5 Approval of Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: So staff's okay with totally exposed basement that's used strictly for storage and would not count
that as a story?
Generous: No, that would still be for the principal use, the commercial use on the building or whatever.
For the retail operation is principal use of the building. It's almost redundant in this sense because you
wouldn't use it. Kate mentioned there might be instances where you have a crawl space and it's not
really usable space and it's not for the principal use and so that instance you wouldn't have.
Kind: How about in the case of underground parking, would that be considered a story? Because that's
not technically a basement but there could be exposed foundation.
Generous: Well how much of it is exposed and that's where the definition comes in to determine that.
Kind: And do you think the word basement is clear for underground parking? I'm wondering if
foundation might be a better word choice or.
Aanenson: Because I believe even if it's underground parking it counts as a story building code wise.
Kind: Just food for thought.
Blackowiak: Okay, other commissioners questions. Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Picky one. In the story wording, at the end there, 50% of the perimeter of
the building than. Then, not than. Right.
Kind: It should be then. '~
Sacchet: Okay, then. It's a typo.
Blackowiak: Okay, anything else? No? Okay, I have nothing. No comments at this point and no
questions. I'd like to open this item up for a public hearing. This item is open for a public hearing so
anybody wishing to speak on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and address
for the record. Seeing no one, I will close this item for public hearing. Commissioners, Uli why don't I
start with you. Do you have any comments?
Sacchet: I'm fine with the definition of those terms.
Slagle: As well.
Blackowiak: LuAnn.
Sidney: Ditto.
Claybaugh: No questions.
Kind: I'd like to change the language of story to clarify. I just think the term basement can be
misconstrued and I'd like to see the use of the word foundation instead. Otherwise I think it's swell.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: My only comment with that is where are you measuring on the foundation then for your H's
or your big H.
Aanenson: Yeah, foundation is an architectural and a building code definition too so I guess I'd want
some clarity on that.
Claybaugh: Yeah, they imply certain structure elements that don't pertain to the square footage. So
whether it's lower level, basement, I would think the UBC addresses that specifically in terms of
architectural definitions.
Kind: Madam Chair, just point of clarification. So are you saying that foundation is a good word choice
or not a good word choice?
Aanenson: My opinion it probably wouldn't be because it has a different meaning than basement.
Basement I think is more generic. Foundation has a narrower interpretation. I think basement would be
broader by the building code.
Kind: Because we're talking about just exposed foundation. We're not talking about the.
Aanenson: Basement has a height to it. Foundation is generally, footings and foundation.
Kind: Oh I see what you're saying.
Aanenson: When you get a footings and foundation, it's on the ground. It's a different meaning.
Sacchet: IfI may ask the question Madam Chair. Deb, are you concerned that we want to clarify that it's
the part that sticks above ground, right? '~
Kind: Yes.
Sacchet: I think what I hear you say, that's your concern. Whether it's foundation or basement, you
want to specify that's the piece that sticks out.
Kind: Exactly.
Sacchet: Maybe we can find a way to make that clear.
Kind: And I feel like people who have underground parking, I'm thinking of the apartments, the Lake
Susan Apartments. I don't think they would refer to that as the basement, but maybe definition you
would.
Sacchet: Lower level.
Aanenson: So what you're looking for is a definition, kind of in parenthesis, something behind basement
clarifying that.
Sacchet: Okay.
Aanenson: Is that correct?
Planning Commission Meeting-April 17, 2001
Sacchet: That's what I hear her saying.
Kind: That's my concern. Because I want to make sure that we prohibit really, or count as a story at
least, ifa lot is showing of the foundation wall or basement wall. Ifa lot of that is showing, it should
count as a story.
Sacchet: I would consider that a valid concern.
Blackowiak: So how do you think we could improve, could we improve this language then is my
question?
Kind: I would love to improve this language so we could pass this tonight. I don't want to table it for
this.
Blackowiak: I agree.
Kind: And my idea was to, I'll read off my idea and then we can discuss it and decide it should be the
motion or not. Would be to change the second sentence to read, or if there is no floor above it and the
space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Strike the end of that sentence and then start a new
sentence, if the exposed height of H of a foundation is more than 12 feet at any point, or if the foundation
height (h) is more than 6 feet for more than 50% of the perimeter of the building, then it is considered a
story. This definition refers to non-residential properties only.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I don't like foundation in there but could we say lower level?
Kind: Lower level? I like that. ~
Sacchet: I like your language except for the word foundation. Foundation to me is the concrete that the
building sits on.
Blackowiak: Footings.
Sacchet: It's not a floor or a story. Basement is more close to that but if we would say lower level, is
that a better term? It's certainly better than foundation as far as I'm concerned, but is it good enough?
Claybaugh: I have a question for staff.
Karlovich: If it has no floor above it then is it the lower level?
Aanenson: Right, that's my point.
Claybaugh: Is it easier to leave the language intact and just add parenthesis at the end, basement is
defined as.
Aanenson: Right, that's what I was recommending, or get a legal opinion from the attorney to make sure
that's it. If that's the concern, does basement include anything below, or certain amount exposed. Which
was our intent.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Well Deb, would you feel comfortable if we just moved along with that instruction
to get an opinion from the attomey to clarify that before it moves to City Council, or are we feeling a
need to.
Kind: Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I don't want to see this again.
Sacchet: IfI may add a comment. It's really two aspects I think that we need to define. Just defining
basement is not enough. I think we need to define basement that is above ground. I mean I think that
caveat needs to go in there. Whatever we define as basement. Do you understand what I mean? There
are two elements. The basement needs to be defined from a legal side, but then the part that is actually
above the ground is what matters.
Kind: In this case.
Sacchet: In this case.
Kind: But we could tackle that by leaving the language, if the exposed height (H) of a basement is more
than 12 feet at any point.
Aanenson: That's the purpose of the drawing, and maybe the drawing needs to'be enhanced.
Kind: No, I think the drawing is swell.
Aanenson: No but I'm saying you could also call that basement or label something else if that enhances
what the intent is. r
Kind: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Did you want to make a quickcomment? Would you come up to the microphone
please.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry, I should have spoken but I haven't seen this ordinance but if it's more than
12 feet at any point you need to clarify then that that wouldn't, that the portion where the doors are for
underground parking would not be considered because you have to have the doors, you may slope down
but they'll be exposed and it will be more than 12 feet. So just don't get caught in the trap.
Kind: You're right.
Sacchet: Good point.
Blackowiak: So.
Kind: And make an exception for garages for underground parking, it just seems so complex.
Aanenson: We're making this way.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. I think we just need to move it forward.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: The City Attorney did review these so, I understand where you're having a little bit of
ambiguity and maybe that can be enhanced by adding the word basement somewhere in the drawing or
another word that defines the space that we're trying to talk about.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well with that, can I get a motion.
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I move that we, the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of the following code amendments, as defined with the added that it's, then it is considered in
the story definition. And I would ask that staff puts a reference to the drawing. Kind of link the two
together a little clear, because the drawing does explain it. The language if we have hooked in the
language, that would be fine. That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council the following code amendments, (with clarification by the City Attorney of the term
basement):
Section 20-1 Definitions, add:
Body shop is an establishment primarily'engaged in the repair of auto bodies, automotive painting and
refinishing.
Standing Seam Roof is a deck roof consisting of flat metal joined by vertical or overlapping seams.
Story means that portion Of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the
floor next above it. Or if there is no floor above it,' then the space between the floor and the ceiling next
above it and including a basement used for the principal use. If the height (H) of the basement is more
than 12 feet at any point, of if the height (h) is more than 6 feet for more than 50 percent of the perimeter
of the building then it is considered a story. This definition refers to nonresidential properties only.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: This will go to City Council with our comments on the definition.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, WETLAND BUFFER
STRIPS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions? Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, real quick question. So the purpose is that we control the amount of
impervious surface. I mean that's how it says in your language. Now, we run into that before is a deck
impervious surface or not so basically we won't get into that swamp anymore? Deck is part of it and
that's that?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Generous: Well a deck is a structure and a structure must meet the setback.
Sacchet: Okay..Okay.
Generous: A playground equipment would be a structure. That would have to meet the.
Sacchet: Okay, even if it has holes for the water to go through.
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: I just want to make sure we're clear about that, thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions?
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I guess I should have looked in the code book but, like if somebody would
want to put in a volleyball court or something of that nature, an asphalt paved portion and by the buffer
strip, is that considered a structure or how do we address something like that?
Generous: They don't come to us for permits on that.
Aanenson: I don't believe that for the sand structure, sand blanket, something like that.
Sidney: Pardon?
_
Aanenson: I don't believe for a sand blanket you'd need a permit. You need a permit ify0U're putting 'in
a fence. A dog run. That sort of thing.
Sidney: Something like that would be okay to do?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: Really?
Blackowiak: I don't think I'm, you asked specifically asphalt. Paved.
Sidney: Definition of a structure.
Aanenson: This ordinance is addressing structure setback. We started going down the path of
impervious. This ordinance doesn't talk about this. This is strictly talking about accessory structures.
That's a separate issue.
Sidney: So structure is not, doesn't encompass then an asphalt, paved or anything like that? I guess I'm
trying to understand when you say structure.
Aanenson: No. No. I think the building code defines a structure as something over 2 feet in height or a
foot and a half in height or something.
Sidney: Oh okay, like a fence.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: You may need a permit because you're increasing your impervious surface but that's separate
from this topic right here.
Sidney: Okay, so it's more focused toward decks and sheds and things like that?
Aanenson: Correct. Swingsets, because we have that come up all the time. Someone wants to put,
we've had people that do batting cages in the buffer strip so there was ambiguity in the language
regarding what's a structure and what's a setback. What can and cannot be in the primary, secondary
setback. The buffer strip, excuse me and the setback. So that was the intent of trying to clarify this. It's
separate from the impervious calculation. But when a deck is attached to the house, it's considered part
of the principal structure and that must meet the setback.
Sidney: Does the city, or do we have any protection against like what I was saying, if somebody wants to
put asphalt right down into, no you're saying?
Aanenson: Well, then we would look at the impervious. The impervious. You know we've had people
that want to do woodchips and a batting cage or a dog run or something like that.., case by case basis.
Claybaugh: I guess what you're referencing is two different things. For the setback, that's pretty much a
stand alone requirement and depending on what they're putting in, they may or may not have to conform
to the hard cover requirements.
Aanenson: CorrecL
Claybaugh: So that's where the language for the impervious surface is, okay.
Blackowiak: Any further questions? Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like
to come and make comments about this item, please step up to the microphone and state your name and
address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, why don't we
start down at this end this time. Do you have any comments?
Karlovich: I don't have any comments on this one. It looks straight forward to me.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kind: Madam Chair, I do have one question I thought of as we were going along here. I looked up the
definition for accessory use or structure, and it says it means a use or structure subordinate and serving
the principal use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. If I had a
swing set, I'm not sure ifI would be allowed with that definition to put it in the buffer strip or not. I
guess I would have to assume no.
Aanenson: No. Not in the buffer.
Generous: And that's in the wetland setback.
Kind: I shouldn't say the buffer, I'm sorry. In the setback. In the wetland setback.
Generous: You can't encroach in that. That's an accessory structure.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: If you recall this discussion before, we went through and tried to decide what would be
acceptable. Would a swing set? But what if it had asphalt underneath? What if it had a rubber...
Kind: My recollection of the discussion was that some of us were okay with swing sets being in that
wetland setback. And so I'm trying to decide ifI agree with this ordinance the way it's written right
now.
Aanenson: But then the question came up back to batting cages. Again when you built one, there's just
dirt underneath it. Do you allow things if there's impervious?
Sacchet: If I may jump in. I like the fact that it's relatively clear. Once you start making an exception
for a swing set, it gets messy right away so there may be nothing wrong with a small swing set but is
something wrong with a real big one with all the different towers and things? I mean it just becomes a
mess right away so I'm leaning towards let's leave it crisp and go with it.
Kind: I agree. I think this is the clearest way. That's the only exception I can see and I think if we make
exceptions, then we're just going to muddy it up and I agree with the way staff has proposed it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments?
Ciaybaugh: I think it's acceptable as is.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sidney: Seems fine.
Sacchet: Let's do it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I'd like to hear a motion please.
Sidney: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the
following code amendment adding accessory structure to the setback requirements as shown in the
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated April 17, 2001.
Blackowiak: Airight, there's a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Karlovich: The only discussion I have is, I'm not sure if my swing set conforms with this or not.
Aanenson: You're non-conforming. Just don't expand.
Karlovich: Yeah, it's a pre-existing non-conformity.
Slagle: Jay, you'll report back to us won't you?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: What?
Slagle: You'll report back to us after you measure.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
following code amendment adding accessory structure to the setback requirements:
ARTICLE VI. Wetland Protection.
Section 20-406 Wetland buffer strips and setback (a)
Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Principaland 100' 40' measured 40'measured 0'
Accessory from the from the
Structure Setbacks outside edge outside edge
of the buffer of the buffer
strip strip
Buffer Strip 20-100'. 10-30' 0-20' 0'
Buffer Strip 50' 20' 10' 0'
Minimum Average
Width
% of Native Entire Entire Optional
Vegetation in Buffer
Strip
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Optional
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, OFF STREET PARKING.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions for staff?. I guess I just have one Bob. This 22 feet versus 24
and 26, can you have me any examples of recently where it may have made a difference in how things
were handled, or has it traditionally been 24 and 26 feet?
Generous: Well it's for the two way operations. It says if it's one way you can have a 22 foot aisle, but
if we had parking on both sides, you can't have a 22 foot aisle, even if it's one way. And so that's where
we were concerned that someone would come in and say well, there's a, I'm really constrained on my site
and this is the only way I can do it if I picked up that additional 4 feet of area. And so that's the purpose.
We were looking at, it was the Emplast building actually that came out and we were looking at it for that
one and we noticed that there was that issue.
10
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: So basically the 22 feet would not be an option anymore? It would have to be, the minimum
would be 24.
Generous: Well it is an option if you only have parking on one side and it's a one way drive.
Sacchet: That is still a possibility?
Generous: That's still in there in 1101.
Sacchet: Because I was wondering why with the 20 foot, why it came in in the first place but that is the
reason.
Generous: That's it. For one way operations you can go smaller, but if you allowed it on one way
operations with parking on both sides, then it's a little too cramped for the back out movements and
turning movements.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, did you have a question?
Slagle: Yes Madam Chair. Bob, on the first one requiring the stalls for handicap parking, since we are
now changing or leaving that with the State's recommendations or requirements, has that placed any sites
that we've approved, okay.
Generous: No, because we've required them to meet the State standards even though our's said 1 per 15.
Slagle: Okay. No other questions.
Blackowiak: Other questions? Alright, this item is open for, oh I'm sorry. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
Blackowiak: That's alright.
Kind: Bob, I never really looked at this until just now but 22 foot would be allowed if it was one way
traffic. Our aisles don't really account for one way traffic for a 90 degree situation. On that table. It
says 26 feet, and then it's got a double asterisk and then it says it may be 22 feet wide if there's no
parking spaces across the way. It's just a one sided situation. I'm wondering if we should have a double
asterisk say, if it's one way traffic you would be allowed to have the 22 foot.
Generous: Yeah, that's on page, well 1246 of the ordinance, Section 20-1101 has one way traffic and
business, a maximum of 22 foot driveway width.
Kind: So would it be conflicting with, on page 1248 if we changed the aisle width to 26 feet? Period,
and no asterisk, no nothing.
Generous: Well that's what, we're taking those asterisks out.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: I'm suggesting that if it's one way traffic we would allow 22 feet, and this table would be
conflicting and require them to have 26 feet.
Generous: No. --..they already have one side parking then we would permit that.
Kind: Or some how it's designated as one way. I mean do we ever designate 90 degree parking as one'
way?
Aanenson: No.
Generous: No, usuaIIy it's angled parking that we permit. Or would have one way.
Kind: So that's the assumption we're making is that it would not be one way situation with 90 degree
parking.
Blackowiak: Staff, are you comfortable with that then?
Generous: Yes. And the engineers actually do this one.
Blackowiak: Alright, I don't mean to put you on the spot but, okay. So we've had a public hearing. Any
other comments? Okay, I'd like to have a motion please.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council of the following two code amendments, delete the Section 20-1118(a) ** and the corresponding
note, and delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1)(f).
Kind: I'll second thai. -~
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council the following code amendments:
Delete Section 20-1118(a) "**" and the corresponding note.
Delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1)(0.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW, PUD AND HWY. 5 OVERLAY, REGARDING USE OF MATERIALS AND DESIGN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Any questions for staff?. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, how would you like to approach this?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Well I think there's a lot here and I personally have lots of notes so I think maybe we
should just give everyone a chance to make their comments and then maybe have a brief discussion. We
have to open for .public hearing too but let's just let everyone take their time and make any comments or
ask any questions they need to right now. And then we'll just kind of go on from there. See where it
leads.
Kind: I think the way I'll start is, give thumbs up to the concept of applying the Highway 5 overlay
district city wide. I like that idea and if the rest of the commission agrees, then I will get into my specific
comments about what I'd like to see tweaked in this plan. Does that make sense?
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Do you want me to start or do you want?
Blackowiak: I think so. I think we all have some comments. I think maybe you should just start and.
Kind: Just start? But what if everybody else doesn't like the overall idea? I'll be...that everybody likes
the overall idea.
Blackowiak: Well then they'll just have to state the reasons-whY.
Kind: Okay. Okay.
Blackowiak: Do you have any questions for Staff right now though?
Kind: Yes, I have many questions for staff. Under the purpose section, the Highway 5 corridor diStrict'
version had 4 items listed under purpose and the first one was protect.creek corridor,~ wetlands, e~c. What
was the reason that was left off of this version?
Aanenson: Most of the stuff going along the Highway 5 corridor probably also went through
subdivision. Certainly we could put that in.
Kind: It was not intentional to leave it off?.
Aanenson: Yeah. I felt that it was probably more in areas outside the core of the city, and because this
now applies to a lot of development within the core. I'm not sure that there's wetlands or, but it certainly
can be added back in. We could make it. Maybe some of the nature features of the community. Some of
the existing topography or word it that way so it's not specific just to wetlands.
Sacchet: If I may add something to this. I had the same question Deb, but then I realized that the third
paragraph under Intent covered somewhat the same stuff.
Aanenson: That's what I would say too Uli. It's kind of preservation of the natural conditions and that's
what we're looking at. Kind of the uniqueness of Chanhassen.
Kind: And you're right, the difference between purpose and intent can be kind of fuzzy sometimes so, I
liked it in the Highway 5 corridor. I noticed it was missing so I just was wondering if it was intentional
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
or what. Under the intent, is there a reason why we don't spell out at that point that these standards are
for commercial, industrial and office, institutional specifically?
Aanenson: I think that's probably appropriate, what our intent is.
Kind: I'm thinking it might make sense to do it early on in the document. In fact I'm wondering if the
title of the whole thing should be Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial, And Office
Institutional Developments. Just to make it really clear that we're not talking residential here. Just an
idea.
Another question. On page 2 of the design standards we talk about that idea that single family residential
lots are exempt from the standards. If I am a developer coming in with a multi family development, do I
need to.
Aanenson: That should also have been exempted. I originally had put that in but if you look at, most of
the ones that we do multi family, except for Powers Ridge, still has site plan review. You start looking at
the window percentage, you really are developing different standards when you start talking about 50%
transparency. It may make it. Some communities do do it that way. Brick, stucco, wood.
Kind: So it makes sense to add multi family and single family residential lots are exempt?
Aanenson: That's a discussion you should have is whether you want multi family in there. There may be
some people, you're going to affect affordability issues too so.
Kind: Okay. So we'll leave that up for that, but I was just wondering if that was intentional to leave that
out or not. And it was your intent to include multi family as being exempt.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Under let's see. In that same paragraph, this is on page 2 under district' applications. The first
paragraph. The sentence says single family residential lots are exempt from the design guidelines. I'm
wondering, just for consistency throughout this document if we should refer to it as the design standards.
Just so that we know what we're talking about throughout the document, because it comes up as design
guidelines some places. Design standards other places. I know it's a picky thing but I'd like to see it
used consistently throughout and it happens in other locations which when we get into the picky stuff I' 11
go over it. Oh, on page 3. The monotony of design under architectural styles/building character. The
second paragraph talks about monotony of design. In the Highway 5 corridor ordinance, district we had a
visual at that point, and I thought it was really helpful to have the visual. Were the visuals in this
document le~ out intentionally or were you going to put them in where they were before?
Aanenson: Well I think what I'd like to do is put actual buildings in Chanhassen that worked that are
good examples that would show that same, you could do a good and bad design, if that's. I guess I'm
looking for direction from you but I think if we show a good example of the relief of a building, ! think
that's better than a picture. This one has good and bad.
Sacchet: It'd be kind of tricky to have an actual picture.
Aanenson: We can show a bad from somewhere else.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: For what it's worth, I liked the visual. I thought it was really clear and helpful. At this point
Madam Chair I'm not going to over typos and things.
Biackowiak: Okay. You could maybe just submit those.
Kind: Yeah. Oh, question on page 5. We talk about material and detail and stucco is allowed as an
exterior finish. And then on the next page we state that EFIS, Exterior Insulating Finishing System may
only be used as an accent. Do you think that the term stucco and EFIS are used synonymously these
days?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: And we should clarify that?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Kind: Then on page 6, under the long, well that's not a long list but a short list of materials that may not
be used except for as, let's see. May not be used in any visible exterior application except when
specifically permitted by the city in areas without, with limited public view. And then there's a list. On
the Highway 5 version we had exterior brick that is painted over as something you could use and that's
not on this list. Was that deliberately left off?.
Aanenson: Yes. Yes. If you want to put it back in but that has some of some controversy. Again the
reason why we checked, we looked at what's not visible. We felt that if, if it's out of public view it
seems onerous, especially when you're looking at a large industrial building, and we've had this
discussion on some projects that come up. That it may not make a lot of sense to have the investment on
that side of the building in terms of the other. '~
Kind: But this allows for that. Because of your language, the following may not be used in visible
exterior applications except when specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view.
Aanenson: Right. So as they come forward and make their presentation...correct.
Kind: I guess I'd like to see the painted rock face block and brick and concrete panels put back in there
as a prohibited material.
Aanenson: The tilt up concrete panels would be prohibited if it's?
Kind: Oh no, painting it.
Aanenson: Oh, the unadorned plain or painted.
Kind: That's unadorned plain or painted concrete block. We could add, no. No, I would add as a
separate bullet that the following may not be used in any visible exterior application and I would add to
the bottom of that list painted concrete panels, painted rock face block, painted brick. Up for discussion.
And then Kate you touched a little bit on Section 20-1067 about height and roof design. That we may
want to consider a taller building in the central business district. What height would you recommend?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Well I guess what I would say is, leaving the height and roof design to the underlying zoning
district because that's really what's guiding you and leave it at that. The Highway 5 specifically said 30
or 40 feet so if you want to leave that in place, we could leave that because that's referenced in the
attached map, but otherwise I would just leave it with the underlying district and, every district I believe
except for the CBDG would be 40 feet. 3 stories. That's why.
Generous: In lOP.
Aanenson: In IOP, correct. Those would be the only ones so if you want the underlying district, except
the Highway 5 overlap district, which we have referenced so it's up to you. The problem is we have a lot
of IOP in the Highway 5 within that.
Kind: What's the rationale for the 3 story limit for?
Aanenson: If you go back and look in this document, there was some talk about topography and view
sheds and it was just a decision of looking at some slides and what the height. We haven't had a lot of
requests I don't believe. If we were to get a corporate user on the corner of 5 and 41, that may come up
at that point.
Kind: So it's not a fire department ladder reaching?
Aanenson: No. No, no.
Kind: Issue.
Aanenson'. That was it. Just aesthetic.
Kind: I'm sure I had more questions. Oh again on Section 20-1070, chis is on page 8. Franchise
architecture. The last sentence says franchises or national chains must follow these guidelines to create a
unique building sensitive to it's context. When I first read that I was looking for the guidelines, and I
think that's another example of where, if we use the words design standards or these design standards.
And there's other spots in here too but that's where it first came to my attention that it'd be nice to have a
common...
Aanenson: I think that's where a picture of Wendy's in too besides the...
Kind: And these next sections all had visuals in the Highway 5 section, which I liked. I mean they really
helped explain things to me so I'd like to see those put back in. The landscaping section, specifically
has, let's see it's 9 paragraphs. I'd like to see each of those numbered so that when we're referring to
ordinance we can refer to a number. A paragraph number and then the check. Put the visuals back in
there.
Aanenson: Yeah, and when it gets codified it will certainly, but that's a good point.
Kind: Oh and lighting. Was that somewhere where I couldn't find it in here? I noticed there was a
lighting section regarding site furnishings. Lighting in connection with site furnishings shall meet the
criteria applicable to the site landscaping buildings and signs. That's on top of page 8. And then there
was nothing else addressing lighting. In the city code book on page 1285, number 10, talks about
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
exterior lighting shall enhance the building design and adjoining landscape, etc. Is that paragraph in here
somewhere?
