The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 06 05CHAi PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE , 1991 Chair an Emmlngs called the meeting to order at-7:40 p.m.. MEMBEI~S PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Brlan Batzi1, Joan Ahrens, Ladd Conrad, Tim hart and Self Farmakes MEMI IS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plan' ,r; and Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I PUBLIi HEARING: PRELIIIINARY PLAT AND LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN C~RVER BEAC:' ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, ROGER AND D ~RLENE BYRNE. Sharm n Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. The applicants were resent. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Emmin s: The applicants are here. Do you have anything you wish to add at this ime? Any reaction to the conditions that have been imposed? Roger Byrne: Yeah. I'm Roger Byrne. First I'd like to say that your staff is great. They did a great job. I mean I was impressed for all the work lhey do for what, it seemed like a pretty simple thing to me. In lookir through it, most the stuff I agree with. A couple of things I don't n the proposal there. The access road I guess is the main thing. There' a driveway there now that's used by the house next door, or on the other ide of the paper road there and I don't know, it just says in there that t want it paved. I've got a problem with the paving there I guess. Well irst of all they want a 20 foot road and there's a fire hydrant there and e the road is now on the easement, the driveway, the existing dri , gravel driveway on the easement, between the fire hydrant and the hill, e's only probably about 15 feet there. That's the driveway now. So if were to pave it to a 20 foot width, we'd have to cut 4 or 5 feet back to the hill on one side and the other side it'd be right, it'd have to be ved right up to the fire hydrant to get a 20 foot road. Or dr through there. And then as far as the paving goes, well it's kind of si . It's kind of steep grade right off the road right there anyway and o of the reasons I was given they never paved that below this trail down was because they said in the winter time it never, which is true, t'd never get much sun down there and it don't burn off and it gets awful :lippery down there. And to come down and make the corner and get up a driveway if it's slippery, it's tough with the gravel now. But it just 't seem to make sense to me to have to pave it there. I realize the or nance says if two families use the same driveway then the ordinance says i 's got to be paved for the common area of the driveway but I don't know. I guess I'd like to see some kind of variance there. Or maybe have it t to, if the road is ever paved, then it should have to be paved i of just because two people are using it you know. Something more that 11 make more sense because I don't think they'll ever pave the road Plann June becau now w, Emmin Trail Roger Emmin~ Roger drivel Emmim reddi Roger Emmin Roger Emmi n,< Roger Emmin~; drive~ Roger alreaC there the f~ do us~ Emmi no Roger drivew Emmi ng Roger there. there. you co thing Beside With j, make t come u site a ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 2 e it's just going to make it tough in the winter. It's tough enough th the gravel. ~s: When you're talking about the road, you're talking about Lotus Byrne: Lotus Trail, right. And that's what's not paved now? Byrne: Right. Lotus Trail isn't paved and neither is the existing ay that's there. s: Alright. Now can you tell me, maybe where she's colored the h color mark there, that's the common driveway? Byrne: Right. s: And then that will serve what's marked on here as Parcel A? Byrne: Right. That will serve Parcel A. And it also serves the property to the south? Byrne: Right, to the south of that. And will those be the only two Properties coming off that Byrne: Right. That's the only two. Well the one to the south F, it already serves them. They live there. They have a garage up ~nd it serves them. It also serves that parcel A there already for Dt that I have a little parking lot over there. I park, we park $o I it now anyway. Okay. But those will be the only two properties served by that? Byrne: Them would be the only two properties served by that ~y, yes. : And Parcel B you come off, right off of Lotus Trail? yrne: Right. Parcel B is down about where you see it starting It just kind of cuts in at an angle and goes up into Parcel B That's gravel too but that's flat down there. It's just that when le off of Lotus Trail onto the, where she marked that little red ~here, it's kind of steep and gravel makes more sense than pavement. that, pavement costs money and we're trying to keep the costs down. st two families using that, I don't know. To me it doesn't seem to )o much sense. Other than that, the rest of the report I guess, they with some good stuff. You know about having engineers look at the d develop it. Figure out the plans and stuff like that. I guess Plann June that ' to ha ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 3 a good idea. Something I never thought of before. It's always good e I guess. I 'm not sure when I'm going to, you know build in there. I 'mjt st trying to get this straighten out now. Kids are grown up and the house is too big and we want something smaller and we figure that's the place We like it down there. So sell the other one and build up in there Don't want to move too far. That way we won't have to rent a big truck I just carry things over. That's the plan right now. Anyway I guess that's all, that was my only real concern is the driveway pavement busi n~ ss. Emmin! s: Alright, thank you. Darle'e Byrne: Darlene Byrne. I've talked to my neighbor Betsy Dishler and s would like to see the driveway stay graveled because it would blend in mo e with the road and blend in with the area there. Emmin! Darle meeti Emmin: to ma Batzl favor Emmi n~ Conra, cfi pr in he' compa' s: This is the neighbor to the south who uses it? Byrne: Yes. She wanted to come tonight but she had another so she just wanted me to say that for her. : Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else who wants any comments on this? moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ladd? : Just a couple quick comments for staff. I'm interested in a for granting variances. One of the criteria is you're not ng somebody from a reasonable use of the property and a statement said reasonable use includes the use made by a majority of e property within 500 feet. Is that true? KT Yeah. It is. Conr So that's reasonable use? Kraus~ And that's a new definition for variances. That's something that the o~ inance was adapted to include last year. What it does is it allows us to nize the uniqueness of areas such as Carver Beach and not have to t the book at them and say we don't care that this area was platted in and that everybody else lives on a 20,000 square foot lot. You're going come in on a 15,000 square foot lot. So it allows us to assess bas' ly is there a neighborhood standard that deviates from the rest of the c .y. And if there is, as long as we don't decrease the standard in any , it would be acceptable and this fits that bill. Emmin~ : We talked about it under the rubric of neighborhood standards and I r particularly thinking about it on setbacks where we had places that 30 foot setbacks. We thought it didn't make sense to make Plann June someb that Conra how. there think me ab~ area . Kraus, out t concl~ ordin~ betwe~ to servi~ what j we ' ve consi trees that that is be wante~ move homes incluc ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 4 dy new come in and set it back 50 or some other larger number if in .rea they were all 30. That's the one I remember. : I kind of like that but I can't play it in other scenarios to see In this case it fits in the neighborhood and I like that. But s something that's sort of uncomfortable about that same thing. I it's good for this particular area. Recommendation for paving. Tell ,ut that. Why? That doesn't seem like it's in character with the The frontage road. : Well a couple things. First of all Mr. Byrne is correct. We were ere tonight and we walked around on the driveway with him and ded that %he full 20 foot wide common driveway that's required by the nce for a shared driveway is inappropriate. That it doesn't fit in n the fire plug and the trees and it would wind up coming too close existing garage. It's kind of a goofy situation. That garage g the southern home looks to be located only about 10 feet off of s actually the right-of-way. The undeveloped right-of-way. Now so agreed with Roger that something less than 20 feet really needs to be ered there because there's no desire to cause any damage to the and they have pretty significant trees over there. Now the reason as in the ordinance though, and that's on the private drive ordinance f you access a lot by private driveway. The reason that's in there ause we've obligated to provide fire and police protection and we to insure ourselves that at the very least we have the ability to quipment in and out in some reasonable way if we are going to allow to access off of private driveways. Many communities, ourselves ed up until a year or two ago, said no. We just will not allow those kind given drive~ is the the 1~ it in point reasor becom~ stret¢ street Carver we ha% And ye surfac strai! of er what c way tc culver good c somet~ $omet safe a cf subdivisions to exist period. So there's flexibility that was and the exchange for that flexibility is the cost of paving the ay. One of the other things that entered into our conversations here extreme grade on the site and the fact that it runs right down into ks. It's true the street is not paved and I can't you that we have our plans to do paving on there, although I've got to believe at some in time it's going to become necessary to do so. For a couple of s. The City does not maintain very many dirt streets anymore. It s more and more difficult to have equipment just to maintain a few hes of dirt street. More importantly, everything that runs down that , there's some significant grading problems and drainage problems in Beach, run straight into Lotus Lake. 'And you know the evidence that s is that Lotus Lake has som~ growing problems with water quality. ~ become more concerned as you introduce more channelization and hard s that's going to increase the flow ripping down the driveway, bt across the street and into the lake. There's already a little bit ~ion there and when we sat down with our engineering folks and said, ~ you really think should be done here they said, really the right stabilize this is to come up with a paved driveway that with a good ~ design, you know there's a ditch section in the street there. Jlvert designed in there and possibly you may even need a curb or lng to direct water down at the very bottom. Rolled bituminous curb. lng that doesn't cost very much but does the job. To really make a qd more efficient situation. I can't tell you that that's not Plann'.ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 5 incon~ istent with that neighborhood because it is. The neighborhood is a littl, tough to deal with in all kinds of aspects. We have two driveways comin out basically overlapping each other and I can't figure out where the s feet ends and the driveways begin. That's the way it is. ~nyway, $o that' the long and short of it. Conra : It's kind of inconsistent with the neighborhood yet it has a funct on? Erhar Kraus: does have Emmin the t~ Trail : I'm assuming all the other neighbors have gravel driveways? : It's really a matter of personal preference. I don't know who r not. We didn't take a survey but the City does not at this time n ordinance that mandates the paving of driveways. s: The paved portion is only the portion that's used in common to o properties so how long would that paved portion be from Lotus Kraus : Well if it goes up to the, I think it's a 3 car garage that's there I suppose if you went to the back bay of that it would be... Emmin!s: 40 feet? Conra< : Boy, that's a tough one. That's just really, the ordinance is there a good reason. There's some rationale in terms of runoff and the lake need help. It absolutely is in incredible shape. Poor shape. Erhari : In your honest opinion right? Conra(: ~11 you've got to do is go down there and look. ~nd all you've got do is set your disk reading and you'll see how bad it is. I think the v~ lance, I'm in favor of this. I think it makes sense. It fits into the ghborhood and the standards set in the neighborhood. My only con~ is the staff requirement of the paving and right now I probably would for it. Emmim : Okay. Tim? Erhart Well I agree with Ladd. It all looks pretty reasonable and pretty simp although I would say that it's unreasonable to expect anybody to pave ,eir driveway if the street's not paved. It seems to me that could be j fled just by the variance, reading of the variance. It's consi with the other neighbors. I would suspect there are probably few d' veways that are paved. In any effect, I guess it would seem to me the fi st step would be get the street paved before we start requiring paved Iriveways. That's the only thing I've got. Conr Can I jump in? If the street is paved, then there's nothing to force he owner to go back and pave it. $o there could be. Batzli Why can't we require them to pave it when the street's paved? Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 199! - Page 6 Conra : Right. Erhart : Is there any ordinance that requires that? Kraus,~ : No, we don't and from time to time I've talked to the engineering deparl ment about the validity of a driveway ordinance. A lot of commu ities do have those. It's not something we pursued actively and if we di, , I'm not sure how it would become retroactive. Now when you pave a streel , theoretically you can pave a little bit of an apron going up in there Emmin! pave Kraus Emmin~ Chmie Conra, s: What if you just made it a condition of approval that they would t when the street was paved, which I think is what you were saying? : I suppose that's possible. : Would there be a way for that to be caught at that time? : Not very easily. : 3ust call your memory Paul. Kr : I'm afraid so. You know we keep talking about having a GIS based land parcel identification system where all this stuff can be in. When somebody comes in for a building permit, you punch a coupl of buttons and out come all the conditions that have always been appli to that piece of ground. We're not there yet. Ahre Next week? I was hoping. Emmin : ~lright. 3gan? Ahr Well, I have the same concerns as Tim about the driveway. I would like see this approved if at all possible with a condition of approval that driveway is paved at the time the street is paved. But again, I don't why, if the City's going to go in and pave a road, they can see a drive y that goes into the road is not paved, why at that time can't sol y bring that up as an issue then? I would image before a road is paved Fhe engineers go out there and look at the area and see that there are certain unpaved driveways that will be going into that. Krauss to mak Ahrens Batzli their exampl They do but it's not normally in a public works program or budget improvements on private property. What if the City didn't pay for it though? Other communities have offered to pave the adjoining gravel at xpense but it's cheaper because all the equipment's out there for Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 7 Ahren : They could just assess the cost to the homeowner. That's the way I'd 1 ke to see it done. Otherwise, I don't see any problem at all with, I go al, ng with the staff recommendation on this. Emmin! s: Okay. 3elf? Farma :es: I' went by and looked at the property. I agree with everything that' been said here. I guess I'd like to add that I think the reasons that gu're asking for a variance are all the correct reasons. Unlike previ ,us cases that we had in here earlier which met none of the criteria, I thi ik you've met it all. The reasons to ask for a variance and I think that', important to say that because I was against the earlier variance just or that reason. Not that it was 1 foot less or 1,000 feet less, I think it met the reason for variances and you have. I would agree that when he street is paved, your access road should be paved also but as it is no , I think you should be given the option of leaving it as it is. As a dirt road. I have no further comments. 