Loading...
1991 01 02CHANH~SSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 1991 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMB~-~S PRESENT: Tim Erha. rt, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Bria~ eatzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAF~ PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plan~r; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner 1; and Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer PU8L~C HEARING: ' JERR~ PERKINS, POPE ASSOCIATES - PROPERTY ZONED 8H AND LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE tDRIVE EAST, EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE AND SOUTH OF HW~ S: " A. 4ITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,042 SQUARE FOOT VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION. 8. REPLAT OF CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. = Public Present:  ame Address . Don ,~agen 33-lOth Avenue So., Suite 100, Hopkins 55343 StaniKrzywicki 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina Jerr~ Perkins, Pope Assoc. 1300 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul Dennis Palmer, Systems Control, 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina Richard Kubik Tom ~otsonas Alex Krengel Walter Rockenstein Alan Klugman A1 IFerson Richard Andreson Donald Chmiel Richard Wing Tom ~orkman UrsUla Dimler Systems Control 8001 Cheyenne Avenue 8009 Cheyenne Avenue Faegre & Benson, 2200 Norwest Center, 905 7th Street, Minneapolis 55402-390i Westwood Professional Associates PMT Corp PMT Corp City council City council City Council City Council sha~min Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing.to order. Walter Rockenstein: Chairman, my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an attorney with Faegre & Benson. We're the legal counsel for Systems Control. I think we'd like to have two parts to our presentation. First one-of the major questions that's been asked each time we've been before the:Planning Commission is how we're going to handle traffic accessing this sit·. We have Alan Klugman from Westwood Professional Associates who's going to address that issue and when he's finished addressing the traffic .,~ issue I'd like to come back and go through the conditions that the staff has proposed dealing with each one of those and indicating those that we Plann_~ng Commission Neeting 3anua/y 2, 199~L - Page 2 are ih agreement with, which is most of those, and the one or two that we have ~ome disagreement with and the reasons for our disagreement. So I'd like ~o have Mr. Klugman begin the presentation by talking about traffic. Alan ~lugman: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of overheads if it would be okay ~o speak from the projecter there? .i Conrad. uh-huh. Alan ~lugman: I'd like to talk to 3 issues tonight. First is a brief descr.~ption of trip generation characteristic of this site. The second issueI would be a description of the assignment of site traffic and then final_~y the third issue would be an assessment of the impact of site t. raff~c both on the surrounding roadway system and the site itself, or I shoulH say the on-site operations. Before I get into the full discussion I'd l~ke to start with a few quick definitions so we're all on the same terms~. The first one is vehicle trip. In terms of traffic engineering as an exRmple, if one car arrives at the testing stations completes it's test and lbaves, we're calling that 2 vehicle trips or vehicle trip ins. All the nbmbers that I'll be describing tonight are vehicle trips. The next two terms relate to the different days of the month that we will observe out there. The first one is the average day, or the typical day during the cours~ of the month. The second day is the peak day which reflects basically the last 5 days, the last 5 working days of the month. Based on these-programs in other states, there's a surge in inspections towards the end oil the month as people rush to get their inspections completed prior to their_ expirations of their licenses. Typically in the other states where Syst~s Control operates, they've observed peaking of about i50~ to 160~ of · the a~erage day at the end of the month and in fact for design purposes, that. works out to 156~ is what we've used. The final term is the peak hour. For this particular site we're looking at two different peak hours. If I can go to the bottom one, that's the peak hour of the surrounding roadway system which in this area is approximately 4:30 to 5:30 That's when TH 5 and the various cross streets are at their busiest. The site ~itself, the trip generation characteristics of the site itself show a peaking in the late morning and on into the noon hour. In fact during the typiCal p.m. peak hour, the roadway system of the site itself is about approximately half of our typical hourly volume for the day~ So just to reiterate the peak hour for the site does not coincide with the peak hour of the roadway system. Approximately the next 3 graphics I have here will be a quick run through of the trip generation characteristics both for this site and for other auto or into land uses. All the graphics ISm showing tonight are the ones that we showed at the neighborhood public meetin~ a few weeks ago with the exception of some count data for the McDonald's which we completed after that meeting. If we go to the right two most columns of this chart we see what the typical projected traffic is for the Syst8ms Control site. Ail the numbers that I'm dealin~ with in reference to Systems Control represent the year 1998 which is the final year of the 7 year contract that SC has with the State to provide this program and of course in 1998 the vehicle registrations will be a bit higher than they are today. And then also for this site we're looking at two different time peri,ds. The right most column here is the peak at the end of the month. The column one in from that is the typical average day of the month. So in summary, the site itself is expected to generate 1,260 trips on the busiest ,! Plann~ng Commission Meeting Janua,Ty 2, 1991 - Page 3 day oX the month. Approximately 810 trips on a typical day. The other 3 uses that we show here, a gas station a fast food restaurant and a drive in bank are typical national averages based on data collected by the I!qstitute of Transportation Engineers. They do not necessarily reflect any ose site in Chanhassen but rather their typical national averages so this '~uts the particular testing site in some type of perspective. Moving from % daily basis to an hourly basis, one of the questions that came up at the ~ighborhood public meeting was how does the particular McDonald's . ~ adjac~bnt to this site compare versus the typical uses that we talked about and t~a~ e column on the far right summarizes that. We conducted a traffic count~ at the McDonald's for both the lunch hour period and for the evenin~ dinn~ time period and we saw that during the typical one hour period, the McDonald's site generated at lunch time about 300 trips. For the Systems Control site we're showing 4 different bar charts. I hope it's not too compl!icated but basically the ones on the left represent the average day and ~he ones on the right represent the peaking at the end of the month and withi.~n those two sets we also have the p.m. peak hour which is on the left and ~he noon hour which is the higher hour so just to cut to maybe the highsst number, the 176 trips is what we estimate in 1998 at the end of the month for the busiest hour of the day which is approximately 11:00 to 12:0(~. 11:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon. That's the number of trips that-this site would generate. During the busiest time of the roadway system, the p.m. peak hour, we're looking at less than half that or the 76 trip~ for the p.m. peak hour. Now if we look at this number again here, the ~6 trips from the p.m. peak hour and then put that in some perspective compared to other typical land uses. Typical auto oriented land uses. Agai,, we looked at the gas station. A typical fast food restaurant. A typical drive in bank. The two Systems Control numbers both for the average and the peak at the end of the month and then finally the exact count we did at the McDonald's so there's a lot of numbers up here but I ~ues$ what we're trying to do is show some perspective that in the busiest hour of the month the testing site is expected to generate about 76 trips duri~]9 the p.m. peak hour. During that same time period on a typical day, the mearby restaurant generates about 97 trips~ conrad: Are those today's numbers or the future numbers? Alan Klugman: The 97 is today's count. The 76 would be the 1998 value so it'd~be the highest value. Maybe if I could step back for one moment in term¢ of where the numbers came for the Systems Control site. In some of the other data that's been submitted to the city, there's a description of the overall metropolitan wide system. Unless there's specific questions we won't go into a great deal about that but in summary there's 11 sites located throughout the metropolitan area. The sites vary in terms of their sizeland how many vehicles they're expected to service on a typical year. The sites are ali. located within what we call geocenters of population that each'serve different areas and the numbers of inspections is then projected based on the population within that area so this is part of a system wide projection for all 11 sites. Going onto the second phase of my discussion which is the assignment of the site traffic, we worked with David 8raslau of David Braslau and Associates who Dr. Braslau also completed the air and noise quality analysis. Working with Dr. 8raslau we generated this direction of approach assumption which again is based on the fact that there's 11 sites spread throughout the metropolitan area and the traffic to : Plann~ng Commission Neeting Janua.¥¥ 2, 1991 - Page 4 any one site would be more or less balanced via the major roadways that serv~ that site. The nearest proposed sites to this one are one in Minn~onka to the north and to the east will be sites in Savage and in the Bloo~ngton/Richfield area. But in summary we show that along the major road~ys, TH 5 we're looking at approximately 40~ from the east, approximately 254 from the west and then some more local movements via TH 101 ~n the downtown area of about 5~. As I guess we've discussed previously, with this site we're on Lake Drive south of TH 5 and we have two ~ajor access points from TH 5. Of course the closest one is Dakota Aven~e and then further to the east we have 184th Avenue or Dell Road and bothiof those sites are within the improvement area for TH 5 which I'm sure the ~lanning Commission is very well aware of. What we have here is a sketch both for the Dakota Avenue intersection and also for the new intersection which will be at 184th Avenue. Dakota Avenue will be a rebuilt, reconfigured intersection to include turn lanes in each direction, median islands, a new signalized intersection and then further to the east along TH 5 the intersection of Dell Road and 184th would also be very similar in character with median islands and turn lanes. The time table for ~hat shows that this improvement along TH 5 will be occurring in about the ~ext 1 to 2 years out to CR 17 so it does dovetail nicely with when this~site will come on line. The roadway pictures that we showed here we received from the MnDot design plans and those are the ones that we and Dr. Braslau used for analysis purposes and I guess real quickly running through the analysis. Level of service calculations were done for the major intersections for the site generated traffic both for baseline conditions and for the baseline with the site added on top. And for the one year after opening, an analysis of that period shows that for both of the major intersections at 184th Avenue and at Dakota Avenue along TH 5, the overall level of service at the intersection would not be impacted or would not change with the addition of the site generated traffic in the p.m. peak hour which is a critical hour for the roadway system. Now the one other inte~rsection that we looked at was the intersection of Lake Drive with Dakota Avenue which of course is a stop sign controlled intersection which would serve a majority of the site traffic. Using the stop ~sign analysis method with the base line traffic and the addition of a site generated traffic for both the p.m. peak hour, busiest hour of the roadway system and the ~noon hour, busiest hour of the site, that unsignalized intersection can adequately accommodate the traffic volumes. $o I guess in short summary, thi~ one site added to the baseline traffic would cause no impact to the surrounding roadway system. Finally the final point I'd like to make is an analysis of the on site operations which is a question that seems to come up with every site that we look at and that is the ability of the site itself to store and queue the vehicles that need t.o be served right on site. If I can refer to the first picture that you had up that shows the site. Thank you. The site itself has approximately 875 feet of stacking in the various lanes to serve this site. We ran an analysis using typical queueing analysis procedures. It's a type of analysis you could use for drive in bank, drive in restaurant, vehicle testing site. Any site that has drive up traffic. Using that analysis and typical queuing methods, we looked at the length of stacking that we have available. We looked at how many vehicles could stack in that amoumt and using a conservative value of about 25 feet per stacked vehicle, we can store approximately 35 vehicles on the site. We then ran an analysis where we looked at a probability of wha~ is the busiest flow rate within the busiest hour of the busiest day so Planning Commission Meeting 3anuafy 2, 1991 -. Page 5 : it's ~he peak within the peak within the peak and we said at a 1~ probability of overflowing the site, how big would the site need to be. When ~e worked out those numbers, we conclude that a site that can store 23 vehic,les on it would have a 1~ chance of backing up with the busiest time in th~ busiest hour of the busiest day. Okay, so 23 vehicles would give us that ~ chance of backing up. This site conservatively can store 35 vehicles which gives us at least a dozen vehicles to safety factor beyond that !1~ chance. So we feel that there's definitely adequate space here to stor~ all the vehicles on the site and when I say on site~ that's before the ~Jblic cul-de-sac. I guess if there's no questions, that's hopefully kind ~of a brief run through of the traffic aspects and if there are no questions, I'll turn it back to Mr. Rockenstein. · Walter Rockenstein: I'd like to go briefly down through the conditions that !are indicated on pages 17, 18 and 19 and indicate those that we're in agreement with and those where we have difficulty. We start out with perhaps the biggest difficulty in that we remain in disagreement with the staf~ over the need for a mansured roof on the facility. These testing stations not surprisingly since it's a metropolitan wide system, have been designed to present as identical a view to customers coming to them as is possible. The information that will be sent out ahead of time on these stations will include photographs of the stations. Will include we hope the maps that indicate the way to approach the station. The hope is that the uniform look of the station will make it easy to find and easy to · locate and identify. All of the other cities that we have been in to date havel approved the design that we have indicated which does not include a mansard roof and Systems Control believes that that design is the one they shouild use here. Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design at your disposal? Walter Rockenstein: I beg your pardon? Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design? Wal~er Rockenstein: It's a design much like this building with a straight parapet roof. We would increase the height of that parapet to provide scr®ening higher than it is shown on those plans. That is one of the issues that was raised was the need to screen the equipment on top and we'~e in agreement that that must be done and would be providing that. If you look at the site itself and the surrounding buildings, you would find that only one of the surrounding buildings has a mansard roof or one that's eve~ sloped and that is the McDonald's. The office building which will be' immediately across TH 5 has a flat roof with a parapet. The buildings to the~east are all flat roof also with parapet so we don't agree with the staff's conclusion that this is in the heart of the business district where mansard roofs are the norm. That in fact is not the norm at this site. We also find it interesting that the City Hall which is much closer to the heaYt of the business district is not a mansard or sloped roof but is a flat roof, exactly the same as we're proposing. We agree with the need for a sign plan and the need to obtain sign permits as indicated in number 2 but we would indicate that on 2(c) it is MnDot that has to give the final approval to signage located in State rights-of-ways so although we can put it on the map and we intend to have it and we hope that the PCA will Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 6 suppc~t us in achieving that, it's only MnDot that can give that final ., approval with respect to the State highways and in fact it is only the City that can give approval for the City's rights-of-way. This is in number 3 we'rD really corning back to the plan that was originally submitted by Systems Control. Systems Control originally submitted a private road withe ut a cul-de-sac. It was the City that requested the shift of the cul-~ e-sac and if the City wishes to move back to the private road, we are happ>'~ to do that and we agree that if you use a private road, you will have to h~ve permanent cross easements and you'll have to have the maintenance agre~.ment and we would be providing those. We will, as is required, obtain the ~ermit from the Watershed District and we do agree that when further devel.'opment occurs on Chanhassen Maven Plaza, the other site that we would have'to extend that sewer piping to the future detention pond'. We are in agre%ment with number 5 that you have to use Type III erosion control to protect the wetland. The landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East~ Systems Control would like to provide that. I understand that that land~ is owned by Mr. Hagan who also owns the remaining land and he would have~ to be in agreement with that. He's here tonight and can indicate whet~er he's in agreement but we would want to provide that screening for the ~eighbors to the south. We will also provide the detailed cost estibate of landscaping and the additional landscaping on the north side of the trash enclosure. We would expect to construct the sanitary sewer and the watermain improvements and acquire the necessary utility permits from MnDo~t and whatever permits might be required from the Pollution Control Ager~cy and the Department of Health, although I haven't located one yet thab's required by the Department of Health. It may be that one there's one-from the PtA. We do expect to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial guarantees and the flammable waste separater that's being suGGested is already a part of Systems Control's plan. It's a standard feature of all 11 of their testing stations. With respect to the subdivision, we do expect to pay park and dedication fees. We will provide the~(a) thru (d). (d) of course will depend on the final drainage plan as the site is redesigned for a private road. I can't speak to (e) because the-~only portion of the plat that's being required is being taken from the ~jm.]~,in~ property, not from that that's being acquired by Systems Control but~we assume that the adjoining property owner is in agreement with that~ The! cross access and utility easements. We are in agreement that those will have to be provided again and we are in agreement that the currently existing drainage easement would not be necessary any longer and could be vacated. With respect to the conditional use permits, we would expect as a part of that to have number 1 be one of the conditions and number 2, the direction maps are subject to M~CA approval. I'm sorry we can't make them sut~ject to your staff's approval. The final approval there is the Pollution Control Agency. We would be happy 'to submit our prototypes to your staff for suggestions but the final approval there is the MPCA's. We will maintain a contract with the services for the State of Minnesota. The co~tract is 7 years in length and we have already agreed previously before this commission on the other site that we do not intend to perform repairs or ~to sell gas or parts. The program does not involve the testing of diesels or heavy trucks. We would intend to maintain the site in compliance with State and Federal Air and Noise StaDdards and in fact have submitted da~a to indicate that we will. We are in agreement that we can provide a compliance report within 6 months after operation to the City. We're concerned I have to say a little bit about the City's unlimited license to Planning Commission Neeting January 2, 1991 - Page 7 ask us at. any time to prepare reports. A full blown air quality study or a full noise study is an expensive proposition. We would like to suggest that ~f the first report turns up showing compliance after 6 months on the site,~ that you consider an alternative that if the city requests the study and ~e study turns out that we're in compliance, the city would pay for it. ~f it turns out we're not in compliance, we'll pay for it and make the chan~c~e, s that are necessary. We think that's a fair way to proceed. If the City ~then has reason to believe that we are in violation, they can ask us to s~ply the report and if ~e axe, ~e'll pay for it and we'll make the · appropriate changes. And the last one I think ~e simply need to agree with staf~ on some definition of what constitutes fire lanes, drive aisles, access drive or public rights-of-way. We believe that ~e have adequate stacking space without being in any of those but we think, we hope ~e are in a~reement. We don't precisely know what they mean by drive aisles. We use ~hat term to include the stacking space. I suspect that theM'Ye using it i.~ a more narro~ fashion and ~e need to figure that out. We are confident that without being in the way of anybody coming into or leaving the Site, including fire trucks, that we have sufficient stacking space. That~completes our response to the various conditions and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Just for quick clarification on point number 6 under conditional use ~ermit. You basically disagree with paying for a study after 6 months? Is that what you said? You led off by saying you didn't want to do a~whole series of reports so that got me confused. They're asking, the Cityi staff is asking for one. Walter Rockenstein: We have no problem with demonstrating to you 6 months after we're in operation at our cost that we're in compliance. It's the sub~equent ones and the expense of them. Conceiveably, although I doubt it, ithe City could ask us for one of those every month and that would be a sevmral thousand dollar expenditure on a monthly basis to do those reports. Conrad: Anything else from your side? Wal~er Rockenstein: We're available for questions as other people testify~ Conrad: I'm sure there will be some. Thanks. Okay, we will open it up for public comments. So if there are any on anything you've heard or haven't heard, we'd sure like to hear them. Is there anything? Maybe I could start, it off a little bit. I'm curious. There Nas a neighborhood meeting. What did come out of the neighborhood meeting? What were the concerns of the neighbors? Have they been addressed? Who was there? Walter Rockenstein: Several neighbors are here and I'd really feel more comfortable if they spoke for themselves but I'll try to summarize the meeting. We made a presentation which was really a combination of the ear,~ier presentation we made to the Planning Commission where we explained whoi Systems Control is and made sure of the inspection program. Ail the different requirements that have been placed on us by the PCA. The fact that it Nas a competitive process to 9et there and then we ~ent through all. of ;the site diagrams and pictures of this location. MT. Klugman did his analysis without the facts about the McDonald's. One of the questions asked was what is the traffic that McDonald's actually generates and so we Planning Commission Meeting 3anuaty 2, 1991 - Page 8 went out and counted it because we thought that was a legitimate question that -~eighbors had a right to know about. A second specific concern which was r~ised was a concern about headlights as people leave the site projecting into the homes to the south, and you see the staff recommendation as a result of that. That we try to put berming and foliage in there to alleviate that and we're in agreement with that recommendation. Questions were raised about traffic afterwards and we continue to try to ask ~hose questions. Some people were concerned about the relative height of t~e structure and suggested that we lowered it somewhat by lowering the area ~it was on. It turned out when we got the plans out with Mr. Krzywicki that !we had shaved more than 2 feet off the existing height of the site in an e~fort to level it off a little bit so I thought we had addressed that one ~ut if there are others, ~e'd be happy to have the neighbors come up and ~ddress them now and we'll continue to try to address them. Conrad: Any comments from the neighbors anybody? Tom ~©tsonas: Ton] Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne and one of the neighbors that attended the other meeting~ And the summary that was given is l~ would say is fairly accurate of our concerns. Basically since we've been here before dealing with other businesses that have gone into the area., we re concerned with the amount of traffic. We see this bringing in a '°h~ge" amount of traffic on a continual basis. Their hours are going to be, I forget what time they said they open in the morning but they're goin~ to 9o to 7:00 p.m. in the evenin~ which of course during the summertime and the ~weather when it's nice, people like to be out in their yards. We're looking at a large volume of traffic with McDonald's already and this is goi~ to add since this is the time that people are getting out of work and it'~ most convenient for them to come in and have their car checked. Saturdays are goin~ to be open from sometime in the morning until approximately 2'00 p.m. in the afternoon. That's another dam that adds to the large amount of traffic that other types of businesses would not be ope~q at that time necessarily. Them refer to all the types of businesses tha~ would .go in there would be fast foods, which of course our neighborhood would wish not to see that become a fast food lane. Or traffic bearin.g another gas station or service station or restaurant type thi~.g. There are other types of businesses that would go in there that wou~d nowhere near generate the kind of traffic that they're talking about generating. We do feel somewhat better if there's some serious attempt to put in vegetation, trees or various types of things on the south side. Of course we realize that's private land along that stretch. The road has air'early, the new road that's gone in there, the widening and e×pandin9 of it,~ took out some protection that was there already. And also some things that they're talkin~ about putting in on the north side. Basically it's what ~e see is a large amount of traffic borderin~ on a residential neighborhood and we see that as a detriment to the neighborhood, k/isual effects, it's hard to tell from pictures exactly. We see this as a .glorified .gas station I guess is the best ~ay I can put it. It's goin~ to be all kinds, if it's not trucks but I mean it's all kinds of vehicles co~ing in there. There's noise that's goin~ to affect us and we're looking at, when I get done working at 4:00-5:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the evening, this is when we're going to be looking at a fair amount of traffic with the expansion of the highway. With McDonald's and anything else that .goes in in addition to this in the future and then we're looking at . Plannlng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 9 Saturday traffic until I think it was 2:00 p.m. they're talking about on Satu~ays that they're going to be open. So I guess that's our concerns on that~a ~ rea . Thank MOL/ Conr~' Okay. Thank you for your comments. Tom otsonas: Oh, one other thing. One of the reasons, and ~hether or not you ~gree. One of the reasons the neighborhood is not here in larger numbers is that there is a definite ~eeling, and this is a negative statement but there is a definite 'Feeling ~hat it doesn't really do much good'-for people to come and speak at these meetings because everything that's happened in the past, there's lip service given ~o things but nothing ever really takes place as fat as Ne see accommodations. I don't mean;to, I guess it is a negative stabement and that's the way the neighborhood feels and so there a~e t~o of us here and the same thing at the ~eeting that we a~tended before. Half a dozen people but get ~he rest of the people out because they feel, well why go. Conrad: Many things take energy and the neighborhoods that stick with issubs sometimes make changes. And again, I don't want to appear too defeeslve on your comments because I think there's, anytime you deal ~ith government., you kno~.~ it's like boy. How do I get control over what they're doi~m. 'That's probably why some of us are serving here can :be sensitive. Yet most o~ the time when you want it to be sensitive, you'~ve got to get there in advance. It's like you should be talking about the ;comprehensive plan and is this the right area for highway business use whidh is ~ha~ that land, this is one development, and there are going to be several more because we've always allocated that space for business. What we call high~ay business uses. Tom~Kotsonas: Not always. When I moved into that neighborhood it was zon®d residential and so the people that live along that stretcln were not looking at this highway use and it seems that when we appeared in large num6ers to protest that, it's business highway. When McDonald's moved in, we appeared in large numbers for a considerable length of time and it turned out the same so we put great amounts of effort, time and financial dollars into all of those things. The results were the same as if people had:stayed home so when you say you have to get out and do your thing, I undbrstand. The squeaky wheel usually gets oiled, we'd like to think. Conrad: It gets you involved in government but I know what you're saying. Other comments? Anything else? Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Let's start down with you Tim. Erhart: I'd like to point out to that gentleman there, the reason we're here tonight is that citizens opposed the construction of this site in an industrial park and so pressure was brought there not to put it there..~. and talk against it so I think the fact that you're here tonight underlines th~ fact that I think the City does listen. One of the reasons... With that little comment, I'll start. Dave what, .the pond and you have some : Planning Commission Meeting 3anua~y 2, 1991 - Page 10 ; complicated way of getting water off of the site. It sounds like it's not goin~ to work perfectly. Dave, you're responsible for that? Folck4: Charles? Erhaw%: Charles? Where'd I get Dave. Okay, anyway. Why, page 9, can you explain under grading and drainage? I didn't quite understand... It was talk2ng about drainage of storm water and water backing up into the parking lot. ! Fo!c~: Well basically initially it was looked at as trying to create one location to drain the entire vehicle inspection site and that typically look~d to be located adjacent to the wetland area. However due to grade limi'¢ations it wasn't possible to accomplish that so in an effort to try andfevelop a satisfying drainage scheme the site was basically broken up into~3 areas for drainage. The northern half of the site which will contain pretty much the area north of the building, ~hich is impervious. That[area was designed to drain north to the existing .high~ay ditch. Now most~ of that area currently does drain that way and so with the grading scheme it seemed to work out well. As our ordinance requires, a site developing has to maintain a predeveloped' runoff rate and typically that occults with pending. In this particular situation, you'll notice the norQhern half of the site there's no room to really construct any type of pon~ing situation so what the applicant proposed to do was restrict the flo~ rate with a pipe size restriction and thereby during certain peak sto~m events, there will be some minimal pending occurring in the pavement are~ up there. We're talking minimum. Maybe a few inches of water depth for a short period of time in that area. Erh~rt.: Why can't you use the area designated as the swamp? Fol~h: Pardon me? Erh~.rt: Why can't you make this, what you desiginate on the drawing as a swamp. Why can't you make that into a pending area? '7 Folch: The existing wetland area? Erh~rt: Yeah. Folch: Well typically an area that you have like that we'd normally want to See some type of pre-treatment of the runoff going to that wetland area. Right now it's mostly impervious area that's draining to it. When you drain parking lot areas which contain gasoline and oils and things like that, you normally don't want to discharge those directly into a wetland and so what we had originally. Erhm. rt: Where's it going to go to on the storm water? Fetch: Pardon me? Erhart: So it enters the storm water going north right? Folch' Uh-huh. Planning Commission Meeting Janua[y 2, 1991 - Page 11 Erhar~: Okay, where does that Folc~: Well initially it will just discharge into the ditch area on the soutk side of T~ 5. In the future NnDot, the TH proposing to construct a storm sewer through there which this system will tie ~irectly into. Erha~t: Okay, so where does that storm water system go to? Folc~: I believe that will drain, there's an existing 42 inch that runs nort6/south along the easterly border of the property and I believe that all ~rains down south. I believe it is to another wetland area north of RiceiMarsh Lake I believe. Erhart: What controls the level of the water in this wetland now? Folch: Basically what runs into it. There's no outlet for it. Kraups: There was a fundamental problem with using the wetland. That was ori~inally our approach and direction to the applicant. We want to keep enoutgh water in the wetland that it remains viable. The problem with the wet~and though Commissioner Erhart is that it's elevated too high. When you'~re out at the site, you actually see that the wetland's tipped up at the ~ihigher edge of the site and the rest of it flows down the other way and it Just wasn't physically possible to drain the site into that thing and the~ have it discharge. To do that you would have had to excavate out the wet~and and made a big sump out of it and you would have destroyed the natural feature. Erh~rt: I don't know how much excavation. KraUss: It was fairly significant. I don't recall exactly how much but it was in the realm of 5 or 6 feet. Erh~rt: ...higher on the north end. Well, anyway you looked at that~ Krauss: That was our first preference. Er hart: ...try to maintain water on site as much as possible rather than directing the storm water. It just seemed to me without looking at the el~vations...a missed opportunity to retain more water on the site as well as ~improve the wetland because it really is, in going out there last summer and looking at it, I remember that was a poor quality wetland. Krauss: It was but it's actually made a startling recovery either because of McDonald's putting more water into it or the fact that there was more water last year~ It's turned out to be quite attractive and in fact the owDer of McDonald's, Gene Borg is quite partial to it these days~ Ne~s put a ~etland theme into the McDonald's restaurant~ Erhart: The problem without water control you never know from year to yea~ what they're ~oin~ to end up with. _ Planning Commission Meeting JanlJ. a,~y 2, 1991 - Page 12 Kraus~: We did ask the developer though to structure this plan so that at leastlas much if not a little more water than 'Feeds into that wetland today will. _bont. inue to do so. They've got the building itself and a portion of the ~outhern parking lot flowing into the wetlands so it will continue to get ~ater. ~]rha~t: 14ell I think the location here is pretty much superior than the previous~' location. I empathize with the neighbors. The fact that we have access here from both Dell Road and Dakota makes it a much more viable site than iwhat I said all along was a glorified gas station. It's better than what.-iwe were talking about before. I also agree that I think a cul-de-sac woul~ be a rea]. problem because you really don't have, it's difficult to cont~.ol...I don't know how you're going to accomplish that. Normally we ki. nd~of like to look at those things as far as site plan review and we won'~ be able to do that tonight so I guess without development of the othe~ site, I'm not sure how we're going to, are you going to try to plan t. hatl in advance how you would access to the two other parcels or how are you actually going to lay out the internal? Kraqss: Well what we were going to do is set up this driveway so that it bas]zcally runs straight into this property and then as we envisioned it, we T o~f future connections to that. Right Dow Lot 2 is proposed as one lot. It'~ very conceiveable that it will be divided in half. If that's the cas~, they will probably have to share a common entrance onto this private driveway. You'll have an opportunity to review that however when they actually propose development on there. Erhart: $o you'd still put a curve in or create...? Kra~ss: That remains to be seen. However, the reason for the curve is there was a desire to maximize the amount of land on Lot 2 so that the drive, the street got pushed over as far west as possible. Then it needed to curve to enter into the Systems Control site properly so that problem wou~d probably still exist. Erb, art: The landscaping on the south side. That's just on Lot 1 right.? Krauss: Well we believe the plat may be in error there. That there is property located south of Lake Drive that's o~ned by the property owner that we believe is part of this parcel. It's just severed at this point. It's on the south side of the right-of-way and we're going to see, if the survey is in error, that that should have been included because it is part of~the property. We'll have them make that change but we understand that it is owned by Mr. Ha~an which was one of the parties that owns the pr~pert, y. Erhart: Okay. Well it sounds like there's some confusion there...going right up the street, I wasn't sure how you were going to deal with that. Kr~auss: There's basically a 3 tier level of protection if you will for ba~ffering the neighborhood. What we~ve done is had Systems Control design i~ a berm and landscaping on the south portion of their site. At this point then down here you have the wetland which is green and open. The landscaping itself that we envisioned would actually be on~ you know the Plann'~n~g Commission Meeting Janua[~y 2, 2991 -- Page 13 stree;t comes through here. Zt's actually on the other side of the street and ~uld be used to block any direct. Erha%~: ...issue that that may be owned by somebody else? Krau~s: klelt, it's apparently owned by the partnership that owns this entix~e site at this time. Erbar't: So you th~nk you can resolve that? KraLtss: I think so, yes. Erha.' t: Lastly I guess on the roof, it's be nice to have a mansard roof. On tl,e other hand, I think the applicant has got a pretty good point that it's.not exactly common in that area. I'm not sure that that requirement shou. d stand so I'll wait for comments from the othe~ commissioners. Other than that., I t. hink this is an improvement. I couldn't quite face going thro~gh the whole thing again a second time so I'll let Steve ~nove on it~ It l~oks good. Emmibgs' With regard to the roof, well what is your response? The fact tha't,lwe don't have them on all buildings in town. We don't have anything thati requires them on all buildings in town. Why here? KraU¢- s: ~4hy here? ~ few reasons. There really has been an architectural t. he~e that's been developed over time in and around do~ntown Chanhassen. SimF~ly because some buildings were built prior to that or don't incorporate that-, I don't believe that's rationale not to do it in the future. I mean u~e'~_e often learned that there's better ways of doing things. I understand Systems Control's rationale about kind of doing this as a franchise. I mea~ they all look alike but that's what I hear from every fast food establishment that walks in the door. You know we have to bare a bright orange building or it has to have arches. ~4ell you find over time that they learn that it doesn't have to. It has to have some architectural symbolism so that people recognize it for what it is but they adapt these things to fit into the context that it belongs in. When we look at some of ., the buildings in this area. Well McDonald's obviously has a mansard roof becCuse it's part of their architectural theme. [de have the Hamus building up em a hill across the street. We've talked to that property owner on several occasions about addressing, you know they're talking about renovating the site and addressing the architecture of the building since it'~ just a block building at this point is one of the things that's been raised periodically. I also spoke to the planners over in Minnetonka who have a site being proposed and I don't know if they've carried through on it but they indicated to me that they had a similar concern about the roo;fline and were probably going to make a similar recommendation. I don't kno~ if that's actually been done yet but that's what I was told before Chr!istmas. So the long and the short of it is, I think there is a consistency that we're trying to promote in downtown. Flat roof buildings in ~my view, and it's subjective, are intrinsically unattractive and it's son~ething that's relatively easy to fix and I don't think that they lose that architectural continuity in doing that. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 199.1. - Page 14 SmminDs: I don't really have any other comments. The staff report was really thorough. I thought you did a good job and I guess I support the staff7, report... Ce nr a~: Annette? Ells~: I have a couple of questions of the applicant. People can use any ef thee facilities, isn't that correct? I mean if they worked in Richfield ...thc-at facility. Is that why the lunch hour is se busy? Because people ge d~ring work? I was really surprised to see that the peak time is the lunch. Dennis Palmer: That's our guess. You can generally tie it in with some ethe{ area of surveys... Ellsen: So when you have this brochure, it's going to talk about all I1 locations to every household so that people can decide well this is by my work[and this is by my home and things like that? Are all the locations goin~ to have the exact same hours? Dennis Palmer: Yes. EllsOn: And is it really peak from that 6:00 to 7:00 or something like that~ I know that this neighborhood is concerned about the later hours~ don't know if you really gain a lot by having it open that much more later? Penn, is Palmer: We're open to 7:00 only two nights a week and 5:30 the other two nights. We stagger the t~o days...people who can't get there by 5:30. Ellson: Okay, so out of the week there's only 2 nights that it will be epe~ until 7:007 Dennis Palmer: Yeah, 2 nights until 7:00 and 2 nights until 5:00... Ell~on: You can eat your dinner on the patio for a couple nights anyway.: I was concerned, I have a question of staff. The applicant talked about a cou.~le of the conditions that were out of their control like the 2(c) and number 6 of the site plan review. Basically they said that they don't have control of the signage. That it ~ould have to be MnDot. Is it a problem wri¢ing it in? I mean how do we enforce such a thing if they're claiming that they can't control that number (c) is followed through and implemented or ehey can't control that some landscaping will be done. That there's another landowner involved. How do we make sure that sort of thing gets dome? Can we hold them accountable even though they're not under their control? Krauss: Well I think so for a couple of reasons, and I'll modify that a little bit but the idea of signage on TH 5 wasn't initially our idea. It wa~ System Controls and we just thought it ~as a fine idea and decided that simce it was something that they raised and we agreed with, that we would make it a commitment to carry through on. Sharmin has contacted MnDot and why don't you. Plann~n,o- Commission Heeting Janua[y 2, 1991 -, Page 15 A1-J~ff: They said there should be no problems putting up signage on their public right-of~.~way. If we could just indicate where we would want them and if they don't, interfere with traffic, they will provide them. Krau~s: So if we wanted to tailor that condition so that it was made specific to MnDot's approval, that's fine because that's where it gets out of t~,eir hands but this was originally their proposal. · Ells~n: What about the landscaping? Krau~s' The landscaping, well you know this property, there are 3 interests involved in this review. There's the City and our interest. There's the applicant's and their's and then there's the property owners who ~re selling the property. It's been tough bringing the property owners and ~he partnership that owns the property. The partnership and Systems Control together on this but they're both involved in this application and the¥iboth .jointly signed the thing and the conditions are jointly a,opl.~cable t.o both of them. This plat, if it's approved, is going to have these requirements in there and if they don't fulfill those conditions, the thin~~ doesn't get. built if you approve it. I think that's something that they~ need to iron out. EllSOn: In other words, you have to tell them the deal's off unless I can mee~ all the conditions of the city and things such as that and then that would be the same as 2(e) in the subdivision where they're concerned about the !right--of-way as being something that isn't in their control and you're saying that's sort of the same thing? Kra~ss: It's one plat. ~e're not dealing with one lot of the plat. We're dealing with the entire parcel. Ell$on: Okay. As to the roof, I can understand that everybody wants them jus~ like the same but I think Chanhassen is better than the rest of the subwrbs and I think that we deserve to have the best looking building of all-of them. And I don't think that a building with 6 stalls or 4 stalls wil! be easily misrepresented just because the roofline's a little bit different, but I don't think we should short change ourselves and go with a flat roof if we can get it up front to took a little nicer. Those are my conCerns and questions. There's one more thing. That drive aisle. He was a little concerned about it. I guess maybe we should clarify. ~4hat do you mea~ by drive aisles? Krauss: If we could flip it up and we'd be fully happy~ or we'd be agreeable to working with Mr. Rockenstein in getting a document that illustrates it. What we want to maintain on the site is that, it's clear that the public cul-de-sac or the private driveway needs to remain unobstructed and the entrance needs to remain unobstructed and the ability of !cars to circulate in and around the parking lot needs to remain unobstructed. From this point north and around towards the garage doors, that's all stacking distance. They can stay there to their heart's co,tent.. It's the portions of the site that are going to convey traffic exiting and entering that we're most concerned with. Plann-¢ng Commission Meeting Janua[y 2, 1991 - Page 16 L Ells~jn: $o long as you both get down what drive aisle means to each other and £~ agreeable. I like it. I think it's a good example of us bringing out c~oncerns that I know I was concerned about it being in the office park .and ~ felt this would be a better type of location along the highway anywa..ys so I thought this was a good compromise. nr~d: Sr ia Co ~ n? ~atz~i: How close to the wetland are we here on this site? Krau~s: The site itself maintains or exceeds the 75 foot setback. The road~is closer but that is consistent with the ordinance. 8atzii: ~o we're more than ~$ feet away? Kr au.~s: Yes. ~_~,tz-~i: Charles if we were to put some sort of skimmer to help drain the ~:ate~ off of the impervious towards the wetland, would that~ .water up enou~jh to drain it towards the wetland? Fol~h: I still think we'd run into a problem basically with grades. We jus~ don't have enough fall to get the, even if we tried to discharge it directly, it wouldn't have enough fall to get a storm sewer in and out]~etted at the pond. Batzli' I guess I thought the traffic information was interesting. I guess I had a tough time, and maybe your traffic person can clarify this. It ~eems to me that when you're talking about gas stations and you're talking about banks and fast food facilities, not all of those trips are equivalent to the trips that this facility will see. In my own mind think tha~ this will bring more trips into the community whereas a gas station is sort of something you kind of do on your way home. Fast food, there's enough McOonald's that you're not going to be driving from Minnetonka into the' area to go to McDonald's. Can you address that at all as far as, did you.! take a look at actually how many trips you're going to be adding that, or-bringing trips from outside the community into the community? Fo/ch: Staffwise we didn't actually do a traffic analysis on this site, That might be a question where you could refer to the applicant's engineer, Tra~ffic engineer. Ba~zli: Did you look at that? Can you comment? Alan Klugman: If I could put up one overhead and then I'll speak from here. The point you're making in reference to say a ~as station or fast focd restaurant or really any retail use is correct, That oftentimes we lo¢k at two things. There's the site trip generation and then there's the number of new trips to the roadway system, What it really comes down to that. whatever element you're looking at, say it's an intersection ~ you merely have to see how many trips are new and how they change their vehicle pattern. If I could explain. If a trip is traveling from the west on TH 5 to~' the east and he diverts to the McDonald's, on TH 5 he's not an added t. rTim. Either east or west of the intersection. It is a new turn onto the _ , ,: Pi. arming Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 17 high~,~.¥ okay? And so in terms of ~hat you're saying, for an impact, or additional traffic to TH 5, you are correct that the fast food or the gas statipn would not, all the trips generated to those are not new trips~ For this ~i~e many of them will be but fo~ the actual analysis that we did, we assur~ that they'~e all new t~ips and t~eated them as ne~ movements at the i nte~ecLion wi~h TH 5. Based on those percentages, if ~e take ou~ peak hou~ movements ~hich a~e approximately 76 in the p.m. peak hou~ and you appl'~ the various percentages ~he~e and t~eat them all as new t~ips, fo~ no ~nd~idual movement a~e we adding mo~e than 10 cT 20 t~ips to that pa~cula~ movement. So we did conside~ that. Batz~i: So xou~ peak hou~ Nas how many t~ips? Alan~Klugman: Du~ing the peak hou~ of the site? Batz~ i: Yeah. 4~lan~ Klugman: Peak hou~ of the site is approximately, on the busiest day of ~e month is approximately 176 t~ips in the peak hou~ of the site which is ~ght before the noon hour. Bat~li: So if you'~e b~inging 40~ of them in on TH 5, you'~e adding 40~ of 176 ~tu~ning movements in~o the site? A, la~ Klugman: Well, let's ~ound the 176 to 180. So 180 t~ips is 90 into ~he ~site. Right. Now 40~, as you'~e saying 40A of 180 would be, excuse me 40~ ~of 90 would be about 36 t~ips. Ou~ assumption is that of the 40~ coming from the east, approximately half of them would dive~t at the 184th int.~section so approximately 20 t~ips fo~ any one movement as we app~oach~ you_know maximum of 20 t~ips fo~ any one movement as we approach the site. Batzli: Well, how does that assumption square with I think there might be som~ representation made and you can dispute this that on the map you're goiDg to try and get people to divert to one intersection rather than equal number to both. Ala~ Klugman: No. On the map we would show where the site is located in th~ metropolitan area and what the major approaches are to it. It is our as~qmption that from the east some ~ould divert to the 184th and some would go ;to Dakota Avenue. Ba%zli: So in other words, on the map you're really not intending to show a ~reference for one of the two intersections at all? Dennis Palmer: We'll work with the City and show which is most favorable to .the City. The State has to give it's final approval. Batzli' Yeah, I understand that. Dennis Palmer: .~ .either access. We don't prefer either access. Ba~zli' I guess I had two more questions for the applicant. Is it. in~ended at all that this facility might be expanded during the contract p~iod with the State? Will it be expanded? Plann_~ng Commission Meeting Janua[y 2, 1991 - Page 18 Denn~ Palmer: The contract requires that we expandability. We recognize that ~hat we're asking here for is the facility. There is room to expand but. ~ also recognize that we've got to come before this body again to get appr~al. Sat. zli: Okay. And then how often. I Dennis Palmer: I might add, it's never happened in any of the programs. It s~just a safety valve. There's a 200~ plus capacity the average daily volur' e. Batz~i: That leads me to my next question. How often are you actually running at 100~ with your test equipment? Dennis Palmer: At each hour... 8atz~i: What is your up time for your test equipment though? I mean ave ~ou up 95m~ of the time? Because looking at the stacking measurements, loo~ing at all these things, you're assuming that all your equipment is runr~ing at all times and your equipment isn't breaking down so you're operating with for instance one lane. Sta~ Krzywicki: My name is Start Krzy~icki... Originally hired an equipment maintenance manager in the Maryland program and in those facilities...at any one time for any other reason... The individual equipment we had specifically learned in...and that is not unique to the Mar'~land program. That is typical in the Illinois program as well as the Was6ington state program. Actually the equipment is calibrated every hour to ~ake sure it's accurate. Bat~li: Okay. The last thing I was going to ask about, I guess of the staff or applicant. It doesn't matter. On this berm when you're coming t. hr~ugh the inspection facility, wouldn't it make more sense to put eye, greens on the berm rather than ash or something that may not be totally blop~ king for the headlights and things? Krabss: Commissioner Batzli, which berm are we talking about? The new one that's being proposed south of Lake Drive is coniferous~ 8abzli' No. The one above the swamp if you will. Krauss: That gets to be a subjective judgment. I think there you're going to want. some mix of vegetation for aesthetic reasons and also so it blocks a little bit of the building too. The conifers don't typically grow very high. But we'd be happy to listen to any suggestions. Batzli: I guess I'd make the berm double wide and add more permanent green st~ff in there personally. My last comment is that in number 4 I think the drainage plans should be revised and submitted to the City staff for approval. The mansard roof, I think if we want to include that on more bui/ldings, I think we should talk about it and come up with some sort of r~tionale as to when we would apply it and when we wouldn't. And in c~ndition 9. Does the words, "have 4 stalls or more" add anything to that c~ndition or can we just put a period after the word, maybe even after the ! Planning Commission Meeting Janu. a?¥ 2, 1991 - Page 19 word ~uilding code. · A1-J~_l=f: Building code requires any operation that has 4 stalls or more. Batz~i: I understand that but I think the applicant said that they would provide it and they're only going to have 3 stalls. l<ra.u~s: No, they actually have 4. Batz~i: They have 4, okay. Krau~s' They have the fourth one around the corner. 8atz~i: That's right. I don't know. I guess I'd delete it just for clarity but that's okay. That's all I have. Conrbd: Jeff. . Far~akes; I have a question for staff. The property south of the proposed sit~. It's shown as a very narrow strip on the land use piece. How viable of a piece of property is that to develop once you get done with setbacks? Krauss: ~e actually have to look into that and we also have the potential of dsing some of the boulevard area in the right-of-way for some o¢ that so there's a potential it could spill over into the public property as well. ~ut we need to get some better information on that. Far~akes: Right now as I understand it or what I saw was that those are fairly large pine trees that sort of work their way all along Chan Estates' there. Is that, I looked at it and it looked very narrow and once you got do~e with setbacks I was wondering how, is it a developable piece of property? Kra~tss: Well there are no setbacks that are applied' to a berm. We can put it ~herever it fits. In the given area we may not be able to get one as suC~ficiently high as we'd like. There is an alternative means of doing this if the owners of the homes nearby are amenable. I've been involved wi~h projects where if there ~asn't room to do it on the property, that the pa~tnership owns or in conjunction with City right-of-way, that if the owmers of the property are amendable to it, that you can plant trees in their back yard up against that property line. Farmakes: Right now, as I understand it, there's just trees along the and then sort of just flat. I mean it's just sitting there. The other question that I had was, has the owner indicated any use for that property at all to you? Krauss: You mean on the far side of the street? Fa, rrna kes: Yes. KYauss: No. It's not a developable piece of ground. Plann~Lng Commission Meeting ,.'ranua~y 2, 1991 - Page 20 F'~rm~kes: Okay. I guess my comment on this plan WoL~ld also be to see more evergreen along berm as it comes out there. I know the comment was about ].igh,~ being, in the evening are shining into the homes that are south of l~- 5 but it would certainly help that in the wintertime when it gets dark_~earlier. I also agree that because of the sensitivity of that issue~ ,~e'r~ going to have a very large highway very, very close to single family resi~ents and I think that the roof issue would certainly help visibility. Tone?it down a bit from what I would expect to see in an industrial park I gues~ is ~,here it ~ith persona non grata. I think that that ~ould soften thinSs down a bit, at least if I was in the neighborhood. It's unfortunate that~this has occurred here. I think the problem ~as a long time ago ~Jhen this[~as platted there should have been a buffer there and there was not. The ~ingle family homes are too close to the highway. I think that if the builder could make a concession there it ~ould help. That's all I have to say .~ Ahr~ns: I liked this facility on the other site. I kmo~ it's not going to be ~aised again but I thought it ~as, I would rather have this impact a few businesses than impact residential areas. There's going to be the Sch~oer's farm which is just south of the service road right behimd the lin~ of businesses. ~hat is that over there? ~here CPT used to Krawss: OataServ. Ahr~ns: OataServ. That's all going to be residential back in there too. Kra~ss: South of OataServ is Eden Prairie and that's residential there. ~hrens: I know. I know it's Eden Prairie but it is going to be~ I'm still cor~Cerned about them even though they're in Eden Prairie. That's all going to %e residential and I think that this is going to have an impact on Eden ?r~irie and Chanhassen residential and I liked the other site much better. I '~ sorry to see it's moving. I have a question about TH 5 improvements and I don't understand something. How will the improvements impact the landscaping on the north side of the site? Is the highway going to move south or north? Kr~uss: This parcel, this plan was designed with the foreknowledge of what th_~se improvements involved. If you see that triangular sliver of land outlined as IH 5, that's a chunk of this existing parcel that under the plat ~ould be dedicated for right-of-way for the highway. So it was designed as I say, with the foreknowledge of how the high~ay ~as going to sit and everything being developed from a landscaping standpoint is on t. -k~eir property inside that new property line. A~rens: I have a question about drainage ,~hich I guess I still don~t u~derstand. Part of the property is going to be drained into the ~etland' right? F~lch: That.'s correct. Plann&ng Commission Heeting JanuaLy 2, 1991 - Page 21 Ahre~s: And is that going to be draining from the impervious area onto the Folc~: No. That will primarily be, Sharmin if you could put up that site plan~again It's primarily going to be impervious area immediately south of tee building and around the wetland area and there will be a portion actually of the site immediately west of the building that will also drain down,to the wetland area but primarily it will be impervious area, grassed area~' Ahrefs: So there's no concern about pre-treating whatever's flowing into the ~etland? Folc~: No. Ahre~ns: As far as the roof goes, I think it's more attractive to not have a fl~t roof just because I don't like, it's a completely subjective comment but ~ don't like to drive down the highway and see everything with flat roots. I just don't think it's attractive and I don't think just because we ~aven't required it in the past doesn't mean we can't do it now so I don{t have any problem with that. I think the staff report was very good by ~he way. I thought it ~as very complete. I think the applicant's comment on point 6 under the conditional use permit is reasonable. I don't thi~k that, I think we should protect them from any over zealousness in monitoring what they're doing on the property and if it is a concern of the cit~, that there may be some non-compliance going on. Then if it proves tha~ they are in compliance with whatever laws, then they pay for it. If not~ I think that's reasonable. That's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks 3oan. Tell me about Dell Road. That will be built whe~? When do we have? KraUss: Next summer. Cor~ad: Next summer. And it will be signaled? Kress: Yes. = Co~rad: Okay. The neighbors are concerned about traffic and the bottom li~e is, there's going to be even more traffic or things are going to 9o there whether it be this or something else. ~nd obviously this applicant ca~ come in and say there's enough, we can handle the traffic load that they're going to generate. The study, was there a study? There must have be~n when we started putting in Dell Road and improving, that would justify so'many turns and so many, such and such a traffic count for the highway business area. Do we have a study that says how many Ne can handle? _ Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain. Certainly there was a feasibility study done for Lake Drive improvements which we've rebuilt that road over thC past summer and it's designed ~ith the foreknowledge that not only are were you going to get commercial development on this site but that the area a¥~und DataServ is going to develop with industrial office so it was de~s, igned with that capacity in mind. That informatio~ was conveyed to ~ .~r. ot and when they designed Dell Road and redesigned Dakota, they designed Planning Commission Meeting 3anuaYy 2, 1991 - Page 22 it w~th that kind of capacity in mind. Conr&d: So the next time somebody comes in and wants to put another facility in right next to this property, we're going to fee]. comfortable that. !basically the study's been done by MnDot or us on Lake Drive? That it stil~ has capacity? How many more developments can go in this particular inca[ion? KrauSs: On this particular parcel, they're dividing it into two lots right now. I think it s reasonable to think that that Lot 2, depending on what goes~there, could be further subdivided in half. Under the BH district you can ~ave fast food establishments. You can have gas stations. Various thin~s like that. If you get an office building, they may take the entire property. In talking to the owners, they don't have a buyer for that parcel yet so it's kind of hard to tie them down to what's going to happen. From a traffic standpoint though, frankly I think t'hat that's going to pale in ~pmparison to what's going to be going up down the street on the Data, err property. DataServ, I don't know if it's common knowledge yet but DataServ is now marketing portions of that site for industrial office development. They were initially holding the whole thing for their own growth. They are still holding onto a substantial portion of it but they are:~going to be marketing it and I understand that there's quite a bit of interest in it. Now as you get over to the east, more of that traffic's goi,g to be oriented to Dell Road but some of it's going to approach it fro~ the west. We knew that when Lake Drive was designed and we knew that whe~ we gave information to MnDot on the highway design. Traffic reports on & case by case basis are real misleading because you'll often find that no .¢.ne development ever breaks the back of the traffic system unless you're tal~ing about the Metrodome or something like that. You kno~ it's an incremental thing. Ne believe that we've handled it as best we can. I'll be [.he first to admit, Dakota even when it's rebuilt is rebuilt with some compromises in mind. You know it's not built to the standard that you might have wanted because there's a McDonald's sitting in the way on one sic~ and there's a gas station on the other but they are getting in all the full turn movements that they wanted to get and it is fully signalized and th~ redesign of TH 101 on the north side over there is going to help quite a bit too. So yeah, the long and the short of it is, we think we have a handle on it, yes. Co~rad: So when the next developer comes in on the parcel that's being sp~it off and they have an equivalent type traffic pattern to what we're seeing tonight, we're still going to feel comfortable that the traffic can be;handled? KrCuss: We should, yes. CoDrad: I had some similar concerns about the wetland. I think I hear staff's comments about why it is. I think I feel like Tim. It seems like a missed opportunity. It's like we're doing something that's going to ha'.~dle it but, there's two sides of things. There's no presettling into thee wetland which we should have if we did it right. Yet on the other hanc' w~ had, it looked like we had a chance to improve the wetland and really m~ke it a very nice asset. It's probably going to be an asset in the long r~n anyway but it's just sort of one of those things that I do hear the Planning Commission Meeting Janua~, y 2, 1991 - Page 23 ! stale report. I understand why you designed the drainage patterns the way you cid but I don't have a solution to my concern. I guess that's the botteim line. I generally like the location. I like the business. I like this i"in this particular location. I like how it looks. I like the separation that was enforced in there by the wetland and the location that the ~uildin~ had to go significantly far enough away from the residential neig~:borhood where the testing site is. I think there's some nice things abou~ it. Have a few other particular concerns however. The roof. We don'~ have standards on architectural design. We have building codes but we really don't have design standards do we? We don't brick or better type of s~andards. We don't regulate architecture. Krau~s: No we don't but we do have an architectural review component in the ~ite plan and that was reiterated somewhat when we redid the site plan review about a year a~o. You're fully capable on good standing to look at building architecture and require some changes. Building architecture is not Isomething to make or break a proposal but it is something that the site plar~ ordinance does allow you to deal with. Con¥~d: 8ut you know developers can't stand the City tampering with arc~.itecture. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder so we're just going to, what's the rationale? The rationale is we've started to tamper with architectural design and therefore we can continue it and it's defensible? Krau!ss: I would use some different wording. I fundamentally believe that architectural review is a legitimate extension of what we do when we look at ~ite plans. Con~ad: But our standard now is you're telling me is a mansard roof on eveCything. Kra~css: I would accept a peaked roof as well. I mean there are lots of design alternatives to a flat roof. When we were, for example when Hardee's ~as looking at the Hanus site, we told Hardee's that you cannot put a bright orange building in downtown Chanhassen. It just won't fly. The Hanus building we've described, we've attempted to work out some solutions for that. It's become a fairly recurrent theme in our community and in others. Co--ad: Well do we need standards? Do we need, you know, I don't want de~elopers thinking that we're willy hilly on this and we're not because I'Ve been here long enough to know that we really don't do a whole lot of direction. We do enough to make sure that we have some quality projects ou~ there but do we need some different design standards that guide us or ar~ they there Paul? Kr~uss: No, specific standards are not there and that was somewhat intentional because I have not seen a good set of specific design guidelines that work in every instance. You know I think Minneapolis and possibly Mr. Rockenstein's more familiar with it than I, you know Minneapolis was reeling from the fiasco of City Center and they're talking abCut, if they haven't already done it, setting up an architectural review panel. You know sort of an adjunct to a planning function. I don't think we~need to 9o to that extent. In fact we have two people on the Planning Plann.~ng Commission Meeting 3anu~y 2, 1991 - Page 24 CommiSsion who have design backgrounds and some interaction with that. It is a ~uboeJtzve judgment and I wouldn't encourage you to go too far off the deep !end into it but this I don't think is all that significant a change. One dther instance where we did exact some improvement in building design was En the Roberts Automatic site plan which was for a factory building. We d:'dn't get a peaked roof there but we got better design features in t. erm~ of window mullions and entrances and the Council was very cooperative in b~ckino that up. So this is not the first time we've done it. I Conrad: Okay. I'm a little bit uncomfortable. You ~ant low profile roofs so N~at ~e've talking about is peaking the [oofs. Adding to the psofile. What's yous feellng? Othe~ than not having it these. Tom Kotsonas: Aesthetically I think the soof, a peaked soof would look bet~s than... Con~ad: So based on lo~e~ p~ofile, ~e've got it psettM low p~ofile sight now ~f~om what I can tell seeing some ~enditions and elevations but if add~a little bit of height, that's not going to bother the neighborhood if it ~esthetically improves it to our? - Tom~Kotsonas: I think the neighborhood...fact of life that it's the~e, then the better it looks, the better off it's...everyday lookin~ at it.; If it's flat and looks like "a ~lorified ~arage"...~as station, could mak~ it aesthetically look better it helps us in that area. :; : Er~rt: Maybe I can help out. I've listened to this now as ~e've ~one at,nd and I took the first position of thinkin~ that we shouldn't try to re~ire that but as I've heard the commissioners talk, in mM mind I've de,loped a rationale why we should and that is that this buildin~ is particularly u~lM in the fact that it has overhead doors. No~ ~elative to ot~er kinds of buildings you're ~oin~ to find in this kind of zoning which ~i~l have a lot more ~lass, this building is unique and I think that in mM mi~d is the rationale that I will chan~e my mind on that point and maybe it sounds like you're looking for. What's different about this buildin~ that ~e~would ~o in and impress upon them an architectural standards that might, not do to another building? Conrad: That's good enough for me. I like Brian's comments on the berm. I think we should be pursuing the south side of the road too for terming and for light protection from the neighborhood. The directional maps that we~: don't have control over yet, we want very much. You know I want to leave that condition in. I don't know what's enforceable in terms of the conditional use permit in the language that we have. I understand it's o~tside of everybody's control that's in this room right now yet on the o~her hand I think it's really important that we off load as much onto Deli R~ad as possible and a map can do that~ $ignage can do that. I guess I'd l~ke to see that there whether it's enforceable by the City or not. In t~rms of the 6 month review, why do we wait 6 months? Don't most of the p~oblems occur in 30 days? What happens after 6 months? K[auss: Well a couple thin~s. First of all that ~as language that we too from the final version of the new ordinance that would make these things a c~nditional use. It was a standard that we discussed last fall so we just Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 25 appli:~d it here. Also, I think that when issues were raised about how these~places ol.~,'.;'r?,i-.~:; or operate in other states, Sharmin contacted those other( states and other property owners around there and it became clear that Cf, it's like anything else. You know if a new restaurant opens up, you'% rather not try it the week it opens. You want. them to figure out how to g~t organized. It would probably be punitive to do it in the first montHand 6 months allows things to settle down and take a more normal course and probably be more representative of what's. Conrad: Of the future you're saying? So rather than helping or mucking up the Works in the first 30 days when there's going to be problems, let's make[sure it's good for the future after 6 months? Okay. I buy that. I also,buy the fact or the logic of the applicant saying hey, they'll pay for the ~irst. one. If the City wants to do more, then we should pay if there are Any problems. I like that logic. I don't think, the City didn't imply that~iwe were going to do more than one and the wording is not there that we are ~et from the applicant's standpoint, that's sure an opening and I sure don'~ mind what the applicant was suggesting in that regard. Those are my comments. Anything else? Erha~t: Yeah, I have a question. Sharmin, in item 7 under the Site Plan Review where the applicant questioned declaring permits of PCA and DepajYt. ment of Health. Do you know in fact that those are required or are we 35Jst throwing those in there? Foloh: Maybe I can comment on that. 5rhart: Charles right? FolCh: That's correct. Both PCA and Department of Health permits will be required. Department of Health comes involved when anytime you're doing a wat~rmain extension or construction and that is proposed on this project. Erhart: Is that proposed or is that a requirement? FolCH: Pardon me? Erhart: Is it a requirement that you get approvals from both those? Folch: It is a requirement. Co~rad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Babzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review ~90-11 shown on the Site Plan dated December 3, 1990 subject to th~ following conditions. Number 1 as written. Number 2, following 2(c), th8 word intersection include the parenthetical, (subject to MnDot approval). Number 3 as written except 32 feet will become 36 feet. Number 4 as written except at the end of the second sentence add the words~ and shall be submitted to city staff for approval. Number 5 as written. Number 6 as written except the end of the second sentence add, and the berm between the facility and the area marked "swamp" Number 7 as written. Number 8 as written~ Number 9, insert a period after the word code and de~ete the rest of the sentence. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 26 Conr~: Is there a second? Ells~' I'll second. Batz~i moved, Ellson seconded that the Plannino Commission recommend approval of Site Plan REview #90-11 as shown on the site plan dated December 3, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. ~he applicant must provide a mansard roof on the proposed building. Clans must be submitted and must be approved by City staff. Plans Should also illustrate screening for HVAC equipment. Wood slat screens ~re unacceptable. 2. ~he applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage ~n site. Provide a sign plan incorporating the following elements: Monument signage incorporating waiting time information. On site directional signage as outlined in the report. MnDot/Hwy 5 signage to direct westbound traffic from Eden Prairie to enter the site via the Dell Road/Lake Drive intersection, (subject to MnDot approval). iRevise plans to eliminate the public street and utilize the private ~drive~a¥. The driveway shall be designed to incorporate a 36' wide ~curb and gutter, storm sewer and a 9 ton design. Plans to be approved the City. A permanent cross easement and maintenance agreement ~acceptable to the City Attorney shall be drafted and filed against all ~current and future lots in the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition plat. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Watershed District and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the report and shall be submitted to city staff for approval. When the easterly portion of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition develops in the future, the storm sewer outlet south of the cul-de-sac shall be extended to the future detention pond amd the temporary ditch shall be eliminated. 5. Type III erosion control shall be used along the edge of the Class B wetland. Landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East shall be provided to ensure screening and provide privacy to the homeowners located to the south of Lake Drive East. The applicant shall provide additional. landscaping along the north side of the trash enclosures and the berm ! between the facility and the area marked "swamp". The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain and street improvements in accordance with city standard specifications ~ shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city Plann~ing Commission Meeting 3anua~.~?y 2, 1991 - Page 27 ~proval. The applicant shall acquire a utility construction permit ~om MnDot and acquire the proper permits from the Pollution Control ~gency and the Department of Health. 8. She applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and ~rovide the necessary financial securities as required. 9. ~.he applicant shall provide flammable waste separator as required by Cuilding code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conri~d: Is there a motion on the subdivision? Ells~n: I'll move the Plannino Commission recommend approval of Subc[vision as shown on plat dated December 3, 1990 with the conditions listed in the staff report. Bat~l i: Second. Con~ad: Has there any discussion on item (e)? I think the applicant had a con~ern on (e) didn't he? Ell~on' But he was saying that was one of those thinos that he has to work outiwith the landowner and it's in his rights to do that so that's probably the Cbest way to do that. 7 Emm~ngs: It applies to the whole property, not just their property. Con~ad: Are you comfortable with the wordage on (3) then? Batmli: I don't know. We didn't really talk about it much. Co.ad: Any other discussion? _ El~son moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision as shown on the plat dated December 3, 1990 with the following conditions: 1./ Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed ~t the time buildin~ ~ permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. Drainage and conservation easement located over the wetland on Lot 1. ~ c. Thirty foot wide utility easements centered on sanitary sewer-and ~atermain located outside of public rights-of-wa¥. PlannCng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 28 Drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lot 2 to accomplish the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer. Dedication of required right-of-way along the Hwy 5 frontage to accommodate the Hwy 5 improvement project - Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed private driveway. These easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and 2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also be drafted and filed' concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. There is currently a drainage easement running in favor of the City over the northern portion of the property. This easement is no longer required and the applicants have requested that it be vacated by the city. Staff is recommending that this be approved, however, this action is undertaken by the City Council and does not require Planning Commission consideration. All ivoted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ConWad' Conditional use permit? Erhart: Before we do this one, does staff have any response to the request to remove essentially item 2? The three words, approved by staff. They contended that those maps could not be approved by staff or shouldn't be approved by staff. Any comment on that? Kra~ss: We'd like the ability to review it before it's send to MnDot. If that's the best we can do. Er bart: Reviewed? Kr auss · Right Er~art: Okay. With that I'll move approval of conditional use permit ~90-5 subject to the following 7 conditions listed except on 2 change the word approved to reviewed. Conrad' Is there a second? Ba~zli: Second. El~son: Second. . Cobrad: Any discussion? Ahr.' ens: I didn't hear what you said about. E~lson: Instead of the word approved he wants reviewed right? _ E~hart' I did not change 6 in that I thought the consensus was that we w~uld do the inspection after 6 months. : ! Planing Commission Meeting Janua~ry I 1991 - Page 29 _ . Conra~d: Right and Joan was asking about number 2 right* Erha~t: I change the word approved to review. Ahre~,s: I was talking about 6. Ells~n: The second line in 6 the applicant was concerned that somebody read,ns that could mean 2 years down the line, if they believe there's a problem, they could ask for it. In the way it's written, maybe it does ask them~for that Ahre~s: He talked about the City paying for it. Ells~Dn: Right. So maybe it should say something like after the initial comF~liance report, something about the expenses attached or is this where we p~ t it in? Bat~li: See I would prefer to delete that sentence in it's entirety rather than to commit the City to pay for the test personally. Erh~rt: Yeah, I agree with Brian. Emm[ngs: The City can always decide to do it's own test. Ahrens: I'll go along with that. Erhart: So amend the motion to delete line 2, paragraph 6. Sentence paragraph 6. BatZli: And I'll resecond it. Er~art moved, 8atzli seconded that the Plannin~ Commission recommend ap~oval of Conditional Use Permit ~90-5 subject to the followin~ conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. . Provide direction maps reviewed by staff with each notice that vehicle testing is due. The maps shall clearly illustrate and promote entering the site from Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. 3. Applicant is required to maintain contract to provide services with the ~ State of Minnesota. 4. No repairs to be performed or gas or parts sold at the site. 5. No testing of diesels or heavy trucks to be performed at the site. Maintain site in compliance with State and Federal air and noise standards. After 6 months of operation, a compliance report shall be prepared by the applicant and supplied to the City. Ail vehicle stacking and parking to be in designated areas. No parkin~ or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or Pi. ann ng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 30  blic rights-of-ways. All ~ted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: These three, this project will, the site plan will go to City CounCil, the 28th? The 28th of January. Thank you all for corning , Appr%ciate your time. ELECTION OF OFFICE OF CH~IR ~ND VICE-CH~IR. Conrad: Under new business we have election of office of chair amd vice$chair I'll precede that just a bit I think the last year I decided to s~ay as chairman simply because we had comprehensive plan to play around with!and many thought that it was a good idea for me to continue on. I thin~ there is time to find somebody else amongst the 7 of us, the 6 of you to t~ke over as either chairman or vice-chairman. I think it's real appropriate that different people get experience so I'd really like to take my rome out of the running for that and I think we should offer nominatioms for ~hairman and vice-chairman. Erh~rt: What do you think 3elf? Are you up for it? Far~akes: Am I up for it? I don't even have a plaque yet. Erhart: Well I'd nominate Steve Emmings for Chairman~ Bat~li= I second it. Conrad: Is there any discussion? Batzli: I think we've done it by secret ballot. Conrad: ~re there any other nominations? So his name is nominated. Are theYe any other nominations? Tim, do you want to play a role? Erfurt: I'll play a role if people want but my nominating speech is, I thi~k he's the senior member here other than yourself Ladd. His attendance is ~ery high and I think he'll do a good job. Other than that he's an al~]ight guy you know. EnDings' Can I say something on my own behalf? Ba~zli: He's got to prove to be kindler and gentler though I think. Em~ings: Well the only thing I'd like to say on my own support is the mo~ey that I sent you in your Christmas card, you get to keep no matter how you vote. And I don't want you to take into account the fact that I'm dying of a very rare tropical disease and probably won't be able to finish my:term. I don't want your sympathy. Erhart' Can I retract my nomination? Emmin~s: I'm interested in doing it. I think that there isn't anyone here whig would do it as well as Ladd has for so long and I think in a lot of Plann!ng Commission Meeting 3anua~y 2, 1991 - Page 31 i ways Xadd ought to keep on doing it but I'd like to do it. I'd like to have ~he experience of doing it and I'd like to be able to call on Ladd for his c~mments and tell him when he can talk and when he can't talk. Conr4d: I think it's real good for people to rotate into the chairman role and ~ can steer it certain ways and you have so much energy and I think it's jtime for new energy to spend time up here. I think ~e've got a pretty good,Planning Commission so I think many of you could take this role very easily and perform the job and persuade the community that we're actually payigg attention to them. Are there any other nominations fox Chairman? None~ Okay. So we have Mr. Emmings nominated. ~re there any nominations for ~ice Chairman? Chairperson. Batz~i: Tim, would you like to be Vice Chairperson again? Exha~t: Oh I ~ould do it again Ells~n: I'll nominate Tim. Erh~rt: I'd be honored to do it again. On the other hand, if somebody, Sri~, if someone else would uant to do it. Bat~li: I might as well say this now. I'd like to chair one meeting but I don~t want to be Vice Chair at this time. I'd like the opportunity to chair one meeting at some time or another. Con~ad: Can we do that? I think we can, I think we can without being nominated or appointed as the Chairman or Vice Chairman. Okay, so Tim has been nominated for Vice Chairman. Is there a second? Emm!ngs: I'll second it. Con~ad: Okay. I don't know where I'm going ~ith this nomination because we"6e always, I don't know how we've done it in the past. I think we might ? as mell vote. Er~rt moved Batzli seconded to appoint Steve Emmin~s as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1991. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried un~n imous 1 y. Ellson moved, Emmings seconded to appoint Tim Erhart as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1991. ~11 voted in favor and the motion ca,tied unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LaCd Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated December 19~0 as presented. _ Ha~or Chmiel: Happy New Year to everybody. c°~rad: Thanks Don. Thank you ali. for showing up. ~as there some other r~son you were all here tonight? Z have to ask. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 32 8atz~: Are we going to talk about goals extensively? ? Conr~' Yeah. 8at. z~i: Do we want somebody to stick around maybe? tented: We're talking about goals of the Planning Commission tonight_ in a coup?e minutes. _T don't know. Z guess what Brian is saying, do you want to s¢ick around and listen to us chatter a little bit more or do you want, Don {o you see a process working here for us setting some goals, bouncing them!,rup to you and you adding to them or deleting from them? Hayo~ Chmiel: Me're establishing, I'm setting goals for Council as Hell. Give,the Council some direction as to what we want to do, accomplish for the City and I think going through your development goals, I charged Ashw~rth to come back to each of the department heads and have those people appl~ goals and settings as to what they feel they want to accomplish. He then} in turn takes one of the most important goals from each one of those depa,.¢tment heads and then follows through on it so I'm trying to get a lit.~ e bit of consistency and direction so we can do that. Z think for each~ of you to come up with some goals that. you see particularly, that can be i~corporated into Paul's goals... . ; Con~ad: What He need, and we did a little bit last years We got yo~]r feeqback and pretty much of it was comprehensive plan oriented but out of us ~onight may come 4 or 5 goals. In my mind the fewer the better and we'~l pay attention to them but I guess what we really ~4ant you to do is t. el~ us that they're worth while pursuing. They make sense from the standpoint of ~here you're going and ~here the city should be. So I guess Brian is suggesting maybe you should stay. I don't think you should tonight while we sot} of swat them around but I guess what we need is that feedback saying they re right or wrong or add this or prioritize them accfrding to your particular needs. Hayer Chmiel: ~nybody can call me at any time and discuss it if you would. I'd!be more than happy to but I think that should be your direction to pass tho~e back and forth... I don't think we need that direction or to be here · For! that direction... i Co,ad: Okay, good. Thanks for being here. CItY COUNCIL UPDATE: CoNrad: City Council update Paul? Kr~uss: There have been no City Council meetings. ,_ OP~_N DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF 1991 60~L5. Co~rad: Paul, you've shared with us your goals with Ashworth. Kr~uss: The Hayer just made a reference to department heads having to develop a goal sheet and we've had to do that for several years. What I included in here is basically my goal statement to ~on and the City Council Planning Commission Meeting 3anuai-y 2 1991 - Page 33 whic~ includes a reiteration of the goals that I set for the department in 1990~nd what we did or didn't do on them and then established some for ; Now not all those are specific to tasks that the Planning Commission 1991 needs to do. Some of them are adminstrative in terms of how we function int. er~]ally but you should know about them anyway because they do have a bear~l~g on our work and some will have a lot of repercussions or a lot of work ~.hat you've become involved with~ You know the two things that come most ~xquickl¥ to mind is we've, you know on Monday night you're going to be presenting the Comp Plan to the City Council and hopefully it will get throGgh the City Council relatively quickly but then we still have to get that.-3thing through the Metro Council and I believe that there may be some soft,of give and take dialogue there that you'll ~ant to become involved with ~and then we need to get the plan up and running. Also you've made commitments to doing the 1995 study areas at some point as a next work program so you'll need to undertake that. The other big work item for the Plan~ing Commission we're not exactly certain how it will set up yet, is work]stemming~ from ~he surface water utility district. We envision generating new plans for, well we don't have any plans for water, but for wate~ quality, wetland protection and surface water management. On two of those, wetland protection and water quality~ I think that representation of the ~lanning Commission is going to be very important. Now I~ve been tossing these ideas around and of course since Gary Warren's left the City and ~ary and I were doing this in tandem, it's kind of falling on my shou-~ders but I envision hopefully setting up some sort of a task force format to work on those. Ideally with some representation from the Plan~ing Commission and possibly somebody from the City Council. Some real'dents off the street who have an interest in the subject and I think it woul.~ be only fair to have some of the developers having representation on som~ of that too because they're the ones we look to enact a lot of these thi~s. But that will be significant and the work will be extensive and tha~ will probably extend over a 2 year period and I'll have to keep you posted on that as that comes down. I'm also sending a copy, along with my gea~s I'm sending a copy of the on going issue sheet attached to my memo to the ~City Council so they know not only what my goals are but what .the work tasks are that we've talked about resolving at the Planning Commission level. It would be useful for us if we could focus in on a few of those and iwe've begun t.o do that but really tell us which ones we should hit hat4. Right now there's been a lull in development activity although 3o Ann !and I have had recent calls and it seems to be, you know people are starting to think about spring and as bad as the economy is, some people are:starting to look at doing some things. And if the comp plan is in place by this construction season, that will probably encourage that a little more but right now we do have some opportunity to tackle things and we'~e on task to address some of those things. The rural area issues being one' 3o Ann, what are the other things that we've been working on? Some of ~:he stuff that you've been doing? The lake issues and. Olsen: The lakeshore. The shoreland ordinance, Krauss: We've been looking at, well off the worksheet. Little things .Like definition of structures is something we need to get in there, tvs talked abo~t doing some work on group homes. There's been some federal court rul!ings that affect how cities can regulate or cannot regulate group homes and; it may not resolve any changes to our ordinance but we thought it . Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 34 ~Jhoui~ be relooked at at an>' rate so we're all comfortable wlth that. Just skimr~ing through here, remember when we had the ordinance that we adopted t.o require posting of signs on lots? The signs are being made as we speak. In fagot they're probably all done. They're quite attractive looking that !,4ill be, we'll be putting that into use in the coming year so you'll be s .e~ing those signs around town. I don't know. I guess right now we'd like ~o see what your priorities are. Things that might not have made it onto ~the sheet and tell us what sort of directions you'd like us to ~o in and We can organize oktr time accordingly. Conrad: I think it's open. I think what you see are some of the things t. hat~Paul is thinking about. Some rehashing of last year and a little bit of d~rection setting for this year. What else? What specifics do you see afte.~ taking a look at our open list of on going items and some of those are ~eaiing with zoning ordinances. What do we need to get done in 19917 Erha~t: What about, is this open discussion now? Conrad ' Yeah. Erha~t: What about revisions to downtown plan? Was it the last meeting we discussed, now we're getting information from the consultant. In the futuEe we may have to ~o to 4 lanes on the thru street and is that some(hing? Kra~s: Oh, yeah. Conceiveably it's something that you may become involved with. Commissioner Erhart's referring to the Stragar-Roscoe tra~portation or traffic analysis that we've got in the downtown. Their scheduled to go before the HRA later this month. They're not going to be abl~ to finish their modeling. Their modeling requires that they do a license plate survey to see where people are turning and coming from. They can't do it until there's more daylight so it's probably not going to be wrapped up until March sometime but it could have significant bearing on the-[construction or reconstruction of streets downtown. Now since you were inv41ved with some of the design issues of should there be a boulevard and all ~that kind of stuff, it would be reasonable to think that you should given an opportunity to look at any reappraisals. Right now this report's onl~ dealing with traffic. It's not dealing with anything else. That may hav~ to come later. That's a good point. ErhRrt: That may be something more for t992. Can we just go through here and; ask a few questions? Con~ad' Yeah, go ahead Tim. I'm really just leaving it open. I'm kind of curious what you guys think we should be doing. Erh~rt: Okay. On item 2 here on your wetlands protection program, you've outlined in here and verbally summarized it. Beyond the storm water thing, do ~/ou have specifics that we should be dealing, that you envision we'd be wor:;ki ng on? Krauss: Oh yeah. Er~art: Give me just a quick, an ordinance change? Pi'anteing Commission Meeting ~7anu~ry 2, 1991 - Page 35 ,, KraLt~S: Yeah. I envision basically building on what ~e have but developing an ordinance that takes into account what the value of the ~4etl~nd is. WhaL is it in the particular wetland we're Lrying to prot4ct? Is il wildlife habitat? Is it aesthetics or ~hat and tailoring the trd.inance t.o meet those specific demands. Ordinances today, newer ordinances today haven't been able to do that. We should reasses the way tha~;'we've required wetland preservation and plats. You know we've got a number of years o¢ experience in dealing with our wetlands ordinance and we've been able ~o see what. the good points are and what the problems have teen,in administering it. I think we should basically do an issues finding, a fact finding analysis of what's right and what's wrong with our ordinance now and then have the consultant work with us and tell LiS what new ~echnologies we can use and what we want to use. Erha~t: What's a problem that we'd face with the ordinance...in the las( year~ Krau~s: A fundamental problem is that there's no official map tha~ shows Ellen: Right. People claim they don't know that they had it. Remember thos~ corning through? Erh~rt: Well that only occurs, that I can remember, that somebody was iss~d a building permit. Somebody came in with a single family residential building permi~ for a garage and they built on the wetland because that wetland, someone didn't match tha~ permit with the map. sti~l don't know that that building departmen~ would match that permit request with the map. r Kra~ss: We wouldn't ask them to. We want to do it ourselves. ,_th rt: Mo, but I mean wouldn't it occur here? If someone comes in with a garage t.o the building department, are they going to check with your wetland map to see if that Garage is going to be in the wetland? Kra~ss: No, but we changed the pe. rmit process so that we sign off on all buiiding permits. Erb~rt: Instead of? Kra~ss: Well, we're in the loop now so it's our obligation to find that out:but we still don't have a good source to reference and there's still been, we've made mistakes because of it. Ahrens: What do you do now if somebody comes in with a permit application? Kress: If we have the time, what we do is we take out the aerial phcCtoGraphs and we try to see if we know, have personal information or hap{~en to know that there's a wetland in the area off the aerial and then we'~ll ask for more definition. Ah~ens: What if you don't have time to do that? · Plann,~ng Commission Heeting 3anua~y 2, 1991 - Page 36 Krau~: Well, that's where things fall through the cracks because there is not ~, great single source to look at and that single source to look at, not only ~ould benefit us in our reviews but we've had plats done where the survqyor goes out and shows a wetland contour. We don't know what wetland contd, ur that is. Oftentimes it's where the surveyor got his feet wet. Is that~where the vegetation is? Is that really what we're trying to protect? Ancl %hen another surveyor goes out there when the house comes in and they survey a completely different line and when we overlay these things we're goin~ wait. We're not talking about the same thing and we don~t have an elev&tion to give them. We can't sa~ the wetland is the 990 contour~ Developer's surveyor, you're supposed to show the 990. The builder's surveyor, you're supposed to show the 990 and everybody agrees on where it i~ ahd that's where the easement's recorded. We don't have that. Ahre~s: Well if you don't have any idea there's a wetland involved in a permit application, does anybody go out there? Krau~s: We often do yes. AhroDs: Sometimes you don't? Olso~n: You get pretty familiar with what's out there and where they are~ Also on the permit we now require the developer, whoever s filling out that per,it, to check whether or not a wetland exists on that site~ Ahr~ns: $o you're relying on them to say yes? Ols~n: Right, that helps you know if we have a map that they can look at and~if they can also determine, again that doesn't catch them all but it wi l~ ~et more of the burden. Ahr~ns: ...a wetland is. 01sen: But it makes them investigate or question us as to whether if there is er whatever. It puts a little bit more of the burden on them... It's not'full proof though. Erhart: You're vision is that this map someday in the near future is going to have all these on a computer so that when somebody comes in with a bui~lding permit, you could put up the parcel number and the computer will ha%e. Kra~.ss: Ideally one day we will have a GIS system that allows you to do that but before that happens what we will have is a series of maps that overlay on the half sections where each water body is number and typed and thmre's an elevation set, ErNart.: So the money that, this large sum of money is for a wetland map included elevations? In other words, establishing elevations of every wegland in the city? Did you include that? Kr~uss: No, that's included in the program and the reason for doing it no~ is~we need to get that information for our flood control plan anyway. I mean we've got to know where all the water's going to and coming from and Plan~ing Commission Meeting 3anu~ry 2, 1991 -~ Page 37 ~hat.~elevation it flows over into the next water body downstream so we're goin¢, to be ottt ther.e doing an analysis on every ~ater body in the city anyw&y for the surface water management plan. This is when Gary and Z star~ed ta].ked about it we realized there ~as a lot of overlap and it _ shouldn't, be surveyed twice. ,_fha t That exists. i Krau.~s.'. No it doesn't. ~rha~t' Ulnar the drainage of everything? Krau;~s: No, we don't have an overall drainage plan for the City. We have pieces of the city that have drainage plans. Erha.~t: The Watershed should have all that. Krau~s: No, they don't. The Wateshed District's talking in very gross ter ,~. about what's feeding the major tributaries that they deal with. They oft.~n don't know what's upstream and they, like us, are forced to having to rev]~ew every pro3ect individually. Like the one today. There is not an overall drainage plan that shows that there should be an .1.8 inch pipe goins tha~ way and it's going to go to an impoundment that we're going to acquire downstream. All we know is that that site drains in 3 different directions ,: apd}we've 9or to figure out how to handle it. ~nd we've got to figure it all iout on that site because we don't have any alternatives. When we have tbi~ planning done, we car, say that the intent is for this parcel to drain do~stream. ~e don't want a little rinky dink retention area on this proferty. We may want the developer, instead of building it on the proC~erty, to pay into a fund so we can buy this pond downstream. There's a lot of f].exibility there. Erh~rt: Then once you've got it you've got to 'keep it up. KraUss: Well it's kind of, it's self maintaining at that point. I mean t. hi~gs don't change until we change them. I mean the natural topo won't change unless we approve an alteration and then that alteration becomes pa¥~ of that plan. This is not cutting edge stuff. This is something that mo~% communities who are developing as rapidly as we are certainly, have alrieady had the benefit of. What we want to do is take it one step further an~ have the water quality plan in there. That's different. That's new. Er~a. rt: What I was getting to though, I mean I guess I find our ordinance, it !seems to me they work pretty good right now. What you're referring to there is checking on building permits. Do you see any gross holes in our ordinance that you see in addressing number two there? Olden: Just defining wetlands and define the edge. Define exactly what a Class A and what a Class B and what exactly you can do in a Class A and a C14iss 8. Yeah, it's difficult becaus, e each time it's different. You have ali. these different parties, DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers who .ar~ involved and it'd be nice to have something more consolidated with it. I'm not sure you're going to change all the approval bodies? Plann_~ng Comm£ssion Meeting 3anua~y 2, 1991 - Page 38 i Olsen.~ Well no, we're not changing but there is a group of wetland forum that'~ working together trying to come together with agreement on what should be protected. How they should be protected and everyone sees the problems because developers don't know who to go to and we're trying to work ~ith that and improve what we've got. Erha _~: Okay, but you had that listed as a planning. I interpretted this and ~,'aybe I got this wrong. I interpretted that the first 8 ~ere here were planring commission goals. Krau~s: No. They're not broken out that way at all. These are work tasks that ii have done. framings: That's ~9eO and that's 1991. The first group is 1990. Erha~t: Alright. I'll back off. Conrad: Let's get off this. 5rha~t: I have some other questions though here. Data processing coor~Jinator. Is that a new person? Krau~s: No. Erha~t: That person's been here. KraL~s: It's Torn Chalice. Erhart: Okay. Senior Commission. t4hat's the Senior Commission? KraLiss: That's new. That's an outgrowth of the Senior Need's Study that ~as ~funded with federal block grant money last year that we completed. :Et -_ was !a far reaching study. :Et didn't have any preconceived notions but. we recognized the fact that we have a fa~r]_y large number of seniors in to~n anti,nobody was realty aware of what if any needs they had. bJhat was lac[~ing? Uhat needed to be provided for them ~f anything and there was a tas~ force that the Mayor appointed to look into that. The outgrowth of ~t was~the study was completed. :Eh found needs for housing and tra~lsportation. Ultimately for an in town senior center probably with some dining facilities. Startling to me, we have about 800 or 900 seniors in theYcommunity right now and that number's going to increase rapidly. I was astonished to realize that ~4e had that many and you think of Chanhassen as being a relatively young families and what not. But one of the reCOmmendations was not to let the study sit on the shelf and gather dust bu~ to provide some mechanism to bring these things about. $o the way that th~ Nas approached by the Council is that they appointed a permanent Se.lot Commission which functions as a Planning Commission or Park Board or anWthing else and they'll be reviewing senior issues. Er~art: Do they meet on a regular basis? Krauss' The>' will. Er~art: Here? And your department's supposed to do their work? Planning Commission Meeting Janus; y 2, 1991 - Page 39 Kraua~: Yeah, we pick up on all these things. You know Jo Ann's been doins' the recycling and Sharmin and Jo Ann have been doing Southwest Metro. That~ all planning functions. AhreKs: Of course now that the comprehensive plan is out of the way... Conrad: What else? Steve, what do you think? Do you have some goals? Emmir..gs: Yeah. I'm going to exercise and eat right and that basically, goal~ to me always sound like that. They're resolutions and I'm not as comffrtable with talking about broad goals as I would be, I like our on goin.~ issues sheet. I think there's a whole bunch of stuff on there that need~ to come off and we ought to maybe reprioritize what's on this sheet but -i~aving a little work agenda like this, specific items that we want to get ~one, this is where I think we ought to start is with this sheet. Ther~' are at least a half a dozen items that can come off here because theyfre done or they're things that we don't do. There are things that the¥~do that we don't do. Ells~n: Like computerize files. Emmi~gs: Yeah, computerizing land use files is the one that I noticed there. I don't know what that's got to do with us. Kra~ss: I didn't propose these as, this memo wasn't made up as your goals. Emm~ngs: No, no no I'm understanding that and I don't know Ladd If you Jwant to talk about broad goals of the Planning Commission, I don't know wheqe I'm comfortable talking about this sheet of specific items. Con~ad: What I'm trying to do is say hey, if you want to get something, wha~ things do we really want to get done in 1991~ That's this. Erh~rt: What were our goals last year? Con~,ad: Comprehensive Plan primarily. And I think a lot of the things tha~ we accomplished that have fallen off this were some very specific zon.~ng ordinances that we cared about. In fact I've got the January 5th, 199~ list of what we started out with and you know, a fair amount has come off~ that list. I think what happened last year we submitted some stuff to the? City Council and it came back and we probably forgot about what we rea!~ly said we were going to do over the course of the year but I think we goti, we didn't go and look at that specifically. I think we moved all the ite~ns ahead that we were generally concerned with but again the goal set~d:ing from my standpoint is to tell staff and City Council where we'd li~ to spend more time. It's our chance to tell staff that we, they're going to be directed by City Council to do some stuff. We have a chance to prioritize some of their time right now .and if we don't do it, then they mov. e us. Basically they dictate where we're going which is acceptable as long as we agree that we don't have anything that supercedes their particular needs. So the process that I just want to go through right now is ~make sure that we agree with what, on the things that we control, that we lagree with where Paul's taking the Planning department this year and do we~have other priorities? I think Tim would have to say that re-evaluating th~ 169, the highway business down south is very important and I would · PlannCng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 40 agree~with that. I would feel uncomfortable if we didn't have that finis;ned sometime in 1990. ~ · Emmin~s: But maybe the way to organize this discussion, you know to me is to dq~ it around this work list because this is, we've primarily asked staff to point things on here. This is more. Ells~n: Our wish list. Emmi¢gs: Yeah. This has been our list of things to do as opposed to a specific tasks. Cont,'Cd: I think you're right but there are also broader things that Paul brines up in his memo. The revisiting the wetland issue. Emmi~_gs: That's on here. That's on our work list. Conr~,d: Is it? Emmi~gs: Number 2 under other items. I don't have anything that's not on the ~heet . Conrad: Okay, nothing else on the sheet. Anybody with something besides whatl's on the sheet? Batz~.~' i." What's on the work list? Con¥~d: Yeah. Ell~,.on: I thought of one thing but I'm not sure it's really, I don't know k I'l~ just kick it out and wonder if it's something that we would be involved in or not. We zone and we spend so much time planning and we've all ~Got it in our head what we'd love to see in these different places. Can'¢we Get the staff or does the city ever actively go out and recruit the~_.e kinds of things? ~4e kind of leave it up to the developers to come through and then, oh we really didn't have that in mind and we try to con~rol them as best we can to the conditional use even though it really wasn't in our plan when we pictured it. I mean is there a way that Me could go out and pursue and actively recruit the kinds of things we wan~ed? We got to the point where we had so many convenience things dow~town we were really disappointed. Well we let it come in as it came in which is the rule of the marketplace yet if we tried to actively recruit andi~e probably don't have any funds to give people great deals but we were saying fo~ example when the gas station was leaving. There goes the only service center in all of Chanhassen. ~here are people going to get their cars repaired? Well, we could have gone and actively pursued either via the! staff or I'm not sure if it's in our jurisdiction but try to get the things that ~e feel are going to make Chanhassen better in what we pictured in _~lanninG and I don't know how that would fit in here but I just see that we ~aited for it to come through and then we try to makeshift it to be the be~t it can be. Why not go out and get what we want or at least try. And th~ other thing is communication. We hear it so often that people didn't kn~w. Maybe the 500 feet thing we were talking maybe should be expanded. Th~se other people in the industrial park for example felt really slighted that maybe they weren't within 500 feet but they were certainly affected by Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 41 thes~ things and maybe we should relook at what we notify people. I remember I mentioned it last time. Is it worth trying to get more press time k~n us or something like that before it gets to the Council where it's real~/ in the paper. People feel that it's too late. You've already had, you know your commission recommend it and now it's going to Council and [, I fe~l now that I'm reading about it I've lost out and I didn't have my ohan~e at it. Those are the two things that I keep thinking of. Proactive I guess is what I'm thinking in those two aspects that aren't really work item~ but things that I sure would like to try to proactively pursue but I don'~ kno~ ho~. Whab do you guys think? Conrad: So you think &hat communication needs some help? Ells~n: Well on our level. People read about it ~hen it hits Council and i¢ Me have told them, come at the Planning Commissiom level and go whaL~ver. I don't kno~ that they're getting enough at that Planning Com~ssion level and they Ceel again that they're being slighted and it's alt ~ecided. I mean you hate hearing from this guy that says our neighbors feel¢ it's not worth coming. r 8at~li: I think Steve should write a column for the local paper. r; Ell~on: There you 8atOll: Steve's World, we'll call it. Ell~on: Like Wayne's World. Well that's an idea but do you know what kine of getting at? Conrad: Well what else do you want to do? Ell~on: Ask the paper to come more often. 8a~li: What happened to Don's column? Kra~ss: It's not been in there for a long time. 8a~zli: No it hasn't. El~son: Could we request more coverage on the Planning Commission items? Th~s is where the grass roots, their comments would probably be more apropos to change and mold and it's easier to do it here than it is at Council. I guess that's one idea. CoCrad: Well they're definitely ignoring us. El~son: Yeah. I remember when I first started there was a little gal here. Ba~zli: They used to get quotes from us and stuff. It was 9Teat. Of c~rse I never got quoted. I don'h ~ay anything worthwhile but you guys al~ got quoted. It was great. C~rad: But I don't feel the same. It's classic that people haven't h~ard. That's what they always say but typically they're not interested. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 42 The ~estion is, are there more things. Ellso~n: It's worth talking about and making it on the agenda and spending a ni~t thinking of different ways. Maybe that's just all we can do but maybe this isn't the point. Conrad: 8ut what you want is a routine. An easy way to do more communication and that's typically the paper, if they covered us and :~b poss. ly. You know we can ask Paul or Jo Ann to get more coverage if we had specific articles that we would like and they've gone out and done that when-!the comprehensive plan was coming through. Aggressively you saw what they!did. We haven't really done that and basically because you know, I guess I've just generally felt that the community's been more aware. Ther~ is cable television that people are watching and seriously, if they do c~re about some of this stuff, it's in their living rooms. I think most of i~'$ pretty mundane and really quite boring. I'm not sure how active they~want to be in some of this stuff so on the one hand it sounds like I'm putting it down. On the other hand, I'm not but I don't know what else we can ~o. Ell~. n: ~ don't either but maybe that's worthy of a discussion on some nig ,~ when we don't have a whole lot on the agenda. I guess I don't have the ~answer. I'm just saying it's worth a brainstorming session or som(~thing like that. Confad: Well, you really bring up a good point and partially it's the fact tha~ we're not having coverage by our local newspaper at our level. If tha~ bothers us, we should do something about it. The other thing, Annette you fwere talking about is proactive seeking out industry. That's, I'm not sure that's the job of the Planning Commission. It's usually economic dev~.lopment but that's you Paul isn't it? Aren't you sort of the economic dev%lopment arm or is that HRA? Kra~ss: Yes, I think the HRA's been the marketing arm if you will and I wori~ with Todd extensively whenever we have somebody that we'd like to. We'~e had a number of meetings with the supermarket applicant. EllBon: Right. We'd love to have that. I mean that's been well known that everyone would like to have a supermarket. Kr~uss: But the difference is that the HRA, when the HRA markets, the HRA ha~ money to give. El~son: Right, leverage and stuff. Kr~uss: And we don't have that ability in a lot of the stuff. The outside of-~the downtown or the industrial parks. Also marketing, you know a lot o$ ci~ies go out and do it or say they do it too. We are trying to improve ou~ brochures and information that ~e give to people. One of the things that you may consider too is a newsletter. I don't want to do it just for plfnning but we're talking about having a newsletter going out 4 times a yefr. Now right now you get the recreation brochure. That's going to be transformed into a real city newsletter. Now with something going out qu.~rterly you're not going to be able to say on January 2nd the Planning Co~mission's going to consider so and so, you'd better be there. But you Planning Commission Meeting 3anua,~., y 2, 1991 - Page 43 will De able to give overviews on what sorts of things you're tackling like wetland issues or whatever else. BF district and put together thoughts on that ~o there will be forum, hopefully in the not too distant future to do that~ The signs we're putting up, Z'd adopt a wait and see attitude to see how ~hose work. F'ly experience is they're very successful. Ellsqln: Yeah, that's a good step in the right, direction regarding some communication. Ahre s: I understand what you're saying though Annette. Oust in the past year I've noticed that we've been faced with some development that we don't real y like. We don't know what to do with it because it meets all the stan, lards. Like the Wendy's. Everybody said gee, it'd be nice to have a rest.~urant or something more attractive at the entrance of the city but how can ~ou say no when they meet all the requirements and then we'¥e faced withia Wendy's there that maybe we don't really want and I don't know how to a~dxess that issue either. I mean it's so subjective in a lot of ways to ~t back and say we don't like that or it's not nice enough. I agree thati it would be nice to have, play a bigger role in kind of deciding what's, so ~e don't end up with a strip like we do in downtown right now. That,. is basically. E~l~on: Well the difference between our downtown and Excelsiox's you kno~ is ~ight and day and I think everyone would love to picture this Excelsior where you can go from this place to that and ~here you just drop off your dxy icleaning, go pick up your, get your gas. Ahr~ns: Yeah, useful shops instead of what we have. Ell~on: And obviously there's always enticements. If we don't have enticements, I don't know. As far as financial, it's just an idea. I mean sen,¢' out letters, brochures on the city? Kra~ss: Well yeah and I've talked to the HRA about that. I mean the HRA's bee~ fairly reactive. Bxad ~ohnson or Clayton 5ohnson come in with a proposal and they get 3 years of incYement or whatever it is. We've talked abo~.~ t the HRA and the HRA does own some property. Going in and soliciting prc~osals to development we'd like to see on those pieces of ground. I thi~k ultimately they'll be doing that in some very limited circumstances but~ it's not a real comfortable role for cities to play. Become the active pa~¥ in the development scheme. You look at the controversy that was generated about the supermarket because the city to induce a supermarket to co~e in, the HRA had developed a subsidy program wheYe we subsidized their px~fits or losses for a period of time so they can make it over the hump un~il the community develops and they can make it on their own. That was a very controversial proposal and the HRA took some political flack for ha~ing done that and it still hasn't succeeded in getting us a supermarket because it's not built yet. Hopefully it will soon but, so there's limits to'how much you can do and it's competitive. I mean you always see Star City things whenever you come into towns. Well that's all a marketing prCgram that the State pushes. ;z 1 i: I never understood how that works. It seems like about 70t of all cities aye Star Cities, Planning Commission Meeting Janu~r~ y 2, 1991 - Page 44 Krausls: It's very bogus. I mean it's a lot of work to qualify and the State has no money to give or incentives to give once you do it. Ahre~s: He could just put up our own sign. Conrad: Yeah, we could make our own terms. Nobody will know. Ells~n: Those aren't easy ones but they're just ones that are my concerns. Conrad: Brian, do you have any goals you'd like to set? Batz~i: My goals are wetlands/water quality. Number 2, protect the bluffs. Number 3, rezone BF to existing use. 4, ¢ncourage open spaces by either promoting agricultural, A-2, golf courses, whatever. And a fifth one ~s to improve and actually develop a tree ordinance and improve landscaping. I think we've had a lot of problems with landscaping recently bec~se Z don't think our ordinance is tough enough. Z think we should, the ~ne thing normally people will agree on is that there's not enough tree, s.~. Then we hear a lot of things about well you've got to plant them 150 ~feet apart because they're going to grow up to be you know, 80 foot monsters in 40 years and I don't buy that. Erh~rt" Are you talking about our landscaping portion of the ordinance? Sat~li: I'm talking about that and I'm also talking about eventually t. ak~ng the tree ordinance/mapping of significant vegetative areas off the inactive list and doing something with it. Erh~rt: I would entirely agree with you that our landscaping ordinance sho¢ld be reviewed. You know 1 tree every 40 feet and then just leaving it opeD whether it's a hardwood or an evergreen, I really think I'd like to spe~d some time this year. KraUss: Yeah, that certainly is a rinky dink standard that we disregard to~lly. Er~rt: It's just inadequate. Kra~ass: It's actually, this is not something that came from Minnetonka. It's something that came from long ago when I worked for BRM. That or4inances were drafted so that the amount of landscaping was financially tied into the value of the development. That there was a sliding scale established that you had to spend i~ or 1 1/2~ of the total project cost on landscaping and the bigger dollar project is the smaller percentages because it had more bang for the buck. But then you need an ordinance that gi~es you more definitions as to where to spend the money but at least it established a minimum criteria of what you have to do. Er~art: If a development goes into an already wooded area, I mean why shfuld you arbitrarily have someone spend money to landscape an area that's woDded and you don't want them to do anything with it? Kr~uss: Yeah. That gets into the tree preservation aspect. Erhart: Almost contrary t.o that. Plann.~ng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 45 L. KrausCs: Nell you have to make them work in tandem. The Eden Prairie ordi~nce is kind of clunky. I mean they've gotten some good press for thei¢., tree preservation efforts and I think in some respects it's good but thei~ replacement caliper inches is so high that when you develop a wooded site ~and you have to remove trees, that there physically often isn't enough room!,to put ¢ho~e 'trees on the property. I knew one developer that was buil4'ing a townhouse development there that actually offered Eden Prairie to p;ant trees in their parks because they just couldn't put them on the prop&rrM. gatz. i: That wouldn't be so bad. Krau~s: No, I don't think it is either. I mean it's like a park dedi%ation fee you know. But we can consider those. There's certainly mod~fLs out there to use. gat~li: As far as the things that aren't on the list, the one is really that~ isn't on the list at all in any form at all other than improve the landscaping ordinance is to encourage open spaces. Either trying to somehow promote green acres type thing or what have you. Basically in essence you're trying to maintain open spaces. Slow down the growth out~ide the MUSA line even more than it's already slowed down. Confad: The bluff preservation. Do we have anything? BatRli: I don't think we have anyt'hing actually on the list other than looking at the BF to KraUss: We could add that but I actually construed that to be going hand i n hand . Ba~zli: b~ell so did I. bJhen we've talked about it in the past, we've ta~ked about it kind of simultaneously. I don't know what Eden Prairie has do~e but they do have some sort of bluff preservation ordinance in effect do~.'t they? Kr&uss: I've heard that they do. gaSzl i: Yeah. Kr~uss: But again there's a lot of working examples of communities that hage done that. ge don't have to reinvent the wheel. C~hqrad: Brian, you said tree ordinance. Don't we have, ~hat do we have fo:? a tree ordinance right nog? .. O~sen' Landscaping C<~nrad: It's landscaping? E~hart: Well it states that you can't do clear cutting. O~sen: The only place that really is stated is in the Shoreland District. Planning Commission Heeting Janua:~y 2, 1991 - Page 46 ? Erhar~: It's stated under subdivision ordinance that you can't clear cut. Isn'Ui ii:? kJhen they clearcut the one up here we went back and did sometAtning. I guess I'm under the impression that they can't go in and clea ~rccut property anymore. We actually acted on that. Conrad: Yeah, but I don't know how we did that. Batz~i" We didn't do anything. Olsef: ...like it's our property and ~e can do Nhat we want. Erhagt: I sure though~ we did. Bat. z~i: We talked about covenants recorded against the vaTious pieces of properties so ~he land owners could enforce it against one another. I mean tha~was going to be our solution so that they couldn't clearcut it because supposedly ~hat happened ~as the builder bought the land. It ~as already subdivided and then he clearcut. Krau~s: There is a tree removal and conservation of vegetation section the ~ubdivision code. I ~on't read it to you but it's a little paragraph ~it~ a couple of elements. Existing healthy trees and native vegetation sha~l be preserved to the maximum extend feasible and p~otected by adequate mea~ during construction. It gives you entTee to doing something about it. :~ Maybe it's not as specific as you'd like but it is in theTe. In fact we r~id it quite a bit ~ith Vineland Forect. We Ne~e out there marking tre~s. Ols~n: That was specifically stated in the recommendations. No clear culling ~ithouE a ~ree removal plan. Ever since Triple Cro~n... Erh~rt: I guess I've always felt, I mean I don't disagree in general but I ~hi~k ~e've done a pretty good job since that ~ime of protecting trees. I thi~k ~e should be planting trees right no~... I'm involved with a couple of ~rojec~s ~i~h tha~ going more to a greateT degree here in ~he city. Ahr~ns: Ho~ long is this tree ordinance, mapping o¢ significant vegetative ar Kr~ss~ eossiblw ~o ~mm could ~escri~e t~at. ~h~ens~ I ~ean t~at see~s differemt fro~ tree Ol~em: ~ight. ~at ~e ~ere trying to do ~as to try to, durimg some of the su~divisions.~.beautiful trees that should be preserved... 51~son: Like a big 9rove of oak trees and things like that. ol~en: ...like with the townhomes. Anyway, me ~ould like to have those mapped ahead of time so the developer's a~are that there are some restrictions that they can't just cut them down and then plant small trees~ I ~hink that's ~hat ~e ~ere ~orking ~ith add it is being don~. Hire somebody to go out there and actually do a visual~ find out ~hat kind of trees they are. Plann~[ng Commission Meeting 3anue~y 2, 1991 - Page 47 Krau~: We tried t.o fund that in this year's budget. Hire a forestry intern to work with it. There's one DNR forester for the entire 7 county metre area which is bizarre and he's very 9cod you know but obviously when i' you .c~over that much land there's only so much time you have. We tried to fund lan internship position this summer to complete the map with Alan. We werem't successful in getting that into the budget. That Nas one of the thin~m that was chopped out to get the budget down. Conrad: Well Brian are you comfortable that we have, you said the tree ordinance. After you've heard the discussion here, are you comfortable we need~ or do you think ~e need to look at it further? You've heard the language that we currently have. Are we talking about an ordinance for that!or are Ne talking about a broader ordinance of natural amenity pres.