Aanenson: I left.that out because I think our new lighting standards, and maybe we could reference those
are actually better because since this was written we redid our lighting to require downcast lighting,
shielded lighting and we spent a lot of time reviewing that. I think that's actually a little bit stronger
language and if you wanted to incorporate that, I would recommend that. But I-guess where it was silent
you'd go back to the rest of the code book as far as standards. But that would be my recommendation.
Kind: Yeah, that makes sense. So good answer. And then the next section 20-1073, parking lot
location. Again I think it'd be nice to have each of those paragraphs labeled a, b, c, d as kind of
subsections of 1 and e I guess happens on the next page, just for future use in the code book. And that's
it. Oh, I do have one more question. The original memo addressed site plan review and PUD. I'm
concluding that staff is not recommending any changes to those sections to the code book?
Aanenson: Originally I was looking at just amending Chapter 20 but it was his recommendation to add
this division so it would apply to the districts you wanted to under supplementary regulations, and then
also the other approach would have been just to make the Highway 5 but it seems kind of, Highway 5
again addressed specifically. There were a lot of districts that, how do I want to say, included a lot of
districts within Highway 5. Every district and this again would be very specific, narrowing to the
commercial industrial districts.
Kind: Makes sense to me. And then I do have some minor typo kinds of things. Does that make sense
just to submit those?
Blackowiak: I would say just submit those. Photocopy your notes, that would probably be easier for
staffto follow. ~
Kind: That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm going to go to Uli next. He's been chomping at the bit over there.
Sacchet: This became very colorful... I will try to take a similar approach. Things like missing periods
and like that to an e-mail. First of all the recommendation that you're making is that we recommend
repealing the Highway 5 corridor district and pointing to design guidelines. I'd like to make that very
specific. I mean what we're repealing is the Article, what is it, 19, Highway Corridor District? That'd be
clearly identified what that is. And at the same time that we clearly identify what we are replacing it
with, which is that article of the 14, General Supplemental Regulations and so forth. That we spell that
out. Now I have a lot of questions but I want to preface it that I basically like what you did. I think it's
an improvement over what the highway corridor thing was. I mean a step in the right direction. However
I do have a fair amount of questions. There is a lot of fluff terms in there. Excuse the term, that is rather
subjective. I think that's okay in the purpose and the intent, and it's probably okay in the rest too but I'm
going to try to shake some of those. Like for instance page 3. The quality of design, the f'wst paragraph
in the first one. In a later part, designs are incompatible with the surroundings. Intentionally bizarre,
exotic. Well maybe bizarre, exotic is not that fluffy but what's incompatible? What's compatible? I
mean that's a very subjective thing. Quality of design. The start of the size, portion and placement part.
Designs and configurations that tend to catch and accumulate trash. I wanted to ask you, is that like
comers where the wind blows in?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Yes.
Sacchet: So then we actually try to have them stick out rather than stick in? These are easier to define
than the types like compatible. Quality.
Aanenson: I can only state that this ordinance is based on models that are used throughout the United
States and with the City Attorney's approval. It is very hard to be very specific and yet allow the
flexibility that you want because each project is unique as we see as they come through the process so I
can understand some of your concerns about that but.
Sacchet: Colors shall be harmonious?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's currently in the Highway 5 ordinance too.
Sacchet.' Let's look at some other things. I mean I'm at ease with it. I just think these are things that are
going to come up.
Blackowiak: Yeah well this is the time.
Sidney: May I make one comment Uli?
Sacchet: If you want to jump in there, yes.
Sidney: I guess when I look at it as Article 24 is it? I can't tell with my glasses here.
Blackowiak: 24 should be...
Sidney: 24, okay. And 'in the general sUpplemental regulations, I think we're looking at things very
broadly, am I.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: Yeah, so I don't know that we're getting into the definitions at this point.
Aanenson: No, but if there's something that you feel that needs to be defined, that there isn't again,
majority of this language is taken out of the Highway 5 and put in broad brush to it. Then also with that
we went back and said what specific things, looking at models of other communities didn't we have.
Again looking at articulation, we specifically said how many feel in the current, in the Highway 5
ordinance it says articulation, there's nothing about a minimum footprint or spacing between buildings.
A lot of other communities have that. Looking at :Chaska, Wayzata, they have a specific articulation and
they break it down between industrial. They even have 3 or 4 districts now. We were trying to keep this
as user friendly as possible because we could have done downtown and we wrestled with that internally
too. Do we want to just talk about a specific downtown district? Do we want to have different standards
for the industrial district? Again the Highway 5 encompassed a lot of different districts so we want to
take that same philosophical approach. So keeping it broad brush, but yet allowing for some of that
flexibility so in some areas they were specific.
Sidney: Now would it make sense, sorry I'm jumping in.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Sacchet: Go ahead LuAnn. I'll get it back.
Sidney: I guess I'm wondering in some cases would it be appropriate to site sections of code or do you
feel that that is getting too thick in?
Aanenson: Well the code is still there. Where it's silent you still have parking standards. You still have
within that district, these are supplementary so within the code you still have standards as far as the uses
that are allowed. The setback that's allowed. These again are supposed to enhance that by again talking
about embellishment of the design. And that's where we're going with that. So the two weave together.
The sign ordinance isn't addressed in here either. So again that stands by itself already.
Sidney: So we're giving a philosophy really to.
Aanenson: I would compare it to how we look at, with the residential district. There's supplementary
regulations. The supplementary regulations in the residential district says if you have a rambler it has to
be this many square feet. If you have a 2 story it has to be this many square feet. If you have.
Generous: Split entry.
Aanenson: Well I'm just thinking of some other supplementary regs that are in there. So it's additional,
if you have a porch or a deck, these are your side yard setbacks. It has additional standards besides
what's in there. So it would apply to all districts. So while yOu'd first go to yourdistrict if you're in the
neighborhood business, these are your uses, these are yOur setbacks. Okay, that's your starting point.
Then you would go to these, okay this is how high it can be but it's got to walk and talk like this. These
are some additional things they need to do. If that makes sense, - .
Sidney: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Uli, do you want to continue there?
Sacchet: Yeah, it's a tricky one and I don't think we can really settle this thing. Like for instance in' the
landscaping I have another really highlight. It says harmonious to the design of good appearance. Yeah,
of course we all want good appearance. We all want harmonious but what's harmonious to me might be
something totally different from what it is to somebody else. And I don't say you can't do this but I want
to make sure we do this consciously. We're aware of it and we're prepared to deal with that when there
come different interpretations. That's what I'm after. That's the fluff. Now a little more specific I have
a number of Highway 5 context that I'm a little concerned about. Like in even already the purpose in the
second paragraph it says throughout the corridor. This doesn't apply to a corridor anymore. You're
talking generally.
Aanenson: No, it should be taken out.
Sacchet: So it should not say through the corridor. Then in the second paragraph of intent it says of this
district. At the time this was written this was meaning the Highway 5 corridor district so I don't know if
the district still applies. Not really. Then in the 1, 2, 3, in the fourth paragraPh of the intent, also the last
word, entire corridor. So that's remnants of the Highway 5, '
Aanenson: It should be entire city is what those should say.
19
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah I think we need to make sure, and there are a couple more of those. Like on page 6,
height and roof design. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet in the Highway 5 corridor
district.
Aanenson: And that brings it as a point, because that's what it currently is and if you want it to remain
that way, and I did reference the Highway 5 map for that.
Sacchet: In other ways it shall be consistent as standards. So in that place it's actually on purpose that
you say Highway 5 corridor?
Aanenson: Correct. Unless you wanted to change it because I felt that that was a decision that was made
strongly that you.
Saechet: No that makes sense. I understand that. Okay. Then on top of page 8, with the appearance of
the highway in the vicinity. Is that a remnant from the Highway 5 part where we're talking about site
furnishings? I think that's probably not just in the vicinity of the highway.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Then the bottom of that page I was wondering, in addition they shall provide an inviting
and stable appearance from walking. I don't know.
Kind: For walking.
Sacchet: For walking, okay. My linguistic framework failed me there. Now where I really got confused
is with the parking location. In your original Highway 5 thing it was actually building orientation,
parking orientation. Parking location and building orientation. Now in, and I'm doubly confused. One
confusion in that section is that we first saying that Highway 5 corridor district. So we're still referring
to Highway, do we want that there?
Aanenson: Well I left it there specifically because those were standards unique to Highway 5 that people
felt strongly about is that being the main thread of the community that have a specific look. So I left that
standard in place.
Sacchet: So your intent is to have that specific...
Aanenson: That would be my recommendation, certainly whatever you.
Sacchet: Now, and then the other part where I got entangled is, we make the statement that this design
standard or guideline applies to all commercial, industrial and office institutional and then in here we're
talking about single family residential.
Aanenson: No, it's excluded. It wouldn't apply to single family.
Sacchet: Other than single family but then as we go through the paragraphs, it again is excluding other
than single family, okay. No new or existing single family, so that is actually just meaning it's not, but if
the whole thing is not residential do we still need to say that here in every paragraph?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: No. Again, that was in the Highway 5. It currently is in the Highway 5 standards regarding
parking location. The city ordinance reads you cannot have direct access onto a collector street. This is
a collector street so that was left in. While it doesn't apply, what the intent is is that you do not have
direct access onto a public street. So it's just carrying forward that same statement. The standards don't
apply. It just talks about a driveway and I'm not sure it's still applicable or not.
Sacchet: I didn't have an issue with what it says. It seems to clash with the context. And then my last
question, those 10 ingredients for a great city. Are they meant to be part of the ordinance?
Aanenson: No. That was just for discussion. Just kind of to get you thinking, not just, because some of
the discussion in the past has focused just on materials. We had a hold on that and my position is that
there's some other factors that go in place. That's location, design, articulation, that sort of thing.
Sacchet: Okay. Now and then my final question in the supplement piece, actually I think you wrote up
for council in January a year ago. You list for design control or design mitigating things. One is site
plan review. One is the PUD thing. One is the landscaping tree stuff and then the fourth one is the
highway corridor district aspect. So we're basically saying, what you're proposing is that we repeal the
fourth one, the highway corridor?
Aanenson: A portion of it.
Sacchet: A portion of it.
Aanenson:
It gets embedded into this, but correct.
Sacchet: What?
Aanenson: The height.
Sacchet: The other portion that we don't.
Aanenson: The height would still remain as it is at 40 feet or 3 stories. And then the other would be
parking location.
Sacchet: And that's in here also.
Aanenson: They'd still be embedded in here because those are some of the, I would say the core kind of
guiding principals of that, besides the, you know the materials.
Sacchet: So basically this new document would replace the highway corridor thing, so the whole
highway corridor piece comes out and this new guideline goes in and it includes those two aspects, the
parking and then the height piece. Still the way it was in the corridor. Okay. Well that was important to
me to understand what exactly we're repealing and what we are placing. I think that's it for now Madam
Chair. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, how about you? Do you have any questions for staff?.
Slagle: Couple of questions. Kate, if you'll allow me just a few questions more from a history
standpoint. When you showed the central business district, or the downtown area on the map, I noted in
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
my notes that there were some locations where we had setbacks where the buildings were located
towards the rear of the land with parking in front, especially Byerly's and then the two buildings or the
building next to Office Max. And in looking at this design standard that you're asking us to consider,
were those special circumstances where we deviated as a commission or a council away from those?
Aanenson: Well these standards weren't in place when that came in. When Byerly's came in there was a
lot of discussion on that because it had significant loading docks on the back side and so we pushed it in
the hill and made the decision. Certainly we've talked about warming up the corner, letting somebody
else come in because you don't have to travel across that large parking lot. As far as the Office Max and
the other retail building, the bank ended up setting back. It had to do with grades. We went through a lot
of discussion on that, different designs. Different iterations but based on the grades, it was impossible to
make that work. Bob spent a lot of time on that but it is steep right through there and if you look at, even
at the comer of Office Max you can see the changing grades through that building and that was the
transition problem. You had to meet a certain slope on the parking lot to make that work, so that was the
down side of that.
Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I had, which by the way I just think it's a great effort what
you've put forth, is landscaping and when we get into the design and recommendations under Section 20-
1072, and there again, just history for my own learning. But do we get into specific recommendations to
developers or those who are requesting to build on that site, landscaping plans that are detailed?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay, so it isn't just we're going to plant some evergreens along this corridor and god we hope
they're 6 feet and.
Aanenson: You will see that on, we have two site plans that are corfling forward in our next meeting.
The City Forester reviews those and gives recommendations based on where they're located, durability
and a street, with the salt tolerance, all that sort of stuff. And there's a mix of use. Again this
embellishes but the specific landscaping ordinance is still in place, and they have to call out types,
quantities and all that, and we do review that. And we often make recommendations for changing species
and locations for better screening. And I guess that's kind of what we're looking at too. Again, trying to
focus on that list here. It's not always materials. Sometimes you can, the building materials, but
sometimes through landscaping, again talking about when you don't, what is public view. What are the
things you can do to change the scale and the look of a building? Landscaping softens and I'm sure you
can see that driving through residential neighborhoods. People that have done landscaping. The change
it has. And so that's one of the other things that we're saying is an option to look at good design.
Slagle: Okay. That's all I had.
Blackowiak: LuAnn.
Sidney: I like the way this reads. I think we needed a general type of discussion on what we're looking
for in terms of design standards. Commissioner Kind did a good job in finding a number of points that I
agree with, but as Deb said, as some of the additions and comments, I had a couple that I'd like to add. I
guess on page 4 about articulation. I felt like I wanted to clarify that a bit more as to what the purpose is
and maybe staff can work with that. It sounded more like a code than.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 200 !
Aanenson: And that one is specific. And so was the materials that we called out. Those were very
specific.
Sidney: I guess to say something like, you know the reason for this is because we want to discourage or
prohibit large expanses of unadorned walls or something to that effect. Is that people understand and
don't want it.
Aanenson: Yeah, again that was an instance where that's what it said before and we tried to be more
specific looking at again Wayzata, Chaska, Minnetonka, and specific. And again in the commercial
district, a lot of it's 20 feet so that's why we put the range in there. We actually went out and looked at
some buildings and measured and then to see how that would reflect on what we've got in place and it
seems to work pretty well with what we've been approving. But again it's good to have a specific. But
so you're looking at more of an intent statement or purpose?
Sidney: Yeah, or some clarification as to why we're concerned about articulation. Not just calling out
numbers but explaining it a bit more.
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. LuAnn, where are you?
Sidney: Page 4, articulation.
Kind: Thank you.
Sidney: But other than that I guess, the only thing, and I guess this is up for debate about prohibited ·
materials. This is on page 6 1 believe. And this is a list that has EFIS called out. I guess I'd also like to
add besides unadorned plain and painted concrete block, unadorned painted, unadorned plain, let's see if
I can get this right. I should guess~ Plain poured concrete panels orpainted poured concrete panels,
something to that effect. Because block is one thing. Concrete block is one thing but then when you get
into these very broad.
Aanenson: Right. That's what we were trying to get with the tilt up panels. If you just have the ribbed.
Claybaugh: Cast in place.
Aanenson: Yeah, if they have, you can get them ribbed and you can get them varied in texture. So we
were trying to move from that but I guess, yeah. Tilt up concrete panels that are ribbed, plain, or.
Sidney: Okay. That would probably be a better way to approach that.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Craig, any questions?
Claybaugh: Yeah, just piggy back on what LuAnn had said. With respect to the tilt up panels, probably
also cast in place.
Kind: Prohibit?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Claybaugh: Yes, unadorned cast in place. Backing up to what Uli touched on. The compatibility issue
that's referenced in the report here, mine ends up being kind of a moving target depending on what the
adjacent properties are so, I just wanted to comment a little bit on the hierarchy of the between the
general conditions, supplemental and specific conditions so we better understand what those different
levels or stages of specificity apply and in terms of one superceding the other, in case there's a conflict
between the general and the supplemental, the supplemental being more specific would prevail and as
such the specific would prevail over supplemental and general so. Could you educate us on?
Aanenson: Well I think that's a good question and I think that's something that could be put in the intent
statement too. This is supposed to be, the general standards are in the code as far as parking,
landscaping. This is to supplement those in addition to.
Claybaugh: Right. Anytime you introduce something supplemental like that, it's implied that it's more
specific than anything general so just was wondering what the statement was in the city documents with
respect if there is any conflicts, that one is going to prevail over the other. Just like best effort, any time
drafting documents, in the first past through and either second and third draft. It's inherently difficult to
try and foresee all the different ramifications with every decision that you make, especially when you're
talking different stages of specificity.
Kind: Madam Chair, I think there's something in our code book, and I'm not sure if I can lay my fingers
on it, where it says that where there appears to be a conflict, a more restrictive rule applies.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Would that address your concern?
Claybaugh: It does but when you get in, if you have a supplemental~condition or standard that you're
identifying and it ends up being less restrictive than a general condition, the implication is that the
supplemental's intended to be more specific than the general so that in and of itself is a bit of a conflict
so, that's just something I want you to consider. See kind of where we landed on that and that there was
consistency that it was graduating and being more and more specific and I think that gets back to what
Uli was saying a little bit and also touches on what Deb was saying in terms of consistency. If we're
going to go from general to supplemental, then we need to be that much more specific. We don't want to
create a contradiction in something that's implied to be more specific. With respect to the different
standards, the only one that really caught my eye was the roof pitch. Establishing the minimum of 3' 12.
What building's do we have in town where we currently have a minimum roof pitch on it? 3:12 is
anything but aggressive and it doesn't strike me as terribly attractive.
Aanenson: Are you on page 6?
Claybaugh: That would be on page 4, on your roofi I'm sorry, page 6 under. I'm sorry, on your height
and roof design. Second paragraph. Second sentence. Pitched roofs should have a, yeah.
Aanenson: 1 to 4. One quarter rise.
Claybaugh: Yeah, a 1 in 4 rise of is a 3:12 pitch, so on a 3:12, I'm~iust wondering what buildings in town
that we had that we're looking at a 3:12 pitch. Anything outside of say a cap on a bay or something
along that.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: Awnings.
Claybaugh: Yeah, awnings and stuff like that...
Aanenson: Yeah, but that's still allowed. If it's a pitched roof, it doesn't prohibit a flat roof or other
type.
Claybaugh: No, I know it doesn't prohibit it. What it states is that it's a minimum. I was just
questioning that with respect to an overall roof, that a 3:12 roof is anything but attractive. Whereas I see
a flat roof with parapets or something that's a 5 or 6:12 pitch at a minimum from there so. The 3:12's
very weak.
Aanenson: Too flat?
Claybaugh: Yeah, exactly. One or the other. You're better off going flat with a parapet wall or going
with more aggressive pitch on the roof so.
Aanenson: Okay.
Claybaugh: That's the extent of my questions for staff.
Blackowiak: Okay. Jay.
Karlovich: I don't have any additional comments. I'd just like to defer to my fellow commission
members with a little bit more history and more building knowledge because I personally am a little bit
overwhelmed with the amount of information and past history on this one.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I'd like to just add a couple questions before we open it up for a public-hearing.
To start, we talked about repealing the Highway 5 corridor district and adopting the design, standards, or
guidelines or whatever they're going to be called. I would like to make sure we have the word in there -
concurrently so that it's happening simultaneously or at the same time so there's no type of a gap
between the time that something is repealed and something is adopted. I want to make sure that
something doesn't get repealed and something not put in it's place immediately. Onto district
applications, Section 20-1062 on page 2. We talk about commercial industrial and OI districts. We're
not talking about the BF, BG, is there a reason for that?
Aanenson: Those are all commercial.
Blackowiak: Those are all considered in the commercial.
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: So we don't need to specifically spell those out?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Section 20-1064, page 3. Size, portion and placement. Third section or third
paragraph within there. All buildings shall be located as close as possible to the building setback line,
and I assume that's to the front building setback line. Or which one is it if it's not the front?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Well we spent some time in that but it may be, if the building's oriented sideways, the front
door may not be on the front street. For example Office Max. For example Target. It depends, we have
to give some flexibility so that's, I struggle with that myself.
Blackowiak: To a building setback line or, I mean how do we, how can you?
Claybaugh: Wouldn't it be the principal or...
Aanenson: I would say principle or primary, that might be.
Claybaugh: Whatever's the primary.
Blackowiak: Okay. I can do that.
Aanenson: Or street frontage or something like that. Street frontage may be, or primary. Yeah.
Claybaugh: Like you said with Target or whatever, necessarily for them it'd be the side setback and
other's it'd be the front That could either be the side or the front but it'd be the prominent or principal
or primary.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Page 5, Section 20-1065. Material and detail. We've got the list of the
permissible materials and it doesn't tell us why we have this list in here. So how would you, I don't
know how we want to phrase that but are these the accepted materials or how, I mean how can we, what
are we trying to get across here?
Aanenson: You go back to page 5 at the beginning if you want to expand that intent statement. All man
made architectural, landscape, paving materials shall reflect the highest quality possible and should be
used in a manner acceptable to the nature of the material. That's general durability and expect a level of
use. So if it's in a high traffic area, it's something that's a discussion we had with EFIS before.
Sometimes when it's in a high traffic area, how it handles. Weathering characteristics, that sort of thing
so that was the intent. And if you wanted to expand on that, prohibited...
Blackowiak: Or do you want to say these materials meet those requirements? I'm just saying that there's
no reason why you have that list there. It doesn't tell us why that list is there.
Aanenson: These materials are acceptable.., is that what you're saying?
Blackowialc I mean yes. I need some...
Aanenson: Include, right
Blackowiak: Tell me why these are here and why we should look at those.
Aanenson: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Page 6, Section 20-1067. Back to the height and roof design. I'd just like to get
your feeling. Do you feel that we should leave 3 stories, 40 feet or what is staff's recommendation on
this?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: I don't know. I think if you go with the underlying district, we've already stated that those
work. I think I'm comfortable with the underlying district. The only issue I could see where it would
come up would be at the comer of 5 and 41. That's kind of the piece we've left out for a large, kind of
corporate office sort of thing. If someone was to go in taller there. If you had strong feelings about it's
imposition on that intersection.
Blackowiak: But wouldn't that come in for review?
Aanenson: It would allow it go higher. This is restricting it.
Blackowiak: Right, but could they ask for a variance or I mean what?
Aanenson: Certainly. Certainly.
Kind: But would they have a hardship?
Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Boy, I think that's it for my questions. I think everyone else covered
them. So this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to come before the Planning
Commission, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Vemelle Clayton: Hi, I'm Vemelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. Some new faces here. I
haven't been here for a while either but have been around for a while and I do bring, I think a different
point of view from what I've been hearing tonight. Although I'm not unsympathetic for the reason for
your enthusiasm for getting this underway and hopefully behind you. I've been through a lot of site
plans, from those that are getting TIF. Those that are in PUD and those that don't have any and I've
worked with staff, and we've wrestled with some of the same sorts of things. I like nice looking
buildings, but I also come down the side 0fthe argument which says; among other things, that that
government is best which governs least and that the city's role is to protect the rights of private property,
not usurp them. When we did the Highway 5 corridor overlay, and I don't know, was anybody involved
in that that's here? That was a horrendous task. People are still upset with the city regarding that.
You're laughing. You've talked with some of them. They hired attorneys. They met in smoked filled
rooms, although I think that probably was when smoking was allowed, but they had arguments over such
things as where they could sit in the room so they'd have a chance to talk. Some of the attorneys and
many of the landowners felt, and still fee, that they didn't have a chance for adequate input. That's not
of course the way the council feels that, that sat at that time. They felt that they gave, had a chance.
Now we're talking about repealing that and adding something more restrictive, not only to that area but
to all of the rest of the undeveloped area and in fact in a way that would impact anybody's building
should they change it from it's existing use, or change over a certain percentage of the building. Some of
the guidelines that are being suggested are vastly different from many of our buildings. For example in
10 years say the bank, which either any of our banks, so as not to be criticizing any one of them. Let's
assume that all 3, or all 4 of our banks are very nice looking buildings. We all know that some look
better than others and some are really nifty looking buildings. But if they came in in 10 years and wanted
to change it, change their building. Put a different face on it or add onto it, that's more likely. Maybe in
less time because everything's expanding. Now with that in mind, take a look at some of the restrictive
language in the covenants, such as the amount of glass, facing the street, the band along to define the
lower level. Some of those things would make those buildings look really awful. I am very glad that Bob
sent this to me. I really appreciate it. Before I'm done, I'm going to run through a few things and before
I'm done, what I am going to ask that you do is give sort of, perhaps discuss where you're going with this
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
from the perspective, maybe hopefully of some of the things I say, but then set it aside and have some
notices to the landowners that are affected. Explain to these owners of current buildings what exactly
this will mean, and maybe you'll change it so that it won't be quite so onerous but I do think that there
has to be a lot more exposure for this because this is far, vastly farther reaching than most of the changes
in the ordinance that we've been considering so far. So I read through first the memo that was sent out in
January of 2000, and I thought I was excited. I thought this is really nifty. We're getting at, We're going
to study, determine together what is the character of our community. It suggested that design standards
should reflect the character of our community. We talked about that in many different ways. Several
different, several comments talk about that. And it talks about the community as the work of many. And
says, refreshing things to people that might be wanting to spend less time in site plan review rather than
more such as, well we examine design review. It is important not to lose focus on the overall character of
the community. The right to regulate is not, oh wait. That's another comment that I wanted to make.
Tailored to a specific community's history, the type of location, you can expec, t great works of
architecture for every building. Be realistic. Does it follow the very few basic rules of urban design? If
so, grant the permit. So then, and it goes onto to say, well one of the things in the report that I guess I
disagreed with was that, there were apparently many but it says, suggested the right to regulate is
contained in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. I think rather the cases are tried against what's
stated in the Fifth Amendment and if you're allowed to regulate, it's because you're not in conflict with
the Fifth Amendment. It then comes to a point where it says, indeed design review has acquired a
negative image in some quarters due to ordinances and reviews that dwell upon superficial characteristics
of buildings such as materials and colors. This is "wallpaper" approach to design review. Just make it
pretty and does not address more fundamental issues. I love the wallpaper comment.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: That's great. And then it goes on and lists some things that are basic design review
and then aesthetic control. I think under aesthetic control is where you get so much negative feedback on
why should they tell me whether it should be blue or green or if I should have my door here or there.
We're trying to overcome your town. The next thing was then that in, as I was reading through this is
then there's some excerpts on some things, some standards that have been set by other communities and I
was also encouraged there because while it listed some neighboring areas, which is reasonable. What do
our neighbors have, it also listed some really neat communities like Wayzata, downtown Chaska,
Northfield downtown. Areas where there was a perceived cohesive and intended image. Which harkens
back then to I think we'd better try to really focus and define what is the image that we have here in
Chan? But then the next report, it seemed to be a little bit of a disconnect in my mind because having
said all of those things and set the stage, we now come forth with removing the Highway 5 corridor
district, which is fine. And writing a whole new one with much wallpapering, if you get my drift. I
guess in, and I'll just mention a few areas here where there are some specific concerns, and I guess in my
mind I'm having a hard time feeling comfortable with an overall design standard that fits office
warehouse and our downtown. There's so many differences. But so barging ahead then, looking at for
example entries and you use the Ridgeview building as a picture, and that's a good example to use
because that building works with articulated entries on the street because it's an office. But if it were
retail it wouldn't work. The owner just brought that to our attention. I'll explain why that is but he's
really concerned if there were a couple tenants to leave, he'd be hard, in kind of a hard spot because he
can't convert it to retail. The reason that specifically identified and described entries doesn't work for
retail is basically for every successful retail building that you have, multi-tenant retail building, which is
most of our buildings, the windows and the doors are interchangeable. For one tenant you have a door
here. That tenant moves out and needs more space and now he wants a door in a different place. We've
moved doors and windows 3 times at Market Square and that was just built in 1992. But it was
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
specifically designed so that every window pane was the same width as a door so what you do is put the
concrete block on the bottom of the door. Put a window in. Take a window out over here and put the
door in and now you've got a door for the tenant where they want it. Radio Shack wanted a door in a
different place from that which was what Crossroads wanted for example. So just watch for that. I mean
that's a part that doesn't fit and you need to, I think we're doing, I think that talking about architectural
articulation, describing it as that and not being quite so specific as to what exactly will work and leave
the design to the architects is a better approach. Articulation, I had lots of thoughts on that but suffice to
say, watch out for the mass of the building. Sometimes 1 every 40 feet would be too little and sometimes
it would be too much. If you have for example, on that comer that Kate was referring to a very large
building. I don't think you want something occurring on that building every 40 feet. This ground level
of any multi story structure should be visually distinct from the upper stories. I saw in the Northfield
one, you know what is really the ground level? What is the mass of the building? How does that work?
Again I think that's wallpaper. Would siding of no greater than 7 inches? I get nervous every time I see
something this specific. I know where you're going with the 7 inches. I know it's...to have the wide
siding but 10 years from now it might be the cat's meow. The specific materials, I would strongly
encourage you to use some language that used to appear now, or will if this was passed, is in the
Highway 5 corridor where you have or equivalent. One of the things that we can assume to be absolutely
true is that people will continue to create new and better materials and it would be nice if we could use
them. There's a new material on the market now that is very attractive, or from what I've seen on that
new building out in Eden Prairie. I forget what that's called. I keep, I just totally forgot between
yesterday and today what it's called. But it looks very nice. It's kind of basically a concrete material.
You talked about the fact that EFIS was not listed on that not permitted column and you said it was used
more or less interchangeably with stucco. What was the answer? Is it or isn't it used? Is it permitted? Is
it your recommendation that it not be permitted?
Generous: As a primary.
Aanenson: As a primary.
Yemelle Clayton: Well, let me suggest that lately while we tend to get in our office an awful lot of
comments on basically what Chanhassen looks like in general, we also get comments on specific
buildings and until a few years ago the operative word was charming. That Chanhassen downtown was
really charming. We don't hear that quite as much with the addition of the western end of downtown.
But here is a building now that we're hearing all the time what a great looking building. This is a
brochure that Anderson Windows prepares. They choose only 4 buildings that they've supplied windows
for and prepare these brochures and from all over the country and Bookoo Bikes was one of them so Ed
is very proud of that. But if you take a look at this building, this is an EFIS building. So I think you
need to think about whether or not you really want to preclude EFIS. We have other EFIS buildings in
town too. They're, let's go back to the bank thing again. If Americana Bank wanted to add on, would
they have to change their exterior of their entire building or not? So all of these things are the pitfalls
that you fall into when you get too specific and I'm sympathetic with your job but boy when you can be
general, it's much better. Height and roof design, there again if we're doing standards that include
downtown, this is affording us all a great opportunity and guess what? Even though we still have some
areas that don't have buildings and we just finished building a few buildings, we're very close to getting
to the point of redevelopment and in redevelopment, in tearing down older buildings, now we have to
think about density. Once we fill in our area that's defined as our downtown, the only thing we can do to
make our downtown more successful, and one of the things that's important to the success of downtown
is having a lot of people around it. That's what the Southwest Metro wants. That's what the retailers
want. That's what all the people at the conferences are saying. The only thing we can do then is build
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
up. So think about why really are we limiting the heights and where should we limiting them? Height
and roof design. Each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. And then it talks about
the 1 to 4. Flat roofs should be defined with an ornamental parapet or cornice. Now here's a great
opportunity to answer some questions that I've had. We say that we require pitched roofs, but we build
flat roofed buildings. We require pitched roofs from some people, others we don't and here it says you
can't have one or more elements of pitched, but then it says flat roofs should be defined with ornamental
parapets. To me there's a conflict in those two sentences being contained in the same paragraph that's
attempting to define what we do with our roof looks. Fagade transparency. 50% of the elevation shall
be, viewed by the public shall be designed here to include transparent windows. You're going to get to
one of my pet peeves here in solving that I'm sure. I don't have to talk about that right now but fake
windows are one of my pet peeves. If we have, fake windows particularly, I'll just pass this along. In
restaurants are something that should not be done. It makes the restaurant look dead and a restaurant
needs for success to look lively. And first floor fake windows look like Disneyland, but anyhow. Now
let's take back to, it's 10 years from now and St. Hubert's wants to add on. Or we have a new church
that wants to build a church like St. Hubert's, this is right up to the street. Not a single window. So
again it's tough. I know how nice a lot of windows look, but we can't, we have to see the whole picture.
I don't know why this building is in here and I hope that either I've talked so long that the space is out
now for our time slot and I hope, or I hope this building isn't watching, but this is just an abomination
what.was done to the front of this building. And this could reoccur over and over under your guidelines.
Now that's subjective. You may disagree with me. You may think it's wonderful, but we're suggesting
things here on the basis of an .assumption that it's going to look good. Franchise architecture. Don't
believe that all franchise architecture is bad, and don't believe that all franchisors come in with their first
shot. Now how do you define what is their franchise architecture? Is it what they bring you first or is it
what they bring you last, as in the case of Wendy's? It's still Wendy's. It's still franchise architecture.
And why should we offend all of the people who invest in franchises and so that means all the franchisee
and franchisors that want to come here, many of whom have very good looking buildings. Here is one of
our best citizens in tOWn from the perspective of having built several hundred thousand square feet of
buildings here and paying, and will be as soon as they're fully assessed, an awful lot of taxes to our city.
This is a franchisor. He's also a franchisee. He has Americlnn and he has Houlihan's and he, an
individual, we think this is great. Two of our newest businesses in town made the front page of the
Business Section. I don't know that we want to offend them like that, and I don't know what's so bad
with some of what they do. So I think we need to think about that. Landscaping, somewhere in here
there was an example of what you do and don't do on landscaping. That changes with the tides of public
opinion as well. It used to be they clustered some things together. Now for the downtown look, the
traditional look, we do it like gramma did. Rows of trees. Maybe diamonds or something but in rows
spaced every few feet methodically so that it has that particular look, but that's one of the things in here
somewhere that said shouldn't be done. On the parking, I'll lump that together and try to be done here.
On the parking and the setback and where you have retail, we have a commitment in our PUD at Village
on the Ponds to have the retail up to the street. I can't tell you what a battle we're having with the people
who are telling us, are going to be going after the national tenants. They want the parking in front of
their door. You know from our experience how difficult it is as well and I would suggest that it would
not be appropriate to insist that a retail establishment have, be required to have their doors at the front
door if, at the front sidewalk along the street unless there's parking on the street. For a couple of reasons.
They can't afford to have, and neither are their places designed to have entrances at both the front and the
back. There's shoplifting if they have it at the front and the people come in the back and vice versa and
they aren't set up with cash registers at both ends. And secondly, and that gets to my other point here on
the parking lot guidelines. Now this is a copy from a 1993, I think it says 1993, a while ago, and before
all of the studies as to how it is that people will walk along the street. People only want to walk along the
sidewalk ora street if there is a row of parking to protect them and it's best if it's head in parking, but it's
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
okay, better than nothing if it's parallel parking. And this is a relatively new sort of thing but these are
Andre Duwane and so forth have done for the nco-traditional. People maybe want to argue with that but
that's what's being said. That's what we're being told. They only want to walk 300 feet and they want
that protection. $o you know I think this needs more work and it needs more input. I think, the staff is
doing what they, everybody wants to have a set of guidelines so that something comes in for review, they
say you met this. You didn't meet this. Go back and finish this and you're fine and be sure to go through
and you can look at it and say gee, you met all of our guidelines, but design is very subjective. I think it
needs to be general and I think you need to let the landowners and property owners know what you're
doing and what the impact is on their property. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you Vernelle. Is there anyone else who would like to speak regarding this item?
Okay, then I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments, now's the time.
Uli why don't I start with you.
Saeehet: Well it was very interesting Vernelle, thanks for the input. Definitely because it's important to
be careful and be aware of who are we actually affecting. Now I was coming from the understanding that
really the content, the way I compared it with what the Highway 5 overlay was and what these are, the
content didn't really change except some small stuff. Now maybe I missed something there. I actually
went through and pretty much almost word for word tried to paral, tried to see what went where and it
seemed like some of it was actually condensed. Some of it was a little altered but I didn't get the
impression that the contents was significantly changed. So on that basis I wasn't exactly...the same
concern that you did Vernelle because it seemed to me that we were basically taking what's in place and
put it slightly in a different phrase or shift the necessary alteration in context. I think what's very
important, and you pointed that out very well Vernelle, and I think that was clearly stated in the intent in
terms of that study that was passed in City Council a year ago, that what we are trying to put in place is
not an aesthetic control but a design review aspect. And in that context if we go back and forth between
the terms standard and guideline but I personally prefer the term guideline. Because it acts in a little bit'
more the aspect that we're trying out the framework,-but we're not trying to... We'renot trying to play -
control thing, but we're trying to have sOme guidelines. Some framework. Again, I mean some of the
things you brought up Vernelle actually emphasize my initial concerns ab°ut what I call the fluff terms. I
mean somebody might think something is a great building. Somebody else might think it's an
abomination. I mean it's that's what we all... Now personally I feel comfortable moving forward with
the direction we have. I don't know whether we can actually nail it down and clearly conclude it tonight
because we brought up a lot of things. I know Deb has some punctuation things and I do too. So I would
think that considering the amount of things that we discussed, things that we want to fine tune and some
wording and some more specificity, and at the same time also make sure that what we're doing is
sufficiently made public that the people that could potentially be affected by this get to know about that.
So that maybe there are more people like Vernelle that would want to be heard in this context, I would
like those people to have an opportunity to do so. Personally, just speaking for myself, I do like the idea
of having a defined framework. I grew up in the Swiss Alps. There's one house that's allowed and that's
called a chalet and a house that is not a chalet cannot be built. Now it can be a big chalet with 3 stories.
It can be a small chalet with 1 story but it has to be a chalet. There's no discussion, and you can say well
that's terrible. What ifI want to build a square house? How about flat roof house? Well can't do it
there. And then people are proud because they have the character. They live in a place and everything is
a chalet and it gives it character so I do think that we do have a reasonable balance in front of us with
these guidelines as long as we emphasize they are guidelines and approach it in that context. That's my
comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: Madam Chair, I would just throw out, I almost feel like Jay has commented earlier. It's a little
overwhelming given the tenure time I've been on this commission but I would say that I believe that it
sounds like at least that they're valid concerns and I would just have a question to ask of staff. Have
there been discussions, the pros and cons of what has at least been brought up tonight? I assume there
have been internal, the pros and cons of this design.
Aanenson: This has been batted around for.
Slagle: A year or so? Or years?
Aanenson: 10 years since I've been here, and I can give you examples specifically citing each specific,
you know for example franchise architecture. Famous Dave's came into the community. We wouldn't
accept this crooked smokestack. We just wouldn't accept it so we went back, and while that is a
franchise architecture, and this goes back to the character of Chanhassen. We wanted to reflect more of
Chanhassen. Now what they would build in another community. If you look at the one in Minnetonka, it
looked different than some of the other ones. So while it is franchise, we want it to also reflect, so that's
the intent. And maybe we need to be adding a little bit, embellishing the language to be clearer what
we're saying...so it happens. Again trying to make a different look so we'd be happy to work with some
of that language but we're aware of the discussions that are out there and we did also, tO clarify, besides
sending it to Vernelle, because certainly they have a vested interest. We did send it out to some other
developers in town to get some feedback but we certainly recognize that we want to get input on this. It's
been a dialogue that's been going on for a long time.
Slagle: And I guess I would just encourage that input from multiple sources, but I'd also like to see what
some of that input is. If that can be included in notes from developers and what not. That's about it.
.,
Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn.
Sidney: I agree with the intent and going forward and I took notes on Vernelle's comments and I guess at
some point I'd like to go through the design standards and really look for differences that might appear
between how we treat office industrial and commercial retail. Vernelle really brought up some good
points, especially about entries which are applicable to which kind of building.
Aanenson: Pardon me, the which?
Sidney: Entries, for example but there must be other aspects. There might be concerns.
Aanenson: Sure. Sure. I've put together numerous slides in trying to, but I think if we want to spend
some time doing that we can show you how. We looked at that and why we ended up putting them all
into one and why we think it makes sense instead of having 3 or 4 different layers. Again, taking the
approach that you're saying is trying to make it generic in the sense that it works for everybody but yet
adding some specificity. I think if you look again, it is very similar to the Highway 5. There were a few
areas that we always felt we were missing and we'll go back and show you that and it may take 2 or 3
more times before we get it fine tuned.
Sidney: Yeah and I guess that brings up a point and I was a little bit remised in wanting to suggest this
but I guess in some of these cases, and certainly we've been going through this, considerate to the
process as many, many times, but I almost feel like it might be appropriate to go back into a work session
32
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
concerning this because you know we're here and we have a public hearing but we're still doing what I
would consider more of a work session kind of dialogue. And I wonder if it would be more appropriate
to have that kind of session to discussion this, since this is such a massive issue.
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be comfortable with that.
Sidney: I'd submit that to the Chair for consideration.
Blackowiak: Any other comments?
Sidney: That's it.
Blackowiak: Jay. Anything you'd like to add?
Karlovich: The main thing that I would like to add is that, I just want to go back to the Swiss Alps. I
thought that was... I have a house with aluminum siding on 3 sides and I think it's terrible compared to
the Swiss Alps. Maybe it can all be simplified if everything was a chalet. I think you'd have some real
character but no, at this stage I think I'm still in a learning mode and I don't have any additional
comments besides humor but the Swiss Alps I thought were beautiful.
BlackOwiak: Deb.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I definitely think we need to table this item this evening. And direct staff to
address some of the concerns that have been brought up by the fellow commissioners and earlier this
evening. I would like to add to the list that staff research and make recommendations regarding height,
building height. Specifically consider increasing the height in the central business district. And give
rationale for why the height is the way it is in other business districts as well. Also I am intrigued by
considering locating parking in front of the businesses. I'm not talking about massive parking but maybe
allowing one row of parking. Something like that. Along Target we have one row of parking. Along
Office Max we do too.
Aanenson: Two rows.
Kind: And I think that comes under the heading of let's get realistic about what people want. And I
would like to see something about that addressed in this. And then when this comes back to the Planning
Commission I think we need to notify current business owners in Chanhassen. And I agree with LuAnn's
suggestion, maybe the next time we take a look at this is a work session. Get it a little closer to the way
we want it to be before we bring it back for I think another public hearing.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I thought the most poignant thing that you brought up was the or equal statement.
There's a lot of things out there. A lot of different ways of looking at old things and putting them
together in different patterns and such that they can look very different so, in an effort not to pin
ourselves in a comer, I think that's paramount to whenever that can be inserted. Certainly it's very
difficult when you come in with a one size fits all approach, and I know that's not your intention but it is
to try and bring some parameters to the process so it's a little bit more manageable. And there's always
going to be exceptions, and that's a difficult aspect of it to address. I think the premise is good in trying
to establish those parameters but I think it's also important that there is some language incorporated in it
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
that allows some degree of flexibility without people having to come in and go for a variance and
ultimately prove a hardship in order to accomplish that. I'd like to see something inbetween that. I think
the one size fits all and having to prove a hardship and nothing inbetween on something as broad as this
is too comprehensive at best. I agree with Uli that at least at this juncture, and I'm not any different than
some of the other newer commissioners. This is only my second meeting but I tend to identify better
with guidelines than standards and there may be an argument that you could justify the use of standards
and if that's the case I'd certainly be interested in hearing that but again, when you're coming in with a
broad brush like that, I think that's an important distinction. Like the nuances between those two words,
standards and guidelines is, it sends an important message. There isn't necessarily any order to my notes.
The point on public discussions, I think that's paramount. Specifically because you did say it's been
kicked around for 10 years. People tend to turn a deaf ear when something's been around that long. I
think that it certainly needs to be brought to closure and I understand why it's being pursued and agree
that it's very necessary but I think it's imperative that after that amount of time and that degree of
discussion in different groups over those years, that it's important that the notice does go out that this is
the definitive meeting or this is the definitive workshop so people have had adequate notice to try to
mitigate some of those complaints that basically was snuck in through the back door. I guess I disagree
in part with some of your comments with respect to the specificity. I think on some level that we have an
obligation to develop, or as architects to give them an idea of what is and isn't going to be acceptable.
There's nothing more frustrating than going through 80% design and submitting that and have it
completely red lined and sent back. And basically start from scratch. I think that people need to have
some idea and some vehicle to research what's going to be required. Now that being said, it's very
important in how that language is presented. That it isn't completely restrictive but, and it encourages
creativity so on and so forth, but doesn't out and out restrict things that have some room for promise.
There's some things that I agree that should be prohibited and stated as such, and there's other things that
need to find again between that far left and far right some language that invites the creativity but doesn't
open the door to it if they don't pass a certain, can't meet the acid test. The parking, again my mind set is
more towards the split along the lines of what Deb said. I think that'a certain allotment needs to be put to
convenience. I mean that's pretty much what drives the marketplace'right now. That it shouldn't, I agree
that we don't necessarily want to position the buildings with respect to setbacks and the rest of it that just
completely cater to the 100% of the parking. Due to the appearance that it gives but I think there's a
certain allotment of parking stalls that need to be accommodated for reasonable amount of traffic where
people can have good access and that it's an inviting parking stall and an entry into that building. So
again it's not a far left or a far right solution. I think that there's certain guidelines and then once you get
past, outside of those parameters and guidelines, that there needs to be some flexibility in being able to
take a look and entertain what the use of the business is. What makes sense for the parking? What the
orientation is to the other buildings? To the street, so on and so forth. So again I agree with the broad
brush but it can only go so far and then we need to watch the language that we're putting there and I
think that we do want to have some degree of consideration I'll say rather than control about what's
going to go in. What it's going to look like and how it's going to fit with the adjacent buildings with
respect to compatibility, but I also agree that we don't want that language to be so restrictive that we
painted ourselves in a comer and then we're back reinventing the process every time somebody comes in
and we want to be able to help them so. I'm going to wrap up here. The EFIS or the stucco, I guess I
don't know where you came down on that. I definitely draw a distinction between the two. All you need
to do is subscribe to Walls and Ceilings and find out the amount of lawsuits that are going on around the
country specifically with retailers and you'll never call them the same again. So with it being an accent,
I'm in favor of that unless if they wanted to entertain EFIS. EFIS is a fantastic product but you've got to
have the right installer, and you've got to have the right drainage process and substrate in place so either
you do after drafting specific guidelines about who you're going to let put it up and how they're going to
install it, or you prohibit it. So that's your two choices. Now with respect to buildings like the banks that
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
you referenced, they can certainly do a tie in in the future with two coats of stucco and you're not going
to see the difference, and you're still allowing it with it to be an accent up to 15%. So you can still
achieve the architecture details in a cost effective fashion and that's what EFIS brings to the market. And
still accomplish the primary exterior with stucco, if that ends up being the case but again that's not an
either or but if it is EFIS, then there's certain things, guidelines that need to be put in place, or safeguards
I'll say. They need to be put in place so, it's a baby bath water type of thing. It gets a bad name and it's
a good product, and it's done some horrendous things. All you need to do is go to Las Vegas to see that.
It's incredible what they've done. But there's also a ton of horror stories out there so, it's again it's not a
far left, a far right. We just need to be informed about the decisions that we're making and provide for
the pitfalls so, that's the extent of my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well Kate I think we've given you a lot to mull over. LuAnn did suggest a work
session. Do we have one on the schedule in the near future?
Aanenson: Otherwise we can move to like an open discussion part of the meeting too. The May 1st
meeting is a full agenda, and we'd probably have to look at the second one in May. I'll have to see when
we get the... We do have slides of pretty much every building in the city so what I'd like to do is back
up, show you how we got to this point and we can do some of that and some of the problems. How this
has come about. Again, this was directed to the staff because of some ambiguities already in the
ordinance that are definition. What we're struggling trying to say, what does this mean? That's how we
got to this point over the last few years so, we'll go through that discussion with you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, do you have another question?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have one more question. You said you put out to a number of developers and
realtors in the area. Typically I kind of gravitate towards the 80/20 rule. I would expect that probably
80% of the comments can fit into 20% of the categories. What information have you compiled in terms
of categorically what kind of things are coming back?
Aanenson: Well we haven't gotten any comments back. Over the period of time the biggest'discussion
has always been, and when we've looked at this has been, if we required all brick, because there's always
been a discussion about all brick. Staff has always been against it and that goes back to my wallpaper
comment. I mean just getting brick doesn't mean you get a better building. Some communities have
that, for example Eden Prairie. Well, we can all differ on that, right. Well again, I'd ask you to go look
at the difference between the Chaska and the Minnetonka Target. One has brick, one doesn't. Then the
other one is windows. Those are, have been an ongoing, orientation, amount of windows. Again, there's
fake windows on the Americlnn. There's fake windows on Houlihan's. That's always been a discussion
as far as the staff's concern. How do you get articulation and windows has always been an important
thing that we felt gives a different look to the building so, we kind of know those are two hot buttons.
Sometimes color.
Claybaugh: Well I think the comments with respect to relief, depth perception, offsets, jutting.
Aanenson: Right, so we'll go through all those slides. I think that will be helpful for you to see some of
what's working. We didn't even talk about like Applebee's, which is all brick.
Blackowiak: Kate one more comment. We were talking about noticing people, maybe we could send out
meeting notices to Highway 5 corridor people. Is that too much? Is that overkill or? I know we've given
you a lot to think about.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: I think I'd like to strategize that. I don't remember those same smoky meetings myself since I
was involved. Don't remember that same thing. As a matter of fact, Eckankar came through with their
office buildings under the Highway 5 standards. I think it went through very smooth. As a matter of
fact, they came back. We had a different orientation. The Planning Commission approved something
else. They wanted to come back and make a couple minor changes. I don't see it as being so onerous on
anybody that we've had a lot of problems with the Highway 5 overlay district myself. I'm not sure where
we had a big rub with that. We can certainly do it. I mean I guess I'd have...
Blackowiak: Well it has been published in the paper so I mean.
Aanenson: Yep. No, I think there's an obligation to get more input, certainly. And we intend to do that,
especially with repealing, but I can strategize individual notices.
Blackowiak: Right, okay. Well I guess what I'm asking for is some direction. Do we want to do it in a,
you know do we want to wait for a while and send this notice out or when are we going to see this again
because I'm certainly not comfortable with moving forward on anything tonight.
Aanenson: I think what I'd like to do is put it through a work session, or open discussion, depending on.
I don't know if I can block out a whole meeting. Then get some better direction of where we're headed
and then be able to give somebody a draft. Another draft.
Blackowiak: Alright, that sounds good. Uli.
Sacchet: Would that work type session or disCussion, would that possibly lend itself to inviting people
other than us here? I mean like people like Vernelle. People that have a particular interest and maybe
have had an involvement in this in the past? I just wondered. ~
Blackowiak: Well unless we just want to have a work session to hash out more of what we're looking for
and then have another public hearing.
Aanenson: Let's go back and look at the format of the Highway 5 corridor study. That was a group
specifically put together with a cross section representing different constituencies. Okay, so you have a
smaller management group. If you were to send out notices to a couple hundred people, how do you
manage that? Generally in the past we've tried to get someone from the Chamber. You know we sent
this to a person that does a lot of industrial in the community. Tried to look at those sort of businesses.
You know so there's a lot of different ways to strategize that. I guess I'd like to give that some thought.
Blackowiak: Okay, well why don't you give us your thought. Craig, did you have another comment?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I didn't know if you had post notice to like the Board of Realtors or realtors
association and things. Certain entities and I think it's kind of hard to select who's going to get
specifically notified and who doesn't. People that don't, there's always going to be somebody that isn't
happy. The other thing if there was a future work session to be planned around that. The need to bring
closure. I've been involved in a fair number of them without a specific agenda and some very definite
parameters in terms of what's going to be discussed, and closing the door behind you, they tend to
mushroom more than they bring closure to anything. So I think it'd be important to back up and get some
of those specific comments that are coming in so we have an opportunity to prepare for those in advance
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
of that work session. And then try to do it in a fashion that you can close this out so it isn't an ongoing
discussion over a period of months or.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a good point. Like I say, it is published in the newspaper and any further
discussion that we would have on this would be in the papers, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: If you wanted, and you noticed it as a work session, it would be published.
Blackowiak: It would be published, okay. That's, I just want to make sure that that would be clarified.
Slagle: Madam Chair, just one last question. Just so I'm clear, from an ability to get any written
documentation from, what would represent viewpoints from others other than staff or commission
members, is there anything?
Aanenson: No. Unless someone was to send us something back.
Slagle: Okay, so we've not done a survey over the last 5 years or 10 years that have asked questions
regarding these questions?
Aanenson: No, I can just tell you the projects and the problem areas and again, this was directed to the
staff to. I guess if you're going down that path, then you're almost going to have to stOp and do a study
group.
Biackowiak: And I don't think that was the intent was it? It was just to clarify a few things on Highway
5?
Aanenson: Correct. ~
Blackowiak: I mean okay. ·
Sacchet: I don't think I would want to suggest to do like a study group type of thing. I'd like to keep on
track with this and try to move forward but at the same time I think we want to make sure we make every
possible effort within that framework to include people in and solicit their participation. That's basically
what I mean.
Aanenson: Well I guess I equate it to the same thing as when you do a public hearing for a
neighborhood. You try to have 1 or 2 spokespersons and I guess that's kind of what I'm looking for. If
we can somehow synthesize a couple, you know some industrial builders. Commercial builders, that sort
of thing.
Claybaugh: Right. That gets back to Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce.
Aanenson: Yep.
Claybaugh: Alerting the entities so they can get out to members so you're not hand picking different
people. Let them designate a couple spokespersons, right.
Aanenson: That was where I was going with that.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Well then at this point I think we need a motion to do something or not do
something with this tonight. So I would like a motion please.
Sacchet: Well Madam Chair I move that we table the repealing of the Highway 5 corridor district and
adopting the design guidelines pending evaluating the discussion we had and moving it forward in the
way that we discussed.
Kind: Second.
Blackowiak: There's a motion and a second, is there any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to table the amendment to Chapter 20 including site plan review,
PUD and Highway 5 overlay regarding use of materials and design. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: So this is tabled and I think you've gotten lots of comments Kate so, move forward.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: Just to let you know the meeting on the first, we do have two public hearings. We will be
following up some code amendments. The public hearing should be the Holiday gas station, which needs
a variance. And the Berger building which is a realty office building.
Blackowiak: I'm sorry, which building?
Aanenson: Berger building. It's a realtor office building in the old town.
Blackowiak: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a comment about the minutes. I think that we should have a separate
category for Council liaison, present or not present instead of lumping the Council liaison in the members
category. So I would note that change on the last minutes and for future minutes.
Blackowiak: LuAnn, I'm going to ask since you've got your Robert's Rules there, do we need to make a,
does that need to be a motion or, I'm sorry. The Minutes are noted with the following suggestion. I
think we can more that forward.
Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 3, 2001 as amended.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Slagle: Madam Chair, I don't know if this falls within this ongoing items but at the last meeting I had
mentioned to staff, or at least encouraged staff to meet with the, and I forgot your names in the back, with
a number of their concerns regarding the code and just wondering if there's been progress on that.
Aanenson: We're still working on trying to get some clarity on what we're working on but we haven't
met yet, no.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: Okay. But the intent is to do that, correct?
Aanenson: I'm not sure what the intent is yet from staff.
Slagle: Who would determine what the intent is?
Aanenson: Do you want us to go through page by page with them or what?
Slagle: Well I think it would be, at least from what I gathered at the last meeting, there were a number of
points that brought up perhaps contradictions and maybe asking for input, written first to just have you.
Aanenson: Staff is aware of the conflicts, but we can sit down and meet with them. That's.
Slagle: Well I hope we're encouraging an open participation.
Blackowiak: Well that may be something between you and then the City Manager. I mean I supposed
would he ultimately direct?
Aanenson: Sure.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: We'll just have to assume that it's, it will get handled. You're aware of the issues and
okay.
Aanenson: Yes. I think we've agreed we've disagreed in the past. -I'm not sure what.
Blackowiak: Is that it Rich? I don't know what you're looking for.
Slagle: Well here's what I'm looking for is the folks presented a number of contradictions or potential
contradictions in their minds. My recommendation was that they have the ability to sit with staff or
present something to staff that highlights those contradictions or concerns and just asking for an update
as to whether that's happened.
Aanenson: Sure, if they want to set up an appointment with us, we'd be happy to do that. It's been done.
Slagle: Super.
Blackowiak: Great. Alrighty. Well, we go onto open discussion which is I guess, according to my little
rules here, off, not recorded as minutes. Is that correct Kate? Open discussion items.
'Aanenson: Correct.
Karlovich: I think I have an open discussion item but there's no problem with it being on the minutes.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I'm just following my little.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: And maybe it should be on the minutes. I talked with Kate about this as Madam Chair and
commission members. As you all know I'm the City Attorney for the City of Mahtomedi and the City of
Mahtomedi has recently decided to move their council meetings from the second and fourth Monday to
the first and third Tuesday. I was made aware of this on April 5th and I called Kate and then the 6th
through last Sunday I've been out of town. So that creates a little bit of, at least a problem for me as a
city attorney and have a contractual obligation to perform that function. Kate said I should bring it up at
this time for discussion. I know, or I guess there's some past history of moving it from Wednesday to
Tuesday. You know I'll just throw it out for discussion. It is my problem. When I did apply and
interview I had no idea that they were going to change. I think a few days before that I knew they were
thinking about Tuesday but they were going to go to the second and fourth Tuesday and then one of the
council members in Mahtomedi serves on a church board that she did not want to give up so, I had some
discussions with my city administrator and I guess it worked with everyone else. The city engineer, the
city planner who are both not employees but also contractors like myself and so I kind of got the short
end of the stick. And so that's what's before us right now. The other issue I did have a telephone
conversation with Craig Peterson today and he said well, you'd better decide what you're going to do. I
think on Monday they're going to decide whether they fill my Park and Recreation Commission spot so, I
don't know. I 'know everyone's got to have families and different schedules but I don't know how
flexible everyone is and I sure will not take offense to, if anyone does not have the flexibility to change.
I know Kate has already mentioned that she has, does something on a Wednesdays that she prefers to do.
I think she has some activity or even another church activity that she does with her family and her
children so, I throw it out for discussion. If the commission, if there's any other flexible dates that could
possibly work. Otherwise it looks like Jay's out of a job.
Blackowiak: And which job would that be? Okay. Well, I suppose we start with commissioners I guess.
Sacchet: I didn't bring my calendar. I claim indecision.
Blackowiak: Okay, you can do that. And I don't mean to put anybody on the spot I guess but, and I
guess in consideration to the newer members too, I think everybody signed on. I mean I've been on it
both on Wednesday and Tuesday nights. Newer members signed on as Tuesday night function so maybe
I'd like to hear from you first.
Slagle: I think I'd have to talk to my better half before making any decisions.
Blackowiak: Alright. I'm going to ask Craig since you're relatively new.
Claybaugh: I'll go with a hybrid ofUli's. I need to talk to my wife and I need to check my obligations.
What would be the alternative? Is it in fact Wednesday evenings, first and third Wednesdays or what?
Blackowiak: Kate, why don't we go through the options.
Aanenson: Well Mondays may be difficult if the council has a special meeting on a Wednesday.
Generally they're on the second and fourth, so you could do first and third Monday.
Blackowiak: Okay, does City Council have a work session every other Monday?
Aanenson: Now they're trying to do the work sessions before the regular meetings, but in the past they
have so we could check on that. Otherwise you could switch Tuesdays to the second and fourth, except
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
that conflicts with the Park and Rec. They meet on the fourth Tuesday I believe. Otherwise go back to
Wednesdays.
Karlovich: The City of Mahtomedi is not changing their schedule til June so I have some time there, but
I don't know...
Aanenson: He couldn't get back on the Park.
Blackowiak: Now is that something that you would be considering? I mean are you thinking that you
would like to stay on something? In other words, if Planning Commission couldn't move, would you ask
council to hold your Park and Rec spot?
Karlovich: As a city attorney I had more interest in Planning Commission and the planning issues
because it was kind of more of what I do as a job and talk with our city planner. The Park and Rec
though, you know that was a struggle too and I'll consider them friends and...
Blackowiak: Oh definitely but I'm just kind of curious what kind of timeframe you're working on
because if they're trying to move forward on Monday, you know if you want your name in consideration.
Karlovich: I guess that would be one question for maybe Kate is that, if they have, and maybe Todd. I
know Todd's been out of town, and when is he coming back?
Aanenson: Either Thursday or Friday I believe.
Karlovich: If they have to take action on Monday, or if they can hold off until everyone checks the
schedules a little bit for the problem that Jay has caused.
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, so Wednesday we have done it in the past. -You do have a conflict though, I'm
hearing you say.
Aanenson: I will serve it, you know whatever.
Blackowiak: What about Thursdays? Has that ever been an option?
Aanenson: The nice thing about having it earlier in the week is if we do have a quick turnaround, which
sometimes we have to when we're running short on the 60 days, is if we have to turn around the packet.
The packet for the council goes out and it doesn't give us time to get minutes so the earlier in the week is
always better. Thursday would you know, it can be accomplished on Wednesday. Thursday would be
tough.
Blackowiak: Okay. No, I understand. If it's got to go in the council packet I understand. Okay, Deb do
you have a?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I think Jay brought up a good point that I'd like to consider too is that, in
Kate's conflict also, is that Wednesday is traditionally church night.
Aanenson: That's what I do.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: And the public would also be traditionally busy on church night so that would affect our public
hearings and that sort of thing. Create a conflict for people so I guess I would be in favor of sticking with
Tuesday, no offense Jay. That happens to work out better with my schedule.
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, how about you?
Sidney: Actually I preferred Wednesdays, sorry about that. To be able to look at the material one more
time, you know after looking at it on the weekend and maybe going through it a couple more times. But I
guess I'm flexible. Tuesday seems okay, but I still would like that extra day to look at things, you know
for a Wednesday meeting.
Blackowiak: Well I too, I mean like I said, I've done both Tuesday and Wednesday nights. I guess I
could do either. I understand that Wednesday night is traditionally church night so I hate to put Kate on
the spot since you know, we love to have her here. And I understand that we have some people that need
to consult with schedules and spouses. It appears that Monday is not an option. We can pretty much
eliminate that.
Aanenson: I can check that but I think that...city manager that they like to keep those open for special
meetings.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of Mondays. Mondays starting back up at work are
tough in the evening to have any time to get prepared.
Blackowiak: Well I just want to make sure that we're not in conflict with the City Council. And then
Thursday, ! understand the turn around factor so it looks like Tuesday or Wednesday are the options right
now. And so I would hope that all the commissioners could think about this and maybe e-mail.
Aanenson: Just let me know and I can.
Blackowiak: E-mail Kate within the next few days after you've checked your schedules and we'll see.
Sacchet: And wives.
Blackowiak: And your wives and spouses, that's right. And see how things look. And Jay, I don't know
what to tell you.
Karlovich: No, I appreciate any consideration and whatever way it works out I'd be happy. And if it
doesn't work out, I'll know that in my two meetings that I've shaped the city of Chanhassen.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Any other open discussion?
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I just want to briefly mention something of interest, Deb and I we went to
this, the Basics last week and first of all I want to very much recommend it to everybody. It was really
fantastic. It was far beyond just the basics. It was really the basics. And some of the highlights that
came out, just wanted to touch on 2-3 little things. Some of them general, some of them specific for our
particular framework. One thing that keep, kind of at the heart of the whole thing is that everything is
based on the community values. And for something to work it has to be on the basis that everybody is
treated equally. That we have to try to define the conditions up front, the way we're working on these
design standards or guidelines. That we have something in place but then we apply equally across the
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
board. That everything needs a rational reason. Every rule needs a rational reason, and if there's a rule
in place and we can't find a reason, then we should do away with the rule. If you put a rule in place, you
should have a good reason to do so. That's more the general part. Now in terms of some of the specifics,
one very interesting thing that was pointed out was particularly the Edina blending rule would not hold
up in court. It's basically not a legal thing, so I bring this out since at our last meeting we were very
much pushing to go that route. If the context was put in at that training made it relatively clear that it
would actually be contrary to the uniformity law so we may have to do a little rethinking with that.
Another very interesting specifics was coming up in the context of conflicts of interest. It was made very
clear, the conflict of interest is basically when you have a personal financial interest in a situation.
Things like knowing somebody or being friends with somebody or being a member of a church, on a
church council and that, is not. But in legal sense a conflict of interest, so I thought that was interesting
to point out because I certainly wasn't clear about that before hand. In terms of variances, it was
emphasized that a good thing to look at variances, how much is a variance? Is it deviating 5-10% from
the rule or is it 50-60-70% as an important factor to deal with it. And then another very interesting
aspect, since we're struggling so much with the aspect of hardship. There was actually not a very clear
consensus even between presenters of the training but at least one of them very much emphasized that
it's not so much just the hardship aspect, but also the aspect of reasonable use. That the aspect of
hardship needs to be balanced with the aspect of reasonable use. Now the other presenter on the other
hand was relative crisp. Hardship is hardship so, take it for whatever it's worth but I just want to point
out. There are different philosophies in that context. That's about the highlights. I thought it was
worthwhile spending a quick minute throwing some of these things out.
Blackowiak: Thank you Uli. And for our newer commissiOners, Kate You would have information on
those, and the flyers get passed along in our packets periodically, don't they?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes. GTS training. Government Training Service.
Blackowiak: GTS training and I've attended. LuAnn, yOu've attended so yeah, I would say definitely.
worthwhile. Any other open discussion items frOm commissioners? ·
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, is this where Rich gives a great summary of his last city council meeting?
Blackowiak: I think that would be, this would be a fine place to do that Rich.
Slagle: Well I'll certainly paraphrase it since all of you received, I believe except for Craig and Jay but I
didn't have your e-mail addresses. But I provided some minutes and I'll paraphrase it. Basically I was
the attendee if you will, and the meeting began at 7:00. 4 of 5 councilors present. There was a consent
agenda, approved 4 to 0. Good news. Tonka Soccer Association donated $2,500 for I believe the upkeep
of fields and what not. There was a gentleman, I believe the President of Southwest Metro presented
status of Southwest Metro and sounds like things are just great, as you can see in the note. City Council
considered raising liquor license and a motion was approved to raise I believe the beer license only, but it
could be my notes were not total. Fire Relief Association proposal was approved 4 to 0. I'm not sure
what that was. The library update was I think very educational and it will, ! believe at some point come
to us and there are issues that were raised about entryways. Whether it's front facing, side facing, and so
forth so I thought that was really interesting.. Bill Morris, who's going to be the, is the President of the
firm Decision Resources is going to poll the city. Is it the city residents Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: And I've got a copy of his initial draft of the questions so whoever wants to see that, you're more
than welcome. It's 172 pages. Or excuse me, questions and I believe that the City Council will be
working with them to refine them a bit but great questions and I think that will go a long way to maybe
eventually answering questions that I have about public input. And ordinance reviews, I think they were
happy with what our progress is. Affordable housing, Kate mentioned the creation of open houses. She
sent us that e-mail on the 3 sites. Discussion of high waters. Section 8, income limits have been revised.
Can't add any more to that than just that. And then, what I thought was important was Scott talked about
sending a letter to Carver County asking for relief of $91,000 for the bowling alley site, and again not
getting all the details but that's quite a lot of money that the city's asking for. And then the meeting was
adjourned, and I don't remember what the vote was for that. I'm assuming 4 to 0.
Kind: Good job.
Blackowiak: Thank you Rich. What you said about the library, that reminded me of something that I
wanted to mention. I'm hoping that we do, as a Planning Commission get to see the library plans. You
know I think that would really offer an opportunity for more open discussion about the building review,
site review. So I do hope that we get a chance to add our two cents worth as that goes through the
process.
Aanenson: You may want to speed up your design review.
Claybaugh: Yes, it will be interesting seeing how it measures up against what we have right now.
Kind: Well that Kate, I'm sorry Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Will that come to us for a public hearing or what is the process for public buildings?
Aanenson: I guess I'd defer that to the council liaison. What their expectation is. My understanding is it
may not at this point but I need clarification on that. That's why I asked you to come through at the work
session before.
Blackowiak: Yeah, because I'd like to see that. I know we saw the new building. The new park and rec
building out at Lake Ann and I think that we added a few positive things to that design process and so, I
think it's important that we see things. That's our job.
Slagle: Well and especially if, as I saw the 3 plans, with respect to parking and entryways and I mean at
least from .my viewpoint it directly follows along with what we're talking about. Especially for the
business district or downtown.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kind: So Madam Chair, what's the next step on that? This is not in the minutes right now, right? Or is
it, I'm not sure. If this discussion is being recorded or not.
Blackowiak: I don't think open discussion is on minutes but maybe we could.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: So what's the best way to communicate that desire to the City Council? Is that Madam Chair's
role to.
Aanenson: I guess I would make a motion that the council outline the process or something to that effect.
For review.
Blackowiak: Okay, could I have a motion please?
Kind: I'll make a motion that the City Council outline the process for the library building and strongly
encourage them to have it come through the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Blackowiak: Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Kind moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
outline the process for the library building and strongly encourage them to have it come through
the Planning Commission for a public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay, motion carries unanimously so we would encourage the City Council to send the
library building through the public process so we can get a hearing and public input on the proposed
library building from all the concerned citizens. Okay, any other open discussion items?
Slagle: I've got one. As I shared briefly before the meeting with Madam Chair, I was up in Fargo for
Easter and the city is I think managing given the high waters but when I was there I was just pleasantly
surprised to see the number of neighborhoods in the south area of Fargo which encompass sidewalks.
And that is on, in most of the neighborhoOds I was in, it was both sides. And it was interesting, in two of
.
the neighborhoods which were probably 200 and some homes, it was concrete as well as all the
driveways. And these were very, I don't want to say very nice homes but certainly among our higher
end. But my question is this. In looking through the codes, talking to staff this morning on the phone,
I'm not sure I understand what the Planning Commission or the city's perspective on sidewalks are. Are
there requirements? Strict requirements? Loose requirements? No requirements? It almost like gives us
the ability to require them in certain developments but I guess I'm just confused and I'm wondering if
staff can provide guidelines or if fellow commissioners can provide guidelines on sidewalks?
Aanenson: Sure, in the subdivision regulation it addresses where there are sidewalks. And generally it
follows, it's been reviewed by either the engineering department or Park and Rec is what they look at as
generally they follow collector streets. If you were to look in, for example like Lake Susan, the streets
that are the wider ones carry more traffic have sidewalks and I believe some of those are concrete.
Separate from trails. You'll see through some of the site plans and some of the subdivision for example
Pulte Homes we also not only require interior trails but we also required a collect on West 78th Street.
There's other places with sidewalks, but as a general rule in the suburban areas, if you look at lot size and~
the requirement as a general rule on all streets, it's not a standard. It's also, if you look at Edina,
Minnetonka, Chanhassen as a general rule, we don't require them in every subdivision. It's used again as
a discretionary, the way the ordinance reads, sidewalks may be required and again looking at parks input
and engineering. They kind of make that decision with some of our input too.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagte: Okay, let me ask you this Kate. I've always, I shouldn't say always but as long as I've been
thinking about this, I've sort of assumed urban, more inner circle communities that were brought up with
sidewalks and what not, and I understand the rationale. Now that we're further out, but when I saw this
in South Fargo, we are talking suburbs. I mean it's, there's no ancient, yeah. And so when I saw that my
question I guess, is there a council perspective or has there been on sidewalks? Because in the
development that we live in, Forest Meadows I think it is, adjacent to the Longacres, the only sidewalk is
on Longacres Drive.
Aanenson: Right, and that's the collector street, right. Were kids are walking to the bus on that collector
street. Otherwise the traffic volumes and that's another criteria to be looking at volumes of traffic.
Certainly if you want to propose a change, you can do that. Recommend alteration to the standards of
where you want sidewalks. We can also put together for you showing where there are sidewalks
currently in the community and where there's not and kind of look at the overall philosophy.
Slagle: Is there any development that's been proposed in the last 2-3-4 years that we've required, except
for maybe Pulte or maybe not even Pulte but additional sidewalks?
Aanenson: Oh sure. Yeah, I mean if it's for example on, access to the Gestach-Paulson. Ashling
Meadows. Gestach Paulson where we put a sidewalk in there because kids can walk up to the junior
high. We put a connection up there, so again we look at linkages. We're always looking at that. We
even do it in industrial where maybe they want to cut across to another property. To a walking trail.
They may have a trail in place but we still want a sidewalk where people can get out and go to a
restaurant to get something to eat. So it's always kind of on a case by case. That's why it's left, may be
required. As a general rule we put them on collectors but then also if there's a school or another place,
for example the industrial park that has the church. We put sidewalks on that church. Remember there
was a discussion on that...to the front. We wanted them to have a sidewalk to get out so again we always
look at linkages, connecting people. '~
Slagle: And I'm following along and this is good.
Aanenson: But not for every lot. I'm not sure how well that would also be received out here. I mean
we'd certainly be willing to have a hearing on it and get some input.
Blackowiak: Survey item.
Slagle: Well exactly and I didn't see if it's in there or not.
Aanenson: But residents sometimes also object to the public intrusion. And the maintenance issue, it's
an ongoing problem with shoveling sidewalks and some of that sort of issue too. So there's other people
that would also have input if you want us to either look at doing an issue paper or something. But get
Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director's input on that and then also engineering.
Slagle: But as a city or the council, last question, do they have a viewpoint? I mean because again I
don't want to bring up an issue that council might...
Aanenson: We've been using a policy. Has there been a problem with it? I mean certainly there's a
difference of opinion on where it should be applied and we do look at that, and even amongst yourselves
sometimes when we're looking at projects. Gosh, maybe we should have and someone things I don't
think that's necessary. We may or may not agree. Or staff recommends it and you think it's onerous. So
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
we kind of look at it on a case by case basis so, but engineering has that information. We can look at
that.
Slagle: Just contact them?
Aanenson: Yeah, or I mean we can put something together for you too.
Slagle: I'd like to see that. Okay.
Aanenson: Sure.
Slagle: That's all.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other discussion items?
Kind: I have one quick one, really. I would like the e-mail addresses of the new people.
Aanenson: I can forward that to you. The only one I don't have is Craig's. I've got everybody else's.
Blackowiak: Okay, Kate will you do that? Thank you.
^anenson: You bet.
Blackowiak: Okay, anyone else?
Chair Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development DirectOr
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47