8atzl some erosi : I agree with a majority of the comments already made. Is there ay that they can do something with the gravel driveway to help the n? Kraus~: We can ask our engineering department. I know at the very least they ant to make sure that there's an appropriately sized culvert for the ditch underneath there. One of the problems we have with where that street runs nd as we get into the water quality program, what you'd like to do is there s a tremendous flowage coming over that hill and there's really littl, or no room to impound it and let sedimentation occur before the water is discharged out into the lake. I don't know what the answer's going to be over there. I'm not sure that there's going to be a good one but iT a more limited aspect Brian, yes. Our engineering department should be gl% n authority to approve the driveway curb cut-. Designed to their spec ication, paved or not. Batzl : I guess I'd recommend that we amend that sentence in paragraph 5 that the common section of the driveway shall be paved when the, what' tha~ road again? Emmin! : Lotus Trail? Batzl Lakeshore Drive? Is that what it's called there? Conr Lotus Trail. Batzl Lotus Trail. Emmin., : Isn't it Lotus Trail? Batzl of t engi meant. Lotus Trail is paved. And I think that way we end up getting rid width of 20 feet as well. 8ut I would like staff to ask our ,ring department to look into how we can minimize erosion in the Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 8 Emmin s: Okay. I have a question on 6(c). You've got a driveway easement in fa,,or of Parcel A and the adjoining lot to the south. Now, that easem~,nt will be on the, there will be a vacation of Willow and then half of Wi. low will be going to the property to the south and half to the prope' ty to the Byrne's right to be added to Parcel A? Kraus : That's the presumption. It's I guess a County Court has to admin stet that but yeah. Emminlls: Okay, and I guess Ladd's concerned about your conditioning this appro~'al on easements for that driveway that they'll be driving on both halvel of that but I'm wondering, can you impose this easement on somebody who i~ n't here as an applicant? Kraus: : Well keep in mind we're imposing the easement on what's now our prope' ty. We're going to release our interest in it in exchange for that consi(eration we want to make sure that that easement is filed. Emmin s: But you've got to get an easement from them, or are we going to put t e easement there first? Krau: : No. We have the ability to put a permanent easement over it befor we release our right-of-way easements. We're basically maintaining. We ca do it either of two ways. Either, and I think both owners are coope' ative in this regard. Either they can establish the easement when they' e established title to the vacated right-of-way or we can pre-file an easem nt that we won't release. We'll release the right-of-way easement but m~intain the appropriate driveway easement which we would then involve the city in the chain of title but we'd allow the two owners to use it. Emmin~s: Okay. The way it is here, you're requesting the whole thing from them znd they can't give it. I guess that's what bothers me. But it's here a condition of approval but we don't have the people to the south here nd they don't have title so it may be, it would seem to me the way to do it Id be to impose the easement and then do the vacation. Kr : We can do it that way. Emmin~i Kraus~ deve 1 c : Or if you can. I don't even know that you can. Yeah, and we do all the filing now in-house so. we can have Roger those easements and just take the whole package down to the County. Emmin! : Okay. Otherwise I agree with all the other comments that have been e here. Has anybody got anything further or is there a motion? Erhart Count rev servi at th~ I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City to approve Subdivision Request ~91-4 with all the conditions as with the exception of item 5 in which the second sentence will be to read, the common section of the driveway and remaining section Parcel A shall be paved to minimize erosion and maintain drainage time Lotus Trail is paved. And to add a sentence that staff to PlannJ ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 9 provi, e recommendations to the applicant on ways to minimize erosion· Did you any change regarding your issue there Steve or is that just left? Emmin<. Batzlj Er hat t appro% varia : No, I just wanted to bring that up and make sure that. : Second. moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend of Subdivision Request #91-4 lot combination/replat with a 1,450 foot lot area variance on Parcel A and 3,674 square foot lot area on Parcel B, subject to the following conditions: I · TI applicant shall reflect all of the typical drainage and utility on Parcel A (Lots 1164-1169 and Lots 1178-1179) and on Parcel 8 Lots 1170-1177). · k and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of land d4 cation. Fees will be paid when a building permit is requested for P~ cel A. · T applicant shall supply grading and drainage and tree preservation p ns along with the building permit for review and approval by the C Engineer. · A P~ l~ . ructural engineer design the foundation for the future home on 1A (Lots ~164-1169 and Lots 1178-1179) due to the nature of this Soils information must be provided. · A n curb cut shall be utilized to serve Parcel A and the home to the south that is currently served by a gravel driveway in the right-of-way. When a home is built on Parcel A, the n section of the driveway and remaining section serving Parcel A 11 be paved to minimize erosion and maintain drainage at the time Trail is paved. Staff is directed to provide recommenc~tions to t applicant on ways to minimize erosion. · de the following easements: a Standard drainage and utility easements. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement in the former Willow Road right-of-way. c. A common driveway easement in favor of Parcel A and adjoining lot to the south over common sections of the driveway. d · A 15 foot temporary access easement over former right-of-way to serve 3 lots located west of Parcel A. Easement may be vacated if lots are acquired by the applicant and combined with Parcel A. All in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 10 PUBLI, HEARING: ZO AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMENO SECTIONS REGARDINP~ :APING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. Publ i Present: lame Address Richa d Wing 3481 Shore Drive Emmin is: Jo Ann, is there anything you prepared to present? Olsen I was just going to kind of go through or take comments. I can go throu:'h what we changed if you wa'nt me to do that. Emmin~ s: Okay, that was indicated pretty clearly. Is there anybody that wants a staff report on this? Alright. Okay, then let's just get right into t then. Ladd? Conra : I don't have. Emmims: Oh, excuse me. This is a public hearing and maybe, we haven't close, the public hearing and I know Dick, you wanted to address this didn' you? Maybe now would be a good time. I'm sorry. Richa Wing: I'm Richard Wing of 3481 Shore Drive, Minnewashta Heights. I attended a seminar with staff some months ago and they discussed, well one ol the panels at the end of this, if you recall, we had some devel¢ . One was a developer, it was a panel and the panel members were a groL that did strip malls, a Vice President from a large merchandise store chain in the Twin Cities area and the other one was a developer of singl residential homes which had done work in Chanhassen in the past. And a~ this debate got on and they were talking about ordinances and 1 'ng and so on, the seminar had to do with parking lots and how they' got to change and just to pave over with impervious surface isn't doing job anymore. 8ut at any rate, one of the questions I speci cally asked was would this developer, who kept bragging about his quali of homes in the development he was putting in, he was talking about how t were taking soybeans and cornfields and turning them into these wonde 1 housing projects, and I sort of said well good for you. Their entr s were landscaped rather elaborately, primarily for advertising put and then we went beyond that and there was nothing. I said would you put in or ever put back. It used to be a hardwood forest, would you put anything back if it wasn't required? He said, well you mean beyo the 1 FHA obligated tree? And he said no. I said, well how would we encourage that. He said well the City Ordinance would have to requi it. I said that's fine with me and that's when I brought this up to Pau~ specifically so my comments I wanted to make on the landscape ordinance is extremely narrow and I'll apologize for that. I mean this is much b~oader and much more complex but on page 12, under Section 18-61. Requir d landscaping for residential subdivisions. We now require 1 tree Plann 3'une a nd a: throu were and t ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page !1 I pounded the pavement if you will, during election time and went h the subdivisions that had been cornfields and soybean fields, they .erribly stark and no landscaping except the i tree that was required ,at's a little 2 1/2 inch tree sitting there. I just felt we could do more. I felt that the new people coming into Chanhassen for a real minimal impacI%°hI their pocketbook could contribute a little bit more and the devel er could be pushed to maybe to contribute a little bit more so I speci 'cally requested that our 1 tree upped to 3 and the City Council was fairl receptive. You know we tossed numbers back and forth and I would have iked 6 but that's impractical so 3 was somewhat picked arbitrarily. But I would request your support on and what I'm asking for just as a resid, nt of the community, and I'm addressing you just as a resident, is that e go with the 3 trees. But I'd like to see rather than just the 3 trees listed, I'd like to see specifically 2 deciduous trees which is kind of my goal. Paul has some good comments about why we want to put in the pine tees and in my discussions with him I don't disagree with that but I would specifically request this Section A(1) to require 2 deciduous trees and t¢ prevent a developer from coming and just buying green ash or an approted tree or they're also very cheap and he could come in and just blank(t a neighborhood with green ash. I would like to require 3 trees but specilically 2 be deciduous and out of that, I'd like one to stick with our names.! ke of the City of Chanhassen, the maple leaf, or the maple tree and the enblem behind you again is the maple leaf so I don't think it's asking too mLch that one of the deciduous trees be required to be maple. The other thing I'm concerned about was, my initial thoughts were that we try to create more of a boulevard effect and that 2 of these trees be in the front~ard. I think this is somewhat of a difficult question. I don't know I would even put that because many people want tight control of their I wou] the b~ like t commit quite City C areas my onl on minimu of som Batzli Richar commen trees , rememb but tb corrid time w guess with t landscaping as they buy these homes. But if I was to have my choice d require 2 of the trees be placed in the front yard and then 1 in ~k yard, if it's even practical to determine a placement. So I would 3 bring up at a future time the appointment of a shade tree tee. Other communities do have this and one in particular has been successful to the point where they're now even getting money from the 3uncil to go out and buy trees to specifically place trees in certain in the city but that's a little bit ahead of the game at his point so ~ comments tonight were, I'd just like your consideration and support ). I'd like to see the 3 trees maintained and I'd like to see a n of 2 deciduous and I think the locations of those trees are worthy ~ discussion. Why do you want 2 deciduous as opposed to coniferous? Wing: I guess I'm looking for a shaded appearance. Paul's s about the trees 6-7 months out of the year are bare and these pine or the coniferous trees if you will. That's the only word I can )r, provide more body throughout the year and I'm not opposed to that effect I'm looking for is the hardwood forest. The 8luff Creek r if you will or the city boulevards in Minneapolis where at one ire heavily elms and now they're pretty much putting back maples. I look at yards that have a variety of trees and I find the yards ,e shade trees to have more aesthetics personally and that's what I Plann ,ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 12 would be supporting here. I thlnk that for the summer shade and for what I'm tlying to accomplish for the clean alt and the environment, the decidious trees are maybe a llttle mote the goal I'm after. I guess I'm tryin, to replace the hardwood forest and the reforestation of the hardwood fores' more than I am the plne trees but that's certainly a reasonable posit on Paul is taking and I 'd be happy with anything we got. Satzl : When you're talking about establishing the boulevard, are you sugge: ting that you put these in the right-of-way of the road there are is going to be back off the street 20 feet? Richald Wing: I think the trees are going to be part of a person's purch~ se. They're going to be on their personal property and another Counc. lman pointed out, he would want total control of where they would go and tJ e ordinance allows that. It gives them a year with certificates to purchase what trees they want and put them where they want. I guess if I had a choice, I would have the ordinance state that 2 of the trees would be in the front portion of the house. However you want to define that. Wheth{r it started in the middle of house front or from the corners of the house out. The DNR has recommendations for planting trees to best suit the house in winter and summer in terms of the shade and their use and I think they tarot the western side and the southwest corner if I remember that articJe. But I'm not real knowledgeable on that so I don't, that's just my own p~rsonal opinion. I'd like to see more trees in the front yard to creat~ a little bit more of a shaded boulevard effect. Emmin~s: Thanks Dick. There are no other members of the public here. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. ;%11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Erhart: Okay, well why don't we just start with the subject that Dick was on. lhe last. time I remember, I somewhat agreed with Dick and felt that the trses that we're going to require should be, I felt, boulevard trees. Emmin~s: When you say boulevard, what do you mean? Erhart I mean deciduous trees with the intent at maturity they will hang over t ~e street and provide essentially both a scenic and the shade for the public area of the subdivision which is the street and sidewalk, if there's a sid6,alk. On the flip side of that is I have a hard time going in and essent [ally requiring a developer to go in and do what I consider the perso al landscaping of a lot which is putting in the evergreens and the stuff in the back yard and then bushes around the house. I mean that's somet~ ng that's left up to the individual homeowner. Those are not public areas ,f the lot. That's an individual so I agree and I would even suggest to car y it one step further saying that all the trees that are required, and if 3's the right number, that's fine. They all be deciduous and that they s ,ould be somehow defined to be planted somewhere along in the vicinity of the street so that they're planted for the intended purpose of boulev rd trees. So I'd go one step further. The other thing is I agree Plann 3une entir while green: think what appro notes dec i d. heigh' put i That ' Kraus Erhar' Olsen Erhart an ave 0 kay, back thing yar d, like ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 13 ly that no more than one tree should be a green ash. A green ash, it's a very durable tree, it's not on the highest quality tree. It up late and loses it's leaves early and doesn't have much color. I requiring 1 tree to be a maple makes sense. I suggest that maybe ;e ought to do is, if we want to pursue this is to provide a list of ed trees and put some control on what they s~ould be. One of the I had here, somewhere in my notes here is that we only require gus tree to meet a 15 foot ultimate height. To me a 15 foot ultimate is not a tree. That's a bush or a shurb and so, I mean they could Canadian Red Cherry in there which is a tree...more than 15 feet. not a boulevard tree so there's something wrong here I think. : I think we may have deleted that section. : Let's see I've got it marked. That's one of those landscaping standards. On page 107 : Page 9. Last sentence. Deciduous trees shall be species having rage mature crown spread of greater than. Oh, that's a crown spread. I misread that. I misread that. I take that back. $o anyway, going that one, again it's like Dick states. It's kind of a personal That's what I see and it's like when you put trees in the back it's getting into someone's own personal taste for landscaping. I he 3 trees. I have a question in that paragraph though. Are we a littl inconsistent when we say, if you put in these 3 trees they have to be 2 inch caliper yet to use an existing tree it has to be 6 inch calip, . That doesn't seem right. To qualify not to have to put in a new tree, existing tree has to be 6 inch caliper. That doesn't seem right to me It seems to me if there's a 2 1/2 inch tree that meets the ordin~ that's existing, then that ought to qualify as one of the trees. Olsen throu inch repl I think the reason we're doing that is to be consistent because the ordinance we're saying that anything that large with a 6 iper can't, would be considered clear cutting and you need to it if you do have to cut it down. I think we're just trying to be. Kral It trips the tree preservation requirements over that width. Richar Wing: It may not be transplantable either. A 2 1/2 inch tree 'can be tr anted easily and grows fast. A 6 inch would take a tandem truck. Erhar I understand that. I'm saying, let's say you have a 6 inch tree that's on the boulevard. Let's say a 3 inch tree is on a boulevard at just exactl where you would plant one of these 2 1/2 inch trees anyway. Why wouldn t that qualify as one of those trees? To me it just doesn't seem fair. If it's an existing tree that's got... Krauss! that din Erhart~ I think there's also a concern though. There's a lot of trees 't ever grow more than 3 or 4 inches that are kind of junk. Oh, okay. Alright, let's say that it's a 3 inch tree. Plann 3une Kraus Erhart One gl Emmin~ Erhart 2ust Or as Oisen Erhar and. Olsen Erhar Kraus: Erhart a wai~ on, I s~e. about I thoc clear and it on Mir they c agree about sometb their those they c and th Ahren.~ Erharl I call 40 fez weren you k~ but wh the tr again, a , per read i .ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 14 : If you want to go with your approved list. : I've got a lot of things so don't try to answer all of them here. them, that word there in that paragraph 1 on that same page it says. s: What page? : We're on page 12. Section 18-61 in the subdivision ordinance. or editing there. Where it says 6 inches, is that supposed to be and it's stated in the following page? 3ust look at that 3o Ann. Where are you at now? : Paragraph 1. It would be that twelfth line down where you use 6 inches and 4 feet above the ground? : Because on the following page you use the word or I think. : 6 inches as measured 4 feet above the ground. : Well, anyway. Details. The last sentence on that paragraph says er shall be applied for each existing tree against each required tree guess that's okay. I guess now as I read that, that's clear. Let's As long as we're on the subdivision ordinance. I talked to you today this on the phone Paul and that is, utility companies coming in and ght your word today was perfect. Using Agent Orange to essentially out for their power lines. I had my personal experiences with that 's very upsetting and I know we as a City have had one experience out newashta out there. I'll tell you, I read this and it tells me that an't come in and do that. The problem is, I don't think they would to that. I guess I'd like to get the other commissioners feelings this. I think we ought to, you know this is not New Germany and ing out next to a cornfield where there's box eiders growing up into lines. I mean the trees that they Agent Orange mine. I planted trees. Those were ash and sugar maple and a variety of trees and mme along with their big guns and trucks and boom. They were gone, ~y weren't underneath the power line either. Who did that? Minnesota Valley Power. Minnesota Valley Electric. And of course ~d the guy and he pulls out his easement and says hey man, I've got and I can do anything I want to. Don't bug me. Those trees bothering his lines. I was doing some reforestation and I guess, )w I understand. They have a right, we have to maintain the lines it they did was nonsense. The lines were 50 feet up in the air and ~es were 3 feet high and they're 20 feet off to the side. And I read this and it appears to me that they have to come in and get the text, a permit to do this or they have to do something. Do you that way? Plann June Kraus over Minne: thems, we ca agreel contr build Emm i in ex this Kraus it, ti Emmim, maybe don't KTaUS~ . Emmim Kraus~ situat After Olsen ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 15 : Well, I'd like to interpret it that way. It's been my experience he years that highway companies, railroads and the University of ota are not part of this earth. They're kind of forces onto lyes and managed differently. We can ask Roger if there's something do with that but when you get into a State approved franchise ents that give them certain authorities, usually they're beyond our 1. However, we do make them get permit approval to construct ngs and sub-stations and those kinds of things. s: But a guy who has an easement on my property doesn't have rights ess of what I have on my own property and I wouldn't be allowed to do nder this ordinance would I? : Yeah. There's nothing in our tree preservation section, as I read at precludes a homeowner from chopping down a tree. : No. And I'd be against it if there were. We're talking here t clear cutting though and we do have restrictions against that All I can say is. This is worst than clear cutting. Theoretically we do. I believe 3o Ann was once involved in a on where a homeowner near, I think it was Lake Riley did clear cut. fact clear cutting of property and we did pursue that. And we had them plant other trees. Revegetate as I recall. Erha Well you know, I read this and it says no clear cutting in wooded areas hall be permitted except as approved in the subdivision, planned unit lopment or site plan application. Item (e) it says tree removal shall be permitted under subdivision, planned unit development or site plan iew shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan the City Council. I mean that covers it. Emmim : You know Joan, you do real estate stuff and a landowner can't grant grants an easement to the power company to maintain their lines but he ca' t give them more rights than he himself has can he? A grantor of an ease. it? Ahre No, but most of the time the easements allow power companies to do whate~ ir they want to that land that's within the confines of the easement to e le them to carry on whatever business they're entitled to do on that easem~ t. Whether it means clear cutting trees or whatever. They can ly, the easement allows them to do that. Emming : But if the landowner couldn't do it and he's the grantor of the easeme t, can the person holding the easement still do it? Conrad The landowner can do it. Plann 3une Emmin, Erhar Emmin~ Conra~ Emmin~ Olsen fact remov gener~ Emro i n( permii site ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 16 s: Nell maybe. : What I'm driving at. s: And maybe not. : Why not? Because this is not covering what an individual can do. s: Nell I don't know. Ne do have a tree removal section that goes for everything. In his was taken starting at I think (b) on down is actually the tree 1 section which is back at the start. On page 5 so we do have a il tree removal section. It says over here, no clear cutting of woodland areas shall be except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or lan application. That's pretty broad. Batzl : Yeah but this is for a, isn't this a subdivision section? Olsen same subd On page 5 we have the general tree removal regulations. Ne put the ng under subdivision and under the zoning ordinance. We've got the ion ordinance and the zoning ordinance. Emmin~ : Me're kind of stepping on your toes here a little bit here Tim but d, that apply to me on my lot or does this only apply to a developer in a vision? Olsen the The general tree removal, I apply that. Ne apply that throughout with everyone. Kr Ne do but I wouldn't want to stand here and tell you that concl ;ively that we prevent clear cutting on lots. Homeowners don't know the r uirements. Ne don't know that they're out there cutting. There's no gation that they come ask. Plus public utilities, they're. They're quasi-governmental units. The Ci .y of Chanhassen doesn't have to go in and ask for a grading permit every ;ime they move dirt around. Krauss And power companies I believe also have the right of eminent domain and they didn't buy these easements necessarily. They took them. Ahrens That's right. Conrad Okay, I'm r'eally confused. Ahrens I wouldn't want to take that court I'll tell you. Erhart This easement was purchased. Plann .ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 17 Conra, : Page 2, this landscape. Tree removal. It says this Article does not a ply to single family detached residences. Kraus : You've got to separate the two. There are two ordinances in this packel . One is the site plan review ordinance, which you're looking at on page and that does not affect single family homem by ordinance. Site plan eview doesn't· The one that does affect single family homes is the one a the end which goes into the subdivision section. Conr : But that's the one. Kraus~ : That is new subdivisions that are subject to that requirement. That',~ a good point. Emmin s: Except they do cross reference each other because down here it says, nder (e) on the bottom of page 13 it says tree removal plans shall inclu, the content requirements dictated in Section 20-1177 so some of the prov' ions are the same. They do reference each other but they're not. Conra( : But I guess I find no security in that fact. I guess the problem that m is bringing up, I see no security in thinking that the power · I think it'd be foolish to think that the power company wouldn't come and that we have any kind of control over it. Erhar the cutti spray in a do is to ap respo I I've got an idea. Here's my idea. My idea is to take and write er companies a letter saying that it's our intent to regulate clear and spraying, clear cutting either by ax or by chainsaw or by · Here's a copy of a new ordinance that we're discussing right now ic hearing that will cover that ordinance and what we're trying to t prevent you from clear cutting where required but to require you for a permit just like everybody else. And we invite you to to this. Let's get the thing aired because I'd like to hear their, I'd like to hear where their views are. Now maybe there's some compr 'se we can come to that we can all be happy and get what we want. hope 're buying into what I'd like to see but I'd like to see them come in ar if they want to do clear cutting in whatever form they use, they get a per t just like everybody else. The place to start is just to cate that intent and draw them in. Now it might be surprising the but I don't think we're going to accomplish anything just by putti out the ordinance without getting them involved in the process. Emmin., : Maybe even the step before that we've got to check with Roger and see i; we've got any leverage to bring these people, somehow I think do you ultima ly want to go a step beyond that and have them make sure that they'r not just going out and killing everything in a certain swath but doing his with some kind of a reasonable approach to meet their ends? Erhart I want make sure that there's a reasonable approach· If we can do trimmi ~g. If we can accompiish as much with trimming and surely sometimes you're going to have to do some cIear cutting. I'm sure there's times it's approp late to spray. Right now it's not reasonable. I think we all hope we all .. And I think just the fact that they would know that we're Plann June watch Minne is. expec truck ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 18 ng and we're interested. Right today, I don't think, and like ..ota Valley Electric. They're in New Prague and LeSuere I think it 'hey're in the frame of mind that this is just like LeSuere and you to drive along the country road and spray box elders from your That's just the way it's done and I just think we've got to commu icate that's not the way you do it in Chanhassen. (Ther was a tape change at this point.) Ahren : Yes they do. They live right across the street from me. They cut a hug4 area of trees down. It was quite a large area. They cut some reall nice trees down because they thought they might put some kind of pipe n the road but they changed their minds so all these trees were cut down nd they just walked away from it. This happened last summer. Erha Big trees? Ahre Well yeah. Big, mature, beautiful trees. Birch and pine and all sorts Df real nice trees. [ would have gone across the street and saved them. Put them in my yard. The City did that. It was on the, what's the prope that Lundgren Brothers wants to develop on? They have a big sign out i front that says the Ponderosa. Ahre on bac some 1 this o Emmi ng Conrad cot net Foster they c. Emming~ Conrad Krauss And it Crimso' Conrad any gl ordina~ do wit~ Ortenblat. Ortenblat property. I don't know. We're not pure in this. We've found our guys out hoes and we've gone out and stopped them. You try and communicate vel of sensitivity to them. I don't know this particular issue on ~e but I wouldn't be surprised. : Sensitivity and chainsaws don't usually go together. One real good example is what we talk about on the southeast of Minnewashta and the power company went down. I know when Tim was in here and they just took a, I couldn't believe the path that rved. It was just incredible. : Was it 40 feet or 50 feet? It was mammouth. It's just hard to believe. It was so large it made a road where there never used to be one. led us to believe that you could now run a road down the hill to Bay. But anyway, I still don't understand why Tim you feel that there's mmer of, this is in the back 15-61. This is a subdivision ce. This is a subdivision amendment ordinance. It has nothing to what somebody does on your property. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 19 Erhar: If it isn't, then I suggest that we change it or have another ordin nce so we can mail them. Olsen I was going to say, this tree preservation section, both the one that' in the subdivision and the one that's under the general requi ements, we are going to be changing. I had a note to that in here but t 's out. But we're working with the DNR Forestry Department. I don't know if you saw that memo. We're getting the mosaic this Friday and they' worki amend with what a can 1 Ol getting, they've mapped all the trees in the City and they're with us as a pilot project. As part of that we're going to be our ordinance. Our tree preservation ordinance working with them >restation. With what the City is. With what they've lost and need to do but as a part of that we can, we're going to be drafting new section. This whole new section and then as part of that we at doing existing lots and single family lots and existing al lots and things like that. Erhar agai You agree with Ladd that this doesn't, this would not be applied existing subdivisions? Emmin~ : Yes you agree or? Olsen: I agree it doesn't. Erhart Nell then would, alright let's go this way. Would you agree it's time t bring the power companies into this discussion and let our intent ons known so we get a productive? Ahrens I think we should ask Roger. Emming : Number one we ask ~oger and number two, maybe that's part of a separa e ordinance in addition to what we've got in front of us. Krauss As Jo Ann points out, there's been a lot of ground work. Jo Ann's been s ending a lot of time with the DNR. I think you're aware that we're a spec al project for them. They're using us as an experiment in forestry. We fel we were clearly under pressure to get better landscaping standards. up and running now. Much the same reason as we did the PUD ordinance last time blt in discussing this Jo Ann and I didn't know, I mean we clearly had not cl d out a new and improved tree preservation section so rather than kind o slapping something together, we said let's just roll over what we have n and as 3o Ann said, there was a note that was dropped out of here that :id we will be proposing significant modifications to you I would guess thin the next few, up to 6 months from now. Olsen: Yeah. Krauss It's an experimental program. It's a little tough to know how it's g, ng to develop but they are presenting us with the base mapping inf ion on Friday and they do have somebody who's going to work with Jo Ann on loping a new ordinance. Pl ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 20 Emmin s: Well I guess I had proposed that we concentrate on what's here. I think it's an important issue that we should check with Roger and see if we do ha' e, what we need to get a handle on this and maybe propose, let him propose or you could draft an ordinance or another part of our landscape ordinance that would address how utility companies maintain their right- for their easements for' their power lines. Okay. Erbar1 : I've got some more here. On paragraph 4 there on page 13. Under (d)(4 I guess I'd say, during the tree removal process, trees shall be trimm, and if required, removed as to prevent blocking of public rights- of-wa' and interferring with overhead utility lines. Let's try to make it as ire as possible. Then on item 5 again, removal of diseased and dama~ trees. I don't know. A guy goes up and puts one hachet in the tree d says, oh. It's damaged. Cuts it off. Maybe we ought to change the ding a little bit to make it a little bit, the intention is if it can't ,e saved or something like that. That one is small. I think number 4, I'd like to see that changed if nobody has any objection. Let's start in the beginning of the, I bet you all thought you were going to get out of here a! 8:30. In the landscaping ordinance. Let's go to page number 6. Dealin~ with fences and walls. Again, in general I pesonally think that the wa ls we have in town, wood walls we have in town suck. Batzli Tell us how you really feel. Erhart Every one of them that I can think of is falling down. It's uglier if it wouldn't be there at all, I would venture to say in some cases I really have to question whether we really encourage wooden fences If we are, boy get this thing nailed down more than this. Because two of ~he things that strike me. One is that something that's going to keep Dm from leaning over after 5 years or faster. Being swayed all over the pl ~e and the second thing is that I think if someone's going to use walls fences for buffers, that we ought to require intermittent 1 ,ing on the public side of those walls. An example would be like 35 going )wntown where every 100 feet you've got a planting of some evergreens and things to break up this wall. I think a wall's ugly. really to. Wooden walls particularly after a few years gets really ugly. And reilforcements and to require additional landscaping adjacent to the wall, I think ought to be required if that's going to be used as a screen. Krauss: I don't think we have a problem with it being masonary. That's pretty luch, I mean when we say architecturally harmonious, that's typical what. If we're talking about screen structures like Market Square e they wanted to have the outdoor storage for Lawn and Sports. I mean we them do a masonary wall that was identical to the rear wall of the bui Erhart: Let me pin this down... I'm talking about enclosures for parking areas 1 in the industrial park down there. Krauss: The dock place. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , lggl - Page 21 Erhar : The dock place. The one up here between the cement factory and the H nus building. That would meet the ordinance. Olsen Ne can add that if they use retaining walls or fences that they have be screened. I mean landscaped. Er : Some kind of landscaping. Batzl For example the lumber company that put up the wooden fence. Olsen: We required them to screen, landscape. Batzl It would have to be landscaped around. KraL In fact that's an example of a fairly well maintained wooden fence but s probably the exception to the rule. Erhart As long as that owner's there and profitable it will be mainta ned. I have a question on page 8, paragraph 5 where we say the treed Lreas within parking lots will be landscaped with shurbs or ground cover. Does ground cover include rocks or what is ground cover in this ordina ice? Olsen: No. It has to be, I wouldn't consider ground cover rocks. Krauss We could define it. Erhart A car lot parking lot is rocks. Krauss No, I think we mean things like English Ivy and Ground Vetch and that k..nd of stuff. Olsen: We'll see if that's defined though. Erhart I don't know, you may want to look at design. The other thing on page 9 I think we discussed this the last time but item 1. Walls should be con~ ucted of natural stone, brick or artificial materials. Krauss: I thought we had gotten at that. So what we've done is, on the la lng materials, we have refined what you were getting at on page 7 to sta that it must be masonary. Oh, I'm sorry. Olsen: No, fences must be wood. Krauss: We need to define what's a wall and what's a fence. A screen wall. Olsen: And then add that they always have to be landscaped. Erhart: Okay, then on page 9 there. Did we set the last time this artific al materials in paragraph 1 there it says walls shall be Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 22 const ucted of natural stone, brick, artificial materials. Does that leave anybo y hanging at all or is it just me? Batzl : Where were you? I 'm sorry. Page 9, paragraph 1 under. Conra. : What is, yeah what's artificial? Olsen It's somthing that's always been there. Conra< It's not biodegradeable. Olsen: Plastic? Conra Like plastic? Krauss Actually you hesitate to say that but now there's companies that are pr icessing recycled plastic into some pretty nice, heavy duty fencing. Screen fencing that's supposed to be much more durable than wood. Erhart Artificial materials designed for the purpose of use in a wall or a fenc, maybe? Olsen: Maybe we shouldn't be so specific and just say it has to be consis nt with the building material like we did the... Batzli That's already in here isn't it? Olsen: It's in the front. Batzli It's in the same section. Well, it's just one section down. Ahrens Well if they come in with something outrageous, can't you deny that a Krauss: Well you do have a little bit of discretion. This is a site plan view. Je do not attempt nor do we think we should be terribly, completely explici in a site plan review. There is an art to doing these things and you wan to encourage some creativity on their part and some flexibility to review t on yours. 5mmings Why don't we just say walls shall be constructed of natural · stone, rick or other appropriate materials and if it turns out that some artific al material is appropriate for some particular project, we can approve it. Erhart: That's all I have. Emmings That wasn't too bad. Ladd? Conrad: I agree with a lot of Tim's comments relating to fences and walls. The lan~ pin9 to break up fences and those. I really believe that a lot of thim that we've required can make it look ugly, uglier than what we're PIa' ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 23 tryin to cover up. I'm not convinced that a fence and a wall is a solut on. I think there's some real natural ways to solve some of our less attra, tire commercial enterprises. I guess I don't have a solution to that. In fact, I thought about it. Should we force people. I couldn't come with a different solution than what's recommended in the staff repot so I'm going to go right beyond that, other than the fact that on long of walls or fences, I think we need the landscaping to break that up. page 8. Where did those standards come from? They kind of make sense t did we pull those from? Olsen The old one. Conra~ And that means we believe that they're right? Olsen: They've been working really well. We usually get pretty good looki parking lots from that. Conrad Okay. So that came from here. I'll leave that. On page 9 under landsc ping materials under Section 20-1183, paragraph 1. It said wood strips Have we seen wood strips that are attractive? Ahrens I think they're uglier than chainlink. Olsen: We've talked about that before. They're real ugly. Conrad So basically what we've done is screen something that's ugly with someth ng that's uglier. I have a problem with that. Now somebody could tell m. that there are attractive wood strips and fencing but I'm just, again 'm not convinced that yeah, I guess I'd like to see that out unless. Krauss You know where the problem comes about is that when you have somebo~ like Redmond when they were looking to build their new facility. They a compound of active area that includes, I don't know, 15-20 acres. Now on their plans, and they have security concerns. On their plans, hich never went anywhere but what we got them to do was to use wrought iron fencing along the street boulevard but internally they wanted to go w th chainlink for cost and for security you know because you can put the lit le pokey things up on the chainlink and they didn't particularly want to do a wood fence that you could just rip apart or climb over. Olsen: It was inside and it was screened. Krauss: Yeah, it was a concealed location. Olsen: Maybe just say perimeter fences? Conrad: So when you say interior, their interior fences, we're not on the side ya' Krauss: It wasn't on a public right-of-way. It was an internal area if I fecal Plann 3une Emmin Kraus Erhar fence right Conra Kraus the i ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 24 s: Internal meaning? : Somewhere within their site. : That's a good question. Are we going to require landscaping of between property lines? I guess...thinking of the ones along public of-ways. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Well, let's look at one where I don't think it was done which is tle shopping center right over here. Yhe wall that was built back there hich has been a real contentious item for a lot of homeowners. I don't lieve we landscaped behind it or the developer landscaped behind it. Olsen Yeah we did. Kr As a result of, because there was a lot of concern about that. Olsen: We added a lot. Krauss That's a fence that's in close proximity. It's a screen fence in very c.ose to a single family home. Erhart And they were existing when they came in with that...so we could requir, that...for special reasons. Krauss Well even if they weren't existing. I think there's always the presum tion that if you're the applicant who's proposing a higher intensity use, y .u have an obligation to screen existing or propose lower intensity uses o the facility. It's the cost of doing development in the city. Emming : Now what are you going to do? We're talking about chainlink fence as to be covered with plant materials so you're talking about like growin ivy on it or something like that? Some vine? Krauss Or putting a row of coniferous trees in front of it. Emming~ Well but anybody who wants to put it up, some people are going to want put it up on their property line. Krauss This doesn't affect homeowners. Emming~ proper No. But won't there be businesses that want to put it up on the line? Krauss: Yeah, probably. Emmings You can't put it up on the property line and screen the outside of it. You can't plant your trees on somebody else's property. P1 ng Commission Heating June , i991 - Page 25 Batzl : You could do vines. Kraus: : And keep in mind, while a fence can go on next to a property line, there s stlll required setbacks for parking and buildings and everything else o there invariably is a green strip there and if their concern ls secur ty, they can always move that fence back within that setback area. Put tleir landscaping on the outside and not really lose anything in the proce~ . Emmin.~ : Okay. Olsen recur Should we say that chainlink fences are only allowed if for reasons? I mean do we want to just make that an exception? KraL I don't think we just want to say for security reasons because that .ts it in the context of do you really want this for security or is there ~nother reason? To define the motives of who's ever proposing it. Emming : And they'll just say it's for security. Does anybody have proble s with chainlink fences? Ahrens I don't think they're so bad. I mean there are black ones now that a e kind of nice. Emming: : Prince has them around his property and around this out up here. Erhart Again, if it's on a public right-of-way it should be landscaped I think eally well. Conrad But let's talk about separating two businesses. Do we care if there' a chainlink fence between two businesses? Don't you? Erhart If you're talking about two commercial type, retail? Conrad Two commercial. Industrial/commercial. Emming~, You're talking about down in the industrial park? Conrad: Right. Krauss: Don't we have a chainlink fence around our maintenance building? Olsen: Probably. Batzli: Yeah, there is one down there. Conrad: And it's a good rationale for security reasons to do that. They're ugly. Batzli: Chainlink around that substation I think. Down south. With a lot of pointy things on top I think. Plan' lng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 26 Ahre : I don't think they're always ugly. Conr : They can be nice. Ahren : I think the one around Prince's place looks fine. Batzl : Oh, I think that one sticks out. Ahren.. : You do? Batzl : It's such a narrow enclosure around that building. I always thoug t it just looked like trying to keep the vandle hordes out or somet lng. Erhar' : It's not normal to put a chainlink fence around your commercial build . However, if you want to I guess is there any problem in requi' ng then you have to break it up with some landscaping? If that's the e ion, then I guess it would seem to me reasonable to require break it up. Co co to put Do you want, does it make sense to force the chainlink to be a Are you comfortable with the galvanized chainlink? I don't want this too far. I don't have answers on this. I really don't. Ahrens It looks better than tilting wooden fences. Co Absolutely. Er Particularly if they're broken up with landscaping. Batzli The one I think actually is the one around Eden Prairie's High School with all of the vines on it. That doesn't look bad. Olsen: Do you want to take out the wood strips and just keep only if covers, with plant material? Conrad Yeahi Emming: Or otherwise landscaped. Conrad Yeah, let's justify my last 15 minutes of conversation by... Batzli: So you wouldn't allow something like the lumber yard where they put wood fence on the outside of the chainlink? Conrad: Yeah, that's interesting. Olsen: We required that. Batzli: They had to cover the chainlink. They wanted the security of the chainli k so we made them put the other fence around it. Plan June Olser Ahren lng Commission Meeting 5, 1991 - Page 27 It had to be totally screened. : Then a brick wall on the outside. Emmin s: Coniferous trees and then deciduous trees. Batzl : $o you wouldn't allow that? I don't know. Conra, : Wouldn't allow the. Batzl : Wouldn't allow a situation where you put fence on the outside of the c inlink? Emmin: : It says here they can have fences. 8atzl No, but you wouldn't allow them screening the chainlink fence with a fence because here it says you have to have plant material right? Or ot ,rwise landscaped. Olsen: But we're adding, even the wood fence would have to be landscaped. Krauss See Building Components has a storage yard there that's visible from TI 5 if they didn't build that wall so the purpose is a little bit differ, nt. Olsen: That was part of the CUP. Emming: : What would make them landscape a wood fence? Olsen: I thought that we were going to add that in this section. In that other ;tion where it talked about fencing, it's not just a fence but it also to have some landscaping. Emmin~ Okay, so that will apply to walls. It will apply to fences, both wood a chainlink. Krauss: I think the place to do that is in 20-1182 on page 9. Olsen: That's where we are. Krauss: Okay. I'm behind the 8 ball on this. I thought I had some new informa ion. Olsen: Emmings Olsen: talking would also put it I think on that page 6. Where on 6 Jo Ann? n 1 at the bottom there and then at the top of page 7 where it's screening. I think both spots. Batzli: These are the same. Plant June Olser and mi Batzl in (a ties on sa Olsen other' ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 28 Well we'll figure it out. Maybe we'll just break it out completely ke it clearer or something. We'll look at it. guess I would have just in Section 20-1182, or 20-1183 I guess Even if you just refer back to that previous section so it all ogether. I'd hate, otherwise it's just going to get long if we keep the same thing over and over. And Steve, when you said or other, you said plant material or Emmin: : I just said or otherwise landscaped. Olsen Otherwise landscaped. So do we need to explain what that means? Emmin,. : I don't know. I like to leave things kind of open. Olsen We have to argue what it means. Like well I don't know what it You're talking about broken up? Or otherwise screened with lng? Like that? Emmin! : Well, you say it anyway you want to. Erhar I think staff has to kind of come up with a recommendation. Do you ,d to get specific or can you leave it general? Conrad We're not coming up with absolutes here. Krauss The difference here from what we had before is, you've established a crit,ria that they have to meet. Before we had to do that first and then tell t ,em what we thought was acceptable and we weren't backed up by an ordina ~ce that said you must do something. I think we've got a big leg up on it ow because it does say that. Emming. : I agree. While we're right there. In (a)(3) where it says plants It's at the end of that sentence. It says artificial plants are prohib ted and shall meet the following requirements. So I think you've got to a comma after the word prohibited. Olsen: Where are you? Emmin. : On 20-1183, page 9, (a)(3). You need a comma after the word prohib real bad. Do you find it? Olsen: Yeah I see it but just a comma? Batzli plants catch. After the word prohibited so you don't require the artificial be deciduous trees. It's a picky thing that only Steve would Krauss If you put a period after prohibited and say a new sentence, plant materia' shall meet the following requirements. Pla' ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 29 Olsen And artificial? Emmin. s: Then really you should have a semi-colon after plants, before artif cial if you really want to do it. I can't help it. You can't separ te two sentences by a comma. Olsen I was doing an and not a comma. Can't you do that? · Conra< : Jo Ann, all I'm trying to do is get some quality, I'm trying to build some quality into this. If that's in an intent statement or if that'~ in some words in here, I think that's better than some of the abso because I can't come up with the right ones. Okay, moving on. Still turn. Page 12, under Subdivision Ordinance. I guess I do agree with 3 trees. I do like, and I'm trying to think if we're being naive on th one but I do like the one maple and I do like the 2 deciduous. I like deciduous, 1 coniferous tree. One of the deciduous of which being a maple I agree with Tim's comment on page 13 under (4). Page 13. We don't a maintenance section. So in other words, in a subdivision you can c in, plant it and we don't have, we haven't said anything about re ng and I would think we would treat the subdivision just like we would he other districts. Why wouldn't we talk about replacement? And again, I don't know what we can require in terms of replacement. Olsen: We've got maintenance in the other section but I don't know if that's supplying, we don't have it referring to this one. Krauss It becomes real difficult in subdivisions. There's nobody out there, there's no single unified property owner or controlling party to go after. You wind up having to go after individual homeowners saying your maple tee died. You owe us a new one. Or even you know we're now requir ng buffering, landscaping and to some extent boulevard plantings in a subd vision. We're requiring the developer install that at the outset but if a tree dies 5 years from now, who do we go after to replace it? Batzli I, as a new homeowner. Nell, new in a subdivision of this city, requir, that the developer give the first purchaser of the property a certai year guarantee on the trees. Let the homeowner have the ammunition to go them because most homeowners will. If it dies, they're the ones w are going to want to replace it. Krauss Well yeah, that's true. Ahrens I bet most of them do that. Batzli Well you know you go back to the developer and they say, tough luck. [t died. Sue me. Krauss: Well see we do require that they guarantee that the tree, I mean they've giving us a warranty for a year. We don't give them their money back u .il the stuff's survived the first full growing season. Ahrens: That's already in here? P .rig Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 30 Kraus : That's what we do with the landscaping. Batzl : In a subdivision. Olsen That's under the general. That's under the other Articles. · Batzl : That's not residential subdivision. Olsen That's like saying we shoul'd have referred it. Kraus: : Yeah, let's add in because it works real well for us. Fu entally that's what we've done anyway. Ahre : I think 1 year is the maximum. Emmim : But this is really critical. This is all the more reason to requi to mo sun. into than more deciduous trees and fewer coniferous because those trees have into winter, especially when they're young they're sensitive to the hen they get older they're not. Evergreens. And they have to go nter well watered and unless, you know a lot of first time ers may or may not know that. It takes a lot, they're a lot fussier iduous trees. Conr a trees case mix. winter time a subdi~ up to ma~o¥ Emmi n~ Conrad Krauss Conrad Batzli subdiv Olsen: Emming~ still arteri I buy what Dick said in terms of the appearance. The larger nce. I do like coniferous trees. We are without leaves on our 7 months a year. Anyway, so I like the mix and I guess in this think that the two deciduous is the right proportion but I like the need the greenery or anything to break up the scenery in the ;ime. $o I like that. My last comment was something I said last id more than likely I'm still concerned about major highways. The ision ordinance might play, might feed into let's say you're backing FH 101 or to TH 41 with a subdivision. Do we want to require on our ighways or arterials to have any kind of increased plantings? : A buffer zone. We've been calling it a buffer zone. Yeah. It's 18-61(4). Okay. But this is only in the, isn't this one in a residential sion one? Yes. : How deep is it Paul? Is there any extra depth there? Can you ave a minimum size lot right up to that street? That collector or 17 Olsen: It says that they can be, the steps can be increased. Plan~ 3'une Emmir depth about Kraus be in Emmin Kraus comp where as so, Emmin~ KTaus~ the s Lng Commission Meeting 5, 1991 - Page 31 ~s: Because if you're going to do more landscaping you'need more don't you? I mean it just seems to me. That's what you're talking : Yeah. Later on in there we say that the lot depths and areas may teased by 25~ over district standards. is: Alright. I like it. ~: In looking at the development along Audubon Road and over the .lanning process really hit home that, and that's clearly an area this needed to be done and wasn't and there's going to be hell to pay n as we have the industrial project across the street being proposed. : Well we're going to wind up imposing it on them right? Yes. With the buffer requirements. And by the way, that's one of that Ryan Oevelopment is working on right now. Conra. I 'm done. Emmin,~ : Okay. Brian? Batzl I'm confused about the solution to Ladd's problem so I might as well .art out with that since we're right there. It was my understanding that were two sections to this. One applies to industrial/office and one a lies to detached single family. Is that true or not true? K' One is lodged in the site plan review section which only applies to non single family development. The other is in the subdivision code. Batzli So is the subdivision stuff applicable to everything else? Site plan r~,view process? Krauss No. Batzli Then why are we doing it that way? Krauss Well you have to do it that way. Batzli But we have things in one section. Like for example the buffer along he major arterials/collectors whatever. That's only in the subdiv 'on, not in the site plan review. Is that right? Krauss Well yes but, the reason why it's in the Subdivision Code first of all, i applies to single family development which only has to jump through that . In that case you're trying to screen residences from the freewa Batzli: I thought we were trying to make it nice and pretty to drive throu too? Plann ng Commission Meeting 3une , 1991 - Page 32 Kraus: : Well, it would accomplish both those purposes. Batzl : But only on like every other lot as you go through the City becau e you're not going to be covering the things that are just site plans Emmin s: See if you go with Ladd's notion that as you drive down TH 5 as an ex. mple. That it ought to be attractive and that's going to be accom lished by open space and landscaping, he's asking are we going to be able o apply. You know here we've got residential and we know we can get a lit le more space with this section. What about on the commercial and induslrial properties? Kraus: : Okay, it's treated a little differently but on 20-1182 on page 9 where we talk about foundation and aesthetic plans. Under (c). Well first of al. we require that the site, not only that you landscape parking lots and s, reen trash enclosures but that you have landscaping around building perim ters, break up building walls and ultimately screen fences. And that all u loped areas of the site be landscaped. And then (c) where under, loped or open areas of the site located ad3acent to public right-of- way, n we go back to that standard that we've always had that you have to in at least I tree for every 40 feet of frontage. Emminl : But why isn't this, I think what and I'm sorry to butt in but. Batzl No. Please. You're doing a good job. Emmin : I think what he's saying, if our standard for residential appli to collectors and arterials, why doesn't our standard here? Why isn't t in the same language so it's clear that we want to make sure that our look nice and we have buffering between them. Ahrens which Krauss class4 well Particularly if they're across the street from a residential area :ould happen. Well, I guess the problem is you're talking about two different of use generally. Now this could cover multi-family housing as t you are often talking about uses that want the visibility from the hi . If you're talking about industrial park or a Target or whatever else, hey're not looking to be screened or buffered. I mean we're going to tr' to get them to do that to some extent but they're looking for that visibi ity. You don't want to shut off that view. Emming : Well, we don't give them a lot of visibility. If you look at the indust ial park here from TH 5, except for one little building I can think about, they're not depending on any visibility from TH $. Krauss That's true but you look at the 35 acres in front of HcG1ynn's. McGlyn 's is charging a premium for that and it's considered to a premiere site b cause it's on an intersection on TH 5 and it's for a company that's going :o want to be prominent and want the visibility that is going to pay for i t Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 33 Batzl : I guess it depends on what we're trying to do here. Are we trying to ma the commercial people happy or are we trying to, I thought Ladd's idea we're trying to make the highway look nice. And now if you want to age the people to clutter and high visibility, then we go to what you'r saying. We're saying fine. We'll give you high visibility. We're going let you have 494 strip. Kr : No, I don't think so. I think what we're saying is two different thin! . Batzl : But we're going to have 1 tree every 40 feet. You're going to have high visibility. Kr Well, first of all that's a minimum. Secondly, if they have a parki lot there they trip a whole different section of the ordinance which equires screening of the parking lot. If they have a building there there are sections that require landscaping around the building. If they e across the street or adjacent to lower intensity uses, they trip the standards that are in the comp plan that are now in ordinance here. I mean we're getting at this with a 4 or 5 prong approach. It's not just I tree per 40 feet at all. In fact that i tree per 40 feet is just infill. If you don't have a parking lot, you don't have a build and you don't have some other kind of area there, you're going to have do this on top of everything else. Er used This is almost like an outlot situation. Unused area that will be ,metime later on. K, Well aest If you look at the DataServ site, we have a large lawn area there. ,der this regulation, that large lawn area would have scattered ic plantings throughout and it would have boulevard trees. Er Are you saying Paul that 40 feet is the ideal location for spacing for a ,ature boulevard tree? Is that 40? Well, it'd probably be more around 30 foot center. Er wall That's the solution. What's the width of this. From Dick to that ,ere is about what, 30 feet? Batz 35. Kr tend Yeah, the 30 foot centers is where the crowns for a mature tree come together. Batzl lan with size. I don't know. I always thought the 40 feet was a little bit but only because when we see it, we tend to see people. They go minimum they can put in and they put in trees that are minimum KT True. Plan~ June Batzl like Kraus you W chang requi Emmin Batzl KTaUS' Batzl Emmin Now i them Kraus.~ ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 34 : And in 25 years it may look great but until that time, it looks ou've got dinky little trees 40 feet apart. : Well we'd be happy to decrease that down to 30 or 25 or whatever eh. I don't think we should overlook the fact though that the major here is that the old landscaping ordinance only required, it didn't e anything except 1 tree for every 40 feet. And 1 tree per lot in the subdivision and that was it. : Okay. Well, anyway. : So should we look at knocking this down to 25 or 30 feet? : I would like to see that. : The point is here I guess, it says that the minimum is 40 feet. people come in and that's all they want to do, are we going to let that? Well you have some flexibility. If there's nothing there behind there hat they're obligated to do more landscaping, you're probably in a tough . But they also now have a minimum they have to spend and they have demonstrate that they're spending it and if they fulfill their other uirements and still have funding left over, you can force them to do w ;ever you want them to do. Emmin~ : Okay. Co Brian, do you have a vision for arterial and collector streets in terms f what they should look like? Batzli I don't know. I look at the TH 101 south of TH 5 that I origin lly envisioned and it would have been nice to have kind of more of a b ulevard approach. I don't know. Sumac. Maples. Who knows but it would ,e nice to do something like that and if we only require the residential subdivisions to do it, you're going to have a hodgepodge of this s'.uff down the street and everywhere else you'll have the 40 foot trees ~nd parking lot stuff in front of it. And maybe that's what we want. Maybe ,t's better to break it up. Conrad If you look at the TH 5 corridor, that will be, the landscaping requir ments on that could be interesting. I think as you talk to Peter Olin o t at the Arboretum, there could be some fun things to do on that patti lar entryway. I guess variety is kind of neat too so I kind of hesi when I said before I like the 2 deciduous and the 1 being a maple· I thinl there are a lot of, you can have some flowering trees that are rather · I think we should be thinking in essence that there is a doorwa to the Arboretum and we could set it if we wanted to and the Arbors could help if we didn't have to pay a consultant to help us out with · But again, I think the TH 5 section might be taken care of as we 1 at that or TH 41 but I think I just want to challenge us all to Plan June start after wheth of th Kraus you'r. to be ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 35 thinking. There can be some neat alternatives on major collector and .al streets. But I've got to have kind of a master plan otherwise Dr it's industrial or residential, it's just going to be a little bit ,s and a little bit of that unless Paul and 3o Ann can. : Well there's another element that's coming into the mix when talking about something like TH 5. For those of you who are going able to come along on Saturday, I think you'll get a feel for some of that. The HRA has, we've got plans that have been approved by the HRA and City ~ouncil to do a design element plan aiong TH 5 as it's rebuiit. It inclu .es landscaping. It includes special pavement treatments. It inclu ;es monumentation at the entrances to downtown. The whole key to, I think special lighting. The whole idea of the thing is to let people know who a e traveling through on TH 5 that they've just come into a different commu ity and one that cares about itself and what it looks like. MnOot is kind tough to work. They have a lot of, very limited flexibility within their ight-of-way but we've acquired land outside their right-of-way to do these bings and we have every intent of working, probably with the same indiv 1 as TH 5's expanded out to TH 41 to do a similar design effort. In fa that individual is going to be on the bus on Saturday and can give an . Emmin~ : Who's that? Kraus~ Barry Warner from Barton Aschman. He'll give you an idea about what' already been approved and will be developed over the coming year and ho .ly what directions we might be able to go in in the future. So the TH 5 ,reetscape is an element onto itself and it's beyond something that indivi' 1 developers can or should exert control over. Now what we're going want to do is build upon that and make sure that landscaping plans are limentary to that as they border that area. Emming : Well it will be nice. If we have something like a successful vision and plan for TH 5 and then we can always point to that as something we wan to emmulate in other parts of the city so that would be nice to see. Conrad It's tough to, you know we're babbling here. Emming: : I'm not. Conrad You are too. You're saying nice things Steve. You're saying it would e nice but if there's that vision and maybe you're right. Maybe the vision comes out of what we learn on TH 5. I don't know what it is. Like Brian id, I thought our connection to TH 212 and the entryway to Chanha I thought that was our chance for a grand entryway but budget and a ~f things sort of interrupted that. What are you doing? Do you want t, talk? Erhart When you're done. I'd just kind of encourage you to get done. Conrad okay, I 'm encouraged. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 36 Erhar : Let's just offer a proposal to change it to 30 feet. At some point these things do cost money but I think 40 feet is from that wall to that ~all. That seems to be a long ways and then add a sentence that says, alter ~ative, well staff can make up something that invites alternatives to this f it meets the intent which allows us. Emmin ,s: We should always have language like that. Let somebody come up with ~ ~ able t 8atzll requil other I wo nc situa Kraus better idea and let's be open to it when it comes and let's also be o say no. : Yeah, good idea. Section 20-1177 on page 3. We're going to e that the plans are drawn by a Registered Landscape Architect or ofessional acceptable to the City. I don't know. I read that and why you were requiring that and I started thinking of goofy ions like what sort of professional. : Whatever we like. BatzlJ Kraus~ peop beck have hitti it. tryi d but be do : Yeah. The purpose is, we've seen too many plans that are drawn up by who are not landscape designers and frankly it doesn't cost a whole a lot more to employ the proper professional doing it. But you'll ineers who decide that I've designed the pipes in the street, it with a tree stamp a couple times is now easy. Or architects do think they have a better sense of design but really they're to make their building stand out and their priorities are a little nt. This is not a professional landscape architect employment act s a desire to get appropriate professionals doing what they should Olsen too 1 It's allowed to let like landscaping contractors to do the plans people from Halla or something. Batzli I guess I would agree with this as long as it is limited to, well see I hink this gets back to my original problem of what does, which sect applies to what type of development. I think that this should apply o most commercial developments. Not the ma and pa subdivision but the 'gev subdivisions. There's a lot of different questions about who shou this really apply to and it's clear that this should apply to the major ivisions but I don't know that it does. Olsen: I did have something in there where it was like referring to the commer icl inside plans and then I also had something like if it was 3 lots or les you don't but if it's a larger subdivision it does have to be a profes ional. Batzli Where is that? Olsen: I had something in there like that. It broke it down to where the bigger ones had to have it and the smaller ones. Plann 3une Kraus more Olsen then Batzl like Which are s( have take refer~ requi~ yard plan z KTaUS~ Olsen detai those Batzl Olsen Batzl where the C Are we estab] Kraus~ standa Batzli of the KTauss Batzli ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 37 : We can go back to that. I think we lost it when we got away from etailed landscaping requirements. Well we got away from it with this dealing with residential too and hen we took out the residential. : That's my biggest problem with the current organization of it. I lot of what's in there but I'm confused as to which applies to what. sections apply to residential. Which apply to in general and there me good provisions in each and should they apply to both. I think we o resolve those issues. Most of comments are picky things because I fter Steve. Buffer yards on page 4. It's the new paragraph 4. You nce it here. 4(c). Due to a change of use of existing site, the ed buffer yard is larger than can be provided. What kind of buffer ould that be? I thought we defined buffer yard in the comprehensive S. : We did and this is that language but. That one is again, I think what we did was took out a Section that ed those buffer yards but we forgot to take out this reference to I didn't know what that meant. So we should maybe just take that one out. But if we jump ahead'to page 7 momentarily, to paragraph (b)(3) ~e talk about additional buffer yard requirements are established by iby Comprehensive Plan as listed in individual district standards. going to do that? Are these really the buffer, buffer yards that we shed? That's already done. If you look up the individual district ds, it's in there. Okay. So in a buffer yard for example the one that's, can't think name of it. Around Timberwood. I was thinking of the one adjacent to Bluff Creek with the power substa ion. There's a buffer yard just north of that little development there. Sunrise Court. Krauss Batzli to do Olsen: map. Sunridge Court. So in somewhere there's a standard that tells them what they have n the buffer yard that's going to go over the pipeline? That's going to be on the Comp Plan. It's on the Land Use Plan Planr 3une Kraus Batzl Olsen on Wi Batzl Kraus: ns Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 38 : Right. And it's on each individual district. : It is? Well the buffer, the perimeter buffer yards are aren't they? Like liam's Pipeline, I don't think. : I'm talking about the special buffer yards that we created. : Delineated in the Comp Plan, yeah. Batzl : Yeah. Kraus: : That was written into the ordinance a couple months, or around Chrisl actually. Batzl I didn't remember that. Did you remember that? Emmin! : Of course. Batzl $o what it'd say? Emmin! : I'm the Chairman and you're out of order. Kr It hasn't been codified yet. It's a xerox insert into the thing and I ctually had to have the original pulled out so I could find it · again Batzli Is it good stuff? Does it accomplish what we want to do what we're loing in here? I don't remember it all. Emming : I don't either. Do you think it would be useful if, obviously this t lng is going to have to be come back again. Does everybody agree? Batzli Yeah. Emming : And when it comes back, we should probably, it should either come back w th everything else out of the ordinance that applies to landscaping. All th, buffer yard material and everything else so we've got eveything in a pack~ge that we can look at it all and see how it fits together. Or if that's too big a job, then at least give us reference to those other places so we an find them easily. Krauss Well in fact that reminds me. The first memo that we gave you, it's al to the back where we tried to compile all the regulations pertai lng to landscaping from all over the ordinance. Emming: : Okay but I guess maybe Paul what's got to be done is it's all got to be lled together and you've got to be satisfied that it all fits to . And there may be changes to those other ones that will be as a result of what we've talked about tonight. But I think we've to have it all pulled together in one packet so we know what Plan~ 3une we're it's Batzl Conra Kraus 20-69 buffe decre. BatzlJ okay. The mJ is apF becaus preset do the enoour with t shoul¢ Conrac ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 39 looking at because it's real confusing right now I think. At lesat :onfusing for the other people. : Not for the Chairperson. : For the record he was pointing at Tim. : Here's the insert right here. It's Ordinance No. 136 amending , blah, blah, blah and all the others regarding parking setbacks and yards. It was the same time we gave the flexibility for Redmond to se the. : I don't recall what we did in the buffer yard. In any event, Moving back to page 6. 20-1179, paragraph (a), the last sentence. nimum landscape value required may be flexible if tree preservation lied to existing vegetation on the site. I guess I didn't like it ~ of the way it was worded. I think we're trying to encourage tree ~ation and it looked like it was saying well, you can do this if you t. The intent seemed muddled up there. That tree preservation is ed and I don't know. I don't know if anybody else had a problem but it looked to me like we were stating it negatively when it somehow be more positive. Anyway. But the intent I assume was that existing vegetation could satisfy some o the financial requirements? Batzli Right. Emming : 8ut I think you could say it this way. You could say tree preset ation is encouraged and can result in a reduction of the amount that you're required to spend so it encourages preservation. That's the idea. 8atzli In Section 20-1182 on page 9, paragraph (a). The very last, tail end ph"ase, the building on accessory signage. Is it or accessory? Olsen: Yeah, or accessory. Batzli I had a questlon about how far back in that paragraph (c) then where he overstory boulevard trees planted. Are they planted in the public right-of-way and how far back are they planted? Krauss They're never planted in the public right-of-way. Batzli beauti Why do they do that in Minneapolis then? They have these arching trees over the roads and we can't do it? Krauss great the probl probl They They also have sidewalks and curbs that burst out. I don't have a for it. Unfortunately modern suburbs seem to be designed by who drives the snowplow more often than not. They cause you from the standpoint of utility maintenance. They cause you from the standpoint of installing things like cable TV lines. you problems in that they bust up the pavement and they look Plann June awful that and m works i n wh~ Erhart right- Kraus~ Erharl Kraus:! they I mea 360 ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 40 pretty. I guess there's a trade-off but this is much the same way nDot doesn't allow us to do anything in their right-of-way for safety intenance reasons, or very little in their right-of-way. Our public people and engineering staff balk at the planting of large trees that t they believe to be their right-of-way. : What is it, a 32 foot wide street typically with a 50 foot of-way? : 60 foot. : Now we're asking for 60. : Which tends to, we just sent to Sharmin to a conference where, and ightfully say we have absurdly wide streets and rights-of-way. it's designed so the guy that's turning the snowplow around can do a h one hand. Well, do you really want to design your city to that? Erhar : We've got absurdly wide streets? KraL Well we have wide streets. I don't want to classify them as absur y wide. I've seen wider in some communities but you've got to reco ze that there's positive standpoints from doing that. From maint nce and design. The down side is you have awful large dead zones. Batzl Large dead zones? Erharl Awful large asphalted areas. KT aus,, beca, typi ther indi Well either they're asphalt or they're just going to have sod you don't allow anything else. There are some bushes. Now in our residential neighborhood you have the, is it 28 or 32 do we use in 28 I think for the paved area on a street and the right-of-way is nquishable from somebody's front yard. Erhar Why did we go to 60 feet? Olsen: To be consistent. Batzli We just did that a couple years ago too. Olsen: No, we just did it in December. Emming : Consistent with what? Olsen: They needed it for the, to contain the sidewalks that we're now requir ng and for the utilities and we were finding that we were having the roads nd utilities and the sidewalks on the private land. Having to get additi nal easements. It all comes down to the size of the street. The asphal' part of it. Because of the size of the street we need that right-~ f-way. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 41 Erbar : Isn't it possible, getting back to this, isn't it possible to say okay he trees can not be planted within 10 feet of the curb instead of tryin to define it in terms of public right-of-way which you don't know where; it starts and stops. Why don't we, can you find a number? Kraus~: Keep in mind that these are new lots and they've all got staked cornets on them. They should know exactly where the right-of-way starts and stops. Erhar : Well yeah I know but if you've got a 60 foot right-of-way and you'v, got a 28 foot wide street, that's 12 feet on either side. Ahren; : I think a lot of them don't though. Where their lot ends and the r ght-of-way begins and they're different within a subdivision. Erbar : Here we're talking about the developer. Kraus : It's not uniform. Ahre : So you have, along some streets you may have, well like along Lake Lucy. You have a 10 foot utility and a 20 foot or 15 foot walkway easement or r that is. Emmin~ : Trail? Ahren~ Trail easement. 15 or 20. Huge. You could never put boulevard trees n. They'd be sitting in the center of people's yards. 8atzl when bou That's my point. It doesn't seem to me they're boulevard trees end up putting them 20 feet off the boulevard. They're really not trees. you will But they're not, I mean typically'they're going to be, you know if · them right on the edge, they're 10 or 12 feet back and a tree crown :tend well beyond that when it matures out. Ahre anyway And the utility lines ali run along there too and get cut off Krauss All utilities are below grade now. We require that in all subdiv.sions. The only thing that are above grade are major distribution lines. Batzli Okay, keep moving here. In 20-1183, paragraph (a)(2). Last senten ,,e. Last phrase. Is that any screening requirement? I didn't unders ,and that. Emming : I can't find where you're at. Batzli Page 9. 20-1183 (a)(2 ). Earth worm section, yeah. Sorry, I stole our thunder there. The required opacity, opacity. However you say Plan ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 42 that. The section that's gone now. Is that needed for anything? Did that go so eplace? I didn't see it. Olsen It's gone. Batzl : It's totally gone. Did we need it for anything? Kraus : Well you've established where you want screening. You said physi ally thou shall do it in these areas. In these instances. The requi ed opacity was an unenforcable standard. It was a criteria that was open o different determinations by anybody who's doing it and asked you to think forward 10 years from now and see what percentage of the view would be ob= cured and there's really no hard and fast criteria that you can unifo~mily apply for that that makes sense. So I think what we're going to be r orting to is sort of a more touching feeling way of demonstrating this. We're going to go tell the designer the nearest home is over here. You s} us what the view's going to be like from that home. Do a pe tire. Batzl coul shootJ scr But isn't this going to be more subjective? At least before you lave told the registered landscape architect, this is what you're for. Now you're just kind of giving him touchy feely saying it. Krau No, it's no more subjective than the other one was in that it's not bed behind a pseudo scientific standard that was meaningless. I think nstead of doing that it says we want to accomplish this goal. Demo rate how you're going to do it. Batzli I don't know. Maybe we need more intent then of what the scree ng is supposed to do. I mean I think you've got a good intent secti already and the new landscaping standards section. I don't know'. I'm a engineer. I like the pseudo scientific stuff. I like the two deci s trees. I think if one's maple that's great. I think that if you have a waiver however, you should still require 1 in all instance. That's just m . I just look at the dying forest and I say put at least 1 new tree in. Aid I say that because my folks have 60 year old elms and oaks and maples and they're all going to fall to the ground and.they haven't planted a new ~ree and it's going to look like a cornfield in about 3 years probab,y. So I would say you can do it on a 1 to 1 basis but you still have t, put 1 in. I like the fact that you're going to have to seed or sod immedi, tely. And my last question is, I think we need to say something in here al~out landscaping non-buildable outlots and subdivisions. We have to do som,~thing to take care of that somehow. I happen to live in a subdiv sion where the entry lot was landscaped kind of and then left by the develo er. There's no association. The City doesn't own the land. The develo ment doesn't own the land. Nobody owns the land. Krauss ATe you in Pheasant Homes? Batzli Fox Hollow. And we have to get something in here about that. Whethe~ it's in another section where you require an association that owns Plan~ 3une ' the p going got t thing Emmin ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 43 operty and they have to take care of it, or in this section if you're to build an outlot that's not buildable or leave an outlot, you've take care of it. You know something that they take care of these Well somebody owns it. It can't be not owned. Batzl : Well that's the point though. The person who owns it doesn't care. They're not part of the development. They're not part of anything so wh. takes care of these things? Kraus~: Nell if an outlot was truly created with no specific purpose, usual deeding it to the City or maintaining it for drainage. Batzl own i' It sits basically for drainage at this point but the City doesn't See the City took, in Pheasant Hill we were supposed to take ion of I think 7 outlots and because we didn't have our attorney doing he filing of the subdivision, the guy never gave it to us. Then we found been they ma they were going tax forfeit 6 and 7 years later and they hadn't intained at all. If we take title to them, we maintain them but ill should be landscaped so they don't just be kind of a weedy sump our guys don't go out there to mow these things. We don't have the r to do that so it should be some sort of a self maintaining type of tping around that. Batzli It's part of the subdivision process where we have to fix it but there ~re instances in the city where you end up kind of screwy like these two si ,uations. Fox Hollow and the other one. It can be an eye sore. I happen to live in a neighborhood where a group of people banded together and a :ouple times a year they go down there and clean it up a little bit but th,y're spending a lot of money on this guy'~ property who I don't even know w,o the beck he is. In any event? Olsen: Batzli who ow' commenl Emming~ Farmak~ upon I Abrens Farmak, still and be too Was it bought recently? No. Rottlund doesn't own it. Not the developer. I don't know it. Ladd owns it? In any event, that's it. Those are my 3elf? ~: Well most of the comments that I had have already been touched lO or 12 times. 3: I still am not totally, although I think 3 trees are fine, I'm >t convinced that there's any carved in stone reason for why it's 3 4 and not 5 or as Councilman Wing said, 6 but he thought that would nuch. I wish there was a better guide as to what it is attainable Plann June or wh Perha weeke expec' and t 5 yea' n9 Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 44 t we should be asking for rather than 3's 3 more than we ask for now. s maybe some of these design people that are going to be here this d, maybe Arboretum people or something. But is there some ation of what this is going to be with the sizes that we have here e amount of trees that we're requiring as to what we're going to have s from now or 10 years from now or how long it's going to take before those trees become a real viable forested area. I'm kind of getting the impression that what we're doing is upping what we've got or.condensing the dista ce of the plantings or upping the figure with, I wish we had some idea .n mind of what we were going to have in the end result. Or how long it wa: going to take to get those areas reforested. Coupling that with the DNR r~ of what we've got now and what our intent was or plan was. What we we~ going to wind up with in the year 2000 or 2010. Batzl : It's interesting. That's an excellent point but if you go to Edina places where they developed in the 60's, you can still go to neighl hoods and tell the new from the old neighborhoods. Farma down and and o~ el urban certa, But requi of tr it. a wi Mi of out : You bet. We used to live there and the Harriet Manor Addition the river which is right over by Xerxes which borders Minneapolis was developed in '48. If you go through there, there's just a diversity in the forestated areas. These are mature trees now y year has 4 or 5 different types of trees. There is no smattering or of maples or whatever. There's just really a diversity in that est. It really is quite beautiful and quite thick. I mean it's y, I don't know. What's '48? It isn't that long ago. 30 years. it brings me to another point that we were talking about. If we that 30~ of all the trees that were planted are a particular genus , and I'm not against that. I can understand your reasoning behind would like to get maybe some professional input as to whether that's idea because 70 years ago I'm sure there was a commission in is that thought that elms were a good tree to plant and a majority antings in Minneapolis were a particular tree. And it didn't turn be too wise years down the line and I'm not sure if 30~ is over plantilg of one tree or not. I can see where we require a certain type of qualit of tree but I'm not sure it's a good idea to get one particular type o tree for that high of a requirement. That's it. Ahrens As Dick Wing's recommendation, I like 3 trees. Any number we come up wit would be arbitrary to me. 6, 7, 8 would be great but developers aren't going to do that. They're just not. Especially when we're requir ng them to, which I think is a good idea, to seed or sod all of the lots. I mean a lot of developers won't do that because it's expensive. They'l give you a sod allowance. Krauss By the way that's an existing requirement. That's not a new one. Batzli Since when? Krauss I don't want to tell you how long. I mean it's been on the books for years. We only started' enforcing it a year and a half ago. Plann June Batzl Kraus Emmin~ Batzll Ahren~ 8atzl Ahren Kraus: house ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 45 : Was it on there in '867 : Oh yeah. s: Is this getting personal? : Yeah. : Yeah, I live in a subdivision right now that. : I spent a lot of money sodding my yard, twice. It's 2 years old. Not even 2 years old I don't think. : Undoubtedly the developers built that cost into the cost of the but we went through a process where people were complaining about this couple of years ago. We knew this was on the books and that it hadn't been enforced and it really becamea nightmare because it was in the subdisision code but we couldn't after the fact enforce it because it wasn't written into the development contracts which were recorded with the prope¥ty and in several instances where it was written against the develc~ment contract, the engineering department I think unknowingly, who administered those contracts, really only cared about getting the streets and utilities built and as soon as they were done, they cancelled out respor~ibility for the contracts and voided them so we had absolutely no teeth bo go after these people. We've since revamped our procedures so that eJerything we've approved in the last year is permanently written into the de ~elopment contract. We only give partial releases when we keep getti ~ calls from attorneys who want to have clear title passed along. You kn)w we only release those elements that have been taken care of and some oF these requirements are permanent. Sharmin administers a program where ~hen somebody comes in for a building permit, we give them a handout that s ye, this is what your obligations are. Sign off on this so you udders and. I can't answer for what happened before but that's what they'r Ahrens not do Batzli Ahrens have , to use them d. Krauss requir~ have t~ Ahrens and a doing now. I can tell you what happened before. It wasn't done. Absolutely e. They sodded the right-of-way basically is what they did. As a matter of fact they came in our subdivision and said, you don't know. It was a minimal amount of sod and they said you have this first in the right-of-way. I said forget it. We wouldn't let it. We wanted to put it in our yard and let the right-of-way. That's because the developer was trying to get out of our ment when we accept a public street they have to landscape. They sod the right-of-way. Yeah, but we have whole areas of our yard. The yard is an acre all. We had most of it unsodded and unseeded and a lot of the other Plann June lots Kraus: issue Ahren: Olsen Kraus: Batzli Lotus. devel¢ swamp~ Ahren:i ,rig Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 46 the subdivision have areas that are still just weeds. Well it's not only a visual problem. It's also a water quality Yeah and all these lots drain into a wetland in the summer. It never said that the whole lot had to be sodded. It said all disturbed areas had to be sodded or seeded. My whole lot was disturbed. Our whole development drains into That's why the water quality is so poor. A lot of the lots in our nt were disturbed for years and they drained right down into the end there. And our lots drain into Christmas Lake and it's one of the problm$ they'~ having there. Krauss: Again, we can't address those past but we did correct it so. Ahren~: Well, at any rate. I think that I'd hate to see a requirement that ~ of the trees have to deciduous because I think every lot is differ than c more ~ is gte years. decent maple Batzli Ahrens and ha Emmin~ page Krauss If you seco' $20, Batzli Emming and I think even though some lots that are maybe more exposed lots should have the right to have coniferous trees. It may be opriate for that lot. I think the idea of having the maple tree but I agree. Who knows if a maple tree worm will get us in 10 All the maple trees will be gone. I think as long as they're type of trees, I don't care what they are. Is there such a thing as ee worm? I don't know. I don't have anything else. Everything else has been brought up :hed and rehased. I don't know if I 'ye got maybe what I want to say. Oh: First on Below $1,000,000.00 is 2~. I know. I was just looking at that. The middle one doesn't work. look at the formula, it doesn't track well. You've got, in the one you've got 20~. Between a million and 2 million you've got .00 plus 1~ of the project value in excess of 1 million dollars. It should be $10,000.00 shouldn't it? : No. Then does the math work when you get up to 30? You've got $30,00 .00 in the next one plus .75~ of project value in excess of 3 millio dollars but the range is only 2 to 3 million dollars. Plann June Emmi n needs value and s. do yoi Kr aus,, wot ksl as ks 1 Emmin! Emmin! Kraus,, typic They you c are f. and i State Emm i n~ them. Kraus,, lands¢ constr ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 47 s: It should be in excess of 2 million. That wasn't my point but it to be changed. Below a million at 2~ and what is the value, what is it 2~ of? What's the million dollars? It's building construction ite preparation and site improvements, all of that? So at what point determine the requirement for the lot? : The May I've administered this in the past is you give them a eet with the site plan review packet. It breaks out these items and hem. s: What they're planning on spending? : Right. You use their numbers? : Well, yeah. Unless they typically, well I'm not going to say lly lie. I mean I only caught somebody lying in a major way once. ~re so obvious about it and it was a ~0 story office building that n get it very easily. Typically the people who are doing these plans irly responsible on this. They are again registered professionals they bold face lie, you can report them to their society and to the ~ommissioner of whatever. And it's something you can check against, you can check up on Ne do. You take a Bachman's catalog and you see, in terms of ~pe value. When you get, there are some ballpark figures for ~ction pet square foot. Emming~: okay. And then my only other question was, where does the 2~ comel°m and what is that going to mean in terms of, is there anything like a typical? I was trying to figure out what it meant. Krauss sectio BRW de ordina with t why bu Emming experi landsc Krauss criter that t Emming: Am I g~ It's hard for me to answer that except that this ordinance, that , I probably shouldn't admit it but it goes back to something that eloped about 15 years ago and it was written into a series of ices that 8RW staff people did for various communities. I worked lis same standard in Oakdale and from Minnetonka and I can't tell you I know it works. : Okay. That's what I wanted to hear I guess. That there's some rice with it that will tell you that it will put enough money into ~e materials to make the kind of impact we want to see. Keep in mind it's a minimal too. You set standards. You set a that people have to adhere to. If they have to spend more than achieve it, that's just the way it is. : And then Jeff's comment on the trees made me wonder, let's see. tting mixed up between, yeah I am. No I'm not I guess. The 3 trees Plann ng Commission Meeting Suns , 1991 - Page 48' would be required on, for example our minimum 15,000 square foot lot. And we se. a lot of subdivisions where they'I1 be 15,000 square foot lots and the s~me subdivision will have a lot in it that's 35,000 or 40,000 square feet. Is it the same requirement there? Would it make any sense to requi e 1 tree per 5,000 square feet of lot? Ahren: : Maybe some peopIe don't want that many trees in their yards. Emmin~s: Yeah, that's right. Kraus:: I think 3elf raised some real valid comments about, is this just an in~ remental approach, particularly with the single family and the answer is ye~ it is. You asked is there a vision as to what {his is going to achi e in a single family neighborhood? No. There isn't. It's a fairly blunt approach. It tries to get around too much of, I mean we can envision all want but in this case visioning means imposing the City's will on an indiv l's decision about their property. And even I, I have a tough time lng that with single family homeowners. I don't have any problem at all lng it to anybody who's developing commercial property or retail or multi-family or anything like that. I view that in a totally diffe' context. If you're going to refine that any further, we're going to ha, to be more explicit as to you've got to have, we want flowering shut over here and we want something else over there and I'm very tel to do that. I think what this is going to get at with kind of a meat approach is the 3ge Miller type of cornfield development. It serve a purpose because the value's there in the housing but it's pretty ugly. You go back to...town 40 or 50 years after and it starts to look nice people sort of did this thing over the last 40 or 50 years. L4hat 're trying to do is make sure that the 3ge Miller's of the future do this front. That there be some modicum of development in there. And Brian n your development, people have paid enough for homes that they're going do this on their own by and large. This is a small percentage of what' going to ultimately be there. I don't know that that's the case in the Miller development. Batzli But there are lots, there are homes in my neighborhood where they haven done anything more to it than what was done which means they have one evard tree. Some of the people did that because they don't want to go gu and buy $100.00 trees and I think, now this gets back to if they had purc the home and they had had the option of putting the trees in their ~e over 30 years, they would have done it. No question about it. just don't want to go out and spend $150.00 on a good sized tree. And of them just, they have homes for other reasons. It's just kind of a t~x shelter and they're living there for a couple of years and they don't Jant to do anything to the yard. There are those kinds of people too but I ~hink it would have improved the neighborhood had there been higher mini is in the number of trees. Emmin~ : I guess for myself I'll say that I think that there should be 3 trees. I'm comfortable going to that as the next step. I think it will be an imp ovement however arbitrary. I think that 2 should be deciduous and they s ~ould be in the front yard but I don't case where. You know I Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 49 would 't care, I don't care that they're not moved to the front on the boul d or whatever. I don't care where they are. And that's ali and I think we have to have this come back. Dick? Ric Wing: Just a quick comment as I've listened and you use the word trees In the ordinance it specifies several types. Shads'trees, orn~ trees, coniferous trees and...and when we're talking about trees for, 'm losing my train of thought here. When we talk about this 18-61, the r dential lots, we're specifically talking about shade trees and they' the elms, the ash, the lindens, maples and so forth. They're the tower broad trees. Those are listed specifically but if we just say tree, may be able to be interpretted as ornamental tree also. gamin : I think what I hear is, I think we're talking about shade trees. Richar Wing: Right. but I mean I think it needs to be specific. Emming : Well I think we're going to get even more specific than that. I thin what I've heard up here is that we want to have, maybe have some lists nd it may be a situation where you tell them, you're going to have 2 decidu ,us shade trees and we want you to pick one out of Column A and one out of Column 8. Column A maybe we put a lot of common trees. Maybe the ashes nd maybe even maples and other thin~s. I don't know but in the other ne maybe put some other trees like hackberry and kinds of trees that people don't commonly plant to try and encourage some diversity in what we have. I don't know but there are thinss you could do like that too I supp.,se. Erhart Have one column as the real high value. You could just say one of them h s to be either a sugar maple or a red oak. That's the highest value tree. That way it avoids the thing of having every third tree a sugar maple. It means you'll get some will be red oak and some will be sugar maples but require one to be of the real high value and the other ones in Column B. I think that's a good idea. Krauss Well that's maybe a question we can raise with Alan Olson. You're lookin~ for specimen trees? Emming: : Yeah, that's right. In the front yard. So ahead Dick. R Wing: Any time tree is mentioned, I think we have to specify in this we'll call them shade. In. other sections it was the boulevard. I thin we're still talking shade trees...fences, ornamental trees would be alrigh' I just think we need to...specify what level of tree we're talkin~ about. Emmin~ table table Okay. Do we have to do anything formal on this? We'll just or continue the public hearing? Okay, do we have a motion to s and continue the public hearing? Batzli: So moved. I think we already closed it. Should we reopen it? P1 ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 50 Krau : You can just continue action on the item. Olsen It will be back. Emmin s: But will it be back as a public hearing? Olsen We don't have to. Kraus: : Not unless you want to re-open it as such. Conra, : It was published this time and nobody came. Emmin: s: Alright. So do we have a motion or what? Batzl : We moved to table. Conra, : Second. Batzl moved, Conrad seconded to table action on Zoning and Subdivision Ordin. Amendment to amend sections regarding landscaping and tree requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Comm OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning ion meeting dated May 15, 1991 as presented. CITY IL UPDATE: Emmi : Next is a long report from the Planning Director. Let's assume that e erybod¥ read it. Is there something in here Paul on item 2. There' something that could potentially go to here on June 12th. Krauss Yes, in fact there was a handout that was on your desk tonight. We are to the point where we are going to, we short listed the number of consul .ants we want to use, or consider for the water quality program. Emming : That's the next item. That's item 3. Go ahead. Krauss Okay, I see Peter Olin. I'll get to that too. Anyway, we're lookin! to, we've agreed to a procedure with the Mayor and the Council where e're going to try to set up a review committee comprised of some of you an some of the City Council. It's not clear how many. At this point I'm go~n9 to say whoever wants to come. We realize it's a morning that somebody has to give up but this is a pretty important decision. Not only is thi~goin9 to cost a lot of money, but more importantly it's going to have a~ajor bearing on water quality and environmental protection issues for a ~ood long time in the community and we'd like to get the best cross sectior of opinion on who's the best candidate to work with us. We think of the 5 firms that we selected, short listed, they can all do the job but the qu~ etlon is, is there a good fit with the expectations are for this work pr )duct. Is there a good working relationship that you see. It's an intervi ~w. Plan ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 51 Emmin s: Do people know if they've got the time or interest or ability to atten, ? I know I've got a conflict. I checked my calendar. Batzl : I won't be in town. Ahren: : I have no idea. Conra~ : Annette said she might be able to. Farma es: This the 12th you're talking about? Emmin.,s: No, we're talking about June 20th on this. But I guess if you can m. ke it call Paul and let him know. It would be nice if we could get some f our members there. Farma es: I might be able to make it. Kraus: : If you can give me a call 3elf and let me know because we're also going to order coffee and donuts and a box lunch. Ahr : What kind of lunch? Krau.~ : What sounds good to you Joan? I mean there's variables. Emmin.. : Now going back to item 2. June 12th and our friend Mr. Olin and the A' n. KraL : I don't know how best to get into this. I think you're aware that Peter ously made presentations to you and the City Council in the Comp Plan. As I recall, there were a lot of people who weren't very receptive to he was saying. He was rather presumptuous in the way he came act I think were lectured on the fact that the Arboretum is a pearl and we have an obligation to maintain it's setting or something along those lines. He really knocked the City very unfairly I believe in terms of our envirc ntal initiatives and our sensitivity to these things. And then all it took was, I mean 3oan asked some very critical questions of him and somebc shouted from the audience how much do you pay a year in property taxes that was about it. Well apparently Peter has felt disi anchised by the whole thing and has since had gotten into arguments with .aska and Victoria who were looking to construct some roadways close to not adjacent to the Arboretum which apparently he doesn't like either and he's concerned about encroachment. I mean I can understand his position to that degree. Well, Peter's response to that, and most recently it was$Victoria and Chaska that got him going. But Peter's response to that w~s to set a meeting date in May to discuss local land use planning that w use pl invite in lar rethou that a And th. ~s conspicuous by the fact that he neglected to invite any local land ~nners. I found out about it through the Metro Council who got an and then Dick contacted me because he had heard about it. I think ;e part because of Dick and our conversations with him, Peter ~ht the advisability of going ahead tactically with a meeting like id rescheduled it for this date inviting myself, Chaska and Victoria. same ground which he invited the last time which was State Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 52 Legis ators and the DNR and the PCA and some individuaIs. Dick's one of them i:nd I think he's expanded it a iittie bit. It's st£iI conspicuous by the f .ct that Peter, who everybody that deait with him, and I haven't deait with ~im that much but feeis that he Iectures to you. He doesn't taik in these situations. But that we were not invited to participate in the develc 3ment of the program. We were invited to hear what he's got to say I guess I think we're beyond reproach. I really do. Clearly we can conti Je to do more but in preparation for our bus tour on Saturday I did up a ist of things that we've done in the last couple years. We being yours, lyes, the City Council and the HRA, that really have a bearing on TH 5 ~nd I was going to present this to Peter. Peter by the way is doing thing~ like his memo inviting people to the meeting shows that we intend to put a major shopping center on the southeast corner of TH 5 and 41 and that we've already basically permitted the Fleet Farm to go in north of there. So it s a rather inflammatory thing and you'll see the maps which are obvio~ sly wrong and I think Peter knows they're wrong. He also did things like, he wanted to find out apparently how the City permits development so he ca led my secretary to get copies of ordinances which are the ordinances that e requested when I think the appropriate form would be to sit down with ny of the 3 of us and say if I were proposing a development, what would I be obligated to do. He's obviously trying to create, I think obvio, 1w. I could be wrong but create a scenario where he's going to hit these le up with an image of some horrendous university avenue type deal claim that this is what's allowed in the city of Chanhassen. Emmin~ : This guy's a real master a~ creating, well you know. The saddn4 is that we probably agree with a lot of what he's got to say but the w~ he says it makes you want to not listen to him. After I listen to him I to put up a big flourescent sign on the corner of TH 5 and 41 that Arboretum with an arrow pointing that way. 3ust to spite the guy beca of his attitude and approach. It's just too bad. Krau~ Well I think first of all, for a TH 5 corridor and then for this meeti I thought it was real good for us to sit back and say, what did we accom ~sh in the last few years and when you see it listed out in this paper ich you couldn't have read yet because it was given to you tonight, there s no way that one could conclude that what could have happened 2 years .go is what we would allow to have happen today. There's just so much 's changed and so much that is changing. Even if we did nothing more om this point out it would be dramatically different types of devel ,ment than previously had been the case. And I did that as a soundi g board too because we're starting this TH $ corridor study which is one the other things. I think you've been called and some of you are able come along on that. And hopefully a lot of good things are going to cot out of this. It's really a launching pad for further work on the corr r taking the things, the initiatives that we've already got and refini them and getting some more focused planning efforts done. But we've tone a lot already and we're not reinventing the wheel. We have a real g base to work on and that's what this is to get across. I'm also meetin with Victoria and Chaska Monday I guess before the meeting on Wednes ay to strategize a little bit with them because I guess I'm concei:ed enough to think that we do a better job than either one of those Plann June two c theme haven for y, FnFma and a Kraus: Farma Kraus: Farma Emmin Conra( repre,, Kraus~ Radio days. stroh: I saw paran, ng Commission Meeting , i991 - Page 53 mmunities but I'm sure they have a lot of good things to say about lyes too. So I suppose anybody's invited to be there. If you t been directly invited, let me know and I'll phone in a reservation U. es: Is the format of the meeting, are there going to be questions ewers afterwards? : I don't know. es: Or is this just strictly a presentation of his? : My guess is that this will be reminiscent of you being in college. es: I understand. s: Going to be at the knee of the master. : So Peter has called the meeting and he's invited us, or City entatives as well as who else? : State legislators, the PCA, the DNR, the Metro Council. Public Dick and I were interviewed by Public Radio in the last couple So it remains to be seen what he's up to. I just have a very feeling I know what it is. Now originally when this thing came up, ~his as direct interference with the Comp Plan. You start getting d about these things because the date of his first meeting was the date c our committee hearing I think at the Metro Council and it turned out it was Chaska and Victoria that tripped this off and not us, which was a tel 9f to find out. Farmak~s: Can I ask a quick question here? This is the individual, I misseC the earlier public hearing where he was here. This is the individual who you had lunch with I believe and you asked if they had any ideas )r input on landscaping or improvements here in the cities and they quoted you his rate? Krauss Oh yes that's true. That happened to somebody. Erhart Dave Headla and myself and Barb Dacy. Essentially, ~ell it was clear .hat they're, somewhat that they were to help or he was willing to help. Farmak ,s: As a voluntary? Erhart There was going to be a charge. There is a rate for doing it. IT wasn't clear who was going to do that.. Farmak ,s: I mean potentially they could be a valuable resource for what we're .tying to do here on this other stuff. It's a shame that that's the kind o environment or attitude that's going on. Plann June Kraus~ Dick touch Desig compa' think blew urban that persp a nd m~ he's way · Emmi n impre= Farmal Kraus be on asked Ahr en,. Kraus~ Farma Kraus: that proce indir~ inter~ mO.T e Ahren,, Kraus.· cauti¢ i nter~ I thiT the b( opini( criti( frank] he a n) Ahren,~ ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 54 : Well in fact, on this bus tour on Saturday, primarily because of nd Dick's wife who's taking some courses at the U, we've gotten in with a fellow named Bill Moresch who runs the University's Urban Center. Now as an other University employee, he's kind of a riot of the folks at the Arboretum and knows them fairly well. I Bill Moresch has said a couple times that he thinks that Olin really .t in terms of how to handle these things but we're using Moresch as design expertise as kind of a critic in residence or something like iho's going to ride along on the bus and try to put some things in ,ctive and work with us. I think he's pretty excited about doing that ~ybe that will help to convey back to Olin that we're not the ogres ,rotraying us to be. I don't know. He's going to be there by the ~s: He doesn't think we're ogres, he thinks we're stupid is my :sion. :es: He's going to be there? : As I understand it, I thought Moresch told me that he's going to of the speakers at this thing next week. 8ut again, we were not to participate. We were asked to be there. : Is Olin going to be on the bus tour? : NO. es: No, you were talking about the meeting on the 12th. : Right. And there was frankly an intent and this was something teve and I have discussed and... When we're talking about how to d with the TH 5 corridor and who should be directly and who should be ctly involved, there was some sediment that Olin represents an st group, much the same as Mary Harrington did. Hopefully Peter's ationale, well. : Their tactics are similar. : But if you have a single purpose group, you want to be very us about where they're interacting. Clearly they have a right to ct but should they be able to direct the process from the outset and k we've always taken the tact that you and the City Council represent st opinion, or an unbiased, best attempt at getting an unbiased n to develop these things and then throw it open for public ism, comment and revision. We made a decision not to Olin on the bus y. Same as we decided not to have John Shardlow on the bus. Why is less significant· He's controlling 160 acres. : Is Lundgren Homes going to be on the bus? Kraus~: No. Plan ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 55 Emmin s: I want to move on to number 4. You're going to update us on the statu of. ' Kraus: : Oh yeah. I called over there. I guess there's two things in there 8onnie Featherstone gave me the staff report on the rural areas issue that we commented on back in, I don't know Tim. When was that? You went own to that meeting in Chaska. It was probably October or September or so ~ething like that. And I got back to Bonnie and gave her some written comme ~ts which I've attached here but we had requested contract revisions to th~ Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. I called one of their attorneys over t the Metro Council today. Finally got a hold of him and apparently it's ,roceeding through the bureaucracy. There's no real problems that they' ,e found. They reviewed it in house and decided the Metro Council staff didn't have a problem with it. Then they bumped it over to Metro ,olitan Waste Control Commission and that took a couple months and they ~ad no concerns about it. Now they've got to get it on a Council agend, because it's a contract language change and it sounds like it will be do'~e in 30 to 45 days. Emminlls: Okay, we know who's hands it's in and we can check on the status? Kraus: : Now I know, yeah and I've asked to be informed as to when it's going to go up to the Council. Emmin!~s: On these potential development things you have here. I had a question on the Ches Mar Farms. Did they burn down that house as part of this .ttempt to get this cleaned up and maybe, is that all part of that same ffort? And does it include that property that's in the Naegele Trust there You know that other piece. Olsen At Ginger Gross? Emmin~s: Well yeah. The Gross property got cut off from that. It's got the f nger that goes down to Lake Minnewashta. Olsen 'It does include that. Emmin~ s: It does include that? Olsen Yes. Kraus~ : That's the one that Gary Kirt's going to build on? Emmin! s: Who's this developer? Olsen 3ust a realtor who's buying the property for myself. Emmin~ : Who is it? Olsen Swaggert. Emmin~ : So he's combining those two pieces? Plann, ng Commission Meeting June , 199i - Page 56 Olsen He's combining them all and then splitting them into four lots. $ingl, family lots. Emmin!s: Oh so it's going to be not very intensive. Olsen He's getting rid of the apartments and all that. Kraus~ : It's still a little clunky because it doesn't adhere to the rural area tandards which is why we're perpetuating the PUD but it's a signi icant improvement. Emmin Ahren props' s: Well anything will be an improvement I'm sure. : What's the Lundgren Brothers development? North of the Ortenblat ty. Kr : Well, we haven't seen it. Well we've seen a very preliminary draft of it. Right now they're trying to figure out how to run utilities into here because the sewer line in Lake Lucy Road is up too high to serve the a ea. But they're looking at, it's kind of tough to comment because we've only seen, Jo Ann and I've seen that back of the envelope. Ahr Kraus~ Emmin~ Olsen: : I mean how many houses? : I think it was something like 26 or 29. South of where Joan lives. Emmin~ : I don't know where Joan lives. Kraus~ : Do you remember Ersbo's subdivision was. You got to see it twice and hing happened. Emmin~ : That was on Lake Lucy Road? Kraus,, : Yeah. They're actually including that. Olsen: And the wetland to the west. Emmin~ : Oh good because I didn't like the way that turned out. Any other for Paul on his report? Conr : Just a quick question and it related to two meetings ago when the city 1 decided not to have a second access for Kurvers Point. Not a fire . What was the rationale? KY That's a tough one to answer. Olsen Essentially that it was never going to be necessary. s: Which one now? Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 57 Kraus : That the lack of perception of the immediancy of demand kind of was o~ tweighed by the intensity of the people who didn't want to have it happe'. Emmint s: Make sure you get that word for word in the Minutes because I'm ~oing to put that over my desk. I don't think he said anythins but I liked it. Erhar : My comment is, I think I support your analysis on that Cadillac deale . If it's done nicely, it's good if not better than some other large scale commercial. Kraus~ : I hope so. We haven't seen where the rubber meets the road yet on this ~ ne. We're a little concerned with some of the calls we're getting from t heir architect but I mean clearly that's the intent and we're in the drivel seat on that one. You're under absolutely no obligation to lift a finge~ to help these guys and unless they tow the line, forget it. Emmin~s: On our ongoing issue list under Comprehensive Plan issues. We'll remove number one and change ~he numbering there for next time? Kraus~ : I guess we could. Emmin~s: I know that's going to feel good to me not to see that on there. Under other items, I'm just wondering if number 10 ought to come off there. Let's get stuff off of here ' Kraus~ : Well what we've done Steve is yeah, that will come off the next time. This was a change in status from the last time where it hadn't gottel there yet. Emmin~ s: But then there's a number of them that look to be like they would' 't be, they wouldn't take a lot of time and we could maybe be cranking one or two of them for our next meeting. There may be, I don't know ow to priortize them but I just checked like number 2 and number 6 on the f rst page. Are those things that are going to take a lot of your time or ff time to get together? They may not be the highest priority but if th4 don't take a lot of time, maybe we can get them done. Kraus: You're right. They're probably not incredibly tough to do. What takes time is sitting down and figuring out all the properties that are invo and notifying everybody and assuring them that it doesn't change an nO on their property. That kind of thing. We can get on top of that. I don't know. It won't be for the next meeting. It will be shortly becau list. Olsen Kraus: Comm e we have notification requirements and we have to develop a mailing We can bring it up for discussion. : I don't know, we've been given the go ahead from the Planning ion to do both. Plann, Ju ne Emmi n,~ stand~ other off o[ at ev~ thi ng.~ attenl downt( know Kraus,, the o' the bL their stick Farina TH 5 Emm i n come inter Farma are jl input Kraus~ that' We've we're suppo~ Recycl Progr the s to be need about do ju~ Emmin! they' Maybe think inter of in sub w anybo¢ Commission Meeting 1991 = Page 58 s: And then that PUD ordinance we were going to do some residential rds there and I'd like to get that'done. I don't know if there's items here that people would like, can spot that might be easy to get r list. It'd be nice if we could be crossing off one or two of these ry meeting. And maybe you can try .and do that. 'And then there are like the sign ordinance that the City Council's indicated they want ion paid to. Now I think it came up with the building over at wn and I think people are still very concerned about it but I don't ow, I mean that is going to take a lot of time I assume. : Yeah, to do it right. It not only takes a lot of time to lay out dinance but really you've got to be very sensitive to working with siness community and even folks like Ladd who have some expertise in job and what signage needs to be. I know Naegele's always willing to people on those committees for obvious reasons. es: But important I think, particularly when you're talking about nd all these other things we're doing. s: Well we've got a couple choices here. We can wait for you to ack with something or we've got people, I know Jeff has expressed st in that before and I don't know if we want to make. es: It's certainly not a short term project I wouldn't think. There st so many things it encompasses that you're going to need a lot of : I've got to be honest with you. I mean we want to do work for you of a high enough quality that it really represents a good effort. gotten to the point where, even though development's down, I think quite busy. We've all got new committees and commissions that we're ting. Responsibilities not Only to you but to Senior Commission, lng Commission. To Comp Sewer and Water Studies. To Surface Water ms. To Southwest Metro and we are frankly stretched pretty thin so gnage is something that really warrants an effort where there's going a working group on this that meets on a regular basis and is going to aterial prepared for those meetings and I'm honestly real scared taking on those kind of responsibilities before we know that we can tice to it. s: Maybe you ought to communicate that to the City Council since e specifically indicated that they want us to get working on it. you talk to them about it. I don't know what else to tell you. I there are' I know there are a lot of issues on that list that st me more than the sign ordinance. And I know that 3elf has a lot erest in the sign ordinance. It may be that we want to have a rks on a sign ordinance and maybe 3elf could undertake that with y else that wants to participate. Batzl : Is that a motion? Plan' ng Commission Meeting June , 199i - Page 59 Emmi ~s: No. 3ust a suggestion. Maybe there's somebody on the City Counc 1 too since they're promoting it who would also be interested in it. Kraus : No question and then I think we have to go out to the Chamber of Comme ce and whoever else. Get a cross section of opinion to work on that. Emmin ~s: Nell, again those people ought to be having input but shouldn't be on the committee as far as I'm concerned, but that's just my own bias. Those people have, I'd rather have it be people who are on the Council and the C. mmission. Far es: You're talking about not having the Chamber of Commerce repre: ented? Emmin~;s: Right. I think they should be at the meeting. I think they shoul~ have input but I don't think they should be putting a stamp of appro' al on the final product. Farma :es: I don't know if I agree with that. Emmin~ls: Nell I'm sure there will be a lot of People who don't. Kraus: : There's also something to be said for having somebody like a Nordql ist Sign representative or something who can actually tell you techn cally what can and can't be done. I remember the most recent issue over ,ere was it going to be 36 inches high or 24 inches high and we're being told that the sign companies said you physically can't put a neon tube n anything that's under 24 inches. Yeah, I know we said that but I don't know if it's true or not. Farma :es: I checked on that and it is true. Emmin~s: It is true? Farma es: It has to be a certain distance away from it or it will melt the lette' . There has to be a certain amount of cooling in the back of it. We're talking about a backlit sign here. Emmin! s: Now wait. You sound like you're talking about two different thing~ . Farmates: You're talking about the backlit on the letters. I'm talking about that comment that was made in the notes that they had to be a certain hei to get them to a certain width. Emmin Farma Emm i n~ Kraus~ s: And that's true? es: Yeah, you're talking about neon now? : Yeah. : Nell it's a neon tube inside the opaque plastic face. Plann ng Commission Meeting June , 1991 - Page 60 Farma es: I was talking about the character letter. As I understood it was n, t a neon tube. Emmin~ s: Well, you've got to have the technical expertise but I don't know that hey'ye got to be sitting on the body that decides the shape of the ordin nce. absolutely agree with that. Emminls: You need them there to tell you what you can and can't do. That techn cal support staff as far as I'm concerned but I don't care how it's done. Get the ball up and get rolling. I don't know how we're going to get t ,e ball rolling on that. Farma :es: If it could conveyed correctly and if you could bring in busin :ss, there are advantages to having limitation of signage in some busin, sses in a kind of competitive sense. Larger franchisees, larger compal~ies make it difficult for small store owners to compete in some instalces. There are examples that we have right here in town. The S and A ovel on TH 7 and TH 41 and the difference just across the street from the pylom and more of those so we have a few examples of other business peopl . It'd be interesting to know whether or not that $ & A for instance has e ienced problems with not being able to be seen. It doesn't seem to be There are plenty of cars there. Kraus~ : Well there's a couple of things in terms of our ability to staff up th!ngs that are going to be happening over the summer which I think are going to be real critical to what happened. We're getting the surface water utility program hopefully off the ground by July and August and we'll be ab. e to get a handle on what does this mean. We're trying to minimize the c~ st associated with hiring a consultant by undertaking some of the respoTsibilities ourselves. Well, I'm not sure exactly what that means yet and u TH 5 requi appro' SO~ that keep til we have a firm program clapped out, I won't know. We have this orridor group. I fully expect this to spiral into something that es some regular meetings. We haven't asked the Council for formal 1 of it yet but we are looking to the possibility of bringing on part time and we're going to see if we can work something out with that would help a lot. $o all I can say at this point is I'll posted. BLUFF ION ORDINANCE. Emmin~ : The Bluff Protection Ordinance that we got, this confused me a littl bit. Now we've got another draft here dated May 30 from Roger in our kef but I thought, and again it's all that language about hills and stuff lain. I'm not clear why we have this because we decided we were going map out. Olsen Yeah. We also wanted to have the definition so if anyone questions it, w~ can tell them this meets the definition of a bluff. Plann June Emmin~ decid~ by put ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 61 s: I thought we were going to define the bluff area, I thought we d to define the area that the bluff protection ordinance applied to ting it on a map. Erhar Olsen is bu~ Emm i n! a hil hill, Olsen Batzl Emmin! Erhar a flat preyer slopes Olsen that' bluff t: Section 20-1406 on the back page. We do. We have the official map and the definition of what a bluff it's not a bluff if it's not on the map. s: $o we're going to have all this language in here about it can be ? It's all in there. A bluff means a topographic feature such as a cliff or embankment having the following characteristics. Yeah but those other characteristics it's not. It only applies to the bluff impact... : Okay. That makes sense. See that was one of my concerns. It wasn't clear that if there's area in the zone, they could still build on it. Ns're not zing building in the bluff area. We're only preventing building on within the bluff area. Nell, using that definition of the bluff, if you have a flat area, not part of the bluff. It might be on the map but it's not the so that's where you need those definitions. Kraus~: So if we have a flat area at the top, that should be outside of the bl~lff district. If we have a bench that's midway down a steep bluff area, that's considered within the bluff because it's from the top to the bottom. Olsen Nell if it's a certain level, then it doesn't meet that definition. Erhart If it's big enough, it might not be. Olsen Then it doesn't meet that definition of a bluff. Then you just have ;o bluffs. Also, I think it's getting late enough that we don't need to get into. This will be a public hearin~ at the next meeting but we do have, 'emember I told you the definition of the DNR where if you have the steep lope and then it's just level. That's still part of the bluff and then you take your setback from that distance. $o they have changed that now sc it's, the bluff is like this and then stops here. That's the top even if it's gradual like a little hill there. This is the top. So I'll that rgw language in here. $o then you don't end up with 100 foot setback from ~ere the bluff really is. I can pass this down if you want to read it. Batzli In Section 1 of the definition of bluff, number 2. 25 feet or more a ,ore the toe of the slope. Is toe of the slope ever defined? Plann June Olsen Kraus Batzl I jus Olsen doubl Emmin Conra and ti Submi Plann Prepa~ ng Commission Meeting , 1991 - Page 62 I think that's supposed to be toe of the bluff. : Toe of the bluff is defined. Toe of the bluff is defined but that said toe of the slope and maybe that's why I was confused. Should that be toe of the bluff? Yeah, I think it's supposed to be toe of the bluff. 8ut I'll check that one. s: I'm done. Is anybody else done? moved, Batzli seconded to adJourn the meeting. All voted in favor e motion carried. The meeting was adJourned at 10:40 p.m.. .ted by Paul Krauss ng Director ed by Nann Opheim