Loading...
PC 1998 11 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alyson Brooks, Allison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, and Matt Burton MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Cynthia Kirchofl'; Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: US BANK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL SIGN LOCATED AT 800 WEST 78TM STREET. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Paterson: Questions of stafl'? One. As we talk about, as you drive by and look at the window, we can use 50% of that for signage. What are the other limitations behind that? Can it be back lit? Can it be neon? Are there any other options? I can't remember the sign ordinance off the top of my head. Kirchofl~ The sign ordinance doesn't regulate window signage, with the exception of the area. You do see quite a few neon, back lit window signs in Chanhassen. Peterson: This one you probably, you could or couldn't see it from the road? From the frontage road. As I recall you can. My eye sight being bad, I wasn't, went by there again tonight but I couldn't really tell whether you could see it or not. Kirchofl~ Are you referring to if they would put a sign on the door? Peterson: Yeah. Kirchofl~ It would probably be hard but it would still be visible from the parking lot at least. So you'd know that there was a US Bank inside of the building. Peterson: The other option is I think as you mentioned, to redo the pylon sign at the entrance. Kirchofl~ Yes, that would be another option. Peterson: Do you know whether or not US Bank is renting from Byerly's or from the building owner? Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Kirchofl) I'm not certain. Is there anyone here for US Bank? Peterson: We'll get to that question when he makes his presentation than. Kevin, we're just going through the sign variance for US Bank and asking questions of staff2 Do you have anything before we move on? Joyce: ... what the status of the banner if this does, if this is approved or not approved. What happens? Kirchofl) The banner will have to be taken down. Joyce: Regardless the banner comes down? Kirchofl) Yes. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation? State your name and address please for the record. Why don't you come up front if you would. Bruce Wagner: My name is Bruce Wagner and my address is 12608 Driftwood Lane, Apple Valley, Minnesota. I'm the Retail Market Manager for US Bank for the western suburbs and I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for considering our signage request and to thank the staff for their analysis on the issue. My comments are very brief. I just have three very brief comments and number one is that our request is only for 8 square feet of a non-illuminated sign and we feel that would be important to us, for perspective customers and existing customers. And the second in terms of the options in terms of signage on the glass front and the other options of Byerly's. Byerly's management has indicated that those issues are non-negotiable. So I just am making you aware of that for your consideration. And the third is basically that we're in Chanhassen to stay and we think it's a great community and we make loans to individuals and businesses and they contribute to the economic success of the community. And again we'd just like to thank you for your consideration of our signage request. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for public hearing and a second please? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward please. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Matt, do you have comments on this one? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Burton: Well I think it's a little bit of a tough one in that I would like to see US Bank have a sign and I think it'd be nice if they had a sign. I think it's unfortunate though that this wasn't contemplated when Byerly's first came through and the variance ordinance is pretty clear with it's conditions and I don't think that the request meets the conditions so I think it's, I think it'd be hard to approve the variance. Peterson: Kevin, your respective comments. Joyce: I have to ask a question again of staff2 When the applicant mentioned something being non-negotiable, that's the window sign? They're not going to allow that is what I'm hearing, correct? Bruce Wagner: Our discussions with Byerly's... Joyce: So you in essence will not have any signage whatsoever outside? Bruce Wagner: Correct. Joyce: The problem I have with it is the way I view this. It looks like a variance on a variance is what we're asking for, and that's my biggest concern about this whole thing. I do want to put in, my position though is I'd like to see them have the ability to put the sign up. That's just my opinion but I've got a problem with the variance on the variance. So I'm not giving you any good direction here. I don't know which way to go with this to be perfectly honest with you. I think that there is somewhat of a compelling reason that they should be allowed, if there are tenants there, regardless of our ordinance, that they should be allowed to have some signage. I mean I don't think it's not illuminated signage so it's just a signage on a wall. And I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the variance on the variance. I'd like to come back and hear what everyone else has to say because I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Peterson: We'll try to get you off the fence. Joyce: All right. Blackowiak: Okay. I kind of agree with Kevin. With what Kevin said. The variance on a variance concept is not, does not sit well with me. In the analysis portion we talked about, you know what would happen if Caribou Coffee and Leann Chin request signage? You know what about the U.S. Post Office? What about Proex? What about Bachmans? There are so many sub- units within that Byerly's, I think we could really open up a can of worms if we allowed, even though it's rather small, the US Bank to go ahead with the sign. My direction would be that you need to talk to Byerly's. They got a pretty big variance first time around and they should maybe share some of that if they're going to be leasing the space to you because they've obviously benefitted from that large sign and maybe it's time to include some of the people that they're being, you know that are paying rent to them on that sign and just kind of leave it as is. So I guess I'm not really on the fence on that one. Peterson: Okay. Allyson. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Brooks: Well I agree with Alison. I don't think the variance is warranted in this case. Although I think, I agree with everybody. I think US Bank should have a sign. I mean every business has a sign but this is kind of funky case and the thing that got me in the staff report is what Alison said. That you've also got Caribou Coffee and Leann Chin but then there's other businesses in Chanhassen that Target could end up with a sub-unit inside. I mean that's becoming more and more common. So once we open the door to one, then we open the door to everybody. So nothing against US Bank because we're glad to have them in the community but it's the domino effect I think that I'm the most worried about. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing new. It's too bad. I think we'd all like to see your name out there. There's no way around the ordinance. Peterson: I also concur with my fellow commissioners in the fact that we have an ordinance that's pretty straight forward and we have, what I don't like to get in the middle of is a tenant landlord negotiation which I think really is essentially what we're dealing with here so. To that end I would support staff's position by opposing the variance. With those comments, may I have a motion and a second please? Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for a 8.25 square foot variance from the sign ordinance and amendment to Variance #94-1 for the construction of an 8.25 square foot non-illuminated wall sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following. One. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to install signage on the glass doors along West 78th Street. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends that the City Council deny the request for a 8.25 square foot variance from the sign ordinance and amendment to Variance #94-1 for the construction of an 8.25 square foot non-illuminated wall sign based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to install signage on the glass doors along West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST FROM CARVER COUNTY FOR MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARL. THE PROPOSAL WILL IMPACT APPROXIMATELY 6~000 SQUARE FEET OF WETLAND AS PART OF A SWIMMING BEACH EXPANSION PROJECT. THE PROPOSED IMPACT IS REGULATED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (~VCA) AND BY THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN'S WETLAND ORDINANCES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Conrad: Sure. Applicant is who? Aanenson: Carver County. Conrad: Is the County. And Phillip's report, are we a neutral, is Phillip a neutral party as he reviews this? Aanenson: Correct. Yes. Conrad: We don't have a vested interest so basically when he said it's probably, we can win some other ways, it's a straight, there is not. Aanenson: It wasn't identified but we went out and looked at it. We asked them to delineate it and we felt that it did meet the criteria for a wetland. We did want to replace it at the 2:1 which meets our requirements and the replacement, as he's indicated in the staff report, the new wetland credits and the public value credit so it meets all of our ordinance requirements we think. Improving the quality of that beach and the marginal, what's there right now and this replacement works. Conrad: The wetland functions as what right now Kate? What is it doing? Aanenson: The way Phil phrased it is that it's probably during high periods, like the spring thaw, there's probably a lot of back water if you look at how the topography works. It's holding back some of the water there on the. Conrad: Drainage coming in? Aanenson: No. It's probably more just the seasonal thawing pushing up and yeah. Conrad: And how many feet is it that we're? Aanenson: 30 feet shoreward. Conrad: And 200 feet long. Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Aanenson: Right. Approximately. Peterson: That's increasing the beach area by about what percent? 30? Aanenson: I'm not sure if that was a percentage. Blackowiak: I thought it was 100. I thought it was at 200 feet right now. On page 1. Existing beachlot. Oh wait, no. Maybe not. That's 200 feet linear feet right now. Peterson: I couldn't figure out how much, what percentage it was. Blackowiak: That's kind of part of my question too. Kate, if you could look at the. Aanenson: If you look at this figure here where we're showing the existing beach. This probably gives a better idea on... Peterson: That's taking out those trees and lowering the grade. Blackowiak: Kate, back on the map photocopy you have on the last page. The mitigation plan. Can you help me out? We've got a number 3. We've got the little numbers here. Is number 3 kind of existing beach and number 4 proposed? I'm trying to, this one right here. I'm sorry. It's the last page in our packet. Can you help out with what these different numbers mean? Aanenson: 4 would be the jurisdiction of the DNR. That would be kind of that, what I showed before. That would be more like the cattail kind of area. 3 is actually what's above the OHW. Blackowiak: Okay, and then what is that big, white area behind? Is that the parking area down there? Okay. I just want to get my bearings. Aanenson: Yeah, actually what's not labeled there is the existing beach. Blackowiak: Yeah existing I think is kind of under 3 and 17 Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? This is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to open to the same please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward. Seeing none, motion to close. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd, do you want to start it off'? Conrad: I'm fine. I'm not ever comfortable when we close down a wetland but if Phillip has reviewed this. Believes that we're getting something better out of it, I'm okay. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I don't have any comment. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: No, I agree. I'm comfortable with this. I mean you figure if the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park is okay with it then I'm feeling pretty good. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: I feel okay... Peterson: Matt. Burton: I agree with the prior comments. Peterson: I also concur with those comments. May I have a motion please. Joyce: I make the motion that staff recommends the planning, or the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #98-4 to allow a larger beach area for Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and subject to conditions 1 through 4. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #98-4 to allow a larger beach area for Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The applicant has provided an innovative mitigation plan and has retained competent professionals to hnplement the plan. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within lwo weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new development. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE CHANHASSEN CINEMA SIGN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: What's in the package there is also pylon sign. Are we recommending going? Aanenson: That was the original report that came in. Reader boards. They wanted a separate reader board out on Market. Peterson: They're not coming back with a request for that being part of tonight's variance? Aanenson: No. Not tonight. They just wanted the Cinema up there. This was the sign, the applicant chose not to go forward with. This is one the Council also approved that and that was to have the reader up on the top. The reader board. The problem with this is that it was on a flat surface. We don't allow that type of sign. They wanted the channel letters. So where we're at today then would be back to just trying to get the cinema with the channel letters. What we're saying is that now that the other building may be coming forward, we want to have a time limit on this. Does it make sense to even go forward with this? Some of these questions will be answered shortly. Peterson: The issue, either way, I mean right now they have approval to go ahead with City Council already has. Aanenson: Correct. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Peterson: And they could, the lettering, if that's substantially different, you haven't got the lettering.., cinema sign being relatively the same size. So they have that option to go ahead now. Looking at which is more or less obtrusive... Aanenson: Yeah, but it's a little bit more complex than that. Is that this sign was originally given a variance because it does not have street frontage and the reason that it was given the variance for that type of thing is because we felt the architecture and being the movie theater being more unique, sometimes different signage is called for. So does this meet that standard? What if this becomes the sign? What if the other never goes forward? Is this what you'd want to see up there permanently and that's kind of the cloud over it. So I don't know if you want to look at it on a temporary basis. Ask the applicant if he wants to wait until the other issue's resolved. There are a couple different ways to go on that. Peterson: Other questions of stafl~ Conrad: And the pylon sign Kate was approved for Market Boulevard? Aanenson: No. Conrad: It was not. Aanenson: That was another option for a reader board. Yeah, actually that would be the city's property. Conrad: That's where the reader board should be. The original sketch that we saw of the complex that you flashed up in the kit. The center sign. Okay, that's the end sign. But the first sketch of the whole building Kate where there was a sort of significant central. Aanenson: Oh, with the new? The entire piece. Conrad: Yeah, is that a new? Aanenson: Yeah. That's what's coming forward to the EDA. Conrad: Okay that's where we may go. Okay. And that. Aanenson: Right. And depending on how that goes, this would be the one that comes through the process.., it's very preliminary... That'd be some sort of entrance but maybe more, or exit but it wouldn't be the primary exit. Entrance. Conrad: In my mind there's no doubt, we've got to give him exposure. They've got to have some business and we need the visibility but it's certainly not, what's being presented is certainly not a long term deal. Absolutely, we should give them some rights to do something but just temporarily and I don't know how long that would be. It's probably until we see where it's going. I'm not sure I could set a date. I think the applicant would have to tell me but, and tell us when they thought the rest of it would come along and then we could hit it based on the balance of 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 the project so I'm not sure I could give a date tonight but I certainly know it should be something dealing. You didn't even ask for my opinion Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I'm doing this. But, yeah this is a question. This is questioning staff time but I'm really into opinions on it. I think we should, we've got to give him some signage but we should make it temporary. Joyce: Is the sign plan, is that a conditional use or is that just we accept the sign plan? That's the way it is, right? Aanenson: Right. Joyce: Can we put a conditional use on it? Aanenson: On a variance you can attach a condition, sure. Joyce: So on something like this we could put the conditional use and make it. Aanenson: You can put a time. You can attach any condition you want on the variance to mitigate the time frame or. Peterson: Not a conditional use but a. Aanenson: Variance, yeah. Joyce: Variance with a condition. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Joyce: Okay, so we could put it, if we're talking about this variance then we can put a time frame on it We can say January 1st if we wanted to. Okay. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to present their position? Bob Copeland: Good evening. My name is Bob Copeland and I represent the cinema. First of all I want to apologize. I feel like I owe all of you an apology because I don't think, or we didn't intend to take your time discussing this sign. We attempted to submit a sign that wouldn't require any variances and could be approved at a staff level and we would just have our sign. But that didn't happen that way so here I am. At any rate, we intend that this be a temporary sign. That's our plan too and I think a reasonable time limit is two years from the time we get it up, which would be, if it was approved, it would be about 4 weeks after it's approved by the council. So we think that's a reasonable time frame and we think it's a good compromise and we're happy to go along with that. So I'll answer any questions you may have. Joyce: Why two years? Bob Copeland: Because we think it might take that long.., new permanent sign in place. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Joyce: You're talking about possibly with the other? Bob Copeland: This sign. Joyce: Okay. Okay, so you're talking about the whole entertainment complex. Bob Copeland: Well I don't know about the entertainment complex but I know about the cinema. Joyce: Changing the entrance is what you're talking about? Bob Copeland: Right. Peterson: Your expectation now would be to add additional theaters. Bob Copeland: That's what we're proposing to do, that's right. Peterson: Addition an additional 8 to 10 or however. Bob Copeland: Eight more. Peterson: And then as you project and the new sign, where would you have that.., similar to what's currently approved... ? Bob Copeland: No. It would be, I don't know whether you can see these very well but it would be in these four locations. One, two, three, four along the side of the building. Joyce: Those are the posters we were talking about? Bob Copeland: Well they aren't posters. They would be rifles of the movies playing. Peterson: So they're only seen from the parking lot. You really couldn't see them any farther away than that. Bob Copeland: Right. I mean we got shot down on a pylon so we're giving up on that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Conrad: Do you agree with the staff recommendations? Bob Copeland: Well no because the staff recommendation is to deny it. Conrad: So basically your staff report says this is what I want to do. Or this is what they should do. Based on their proposal. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Aanenson: Right. But we understand now with the change in mix that is coming forward with something else that, you know if you give a iwo year and the other project doesn't go forward, then what? Then we've got a sign up there that. Bob Copeland: Well if we have a iwo year time limit on it then we have to take this sign down and we would intend to, at that point, assuming that the addition to the cinema is not approved, at that point we would put up a new permanent sign that we would show you and get approval on. A much grander sign. Conrad: Is this what you're proposing? Bob Copeland: No. That got shot down so we're not going to bring that up again. Conrad: Okay, what are, that's it? Bob Copeland: Well that's what we're proposing today. Aanenson: Yeah, just individual channel letters. Peterson: In the interim period where do you see displaying the individual movies? Bob Copeland: We're not going to display the individual movies. The only reason we're going to display movies at all in the future is because the city wants that. That isn't done much anymore with 16 screens. But we've received so much feedback and we've had so much difficulty with the council and so on on that that we're saying okay. We'll put the rifles on the building if you want them on the building. Peterson: I think that, not speaking on behalf of council but I hate to be put in the position of telling somebody to put a sign up so... Conrad: Bob, Mr. Chairman, why are you proposing such small letters in your signage? Bob Copeland: Because we were guided by Sharmin that larger letters would not be approved. Conrad: Is the background part of the sign however though? So Kate, maybe you can help me. Are the letters the max that we're allowing? So when it spells out cinema, is that the maximum space that they can take? Or is it the whole facade that it's built on that is the maximum? So they could fill up a bigger area. Aanenson: Giving a variance you can direct them in the way that you see fit. The intent was that that was the area for cinema because there was going to be a reader board with it so now it just reflects the area that says cinema without the reader board. Conrad: Well this is real boring. You can't do anything better than this? It's very, there's no character whatsoever so even iwo years, it's really bland. It doesn't say Chan, there's just no character there. It's very generic. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Bob Copeland: If you would like it better if it said Chanhassen Cinema, we'll say Chanhassen Cinema. Conrad: Well no that's your, you know. Bob Copeland: Well but. Conrad: I don't want to be in the designing business. That's yours. You've got to bring people in and that's not my job. That's, this seems really, very passive and not very pretty and not very compelling so again, I'm not sure how my words mesh with staff and your needs but in my opinion it's certainly an understated way of drawing people in. And I'm not looking at ordinance. I'm not looking at sizes and stuff like that. It just is a pretty bland way to advertise probably an exciting theater. Bob Copeland: It's very bland. But that's what we've been guided to do. Conrad: Kate, tell me how I'm wrong in what I'm saying here. Are we, yeah tell me how I'm, react to what I just said if you would. Aanenson: I concur with what you're saying. The issue here is, if you're going to grant a sign and it stays up there for two years, is this what you want to see. That's where you're coming from. He wants to put a sign up there. We capped it saying that there was a variance given on it. We're concerned about adding, putting something up there that doesn't meet the criteria of the city. So if you're going to go in the direction to say well, we're going to give it for two years then I think you're right. I think you need to say it's got to a sign that you can live with for two years. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: The Council, as Chairman Peterson alluded to, had some different direction that they were going based on some EA issues. But that again may be moot based on this other proposal going through. So I think we have maybe two different pictures here. One if this is temporary for two years, we want to have a decent sign. Or say let's go back to what the original proposal was and ignore what may or may not happen. Brooks: Kate, I'm slightly confused here. The City Council already approved two types of signs for them to use? Aanenson: There was an original sign package that was approved. Bob Copeland: Well I wouldn't call it a sign package. There was, the only thing that we had... The City Council approved this. And it shows where a sign would go but it really doesn't show a sign. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Brooks: Well it says the first is a plexiglass sign with changeable letters showing the rifle, time and the rating of the movies. Bob Copeland: So there was a description of it that went along with it. That's the only thing that's been approved. Aanenson: That's not true. Then this came back... Bob Copeland: We didn't submit that. We did not submit that. Brooks: So I'm lost. It sounds like the City Council approved a sign but they want another sign? Aanenson: They've chosen not to go forward with that. Brooks: With the City Council sign? Aanenson: Right. Brooks: And that's a plexiglass sign with changeable letters showing the rifle, time and rating of the movies. Aanenson: The sign right here, correct. Brooks: That was approved by the City Council. You don't want to do that? Bob Copeland: I don't know how it got approved by the City Council. We didn't request approval of that by the City Council. I'm told, I was shocked to read that in the report. I wasn't at that meeting. Blackowiak: Can I ask a question then? Okay, this Attracta. Now is this, you hired this firm to do this sign? Is that correct? Bob Copeland: They did that, those drawings that you see there. Blackowiak: Who's they, Attracta? Bob Copeland: Attracta. Blackowiak: Okay. Now according to the copies we have here, Attracta did all these options too. So you're saying they did something you didn't want them to do? Bob Copeland: Well I think I may be making this more confusing than it needs to be. And again, I apologize for taking your time with this. We tried to submit a sign that was not controversial and would just be approved at the staff level and we would have a sign in the interim until our, if we get approval, which we hope we'll get approval by the city. Until we can do our expansion and have a grand sign that we agree should be out there. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Brooks: I just don't understand why you wouldn't use the sign that was approved by the City Council. Bob Copeland: We didn't submit that sign to the City Council for approval. Aanenson: The City Council has investment in this property. They made the decision based on what they wanted to see. They gave Mr. Copeland clear direction on what they wanted to see. Mr. Copeland has chosen not to do that. He's asking the staff to approve this sign. We are not going to be put in the position to approve a sign that does not meet the City Council approval. We say we'll take it back through the process. That's where we are. Bob Copeland: That's why we're here. Aanenson: That's why we're here. We're back either to approve the sign that the Council wanted or if you want to give the Council some other direction to say that because there's another process you may be willing to look at something on a temporary basis. That's really where we're at. Peterson: So with that are there other questions for the applicant? Let's move on here. Burton: I do. What hardship would there be to the cinema if we delayed a decision until your plans shook out and we knew where we were going? Bob Copeland: Well if you could tell me when it's going to shake out and we'll know where we're going, then we can answer that question. I have no idea how long this process takes. It took us about four years to get the original cinema approved and so on and so I don't know how long it's going to take. At the earliest it would be maybe late January. That's if things really went well and everything was approved, bing, bing, bing along the line. That's the earliest. What's the latest? I don't know. It's really not that difficult. We are reluctant to spend about $35,000.00 or $40,000.00 on a sign that may only be there for less than a year. So it makes sense to us we think to spend $3,000.00 and put up a sign that at least identifies the building and because again, our hope is that that's going to be there for less than a year. But we're saying okay, knowing how things go, double that time frame and permit it for that period of time. If we're not successful in that period of time, we'll gladly take it down and we'll put up a big, much more expensive sign. Peterson: With the comments you've heard here this evening, you know that we'd be amenable to a more attractive sign, glilz or glamour or whatever you want to call it. Whatever you characterize it. Would you even want to go back and have your sign company do a different sign for that iwo year period? Bob Copeland: Well I'd have to hear what it is that you want because we've had a lot of difficulty coming up with signs that anybody will approve. So if you want it bigger, we'll make the letters bigger. If you want it to say Chanhassen in addition to Cinema, we'll do that. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Peterson: We'll go through that in the comments that each of the commissioners have. Are there more questions for the applicant? All right, thank you for your patience. Bob Copeland: Thank you. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Joyce moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Burton moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kevin, do you want to start this one out? You're welcome. Joyce: I think he should have a sign there. I don't, I think it should be more elaborate than just cinema. I just feel you need something more than that. I would suggest to the applicant that he at least put Chanhassen Cinema on it. That's my request there. I would suggest that we allow the signage for one year. Conditional use. Maybe with a renewability of an additional year but that'd be it. And leave it at that. I just, I feel this project has been so temporary for so long I can see stafl~s concern of having a quote, unquote, ugly sign or a very you know, quasi sign for there longer than needs to be there. My suggestion is to, Kate would a conditional use, would that be come up just any time limit, right? If we put the variance in, we put usage, it could be any time we want? Aanenson: I am concerned about, generally variances mn with the property. I am concerned about giving the one year. How that works. Peterson: I think if you do it, you put a time frame on there and put an interim. Joyce: Well it's got to be. Peterson: I think that'd be more logical for staff and administratively ....are they going to come back and. Joyce: If the applicant put Chanhassen Cinema on there, and at least that, I'd consider a two year time frame for that. That's where I'm going with this so I don't want to belabor it I guess. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Well I believe that there is a bigger picture here. I mean there's a lot more going on than just a simple sign. We've got EDA funds that are involved and I think that the Council has a certain direction and a certain idea for this entire property and we may not be, we as a planning commission may not be privy to exactly what that vision is that I don't think we're getting the 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 entire picture tonight. There are two options. There are two signs that have already been approved. I'm really skeptical about doing a variance on a variance, as Kevin said earlier. In the last item. I just don't feel that's necessary. I looked at the applicable regulations that talked about signs, albeit permanent ones, being designed and constructed in a uniform manner as a integral part of the building's architecture. I think we need to kind of consider that because there could be essentially a major change to this building's architecture. And to put forward any sign, even though it may be temporary, I think might be premature. This is going before Council on Monday. I think it would be a mistake for us to grant any type of a variance on a variance before council and the EDA has a chance to take a look at this and decide what's going to happen with the property as a whole. At that time I would really encourage the applicant to come back and, with a sign that they are comfortable with and would be willing to live with for lots of years because I don't want to do the temporary thing again and again. I think that's a real waste of time and money for everyone concerned so I would, at this point agree with the staff recommendation that we deny the sign plan. Let's wait to see what Council and EDA have to say about this project as a whole and then let's look at this sign and see how it fits in with the project as a whole. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I think the City Council already approved two types of signs and I don't see why we need to go and change that. I mean they have a vision. They saw what they wanted and I don't see any reason to back track. So that's all I have to say. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to see what the city council's doing on Monday before we do anything. If there's some hope there then I think the temporary signage means we can flex to the applicant's needs. But I'd still like to see the applicant do a better job of signage, even on a temporary basis. So again, I'd like to table this or turn it down, one or the other. Whatever somebody wants to do and see what City Council is saying and then we'll know if there's a long term solution. If there's a long term solution, then we can flex on the interim type signage. Peterson: Correct me if I'm wrong. If we table it, it won't go to council, right? We have to make a decision. Aanenson: The EDA is meeting Thursday to discuss this and that's tomorrow so we'll have clarification. You could certainly table it and wait until you get clarification in December. The first meeting in December. Peterson: But if right now this would go to Council when? Aanenson: Oh, not until December 14th. So either way there would be clear direction from the EDA and from you. But if you wanted to wait. Peterson: But the council made a decision last time independently really without a bunch of feedback from us. So I'd be hesitant to table something when they've already pretty much laid 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 out a plan and have a vision that's somewhat different than ours. To that end, I was just commenting on your comment more than anything else. Matt. Burton: I would like to hear what the results of the EDA meetings are and I'd like to have the city council's input before we consider it so I would be inclined to deny it so we can, because that will cause that to happen. Peterson: I would agree to denying a motion and letting basically council determine the type of sign that they feel would be appropriate, as they have in the past. I would be, this is more notes to the record. I'd be comfortable with a temporary sign for up to lwo years again with it, you know being.., so that it's not just a, it doesn't look like a cheap sign that's up there for a short period of time because lwo years isn't a short period of time. So with that I would off'er that we deny it with some notes to the record. With that, may I have a motion? Blackowiak: Well, I'll recommend the Planning Commission deny sign plan reflecting channeled individual backlit letters and give the applicant the option of either permitting a plexiglas sign etc., etc. How it's written here. I don't know if we, there are no case numbers or anything so. Peterson: Is there a second? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? I think the only discussion or what I would like to add would be that the council review the narrative of the discussion this evening to hear and/or interpret the feelings of the respective commissioners. Aanenson: I was just going to add that. That that'd probably be a good thing to carry forward. That you wanted to see some sort of signage. If they do decide to go forward, that we might want to put that as part of this continuing dialogue. If they are going to, if the EDA does look favorably upon the expansion, that you probably want to see some sort of temporary signage. Is that correct to push that? Okay. Peterson: So with that motion and second, discussion. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend denial of the sign plan reflecting channeled individual backlit letters and give the applicant the option of either permitting a plexiglas sign with changeable letters showing the title, th-ne and rating of the movies (attaclunent #2) or a sign that incorporates raised channeled letters for the name of the theater and shooting stars, neon thnes and dates (similar to Attaclunent #3). If the EDA does look favorably upon the expansion of the movie theaters, that the Planning Commission be shown some sort of temporary signage. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 16.4 ACRES FROM RR~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.4 ACRES INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD~ JUST NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ESTATES. Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Hearing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Greg Kopeshke: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Greg Kopeshke with Westwood Professional Services. It's with a bit of humble pie in our faces that we're back before you tonight. In our zealous efforts the first time around to try to be as sensitive to this site as we possibly could, we had hoped that we had anticipated all of the issues that were going to come up and obviously we didn't quite a thoroughly as we had. Some of them were site related. Some of them were some of the conditions that came out of the original approval. We had gone out to the site for instance and looked at some of the sanitary sewer coming across on Morin's properly to the east and had made some minor adjustments to the road alignment in that particular location in an attempt to save some trees. Looked at some of the building pads that we had to deal with as it relates to the final grading design. That constituted the need to do some additional adjustments. The setback variance that Kate Aanenson had mentioned, as well as some additional filling and tree removal. We did have a 2/10th of an acre percent increase in tree removal. Most of the additional tree removal was.., to eliminate some anticipated tree removal down in these areas. It may even be something less.., come back before you tonight to ask for these variances on setbacks and the other adjustments that the staff has mentioned to you. If you have any questions, we're here to answer those questions. Peterson: Are you in concurrence with the stafl's recommendations this evening? Greg Kopeshke: We agree. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Burton moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Matt, comments. Burton: None. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: No comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm okay if there are no neighbors or you know. If they're comfortable, I'm feeling a little more comfortable. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: No comments. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad:... Peterson: I also concur. With that may I have a motion please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves rezoning of 16.4 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, 95-1, preliminary plat 95-3, to subdivide 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances, 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2, Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent grade and 50 foot wide right-of-way and also the variance for the five homes accessing the private street, Lake Lucy Estates as shown on the plans dated October 16, 1998 with conditions 1 through 36, striking condition 13 and adding onto condition 17(c). Redesign storm pond on Lot 7, as seen on Attachment #2 presented to us today, November 18th. Conrad: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of rezoning of 16.4 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary Plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way and five homes accessing via a private street, Lake Lucy Estates, as shown on plans dated October 16, 1998, with the following conditions: Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the grading limits. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat consideration. Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buff'er edge signs before the City accepts the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. No berming, retaining walls or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The lowest floor elevations of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water level. A stormwater quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiency. A landscaped plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance with City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to city water is not required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a drain tile system in street behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block 3 may relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. If the driveway is relocated to Lakeway Drive, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. The grading and drainage and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the following changes that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss: a) Tree protection fencing. b) Raise lowest floor elevation on the following lots: Lot 4, Block 2:964:0 Lot 5, Block 2:963.0 Lot 6, Block 2:964.0 Lot 7, Block 2:966.0 c) Redesign stormwater pond on Lot 7, Block 2 as shown on Attaclunent #2. d) Raise garage elevations on Lot 7, Block 2 to 976.0 and on Lot 10, Block 2 to 978. e) End construction limits on Lakeway Lane 15 feet from west property line and raise street grade on Lakeway Lane to 3.00%. f) Incorporate revised turnaround on Lakeway Court. g) Label height of retaining walls. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. h) Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to wetlands or stormwater pond. i) Consider reducing fill limits on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 to 20 feet from front properly line. j) Add outlet control structure to pond. k) Provide sanitary sewer and water service to parcel to the west (Randall) per stafl2 1) Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. Add rock construction entrance and sediment protection for all storm sewer inlets. m) Reduce street widths on Lakeway Drive and Lane to 31 feet back to back of curb. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey properly (Pointe Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. All private street shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s) (including the Morin parcel). The developer shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined by the City. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all properly owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court, 10% street grade on Lakeway Drive and 50 foot right-of-way throughout except for the cul-de-sac is recommended. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path of least impact to the streets. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued. The proposed single family residential development of 11.48 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $9,184 and a water quantity fee of 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. $22,730. The water quality fee will e waived upon the applicant meeting MRUP design for on site runofl~ These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The applicant shall plant 72 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. The number of replacement trees could increase based upon the level of grading on the site. Trees shall be selected from the city's Approved Tree List and meet minimum size requirements. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the limits and maintained throughout construction. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. Building Department conditions: a. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 30. Fire Marshal conditions: 31. a. At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved turnaround for fire apparatus. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204(D). b. Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on Block 8 on the south side of Lake Way Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on Block 2. With reference to Block 2, Lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 32. The buff'er on Lot 5, Block 2 shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5 properly line. 33. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are encouraged to share a dock to minimize impact on the wetlands. 34. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private driveway including the Morin's parcel. 35. A cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private driveway including the Randall parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO SECTION 20-913(C)~ LIGHTING TO REGULATE THE HEIGHT~ SPACING AND TYPE OF LIGHT FIXTURES. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: So you'd come back if necessary. Aanenson: We'll come back with an ordinance, yeah. But I mean if you want changes that you want to make. Otherwise we'd just leave it. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Comments? Blackowiak: I have a couple questions Mr. Chairman. First you have two possible number ones. Overall 30 feet. Or the staggered 20, 25, 30. Does staff have a preference as to which of those you'd like to see in an ordinance? Kirchofl) Not necessarily a preference but maybe a further explanation of either choice. The 30 would not place may be excessive restrictions on the type of developments. Residential. If20 foot high fixtures are necessary, then they may have to get a variance or some format like that. Having the second option, like I said would be allowing the lights to be more in proportion with development rather than having 30 foot lights and you know 12 foot or 15 foot buildings. So it'd be more proportionate with what is, what the buildings are. Blackowiak: And then I have a comment on number 4. It talks about exemption from requirements. Unless work is proposed in any one year period so as to replace 50% or more of the existing outdoor light fixtures or to increase to the extent of 50% or more the number of outdoor light fixtures. And at that point I would suggest maybe adding something, not only dealing with the number of fixtures but also the quantity of light. Because you could have comer fixtures on the street and somebody comes with two massive ones that kind of blow everything else away. So even though they're not exceeding the number, that 50% number, the light thrown 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 off would well exceed so I would suggest maybe something about also the quantity of light. Maybe it's measured in foot candles or something. I don't know what it might be but just kind of get both sides of the issue there. And that's it for me. Peterson: We've talked about lumens before and that's, you can easily integrate that in per square feet and/or spread. How do we deal with ballfields? Or do we deal with ballfields? Kirchofl) That's a good question. I think any ordinance amendment should be reviewed by the Park and Rec Commission because like I said in the report, the lights in Lake Ann Park are 65 feet and you can certainly see them from a great distance when they're on so. Park lights should be probably under a different category. Peterson: ... any complaints, I suspect a majority of our complaints are park lights... Aanenson: Well I think the two caveats that we're trying to get is that shielding a light so it's down cast and the spill off and I think that's something when you look at the ballfield lights, that's their intent to have a lot of spill. So that's Cindy's objective to take it to the park commission and get their input. Even for the hockey rinks... The tennis courts. The lights from that. So if we have an exemption that say the recreation, it's not intended for that because generally those are on timers for the most part. They're out by 10:00. So maybe we could come up with an exemption for that sort of thing. We also make sure that we're not infringing and see how they work together. Peterson: There was some issue when we were building, or after we built it, those lights and I know we were trying, were we successful in changing those to meet the needs of the rest of the neighbors or not? Aanenson: We haven't changed anything on that. I think a lot of that again is the spillover. What we believe is some of that will be eliminated with the placement of the buildings.., some of that. But that's an example where we need to make sure that it's down cast and it's not a spill up. But again we think once the buildings get in place, that will reduce that but that's again part of what triggered this whole process. To make sure that we're consistent city wide. That we're not over duplicating where we've got street lights and parking lot lights. Are those parking lot lights left on all night and are they duplicating what the street's doing and try to look at some of that together a little bit more. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Burton: I have a couple quick questions. In the ordinance it uses the word glare and then I noticed also in the article it defines glare and light trespass and ifI hadn't read the article I would have thought would meant both. Would encompass both the light trespassing and the glare as they define it in the article. I'm just wondering, do we define glare in our ordinances? Kirchofl) No, we don't have it defined in the ordinance. Maybe that would be a good thing to define. Sticking in the definitions for that. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Burton: Yeah I was thinking that perhaps or introducing the term light trespassing. Just saying the lighting should minimize light trespass. It might take care of the concerns when you carve out certain items. Peterson: How do you deal with situations where there are obviously hundreds of options for lights and more times than not the applicant doesn't know how this light's going to react. Nor does necessarily the manufacturer has the ability to articulate how a light's going to shine. Aanenson: They are required to submit a lighting plan that shows the foot candles on the plan. That came up like for example on the Sinclair gas station when they came in for a canopy we were concerned about the glare on that. Kirchofl) Attachment #8 I did put an example of a lighting plan that they're required to submit. It shows the foot candle levels of the lights and then the location of the lights on the property. Peterson: But my point is is that that won't, the plan won't address every option and let's say that they, like what happened with Villages in the Pond. If after the buildings, those lights are still invasive, I mean do we within the ordinance have the ability to request them to change it? Aanenson: Well I think part of what we learned with that is that we are duplicating. We've got street lighting that is duplicating parking lot lighting and I think that's where some of what we, where we were amiss and not looking at that overall. Looking at the street lighting plan because when we do street lighting we do not require candles to see where that's spillage is. And then we require the applicant to come in and there may be duplication right there and I think that was part of the problem that happened up there because the buildings aren't in place. It seems very bright. So that's one of the things that Cindy was trying to figure out a way to resolve that.., especially in the downtown area like on West 78th where you've got median lighting. You've got parking lighting for Market Square, Villages. There is duplication. Conrad: Chair, in going back to park lights. They are the most offensive. And specifically to say it's in my neighborhood but North Lotus Lake. It's offensive from six blocks away. If you're out on the lake it will blind you. I think that's an accurate statement. Six blocks away. Six blocks away from the park on the lake so what I'd like to do is not have Park and Rec tell us they want it okay. I want them to tell me how they can manage through direction, through whatever because, and this is sort of, I've been waiting for this one for a while. I can't believe we can't direct light. I can't believe, to send out Todd to, right now I'm not sure what's happening but it's real bad so anyway. That's sort of a personal deal but in terms of the direction for the city I think I'd sure like to see some standards set for park lights and then a review of such. Joyce: I've got to piggy back on what Ladd was saying. In my neighborhood the lights over at Bluff Creek, it's light an alien ship has landed. You look out the back and it's, it's ugly. I mean it's, you think you're in a steel mill or something like that and I think one of the problems with any community is certainly light pollution. I think one of the problems we have here is that usually it's just an engineering problem where someone says listen, we're going to buy these lights and do it and that's how it's going to be and nobody pays attention to it so I think it's as important just for us to be aware that we have ordinances here and to try to affect them. I think 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 that something like light trespass is a true thing. I really do and you know we've got a quality of light and there's all sorts of quality of life. It'd be nice at nighttime not to think that you're out in the metrodome or something. I don't know if it's a timing issue. Peterson: Well the other issue is that the Park and Rec lights don't come before us... Aanenson: And street lights. Peterson: Other feedback? This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion please. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Seeing that there is no one in the crowd, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments. Ladd, do you want to finish off yours? Conrad: It's a good review. I like that. Terrific so nothing to, what staff presented is fine. I'd just like to add to it and take their advice and certainly take a look at our control on recreational fields and the lighting. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: No real comments except I agree with Ladd and Kevin that the recreational lighting is a concem. Blackowiak: Nothing to add. Joyce: Yeah, I apologize. I didn't know it was a public hearing so I do have a question. Now does this go into the paper and then we, when the ordinance comes back to us there's a notification in the paper that the ordinance is being. Aanenson: We wanted to get some more of your input before we did that, yes. Joyce: So if we come up with any other input we can direct it at the ordinance. Then let's move forward. Nothing else. Burton: My only comment is I'd like to see perhaps including some discussion of light trespass in the ordinance and minimizing that. Otherwise no other comments. Peterson: Mine certainly concur with my fellow commissioners. And again I'd like to go on record by getting on my soapbox and saying that all too often we within the city has a tendency to 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 do whatever they want without going through what we ask our citizens to do and as a commission, and I think we need to find some way to have every item that we would normally ask a citizen and/or developer to go through, that the city certainly follow the same procedure. Hopefully the council members will read and respond to that. With that may I have a motion please. Conrad: Do we need a motion Mr. Chairman? Aanenson: Just direct the staff to prepare an ordinance. That'd be fine. Burton: I'll move that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare an ordinance relating to lighting. Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare an ordinance relating to fighting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I'll tell you what the meeting on December 2nd, we'll be reviewing the rezoning procedure and that is the rezonings that we need to do to insure that we're consistent with the new land use map and... We're going to review the PUD ordinance. We have a sign package ... and then we'll talk about enforcement of conditional uses. The process that we go through that. Lighting. That we may put that back on too. I was just going to say we've also been, we will have quite a bit of new business coming into January. We kind of hit that lull and now we're building up now for the first of the year people that are, have just one meeting in December and then in January we'll be off probably with development again. Looking at... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Comp plan was approved. We're making the final changes. That should be up to the Met Council hopefully if not Friday, Monday. A 60 day comment period and then, it's the capital improvement plan. Some reorganization and prioritization. And then the Bluff Creek will be back on the, for a work session on November 30th with City Council so we're still hoping to get that overlay district adopted by the end of this year. They gave the first reading.., second reading and that approved by the end of this with this council. Peterson: Any other items anybody? Motion to adjourn. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 1998 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30