~rvation or is it just as simple as what you're saying? .! 8atz:~i: I think it's natural amenity pYeservation. I'm more concerned that~~I think will protect us from clear cutting. I think natural amenities is m~gnificant stands, obviously we're lacking but I think at a minimum Ne shoed take a look at the landscaping requirements. Conr~ad: In regard to what? Bat~li: Subdivision. Congad: Subdivision? _ 8at~li: Yeah. Or site plan. Coniad: Okay. Is anybody concerned about just simply, ~e talked about mineral extraction already but just contour. Land contours. Does bluff cov+r that? Is anybody concerned that you can really level a site because that's the cheapest way to develop it is if you level it and then you start over agaih. Anybody concerned about keeping the natural contours? 8at~li: Well how did we stop that one guy that wanted to level? E1 l~son: We couldn't. Ba~zli: Or I guess he didn't want to level it. That was actually his problem ~asn't it? He wanted to keep a hill going down onto the road. El~son: The guy that was dragging it all into Eden Prairie? Ba~zli: No, no, no. The guy that was just developing a site and I can't re~ember which site it was. Was it Lake Susan Hills? KrSuss: Lake Susan Hills 5th, Brian? Brian Olson? _ Ba~zli: I think so. Isn't he the one that didn't want, to flatten out some of the grades? Em~ings: Yeah, because he had a whole bunch of cul-de-sacs and we were t.r~ing to get rid of them. Planing Commission Meeting Janua.~y 2, 1991 - Page 48 ? Krauq;s: We were insisting that he maintain a cons~ent ~ith code down to CR 17 and he was kickin~ about that because required extensive 8a~z~i: I don't know Lhat it ~as always cheaper. Ethane: Maybe ~he one you're thinkin~ about is the Jeurissen mineral extraction where they were ~oin~ to eliminate a ~mmi'~s: But don~t they always need a ~radin~ permit? If they come in and ask ~or a ~radin~ permit for something, they can say they just want to flatten some~hin~ out tha~s lumpy now, what restrictions are there on there? Krau want ina remo perm ~s: Well it's fairly extensive. Under the new ordinance any time you to move more than 500 yards, which sounds like a lot. It's 10 yards truck but it's not enough to eliminate a hill. Anytime you want to e any significant volumes of earth you've Got to Get an interim use it which comes before you and the City Council which talk about future of the property and the ability to preserve natural features. The problem that we had on the Jeurissen one is that he made a case that I thoUGht was ridiculous but he made a case that would probably stand up that he ~as improving the agricultural use of the property which was the use tha~ he was putting it to and he wasn't destroying any mature trees to do it.I He was taking a big chunk out of a hill. It might look a little silly butlthe ordinance doesn't deal with things that look silly. It deals with wha~ the use of the property is. Sat$1i: But do you really want to be able to regulate somebody that wants to flatten a piece of land? Kra~ss: Fine. Ell~on: Yeah. We don't want him to take off. Co,ad: We might. 8a~Zli' You might. Is it reasonable? Kr~uss: Well you might and you can. The way the ordinance is written now, yo~ can. I can Give you a for instance from Minnetonka just as an example. When Hwy 12 was being rebuilt to 394 where Carlson interchange is no~? On th~ south side there there is a very large area that should have been deSiGnated as a wetland but for some reason wasn't and the builder~ Johnson 8r~s. Construction for the highway saw that as just .a dandy place to dump al.~ the fill from the highway. And at that time Minnetonka didn't have an ordinance that could stop that but what we did is their Grading plan would ha~e left this, and it was in a residential neighborhood, would have left th~s residentially zoned site at a perfectly flat Grade right onto a highway interchange which was obviously only Good for commercial use which wa~ inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and on that basis we denied it~. Them took us to court and wound up dropping the court case because they finally found someplace else to dump it anyway but that was clearly a cabs where you did not want a site leveled or filled or raised because it celdn't be used~ apart from destroying a natural feature, it couldn't be ! PI. anOn9 Commission Neeting ~7anu~y 2, 1991 -- Page 49 used !for it's intended purpose when it was done. Copra'd: I'm going to leave that open. Jeff, anything that you see? FaTrn~kes' I'd like to talk just a littl bit mote about this tree oTdi(ance. I kind of see, you talk about mapping what Chanhassen's assets a~e.~ WaLeT quality, ~eLlands and on that sheet you're referring to it as vege;~]ated areas. Significant g~owth of forest area. I'd like to know also othe~ natural resources. If Chanhassen has a good handle as to ~hat other natu.~al TesouTces that ate here that ate expendable in development such as topsoil for instance. You see mounds of a natural ~esouToe as you d~ive into.~town here stacked up as ~hey'Te putting the highway in. development pushes fuTthe~ into the agricultural land, ~heTe does all that t. op~il ~o for instance? Will it remain in this community and if not, pot~LiallM later on ~ill Ne be paying some bills fo~ it? The reason I'm mentioning Jt is with water quality, as we reduce out level of fertility heT~ in the community to compensate fo~ that, paTticula~ if th~s climate 9et~ d~ier, don t ~e have to revert to chemical support for if ~e ~ant to kee~ out 9~asslands green and so on? If we have no inventory of these assets, how do we know ~hat we lose through encroachment on development? We ~ouldn't know fo~ instance how many trees, overgrowth trees we're losing and~how much we're replacing with the trees that won't provide significant ~in~ covet o~ shade for 20-30 years may. Anyway I don't see ho~ we can assess ~hat we're going to lose if we don't know what we have. 0~ what we hav~ lost. I think tha~ that's important ~hat ~e know on all ~hose assets. And-~the other thing is, on a tree ordinance, I would like to see something tha~ ~ould encourage a desi9ne~ of a si~e to leave ~he growth ~hat is the~e in ~ome sort of wa.y who're J.f they take it out they have to put and~hey have to put it back in enough that it's p~efeTTable for them to lea~e what is there if them can possibly do that. Co.ad: Where did we get the 1 fo~ 17 We've implemented a 1 for i cT an in~ fo~ an inch. 01~en: I ~hink we got that from Eden c:o~ad: And is that someplace in out code, in out ordinance someplace? 01~en: It's calipe~ inch pe~ calipe~ inch in the landscaping plan. KT~u. ss: Under site plans. So it doesn't affect single family subdivisions. That's the othe~ language that I was quoting ea~lie~ that affects subdivisions. Er[hart: It affects commercial only? Kr_~uss: Well it affects anything but single family homes. So multi- fabily housing would be covered by that too. One of the things we found. Er~art: Excuse me. Everything but single family? It affects everything _ single 'family subdivisions? Km;auss: Well ~¢ait. You've got this on a kind of a two track approach. Y~u've got the subdivision code that deals with the splitting of property a~d that's the only thing that you have to interact with on single family ! Plann;'--ng Commission Meeting Janua"'y 2, 1991 - Page 50 plat~ so there is language in there dealing with tree preservation. Possi~aly not as specific as people would like but there is language. Then you cea]. with the range of things that we do site plan reviews on which is every~thing except single family homes and if it only requires a site plan revi~w, you need something in the site plan review section of the ordinance that's applicable that requires tree preservation. One of the things that we'v~ found over the last 5 to 10 years is the market is also helping us out ~onsiderably these days with tree preservation. It won't help you when somebody wants to put a warehouse in or something like that but developers of srngle family property Go to great lengths to save trees today because it's'dollars in their pocket. You know a wooded lot is worth $10,000.00 more]than an unwooded lot. No developer in their right mind is Going to will ' hilly cut down trees anymore. And the days of mass Grading for an Orin Thompson type of development, I'd like to 'think they're gone. lhey're prob.~bly not entirely Gone but they're fading. But you do need to have an ordi ~ance that makes it almost punitive in a way to have disregard for tree pres~ rvation. Ihat you make somebody take up and notice that it's going to cost. them if they're going to want to remove those trees. 8atz[i: Encouragement is there. Anyway it Gives them a choice but the enc~raGement is there for them to leave Erh~t: On the other hand is it fair, I mean a Guy's Got a pure woods whe~ you've Got these 36 inch diameter trees, 30 to 40 feet apart or som~thinG and you've Got to put a street in. A public thing and you try to forge that guy to ~o in and replace caliper inch per inch trees? I Guess that's the part I was questioning a few weeks ago. The answer I Got was ~el~, we take that into consideration and that's sreat but I Guess what lik~ us~ and I'd be real concerned that we don~t Get to the point here where people in like Eden Prairie are doing things like can I put trees you~ parks because I've got to cut a tree down to develop my property? me 'that's not right. I mean for a lot of these property owners preserve the~e trees for years to some point where it could be developed and now you[re Going to penalize them for doing a good job or preserving their tree stands so I think it's all Good but I think there's a practical limit. Bei6g punitive I Guess is where I think we've got to be real careful there. It ~oes down to I think one time we talked a year ago. Should you ~et down to ~he level of saying a guy owns a lot, can I tell that Guy not to cut his tre6? Em~ings: Or you've got a bunch of old trees and if you want to cut them~ if ~I want to cut a tree down in my yard for firewood you know or if I've GcC[ a big area of trees and I want to cut trees out of there for firewood or ~even to sell it on a commercial level, .are you going to tell me I can't do ~it? I think when you Get into areas like that, I~m much more comfortable trying to promote, I've never liked our landscape ordinance on subdivisions. Ihat's always been Goofy. It needs to be a lot more and I th~nk we should encourage planting all we can. When you start restricting wh~t landowners can do with their own trees, absent a subdivision or something like that taking place, I'm not comfortable with it. Co~rad: Joan~ did you have something to add for Goals? Ah~ens: I don't really have anything additional. I mean what's on our li~t here is I think are worthwhile goals, t don't know if you even want P].ann,[n~,, Commission Meeting 3anua~y 2, 1991 - Page 51 to Sd through and list what our priorities are? E:onr~: I guess I'd like to come out of here with a sense of our top 4 or S priorities. ~., Ahre~s' Wetland issues. I think it's really neat that you're doing this comp%terizing the land use files. I noticed we approve a lot of pro3ects here 'and ~e put tons of conditions in them and I don't know how you can keep,track of those conditions for development. I don't know how you ever keep}track of those, t4hat's the time line on that? When are you going to be able to do that? Krau~s" Well again there's a funding constraint. 6Je have most of the hard,.~are but the software is relatively expensive and is often tailored to a co~munity I've been assured by Tom Chaffee that he's picked out something t6at we should use and that we probably will get it on line befc~e spring but I've heard that before. Also once you have the, you know havi.~g the hardware, having the software, I mean that's all fine and dandy but ii.. think as you're all aware, unless there's data fed into the thing it'~ completely worthless and when you see our files of realms of data that we ~ave already, it's a fairly significant work task. Abrams: Who's going to do that? Kra~ss: It beats me. We need it for enforcement of many things. ~e want a s~tuation where somebody who says I'm looking to buy 4220 North Drive, wha~ can you tell me about the lot? You can call it up and say well it's got[a wetland on it. The last building permit we approved was in 1972 and it fas for a porch. There was a variance approved and so and so. I mean allithat stuff needs to be laid out. Right now it's in different files in different rooms under different departments. It's there, it's 3ust tough to ~ind. Abrams: I'm also interested in the landscaping issue. That's it for me. Co'ad: Okay. Paul, I noticed you wanted to spend, you wanted to do a comprehensive redraft of the city's PUD ordinance. Meaning a lot of time? Kr~uss: I don't know. I mean I've got some that I've written before that I've worked with and I think filled' some gaps I see in ours. The concern I ~ave with our PUD ordinance is we want to rely on that to insure ourselves~ and residents that we are in essence contracting for high quality development and that we will get that development enacted I think that we do~a good Sob with the development of the PUD contract an~ that element of ~t}but our ~UD ordinance 3ust throws the door wide open. I mean it says, re, one it to PUD. Anything goes anyway, any how. There's no standards. No'~guidelines at all. Now the PUD ordinance is designed to encourage fl6×ibility but ours gets a little bizarre. For example if you normally hs~e a 20 foot setback for parking from a street,, as soon as you do PUD~ thai t disappears. And I can't understand, I can t in good conscience feel co~] fortable with a PUD going in our downtown. It came up with Market S.q~are. Market Square is a PUD and we got a very good design out of it but t~ey did not have to maintain even something as simple as a setback from t.~e public right-of-way. Plann'ng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 52 Conr~rLd: Does everybody else feel, well Paul obviously there's some things that ~ou want to do. Do we feel comfortable in the redraft of the PUD ordin~.nce? L,Je can ignore it and Paul can do it. We can say yeah, we want it. ~t's important. It's a high priority. Anybody have any feelings on that?] Er ha~t: Yeah. I would like to not see that get ahead of some of the other thin~'s we talked. To me the number one thing we ought to be working on is the ~lural land preservation. 2 1/2 lot. Review of the, what you call is poli¢'ies toward rural land. That to me is the number one issue. I think the _:~andscaping ordinance, it's funny how we haven't talked about that before tonight and almost universally it's, everybody wants a new landscaping ordinance so I think that's important. It wasn't that long ago that-iwe just redid this PUD. I guess maybe that's the thing... Conrad.'- L4hen did Ne do that? Batz~i: It b4as more than 3 years ago. Krau~. s: I think you redid elements of it relative to single family. Ols~n: Yeah. We do have regulations for single family and commercial and ind~trial . Con~ad: But the regulations for single family Jo Ann, when did ~e do tho+? Ols~n: It was... ConSad: Oh, so it has been because I've got notes going back to June 2nd of i989 and it said revise PUD then and we obviously haven't done it. Erh~rt: Via that we never contemplated it's use in commercial districts. KraCss: I think the concern I have is that as tracts of land are opened up I s~e that being used as a tool more and more. I'd like that tool to be in pla~e no~. Nhere we do it during the course of the year probably, it doesn't need to be done first but it's something that I think we should do. Con_~ad: Rio'ye never talked about fertilizer use in the community. ~ell, 3o ~nn have we? Yeah. Co~rad: And what happened? Olden: I'm doing a memo on that right noN. We did get that going when it wa~, other cities were looking into that a couple years ago. In fact we di~ pose one to the Council but it was just one of those how do you enforce an% how do you keep track of who's doing it and who's not. Co~rad: $o it fell? ? Olden: It fell. Plann~.'ng Commission Meeting ~anu%¥>, 2, lee_~ - Page 53 'i Emmiv~gs: They decided that educating the public was one of the best things they ~could probably do and hopefully get the people to voluntaYily comply. Con~d: What did ~.,~e? ~i Olser' You never did anything. Conrad: We didn't? So it was basically from you Olse~: Risht, and asain a theme broumht up asain with the recyclin~ commission was kind of ~ettin~ more menerai~ more into environmental issues and Other cities are startin~ to look at it a~ain so if other cities are doin~ it~ I think maybe we can look at that a~ain and we can all 9et an area{ that's a~rees to one sort of ordinance so it's easier for everyone to appl~ and understand. We might do it but that's somethin~ that the Plan,~ni ng Commission... r- Far~kes: Don't large scale distributors of like Chem La~n, don't they nee~ a license to distribute chemicals in a community? Kra~s: Some cities do license them. Far~akes: Because that certainly must be the bulk of that type of applications for the bulk. Kra~ss: In terms of volume of material, I think you're right Jeff it tutti'ye seen data, Bart Engineering in fact ~as doing a report on it that: indicates that they're not the problem. The problem is the ~eekend lan~ocapers'¢ ~ho heavily fertilize their ta~n before a thunderstorm and all;~ashes off right into the storm se~er. Emm~ngs: Right, because they're primarily using. Nell they use both ~et and' dry but. Kra~.ss: They appl~ it ~henever it's convenient, to do it on their ~ork sc~dule. The professional applicators know ~hen to and ~hen not to do Far~akes: Is the concentration though much higher than a rural ap~l icat~on? Em~ings: Not in nitrogen I bet. If you're talking about for corn or something like that. Kr~uss: Nhat ~e're finding. I'm on the Hetro Council Task Force on ~ater quality for Minnesota River and the ~orst problems we're finding in the Minnesota River are those drainage basins that are totally agricultural. Ba~zli: Are agricultural? Krfuss: Totally, yeah. Em~ings: Because you're getting heavy use of other chemicals there besides fe{tilizers. I would imagine that that's a problem too but I knoN that, yo~ kno~ the commercial applicators that come through our neighborhood and do'~ rny ].a~n is an outfit called 1st Klass or something. I asked them ~hat Piann_~ng Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 54 their', mix of chemical was and they don't use any phospherous on properties that _.~re on the lake. Conrad: Is that right? Sram i r~js ' No. Conr&d' That's terrific. Bmmi~gs: ~nd I didn't kno~ that. I mean ~hen I bought their service I didn,t even kno~ it. I asked them and they said they just don't do Farm~kes: I noticed on our side of the lake you can say it significantly adds~to the problem, particularly like in, like you said in ~et. Sometimes they,tel out.there applying that stuff and it's even raining. I mean they,re on a contract situation. They're out there and it's obvious it's goin~ to rain. They're there. They put it on. Srha~t: Are you talking about dry or met fertilizer? Far,kcs: Uell ~e don't do it but I mean there is no, this is ~et application fertilizer. ~ell, yeah the large chemical tank shoms up and dropped that because I noticed a significant difference. It goes directly into~ the ~ater. I mean there's no k~etland in front of our place. Emro '~ ~ z?g~: ~nd ~hey come ~hey ~y and seZZ you a p~o~am ~ha~ they ~ant you to ~me 4 ~mes du~ng ~he yea~ you kno~ and Z have ~hem eome one t~rne and ~ ~ mo~e ~han adequa.~e for my ~a~n so Z don'e kno~ ~he~e ~he ~es~ of ~ha~ s~u~f ~oes. ~h~ns: ~eZZ ~hat a~e ~e ~o~n~ ~o do ~bout ~ha~? ~ mean ~s ~he~e ~e~l~e ~o~n~ ~o do abou~ Kra~ss: There's t~o ~ays it's being approached. I ~uess as Jo ~nn says, b~e'~ be very relunctant to have the City go out on the edge of trying to hav~ a local ordinance. I mean look it, you get the hard,are store do~.~¢to~n that's not allowed to sell fertilizer but the convenience store Ede~ Prairie across the line is. That kind of stuff Me really don't ~ant to fess ~ith. But there is a group of cities that ~o ~nn's becoming involved ~ith that are trying to develop a lot of environmental issues and tha.~'s one of the things that they'd like to tackle. ~s Jo ~nn points out, a 9~oup of cities ~orkin9 together to get a metro area sort of 'an ordinance or ~pproach passed is probably the best thing. In addition it's an issue tha¢'s going to be covered ~ith the Minnesota River stud>' that I'm involved ~4ih~ and ~e're going to have to, at least accommodate or discuss it in our ~a~r quality plan because it's a factor for our k~ater quality. Again I don't ~ant to unilaterally be in a position. I ~ouldn't advocate that the ci~ be in a position of going out and doing it on our o~n but there' is a lo~ of momentum building for something to happen. I think it probably in ~the next year or Ahdens: Are there any plans for community education? Olden: Again the'Recycling Commission is starting to get involved in that. I 4ssume that's ~hat they ~ere interested in doing once they got the .: ! Planing Commission Meeting ~anu~iry 23 1991 - Page 55 recyd['ling program going. I don't know if that's...the Planning Commission~ If t~at's what you want to work on, then we can bring it to you to work on but [t will be...so something will be worked Conr4-d: ~hat do you ~ant to do ~oan? Ahre(s" kJell it wasn't an issue I brought up. I was wondering what people ~4antfd to do about it. I mean I don't think there's anything we can do. ...R&cycling Committee to do whatever they want to do. It's a community prob:em but I don't know how much ~e ~ant ~o get involved in just public issues that... Krau~s: But it is something tha2, I know where I live, the community liver in our quar2erly newsletter comes cub ~ith information on stuff like 2hat¢. My community does has am active water quality program but they do spread the ~ord that hey, these things are a problem. Don't apply these thins. Ellen: ~ell and just the names of the other companies that are reputable ].ike[ his and stuff. There's references too. Kra~ss: ~e couldn't do that. Ell~on: ~hat are your goals Ladd? Con~ad: A couple of quick thoughts. Architectural standards. We brought. the~ up tonight. Anybody care about our architectural standards? ~umping int~ that thing? Brick or better. Sll~on' Easily. Far~akes: I kind of sa~ the difference when you were talking about architectural standards of telling them this is what ~e ~ant to see. ~an~ to see some allirons here and we want some shakes on this and I think the.[ issue that I was talking of ~hen I talked to them ~as just to soften u.p : lone it do~n. Leave it up to them to make it a bit more residential palatable. I mean the architect's going to understand that I think rather tha~, I don't kno~ ho~ you come up with an ordinance unless~ you know onl~ accept this style of architecture and this kind of paint. ~m~ings' ~e sure don't ~ant to see, ~e don't ~ant to have every building in ~o~n have a mansard roof. You've got to have some. Fa~makes' Or painted gray. Co~rad: So does anybodM ~ant to deal ~ith this or should we let it go? ~l~son: I think the ~ay they're looking at them right no~ is fine. Co~rad: Anybody ~ant to deal l~ith our o~n standards as such or let it an~ just we've got enough control on it? Guick question on drainage. Wh~t kind of standard. Tim brought it up tonight and I think it's a good. It,s something that I've al~ays believed in and that's to keep ~ater on si~e rather than running it off someplace but ~hat kind of standards, you kn~w I don't know if that's what engineering department believes. And Planning Commission Meeting ~anua"'y 2, 19~1 - Page 56 again, some of this stuff is, we accept what gets presented in a report but are t,k~ere standards that you set that we should know about? That would guid~ you.. You know MoLt can deal with water runoff in a lot of ways. Folc~: That's true. Normally what we do is basically follow what the ordir~ance calls for and that is that they maintain their pre-developed flinch1c rate for discharging off the site. If there's available storm water facilities adjacent to the parcel that have been designed previously to hand~.e the runoff and are capable of a direct discharge and have been planf~ed for as such, then of course we would want to see a direct conn~.ction rather than a ponding basin. I think as Paul eluded to earlier, havi~.g more of a comprehensive storm water management program will allow us to t~ke an area and hopefully design and develop one master storm water system for that particular area instead of having half a dozen little altair'age ponds on every parcel. %4e've got let's say one in an area that serve, cea all the parcels that are adnacent to it similar to what I think we _ have,on ~est 79th Street. ~e have a ponding basin dow~ there that services that.lwhole area. But basically at this point in time, we go by the ordinance which is maintaining the pre-development runoff rate. Erhaft: I guess in looking at that plan again after we discussed that., Z mean{that parking lot's at 936 and the pond's at 933. The reason that was run north is because well that's, we've got to put some fill on the north end 6f that parking lot to bring water to the south. The other option was to r~n a pipe from the north end of the parking lot back to that pond. I don'~ want to get into that particular site but if we could add some words to t~. e ordinance that basically said to the fact that you have to retain as rnuc~ water on site as possible to help beef up your effort in forcing these 9uy~ to spend a little money to maintain water on site, I think that's something we ought to do. Con~ad: Does anybody care? See I care about, that issue seems to be important to me. Erh~rt: YoLk_ get this storm water retention thing. The fundamental things you Ik.,ant to do. In keeping your rivers and your lake is keeping as much ~4at~r on site as long as possible. Con~ad: But is that going to wash out. Kra~ss: In keeping the water in some place that's designed to clean it. Not!necessarily on that property but someplace that's designed to handle it and-!in a lot of sites that won't be on that site. Erh~rt' No, I can understand that but it's the cheapest way to do it.. Kra6ss: Well it's not in the long run though. It's the cheapest possibly forl the individual developer but what we've found is we have to maintain t. he~e things and when we have 400 or 500 of these little tiny ponds all aro~nd town, we've got to get an inspection program going and we've got to ser~d in a backloader to clean out the grit and it really becomes an ad~nstrative nightmare. It's effectively these things won't be maintained as ~fficiently as they should so they won't work The Watershed District's h.a~e been enforcing this more and more lately. ~hey're again, Vineland Fo~st was a case in point. The developer there originally proposed 3 tiny Plan~.~ng Commission Meeting 3anu~y 2, 199;1. - Page 57 little ponds scattered throughout the development. I said no, that's not something we can maintain. I talked to the Watershed District and they backed me up and we Oot one concentrated pond that we can look after a lot bet. tqr that works on a more macro scale as well. C:onr&d' Okay. I'm not sure where to go with that Tim. I'm not sure. ,.a~t: Well I was just wondering what engineering. I think Paul s got a good, point. I think a lot of that's going to come out with this storm water utility thing. If there's something that we could do. I think as you ~o through this utility now, anything that the ordinance will support that~ effort and I can see that coming back here. Krau~s: Yeah. If the, and I expect it will, if the program that we get up r~conmends that as an enforcement mechanism that the ordinance needs to be revi~ed to accommodate that, it will certainly come back. Er~t: .If you don't mind moving off that I want to pick up on something Br~.n said and it's kind of bothered me an~ that is this open space thing and igolf courses. I mentioned this once before ¢~hen we revised the c, rd~nance and we don't have golf courses I think on any one of our perr~itted uses. Any of our districts. I don't think it is. Anyway, the point., getting proactive again. You know Eden Prairie's got two very nice · gel~ courses and they're talking about building a third Chaska's got ~ - their Hazeltine. Victoria's got their Deer Run now and we've got Bluff CreW. k · Ahr~ns: I like Bluff Creek. ~rh~rt: Do you? Con~ad: It's not a bad golf course. I found that. . Er~rt: Nothing negative on Bluff Creek· It's just with the acreage we've go~ in this city, we ought to have another golf course somewhere closer to TH i5 and is there anyway. Do you agree or disagree? Ah~ens: I agree. Er~art: Yeah, you know when we've made no provisions for it. In fact it ma'~ not even be possible to be done anymore. Elison: Timberwood would probably like it. Co~rad: Yeah, we could circle Timberwood with a golf course. Er~art.: I mean we want open space and here's, I don't know. Is there so,net, hi. no that we ought to be doing to encourage it? El_~son:.~ That's the kind of thing I was talking about before. StUart: Or is it something that. we just can't? E~mings: Maybe your rural area? Planning Commission Neet/rig January 2, 1991 - Page 58 .I ICrau~: [,Jell I don't know because if there was really an element in the Comp ~lan that would consider golf courses it would be in the recreational.. element as an identified need ~or the city from a recreational standpoint~ ~ doF~t kno~ that they ever discussed it but it's not in their reco~.mendations to us. You may want to bounce it of~ of them or we can carr>~ it forward a recommendation that they look at Erha~t: Who, the HRA? K~au~s: No~ the Park Board. Erha~t' Oh~ you mean make it a public ~olf course? ~armmkes: ~ think Lhere was a private ~roup here a couple years aSo that was ~ookin~ at puttin~ in one in the northwest area~ Couldn't acquire land~. ~ had heard it ~as the Eckankar piece of property prior to them wanL~n~ to build. Erh~t: Okay, and you're su~estin~ that maybe ~hat~ the city would look Co ~ild a public ~olf course? Krat~ss: Well yeah. I mean if it's not a public solf course~ then the city pro~ably shouldn't have involvement. Erh~rt: That thought hadn't occurred ~o me~ I was assumin~ private bu~ maybe Lhat~s a way to ~et scram ball rollin~ just by talkins about it and maybe you would ~et a private investor interested in 8at~li: I don'L know that encoura~in~ even a private course would be ~ha~ bad,from the standpoint of open, preservin~ open spacem in the community~ Farnakes: I had one more comment ~hat I never ~ot to~ We starLed talkin~ abo~t trees and somehow I ~ot passed up. I just want to make a quick thin~ her~. We're talkinm about open spaces. I had wanted to brin~ up ~he issue o~ ~ secondary minimum. About lO years a~o they discussed that in the pr~ious comp plan. A secondary minimum for sinste family housins lot cogent and some of ~he older developments here have an acre or 3/4 of an acrb. There's a loL more room for trees on there. It's not a bluff area ~i~'s not a ~olf course but it does allow for some diversity in a more or op~n~ area with more wooded area and it's somethins to be considered~ nod sure if it was on the books prior to lo years a~o. If there was a second desimnation for single family zoning. Co~rad: A lar~er lot size you're talkin~ about? Fa~makes' A lar~er lot size~ yeah. ~r~art: Yeah, we did. We had a 1 ac~e. On Christmas Lake. Co~rad: It was proposed and that's as far~ It was a 45~000 square foot lo~ size and it just died a thousand deaths. Nobody supported it and we flmaLed it out there to the neishborhood that theoretically cared about an~ there were so many people, well a~ain~ In that particular oase~ I'm fairly familiar, there were some people in that area that didn't want it a.n~ that killed it. You know it's real interestin~ that large lots, it's ,Olan~ing Commission Heet_~ng January 2, 1991 - Page 59 nice itc preserve the large lots but I really haven't seen a demand beyond . the ~5,000 square 'Feet that we have. We like larger lots typically but I 5u~t haven't heard, nobody's yelling about that. Farm~kes' When the economy, you know a developer obviously, but ~hen the economy dictates the economy's bad, more houses on smaller lots. When the economy's better, you get a little bit bigger lot, bigger house. Conrad' It's a funny thing. I've really moved off of larger lot size. That}used to be an issue that I'd fight for all the time. Larger lots and over'~ time I guess it's been, it's never happened and it turns out that philosophically I'm at the point u~here I'd rather preserve the things that. I ce~ and I don't care ~hat size lots peopl, e build on. The developer Hill fig~e that out and find places for it. I m kind of sensitive to moving smal,1 lots against big lots. That one I want to protect people who moved her~ 10-20 years ago but in terms of larger lot zoning right noun, I don't kno~ that ~e can get there and then I've sort of taken a default to that saying, hey. I don't knou~ that we can get there but I do ~ant to preserve som~ of those natural amenities that count and that could be the open sma~e. That could be a lot of things. Far~akes' Well the difference between, there's a big difference between a gol~ course and a 3/4 acre lot. I'm just sayin~ there could be more room _ undgr the existing type of development that's going on around here to put a few-~ trees . Con~ad: Maybe if I can summarize what I think ~e said here and maybe you can~correct me where I'm wrong. There s a priority. What I'm trying to do is ~rioritize some of the things that ~e think are good. I heard the ~et~ands and the water quality or the ~ater management being a high pri_~rity. I heard the BH on the 169 being a high priority. I heard the la~scaping being a high priority and then I'm going to make up a word, or a ~a~roup of things called natural amenities. Whether they be bluffs, open sm~ces, inventory, fertilizer, whatever it is. Contours. It's sort o~f a natural amenity type of grouping and. I don't know if they're separate or if they're all inclusive but it seems like ~e said a lot of those ~ords and I categorize them under natural amenities and again, I'm not sure if that's an iordinance or ~hatever but I heard a lot of you talking about that. Rural land policies seems to have some favor and then a couple of other things, and I'm not sure if they're high or not, would be communications an~ PUD. Zm~ngs: How about 1995 study areas? That's something we've got to get a f-~er . COD., tad: Do you want to do that? Is that. a high priority? Ember ings: I think it is. I don't knob~. B~tzli: For this year? C~nrad: Because the comprehensive plan. E~mings: I think that's got to be, the comprehensive plan ought to be a~proved. Shouldn't it before we get after that or shouldn't it? ! Plan4n.g Commission Meeting Janu~_~y 2, 1991 - Page 60 ~(~-au~s: No, I think you've got to get out feet on the ground first and have ~hat approved and ~n place so you're probably [ookLng' aL no~ being able ~.to do that until the summer timeframe. Summer's a tough time to take on a~ctitional projects so you're probably looking at the fall before you can '~ea].17 get involved with that. Emmitgs: I think as soon as the plan is approved and we get some feedback mayb.~ so that we know what the Met Council's going to do with our proposal for~he matters coming in. Conrad: But consensus is that 1995 study project is a high priority in this~year? We may start on it. Okay. Batz~i: I would say put it off until next Meat personally. Conrad: How many high priorities can, you know the list that I .just read, a lc~. of these are things. You know we're not talking about, well there's a c .o~ple new things in what I read here Paul. Are we loading you up? Are we? ! Kra~,ss: You know, we'll tackle as many of them as we can. Con'ad: I know you will but I think I want you to be realistic. Ell~on: Doable. Con,ad: Yeah. It's no good saying we can do 7 things when ~ealistically we ~an't. Kra~ss: Yeah, and it's tough for me to give you an accurate reading on tha~ because a lot of these issues you don't kno~ how involved they're going to get until you open the door and start the discussion on them and sonde of them involve public input and we all know what happens when public inp_~t's involved It tends to get real lengthy. The other wildcard here yet~ is we don't ~ave a reading on what's going to be happening this year. I mea~n our primary function is to review and recommend on development. That's 9oing to really tell us how much time we have to do other things. Right now it's looking like we'll have a fairly comfortable year in that ar~a so we'll have some latitude to tackle these things but if that changes, if things pick up, we won't be able to get to some of these th~ngs. So I think we understand and have a fair understanding of how prioritize these things and all I can say is we'll tackle them in the order that you've told us to and we'll try to get to as many as possible. Co~rad: 3ust trying to wrap this up. Communications. Is that a big deal wi~h everybody? You know it ~as with ,Annette. Is it something that is ~o[thy of a lot of our time? It s worthy of something. El~son: At least a discussion. Co~rad:: At least a discussion, okay. E~..art: I thought the best thing I heard on that was that they're going tc c~nge this quarterly letter to be more inclusive. Plann~n,9 Commission Meeting Janua~ry 2, 1991 - Page 61 ; Conr~: Ne~4sletter, yeah. '~, E~-ha~t.: I think that. will greatly help. Ells~n: I think the Vice Chairman should ~Ti~e a column for the Con'~-~d: I think he'd be very 9cod at that based on some of the lett. eTs he's~:already ~ritten. Well let's just take this a step further. Is the subj~ct.s that we've handled tonight, is that worthy of a conversation Paul w~th~ the local newspaper talking about some of the directions that the Pls. nming Commission is setting? Is that worthy of, do you think they'd carejabout that story Paul? Krau~s: They care about anythip~ ~e 9ire them. Conrad: They really do need news. But that might be another thing. That was ~mn issue that it'd really be kind of fun to throw open to the com~-~nity.~, Say hey, what do you think we should be looking at? What do you ~care about? Our neighbors south of TH 5 kind of think we don't think of~¢nythin9 in their neighborhood. Bat.~li: I think the community in general doesn't think that we're very pro~ctive. I think eventually they should understand that ~e work on a lot of ~tuff proactively. A lot of times we react but some of this stuff trying to act ahead of the game. You kno~ I think a lot of the comments t,.ha~ we've heard from people over the last several years ate that why · didn't we think of this before hand and I think there is a perception out the~e that we don't do anything other than we just listen to these people's proposals and then we say gee, I wish we had an ordinance and then we out~and do one. Some of this is. Some of these do come up based on ordinances but I think, or proposals that we received that we didn't like but~ I think some of them are actually truly proactive proposals that we sh~ld at least try to kind of make people understand that. Kress: Well I can certainly give Dave Peterson a call and talk to him ab~t an article touching on the issues that you raised tonight. C:o4rad: I think that's worthy with our time, yeah. Okay. A couple other th~nqs. The enforcement thing. Well, Paul you're going to be working on t. h4 enforcement. Where did I see that? Code enforcement anyway aren't wo~? You don't need a priority from us on that? K~uss: That's administrative. Sa~zli: I think that's a hot button ~ith the Council too. It's one of the questions they asked me. Kr~uss: Well frankly that's another Nild card. When they talk about the ecbnomy and the level of development that we're going to get. The Council al~o comes up with things from time to time that they ask us to do on a pm~ority basis. The grading ordinance is a good example of that and that t.~k a lot of effort. That took a lot of time so keep in mind that we kind mt1 dance to the tunes of two different bodies here so we'll try to keep b~h of you informed. r ~i. an~'~n9 Commission Hosting Janua-.~y 2, 1991 - Page 62 C:onra~: ~4ell the point is, you've got to use, you know MOLt can't be squeezed between the two. The point of the planning exercise is to tell LtS, ~1]. somebody ~4hat realistically can be done and obviously you're going to m~ke changes. Kraue's: ~4ell hopefully ~ghen we dialogue these things with the Council, some ~ef that ~4ill come out but things tike the grading ordinance came up in response to an issue that had been raised in the middle of the year so you'll have to deal with those kinds of things as they come. Conrad: Okay, let me recap this. ~4e're talking wetlands, 8H 169. I think the ~nfoYcement thing is in there. The landscaping. This cluster ef stuff called natural amenities preservation and an inventory and that may just st. ar% out b~ith discussion and decide if ~e can do anything. If it's worthy of o xr effort but I think that's a high priority. The rural land policy. The CUD reo.~rite. {ess study area. Those are all high priorities. Okay? ¢~nd ~o if we cad somehow Paul, summarize that for, if ~e made any sense tall{ ng about this in the last hour or so, so we can get some kind of input fror, t. hem saying yeah. And then I think you have to be real realistic to the~ and to us that only some of these can be done. Erhart: Can ~e go back one second? Paul had an idea that I'd like te just get zour feeling on that and that's the idea of going hack to Park and Roe and ~usgesting to them that the City ought to be looking at a second golf course. Put the burden on them to respond to that. ~hat we see as open spa~e, an opportunity for open space to be funded by either privately fun~ed. Just to go back and put it on the Park and Rec to respond to that. Is ~nybody against that idea? Con~ad: No. That's a good idea. Kra~ss: I can put together a brief ~emo to them asking for' it but you er sorn~ other person on the Planning Commission may ~ant to convey that to the~. Erh~rt: Hho's the golfer here? I don't even golf so I mean I have ab~lutely no interest for me personally other than I think it's an ex ,~llent %4ay to retain open sp~ce.~ Co~ad: Steve, next meeting could you make sure ~e talk about HR~ liasen 8. n~ maybe a liason to Park and Rec. Brian brought that up that ~e didn't. really appoint anybody. ~m~ings: Put it on the agenda staff. Ho~'s that for delegating? Conrad: Anything else? Ba~zli: I think ~4e should commend Sharmin and Jo Ann for their excellent ef ~erts in the converting to the recyclable system. I think they did a he k of a .job. Co~nrad: I agree. Pls. nn'ing Commission Meeting Janua'¥ 2, 1991 - Page 63 Emmimgs moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ali voted in favor and ,.~he motion carried. The meeting was adjouYned at 11:00 p.m.. Subm~tf_ed by Paul Krauss P]~anl~ lng D irect~o~- Prepared by Nann Opheim