certain trees but that we could apply that in cases where we don't want'
it to be perpetual and then the other one would be where we could select
specific trees. And staff would essentially apply that on a case by case
basis and we would approve it. $o I guess I think we're looking for some
tools that we want to apply selectively.
Batzli: Does that make any sense Paul?
Krauss: I think so.
Batzli: Do you have enough direction to go try something? Okay.
Conrad: The direction is, we're still keeping some constraints on the
developer.
Emmings: That's the main thing.
Conrad: And for sure we're talking about applying this in the commercial
areas in terms of maintaining. We're really talking, the concern becomes
in residential.
Planning Commission Meeting
November l$, 1992 - Page 44
Batzli: Well it's going to be a balancing of, ! think it has to still be
case by case but there are times when your concerned about the developer
and once the house is built, you let the homeowner do with it what they
will.
Conrad: Let me give you. There's a tree that's 8 feet in diameter.
Emmings: And 3 feet high.
Conrad: It's a bonsai that survived the winter. Is that a case? Would
we protect a tree like that?
Krauss: Maybe. One of the things we asked the DNR forester to do and
when the thing's completed, is to fine, I mean they're like pristine
wetlands. There are signature trees that are 3ust, I mean 300 year old
tree or something like that. A particularly magnificent specimen that's
worthy of some protection but those are pretty rare. 8¥ on large you're
talking about massing and you might have a bunch of 3 foot trees you know
that are.
Conrad: If there was a transitionary area between neighborhoods, talk
about Timberwood.
Emmings: Or between commercial and residential.
Conrad: Right. There's another case where we'd want that stand to be.
Emmings: Those are buffer yards.
Erhart: Then who owns those buffer yards?
Emmings: Whoever owns the property.
8atzli: It could be a homeowner.
Conrad: It could be and so there's an absolute. We're protecting. We
are buffering. There's a transition. It stays.
Batzli: But see those could be some, I mean we could almost list some
factors in the ordinance for, is it a buffer yard. Is it a particular
natural feature of the area? I mean these could be factors that you
determine when you apply the ordinance.
Emmings: Well it would help you decide if it's going to be temporary or
permanent. So if it's, or like slopes or bluffs you know.
Conrad: That's real important. And then there's some other areas that
I just call character type of things. That might be the top of property
where if you take them down. Even though they regrow Tim, I'l! challenge
you on this one. **for 30 or 40 years you don't have the same situation
so there's cases where you can't. A tree here and tree there, who cares.
But I think we do have to protect those spaces where you can put some
apartment buildings in. If you level everything, you've taken the
character out of Chanhassen and we can't allow that to happen.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 15, 1992 - Page 45
Emmings: Let me give you an example of what maybe runs contrary a little
bit. You know I bought a Iot that was next door to another house and the
guy, I don't know who planted the trees but most the.people that live on
the Iake, they put their trees lined up kind of the outsides of the lot
so they have a view down the center toward the lake. Well, the lot I
bought was next door to this guy's house and it was just chalk full of
trees. I took down as few as I had to to build my house but from my
house, when you're on the lake you can't see my house from the lake and
from my house you can, anytime you want to see anything on the lake
you're doing this and it finally got to me after 10 years so I went out
and now I've taken down 3 trees that have really. One o~ them was
threatening my house. One of them the top fell off of it and the other
one was just plain in my way. But I've planted, I don't know maybe 100
bushes and this year 4 trees. Four evergreens on my property and I think
I ought to be able to do that. You know, I don't think I'm .doing
anything that's hurting the character of Chanhassen, although I might
have neighbors, I don't know who say, what's that ~fool doing cutting
down those big beautiful trees. But they're not in their yards.
Conrad: I agree with your right to do what you did. I don't want to
live next to you but.
Emmings: I don't want to live next to you either for a lot of reasons.
Batzli: Okay, well let's take a look at what Paul comes back with on
that. Do people want to talk about cul-de-sacs tonight or philosophy of
meetings and reports?
Conrad: You've got 5 minutes.
Emmings: What about the roofline preservation easement?
Batzli: Why don't we, can we have 10 minutes on each one of these?
Erhart= Let's do it.
CU.L-DE-SRC LENSTHS,
Batzli: Paul, Cul-de-sac's. We know yOUr' arguments. Okay.
Krauss: Yeah, you know the issues and I gave you the other communities.
Emmings: I agree. 500 feet.
Erhart: Hang on a second. [ agree too but. Given the last 6-7 years,
we've seen, we've allowed a lot of what? 1,000 foot cul-de-sacs and 800
or what's the character been of the last 6-7 years of the cul-de-sacs
that we've allowed?
Krauss= It's been all across the board.
Farmakes: When was the ordinance dropped for 5007
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 46
Krauss: It was before my time here. I've got to believe it was $ or 7
years ago.
Ledvina: Do you know why it was dropped?
Krauss: I think a developer objected to it.
Batzli: Well I think it's an issue of character of a community in part.
And I think a lot of people within this community want cul-de-sacs. They
feel that they can, it's more difficult for people to cruise a
neighborhood looking for burglary sites, whatever. They feel there's
less traffic. Every time we do a development the big concern is kids are
going to play in the street and they're all going to get run over and
there will be blood everywhere and clearly in a more upscale, if you
will, area you're going to find more cul-de-sacs. More windy roads.
More a lot of this stuff and I think it's a community issue of perception
and the developers are telling us, typically we try to listen to them.
What it is that's selling and what it is people want and I think we
should at least pay some attention to that. I've found for example in my
neighborhood that the cul-de-sacs are very popular. I don't know if I
could go in and say that they were selling for more money but we actually
have a big loop but yet it's sort of an isolated exit through the North
Lotus Lake Park. And the loop is nice because everybody walks around it
and you get a good sense of ~eighborhood, which is one of Paul's points.
I don't necessarily want to restrict'us this discussion to safety. WHat
I'd like to do is talk a little bit about planning and neighborhoods and
things like that because I think that's what some of the issues we should
raise because everytime we talk about this, you know planning staff gets
up on their chair and salutes the flag and says, you know fire trucks and
snow plows. Well I don't care about that so much because we hear that
everytime and it's a valid concern but let's talk about some of the other
things.
Emming: Well nobody's saying we shouldn't them right?
8atzli: No but you know, what's wrong with the longer one? If a 500
foot one is good, is a 1,O00 foot one better? Why is it that we're
getting them? Is it because of access is limited to the area? Is it
because it's tough?
Farmakes: It's easier to lay out a longer cul-de-sac.
8atzli: You can get more lots in there with cul-de-sacs because you've
got less roads? Is that the deal? Is that why developer's like them?'
Farmakes: Well if you're selling to a bunker mentality, which is the
majority of people who move out here, that's what you're offering. You're
offering them a private road.
Batzli: Okay. But if we go with the theme that we let people cut down
whatever trees they want. If it's, let's cater to what the people want.
Why don't we give them long cul-de-sacs? Why do we care?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 47
Farmakes= Nell ! think you can still offer cul-de-sacs for the consumer
and still design it, for the most part, that it's a reasonable length. In
other words, we set up a parking lot where we say, this is a reasonable
distance that a consumer will get out of their car and walk to Festival
Foods. And if they limit that to 400 feet, that's a reasonable distance.
And a person who's planning that, that's the criteria that they use to
design that. If you get beyond 500 feet or so, I don't think you're
going to get little Jimmy walking down the street to get on a bus. He's
going to have his parents drop him off in a car or it's going to create a
distance problem where you're probably not going to walk to access that
pick-up point on the thru street. So what you wind up with is a lot more
functional design if you deal with 500-600, somewhere in there.
Batzli: Let me ask a question. When other people read this list of
cities, and maybe this will point me out as the snob that I am. When you
read this list of cities, do any one of you read this and say, but we're
not Eagan. We're not Burnsville. We don't care what they do. We're
something else. Or do you look at this. Something else from the
standpoint of, different area. Different type of community. There is a
different type of person who is moving to those areas and do we care what
Eagan, 8urnsville, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, Bloomington. Those things to
me are, those areas in the development have, well Bloomington maybe. West
81oomington's a little bit different but I look at these and I say, I
don't give a rip what those communities are doing. I want to know, maybe
some different lifestyles. Different kinds of people are being attracted
to those areas. I don't know. That's my feeling when I look at this
list.
