Loading...
1988 01 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEET I NG JANUARY 20, 1988 ~ Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Annette ElIson, Brian Batzli and David Headla e - MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, NORDQUIST SIGNS (DATASERV) . PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hertz Bonnie Wagner Ann Roll ing Nordquist Signs DataServ DataServ Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the sign variance request. Steve Hertz: I'm with Nordquist Signs. We have done past work with DataServ and I think the main emphasis here is, their intent to come in with a uniform sign program. They do have approval to put up a freestanding sign identifying their corporation which carries on their logo and their letter style. They went so far as to take it one step further and look at their directional situation and design something that would coincide with that. This goes back to what they have at their main corporate offices which are in Eden Prairie. So in taking over this site, they wanted to follow through with that and create a uniform sign program. I think you'll see by the design of the signage that it is not overpowering. The main intent is to make something that's easily legible as people drive through the site. Again, I think it needs to be emphasized is the fact that the site is very large and there is going to be future development on this site. Presently the letter sizes there are 2 1/2 inches on the upper case so we're not looking to advertise. We're looking to identify and direct traffic. At this point, are there any questions that I can answer? There are also representatives of DataServ here that would like to speak. Conrad: Maybe we'll have some questions for you later on Steve. Bonnie Wagner: I'm representing DataServ here tonight. I wonder if we could refer back to your overhead of the actual facility and the access, or the approach to the building? In viewing the access to the building, we feel that this presents to us and our customers and to our shipping and receiving people a hardship in that you have to by-pass the building on TH 5 and then you have to identify how to approach or to actually access the building. So you pass the building on TH 5 and then you turn left and then just after McDonalds you have to turn into the left, which is not visible to you. You have to travel some way towards the entrance of the building and as you enter the front of the building, there is a very limited, small visitor parking lot. We do not want that to be a thoroughway. We do not want "J'",.~__ - e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 2 traffic to go through to the front of the office. That's maintained strictly for a small visitor situation. So the traffic has to flow through the road, around to the side of the building. At that point we have to identify to them where is employment parking. Where do you go for shipping and receiving so we're proposing that these directional signs are necessary to us and to the community because if we don't direct this traffic appropriately, you have residential areas immediately next to the property of DataServ so we want to eliminate jams, confusion and get the traffic in and out of there as appropriately as we can and as quickly as we can, as a matter of fact. We are planning to move our headquarters to the Chanhassen site in the near future so we expect, we are experiencing a great deal of employment growth. We've outgrown the Eden prairie facility in just a year and a half so we expect to move into Chanhassen, probably about 300 people immediately and then our future plans are to move our existing headquarter base into Chanhassen and build and construct new buildings and have a campus environment, if you will. So we feel that these signs will be necessary and informational at this point and will be utilized as we grow. We're hoping, if it's possible, then we can actually utilize our existing signs yet out of the Eden prairie site if they conform and if they are maintained along our identity. Any questions? Conrad: Not yet. Thank you Bonnie. We're pleased to have your company in Chanhassen. We'll open it up to anybody else who may have a comment on this subject. Erhart moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: What's the address of DataServ in Chanhassen? Steve Hertz: 19011 Lake Drive East. Headla: So Lakeland Drive, if someone turns off of TH 5, they're going to make a left hand turn at Lakeland Drive. The same as they were finding in the other business. Bonnie Wagner: I'm sorry. Headla: Wouldn't somebody coming in trying to find DataServ would turn off of TH 5 and as they go down now Dakota, they're going to turn on Lake Drive, since that's your address. So, the sheet I have here has one directional sign there. Maybe they would make a turn there which would be a logical thing to do. I think the sign ordinance is good. I don't see where we're working a hardship and I do support the Staff's position. Batzli: I think I need to abstain on this matter since I was an Attorney for CPT and worked on the transaction to lease the facilities to DataServ. ElIson: I'm correct in that we're just talking about the on-site ones. They're also looking at off-site which goes to the Council, right? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 3 e Olsen: That's right. ElIson: I agree that they probably do need signs but I think the recommendation of just taking the company name and logo off and keeping the height of the arrows and the direction exactly the same would probably accomplish the same thing, so I pretty much agree with the staff recommending to stay with the smaller size. Emmings: I think the signs are not unattractive and they don't particularly bother me but they don't conform to the ordinance. I'm not persuaded by the notion that because it's a larger site, you need larger signs. I think that's kind of a silly way to set up an ordinance. So if you have small sites you put up small signs and big sites, big signs. You may need more signs, but I don't think you need bigger ones. I don't know if you've had a chance to look through our ordinance and see what's required for us to find, in order to grant a variance, but those factors are laid out and I didn't hear anything said that would convince me that it would be appropriate for us to find that a variance would be necessary. So I too would support the staff recommendation on this. e Erhart: The ordinance states that we're limited to four on premise signs no matter how big your campus is. Currently, the signs at the CPT building are 4 foot? Do they have signs at the existing building? No signs at all? There must be a reason for your requirements being different than CPT. Bonnie Wagner: They maybe had signs prior but there are no signs at the site at this time. I do not know if they were there prior. Erhart: No I mean your requirements are somehow different than CPT for signage? Apparently dramatically different. Ann Rolling: We feel the access to the building is confusing based on there is no direct access to the building. We don't know what problems CPT had... Erhart: I guess the only question I had was maybe if we're going to have something, run it proportional to it's size of the facility, would be the number of signs, not the square footage. I don't have any more questions. e Conrad: I agree. I think I could have been persuaded on the number of signs because of the size of the facility. I guess the only thing I would raise, 4 square feet for directional signs is still pretty small. I'd lay it out and look at it, and from a car and from 40 feet away, it's not a big square footage for signage for directional signs. I could be persuaded to look at the ordinance and review that aspect to say 4 feet might not be big enough in general for Chanhassen for directional but I don't think that's going to help you in this particular case. I don't think it needs to be 12. It could be 6. It could be 7 but the 12. I know what you're doing. You've got signs that are useful right now and I understand that that's a good practical business decision and they'd be attractive signs. We have an ordinance that we've applied to all our current business park e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 4 residents and so far we haven't heard, staff correct me, we haven't heard a lot of negative feedback about the sizing. However, if we do, I think we could take a look at that issue and make sure that directional signs and the sizing is appropriate for the business name. We're not trying to penalize anybody for trying to move traffic around but in this particular case, my comment would be, I feel comfortable with the ordinance. I think it could be altered if you told me that it's not big enough to really move the traffic but I don't think Chanhassen would come back with a 12 foot size. That's my personal feeling. Ann Rolling: I had a question. They layout of the sign would be, what we have for the existing buildings, like a 4 square foot sign, the actual area that the sign takes up is the same area that we have. We're just utilizing the face. The face carries straight down to the ground rather than two poles holding up 4 square feet. Conrad: What's the interpretation of that Jo Ann? Olsen: You do the size from the face of the sign. Not necessarily from the highest point. From the poles you don't measure. You just measure the face of the signs. Ann Rolling: I guess what I'm saying is, we're utilizing that area rather than...create clarity and aesthetically pleasing. Conrad: What we're trying to do in Chanhassen is, we certainly want to advertise the good members of the business community. We're not trying to restrict that but we're also trying to keep signage from being everyplace and if we keep some kind of constraint on it, then one, aesthetically it looks better, but two, everybody's not competing with everybody else trying to get bigger and better signage. Actually saving money in the long run for our business friends. I think my general feeling is I'm comfortable with the ordinance as it is. Headla: I think we'd be sending the wrong signals to those people if we allow one company. Then another one can come in with other rationale. Conrad: I think the deal is Dave, we'd have to take a look at the ordinance. I don't know that a variance is appropriate in this case. I think taking a look at the ordinance is the only thing and I think as our friends from DataServ go to City Council, maybe the Council can give you a feeling of whether they feel that a revision of the ordinance would be appropriate. We're always happy to take a look at that. I think that's the solution. Erhart: Do we currently limit the height of these directional signs? On premise directional signs? Some guy could put up a 12 foot high or perhaps even higher? Maybe even 18 and still be at 4 square feet. They could put it on the top of his building if they wanted. That pertains to the question that was asked about using the feet of signage. The factis, somebody could walk in here with a 12 foot high sign and we wouldn't need to look at it. Headla: There would have to be a particular need for that though. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 5 e Erhart: But we couldn't deny it though. Emmings: Why would somebody do that to themselves? Elison: If it was a directional sign for a car, it'd be pretty hard to see it. Emmings: They're trying to put it someplace where people could see it. Conrad: I think the premise is it's got to be a functional sign. Go this way for shipping. Go that way for receiving. Go this way if you're an employee. We have to meet that need so functionally, we have to meet the need of moving the traffic the right way. I think a case could be made to me that you need more than 4 square feet to do that. I could relate to that problem but I can't relate to this particular situation. e Erhart: I'm not trying to relate to this. I could agree that it might be that it should be a little bit bigger. The issue that comes about is, on one hand the intent is to not make the sign any more obstructive than or aesthetically displeasing as possible. We have the ordinance allows them to go, we greatly restrict the size of a sign but we don't restrict the height and to me, the height is just as important as the size. So all I'm saying is, we sort of have a hole there. There probably is a couple good reasons to look at the whole ordinance. Size and height and to review the question of using the legs and how does that relate to the height and size. Conrad: Were we reviewing the sign ordinance? Wasn't there mention that we were going to do that? Dacy: Yes, in the upcoming months so this could be incorporated as a part of that review. Conrad: It doesn't help DataServ right now. It's sort of a unfriendly welcome to the community what you're hearing but maybe, we will do that. We will take a look at least as we review the sign ordinance in the next couple months to make sure that... Ann Rolling: Do you know when that's going to be because for the amount of money that we're spending, I guess I'd like to maybe hold off on that. We were planning on moving people into that building by the end of February or March, our waiting to see what happens. Conrad: We don't have a specific time to review do we? e Dacy: After the meeting that will take place on Monday, staff will have a better idea as far as the time schedule but there won't be a public hearing schedule in February or March. It would probably be at the end of March, beginning of April. We should have a better idea next week on the schedule. Emmings: There's one thing you eluded to, and I'm not sure I understood it right. Do I understand that you already have these Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 6 e signs and are using them at another facility and want to move them out here? Are these brand new? Bonnie Wagner: We are proposing brand new signs, yes. Conrad: Okay, anymore comments or questions. Is there a motion? Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the sign variance request to permit 12 square foot on-premise directional signs. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; SUBDIVISION OF 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS. Public Present: e Ellie Schwaba Kevin Winchell Earl Heatherinton Jim Borchart Applicant Applicant 7351 Minnewashta Parkway 7331 Minnewashta Parkway Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this subdivision request. Ellie Schwaba: There is one other thing that I'd like to mention. There is an existing home on the property and our intention is to do major renovation to that home. It's in pretty much mediocre repair and ...to upgrade that home to the value of the new homes that will be built. e Earl Heatherington, 7351 Minnewashta parkway: My property runs at the complete east side of the property in question and also the north end of the property. It's interesting to note that the court here caught the fact that it is only 2.19 acres. It's not 2 1/2 acres. In the Planning Commission's wisdom, from 1980 until 1988, you have approved a total of 33 subdivisions in this area. In these subdivisions there are various number of units and various gross acreages involved with each. What I'd like to submit to you that in almost all instances of all of these units that have been approved since 1980, that the vast majority in almost every case, the lot sizes that have been approved are of a 1/2 acre or greater. I'd like to submit this is your document and I've done the mathematics and I'd like to submit it for your review and to check these figures out. In the case of the property that has just recently been developed in the last couple of years called Maple Ridge, on Maple Shore Drive, there are 13 single family homes located on 7 acres which is an average layout per home of 23,455 square feet. 21,780 feet is a half an acre and I'd like to submit these. I'm sure that the gentleman that developed that property would have liked to put more lots in there. My point is simply that you've got a situation here with an odd parcel of land that's been obviously divided in such a manner as to meet the ordinances period. Lot 1, 15,011 square feet. Lot 2, 16,809. Lot 3, e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 7 22,981. Fine. The house sits on 25,435 and Lot 5, which is almost hard to believe that one would put a lot in there like that. I don't know what kind of house you could put on it, 15,031. My point is that it does not lend itself to the neighborhood. In every case, all the lots that are north, south, east and west have at least 1 acre or more of property. They are beautiful homes. It's a nice area. I have nothing against Mr. Fisher selling the property to developers and putting in nice homes but I do belive that it's probably a 3 lot parcel and not a 5 lot. Again, I'd just like to submit this to the Planning Commission. Perhaps you have done this, perhaps you haven't but it really shows the numbers of square feet in all your developments that you've done in the last 10 years and it shows quite graphically that what you've approved is mostly half acre and above lots. Even in high density family areas. Like Near Mountain. There's 153 acres there with 308 single and multi family and yet that comes out at 21,638 square feet. Even in a high density area and this is certainly not a high density area. And I think Jim Borchart, my neighbor to the north would like to say something. Jim Borchart, 7331 Minnewashta Parkway: I'd just like to echo what Mr. Heatherington said. Another major concern of mine is the drainage. At this time we've got all the water from Maple Ridge through our property and it's only a 12 inch culvert running through there and it can handle the water that Maple Ridge dumps on us but if we get any more water, we are going to have volume from my lot and the Hauser's lot. There are four lots there surrounding this property and we're allover an acre. We would like to see nice homes built there but that number 1 lot, you can't put much more than a garage on that by the time you get your setbacks. Like Jo Ann said, there is a very steep hill there and they're probably going to have to go about 25 feet off the back of there so the property line, we're going to have to look at, if you put a house on it, I know the lines are drawn pretty but can you actually build a house on these lots. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: How does Mr. Volder get to his house? Jim Borchart: He goes through my property. He's got an easement over my driveway. Erhart: And you're the center lot. At the beginning of the report, the subdivision ordinance states that there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to collectors, arterials, limited access highways. This is a collector. How do you square the proposal with that? Olsen: There is an existing access and the only other alternative is to provide public street access and the adjacent property owners are not in favor of that so it would require condemnation proceedings. Erhart: Just forget the other people. Why would this five lot subdivision require a private street? What's here? The other lots have nothing to do with it. That's the ordinance. Why aren't we looking at a plan that has a street for those five houses? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 8 e Olsen: The layout of the land, I believe the access to Minnewashta Parkway is from the rear. To put another street right through the middle... Erhart: Are we asking for a variance? Olsen: Technically, that's in the subdivision ordinance. The way we interpretted it, if there was no other option, that there was a way for them to be serviced from a collector, we would pursue that. Erhart: How far apart are those two proposed driveways? Olsen: About 180 to 200. Erhart: And in our zoning ordinance, what's the minimum distance? Olsen: We don't have a separation. For driveways? Erhart: No, for streets. Dacy: That's in the A-2 district we have a recommended driveway separation. e Erhart: I guess I look at this and I think there is, I don't know. I guess I'll have to think about that. I'll pass it to Steve but I keep thinking that we've just gone around the ordinance not facing the fact that maybe you can't put five lots on here. Maybe you do need a cul-de-sac and it's a four lot subdivision. I'll pass the questions onto Steve. I had one more question. What kind of a tree is that? Headla: Maple. That one right there by the mailbox is Maple and it's one of the top probably 30 maple trees along Minnewashta Parkway. Erhart: Sugar Maple? Headla: Yes. Erhart: Boy, I just can't imagine why we would encourage anyone cutting down a Sugar Maple tree. Emmings: I don't really have anything here. I think that they are trying to put a lot of houses on a small piece but it does meet the ordinance and we certainly can't deny it because it does meet the ordinance. I don't know about the drainage problem but I think that's to be taken up by, that concerns me. His concerns about the drainage problem and it also concerns me that he thinks drainage has increased over his lot as a result of the work on Maple Ridge. But if that's happened, you have recourse there. They can't change existing drainage patterns and if they have, you should talk to the City. e Jim Borchart: I have a letter from the City Engineer right before he left. Nothing happened when the new engineer came. Olsen: that. I have contacted the new engineer and he will follow up on Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 9 e Emmings: Other than that, I think it meets the letter of the ordinance so in some ways we can't deny it on that grounds. The road situation really does concern me. I drive Minnewashta Parkway nearly every day and it's curvy and it's particular curvy right there. There's one entrance already and I don't know if another one's going to make a big difference or not. I guess I just don't know but it might be better. I think it would be better to have a 3 or 4 lot subdivision with one entrance rather than the two. That's all I've got. ElIson: I had a question about that tree also but one of the recommendations was that it be cut down and yet the engineering report said that maybe with proper grading it wouldn't necessarily have to come down. I thought it was a nice looking tree too. That caught my eyes when I went there. Like these others, it obviously looks like they're trying to do as much as they can on a small amount of space. You certainly can't blame them. The ordinance is there that allows them to do that so I guess I can't take away from that but looking at the lots around there, it did seem like a neighborhood that had really big yards and what have you and it didn't quite necessarily fit with the homes right around it but I suppose from the standpoint as the way the ordinances are, they are certainly within their rights. Batzli: I don't have any additional comments from those made. - Headla: I want to hear the rationale again for cutting down the beautiful tree. Olsen: When we went out with the engineer, it was really difficult to see to the south of there and it was suggested that that be removed. Headla: We cut down a beautiful tree to do a line of sight but then we're willing to put in another driveway just a little ways to the north. That's inconsistent. Olsen: We will be willing to work but it looked from the plans that they are shifting that and perhaps they can clarify this, but it looks like they are shifting this driveway a little bit to the south and what we've learned from the forester, if you cut into where the root system is, the tree is going to eventually die anyway. I guess it's difficult right now before we really see the detailed plan. If we can save it and perhaps grade around it, explore the berm. There's some sort of evergreen that's next to it. e Headla: I guess I don't even believe in that type of wording, that we might be able to work out plans. I think it should be stated, they will work around that tree. That tree will stay. That tree and the limbs are high enough, I just can't see where it's affecting the line of sight. You don't say anything about the mailbox that's right there by the driveway and that mailbox can be much more of a hinderance so I'm in just total disagreement of destroying that tree. It's interesting, Mr. Heatherington disagreed with the acreage. This is the second time in two meetings where we get variations in what's stated. The person who comes in is proposing for the land and then what we know is actually the case. When I see two lots, one at 15,011 ~ Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - page 10 4It feet and the other at 15,031, I tried to go through the arithematic and things are slid around enough, I can't verify the dimensions at all. I just don't believe those two lots meet 15,000 square feet. I also feel that five lots are inconsistent with that immediate area. You've got some beautiful homes and to have five homes there, dumping them onto the parkway is ludicrous. Especially with two driveways less than 90 feet apart. You're proposed northern driveway and then the next driveway? Kevin Winchell: They're about 100 feet, yes. Headla: It's 90 feet to the center of the driveway. I just think those two driveways are way too close. That's all I had. Conrad: This gets me into my favorite issue and that is, what has been eluded to when lot sizes are out of sync with the neighborhood and I've never won because basically the ordinance says 15,000 square feet. Headla: If they have it. e Conrad: They have enough feet to move lot lines here to do that. I gues my concern still is, it's not really in sync with the neighborhood and it doesn't have to be the half acre or acre but I think we've always tried to make things kind of reasonable. But over the last year we haven't been able to do that and I think we've had a very strict interpretation of the ordinance which has said if they meet the minimum, that's it. And Jo Ann, obviously that's still, if the minimum is 15,000 and it's not in sync with the neighborhood? Olsen: You have no justification for denial. Conrad: Although we're very interested in neighborhood continuity. We're very interested in transitions and zones and that's why we plan to get things in sync. We still can't change that 15,000 foot minimum. That is it. Erhart: Let's pose the question to steve and to our new member here, both being attornyes. Maybe that's a bad thing to do but it would seem to me, like many other sections in our ordinance, that in addition to the strict 15,000 square feet for this particular area, we could add a paragraph essentially that would say to the effect that if it is determined that surrounding houses are of general lot size larger, at the City's discretion or a formula or something. Some substance in the ordinance that would allow us to apply larger lot sizes in those areas where the surrounding lots are larger. e Emrnings: Or maybe doing it in those perculiar cases where you're filling in. Where you've already got everything built up and someone takes a large parcel and divides it down, then it must conform to the neighborhood or at least come closer than the ordinance requires. The problem I think on a deal like this though is that right across the road it's all open land. Last week we saw a master plan for the other side of Minnewashta Parkway on the north and it was just a whole mess of small lots, which is probably kind of what's going in there now and is probably what the future holds. If that contInues, down that side Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 11 e o~ the Parkway, th~s isn't going to be that out of keeping with that k~nd of a,plan. RIght now it's out of keeping with what's on the east sIde of MInnewashta Parkway but it may not ultimately be out of keeping with what will happen across the road from it. The other problem you get into is, how do you ever get a transition? If everything's got to be in keeping with the surrounding property how do you ever get a transition? It's a big question. ' Conrad: I don't know that there are formulas. We've got a lot of places in the sewered district where we have lot sizes ranging over an acre. I think very close to my house are a whole bunch of houses with one acre lot sizes and we were concerned about what was going to be filled in when somebody wanted to subdivide but we really never came to a solution. There's not a good formula for doing that. will you allow half acre? Will you allow a third of an acre? I don't know that there a reasonable solution to that. I don't know that there's a formula that we can come up with. Emmings: You also don't want to, there's sort of a naturala progression here that maybe you don't want to interfere with. Where people go into a rural area and they buy 10 acres and then someone divides their 10 acres into 5 acre parcels and somebody does one of those into 2 1/2 or they do them into 15,000 square foot lots. Eventually that all becomes kind of a, through this resubdivision process, becomes kind of a highly or much more densely populated area. I don't know that you want to necessarily stop that sort of natural. e Headla: I think you've got a special case here. Did any of you get a chance to drive down the driveway and look at the proposed cul-de-sac and then see the steep grade? It isn't that you've got 15,000 square feet and it's all flat. Emmings: What cul-de-sac? Headla: proposed cul-de-sac to the east of that property. If you're going down that driveway and you look at the steep grade, to me that has a real effect on that property. Conrad: How so? What does it do? Headla: It makes the property shallower. It just isn't useful property like 15,000 square feet. That's out flat. I think it makes a property a lot smaller. The affected use of that lot is a lot smaller. When I look at that and the whole area in that immediate area, I just see it's way out of context. - Erhart: Referring to your comment, how do you make the conversion from a large lot area to a small lot, I think for one thing streets are lines. A subdivision across the street could be 15,000 square feet where as one on one side. That's a natural line. The other one is you could write it such that it might make a statement to say that if 50% of the lots adjacent to a subdivision are over 20,000 square feet, then the subdivision should be 20,000 and saying 20,000 being a half acre, that's the largest. What that does, of course, if you have one area and they're allover 20,000 and the next one, if you have 50%, it only takes two sets to get down to the smaller one. It does e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 12 give you a way to gradually go from the large lots to big lots. So again, you'd have to think this through but the idea of somehow measuring the lots so if half of them were under 20,000 square feet, then it wouldn't collide. I think you might want to try some examples and it might solve the problem. Just to summarize quickly, I think it has been a problem here in the last year where we have been forced to put in small subdivisions, or small lot subdivisions actually. It's the bigger subdivisions that have come in with the 20,000 square foot lots which you really have to think about why that is. It's telling me that the big subdividers are doing a better job of putting together neighborhoods. They're more conscientious about it. Conrad: They've got bigger areas to work with. Erhart: Yes, but they've got more at stake too because they have a longer term time at selling these lots. Anyway, in summary I would agree that I think if there is something we can do, I think we ought to look at it and we ought to ask staff to corne back with some ideas. Conrad: If there's something they can do about the ordinance? Erhart: The ordinance, yes. Conrad: It doesn't apply to the comments. We will direct to staff because that's a real pet issue of mine and I have not got any solutions to that because I think if we remember on the Murray Hill where we rip out one house and put a driveway in and we've got people who lived there for 1,000 years and then they're putting in 15,000 square foot houses in areas where they're 45,000 square foot lots. I felt real badly in that case but we didn't have a solution. Anyway, I think we should look at it but that's a different time and place. In terms of driveway access off of Minnewashta, try to give us some guidelines. Staff is saying, regardless of our subdivision ordinance, it is okay to put in two driveways or an additional driveway and we've justified that how? Olsen: The way we've justified it is that we really did not see any other option. We felt that one additional driveway was acceptable. It does have good sight distance. The applicant originally could have corne in with five driveways and of course it wouldn't have gotten approved but by having just one public street, like Tim was suggesting that cul-de-sac in there, is almost by itself the whole property. Erhart: Why do you say that? Olsen: If you draw in a cul-de-sac, limiting it to probably about three lots. You're talking about 50 foot right-of-way and a very large cul-de-sac. We did work closely with the engineering department on what were our options with this and we felt that this was an acceptable option. Emmings: Did you look at putting in a cul-de-sac and getting four lots? Olsen: We looked at a cul-de-sac along here. Lot 5 again would still have to have it's own access. A street right in the middle of here, Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 13 !e it would do what the neighbors wanted, it would limit it one additional lot or two additional lots. Erhart: How wide was your driveway? How wide is the driveway then? Olsen: I believe it's probably only, as shown on there, it's about 10 to 20 feet maybe. Headla: This is another situation though, we wanted to go a Class A cul-de-sac road and it's serving 5 houses or 4 houses. We talked about this before, it just doesn't seem right. They should be able to go in there with a lot lower class road or cul-de-sac. You don't think so Tim? Erhart: The price of the lots would go up with a cul-de-sac. The value of the lots. Olsen: We did not look at an internal street coming from the Parkway. We could do that and come back and have a proposed plan for that. If you want to see how the site could be serviced by a public street other than utilizing a private road. I got the impression that you were talking about a cul-de-sac. e Erhart: Let me finish what I'm thinking. I may be all wrong but I looked at the dimensional drawings in here and I just can not see why you can't put in just a real short street in here and a cul-de-sac and they can provide an easement to go through that property so at some later date if somebody else wants to hooks into that, at the end of that street like we do with a lot of cul-de-sacs. Conrad: You're saying, to service the property to the east? Erhart: At some point, it could be. Olsen: Ideally, we initially looked at approving that private easement. At this time... Erhart: That's not the right place. I don't think that's the right place and Dave would agree that's not the right place. Headla: Well, I kind of like that idea. Erhart: From the north? Headla: There's a main driveway there right now and if they could do something, work off of that and then the other driveway, then I think it's a win-win situation. I think the applicant can come off well without spending a lot of money but the surrounding area isn't going to lose either. It's going to require negotiation with the neighbors. - Earl Heatherington: We were curious as to would the surrounding lots be assessed to turn that into a public road? A private road is behind there now. If that was upgraded to a public street cul-de-sac, what would the assessments be on our lots... Ellie Schwaba: I don't think the road or existing private drive back e e - Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 14 there would be workable. The property owners are adverse to it and would not cooperate with us so that gave us the only alternative which was the two driveways off of Minnewashta parkway. We did look originally with our surveyor putting in a cul-de-sac. What happens then is we lose so much land for building a cul-de-sac, we lessen the lot size and consequently we lose the number of lots that we're trying to accomplish and in doing so, the whole basis of the purchase of property, we're buying this property now subject to our lot division. We're feeling that based on our initial cost and the cost that we have incurred thus far, if we have to lose one lot, we basically would have to dump the whole project because it just doesn't make any sense in this situation where it's so conveniently located to Minnewashta parkway, to have to put in an expensive cul-de-sac. One thing too that I wanted to mention is our intention is not to put in inexpensive homes just because these lots are not half acre. Our intention is to build houses in the same price range as the houses in the surrounding area. As a matter of fact we've got a plan right now that we're working on to put a home on Lot 5. A buyer has looked at it and is interested in Lot 5 which they felt was the most attractive lots. And when we were working with the surveyors, they located that house beautifully on that lot and it would be a house in the price range of the other homes in the area. So we did look at alternatives but we felt these are what would work... Conrad: As you can tell, one thing we look at is future subdivisions also and the tendency is to take a look at one thing at a time and pretty soon you really chop up a neighborhood and if it's not integrated. Not that the neighbors want to subdivide because a lot of folks moved out here because they liked their large lots, but we find that over time a lot of people do subdivide and sell off and that's one of the points the Planning Commission is hopefully, we can look ahead a little bit and anticipate some of those cases and make sure that we can service anybody that wants to subdivide and we do it so that if there is some kind aesthetic, some kind of continuity to the neighborhood without really being totally chopped up. Jim Borchart: We asked an expert on condemnation when they approached me and I showed them my land, I gave them auditor tax statements and we projected ahead for 15 years which would be the normal length I would live there, and he said an easement would have to bring at least $211,000.00 for the amount of land they're taking and he advised me against selling an easement at that amount. He said I would lose in the long run because of the value of my house. So we're looking at a tremendous amount of money for a cul-de-sac. He said it would be very bad. I have a large house. It's about 6,000 square feet now. If you cut off that and the size of the house it would be diastrous. And he worked off a tax statement not off of any other paper. Emmings: I guess I'm just wondering, it seems to me, one of the points Tim raised is the fact that it would appear that it requires a variance to the subdivision ordinance as far as the driveways are concerned and I don't know if you're ready to make the case for that variance. Maybe we ought to look at this again. Conrad: Can you clarify where you're looking at for a variance? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 15 - Emmings: Under the applicable regulations in the second paragraph, the Subdivision Ordinance Section 12, 6.12 states there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to collectors, arterials or limited access highways. Batzli: Is there access in this case from an individual lot? Emmings: It's all one lot right now and there is one which is probably grandfathered in. I don't know why we have that ordinance. It seems to me it prevents an awful lot of access. I was surprised to see it there but it is there but it is there and we've got to deal with it. Right now we have the case here for what the hardship is and I wonder is we we shouldn't take a look at that. Conrad: So Steve, what would you like? at other ways of treating this property? standpoint? You'd like to have staff look From a one access e Emmings: Yes, look at the alternatives. Number one, could it be a one access property and how could that be arranged and if the applicant isn't happy with that, what case can be made for giving them a variance and making it a two or more access property. What justification is there? Conrad: Do you think you're going to, you reviewed this. Dacy: I think the tabling motion idea would be in order and if I could suggest to the Commission that they suggest that the developer could note an alternate plan to create a small public street in there and then bring that back to us for staff to evaluate and then we can bring it back to the Commission as Option #2. Then the Commission will have two options to evaluate. Headla: Would we have to insist on a 50 foot road though? Right-of-way? That sounds awful high for those few lots. Dacy: Well, yes you would. 50 foot of right-of-way, 20 feet wide bituminous with concrete curb and 50 foot radius on the cul-de-sac. If you want to reduce that, then you're talking about another variance to the subdivision ordinance. Batzli: I'm not convinced yet that the language in this Section 12 restricts it to having one lot for the entire subdivision. At first flush, I read this as saying that you can not have individual lots having access to the collector and not only one driveway for the entire proposed subdivision. I read it as you can't put a driveway in for each proposed subdivided lot. - Olsen: The way we typically have interpretted this is to prevent individual access onto like the collectors or the arterials. Emmings: Then you're saying no variance is required? Olsen: In writing the staff report, I did not feel that a variance was necessary because they were combining driveways. Three into one - - e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - page 16 driveway and two off of that other driveway. It's up to interpretation. Batzli: It really depends on when you're looking at the individual access. Before or after the subdivision occurs. That's certainly the deciding factor of whether you need one individual driveway for the entire proposed subdivision as long as you don't have individual ones after the subdivision. Olsen: It says individual lots. Batzli: Which seems to me to read after the subdivision has occurred. Ellie Schwaba: what I was going to say was, if we were to put in a road in there, then we would need a variance because then we would not meet the lot size requirements. Then we'd need a variance for the lots so anything we do other than these two driveways creates us having to request a variance. Based on our discussion with the City Engineer and Jo Ann, we didn't have any variances. We weren't requesting a variance so we would prefer, if we can, of having to put ourselves in the position of having to ask for a variance, and comply with the ordinance. Headla: I don't know if you're familiar with that area but going north from there, there's the one by where the tree is and then the next one is about a couple hundred feet and then another 90 feet there's a driveway, then about 100 feet there's the Maple Ridge driveway, at the top of the hill you've got another driveway and about 60 feet from there you have Mann's driveway. Now we're loading in another driveway. They're just too close. Last meeting we were complaining about the Lawson property, we tried to reduce the number of driveways on Minnewashta Parkway. I think we're inconsistent. If we're serious about reducing the number of driveways, let's reduce the number of driveways. Conrad: Staff feels that another driveway however, is not necessarily dangerous. Olsen: This one I think has good sight distance. It's preferred over the existing driveway. In terms of meeting the ordinance they could come in with five lots. with four additional lots with just one additional driveway, I guess we felt that that was as good as could be. Conrad: I read that you would rather not go back and prepare a cul-de-sac plan for us? Kevin Winchell: I just don't think it will work. Ellie Schwaba: We pursued that initially and it didn't work because like we were saying, we'd have to ask for a variance. Erhart moved, Headla seconded to table Subdivision Request #88-1 per the City planner's suggestions and bring it back to look at some kind of alternative to bring the access to Minnewashta Parkway to one. This motion was later withdrawn. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 17 e Headla: Can I ask a question to the applicants? Conrad: Regarding the motion? Headla: Yes. Now we can table it and review it or we could either approve it or deny it and it would go to the Council. Elliw Schwaba: We would rather have you approve it or deny it and go to the Council simply because we have pursued this and all we're doing is wasting time. Because I don't know what we'd go back and do. Tell the surveyors to redraw the plan and put us in a position of asking for a variance and come back to see you with a variance. We don't feel we'd be going forward with this. Conrad: In my mind the only thing we could do is we either say there is one access or there can be more than one. That's the issue that we're looking at. If we feel there can only be one access, we're going to turn it down and they'd welcome that so they could go to the City Council with this thing. Headla: From what I hear, they'd rather see approval or denial and go to the Council. - Erhart: I'll withdraw my motion. Conrad: Do you withdraw your second? Headla: Yes. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to deny the Subdivision #88-1 as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 4, 1988". Dacy: Mr. Chairman, regarding your comment on consistency between the application that we had further embarked on Minnewashta Parkway, I just wanted to make sure that there is a differentiation in that this property, it's only means of access is from Minnewashta Parkway and the additional driveway would only serve two homes. The application that we're looking at farther north, we were talking about major stree intersections that would take traffic from other subdivisions of 20 to 30 or more lots. So when Jo Ann was talking earlier about the additional one driveway, it was based on the fact that that would only be serving two homes and that the other alternatives that we had looked at could not be implemented. That being the alternative to the rear. I just wanted to clarify that from the application we had last time. Headla: But you made an issue that by putting in the main road up that one easement, that you got rid of the other driveway and you mentioned that you were trying to get rid of driveways on the Parkway. - Dacy: I agree. I'm not changing that intent at all. I'm just saying we saw this as generating less amount of traffic than the intersection proposed in the other application. Headla: I think it's possible for Lots 1 and 2 maybe to go to that - e - Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 18 driveway to the north. Dacy: I just wanted to follow up on that. Headla: I think there are alternatives yet, that's why I made that motion. Conrad: So your motion is to deny on the rationale that there should only be one access. Headla: Let's not increase the access to Minnewashta Parkway. Conrad: And that's the same rationale Tim that you're using on the second in the motion? Erhart: Yes. Emmings: I guess the more I sit here and listen to what staff's got to say and I think Brian's reading of the subdivision ordinance is probably right. I think my problem is I don't like the subdivision and I'm trying to find a way to rationalize turning it down but I think it probably does meet the letter of the ordinances here and I don't think we can turn it down. On a rational basis anyway. Headla: All we're doing is making a recommendation to the Council. Conrad: Yes, that's all. They can take this. Headla: And I'd like to send them a signal, no. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to deny the Subdivision #88-1 as shown on the plat stamped "Received January 4, 1988". Headla, Erhart and ElIson voted in favor of the motion, Emmings, Conrad and Batzli voted in opposition to the motion and motion failed with a tie vote. Conrad: So this is a 3-3 split and this is a motion to deny. It fails. Erhart: For the sake of the Council, at least these things are better to be moved for approval because it would be more useful for the negative comments. Because now what you have to do is provide the positive comments. Conrad: But the motion did fail. Is there another motion? Erhart: That's just a waste of time. Kevin Winchell: I don't see why we couldn't set this up so all five lots access onto the Parkway through the existing driveway or close to the existing driveway. Olsen: Then it would have to be a road. Kevin Winchell: to have a road? other... Why? Does the ordinance say for five homes you have Instead of having three on one and two on the e - -- Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 19 Conrad: I don't think we'll make it that way. Kevin Winchell: It looks like having just one driveway is going to be the most reasonable thing to me. You can't go private off the back and you can't go to the street. Dacy: The motion from the Commission failed and staff will work with the applicant between now and the Council meeting to see if there are other alternatives available. Conrad: We've never had this situation where we had this. Dacy: It did happen once before at TH 7 and TH 41 three years ago. Olsen: In the staff update, I usually pass on any comments. Conrad: I think from Robert's Rules of Order, we can carry this forth to City Council. We've conducted the public hearing. The Planning Commission didn't really have a motion on it. There was no one consensus. Dacy: The motion to deny failed. Conrad: But that doesn't automatically say it was approved. Jay Johnson: Move to send it to the City Council without a recommendation. Conrad: That's a good idea, thanks. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission sends no recommendation on Subdivision #88-1. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: I do believe that our comments were pretty clear in terms of I don't think we need to repeat why we voted as we did unless somebody feels real opinionated. Dave, do you want to put a footnote in on this to save the tree? Headla: The tree is mandatory. It's one of the top 30 trees. Ellie Schwaba: We always wanted the tree. Headla: I can see why you want it. We've got to get to some other people to realize the trees got to stay there. NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH 212 AND EAST SIDE OF TH 101, ZONED BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON 13 ACRES. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY THROUGH A CLASS A WETLAND. Public Present: -- j e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 20 Nancy Lee Patrick Blood Jim Sellerude Art Partridge Applicant Applicant 730 Vogelsberg Road 6280 Hummingbird Road Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit. Patrick Blood: Just one thing I'd like to bring up. A lot of people think contractor's yards and garbage trucks and stuff like this. I do want to make one simple point. Our company is tending to go to the smaller garbage trucks for customers with road restrictions and stuff like this so a majority of our trucks will be not more than 1 1/2 to 2 ton trucks with a 6 yard packers... Jim Sellerude, 730 Vogelsberg Trail: I live at this location here and I don't have any problems with garbage trucks in our neighborhood, they come through all the time so I don't have any concern about that. My thought is that as the business fringe area, that you designated this, it seems an appropriate time to take a look at the frontage issues along here. The State says right now you can't have access here because they purchased this. My question to staff initially was, if this application be granted, to enter on the TH 212 over here somewhere. Right now we're getting a proliferation of an increased densities of uses on here. The present routing of traffic on here, there's a no stop, access all along here and I think we're getting individual cars pulling out along here and it's becoming more hazardous. The State doesn't seem to be taking a lead on it. I think as a business fringe development, this really should be oriented to TH 212 and I understand they don't want it coming on off the triangle but I think all these uses should be collected somewhere in here and have a more limited access. I know you're just looking at one part. It seems to have an easy solution to come off here but if you keep dealing with individual parcels, as they have conditional use applications, you're never going to look at the problem, the overall problem. I think the Planning Commisison is the right place to begin that discussion. This is just going to be an emorphous development and this is one the gateways to Chanhassen. What do you want it to look like? How do you want that traffic handled? As TH 212 comes through to the north, you're going to have more traffic coming off of TH 101 and I don't know when we'll have an intersection with TH 212 but this sort of has a residential character on TH 101 right now. But as uses continue to increase, maybe it's 20 years off but there will probably be a light rail transit station at this point. If the County picks up the line someday in the future, this is a key point where traffic is coming together. I think it's an important time to take a look all of that access issue and I think these people could be directed, I think their original intent on the application was to come across here and it seems that it's an appropriate way to go. In terms of MnDot giving their approval for an access over here, they'll give approval anywhere. They pass it off to the City. They say, if you give a permit, they're forced to give a permit. They gave a permit for access over here. If someone was going to develop this land and it's an outlot right now that I own with another party, and the MnDot said they'd give access there and they said they'd give an access here Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 21 e for this lot. Because MnDot has some access requirements, I don't think that's... As an interim solution, I think access could be granted here for a period of years but I don't know if that's a legal way of operating but permit access here that expires after a certain period of years and then direct a solution over this way. But not looking at your ordinance to see how you're able to deal with the issue but I think this piecemeal fashion, you're never really going to take a look at this entrance to your city here. People are coming into Chanhassen for all sorts of reasons and here this is known as a notorious entrance to the City. Conrad: You have some good comments. Mark, when you looked at the TH 169 corridor, as we are looking at that, those types of concerns the gentleman brought up, do you feel they should be pursued in our study or do they feel because we're trying to deemphasize this area that they not be pursued? e Mark Koegler: He brought up a couple good comments. First of all, on your second statement in terms of deemphasizing the area, that strictly is the approach the Comp plan is taking because that's what in essence the Metropolitan Council is going to be looking for. The document as a whole will not be expressing the issue of expanding business fringe operations. Whether contractor's yards is necessarily jeopardizing that or not. We believe it's a level of low enough intensity but in general the thinking is not to make that area more intensive. Kind of stepping on your first comment, the Comprehensive Plan and even these corridor studies are general information. Particularly the plan the corridor studies does is we bring it down to a higher level of detail... It's more looking at a little more detail and access issues. If you don't desire that much detail, it certainly would be appropriate to handle it verbally. Just a policy type statement. How do you think we should handle that, might be a better approach. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: How many people did you say were going to be here? Work here, two? Dacy: Yes. Headla: I was under the impression that you stated two. Was that correct or not? Nancy Lee: That would be people in the office. Headla: I see you've got a private office, waiting room, reception room, office area, lunch room. It sounds like it's going to be a lot ~ more than two people. Nancy Lee: That would be in the office. The drivers would check in the morning, get their truck routes and then check in in the evening with their trucks. Headla: How many would occupy the building? You've got what, 4,000 Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 22 e square foot building? Nancy Lee: 3,500. Headla: And how many people would be there permanent in the building? Nancy Lee: Presently it's between 1 and 1 1/2. You're talking full time personnel, it's between 1 and 1/2 right now. There's always somebody in the office. Headla: It seems like a big building. You've got concrete walls, lunchroom and everything and only two people. It just doesn't seem consistent. I'm looking at this, this is a business fringe place. It seems to meet all the requirements but if someone was to take the same plan and the same promise and put it up somewhere on TH 5 or TH 101, why can't they go for a variance and get the same thing approved? I don't know if I'm for or against it yet but that's the kind of thing and I want to hear your questions just to see how you look at it. Batzli: They don't need a variance for a contractor's yard. Headla: what's the definition of a contractor's yard? - Dacy: A contractor's yard is a use or an area where there is construction equipment stored on the site on an overnight basis or other type of contractor's equipment stored either within the building or outside of the building. That you have continuous overnight storage. People come to the site, as in this case, the employees come to the site. They pick up the driver of the garbage truck comes and parks his car, he gets into his truck, he leaves the site, he does operations off site, comes back at the end of the day and drops off the truck, gets in his car and goes home. What the applicant is indicating tonight that there would be 1 to 2 employees staying in the office area to handle phone calls, dispatch, etc.. Headla: By this you're saying we aren't having people dropping off the street? Dacy: Right, no. This is not a retail business. Headla: Why do you have a reception office? If you have a concrete block here and a nice door and then you have this reception and an office. e Patrick Blood: We put the conference room and reception office in there, the plans when they were first drawn up, the rooms were there to be used. We put it in there for future use, for City Council's with their new mandates on garbage pick-up and just an office for meetings if these occur. We don't even know if they're going to occur but the room was there and rather than divide it up into a bunch of small offices or just use them for storage rather than a conference room, that was just the way we put it up with the possible intentions in the future of possibly having conferences with people and that's the only reason that's there. Headla: If trucks coming south on TH 101 turn east, can they go due Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 23 e east and do into the driveway or do they have to drop down to turn and come back and make a left? Dacy: Okay, you're saying when the trucks come south of TH 101 and go under the tracks, to get into the site they'd have to turn left into the site and the driveway is proposed on TH 101. Headla: I thought we were talking on TH 212. Boy, I missed that. I thought we were going to try and get it onto TH 212. Dacy: No, that was an original consideration by the applicants. However, MnDot came back and said that an access to TH 212 would not be eligible because they have purchased the access rights along TH 212. Headla: Okay, I was under the impression then, to make application they would look at it and they stand a good chance to get it on TH 212. That's not the case? Dacy: Right. The applicant would have to buy those rights back and the problem is, MnDot is not going to sell it to them. e Headla: Coming out onto TH 101, boy that's tough. Dacy: We've talked about contractor's yards a lot in the last couple of months and that's been primarily in the A-2 and agricultural areas. This area is zoned commercial. I guess if there is an example of how a contractor's yard should be done, I think this is an excellent example. You've got a concrete block building, paved areas, berming, landscaping. Some of the same issues that the Commission has been talking about and debating on whether or not these are appropriate in the agricultural areas. Headla: I agree with everything you say but now that access on TH 101, that bothers me. Dacy: It's agreed. I don't think there's any question that it is not the best. However, given the low intensity of this use, between 4 to 12 trucks entering and leaving with their primary direction is going south on TH 101 to TH 212. Then the other issues of this part of the site really screens that use the best. If you move it over to the east, it's a wide open view from TH 212 and it really can't take advantage of the grades and elevations. Headla: I thought there was a possibility that they could go to the east. Wasn't there a service road there? e Dacy: If they did want to propose that, then you're fighting the issue of more visibility of the contractor's yard from TH 212. They would have to reoriente the septic system sites and so on. If I could comment on the gentleman's comment about the frontage road, as I noted in the report, that's an excellent idea and if the Commission would want to add a condition whereby if this property is subdivided, that that subdivision application reserve right-of-way for evaluating a frontage road to be constructed. But again, our Attorney tells us that we can only require right-of-way if it's during the subdivision L__ Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 24 e application and not a conditional use permit but the frontage road concept is excellent and that should be pursued. Headla: I hear you say the traffic coming and going and it's minimal but how do we know, is there anyway we can control that in 4 years or 5 years? Dacy: One of the conditions contained in the staff report is to limit the amount of vehicles to 12 vehicles. Anything above and beyond that would require a conditional use permit therefore at that time the City would be able to determine whether or not that would be an adverse impact on TH 101. Batzli: I guess I'd like to talk about the wetlands issue a minute here and the holding tank requirement. They receive waste water from the garage area from washing. You're planning on requiring a contract prior to issuing building permits for the pumping of those holding tanks? Dacy: Right. Batzli: Is there anyway we can somehow make the continued conditional ~ use contingent upon receiving additional contracts or are you going to ~ require this person to get an eternal contract upfront? Dacy: I see what you're saying. That might be a good idea to change the wording in the condition that the pumping should be done on a regular basis. Batzli: Yes. I guess I'm looking for something more along those lines. I like the concept that they have a contract upfront but I'd also like there to be a continuing obligation. ElIson: I noticed you didn't have that 26. I had that as a question myself but you caught that yourself. I like the idea of that frontage road but you're saying we can't do that at this point though and I guess I was a little confused as to the reasoning behind that. Dacy: The subdivision laws are different than the laws enabling municipalities to review conditional use permits. The subdivision laws created by the State enable cities to require road right-of-ways and to require things like parking dedication requirements. The City Attorney says that the conditional use permit application, you're only looking at whether or not that use is compatible with adjacent uses in that district. We can not require right-of-way dedication along with a conditional use permit. You can only do that during the subdivision application. 4ItEllson: Also, I had a question, you said the people come in the morning and they take a truck. Do they come back for lunch and then go out again or do they stay out all day long and then they come back? Nancy Lee: They come back at noon and then leave. ElIson: This probably has nothing to do with it but I was wondering why do you have more in the summer than you would in the winter and e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 25 things like that? What kind of seasonal that makes that happen? Nancy Lee: It was switched. We would have more containers. The containers we're talking about are the containers used at construction sites and it's the wintertime that we may have some. We don't like to have them in but when construction goes down, the containers aren't on the site. In the summertime there shouldn't be any there. ElIson: That's all I had. Emmings: I don't have anything additional. Erhart: I don't know where to start but I'll take the opportunity to say what I have to say about contractor's yards in Chanhassen. I was very much involved in our zoning ordinance. That was a major project we had when I first joined the Planning Commission. I spent a lot of time on it including sitting through with the Council every night that they went over it and approved it. There are two new members here, there's a lot of it that goes over your head when your first on the planning commission. I've had two years to reflect on some of these issues and one of them is this contractor's yards. At the time I didn't oppose contractor yards in the City of Chanhassen. I should say in the rural area of Chanhassen because I really didn't yet understand how they relate to that area. Today I firmed up my mind quite concretely on the issue and I strongly believe that they have no place in the rural area of Chanhassen, which I'm the only person either on the Councilor Commission that represents that area. One is that they have nothing to do with agriculture which is the existing land use in the area. So I believe they are incompatible with that. Secondly, is the agricultural area, the A-2 area in Chanhassen is supposed to be reserved and allowed to increase it's residential use in a planned method. Again, contractor's yards has no compatibility with residential use. Lastly, I think in particular, Chanhassen does not have the road system to support the kind of truck traffic that's associated with contractor's yards and garbage hauling. particularly TH 101. Which gets us to this particular proposal and also into another issue that I think a lot of, when we made the new zoning ordinance, created the new zoning ordinance, a lot of discussion revolved around this business fringe district which I think you opposed completely Ladd, at the time. I think, if I'm right, I think you did, I would agree that we made a second mistake there. But I think we perhaps will get into that in a little bit in the discussion later on when we talk about corridor studies and plans. It really hit me today, this is the first time that I read anyplace where the actual MnDot has gone out of their way to restrict access along TH 212 in that area. Now had that been known when we put this new zoning ordinance in effect, I think that would have had a big impact about the way the Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council viewed this area down there. In fact, the way I interpretted that, they say this is essentially 55 mph roadway. I live there so I know what's it like. It is dangerous to turn on and off that and certainly TH 101 in that area is no place to be promoting increased use by some commercial activity. I can't imagine why we would go through here and allow a commercial activity where you have trucks coming underneath that railroad bridge. It's ridiculous just for automobiles to travel in both directions under that bridge. One has to stop before the other e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 26 one goes through. Lastly, again, you're dealing with this holding tank situation and I'm sure that everyone has all good intentions to make sure that nothing gets drained over into the creek but again, and I don't agree with the Met Council often but in this case, they're right in not planning for sewer in this area. In the first place, it's below the level of most sewer lines in the southwest area. Everything would have to be pumped up. I just think adding a holding tank in an operation where trucks are washed, you're adding an operation where there's a lot of water use. I'm interpretting this from the business and I may be wrong on that. Lastly, I guess just to compliment my first comment, Eden prairie doesn't allow contractor's yards and I do believe we do have a place in the City for contractor's yards don't we? Dacy: We have a number of contractor's yards located in the A-2 District. Erhart: I understand that. Dacy: I'm sorry, what's your question? Erhart: We do have places in the zoning ordinance that do allow new contractor's yards besides the A-2 District. ~ Dacy: Yes, in the Industrial Park. Erhart: We do have a place for the. Eden prairie doesn't allow contractor's yards in their rural areas. e Dacy: Most of the communities in the metroplitan area don't allow contractor's yards in the rural area except as a small, I guess I would call them a ma and pa operation. Erhart: A family business. when we get to the corridor about contractor's yards as I'm against it. So I think I have a whole lot more to say study but I think those are my comments they relate to this particular proposal. Conrad: You're against this because you're against contractor's yards period so regardless of what they could have proposed, you're just anti-contractor's yards? Erhart: Let me state that. yard that comes before me. thing and that bridge. I would vote against any contractor's This one in particular with the TH 101 Conrad: Because of traffic and because of access. That's where I was going too. It is a problem with a vehicle that's a little bit larger going under the bridge. Now I'm sure the applicant has said most traffic will be routed south and out of there, but I guess I would not see the north route would be acceptable anytime. People going up the hill. We don't restrict, what are the restrictions on the truck traffic in that area? Are there any? Headla: If they can get through the bridge, it's okay. e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 27 Dacy: TH 101 is used a lot right now. Maybe to give you an alternative to look at, another access alternative would have to be that from the east there is a separate property between the applicant's property and the cold storage and warehouse site which is right here. There was a suggestion made, could they tie into the driveway. That was approved for the cold storage and warehouse site. They would have to obtain an easement from this private property owner. Whether or not they would get it, would be up to that property owner. So it comes down to the City weighing several trade-offs. You can either limit the intensity of the use onto TH 101 to 10 vehicles, 12 vehicles, whatever or you can look at trying to have the applicant buy the access rights back from MnDot. You would look at a more significant wetland alteration permit to bring the road through the wetland area or the other trade off is locating use more in the open are of the site. It's one of those cases where one location affects the other and then a new issue arises. Aesthetics, screening, access, wetlands so that would be the alternative to what is proposed in this application. Conrad: When we directed truck traffic to Merle Volk's, we asked that traffic be routed certain ways but there's really no way you can control that. Emmings: Even if your access is TH 169, they can still go up TH 101. That's not going to change the number of trips north on TH 101. Conrad: Barbara, your opinion on access, assuming that most routes, most of the time would go back to TH 169. What's your opinion on access coming out onto TH 101? Is that a danger? I think almost anything on that hill seems dangerous to me. I drove it about three times today in the snow and it was not easy. Dacy: First of all, that driveway that is there now, that's obviously done for access to the farm and the old homestead there. Their access into TH 101 is going to have to meet MnDot standards and as noted in the engineer's report, they have to have a 1/2% grade for 50 feet and so on so that driveway location is going to be improved. Going north on TH 101 so traffic coming out of the site is going to be able to see traffic coming from the south better versus the other way around. I think coming south on that, you're really blinded going underneath that railroad bridge so again, there's no question that this is not the best solution. However, there are no other viable alternatives for this property to have access to this site. As long as the intensity of the use is limited to what is proposed, I think it's feasible. Conrad: Could you interpret what Dr. Rockwell scribbled on that piece of paper? Dacy: Seasonally flooded emergent and scrub shurb wetland. Good habitat for small rodents and various species of migratory and indigenous perching birds. Refuge for pheasants and cottontails in winter. Conrad: Get down to the recommendation. Keep what? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 28 e Dacy: When she went out to the site, this is when there was a proposal for the driveway across the wetland area. Keep width of proposed driveway to minimum. Select area with fewest shrubs. Protect remaining wetland from impacts during construction with silt screens. No sidecasting. Conrad: No sidecasting? Dacy: Taking the material that is dredged out. Conrad: Tim, it doesn't appease you that we're in the fringe business district at all? It is a zone down there that is kind of commercial in nature yet it can't be used commercially because of sewer so it's got the highway access without sewer so you kind of look for applications that don't need high volume off of that. This looks to me like a low volume use in a district you're in. e Erhart: What I'm essentially saying is that it's an agricultural area and that business fringe area should never have been put in the zoning ordinance and that we shouldn't be allowing new commercial businesses in that whole area because there's no sewer available. Barb always tell me when I ask, there won't be sewer for 30 years. This is the one area where I actually believe her on. It could be 50 years. I think this is the area that should be, it got started, those businesses down there died because it's not a good business area. The restaurant's not open. It hasn't been for a couple of years. There's been a used car lot and that's closed. Conrad: So you'd like to see it restored to agricultural or residential? Erhart: I think we ought to just let it fade away. Art Partridge: My question with the Merle yolk issue, R & W Sanitation which is a much bigger operation, you allow that into what is essentially an agricultural area...A truck can use a public highway unless there's a weight restriction. e Conrad: As you can tell, we're still struggling with contractor's yards and use of agricultural areas but your comments are well taken. I believe this is a pretty good use of the area down there. It's a strange area. It's just a real strange area and I think I was fighting to get rid of it altogether once upon a time and I don't know if I lost the cause but whatever but I think here's a case where staff has worked with the applicant to kind of hide the use. It looks like the applicant has designed something that's kind of nice here and I don't think that set a precedent for any other contractor's yards. I think my only concern is the traffic that we generate like I am with any contractor's yard. If I think we're putting in 100 trucks or 50 trucks, I think that is definitely not the point of the contractor's yard or what we want to allow but I think as long as we minimize what the applicant does there in terms of traffic generation, I think it's not a bad use of the land. Headla: Remember, if he has 10 trucks there, that means you've got 22 vehicles entering and leaving everyday. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 29 e Nancy Lee: I want to correct that. We run one person per truck... Headla: How do the drivers get to your place? Nancy Lee: They come in their vehicle. Headla: So if you've got 10 trucks, you've got 10 cars, so you've got 20 vehicles plus two people in the building, you've got 22 vehicles. I think that's an awful lot for that particular intersection. If there's someplace with a better line of sight, I think it would be more appropriate but that's a lot on that particular spot on TH 101. Conrad: I think we've sure talked about this. We'll open it up for a motion. If there is one, if somebody makes a favorable motion, I think there were some comments to be discussed in terms of pumping the holding tank on a regular basis. The staff's 26th point and maybe if somebody does make a favorable motion, we should be talking about subdivision and reserving land for future access but I'm not telling you to make that motion. I'm jus saying if you do go along ~ith the staff's posture, we should incorporate some of these other comments. e Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request #87-18 to operate a contractor's yard located north of and adjacent to TH 212 and east of and adjacent to TH 101 based on the site plan stamped "Received December 29, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted) . 2. There shall be no outside speaker systems. 3. Any light sources shall be shielded from adjacent public road right-of-ways. 4. A holding tank shall be installed to receive the waste water from the garage area. The holding tank shall be pumped as necessary and the applicant shall be required to keep a current copy of their pumper contract on file with the City. 5. The building must be sprinklered. 6. The building must have a heat and smoke detector system with a central dispatch tt 7. Lighted exit signs must be installed at all exits. 8. A plan for storage of flammable and/or combustible material must be submitted to the Public Safety Office for approval. 9. Emergency lighting must be installed. e e 16. 213. Planning Commission Meeting January 213, 1988 - Page 313 113. The driveway and parking lot shall have surmountable concrete curb and gutter. 11. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan indicating installation of 20 six foot evergreen trees between the vehicular use areas and the public right-of-ways. 12. All septic systems sites shall be staked and roped off prior to the commencement of any construction. Any traffic over these sites will require reevaluation of the sites. 13. The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit. 14. The approach onto TH 101 shall be a maximum of 13.5% grade for a minimum distance of 513 feet. 15. Catch basins shall be provided at the low point of the driveway along with proper spillways in the parking lot. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Calculations verifying the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate for the site and ponding calculations for a 1013 year frequency storm event shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval. 17. Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) shall be placed at 1013 foot intervals along all drainage swales. 18. Existing structures shall be disposed of properly. If debris is to be burned, the applicant shall obtain a burning permit from the Department of Public Safety and the Pollution Control Agency. On-site burial of debris is prohibited. 19. Additional erosion control shall be placed along the north side of the site. A revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to make periodic reviews of the erosion control and make any necessary repairs promptly. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 21. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize e all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 22. Seeding shall be disc-anchored and shall commence no later than two weeks after slopes have been established. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 31 e 23. All detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and operational which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have the ponds functional prior to any other construction on the project. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the watershed district, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 25. Any expansion of the building or parking areas or expansion beyond 12 vehicles used in the business shall require a conditional use permit review. 26. The site plan shall be revised to shift the building 20 feet to the east. 27. Should the subject site be subdivided, the City would look to requiring the necessary right-of-way for a frontage road to make connections to the east. All voted in favor except Erhart and Headla who opposed and motion carried. e The following is the discussion that occurred after the motion was made and seconded. Emmings: Wouldn't you want to do that whether it's subdivided or not? Or wouldn't it matter if it wasn't subdivided? Dacy: The only other alternative would be that the City would initiate condemnation proceedings. The subdivision is the best tool that we have to get the right-of-way. Emmings: Alright, let's put it in that way then. In the event of subdivision, you put the language in your way. Dacy: In the event of subdivision, the City would be requiring the necessary right-of-way for a frontage road for access to the east. Conrad: In this case we haven't asked the applicant to direct the traffic and take it around. In the Merle Volk, how have we asked him to route traffic? What kind of agreement, what kind of a statement? e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 32 e Dacy: 18. I believe it was a condition of approval that the access use CR Olsen: And they already said that's what they were going to be using anyway. Conrad: Steve, what do you think about winding that type of, they are going to have access off of TH 101 which is kind of dangerous in the first place. Do you care which way the go once they get on there? Emmings: No. I guess the thing is Ladd, well, where do you go? Where will you be going? Nancy Lee: Probably the only times we would be using TH 101 north would be when we go do Chanhassen routes which is on that road anyway. Emmings: It seems, it is a public road and no matter where their access is, they can always go on TH 101. If their access is on TH 169, they can still go north on TH 101. We can't tell them where they can or can not go. It also seems a little bit hypocritical somehow. We expect people to pick up our garbage at our houses yet we want to deny them use of our roads to do it. I don't know, if there was an alternative for them to get north on, to get to the same areas of the city but there really isn't is there. e ElIson: entering. He means more or less coming out than the dangerous way of Isn't that true? Conrad: Yes, I'm concerned about that but I'm also concerned about getting underneath the bridge and that is definitely a dangerous situation. It's without a doubt, you can't put a truck and a car through there at the same time. Emmings: But then it seems to me that there should be a restriction on the road that would prevent them from doing that. I don't think we can tell them they can't use the road. Conrad: Well, how do we have the right to tell Merle Volk he can only use CR l8? Emmings: Because I think number one, that's what he told us he wanted to do anyway. Also, was it Merle Volk, or somebody who went into that corner out by CR 41, we did that as a condition of approval. You can't go north up to TH 5, you have to go out to TH 41 and then up to the intersection. But see that didn't really put them out in any way. It was an alternative that we preferred and they really agreed to go along with it and then we made it a condition of our approval. But I think if push comes to shove, I have a hard time telling someone they can't use roads that they are otherwise allowed to use. e Conrad: picking apart staff's point 25 where they talk about 12 vehicles. Do you care about vehicles Steve as much as you care about vehicle trips? Should we put in a cap on the number of vehicle trips? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 33 e We're trying to keep this low intensity. 12 vehicles and the applicant in good faith, I believe them, they're not going to be theoretically shoving in and out all day long with one vehicle. The vehicles go out and they're going to come back but does the 12 vehicles put a cap on traffic or do we want to talk vehicle trips? Headla: How are you ever going to monitor vehicle trips? Now that you mention that, do these people come back here for lunch? Is that why you have the lunchroom? Nancy Lee: No, they won't come back for lunch. Conrad: That's just architectural stuff that goes on there. You've got to fill up boxes. No interest? Emmings: No, I think the number of vehicles is more important than the vehicle trips I guess, given the nature of the business. Patrick Blood: There's one more comment I'd like to make towards his interest in the conference room, lunchroom. We also planned this building for any future reason that we might have to resell this building, we just didn't want to come up with an empty block building to resell. This building is planned into the future. For any reason we should sell this building, it will have the facilities for other future use and that's one of the reasons these are put into the building too. tit Headla: That's a good explanation. Thank you. Batzli: To get back to your point on the 12 vehicles, I don't understand the phrase, or expansion beyond 12 vehicles. Is that vehicles that will be parked there overnight or is that parking spots? what is that? Dacy: The intent of that was for the 12 vehicles referred to, the 12 garbage trucks or any truck equipment, truck vehicles that they use for the conduct of their business. That was not intended for personal cars. So if they called the City Hall and said, we're getting to the point that we need 15 garbage trucks, we would say, that's over the threshhold of 12, you have to reapply for a conditional use permit. Batzli: But you're talking about the vehicles that will be parked there overnight. you're not talking about their cars? Dacy: That's correct. Feel free to address the condition if you feel you would like more clarification. Batzli: I guess I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to the motion that we're discussing that we somehow clarify that and I'm not quite sure how we do that other than indicate that we're talking about vehicles used in the business. 4It Emmings: I'll certainly accept that. I think it should say that. ElIson: You talked once about maybe they could go through the other place if they got permission and it never was looked into? Sharing a I Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 34 driveway with the cold storage or whatever? I just hate that TH 101 e too. Dacy: No, because it was found that there's a second property owner between that cold storage warehouse and the subject property. No, that property owner has not been contacted to see if they would grant an easement. Conrad: Tim, can you summarize your negative vote? Erhart: I don't think I need to add to my speech but I would like to see, because I do agree we're essentially forced to pretty much let this thing go through, I do believe the score here is on the Planning Commisison to have us look at this contractor's yard as it relates to our zoning ordinance. I'd like to see us do that at a near future meeting. Whatever it takes to do that. Headla: I've got two reasons. One is the number of vehicles entering and exiting at that particular point on TH 101. I think it's very poor planning and I have an environmental concern. The environmental concern I think could be resolved, particularly if they could come out to TH 212 rather than TH 101. I think they did an excellent job in planning their application. e WETLAND Headla: wetland ALTERATION PERMIT. As I understand it, they aren't actually affecting the itself, right? I Dacy: Right, there's no direct alteration. Headla moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-14 to locate a contractor's yard within the watershed of a Class A wetland be approved subject to the site plan stamped "Received December 29, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the standards of Article V, Section 24(a) (4). 2. Compliance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #87-18. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried. Conrad: Tim, your reasons. Erhart: The same reasons as before. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 3, TO PERMIT VIDEO GOLF AND INDOOR GOLF COURSE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2, tltAGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, JOHN PRYZMUS. Public Present: Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 35 John Pryzmus 4ItArt partridge Applicant 6280 Hummingbird John Pryzmus: I'd like to show you as far as the site goes. The building that's proposed for the site, the grading has already been done on the site and the lines corne from 974, which was the high spot and it's been taken down to 968. So you have taken it down about 6 feet 4 inches. This site right here is for the proposed mound system for the septic and that will be raised abou~ 3 to 4 feet. So the whole building will be totally screened from CR 117 by about 9 feet. This building, the walls are 12 feet high and it goes at a pitch up to 18 feet so it's a very low profile building. The City Council and staff, we've already got the berming and all the trees and the landscaping plans have already been approved for the whole site which included the trees that will go around this building. What it does for the project is, it won't intensify the use of the land because obviously when you're involved with basically the miniature golf and the driving range, is an outdoor use so when it's nice weather you'll be out here. The indoor use would be when it's inclemant and it gives me the extra month in the spring and an extra month in the fall so to make the project financially feasible, the indoor facility is a must as far as my financial package goes. I feel that staff and the Planning Commission and the City Council have been very involved in getting some recreational facilities in the city of Chanhassen. I think right now they are proposing that the taxpayers spend 2.4 million for a recreational site in Chanhassen. What I need is ~pproval from the Planning Commission and City Council to make this "'financially feasible for me so I need the building to make it a Class A project. I think Mr. Partridge's here and will say that it's been run like a ma and pa operation and it's been an eyesore for a long time so with the money that's been approved by the SBA, it will be a first class operation for everyone in the City of Chanhassen can enjoy it. The building is a must. Art Partridge: ...in recognition of the Planning Commission when the initial proposal for this as a golf driving range. It was a unanimous denial. It wasn't a question. The City Council... The property in my mind has been treated... There has been rubbish dumped on the property. It's been burned off without a permit... I feel what Barb is recommending, this is a commercial use. You can talk about recreation all you want but it is not a recommendation... It's a commercial use of the land and any other use on this property... Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: Tim, you're our resident expert on the rural areas, we'll start with you. Erhart: My first question, should that be a rural area? What exactly tlthas been approved so far? Dacy: The golf driving range and the miniature golf course. Erhart: And the building? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 36 4Itacy: No. The large building has not been approved. What there's on the site is a small clubhouse to afford the servicing of the people coming in for the driving range. Erhart: Are you intending to put a miniature golf course there? John pryzmus: Yes. Erhart: How much area does that take? The miniature golf. John pryzmus: The miniature golf, I'm not exactly sure but I would say I used about 2 1/2 acres for the miniature golf. Erhart: Do we allow in other areas, other districts, other zoning districts, do we allow miniature golf? Dacy: Yes, miniature golf courses are allowed in the Business Highway district and the Central Business District. Erhart: But we have a zoning ordinance changed, it does now allow in the R-IA District driving ranges with a miniature golf as an accessory use. Okay, then the other question being posed to us later on is the golf courses in general in the A-2 district. That clarifies that. ~mmings: This plan that we have in front of us here doesn't show the ~lubhouse. Did that require any separate approval or is it on there? Dacy: Yes, I think it is on there. It's right here. This represents the plan that the Council approved this summer for the driving range and miniature golf course area along this area. This was originally proposed as an indoor batting building. Emmings: One thing that upset us last time this came up was the infringement on the wetland and we turned down a wetland alteration permit on this property as I recall. Now Mr. Partridge has said that people are saying there's something going on out there now with respect to the wetland. Do we know? Art Partridge: It's all hearsay. Emmings: But do we know about that? Dacy: I think I can clarify that. The Council upheld that denial of the wetland alteration permit. what the Council did approve was grading, he needed to as he said before, cut down the hill here and respread the area for the driving range pads in here and we required him to move the parking area back so there would be 100 foot setback from the center line of CR 117. So he needed to change the grade in here. The grading, and we've got a grading plan on file, shows that the only grading activity was in here and it should be outside of that .etland area. Now, I haven't been out to the site since December and hat's when the activity was but we have not, or at least I have not been out to the site to see how far the grading has gone. He was only authorized to do the grading outside the wetland. The Council did not approve the wetland alteration permit. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 37 _mmings: Has your office gotten any complaints about it? Dacy: I have not received any. We now have a code enforcement officer. Scott would have told me I think if there was something happening there. Emmings: I'm opposed to this. I'm in agreement with the staff report on this. I think the only way I could see this, I was also opposed to the miniature golf except as an accessory use. It seemed to make some sense in the overall plan because as I recall, what he was telling us is that when people came out to use the driving range, kids could do the miniature golf and stuff like that and all that, it kind of fits together and makes some sense to me. It may be that same rationale could be used for indoor golf driving range but I don't know what kind of a building that requires. This is kind of a great long building and I remember when I was at the university, they used to do it in very small rooms. You could do it in essentially a kind of small room setup and that's to catch the balls that you do and this building is the same building as the batting building and I don't really know if it's even been designed for the use that's being proposed. I think it could be a much smaller building but as proposed, I'm opposed to this plan. ElIson: I don't have any additional comments. _atzli: To be honest, I feel a little bit lost. It appears there's quite a bit of history behind this matter that just reading some of these documents didn't quite capture the essence of it. I guess it seems that, the question I raised in my own mind, if this appears to be the building that was proposed for the batting practice that was denied, what has changed in the meantime to now permit this? I guess I haven't been convinced of that yet. John pryzmus: I guess I don't know that I'm proposing it to be anything but an indoor recreational facility basically geared towards golf. As far as some of the comments Mr. Partridge made, when I did burn on that site it was at the recommendation of the City and I did have a permit for that so some of the things that you read in those comments are not necessarily what has really happened out there. The bottom line is, now what it's going to do for the City. What it can do for the citizens that don't have a recreational facility of that type. I guess you said that there isn't a recreational facility and there should be one and the City of Chanhassen and the citizens feel that's a necessary improvement, we do pay for the ice time. We do pay for the racquetball courts when you do use them. Batzli: You mentioned earlier that you're going to gain two months by putting up this indoor golf driving range. Are you saying this will not be open year round? This is seasonal? ~ohn Pryzmus: It will be closed, I'm proposing to have it closed for the months of December, January and February. What it does it gives me the opportunity, from a financial standpoint, when it's raining you can have people still involved in doing something out there. That's why I say it doesn't involve more traffic in the area. One other Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 38 tltomment that people on the city staff had said earlier, when City Council made the motions to approve this project, they made a stipulation that it had to be on a major highway, state highway trunkline, a major collector, which limits the city of Chanhassen to one set would be TH 41 and TH 5 and obviously somebody isn't going to put one next to me. The other one would be down on TH 212 and TH 101 so basically when someone says that this project could be built anywhere in the agricultural area, the ordinance specifically limits it to major collector and major highway. Art Partridge: At that time the City rewrote the ordinances to allow this in the first place, they put that stipulation in. As far as I was concerned, that was a condition based on... Headla: You made your proposal, I don't remember the building. The final proposal. I thought it was just the driving range and the miniature golf course. Is that true? John pryzmus: No. In 1987, since I bought the building, the steel was all out there on the site. I did, at the recommendation of the City Council and staff, I removed the geodesic dome. I built a new building. I've done everything. I've done all the berming was done to the south of the parking lot. Berming still has to be done to the north of the parking lot. Basically, the City Council did deny the wetland alteration but they did make me put in a pond for any future ~noff or whatever. The grading plans were revised by the City. Headla: But was your indoor driving range proposed in your final plan? John pryzmus: Yes it was. Headla: I remember it was being talked about at one time but then I thought it was dropped. I have a hard time with this inside driving range. We've had a hard time, we've really worked to keep retailing out of the TH 5 where it isn't served by sewer. We have an indoor driving range and people dropping in like that, I think that's bordering on retail so I can't support this building. Conrad: I agree that this is a commercial use or that it's in conflict with the intent of the agricultural area. It's not in sync with the district's intent. I think that was how I postured it before with the indoor batting. Maybe even the miniature golf. I think a golf range is pretty in sync with the agricultural area. Not necessarily the big buildings. It's green grass looks agricultural to me. A building is not and I think it's real clear. I agree with the staff's comments and their summary and don't feel that it's appropriate to have buildings like this in the agricultural area. Headla moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ~enial of zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #82-4 for indoor video ..wolf and indoor golf driving range as conditional uses in the A-2 district because the proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the A-2 District and is imcompatible with the permitted and conditional uses of the district. All voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 39 - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 3, TO PERMIT GOLF COURSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Art Partridge 6280 Hummingbird Art Partridge: Is this in anticipation of... Dacy: No, that's not the case. Obviously we have one in the City but because of a large land area requirements, I think the consensus of opinion was that we didn't want to exclude that type of use any further if, right now the Bluff Creek Golf Course is non-conforming. If they did want to alter their course or add additional holes, they would have to come in for a variance. However, that's not to say that there are disadvantages for the site planning of Bluff Creek Golf Creek especially to access... You've seen the Commission and the Council stated that a golf course should be included somewhere in the city. ~onrad: It was pretty much our direction that we think we should "'llow them. It's a case Art where if we're going to allow them, maybe we should have standards before they come in there and ask us for the permit. Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: A golf course, I don't have a hard time with that but when you mentioned golf courses those people use it and pretty soon you have like an office building and 11m kind of thinking of like Island View out at Waconia. You have a blacktop driveway and you've got a building and you're going to serve pop or food or something and pretty soon you've got several restrooms and now we're taking a lot of water and we've got to have a major sewer system. It's that sewer system, I have a hard time. If it's where we could hook it up to public sewer and water, I'd feel a lot different but that's the only problem I had with it. Batzli: I have the same problem. I don't necessarily agree with the staff's summary that a golf course doesn't have a lot of noise. In fact, I think at many courses who rent their facilities out for receptions and such, the kind of noise you get is late at night and it's probably more offensive than a different type of use. Dacy: The size of the clubhouse is a good point. One that was not ~ddressed but maybe one that we could research further because, how ~ig of a clubhouse do you have before it's getting into almost a conference center and being rented out for meetings and gets beyond just a golf course. Conrad: I guess maybe you should go through the rest, but I agree. I Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 40 4Ithink this issue should be tabled because I don't think we thought that out. That gets back into a very commercial intent and I think we should look a little bit more at the size of clubhouse. Would we permit a big clubhouse if they came in? I think there are a lot of other things that we should take a look at simply besides access. Emmings: We have to define golf course too I think. Are we talking about a 3 hole course, a 9 hole course, a standard size? I don't know. There must be standards for golf courses but I think we're going to need a definition of what we're allowing as a permitted use in terms of the course itself also. Erhart: I had that down in my notes too. I think we want to make sure, if we're going to entertain a new golf course in this city that it's a real golf course. Also, one other comment, I bet half the golf courses in the Twin Cities operate on septic systems so I don't know if that's a real problem but if it's worthwhile, Barb I'm sure would love to find out. I thought this was a rather interesting thing. When you go through Barb's logic, or if it was Jo Ann that went through this, in trying to develop a philosophy of what we allow in the agricultural area, getting back to contractor's yards as you probably anticipated, is that the philosophy tends to run is that the A-2 and RR area seems to be well suited for, obviously agricultural use and transitioning to residential. There seems to be another use .hat runs through here and that is, it seems to be acceptable and ogical to allow recreational uses, those types of uses that require large pieces of land. Those have all seemed to be non-conflicting. We don't seem to get into terrible arguments about that. Just to give you some examples on what I mean by recreational use that requires large pieces of land would be the horse stables, golfing and in some areas probably, not that we have enough room but it would be typical to be like hunting clubs. We probably don't have enough area to do that here. If we did have enough area, it probably would be considered in Chanhassen. That seems to be acceptable and I think it leads us once again here, it helps us in philosophising and accepting some philosophy and guidelines. It helps us look at these and say, yes, I think a golf course does make sense. I think we all agreed the last time we talked about this. If someone came in with a nice proposal we certainly wouldn't want to slow them down or give them any kind of feeling that they weren't wanted. Yet at the same time, this contractor's yard is, every time you mention contractor's yard, you essentially say it's inconsistent in your report. So, that's all I have to say about that one. Emmings: If we table this item, the other thing we ought to think about is having it as a conditional use. If we can't really come up with a solid definition of a golf course or a solid definition of what size clubhouse is appropriate, we may want to make it a conditional use rather than a permitted use. ~acy: That's what I had proposed. Emmings: I'm sorry, I thought you were proposing it as a permitted use. Dacy: But it doesn't hurt to add a further definition. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 41 e Conrad: What signals are we sending you right now? In fact, I don't know what signals we all are sending on golf courses. If Hazeltine wanted to build in Chanhassen in the A-2 district, would we allow them? We'd say no. Dacy: Right now, they couldn't. Conrad: So if Staff could go back and draft some kind of guidelines for us for an ordinance amendment. What do we want them to show us? Are we looking for prohibiting a major golf course? Erhart: That's not what I had. I had limiting a tiny golf course, substandard golf course. That's what I had in mind. Conrad: That's more in line with agricultural though. A less intensive use. e Erhart: No, what I'm saying is, the rural area is a good use for recreational use that's involved with use of the land. If it's an 18 hole golf course, it's consistent with proper use of the land without requiring a big septic problem. It's an okay golf course. What we don't want to do is allow in a substandard golf course. And if he does, then they've got to sell us that. That's what I was thinking in terms of trying to define what should come in. And maybe also define it, they can't have a great big conference center either as long as it's a septic area. There's obviously limitations. Conrad: Chanhassen is discouraging recreation activities. We really are. Water slides come in here and we don't want water slides. I don't know what the recreation activities are but I always worry that somebody has a good idea that requires land, the only place they can do it is in the agricultural area but we really don't have locations for major activities like that. Erhart: I think we encourage horse stables. It's a permitted use in both the A-2 and A-2 and RR district. Dacy: I guess it depends on the recreation. The community center, that's aimed at specific types of recreation and the overall trail plan is aimed at walking, cross country skiing and so on. I don't know that we're saying no but I think maybe we're more concerned about a large amusement type of recreation. Water slides, to me that means ValleyFairs and amusement parks and so on. Erhart: I differeniate in my mind the difference between some kind of a created amusement type recreation, which I think a mini-course is. I would be against the mini-course because I think's a created thing and it only requires a small area. You don't need the A-2 district to put in a mini-course. e Batzli: By mini-course, are you talking a par 3 course? Erhart: No, I'm talking about a mini-putt. Sort of the natural, outdoors, large land use recreational uses. I think this community is a perfect place to put those kinds of things. Golfing, horse riding, ~ e - Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 42 cross country skiing, walking and stuff like that. Maybe define what's a gimick and what's real. Conrad: Art, what do you want around your house? Art Partridge: No contractor's yards. I live next door to one no matter what the City says. All I was going to suggest was that, just as a citizen, ... Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to table the zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-2. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 6, 1988 as amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 9, 11 and 13 and Dave Headla on pages 9 and 46. All voted in favor and motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler: Let me give jus some brief introductory things then we're going to turn it back to you. The transportation section is really the last remaining significant section of the plan that we are embarking into amending. As a part of that, we got into a discussion you'll recall a while back, on these corridor studies. The validity of doing them. The waste of time in doing them. There were a number of those kinds of comments that were kicked around. The issue went to City Council. It came back with the Council was interested in having some corridor studies within the Comprehensive Plan. It might go a little bit more specific than the plan itself and the plan itself getting into land use or the transportation section. They did make the determination that they wanted that and as a result of that, specifically they asked that TH 5, TH 101, TH 212 and existing TH 169 and TH 212 be looked at. We talked about that in general terms with this group last time. Last time being probably about a month or so ago. What we had done since that time is put together a text that reflects some of that discussion and there are some just real quick land use sketch maps in there that again, correspond to some of the larger graphic things that you talked about last time. The corridor studies that you have drafts of now are intended really for two purposes. They will be incorporated as a part of the Comprehensive plan and ultimately the graphics we pulled together and the whole thing is completed. It's possible, however, for this to exist as kind of a free standing document. If somebody comes in and says I want to put a contractor's yard down along TH 212, what do you think is going to happen to that area? At least that's a few pieces of paper that you can give them. It's kind of interesting to see tonight that already those are very much becoming day to day planning tools. I think you have a couple of cases and the miniature golf case is another one, that you could bring in the argument, what you envision e e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 43 as being the long term land use for those areas and how this either fits in the land use or not. Depending on the philosophy of whether it's appropriate. At any rate, the first portion of the material that you received deals with corridor studies for the four different routes that I referenced before. I don't know how you want to handle that. Whether you want to go through those or perhaps it's more prudent just to take them one at a time and let you come back with questions or comments that you might have. I think philosophically, hopefully they are in line with what we've talked about before. In that the bottom line is the Planning Commission's feeling, if we caught the essence of it, is that without sewer essentially there is little or no development. We had tried to emphasize that in the text by referencing each and everyone of those where there is, under this city's philosophy within the Comprehensive Plan in general, a correlation between provision of full urban services being transportation network and sewers primarily, for different type of development. Without either one of those other components, the urban plan was premature. So we tried to reiterate that in these comments. I think you saw that probably in the TH 5 for example. The western portion, throughout that kind of text employing the eastern portion which is sewered is much more defined. Certainly defined in part by the existing land use patterns that are there. with that, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you just want to go through these one at a time. If you want to open it up for general comments. At your discetion. Conrad: I will open it up for general comments. Does anyone want to get into any specific corridor or any particular issue that Mark's laid out? Erhart: North TH 101. We show some straightning on the plans for the mid part of TH 101. I see up on the Hennepin County side they've taken that curve right up, as you get that curve to the right and the left as you go north and the Hennepin side of that curve, the east curve there, they're making that a little more gradual there with that development. Mark Koegler: Are you on Town Line Road? Erhart: Yes. I suggest we also show, is there still an opportunity to do that on this curve or the houses are already right up to the corner? I can't remember. When you curve to the left, they're smoothing out that curve now by pulling those lot lines back so that later on they can come in and cut that curve a little bit. The question I had was can you do that here by pulling back future development inside that corner. Conrad: That's in Eden Prairie. Mark Koegler: I don't know if that was part, that area is fully platted now and under development. I just don't see any field activities there. It doesn't appear there is very much realignment at all. Conrad: That's just amazing that they're not. I can't imagine when they had that big parcel that's now being developed, that they didn't Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 44 It pull it back there. It's a good point Tim. That's just insane but it doesn't look they pulled it. I've been up there and they're certainly not bringing it back much. The houses that are going in along that curve are a fair ways off the road but, this is going to be a token improvement if anything. I'm really surprised that Eden prairie didn't care or somebody didn't care. Erhart: Are we talking about this whole thing, this whole document? Conrad: I opened it up and I guess the reason I did that was because I didn't have many comments on it. I had very few. I think Mark echoed what the directive was and to kind of give some kind of a forecast how we might use the land around these corridors and I think he did what I expected him to do but if you'd like to get into page by page, we could do that too. Erhart: The other issue of course, and I already brought it up tonight, is the area down on TH 212 and TH 101. We have the zoning ordinance that calls it business fringe but if we want to rethink that we could actually, is it an appropriate place to talk about perhaps showing this as, what do you got here now? You've got residential medium density and this would be on this page here? e Mark Koegler: The business fringe area is shown on the land use as commercial. Erhart: Is there any point to bringing it up and rekicking that all around again? I guess lid sure like to do it and I remember you at the time, when we put the zoning ordinance in, was in favor of just letting this sort of go back to agriculture and I think there's a couple of points listed in here that support that. One is availability of sewer, you mentioned is not likely. If nothing else because of it's elevation. Also, that the land on the south side is essentially the National Wildlife Refuge. What is Eden prairie's plan, their Comp Plan say about that TH 212? In other words, the valley. What we're really talking about here is the valley and it happens to have TH 212 down our side of it. So the question, we even should be thinking about is what's the long term plan for the valley? Dacy: It's similar to ours. e Mark Koegler: As you go east the wildlife refuge continues. In fact it follows the river all the way into Bloomington. There are some more intensive recreational...in Eden Prairie. There's a long term trail plan, or the refuge plan over there has a center with parking and a trail...but the city does not advocate any commercial development of any kind along that corridor. They are really similar to Chanhassen. The only area that they have potential development is on the north side and as you well know, if you go too far to the east, you get into the airport and the landfill situation and everything else. It's only on the western portion of Eden prairie that you would have any potential developable land in the future. It's my understanding from talking to Barb recently, that Eden prairie is now looking at advocating that that area, really that whole area, not be in thelr MUSA line for a long, long time to come. So in that regards, they're interested in pulling the reigns back a little bit on I I. e e Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 45 developing the area as a whole. That area and some other areas that are not on the MUSA now, they're looking at not pushing to get MUSA added to it. Erhart: I'm referring to essentially the Bluffs down to the road. What is their position on that? Mark Koegler: I can only tell you about south of TH 169 and TH 212 and that's slated as part of the National wildlife Refuge. North, I'm not sure. Erhart: What would happen in Eden prairie today if somebody came along the Lion's Tap and wanted to build a used car lot or what are some of the things we've seen come in down there? Dacy: The Lion's Tap has to be a non-conforming use. If I recall on their land use plan, there's a little spot of commercial and that's the Lion's Tap. Erhart: If you came in with a cold storage next to the Lion's Tap, would Eden prairie permit it? Mark Koegler: My reaction would be no, but I don't know specifically. I know Lion's Tap, from what I was told not too long ago, there was improvement to that building because of public pressure or whatever else. Erhart: I'd like to see us seriously consider on, start with this Comp plan and show that as agricultural and not show that that's going to be a commercial site. There are two other things I wanted to bring up, one is preserve essentially those homes up on that bluff. Have really a stake in the way it is today. By making that commercial, you have a great detrimental affect on the homes on the Bluff and I don't live on the Bluff so I'm not speaking for myself or anybody that I know. Secondly, you're talking about such a narrow corridor between that railroad track and TH 212, it's really questionable whether it's of any value commercially. By the time you run a service road along TH 212. Conrad: There's a lot of traffic down there. The car count there is like 13,000 to 15,000. It's really big. Naegle's being forced to take their billboards down from that little corridor and they hate to do that because of the traffic. Erhart: Why are they being forced to take them down? Conrad: Part of the Scenic River Act or whatever it is. I think there are some dividing lines where there is some jurisdiction over Naegle's has their signs but, let's do this. I don't have a solution at the time for that. I think it deserves 15 minutes during a time before 11:20 at night so why don't we postpone it. Let's discuss what this could be used for. I don't think staff has to do any legwork for us other than if you could give us some information Barbara, either you or Mark, what's Eden prairie doing to the east of us there and let's just dialogue if there's another use for that. We tried to make the uses down there, there were a bunch of assorted things that was Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 46 e happening down there so rather than making them non-conforming we put a district down there just to take care of what was there. Our hope was that they go away but they're not. And property owners have a right to use that and it's a high traffic area. It's good visibility. I think we need some debate about it. Erhart: I think what we've done, and I won't get into it but what we effectively have done, is we're encouraging commercial growth there with that BF district. Conrad: Anytime you put a district in there that says you can do these things, you encourage something. Mark, we're just going to dialogue about that little thing. Mark Koegler: That's a point that's very germane to transportation and land use section because that whole area will...that we're going to be walking with the Met Council. Barb and I talked about the text pertaining to that and we're going to have to word it pretty carefully so it would be responsive to all of the other agreements that the City has with the Lake Ann Interceptor and everything else, designating growth and that is allowed without sewer availability. Conrad: Across from that map that we're looking at, it says proposed ~ transportation improvements. Across from Exhibit C. Mark Koegler: It shall be associated with the case study for TH 101? Conrad: Yes, the case study for TH 101. Halfway through there it says jurisdiction for TH 101 south of TH 5 should be the responsibility of Carver County. I guess I don't understand that. Why is that there? What does that mean? Why are you making that statement? Mark Koegler: That ties into the functional classification section that's in here this evening as well as another section that will go behind that that you'll see next time that's going to be on jurisdictional classification. TH 101 in this plan is designated as a minor arterial. Under normal circumstances, minor arterials are maintained and fall under the jurisdiction of County or State governments. Long term plans seem to indicate that that's not going to be a state route any longer. If it's not a State route we believe the City's position should be that it's a County route. City jurisdiction essentially coming...certainly collectors and in some cases minor arterials. That's the primary, we get into that in a little more depth next time when we talk about jurisdictional classifications. That's a summary of thinking there. e Conrad: Again, I'm ballparking this whole thing. Mark spends a lot of his time and we're giving him a few minutes here and I'm kind of pushing it through. Maybe that's not fair. Mark Koegler: Bear in mind you'll get several more cuts at this. We're going to be dealing with transportation for the next few meetings. Conrad: Anymore comments on this whole packet of stuff? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 47 e Batzli: I have just a general question. potential future routes which may end up For instance, the LRT or an extension of which mayor may not be in town? Are we some point or is that considered part of considered? Are we dealing with going through Chanhassen. the 62nd Street, Crosstown going to deal with that at this package or it wasn't e Mark Koegler: No, it is part of the transportation plan. It is not part of what you've seen to date. The Commission previously has discussed, in very general terms and has specifically asked that LRT be addressed in the Plan. It was not addressed in the plan that I put together in 1980. It was not an issue at that time. So yes, that will be addressed. As far as road improvements, the only major road improvement that's been addressed so far is the new TH 212. There are some minor things, extension for collectors and so forth. The impact of the extension of Town Line Road to TH 101 has been factored in as a part of the TH 101 being designated as a minor arterial. So in that regards, that has been addressed. But this really is just a small piece of the whole transportation picture and I'm thinking it probably is going to be wise the next time we get together to just take a few minutes of overview all of that's included within that. We'll be bringing back some more material next time and hopefully wrapping it up... The other thing we need to do is, the Metropolitan Council is on the verge of updating their development framework chapter on transportation. The draft is now out. A very early draft is out and Barb and I were talking the other day, we want to sit down with the Metropolitan Council's staff here, as early as next week or so, and see what their thoughts are so if there's any other components that we are overlooking, such as LRT or some similar types that are ultimately going to be required in the Comprehensive Plan, we'd just as soon get it in now than to have to go back and do another revision 12 months or 18 months down the road. We'll try to have as complete of a document in regards to the Plan. Bear in mind, as you all know, the Met Council flucuates from time to time so the rules may change. Erhart: On the amount of land area within the MUSA line available for housing at this point. Once TH 212 gets put on the map, does that area get excluded then from the buildable area? Dacy: The developable acreage. But it's really a small amount that goes through the MUS A so it's not going to be that big of a factor. