Loading...
1990 11 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner 1 PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MCGLYNN BAKERIES TO ADD A 52,972 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING ADDITION AND A 3,600 REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED 10P AND LOCATED AT ONE MCGLYNN DRIVE. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Krauss: There's one additional thing I might add too. The applicant is attempting to get the building in the ground expeditiously. They have a rapid work schedule and we tried to be accommodating with that. What they would like to do is be able to put the foundation of the building in early. What we've come to accept, if you're willing, is basically this. If the review goes through smoothly tonight for their application, we discussed this with the City Council on Monday. The City Council, assuming everything goes well here, is willing to allow staff to issue a foundation permit which would be totally at the builder's risk should the Council come up with new conditions but it would allow them to get into the ground starting next week. The Council will have final say on the site plan itself. We'll get it on the next meeting but because of the schedules that we have coming up, because of the holidays, they would lose sufficient time that they probably wouldn't be able to get the building started this week. Again, this is all contingent upon a successful review here tonight but the Council was willing to go along with that. Conrad: Jo Ann, what's the new building versus the old building on that? Olsen: The gray area... Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks. We'll open it up for comment. If people from McGlynn would like to make a presentation, we'd start it off with that. Scott Harri: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you staff. My name is Scott Harri and I'm from Van Doren, Hazard, Stallings. Our role in the project has been to prepare the submittal that you have before you in part and as co-authored with the applicant's architects,.Setter, Leach & Lindstrom. With us tonight is, on my far right is Dan McGlynn with McGlynn Bakeries. Dick Erickson with Setter, Leach & Lindstrom and Tom Roberts with Haglund. C.F. Haglund is the construction manager and contractor for McGlynn Bakeries on the project and as I mentioned, Setter, Leach is doing the architectural work on the project. We'd like to show you, as staff had mentioned... If you look at this top elevation you will see the trees and plantings that we would be proposing as an alternate means to Planning Commission Heeling November 7, 1990 - Page 2 satisfy...as staff had indicated earlier... What we're proposing on this thing in order to bring down the height and massing of the building itself is we're proposing I guess an alternating section of evergreen trees that would be approximately 14 to 16 foot in height interspersed with deciduous trees which would lend I guess year round, a variety of color to that wall and hopefully reduce the long distance type of concerns that staff had indicated. Seoondly, what we would like to do and the other thing that Jo Ann had mentioned was as part of the project evolving beyond the submittal, what you've seen there is the architectural development of a smoking shelter and outdoor break area. To that extent the contractor would like to build most of the surface improvements out there this fall if possible, if weather permits. Thus we've moved ahead with some of the design and I would like to have Dick Erickson I guess make a very brief presentation on what that feature looks like. At this point we've got some architectural drawings, so Dick? And then following what, he's got some perspectives and then I have a site plan that shows what the surface improvements and landscaping would be in that area. Dick Erickson: On the existing south side of the office, this is a thumb nail sketch of the office...in the background. We're developing...and canopy and under the canopy a small enclosed shelter where employees can come out at their break and have a cigarette. This shelter is there because after relatively...It's actually and enclosed glass area not too dissimilar to a city bus stop. The canopy will project out...across the canopy as a roof element and then the glass portion of the enclosure would be...color on the first and second level and in the corner of the office here there are two major...and we're using that same idea... I just wanted to give you an orientation. This canopy area again is right by this triangular area shown on the plan right here. Sitting in this I guess open space. What we have proposed for that area is, in that hitch right there, the canopy area...right here the main entrance to a large employee lockers...through this sidewalk system right in here. There's an outdoor patio area here with picnic tables on it surrounded by some landscaping. There'd be a large berm that we had built over here to somewhat screen this lower level break room and lunch room from the parking lot here so the views are somewhat protected from the lower level of the building so this sidewalk system over here will just be kind of a...supplements the packet and submittal and comments that staff has made. I think Dan would like to say a few words. Dan McGlynn: Good evening. I'm Dan McGlynn from McGlynn Bakeries. I just wanted to come up and say hello. I haven't been to a Council meeting yet or Planning Commission yet. My brother's been handling most of that. I just want to say that we've really enjoyed our move in to Chanhassen. Because of the way we were structured in Eden Prairie, we were forced to look for other places to build. Chanhassen has been a great spot so far and everyone with the city has been more than accommodating for us to grow as fast as we'd like to. We're experiencing some very rapid growth in our company. Moving in just in December for the offices and a little bit of production in November, it's amazing to us that we're already asking to add on to our building since we weren't expected to need' that space for another 5 years and it looks like we'll use the space very quickly with our fast growth but we've now got over 300 employees. It's become a major campus for us and we really appreciate what the City's done to accommodate us in being able to maintain our fast growth because without that, we'd be in Planning Commission Meeting November ?, 1990 - Page 3 trouble in our industry. Thank you. If you have any questions, we're all here and we'd be happy to answer anything. Conrad: We might have some later. Thanks Dan. Good to have your company in town. Okay, we'll open it up for other public comments. Are there any other comments on this particular project? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: I have a question about the east side of the building. Now that's the side that faces Audubon Road? Right? And that's going to be part of the new building? Olsen: Yeah, there is a portion. There will be an east wall. Ahrens: What is the landscaping on that side of the building? Olsen: They're really not changing what's already there. There's a pretty extensive berm. A berm for visual on Audubon and that has some landscaping on it...so we've screened that fairly well... Ahrens: And what about the north side of the building? Olsen: Again you've got the berming and landscaping. This is where they're going to be doing the grading .... elevation there that will be flattened out and in the future there will be other industrial... Ahrens: I guess I've always approached that building from the north and that, it's just a stark white wall is my first approach to that building and I've always. Krauss: That's true but what we've found in working with this is the building was designed to be modular. It's expandable and it's expandable in a series of phases. The southern building wall that we're working with now is the ultimate expansion of that building so we're putting in the permanent landscaping there. The north building wall will have some future expansions that are programmed and come later. And as we view it, as that ultimate wall is expanded to it's final location, we'll have the similar treatment incorporated at that time. Ahrens: Okay. I'm glad to see the landscaping plan because the building needs it. I don't have any other questions at this time. The staff report is pretty complete. Conrad: I know you're over there Jim. Anything? Wildermuth: I agree. The staff report is very well done. It looks like all the bases have been covered. I have just two questions. Is there any plan for noise abatement on the refrigeration equipment or isn't that going to contribute significantly to the outside ambient noise level? Do you have existing outside refrigeration equipment now? Dick Erickson: The existing refrigeration equipment has been in operation now for a year and a half about. Is located behind a precast screen wall Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 4 right here... As a part of this refrigeration equipment for the expansion that we're proposing now, we're adding additional precast concrete screen wall right here that will be the same appearance as this one only there will be initially a funnel out to the...primarily to keep air...but the bulk of this refrigeration will come off of this area to serve future expansion of the freezer which will help in this general area. As far as noise, I wouldn't expect there'd be much change from what you've been experiencing for the last year. Wildermuth: This is what, an ammonia system? Dick Erickson: Yes. Wildermuth: So it's basically just the turbine noise? Dick Erickson: Yes. Wildermuth: Okay. One of the things that I guess, one of the comments I've heard about the operation in general is that from time to time there's an odor in the area. Are there any plans to address that or will this contribute to that? Strong vanilla smell is what I've heard. Dan McG1ynn: There is some odor I suppose associated with our business in that the air velocity going through our ovens and going up stacks and what not does give out baked products smell. Ne have the same situation in Eden Prairie. In Eden Prairie it's a little different in that McDonald's is across the street and hopefully we're cancelling some of those smells. I'm not real good at it because I don't smell it anymore but I think it's one of the, in this particular plan because the product, we're baking mostly muffins and light pastry products. The odors given off are much more mild than say strong cinnamon based or onion based products that we have in the Eden Prairie facility. I don't see the current smells as changing very much and with the capacity that we're building onto the plant now, there will be additional lines to what we have but I don't see it increasing dramatically at this point. Wildermuth: There will be additional stacks though? Vent stacks? Dan McGlynn: There will be, yes. This particular expansion is mostly for baked product. If and when we expand the north side of the building, that is unbaked product and there'd be no odors associated with that. And just to touch on the noise issue. The main engine room for the ammonia system is enclosed in the building and that is rather noisey but it's contained within it and the only thing outside is the cooling towers which just have large fans on them. Wildermuth: Yes. That's typical of an ammonia system. Paul, thank you. Has there been any comment from the neighbors? I<rauss: The only comment that we ever received directly on an odor issue was early last spring when we were having some of the informational meetings on the Comp Plan. At that time there was somebody, and I don't recall who, but somebody from Timberwood who mentioned that they found an odor objectionable. They weren't sure whether it was coming from McGlynn's or from the Pies facility in Chaska and as I recall, they also raised a Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 5 concern about some lighting. Unshielded lighting that was directed towards their neighborhood. We addressed the lighting. We asked the project rnanage¥ to change those fixtures which they did and we've not since heard anything on the odor. Wildermuth: Okay. It looks like a good project to me and it's nice to see somebody doing well enough to expand. Batzli: I think I just have two questions. I like the addition and the report and I like the landscaping here. I think that'd be attractive and it's nice to see some break in the evergreens. My question was, there's a difference in plans and there's a large dollar figure in your administrative approval. The question is, they've given a letter of credit to the City apparently to cover the cost of the berming and landscaping. Does that change at all with what they've got here? Krauss: There's going to be an increment, yes. Olsen: Another letter of credit. Batzli: An additional letter of credit? But that's in addition to the $6,000.00 one is it not? Krauss: The one that we have now covers the parking lot installation and the buffer of that. What we're looking at to get to now is the incremental cost of landscaping that's being proposed specifically around the building proper. Olsen: It's an addition to the ~6,000.00 though too for this part of the project. What you're looking from Dave's memo? Satzli: Right. But there was in the administrative approval we 9ct a letter of credit for $211,000.007 Olsen: They essentially covered the cost of all of that. Satzli: Right. And so there would be an additional letter of credit after that? okay. Do we need to do something in our approval? Krauss: No. It's in the zoning ordinance now. It's done as a matter of routine. Batzli: Okay. And there was apparently some plans submitted to you for the grading dated a different date than the plans we have. Were those changed at all in our plans? Krauss: No. Batzli: Okay. Those were the only two questions. Emmings: I don't have anything additional. What's here seems reasonable to me. Conrad: The landscape plan here that was presented tonight, that falls on the south side of the parking lot? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 6 Olsen: The building. Conrad: Of the building? Olsen: Right up against the wall. Conrad: $o the landscape plan that I see in the packet, this is in addition to what., the landscape plan in the packet so we really have sheltered, okay. There are no berms on the south side of the parking lot. I don't know what addition has been put on the parking lot. How much has been put there? Are we talking big addition or small addition? I don't have a clue. Olsen: On the parking lot side? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: Yeah. It's kind of see where the original one ended here? Conrad: Yeah. Okay, to the west. Okay, show me the new stuff. What's new? All that? Okay. Olsen: And the berming, it just drops right down. Down into that little area. Conrad: Right. $o we haven't asked 'For berming. We've asked for trees. Olsen: Yeah, lots of landscaping. Krauss: There is heavy berming and landscaping however along the west elevation of the parking lot which faces Timberwood. Conrad: And that's where I was going. Getting there kind of slow but. Olsen: Almost naturally right now. Conrad: So this is probably our only time that we can really get into any kind of concern with the westerly side right now? Olsen: They'll be coming in for an expansion. Conrad: To the west? Olsen: Whole new building...so there's a potential that there will be another building expansion to the west where at that point you would even landscape further. Conrad: But is the landscape plan to the west of the parking lot, is that the final landscape plan that will have their. The building may expand to the west but how about to the west of the parking lot? Are we looking at the final landscape plan for the shielding of the parking lot? Olsen: Of the parking lot? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 7 Conrad: More than likely. And that is right now trees and berm or what is that? Krauss: There's an extensive change in elevation. It's on the order of what Scott, 10 feet? Olsen: You can kind of see...and this is where there's expansion. Right now we're not... Conrad: Okay. Scott Harri: Right now this property slopes up on this side up here to a large plateau area and then sloCes down about IO feet from the elevation of this proposed parking lot over here. And then the trees would be inbetween the parking lot and this plateau area. Conrad: Okay, that helps. We're all comfortable? Wildermuth: I particularly like the south treatment~ Conrad: Jim, you brought up a good point on the smell. I've never thought about that but it sounds like we've had one complaint. Emmings: I'd have a comment on that. You may be getting a lot more complaints because I remember I read an article, this has to be 20 years ago. Someone had done some studies in areas where they had bakeries in Europe and there were bakery smells in the air and they found that the birth rates around there were higher than they were and I think maybe we should warn the Timberwood people. And I'm glad I don't live there. Conrad: Was there a serious side to that article? Emmings: No, it was serious. That study was probably funded by the military. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Wildermuth: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site plan ~88-3 and the conditional use permit ~88-2 for McG1ynn Bakeries for expansion to a production plant area and refrigeration equipment room as shown on the site plan dated October 16, 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 6. With the understanding that the letter of credit and cash escrow amounts would be increased commensurate with. Krauss: Could we modify condition number 1 which implies that we were going with an architectural approach to the south elevation. That's since been surplanted by the landscaping plan. That the approval should be amended to include the landscaping along the south elevation that was presented to the Planning Commission this evening. Wildermuth: So incorporated. Conrad: Where do you want to incorporate that? Olsen: In condition 1. Planning Commission Hooting November 7, 1990 - Page 8 Wildermuth: Probably replacing the architectural features as landscaping features. Batzli: Second. Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan ~88-3 and Conditional Use Permit ~88-2 for McGlynn Bakeries for expansion to the production plant area and refrigeration equipment room as shown on the site plan dated October 16, 1990 with the following conditions: The applicant provide staff with a plan indicating how the landscaping features of the office will be extended to the production plant addition. The applicant shall provide additional Colorado Green Spruce along the south entrance leading into the southerly parking lot. 3. Comply with conditions of approval of staff's administrative approval of the parking lot expansion (Attachment). 4. The applicnat shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 5. Working hours shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. 6. To guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval, the applicant shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank or a cash escrow in the amount of $6,000.00. lhe security will be released by the City upon satisfaction that the conditions contained herein have been complied with. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (2), RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS TO ALLOW PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILETS ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS. Public Present: Gene & Nancy Christensen President, Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association 6561 Kit kwood Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Nancy Christensen: I'm Nancy Christensen and I live at 6561Kirkwood circle and I'm the President of the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association and we earlier requested this variance and whatever else we asked for. I've been working on this thing for a long time and I guess Planning Commission Meeting November ?, 1990 - Page 9 what I'm just saying is I'm extremely pleased with Sharmin's help on this situation and I thank you for her recommendation. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? 8atzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Steve, I know you're opinionated. I'll start at your end. Emmings: We get into a different kind of odors on this one. I think I'm kind of in favor of at least trying this. We've got a letter here from the Department of Natural Resources I know and they seem to be a little leafy of doing it but recognizing that it's something that maybe is coming and I guess my approach would be a little different than is presented in the staff report. One thing is I know that we have several of these in the city at the present time. We have beachlots where they have set them up. In fact you had one last year. Well, I say one on there. Nancy Christensen: For a while. Couple weeks. Emmings: Yeah, and I think they have one at Greenwood Shores didn't they, or did I see that in the staff report? And I know there's another one on Lake Minnewashta. The Minnewashta Heights folks have one down there and that was there all this past summer. And I don't know if we got complaints about it. Have we ever had any complaints about these? Olsen: I haven't heard any. Emmings: Which to me maybe suggests that it's possible to find a way to do this but I guess I would not, at least initially, I think we ought to be very restrictive until we get a little more experience with it. I don't think it ought to be a permitted use. I think it should be a conditional use and that we should look at each and every one of them and that also that allows, they have to give notice to neighbors so neighbors can come in and give their opinions about them. i don't think it should be a permitted use . A1-3aff: We are recommending that it be a conditional use. Emmings: Well that's not what it says here. It says. Krauss: Beachlots though are conditional use and this is an amendment to the beachlot ordinance. Emmings: Oh, okay. Krauss: So somebody that comes in, if you have an existing beachlot and want to do this, you would have to have a modification...to the beachlot. Emmings: Alright, then let me ask you this then. If it's a grandfathered beachlot and they want to take advantage of something that's allowed in the ordinance, do they have to then meet all of the conditions of the? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 10 Krauss: Not necessarily. We talked about this this afternoon. I can only tell you what we've thought about this. The grandfathered use does net have a CUP okay? Having a toilet added represents what I view as an intensification efa non-conformity. The way to deal with that is to make the offer efa CUP available. If it's a CUP, they can legitimitize the beachlot. Change the status of it recognizing that you may in fact want to apply. I mean when you're intensifying something, when you're legitimizing something, I view it as something of a two way street. They're coming in to ask for a toilet but you may have aspects of that beachlot that are non- conforming that you would like to see made conforming or at least made an improvement to as a condition of getting the CUP. I think that under the CUP you would have the leverage to do that. Emmings: Okay. Because you know that, I think that Minnewashta Heights beachlot is only 25 feet wide so there's a whole bunch of things they obviously couldn't comply with in our ordinance but on the other hand I think that's a good comment. Well, then there's no doubt that if it's a conditional use, that's important to me that we look at each and every one of these. Another thing is that I don't know why. Conrad: I don't understand that though. The conditional use. Therefore, because you apply for a beachlot it is assumed that you can have, it's not , like you're looking at it. As long as it meets the rules that have been described here, basically it's there. So in other words, if you grant the beachlot status and you meet the 2 or 3 rules that we've got, it's there and that's. Emmings: Well wait. We don't have enough rules and I'm getting to what I think the rules ought to be. One thing is, here you're putting basically a structure within 50 feet of the shore and I think the shoreline, I thought the Shoreland Ordinance, I didn't look it up but I thought the Shoreland Ordinance says there can't be anything within 75 feet so I don't know why that number wouldn't be 75. I'd get them back away from the water. Krauss: Yeah, I. guess I couldn't argue that. I mean certainly the structure setback is 75 feet. Is this a substantial structure? We could come up with standards that would theoretically allow the placement of chemical toilets but realistically not and I'm not sure whether 50 feet versus 75 feet is honerous enough to do that but at the very least we felt that the 50 feet was sufficient to guarantee the physical separation for the anchoring in the case of spillage and' it was the recommendation of the DNR, if I recall. It was more of an environmental constraint. If you wanted to go with the 75, I don't think we'd oppose it. I'd just ask you to make, I don't know the situation with all the beachlots. I mean they're varied and they're. Conrad: But is there anything allowed within 75 feet of the lake? There is no structure to my knowledge in Chanhassen. Emmings: Nell canoe rack maybe. Something like that. Wildermuth: And a dock. Emmings: That would be but those are real different to me but anyway. Another thing is I don't know why this isn't limited as to time. I take it Planning Commission Meetin.g November 7, 1990 - Page 11 that they're going to lease these units from somebody who then is going to maintain them and I don't know why we wouldn't limit this to say June 15th to August, end of August because that's the only time people are using the prope¥'ty in any concentration that I'm aware of. I think, then you talk about a permanent structure being built to house the toilet but I'm not sure what that means. In (d). To house this unit that they Tent to house ~his Satellite type unit? Krauss: I think we were trying to cover all the bases. I mean portable toilets seem to come in two different types. I mean you either get the Satellite type that's molded in the factory and they plop it on the site or you get something that's, you know a chemical toilet that can be installed in a boat or recreational vehicle or something else. Using the later, we'd like to have a structure that looks like it fits. Emmings: Well there for sure we want that 75 feet back I would think~ I ~ould. And I would think that that structure, we'd want to have separate app¥oval on that too. Or that it would be approved as part of this~ Okay. I guess I think there are beachlots that exist in th~ city where we wouldn't want to see one of these because they're so small that there's no way to keep it from impinging on the neighbors and I don't think, this is a convenience item and to me it takes a lower priority than the pleasure of the neighboring residential owners. So I guess what I'd put down here, I wrote a little intent section and I also added some. And the intent I think is that, I think it should go something like this. I don't know. This is right off the top of my head but it is the intent of the City of Chanhassen to allow che~nical toilets at beachlots so long as the maintenance and use of these toilets have no undesireable impact on the environment, residential neighbors or lake users. On Lake Minnewashta where I live, we've got I don't know how many beachlots but there's got to be I don't know. Do you know how many? 4 or 5, 6? And I don't want to drive around the lake and see a Satellite from the lake looking into it, see a Satellite on every one of those. It could be quite a few and Lotus has quite a number don't they? Conrad: A couple. Emmings: It's more than that from what I read in here. I don't know but it sounded like. It is being allowed primarily for the convenience and safety of children who often cross busy streets to return home to use toilets. It is recognized that maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some small beachlots may be inappropriate because they cannot be adequate screened from residential neighbors or lake users. Then I had another condition which was the conditional use permit may be revoked if there are complaints from residential neighbors. If there's any violation of the intent of the ordinance or if there's any evidence of failure to maintain the toilet to eliminate odors and pollution. So I guess overall my point is that I think there's a good reason to have them for a short period of time during the year and that if we could be very restrictive about it, at least initially, I could get behind it. Ahrens: What would they do? Come in and tow them away? Emmings: Well see, you lease these things. Now you leased the one you had out there this summer didn't you? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 12 Nancy Christensen: Well someone in our Association had... Emmings: Okay, so you lease them and then you have a pumping agreement where they service them and all of that and I guess I see this as a situation where that would be the way to do it. Have it there for 2 1/2 months because I can tell you that from watching, the way people use the lake, there's very little use of the lake even in August. The end of June and July it's used very heavily and then it tapers down real fast. Even at the end of July. In my experience. But if it was there from 3uno 15th until when people returned to school the end of August. Batzli: The season's kind of Memorial Day to Labor Day. Emmings: But I tell you the heavy. Batzli: Well I know the heavy use is. Emmings: The heavy use is right around the 4th of July and after that it really starts falling off. At least on Lake Minnewashta. From my observation. 8ut anyway, that's what I would. Conrad: Okay. Good comments. Brian? 8atzli: Well he stole all my thunder so I'm just going to ask kind of a rhetorical question of the staff and that's why, if every one of the communities that we called said don't get into it. Don't do it. Don't do it. Why are we doing it? Krauss: Who was saying don't? Oh, the cities. Well to be honest, I mean this is, we are not incredibly excited about the specter of dealing with another issue on a lake. You know it's one of those things that you'd prefer that it go away and never happen but it is happening. We've been asked to deal with it in the most effective way we know how. As to why other communities have not dealt with it, I don't know. Sometimes the situation is different. Sometimes you don't have the recreational beachlot that the common use on some of the lakes. I don't know why other communities haven't confronted it. When I get calls from other planners too, I mean your reaction is to air on the conservative side. If you don't know the answer, then don't do it if you don't have to. Well, we've been asked to do it and so we've done what we can to make sure that it's done as safely and as sensitively as possible. If the ordinance goes ahead like this, it's something that we could administer and we could live with. Batzli: Would it be helpful at all to require that if in fact most of these things are leased, and I assume that most of them would be, would it be appropriate to have a copy of the contract on file with the city or something? To make sure that theM're. Krauss: Frankly, I would prefer not. I mean I'd prefer to deal with the owners of the beachlot and not who they contract with. In my view the owner's liable for the maintenance. The owner's liable for the conditions of approval. However, they obtain compliance with those conditions is really their business. It presents a little bit of another layer of administration for us and I'm not sure that it's necessary. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 13 Batzli: Who then is responsible if there is some sort of, if they tip it over into the lake? You're going to try to hold the beachlot owners responsible for that? Nildermuth: The Association. Batzli: The Association? Conrad: And what's the penalty? Krauss: Well I don't know. That's the concern. I mean I raised the initial concern when I ~as with the City of Minnetonka you know we had one of these things, or several of these things tipped into a bay. Now it was from a city park but they were not anchored and were vandalized and tipped into Libb's Lake. Libb's Lake does not flush very readily from Minnetonka. It's the eastern most arm of the lake. As a consequence, for the rest of the season, for a month and a half, that lake was unswimmable because the...count was too high. I don't know whether any of our lakes in Chanhassen exhibit the same characteristics. They don't have that kind of a bay structure certainly with a narrow little inlet that Libb's Lake has. kJe are taking the active approach here in requiring that these things be anchored so hopefully rather than dealing with the aftermath of a problem, we can try to avoid the problem in the first place. And we've also got the physical separation from the lake which if it's 75 feet, particularly more than 55 feet, you know these things don't have a tremendous amount of capacity and by the time it gets to the lake, hopefully a lot of that will be intercepted by grass or sand or whatever. Batzli: I think these things are a favorite target of college, high school, whatever aged kids. They seem to be fun to tip over. I know that they're tipped over frequently at Crescent 8each in Shorewood/Tonka 8ay. Whatever that park is actually in. I was familiar with the one in Libb's Lake. It seems to me that you know in those instances you're talking about a city owned park and you should have more control over it and yet they don't seem to have any control over it and for us to require the beachlot owners to control it, I don't know if that's going to be effective or not. That's why I'd almost like to see them, this may be out of the realm of possibilities but post a bond or something. I like Stove's additions if we go ahead with this. Wildermuth: Believe it or not I laid awake last night thinking about this. Conrad: With all the political stuff going on, you were thinking about portable toilets. Wildermuth: About whether or not this is a good thing or we should be looking at something like this and I guess I came to the same conclusion that Steve did. That it's probably worth while looking at and it's probably something that maybe who's time has come for these beachlots. I would favor a time limit and I would like to see the whole concept limited to a portable structure only. Nothing permanent so that would probably mean taking (d) out of there. Reference to a. permanent structure. Especially if we're still going to look at 50 feet because that kind of violates everything else that we've got. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 14 Batzli: Some of them do have like a fence like stockade type approach with a little entrance and the back swings open so they can take it out. Now that's the kind of screening almost that you may or may not appreciate over the proposed screening but. Wildermuth: I think if I were a neighbor I'd want to see vegetation type screening as opposed to some kind of a fence. I think that's pretty well addressed in (c). Fully screened by coniferous vegetation. I don't know what the time limitation on it should be. Staff can decide that. If it's Labor Day to Memorial Day or whatever. Or Memorial Day to Labor Day, whatever it is. But I think there should be some kind of time limit on it and I would like to see it restricted only to portable structures. And would this be reviewed on a case by case basis as it's currently proposed? This ordinance? So you'd have a chance to look at all these grandfathered lots? Krauss: Yes. Each one would have to come before you and make their case at a public hearing. Conrad' But you'd apply the rules that you lay down now. Wilderrnuth: Right. Apply these rules. The beachlot association that I belong to, I think if they came in for one we'd probably deny it because it's an odd configuration and it just, I don't know how you could do something like that and satisfy the neighbors. That's all. Ahrens: I don't have a real strong feelings about this but you know I guess if there's a need for this we should be looking at it. I've heard a lot of discussion tonight about the appearance of them and some beaches are too small and some beaches are big enough to handle these and it seems like we're getting into such subjective criteria in determining where they should be and where they shouldn't be and if a neighbor complains and they should be taken out. I have a lot of problems with that. I think that i.f we have an ordinance that says that they're allowable, then I'm sure there's children on all the beachlots and I'm sure there's a need if that's. Paul said there's a need because there's children who have to use the portable toilets when they're out there and then Steve says he doesn't want to see them on every beachlot as he's riding around on the lake because of the appearance of that. I mean how are we going to determine? Every other lot or you know, 2 out of 4. Only half the beachlots get them because more than that would be aesthetically ugly or how are we going to determine that? It seems to me that if we're going to allow these things on beachlots, we're going to just have to allow them. Either that or we say only on beachlots of a certain size. Wildermuth: Well, I think that some of the conditions that are put in there are going to preclude that because if the beachlot that we have on Lotus Lake were to come in and ask for one, the thing would end up having to be located in the middle of the tennis court and it just doesn't work~ Ahrens' Because of the setbacks? Wildermuth' Yeah. Because of the setback requireme'nts. The fact that they have to be fully screened I think is some kind of assurance that. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page ~L5 8at. zii: There has to be at least one opening. Ahrens: Why can't they just plant things around it? Wildermuth: Well they car]. Ahrens: So you're saying the setback requirements will limit the numbers Wildermuth: The visual impact. Ahrens: I think that we should be concerned with these so close to the lake but on the other hand if people need them they need them and I think we should provide them. I imagine we haven't had a lot of problems with then] on with Greenwood Shores because nobody can get to that beachlot anyway. It's probably never even used except for 2 or 3 people a year. Who walk 4 miles down from CR 17 to get to it. ~dildermuth: Who knows it's there? Ahrens: Yeah, right. But you know I do have a problem with it. I guess Steve, maybe you could explain what you mean if there are complaints. I mean we get a let ef complaints from a lot of people and some of them have some merit and a lot of them don't. If an association is approved for putting eno of these things in and a neighbor maybe, I don't know do they have to be right next door to the beachlot or are they across the lake from the beachlot. If they say I don't like the way that looks, then do we pull it? Emmings: I would presume that if a person that, well first of all. You would and should come in before we permit it because they're going to have to, to get a conditional use permit they're going to have to give notice to the neighbors that they're planning to put one of these things in and everybody pretty much knows what they look like so you expect to see those neighbors in here complaining then. And frankly, I'd have a hard time unless the association, if you have a neighbor who says I don't want to look out. I don't mind looking out my window at people playing on a beach but I do mind looking out my window and seeing a blue hut there that people are going in and out of constantly. I don't want to do that. I'd have a hard time, unless the association could tell me how they were going to screen it in a way so that that would be the satisfaction of that homeowner, I would say they don't get it. Ahrens: What if they come in after the fact? Emmings: After what fact? Ahrens: After it's already granted. Emmings: Who? Who comes in? Ahrens: Well some neighbor who lives there. Emmings: Coming in and saying what? Ahrens: They don't like it. They don't like to look at it. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 16 Krauss: If I could. Anybody can make a complaint against things at any time and the most we can do is follow up on that. And if it's a complaint that we can't resolve at a staff level that we think is verifiable, we'll bring the item back before you and the City Council to re-evaluate if they've violated the conditions of the approval. And if they have, you can yank their permit. Ahrens: I like the intent statement that Steve added onto this but I think that maybe the vest of the wording may be a little too restrictive. Emmings: I guess my notion is just that if we're going to venture into this, which I'm not sure we should, but if we're going to venture into this, I think we should be real restrictive to start with and if they turn out to be no problem, maybe we want to make it easier for people. 8ut it's going to be harder to go back and get more restrictive. Well, it might not be. I shouldn't say that. I was thinking it would be harder to get more restrictive later. It's harder to take something away once somebody has it. 8ut if there's a demonstrated problem, I'm sure we could find a way to do that. Ahrens: That's all I have. Conrad: Thanks Joan. Nildermuth: Doesn't Steve want to make this motion? Conrad: 14ell, I have a real tough time with this one. I think a case could be made for allowing them on certain properties but I don't see the restrictiveness yet which I think everybody has said. There are just so many negatives that can occur. It's just one of these things saying why are we doing this in the first place. As many outlets as we have er beachlots, we really haven't been, that have been in existence for 10-15 years, I really haven't heard all that much demand for this. lhe notes that we have from one resident who has. You really have to be within 350 feet of the beachlot to be a member of that beachlot and I guess I'm net. Emmings: 1,000 isn't it? Conrad: Ah, it is 1,000. But even so, that still doesn't seem to be a big inconvenience to me. Yet on the other hand, I think I could be persuaded if we had the right restrictions and we don't right now. On the sideyard setback, if somebody put a chemical toilet within 20 feet of my property line I'd go wild. I just, I'd go bezerk you know. That is so far away from what we're intending. A beachlot of a priviledge. It's not a right. It is a priviledge, not a right. It allows more people access which is a priviledge on that lake and whatever that means to different people. It really is an important difference yet here you can't impinge on the neighbors with the volume of people. I can consider designing an ordinance that said that if beachlot owners, if members of the association are of that beachlot were on either side of the beachlot, then I'm passified a little bit because they're part of the process. They're part of the decision making process or the process that the owner who subdivided this land in the beginning had to deal with when he subdivides it but if that beachlot is abutting on individual residents that's not part of that particular recreational beachlot. I think we don't have the controls right Planning Commission Fleeting Hovember 7, 1990 - Page 17 r,o~. So what I'm saying, without belaboring the issue, 50 feet is not. t,Jell, I can't build a little leanto within 75 feet of a lake and therefore the 50 foot in our current recommendation has to go to 75. It just has to. 25 'foot from the sideyard doesn't make any sense to me at all. That's just, I just don't want that. There's got to be more protecting a nei.ghbor. I think the length of time that Steve said is important. I think there should be a penalty or some recourse worked into the owdinance. I think the portable toilet has to be colored to be, you know I've seen a lot of ugly odes that aren't necessarily the prettiest things in the world. I'm not sure what firmly means. Does that mean it's on a slab? I guess rrly bottom line is I don't see anything Z can vote favorably for tonight so if somebody wants to make a motion and wants my vote, the best they can do is to table it otherwise I'll vote no. Ernmings: What would you do, can you tell us what restrictions you'd want so maybe we could put something together here or do you want to work on it? Conrad: I think I said the things that I felt. I think if surrounded, if that beachlot was surrounded by other members or properties, then I could vote for that. Ernmings: The trouble with that though Ladd is in the subdivisions where you have beachlots as part of your subdivision, the neighbors on each side aren't part of the beachlot. They have their own beach. They have their own lakeshore so that's, so right away that doesn't exist. 8ut the real problem here is that on most of the older beachlots, see now we've got to have 200 feet on lakeshore. You've got quite a bit of space to work with. 3,000 square feet but on the old ones they're all, some are 25 feet wide. I think that one on Lake Minnewashta is 25. How wide is yours? How much !akeshore have you got? Gene Christensen: It's 95 I think. Emmings: Yeah, and there on that one you've got on one side of you there's a home. Gene Christensen: Both sides. Emmings: 8oth sides? They are private homes that have no, they're lakeshore property or nothing to do whatever with that subdivision or the use of this. Conrad: See in that case I would have to, the only way I would grant somethin~ in that case Steve would be if the neighbor agreed. That's the only way I would do it. One, I've got to be satisfied that environmentally we've taken care of the situation. There is a reason the other communities haven't allowed these and I don't think we should be real naive~ It's a problem. Tippin~ over and maintenance and smell and you know, the smells of chemical toilets are not great. We're talking about McGlynn~s, I don't want to be next to that smell. Now there are ways to solve that problem. It's not that it's absolute but it's a real pain. Administratively we're creatin~ a pain for the city. If we have to monitor. If we have to deal with this. I car, visualize a need but again, I would have to look at it on a case by case basis. I would have to inform the neighbors and if they felt it was offensive, I would have to decline. I would have to reject the Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 18 use. So if ~e work the language in that way, .then the beachlot has a chance as long as I've solved the environmental things and some of the setback things. Then I would feel good about it. Ahrens: I don't think we can solve the environmental problems. I mean it's there and it may be tipped over and it may cause problems. Conrad: Well no, if it's firmly and I guess I just challenge what firmly. In this draft it says firmly and that's what I say. Is that a concrete slab where it's bolted down and then it's going to stay. If it's screened, what does screened mean? One tree. Ahrens: [dell I don't think so. Conrad: But see that's what, if we're going to put the ordinance in. Ahrens: It says fully screened. Conrad: Okay, so one tree on each side? And what kind of tree? I'm getting picky but again, you've got to have that down. If you want to have a conditional use permit, you've got to know what you're talking .about. New it's not that we're going to get different dimensions of the portable, bJe know what it is. He know that it's this big by this big so what are we talking about? I guess I'd prefer to be as definite as possible if we want to allow it. I'm riot real convinced I want to tamper with it but if the balance of you feel it's worth responding to the City Council's need, then I think we should put some specifics in here to deal with it. Yes sir. Gene Christensen: I think I feel the same way as you do as far as looks.. I mean obviously if I lived there I wouldn't like it either but you're talking about putting trees. You're just talking i tree or 2 trees. 8ein.g I 'm part of the association, I want to hide it just as much as you do. ~,Je ~s. nt to make it look nice. Conrad: And that's where I want to leave the problem because you'll take care of it because you live there and that's really what I want to make sure of. I want to keep out of this mess and let the association take care of it but k;hat happens in those situations is the immediate neighbors and that's what I'm most concerned with. How do we handle, how do we make it? You can work out things within your association but how do we take care of the immediate neighbor and that's the issue that I have to address myself. Emmings: In response to that Ladd. Now the one that you had on your lot, because I drive by there all the time, you couldn't, you essentially couldn't see it from the lake unless you looked for it. They had it way back towards the road. It didn't look great from the roadside but it didn't look bad either. I don't think it was really objectionable. Then we've got this one on Lake Hinnewashta Heights. This narrow 25, I think it's only 25 feet wide. They had one down there all summer. I never saw it from the lake except a couple times when I looked for it and then I saw it and it's .just sitting out there. They have residential neighbors on both sides and I don't think either one of them could see it due to the topography. So there maybe it's perfectly appropriate and t'here's no way they met any setbacks like this because it's 25 feet wide. They couldn't meet any setbacks. $o these are going to have to be reviewed on a case by Planning Commission Meeting Novembe¥ 7, 1990 - Page 19 case basis and it may be that somebody like Minnewashta Heights could get the neighbors to agree to have it by simply going to them and saying we've had it here for 3 years. It hasn't been a problem for you. Would you sign something that would allow us to continue to have it? So I don't know. I think it needs to be rewritten. Conrad: I agree with what you're saying Steve, I agree with that. think there's so many different situations with these beachlots. It's hard to develop an ordinance that meets them all. Sometimes they're screened. Sometimes the neighbors are a distance away and won't be a bother. You know Lotus Lake Estates is a good example. They have 3,000 feet of lakeshore. They can put it there and nobody's going to know. You know and there's. Wildermuth: Lotus Lake Estates? Is that the one up on the hill there? Conrad: Yeah. See they've got 3,000 feet. In that case, there's no problem with neighbors but then again, we have a lady who's talking about, who's writing us and saying hey, I don't want that going next to me and that's real valid because again, you look at the problems of smell and sight and that's, I don't think that's the intent of what we want a beachlot to be. Emmings: I'd move that we table this and try, I think it's worth persuing and I think we ought to work some more on drafting it a little bit. I'd like to take a shot at it. At drafting something. Krauss: One note of caution though. I always preface this by saying I'm not an attorney, especially when I'm confronted by 3 of them. We can't write an ordinance that says if you do x through z you're entitled to something unless somebody objects. Emmings: Well, but we could require 'them to secure the consent or not have it. That could be a requirement. If what you're saying is right, then we could require consent. Batzli: I guess I would be more in favor that it would be revocable by the city if either safety or environmental concerns over the toilet arose. I don't know that I want to preface their right to continue using the toile on a neighbor. Emmings: Once it's granted. Ahrens: I agree because in that situation where, like you said there was a beachlot that's only 25 feet wide or something and nobody can see it on either side but what if they complain anyway? l(rauss: Right. With conditional uses you're talking about a class of uses that are considered extraordinary and potentially obnoxious but if they meet criteria that you've established, then you're committing yourselves to say okay. I mean it met the criteria, it's fine with us. One of the things you also have to recognize though is you're not, when you're reviewing cuP's you're not limited to those 4 or 5 criteria that we came up with or Steve, what you'll come up with. There's the 8 or 10, whatever it is~ Mom and Apple Pie CUP conditions that preface that section and they PI. arming Commission Heeting November 7, 1990 - Page 20 give you a great deal of latitude. Conrad: But it's also the intent statement. You know what we've got to do is be able te de a good job ef helping staff or helping neighbors understand what the point is. That's ~hy Stove's introduction of what we're trying to accomplish is very important because what I don't want to de is lead somebody down the pike and say hey, you might be able to get this. Or it is yours for sure. They have to know the intent for what Ne're trying to do and when you're controlling smells and stuff like this, it's a bigger deal. [ think you all have to put yourseZf in the position of being next to one and say okay, how would I want to be guarded. Hew should the City guard me and Z think there's ways to do it. Z'm-net sure what the words are. There's a motion to table. Is there a second? 8atzli: Second. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to table action on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263(2), Recreational Beachlots to allow portable chemical toilets on recreational beachlots for further study. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We appreciate you coming in. I said a lot of negative things but trying te make sure we get the right thing there. It's net just yours it applies to everybody. Emmings: We've got time to work on it before next spring too. Conrad: Yeah, but we appreciate you coming in and talking to us and listening to what we have to say and maybe we can call upon you to help us as we draft something. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695, 20-715~ 20-735, __ 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 AND 20-815 CONCERNING ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL OISTRICTS TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY IN ESTABLISHING PARKING SETBACKS 8Y ADOPTING A PERFORMANCE ORIENTED APPROACH TO STANDARDS AND AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT FOR SUFFER YARDS IN THE IOP DISTRICT. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. 8atzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: The buffer yards you talked about in relationship to the comprehensive plan, is this what~ the 50 foot buffer yard. Is that what we put in? Krauss: 50 foot along rights-of-ways 100 foot from internal property lines. Ahrens: I don't have anything. Wilderrnuth: It looks fine to me, PI_arming Commission Heeting November 7, 1990 - Page 21 ~mtmli: I didn't have anything other than I was envisioning a situation k~here the public right-of-way was above the parking lot. The higher elevation. So then 5 foot screening doesn't do any good. bJhat's the point? Krauss: If you can't achieve it, you're going to have a 30 foot setback. 8atzli: You could achieve the 5 foot high screening but you're not doing a. ny good. Olsen: ,at least 5 feet. Krauss: That's true. I would perceive that to be a loophole. Ahrens: But if the highu;ay's above a parking lot any~,ay, 30 feet ~on't do that much good either. b]i].dern'luth: It's almost a moot point~ ~.hrens: Yeah. bJhether it's 10 or 30, it doesn't make much of a differelace ~ ~.Ja'tmli: Can't you get closer any~ay even though you're not screened at all? b~ell, it true that you're not probably worsening the affect of 9etting closer to the highway. Is that what you mean? ~hrens: Right ~ Krauss: Also, I wonder where that's goin8 to occur. Unless you're near the TH 5 overpass. 8atzli: Yeah. [aell that's where I was thinking. Krauss: If you're that close to right-of-way. 8at~li: How about into the industrial office park to the south there along TH 5. Isn't that down lower a little bit there? Olsen: Burdick's property? Batzli: Yeah. I don't know. I ~as just envisionin~ areas where this might occu¥ and do we care if you only have a 5 foot high screen. Krauss: But in exchange, well what you are getting is you're getting a n~,uch more intensively landscaped area. Is the trade-off for that ~,~or t hb~hi le? gatzli: I guess I was thinking, should we have language that talks about that situation? Do we care? Err, mings: Brian, maybe I'm misreading this but to me this says that you can reduce it to 10 feet. Is that the part you're talking about? That first paragraph there? Satzli: Yeah. Planning Commission Neet/rig November 7, 1990 - Page 22 Emmings: You reduce the setback to 10 feet. If you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that 100% screening is provided at least 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. Those are the words. Now it says, you've got to have at least 5 feet of screening. It doesn't say the stuff has to be .5 feet high. You've got to have 5 feet of screening so it may be that the stuff has to be 10 feet high or whatever. $o maybe it's not a problem.. Batzli' I don't know. I only had 30 seconds to look at it. It wasn't in rny packet but I guess I didn't get the plain meaning out of it the way you understand it but in any event. I was going to ask something else but I can't remember now. Conrad' If it comes to you. 8atz].i: I'll let you know. Emmings: On the buffer yards it says that we're going to do this where higher intensity uses interface with low density residential neighborhoods~ Hy question is, how about a high intensity use next to a medium density residential neighborhood? Krauss: The only place this will be employed is where it's so designated on the official comprehensive plan. The only places that occur is on the official comprehensive plan is where you have that interface between IOP and some commercial and low density residential. Emmings: Okay, that's the only place we've put it now. Would it be better in terms of planning for the future just to say that buffer yards are to be established in areas where higher intensity uses interface with lower intensity uses? Krauss: That would give you some flexibility to amend the plan to that. Emmings: I think we should do that. Ahrens: I like that. Emmings' Then in the next paragraph under C, and this is just minor but the buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with, and then I'd take out "the" and put in "any other" required setbacks period. It says setbacks outlined above and the'>/ may be above. They may be below. They may be who knows where. Krauss: Oh, actually, well if you had the whole ordinance in front of you, they do occur above. Emmings: I don't. Okay. Why don't you just say any other required setbacks. Just again, make it easier. Then on the next page, the last paragraph in that same section where right above the big letter C. I had trouble reading this. It says, in instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the City, or where, in combination with quality site planning this is achieved. What is achieved? Krauss' A buffer satisfactory to the City. Planning Commission Heeting November 7, 1990 - Page 23 Ernmings: I thought you meant there, or where this is achieved through quality site planning. But maybe, and it didn't seem the same to me but c]on't know. Is this clear to you? Maybe it's just me. Conrad: That's kind of foggy. Would you think it would be clear if we s:aid or where this is achieved through quality site planning? Sure ~mmings' I don't know if that's clear or not. It was clearer to me but I don~t know if it's clearer to everybody. Then in (e)down there, a`gain there's that interface with low density residential neighbors. I~d just say lower density uses. Fourth line down. And then that first indented para.graph again just change, in the third line down just change "the" to "any ©ther" required setbacks period. It's the same change. And then in the very last paragraph above where it says Section 2. That's the same la.n~uage again and I 'd .just change it so it says, where this is achieved through quality site planning. That's all. Otherwise it seems like a good idea . Conrad: Are sidewalks always on the public right-of~way? Krauss ' Yes. Conrad: So if there was a sidewalk that had to be in the front yard~ then we really couldn't, more than likely ~e couldn't do this in terms of a performance standard? l<rauss' No, you might be able to. You might not get the full benefit of a 20 foot reduction. You might get a 10 foot reduction. Conrad' What do you expect these reduced front yard setbacks to look like? Serms? Krauss' Heavily landscaped berms. Often times in 10 feet, the only way to achieve that is. Conrad: 10 feet is just nothing. Krauss: The only way to do that though is the way that Redmond did it ~Jhich is come up with a 2:1 or 3:1 slope externally. Tie it into a retaining wall on the back side so the cars park into a retaining wall and then heavily plant on it. You can do a pretty effective job. Conrad' ~ut externally we're not talking about timbers are we? Would we allow timbers? Krauss' No, internally. Conrad: Yeah, internally that's okay but externally. Externally we're not talking about superficial. Well is it possible that we could be talking about landscaping timbers on the outside? Krauss: ~4ell it might not be. I mean I can envision a situation where you take like the keystone block that a lot of people are using now and you PI. arming Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 24 have a meandering stone wall on the outside to give you some height and then you plant on that. That can be very attractive. What I didn't want happening was a fencing but it's a site plan. You have a lot of latitude to pick and choose and tell them how to operate that so. Conrad: So what are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to simply screen the parking lot? Krauss: You're trying to screen the direct head-on exposure of the cars that would otherwise be intrusive. , conrad: And have we gained, for sure the applicant who is trying to meet this performance standard, they wilt gain some property use and the city has gained what? Or maintained what? We have maintained the screening of the parking lot? Krauss: Or provided it. I mean there are some parking lots where, well we hav~ a 3 foot, what is it 3 foot, 2 foot berm requirement. When you've got a 2 foot berm and tree every 40 feet and a 30 foot setback you meet the ordinance right now. I think in exchange for that latitude you're getting the ability to demand a much higher quality buffering treatment. Conrad: Is that true? t4ildermuth: I think you're still getting an environmental amenity. Conrad: Picture Redmond and how nice that front yard looked, and I think they're going to do a nice job. I think they're a good. Krauss: We have documentation with Redmond that shows from how we perceived it on the outside, it's not going to change. It's only internally that you'll notice it. Conrad: See I'm not too worried about them. I like what I saw and I like performance stuff. I think the more performance things. If you have an intent of what you're trying to maintain, then I really like the performance type of standards that we're doing here. Try to challenge and think of where we'll be beat and won't maintain the appearance and that's why I get a little bit, you know railroad ties kind of, could achieve something bu.t I'm not sure that that's what we're looking for but what we again in this, the intent statement for allowing this is really, it's really not there. Now basically an intent statement here is screening and I don't know that we always put intent statements in everything we do. It seems like that's sort of a formula approach but on the other hand when I see somebody coming down the pike who wants to take advantage of this, I want t.o say well here's what we're trying to do and right now what we're trying to do is screen the cars and is everybody comfortable with screening the cars. Wildermuth: I guess I don't feel in most cases that passionate that they have to be screened. Ahrens: I think on a public right-of-way I don't feel that it's that big a deal either. That they be completely screened. ?lanning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 25 L4ildermuth: I guess that's why I don't have an objection to reducing this to 10 feet. 8atzli: But see I think the setback serves a purpose in that parking back to open spaces and things. This provides some green even though the cars aren't screened. It provides an area that breaks up the landscape. Provides more percentage non-impervious, otc, otc and so in exchange for reducing that, I think we should get something in return. Conrad: Yeah, I agree. I don't kno'w that we're getting back 'what we're giving up. And rny perspective has always been in these particular districts, there's some nice. We really do have some nice commercial, industrial areas. It's just really pretty and part of that is because k~e've got that 70/30 standard. Because we work in some grass. We've got some trees and if this makes our industrial park areas look really nice. Krauss: We wouldn't be changing that standard at all. We ,~ould still maintain that 70/30. Conrad: The 70/30. Batzli: But it would be in a different part. What you talked about... Krauss: Frankly that oftentimes allows you to demand a better quality open space. A lot of projects come to us and by the time the meet setback standards, they're provided the 30~ open space. I think that's not open space. That's just a little grassy strip along the tar. I would much rather be able to say, if you've only got the I0 feet here, that 30~ chunk of your 5 acre site is going to be a legitimate open area someplace on your property. Redmond by the ,way, it's kind of a related issue, Redmond meets that 70/30 standard which they were required to meet is buying the 1.6 acre ~etland from the City. They won't be able to touch the wetland at all. I mean it's going to look exactly the way it does right now, ~hich by the I think we've agreed to a selling price of about $88,000.00. Conrad: And ~here does the $88,000.00 go? KraLiss: That's the $64,000.00 question. Nobody knows. Conrad: The money should go back into wetland improvements and all that kind of stuff. I'm sure it's not going there. Wildermuth: General fund. Conrad: Which defeats the intent. Totally defeats the intent. Krauss: We talked about that quite a bit at the Council. We're not losing s ~etland though. I mean the original. COn'Fad: We f]ever were . Krauss: But the original proposal deposited by Redmond and their development group was that they gave us a case in Lakevilte 'where they were going to destroy a wetland and the Army Corps of Engineers allowed them to buy a wetland 30 miles a~ay and improve it in exchange for the loss. I Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 26 mean that's a no net loss type approach~ We're not losing anything in the sense~ We're gaining $88,000.00. I don't know what the Council's going to do ,~.Jit. h it. I brought forward suggestions that they use it for that as well but I'm just not certain yet. Conrad: We understand why they wouldn't but. Batzli: Have we, kind of a related issue, originally Redmond was arguing that they owned the strip between the frontage road and the highway and that should be included in their percent non-impervious. In a situation like that, have we handled that as far as, would that have been included and that type of thing in their percentage calculations? l(rauss' It's covered by right-of-way easements. Now I don't know that we have specific language that prohibits the inclusion of right-of-way covered land in those calculations. Batzli' I know that you guys argued that policy wise and whatever but you couldn't ever put your finger on anything. Krauss: ~!ell if you're leading up to maybe we should look at inserting that in the ordinance someplace in that calculation, it may not be a bad idea and I think a blanket statement needs to be made in there that we don't compute that acreage or that area for setback purposes either. conrad: We'd better get back on task here. $o, the front yard setback in these districts, because some of us don't feel that they're important at all. I'm trying to figure this out. I'm being a little bit facetious. Your position really is that we're not giving much away so we don't really need to demand much. Wildermuth: Right. And this is valuable property we're talking about in these business neighborhoods. You know business highway. 8usiness general districts. And reasonably intense use compared to IOP. Conrad: Yeah. Well IOP is here. This applies to lOP. Wildermuth' The buffer areas do but. Emmings: A does too. Coflrad' IOP stimulated it. This applies to everything. Wildermuth: That's true. So here's what you've got. You can have a situation. Now staff has control on some of this stuff but we're not ~iving them any guidance here. It's going to be up to them when an issue comes in. I 'm just challenging our thinking of what we want. What the standards are' that we're looking for. We literally could have on either side of Redmond you could have people living within that 30 foot setback~ Living with it with .green space and then there's the one where because they can meet a performance standard and they can cut it down to 10, have we m. aintained the character of what we're trying to maintain with front yard setbacks? With greenery? Have we maintained it with this language? If that's what we're trying to maintain. Whatever we're trying to maintain these districts with setbacks, have we maintained them? That's the only Plannkng Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 27 thing ~'m challenging you all with. ~?,at. zli: Provided they can still meet the percent impervious, I think that percentage impervious will, having us not be along the highway is probably act. ually perhaps more beneficial, even though I like the open space even on t.h,e highway. If they've got it someplace else on the lot, hopefully it's not toward the most intense use which would be the thoroughfare so. I (-~uess I like the 30 feet but if in fact they can screen it. If we get s~ome berming and things that we wouldn't otherwise get, I'm comfortable ~.~i th it. Conrad: So how do you have better control on? Tell me again, what can you do in these 10 feet that we might shrink down to? We can require plantings every x number of feet. Sort of at staff discretion or whatever you feel im appropriate, to fit in to the context of the neighborhood or the particular business park. How do you? ~<rauss: Well, we're throwing it back into their laps. We're saying if you ~ant to get this flexibility, you've got to demonstrate initially to our satisfaction and to yours and to the Councils that you've achieved the goal. of 100~ opacity 5 feet above it. Conrad: But the standard really is to screen the cars? Krauss: Yeah. And I think quite conceiveably we're going to have commercial developers that aren't going to want that. Well, they might want the flexibility but they're not going to want to exchange it for the lack of, or for a parking lot that doesn't look tike it's real busy and hustling and bustling like we have a going shopping center here. You know Redmond I think it's very appropriate in an industrial areas where they don't care you know and I think it's going to be physically impossible for some people to accomplish that. It's also going to be costly. Batzli: Well they could just put in a 5 foot berm and put a tree every 40 feet. Why would that be costly? }fraws8: Because first of all, the only way to do a 5 foot berm and tree every 40 feet is going to be a doubled sided retaining wall and that's $10.00 a foot per side and it gets very expensive. Plus you have the authority I think in a site plan review... 8atzli: Okay, so they put it 15 feet back instead of 10 feet. Now what's the difference? You could end up with a 5 foot high berm and a tree every 40 feet. F(rauss: We don't. We tell people what we want to have to achieve that goal. You have latitude under the site plan Yeview to say that's a rea],. darn ugly way of achieving this and we won't accept it unless you revise it so and so. We do that all the time. 8atz].i: Yeah, I don't know that we do it so much as you guys doing it in advance. I mean we don't look at berms usually and say, no you've got to make it a foot higher and put a tree every other. Krauss: We do it all the time, yeah. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 28 8atzli: But it is in the realm of possibility that you could end up ~4ith a 5 foot high berm with a tree every 40 feet and they'd be within the Code · right.? Olsen: Yeah, if it's 100~ screened. Conrad: What more would you want? 8atzli: I don't know, a tree every 20 feet. I don't know. Conrad: Okay. I don't want to beat a dead horse here. ! don't want to gr i nd us i nrc the ground. 8atzli: It already is. Conrad: Yeah, we did it. I'm not real comfortable but. Tamings: I like it. Conrad; I know you do. That's why I'm uncomfortable. I like the buffer yards with Stove's additions. Is there a motion? Emmings: Well I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments with the changes that we talked about, or that I talked about or made. You know what those are don't you? Conrad: We don't but that's okay. No, we do. Is there a second? t4ildermuth: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? How are you going to vote Brian? You can't tell me so we don't have any discussion on that. ~ can't figure out any other standards that I'd like to put in here. I guess my only concern was wording beyond the effect of screening. I think aesthetics has something to do with what we're trying to maintain. 8atzli: I think so too but then I think you get into the intent statement that you kind of ran up the flag pole and nobody really swallowed it. Conrad: Nobody really jumped on it, no. Batzli: Because Steve felt comfortable so he had drafted an intent statement. Conrad: There are some on this commission who don't care. 8atzii: And there's one that didn't have the packet in advance so I can't he 1 p you. Earnings: Why don't we put. something in there about, in l(a) why don't we put something in there about our intent? It's not too late to do that. Conrad: I floated that and nobody. Earnings: But you have a chance that we could amend it. pla. nnLng Commission Heeting November 7, 1990 - Page 29 Wilderrnuth: The motion has been made and seconded. Batzli: But we're discussing it. £mmings: This is a discussion. I can make an amendment if I want to. Anybody can. Z can move to amend my own motion. What could we say in there so? $o basically what you're saying is, and ~Je don't want them .just to think of blocking our vision. We also want them to think in terms of what? Conrad: Aesthetics. The aesthetics Emmings' Too late. Conrad: I know. It's tough. Ni].dermuth: The problem is you can't anticipate every situation that you're going to come by... 8atzli: I view the intent statement, if in fact there was one, that we're giving up open space and allowing them to do this in exchange for some sort of trade off in additional screening, vegetation, that type of thing. ! mean I think that should be the intent. Now how you say that, because really I don't think you can say so that it's aesthetically pleasing. What you ~ant though in exchange is. Wildermuth: Additional landscaping. 8atzli: Yeah. Wildermuth: And plantings... 8atzli: Then...would be required, yeah. Emmings: Why can't we say that it's got to be aesthetically acceptable? Why couldn't we say something tike you said? Say something like the City is willing to relax it's setback requirements provided that a person can show screening which is both effective and aesthetically acceptable to the city? Now I don't know that, it's a little vague but. 8atzli: It's darn vague. Emmings: Well, but I don't know that you can't do that because we're giving, the lynch pin it seems to me Brian is your idea that we're givin~ up something and so we get something back~ We get to determine ~hether or not it's good enough. Ahrens: Why don't you just, in A(e). Is that A(e)? En;rn i ngs ' Yea h. Ahrens: The second to the last sentence, acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Do we just add maybe a couple of words onto that sentence...acceptabte screening? Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 30 Emmi'ngs: But I think contained in the notion that Brian brought up about the fact that the City is relaxing a requirement and intends to get back. l.O~ldermuth: ...quality Emmings: Right. Which is both effective and aesthetically. bJildermuth: I don't know if we want to say relax the requirement. Say willing to trade off. ,~mm i rigs: Well okay. Ifrauss: I wouldn't have a problem with the intent statement as drafted. It is vague. I love vague statements. Our City Attorney hates them. We'll. have a tug of war over that but I think, you know you are trading something and you should have the latitude to be more demanding. Emmings' Right. To me that's totally different than saying a house is a permitted use but it's got to be a pretty house. That means nothing. Krauss: You can say if you don't like it, go with the 30 foot setback. That's what everybody else has to go with. Emmings' Exactly. Conrad: Do ~e need to word anything? Krauss: I don't know. If we just incorporate Steve's language. If the motion's amended to do that I think we're okay. Ahrens: What language was that? conrad: We're not sure. Aesthetically pleasing was in there. Emmin~s: Except Jim didn't like part of it so maybe we could come up with something that. Wilderrnuth: The City's willing to trade off a reduction in the setback or what? Emmings: Well, we'll say the intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a smaller setback for screening that is both effective and of high quality aesthetically? Something like that. Batzli' I would say additional landscaping. ~mmings: Yeah. Put that in there too. I'm going to move to amend my own motion with that language. Conrad: Is there a second? Rhrens ' Second. ~m..m. in.g,.~,:c~ We've got to vote on that first don't we? The amendment? Planning Commission Heeting November 7, 1990 - Page 31[ Conrad' Well I'm not sure. gatzli' Unless it's a friendly amendment and the second ~ill accept it. c,,,mings: Okay. I made it myself. I'm not mad at myself Conrad: Okay, I'm going to call a question. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-504, 20-695, 20-715, 20-735, 20-755, 20-774, and 20-815 regarding parking setbacks and buffer yards amending the staff report as follows: To include an intent statement which reads, the intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a smaller setback for additional landscaping that is both effective and of high quality aesthetically. And changing the phrases in B(c) and C(e) by deleting the phrase "interface with low density residential neighborhoods" and replacing it with "interface with lower density uses." and changing the sentence, "It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above." to read, "It is to be cumulatively calculated with any other required setbacks." Also changing the first sentence in the last paragraph of item B(c) to read as follows, "in instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the City, or where quality site planning achieved,". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. FINAL STUDY REPORT FOR PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES IN THE CITIES OF CHASKA, CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and Fred Hoisington was present to answer questions. Conrad' Anybody have questions? Emmings' I'm going to confess that I didn't have time to read this and I'm abstaining from any vote. ~4ildermuth: The only comment that I have is when I look at the prototype site plans, it seems as though there could be a little more efficient use of the bus loading area and that seems like that could be accomplished by trunkating a corner. Having a special bus lane cutting a corner off as opposed to coming into a parking lot and having a big sweeping area that it turns around in. It would take less parking space for the bus to stop and load. Krauss' This is the prototype plan? Wildermuth' The prototype plans are in the back. Krauss: Yeah. Well the prototype isn't, they've got a new design that they're basically using for our specific circumstance anyway because it has t.o be designed to fit that site. kJildermuth: It just seems like coming and trunkatin9 a corner ~ould be a much more efficient way to go. Planning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 32 Sat. zl~.: I had a question for Fred which was kind of a general question and that is, how has the study taken into account the proposed light rail and where the bus facilities ~4ould be in connection with those? Fred Hoisinston: Brian, when we first began this study and one of the things we did was try to help the commission understand how all of these things would tie together and we did a lot of dia~ramin~ and so forth at that time to do so and we had some, I don't even know if it was in the draft. I think it was in the draft report and it is not in this final report, but some serious criticism of the location of LRT in the southwest corridor. I have some real reservations about using the railroad right-of .... wmy, a.t least until after it leaves the Eden Prairie Center area. Now to ~et to Chaska it probably will have to use the right-of-way but that entire system is built on maximizing or minimizing cost by using railroad rights- of-way and frankly we don't think it will work. A lot of the language that. we had in there, the Commission eliminated from the report feeling that while we should throw up a red flag, we shouldn't go so far as to suggest that they completely throw their plan away. So what we ended up with was .just a set of criteria that said when light rail is ready to be located i~-, the southwest corridor, please consider these 5 things and don't be limited only to railroad rights-of-way. Now the reason we think that light rail and that the station, the LRT station ought to be at Eden Prairie Center and we understand there are some real economic problems with that, is because all of the systems interface at that point. All of the intechanging would occur there. All the multi-purpose trips would start and end there. Shopping trips. Commuting trips and so forth and that's why we're as concerned as we are about where Hennepin County is proposing to ~.ut it. So all I can tell you is we have great reservations and we've tried to leave enough in there to encourage the looking at alternatives but there was some feeling that maybe we could live with that alignment. I don't agree with that. ~o..zli: But when that happens get the impression from hearing comments b.y the various commissioners basically in charge in Hennepin County that it's going to come down that abandoned rail line. I mean we're not goin~ to have a choice of where it enters kind of our jurisdiction it seems. Wildermuth' It's just going to enter the very southern part of Chanhassen. Batzli' Yeah. Krauss: Well I think you have to realize though that we're talking about the third phase after a 20 year time horizon at this point that they're looking at. I mean they have some alignments that they own now and clearly they're looking at using those but they haven't done any real specific studies for ridership, utilization, station location, anything else they would have to do when it becomes more of a reality and they may decide to change their mind. E~atzli: I guess from my perspective I don't think it's really going to be 20 years. I think LRT is going to be accelerated greatly probably in the next. couple years but that's just perhaps a personal opinion but I think that as gasoline gets very scarce potentially in the near future, there's ~oing t.o be incredible demand for advance mass transit. c~l,_~.nning,-- o Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 33 Fred Hoisington: Brian, I think maybe you're correct. Maybe not 2 or 3 >."ears but with, I think we'll see it in Hopkins sooner than the plan calls for. ! think beyond Hopkins there are real questions and I think you're right. The County and ~ think John norris fully expects that that r isht-of'-way is where it's going to ~o and it probably will. I guess all ~e're trying to tell you in this report is don't close the deer on other options and Hennepin County don't close the door on other options because ~,.,'e think they ought to look at other things. In terms of ridership, we think there are much better locations for it. Ahrens: There are other railroad lines aren't there? Fred Hoisington: The only one that would go to Chaska, through Chaska ~.;euld be this particular line. There is one of course, the one that runs through here but then runs north of Chaska. Actually north of Jonathan ~hich would probably, it might be as good but at this point Joan they're not looking at that as an atlernative. They really had two alternatives. One ~,.Jas into Minnetonka and the Minnetonkaees don't like light rail. so it's not..going to be there apparently and the other one is this one and this is the preferred apparently. And this one is owned and the Soo Line is not. The Soo Line is going to continue to have rail traffic on it so there will be ne ability really to put it through here. So it's going to go on that line if it's going to go on existing rail lines, that's where it will ge. Ahrens: Why do they want to run it to Chaska anyway? Fred Hoisington: Well I think Paul is exactly correct. If they do get to Hopkins in the fairly near term, I would question whether they'll ever go to Chaska. I really wonder but I could see very easily them coming to Eden Prairie Center and perhaps never extending beyond that but if they they still want to get over the railroad line and get to Chaska~ then perhaps that's a geed solution but at least for a stretch it makes ne sense to me that they would use the rail line for that purpose. Krauss: I think it's significant to realize that none of the light rail. systems that have been built in the last 20 years serve communities that have ~2,000 people in them. They don't terminate in communities like ours. Now u~hen in 10 to 12 years from now when we're looking at a population of 20,000 or 25,000 with considerable growth, if it happens in Waconia with TH 5 being a commuter route, depending on how things materialize that way, it may become feasible but you really need an intensity of, or density of population that we're probably never going to have out here. Conrad' What's the difference between what we reviewed on August ist and ~hat was distributed tonight in our packet? Fred's report. Fred Hoisington: Ladd, there have been some minor changes. It's been so long since we made those. The changes that were made had to do with the comments that were made by each of the city staff's and to a great extent ~hat. we did was tone down the IDM portion of the report and made it clear that this is illustrative and not intended to be adopted lock, stock and barrel by the cities. $o what we did was simply made it optional so the report is if you adopt it or accept it and send it onto the Council, you're not. sayin~ that you will adopt a TDM element. Although we still would strongly recommend, as I indicated to you when I was here in August, that Planning Commission MeetLng November 7: 1990 - Page 34 you at least., have some policies in your comprehensive plan to deal with that.. And I know you've already adopted, I don't know if you have any or not but even if it's nothing more than a philosophy, you ought to have something. 8Lit that's how we've toned it down at this point. Conrad: Anything else? Okay, thanks Fred. 8atzli: Do we need a motion te send this on? Krauss: I guess. I'm not sure ot: the structure but have a motion to accept, recommend that the Council accept the Southwest Metre report. 8atxli: I move that the Planning Commission adopt the final draft ef t..he ..Oar!{ and Ride Study by the Southwest Metro Transit contained in our packet dated November lat. Do you want us to include your comments addressing the study? Kr aLISS: Please. 8atzli: Including the comments addressing the study as noted in the memo dated August 21, ~990 by the Planning Director. Conrad: Is there a second? Wi idermuth: Second. Batzl~ moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the final draft of the Park and Ride Study by the Southwest Metro lransit ~ith the comments noted in the memo dated August 21, 1990 by the Planning Director. All voted in favor except 5mm£ngs and Conrad who abstained and the motion carried. Nildermuth: ~hy is everybody abstaining? Conrad: I didn't get a copy of the report so I don't know. I was comfortable when we talked about it before and I was comfortable with Paul's comments but I didn't have a report to apply them to. Fred Heisington: I .lust ~ant you to know that we were comfortable with Paul's comments too. Other than we feel very strongly about the importance ef transit. You're going to see a great deal more of it and it's going to come faster than any of us can imagine. Conrad: The economics are there huh? Fred Hoisington: Not yet. But they may well be there soon. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings: We go that memo that we don't have. to approve them anymore. Conrad: Yeah, we don't have to approve them. Ernmings: You just have to say. Plannin.q Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 35 Conrad: If there are no corrections, the Minutes stand approved. Are there any corrections? There are no corrections to the Minutes. They eta ~,d approved. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: There's not been a whole lot on the agendas lately but the ZIC building which you reviewed was approved on Consent. The Easy Rider Addition which was final plat for the city. Reorganize some lot lines was approved. The ordinance concerning the wetlands and access to the wetland was approved. The only reason it was delayed at the city Council was that they didn't have a sufficient super majority at a previous meeting to adopt it. so it was adopted at the last meeting. PJ's Bar was approved without really much of an issue. The Klingelhutz plat has been waylaid for the · Lime being. They're redesigning it. Bill Engelhardt had some contact with Carver County on roadway designs for the upgrade of Lyman, Lake Riley Blvd ~hich of course was one of the issues there. There's going to be some modifications to the plat to accommodate that widening when it should occur so ~ think they're moving in the right direction of fixing those roadway problems. I put the candidate selection in my paper here and there's also the additiofial application that you got this evening from Steve Morse who was one of the candidates for Council. Is also in the packet I handed out an attendance sheet and there's some general information. I've gathered some planning material. Batzli: An attendance sheet? Krauss: Yeah, it's back in there. If you look at the stuff that was handed out tonight. Behind Steven Morse's resume. Conrad: Our standard is 75%. I think 3im. Wilde~-muth: Our standard is 75~? Conrad: Yes. Krauss: One thing that's not reflected however on the attendance record is the multitude of meetings, special meetings that we had that were unrecorded. I don't know how you want to take that into account but I don't think the level of effort should be overlooked. That's not registered here. Conrad: Okay. I think we might as well, since we're on this subject. W~e've got to schedule. Annette has resigned? Krauss: Well Annette is thinking apparently. Olsen: She may call you. She doesn't want to continue and then in 3 months have to quit if it becomes too much but I think she's realizing that things are kind of slowing do~n. It's not necessarily midnight meetings ali. the time and she wants to stay but she doesn't want to do it like Dave Hesdla did and quit in the middle. So I don't know. t think she ~ill not continue. 5mmings: Her term is up is it not? Planning Commission Meeting Novembe¥ 7: 1990 - Page 36 Olsen: It's up. ?,,'rauss: bJe have 3 terms that are up. It's Annette, Brian's and 3ira's. Ernmings: So if she wants to do it she'll have to apply. o1sen: Right. Conrad: Brian are you applying? Batzli: Yes. Conrad: Okay, ~im are you applying? [4i ].dermuth: Yes. Conrad: Okay. i('rauss: How do ~e work it when we have standing members that wou~d like t.o reapply. Do ~e still intervie~ everybody? Conrad: The one thing that ~e do do. What I don't want to do, well. ~ feel real comfortable. If we know we have a vacancy, then I ~ant to bring everybody in that's applied. If they've got an application~ we'~e going to talk to them. However, if we've got 3 members applying for 3 por~itions, I've got to figure this out. I don't want to deceive people. There's never been a case when we have not reappointed somebody so going through an exercise of interviewing and ~asting people's time to intervie~ k~hen ~,~e don't have a real precedent for changing. I don't want to do that~ Emmings: Except there's been a time in the past when it was our choice and it no longer is. Conrad: Right. ~mmings: So it's different. The Council's going to make the decision. Krauss: That's a concern I have and possibly Ladd, maybe there's two phone calls that you need to make. First is to Annette and we need to know quickly what her intentions are. The second one possibly is to the Mayor' end asking if ~e three want reappointment, do you still want to send the top three candidates plus yourselves forward or do you want to circumvent that process? Conrad: Okay, I'll talk to Don and I'll ta~k to Annette. Krauss: If you can let me know so we can schedule it for our next meeting. Emmings: We certainly ~on't interview anybody who's been on the Commission but the City Council may ~ant to. Conrad: Right. lemmings: They interviewed us all last time around didn't they? PLanning Commission Meeting November 7, 1990 - Page 37 Conrad: I think they did. They did F.,e because it was all new. O].sen: But when you reapplied they didn't? Conrad: I think they did. In fact I do like that idea. I think that's Yealt¥ a good exercise. If they have some. I just think that's a good exercise. It takes the burden off the peers and puts it onto the people who do the appointing and I think that's really appropriate. That's not to gel out of a burden but the fact of the matter is, it's real difficult to be real honest with peers and to do something that might be negative but ! think it's real appropriate that the City Council review people that have been here. Okay, so I'll call Annette. I'll call Don. We'll figure that out. and if that goes, if Annette is for sure not going to apply~ then we'll bring in anybody who wants to talk to us for an interview. Ah'tens: Paul, can you tell us again when our meetings are? I lost the letter you sent out. In December. Did you say the meetings? Olsen' There's just one. Earnings' It's right on here. December 12th. Ahrens' Oh, okay. Krauss: Well actually I should also tell you though that I want to schedule a meeting for the City Council to recieve and hopefully act on the Comprehensive Plan before the end of the year. I was talking to the Mayor this morning. It's probably going to have to be done on a special meeting basis because there is a potential that we still may have considerable numbers of people showing up. I think the Nay that that should be handled is that you need to be there to present the plan to the Council basically, Here's the work we've completed. We're here to answer questions. I'll certainly be there but you know, you've put 2 years of effort into this document and I think it warrants out of the extraordinary that's not just me carrying forward your recommendations but being there in body as well as spirit. So I don't know of the exact date for that but we're working on getting all these dates shaken out this week so we can tell you very Emmings' I think it makes sense for as many of us to be there as we can be. Conrad: Okay. We're back on staff report. Paul, item number 7. Rrauss: Yes. I told you Ladd at the last meeting about the rural area. policies that they're changing their perspective. The Metro Council, We are working up a written response to the Metro Council and we're also ~orking a response through our Southwest Communities Coalition. Basically we're supportive of the fact that the Metro Council is indicating flexibility which is something they rarely do. I'm not sure their flexibility is well focused at this point. I'm not certain that at this point, they've dealt well enough. They've come up with an idea called transition area. That's great. I mean we certainly are on the cusp of a, t.¥snsit, ion, I mean we are a transitionary outside the MUSA line as are Planning Commission Neeting November 7, Z990 - Page 38 many of the third and fourth ring communities but they don't talk about t.,..,hat that transition area is supposed to be very much and they don't deal ~.4it. h conflicts that say that you can't build a 4 lane highway through a transition area even if the traffic warrants it because Chaska's on the other side. They've created transition areas and now I think they have to deal t,Jith it so we're asking them to confront those sorts of things. I '~4il].. keep you informed of that and I think it's going to lead into some of the ~4ork tasks that we want to undertake. I know Tim has periodically talked about_, the minimum 2 ~/2 acre lot sizes in the rural areas. I think we've seen, whether or not it's a lifestyle we concur with or not, how much of a problem those subdivisions are to develop around and it may well behoove ,..~s to allow lot sizes down to 1 acre if you can accommodate the on site sewer so they get that same number o¢ houses. It's just compressed into a much more manageable area. But we'll be bringing this forward to you in probably the next month or two when we see how this shakes out. Con;--ad: Good. Anything Paul under Ongoiqg Items? Krauss: No. Conrad: Adminstrative Approvals? Open Discussion? I think Erhart is not here so we won't have his favorite, We'll wait for Tim to show. We talked about applications for the Planning Commission. Anything else? Satzli: Yeah, is our fees in lieu of parkland ordinance valid still? Krauss: Well, I think it is but I wanted that to go also to the Park Board and have them evaluate it. Sometimes the way in which it's calculated leaves us open I ~hink to contested situations but we've been consistent at any rate. The policy is fairly well established. In fact frankly, either ~4e've been doing something that's innovative in Minnesota for the last 15 years because nobody else is doing it or the rest of the country's way behind us because basically that's the way Minnesota communities do it. Batzli: I noted the new status, I think it's new, of the rezoning the DF district to A-2 on our status sheet. It's now scheduled. Conrad: Anything else? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~I1 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meetimg ~as adjourned at 10:00 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director P'repared by Nann Opheim