Farmakes: Well is your argument though, cul-de-sacs or not cul-de-sacs
or are you talking about the length? Is that what your argument is?
8atzli: I'm talking about why are we limiting the length. If it's only
because, if we're not looking at the type of neighborhoods that these
promote or land use or anything else. If we're just going to do it for
safety, let's just say we're just going to do it for safety and be done
with I guess is kind of my sentiment.
Earnings: That's why I'd do it. I know that, I'll tell you why I come
down on this. When I was first on the Planning Commission I didn't want
any cul-de-sacs. I didn't like them. I've become convinced over time
that people like to live on them. I wouldn't wa~t to and we have a lot
of developers that told us that people want cul-de-sacs. 5o fine. I can
accept that. So then my next position is, they ought to be kept short.
Ne had a lot of discussions here abou~ long ones and the difficulties
it presents for city vehicles. £mergency vehicles. Better to have two
accesses than one. I buy that. I think it's real and so I think they
ought to be kept short. The Lundgren one was a good example where, real
clear to me that ought to be tied together. I even thought, and
Lundgren, the option should have been left open to tie that development
to development that would come to the east of that. There were some
problems with that. But I think things ought to be tied together because
I think if you're going to have cul-de-sacs they ought to be kept
reasonably short. 500-600 feet, I don't have any trouble with that.
Planning Commission Meeting
November iS, 1992 - Page 48
Batzli: How many lots under our current ordinance can go in on 600 feet?
How many are you talking about down and back? About 67 lO0 foot.
Krauss: Well you're talking, you're probably going to get about 15 on
both sides of the street and around the bubble. Lundgren's proposal
wound up with 44 homes. Now there's some fallacies about cul-de-sacs
too. I mean cul-de-sacs are supposed to offer a nice environment.
live on a cuI-de-sac. I understand why. I mean my kids pIay in it and
all that but when you've got 43 other homes coming out in front of your
home, which is nominalIy on a cul-de-sac and you're on the corner, I'd
rather be a on a loop street with 20 homes you know. You're getting a
lot less impact.
Erhart: I think that's a strong argument to sitting here trying to
figure out balance between what people want and arguing cul-de-sacs
versus the safety issues. And I think the real swing argument here for
limiting it to the 600 feet or whatever, is that if a developer wants to
sell cul-de-sacs, he can make more cul-de'sacs. He Just makes them 600
feet because you can go in and set up your street pattern to make lots of
600 foot, if that's what he really wants to sell, he can do that and meet
both criteria.
Batzli: I've got no burning desire for long cul-de-sacs. I just wanted
to see if I could get an argument. So if we're all in agreement.
Erhart: We're onto you.
Batzli: Okay, 600 foot cul-de-sacs. Let's do it. Let's talk about
islands in the middle, because we've got to get out of here.
Conrad: Before you talk, I like long cul-de-sacs.
Batzli: Oh you like them? And you didn't speak up.
Conrad: I don't know where to take that though. I wasn't here for the
Lundgren deal. I thought you guys made a major mistake when you tied
that together. .
Batzli: I didn't. I voted against it. I was the only one.
Conrad: You use cul-de-sacs when you can preserve stuff. To tie a thing
together for artificial reasons doesn't make sense.
8atzli: No, I think it gives a better sense of community and
neighborhoods.
Conrad: Cul-de-sacs are so community oriented.
Emmings: I think tying the town together and not making isolated
neighborhoods is communited oriented so I don't agree with you.
Conrad: So the cars can go speeding through.
Emmings: Do you go speeding through?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 49
Conrad: Sure.
Emmings: Well I don't, and I don't think you do either.
Conrad: I like the little neighborhoods that they create. I think you
lose a sense of community when you have ail these grid streets.
Emmings: Well what are you defining as a community? Our community ks
made up with 759 communities which are cul-de-sacs? ! mean that can't
happen.
Conrad: But my point is, I think you've got to balance the emergency
needs and I think there's some validity except.
Batzli: Dick, on a good day how far can you back up the fire truck?
Richard Wing: You know what kind of troubles we here as a Fire Chief,
I have trouble finding those z~cul-de-sacs. I don't have any trouble
finding a long street. I get up into near Timberwood Lq= there where
there's 15,000 little side streets, you can't find...
Emmings: That's enough for me.
Batzli: Well but that could be a lot of short cul-de-sacs.
Emmings= Then let's get rid of them.
Conrad: I don't even need to talk about this when I think we've got an
ordinance that keeps cul-de-sacs to the 600 feet or 500 or whatever.
Batzli: That's what we're trying to do.
Erhart: We don't. We don't have any ordinance.
Krauss: Weii it doesn't have any constriction at ail now.
Conrad: I thought.
Krauss: No, it's wide open.
Emmings: City Council was where it happened.
Erhart: Like they always do.
Krauss: Brian when you're talking about other communities, I note that
Plymouth has the most expensive average house value in the Twin Cities.
~nd Minnetonka, if I remember right, Mlnnetonka was 600 feet or 700 feet.
You could go longer if environmentally it was the only reasonable way to
serve an area.
Farmakes= Timberwood's kind of a bad example. That's 2 1/2 acres.
That's not a typical development.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 50
I'm familiar with the less prestigious parts of Plymouth
Erhart:
Kr auss:
variance.
He's going to put language in there.
Lf~NDSCAPED TSL, fl~DS ~ P~d~KW~YS.
Batzli: If we can briefly talk about landscape islands and parkways.
We'll postpone the philosophy.
Krauss: I'm sorry Dave left but you know, engineering was going to
prepare some report for the Council and you guys on that and they haven't
done it yet. I think we've generally concluded in house that everybody,
Planning Commission, City Council and many staff members, want to go with
these things. And that the engineering staff ought to figure out an
acceptable way that they can design it.
Batzli: Okay. S'o we want to postpone that. Do we want to discuss
philosophy at all?
Krauss: I don't.
PHILOSOPHY OF PI~IN~ CO~I~I~ MEETI~5 ~ REPORTS...
Batzli: Well, the reason this came up, from a philosophy standpoint,
just so everybody can think about it, was when we were talking with the
people. Which one was it on? It was a PUD.
Krauss: It was Lundgren.
Batzli: It was Lundgren over at TH $ and TH 41. Is that the one?
Krauss: Yep.
Batzli:
apparently.
Erhart: So what's the consensus here?
8atzli: The consensus is, let's go with the 600 or 700 foot. 600 foot?
Can we go with 6007
Farmakes: 5 was the old ordinance.
Batzli: Yeah but we've got a lot of 600 footers in here too. Is 600
foot a reasonable compromise there? And that's basically 2 extra homes
on the cul-de-sac.
Conrad: The key to this ordinance is talking about when it should be, I
don't care if it's 400 or 500 but when you actually can improve the
surroundings, improve the neighborhood, that means environmental type
considerations. So if we've got those built in. But I get worried about
some words when there's absolutely no other way to make this happen.
There's no question. It would be waived. It wouldn't even be a
Planning Commission Nesting
November 15, 1992 - Page
Batzli: And we ended up negotiating element by element and the comment
that came out were that this should all have been taken care of before
and yet I remember often times sentiment that staff had negotiated it
already and it was a canned deal by the time we saw it. Now granted,
maybe we would have liked a happy medium but the issue was broader and
that was, in a PUD, obviously Z think the issue there was that the
applicant probably hadn't gotten the staf~ report early enough in the
game so that they had a chance to see it and discuss it with the staff.
But the broader issue that came out of the Planning Commission was that
in the past we kind of wanted maybe more of a say in what we got in a PUD
and we had an opportunity and we whined about it. And my question was
whether we really wanted to be whinning or whether we wanted to take the
bull by the horns and tell the guys what we wanted in that PUD.
Erhart: There's got to be a balance. That one was too much.
Farmakes= I don't think that was the situation with that particular one
at all. And I think that one was more along the lines of what happened
on Oaks here where there was a breakdown of communication. Whether it
was time or notification and some of these items that were already
covered under ordinances, were not hashed out. If they're already
covered under other ordinances, they weren't that they had pressing needs
to change them. I believe that in the case of the Oaks, they hadn't
researched whether or not there were ordinances that covered that. It's
a matter of talking to city staff.
Batzli= Okay but let's look at the broader issue. I mean I brought that
up by way of example. What do you think our role should be in that
process? Should we have a rubber stamp role of looking at the'report and
saying yes, we like it. We don't like it. And I've had several comments
from commissioners that we sit here and listen to a lot of things and we
talk a lot and then we approve it after 3 hours changing one condition
out o~ 50. You know that makes for a long evening of a lot of talk and
no action and the issue is, what is our role. Should we be up here being
proactive in making suggestions? Does that mean that we need to go
through the reports better? Does that mean we need to talk to Paul
better? I mean what should we be doing on these things to make us feel
like (a> we're actually doing something. Tim.
Erhart: Our goal ought to be to spend more time establishing policy and
guidelines and if we could get it to the perfection is that we simply
pass yes or no as they come in here. If we did the perfect Job on
establishing guidelines and policy, we'd have 5 minute reviews. Now you
can't be perfect.
Batzli: Well we could but the public would want to ask a lot of
questions.
Erhart: Well you're going to want some, that's right but I think what we
have a tendency to do here is that we spend.so much time on these reviews
chewing on these things and we ended up not making any changes. We never
get any time like we get tonight. Thank goodness. This has been great
because we sit down and we establish for staff some guidelines. I think
there's where we have failed in the last couple years is we don't have
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 52
enough time to do that and that's what happens when you get into these
long things. Unfortunately what happens here in this community is we're
growing. That the guidelines have to be dynamic. They're constantly
changing. And you just can't set an ordinance out' there and then live
with it because we have to maintain time to do that. For example, one
thing I think, we could cut these discussions short if we simply would
pass an ordinance that you can't have a flat roof In the commercial
district. I tell you what, that would have cut that discussion in half
tonight. Given staff leverage to make these guys come in with something
better than what we had and give them some idea where we want to go on
these things because quite frankly we don't ever want to see another flat
roof in our commercial district. Unless it's something, an unusual flat
roof.
Batzli: Okay, Paul. Put together an ordinance on that. He's not
writing this down. I'm serious.
Emmings: I don't know if I agree with that.
Erhart: Let's find our minimum level and let's communicate it to staff
what our minimum level is so they don't have to come in here and discuss
with an applicant what's the minimum level.
Batzli: Well I think part of it is, you know a dynamic process between
the applicant saying to him or herself, I can't give up everything to
Paul because I've got to go in front of the Planning Commission and
then I've got to go in front of the Council and if they ask me for
more, I've already given it up. They want to almost kind of hold
something here and then be able to go, oh I'll give you the couple more
trees. And you know, I get a sense at times from some of the developers
that they're doing that. $o I don't think it could be a perfect yes or
no situation.
Emmings: I don't know if I agree with that because what I hear
developers saying is, Just tell me what the damn rules are and I'll make
my plan conform but don't make me guess.
8atzli: Oh see, I didn't get that from Target at all.
Earnings: Well Target, that's different.
Batzli: Well no they're not different. I mean we've seen people come
in, look at the Opus. They came in. They gave us this plan and they
knew it was going to be terrible and we were going to hammer on them but
they weren't giving staff anything.
Emmings: I think developers mainly want to know what rules. Tell me the
rules of the game. That's what I hear them saying.
Krauss: You're saying Target's different and Richard and I met with
their Landscape Architect who was, I don't know if he was whinny but he
was kind of, he was whinny. But going on about you know, he felt like a
ping pong ball but I know the folks on Target side. They were
congratulatory...Now it's a hell of a lot better than the average Target.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 53
But at least everybody knew the ground rules going into it. It drove
everybody crazy in that 4 months period but Target works for 8-9 months
on other sites and then gets rejected. It's well worth their time to
come across and compromise on a few things. And if you look at it, the
basic principals were not being argued. The idea that we wanted a better
than average building. Well yeah it took some beating to get the kind of
building but the basic concept was agreed to, The basic orientation of
the store was agreed to. The idea of protecting the'trees. All those
things up front. They knew that ahead of time.
Farmakes: But the thing I was talking about on those buildings for
instance is that it gets back to architectural standards. We're talking
the intent of those people putting up that building despite what the
gentleman from Abra said, is to put up a structure that services their
needs for the least amount of money possible. That's what their goal is.
Krauss: And maintains their identity. That argument was the same
argument that McDonald's came up with when they said every building has
to have golden arches. Well McDonald's doesn't do that anymore and
apparently Abra hasn't matured to that level but there's no reason why
you have to accept it.
Farmakes: Well hopefully we're providing a different perspective that
gives you checks and balances but the point is well taken. If they don't
have a guide, which is difficult to do because that would be to say, in
this case both applicants were building the same building with the same
intent and the same use. To some extent I guess that's true but you had
two different building proposals here. And it seems to me they' were both
beating the same goals. Certainly the question whether or not they paint
the cinder brick gray versus tan is kind of a moot point it seems to me.
Batzli: As one final issue here before, are people comfortable now with
the increased number of conditions we're seeing in all these reports or
do they want to go back to the good old days where there's about 3 in
there and everything else is pursuant to the plans as shown or that we
received?
Ledvina: Well obviously it's better to have fewer conditions with the
most up to date site plan but that's not possible to do. Staff is
working hard to get as many positive modifications as possible and that's
good. But it's nice like what we saw today with the Goodyear/Abra. You
know we had plans that didn't, the landscaping plan for example didn't
reflect what was actually agreed to and those type of things you know
should try to be resolved if we can.
Erhart: When they come in, you have an agreement how many weeks this is
going to go to Planning?
Krauss: Yeah. From the day they drop it on my desk we get it to you, it
comes up 4 weeks later.
Erhart: Whether it's a small project or a big project. I think what
would make sense is to have a graduated scale based on the size of the
project so that bigger projects, they have to come in earlier on bigger
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 54
projects to get a certain date. That allows you to finish these
negotiations because I sense many times this stuff is coming in here and
quite frankly you just ran out of time.
Krauss: Well, that can happen. I like to think we don't do it too often
but you know, I like having you around. I mean there's a good cop/bad
cop kind of thing going on. Beimsner and his group, I mean Sharmin and
I have been telling him this for 6 months. Americana Bank, we told them
that for $ months and they go okay, well I'll add an awning. Well
okay, I'll put up a dormer. Okay, I'll do this and after 6 months you
go, I don't know. Let's just throw it at the Planning Commission. And
if you come up and say, this thing is lousy and jump all over it or this
thing is good, I think it puts it all into perspective. And I know in
the case of Americana Bank, I mean you had the bank President here kind
of reared up and said, geez I guess what staff was saying is probably
true and I don't want to come into the community if you don't really want
me to do it that way. I'll go redesign it and I think the building that
we're getting now is a pretty good one because of that process. So don't
take yourselves out of the role. we need you to be there. We can only
take it so far.
Earnings: The problem there is Paul, like tonight on the Goodyear/Abra
thing. My sense was that we were going a good cop/bad cop thing but I
wasn't sure and I wasn't sure if you were saying that under the zoning
that we pushed them as far as we could. Lots of times I have a sense of
what you've been telling them and kind of what you're looking to us for
and I didn't have it on that one tonight. So good cop/bad cop works but
only if I know what you've been telling them.
Krauss: And that's my fault too. You know Sharmin wrote the report and
I didn't, usually I add some language that tries to get across the
essence. But I'll be honest, I mean there were some things I'd rather
not say or commit to on camera if I'm going to be hauled into Court to
defend the City's position on something.
Batzli: I think one of the things we can do is clearly, I mean obviously
there's going to be chances, opportunities for us to play this good
cop/bad cop role but there may be something to a much larger development.
Four weeks not being enough time to do the job you want to do with it and
if we are having a problem with this, maybe we want to look at changing
those rules. That may be one thing we could do. The other thing we could
do is to make sure that the agendas don't get too long. A large reason,
in my opinion, that we suddenly have 3 people drop off the' Commission, or
about to, is because the meetings last too long. One is because of my
pansy way of running the meetings that I let everybody sit up there and
talk for hours and of course that didn't happen when Steve was running
the meetings. But another reason is surely the size of the agendas that
we've had. And I don't know how we move things along while at the same
time shortening the agenda but we need to work on that so that the people
who are on the commission feel like they can stay on the commission and
not worry about getting up for work the next day.
Krauss: It's tough and you know we've had more packed agendas in the
past. We've actually had a fairly lenient couple years in terms of new
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 55
development.
Batzli: Yeah but we've had a lot of cases where a lot of people came in
and they all wanted to talk and they all had good points. And the issue
is, didn't they have neighborhood meetings. What's happening on some of
these things? Is it just because development is approaching some of
these old neighborhoods? ! don't know.
Krauss: Well I think you're also finding, the City's growing larger.
People are moving out from Bloomington and Edina and are used to being
active and know how to make the system work for them. And I think
there's been a series of projects that you've seen recently where we've
gotten the developer to make some very significant accommodations but
you'd never know it hearing the residents, talk because ! mean they have
their agenda and here's this phone book of their agenda.
Farmakes: Are you talking about the last meeting?
Krauss: Yeah.
Batzli: Well I don't know. It seems we certainly have to work on
because I agree with Tim that it's more fun to talk up here and be
proactive than to sit there and, ! don't mind listening to the residents
but on some of these they get extremely long and tedious and you start
looking at the clock and you're thinking less about what's being said
than I've got to get up at 6:00 tomorrow morning and I've got to do this
and that before I go to bed. We can't do that.
Conrad: I've talked to people about it and I can't do that. It just
doesn't work.
Batzli: Right now is a perfect time to quit and we're going to and this
is what it should be like every week when we meet.
Krauss: Some communities do limit agendas. We haven't done that. If
you'd like us to do that.
Batzli: Well I have the authority under the By-laws to call the meeting
at 10:30 and I've felt like it at some times. Is it 11:-007 Whatever it
is. I mean it's in there, the power to do it but you typically, it's
when there's still $0 people in the room and I feel pretty silly telling
them, sorry. It's time to go home.
Krauss: See I know, one of the things that the Mayor in Minnetonka was
pretty good at doing is looking at his watch, and they had an 11:00
deadline. At 10:00 and saying, look it folks... I don't think we're going
to get to your item. You're welcome to hang around and see if you want
to. Otherwise we can get it off the agenda now and make you first on the
agenda next time and you can go home and catch the 10:00 news. But it's
your choice.
.
8atzli: But usually, and this is partly, in large part communication
between whoever's chairing and you is to figure out what are the hot ones
and why are all'these people here and trying to figure out how to juggle
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1992 - Page 56
that. And maybe I can help a little bit on that too but you should have
advanced inkling of which ones are hot, or hopefully you do.
Krauss: You know I used to be able to tell you that we always knew..
There's something that bothers me a little bit lately and it's that
sometimes we don't know. That some residents have felt that the more
appropriate way to respond is to get the petition. Get everybody all
riled up before they ask any questions and hopfutly become enlightened.
And they're kind of by-passing us which worries me.
Conrad: One comment on my part. And this is probably self critical more
than anything else but I think it's real important. We drag out issues.
In the last couple months it's been real clear. Brian you use one of the
examples where we beat something up for 3 hours here and we made one, and
we were very negative and we made one lousy change to what the staff
report said and [ tell you, I think we're real good at disecting stuff.
We really are and we typically come up with some thin~s that I think are
pretty good that we send up to City Council but there have been some
cases recently where we'll spend an inordinate amount of time and not
know where we're going. And some of it's process. If you talk about
something sooner or later maybe you come up with a solution but we hadn't
in many cases, and that's gotten real frustrating. Sometimes I don't
know where I want to go on an issue so it's good to hear people talk. $o
I'm going to speak out of both sides of my mouth. Yet on the other hand,
there's some cases where geez, we're just saying nothing and I don't
think we're taking the issue any further. But unfortunately, I'll make
that comment and there's no solution. Tonight on the only hot issue,
I knew what the issues I had and I tried to be brief, and .typically I'm
not but I tried to be and say here's where I'm at and hand it off to
somebody else. Rather than just make.
Erhart: Limit the number of commissioners at a meeting to 5.
Batzli: One final thing before we adjourn here and I don't know if'we
accomplished a lot but maybe we at least got some things off our chest
and we can think about it more and work on it. I appreciate at least two
of the people, I know with holidays coming up and everything else, it"s
sometimes I don't even know if we'll have 2 meetings in December, is to
thank Commissioners Erhart and Emmin~s, (and Ahrens), for their service
on the Commission. They will be missed and I hope that City Council does
something nice for them.
Emmings: What do you like? I like cars.
Conrad:
trees.
I think maybe they deserve some kind of thing for cutting down
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meetly. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim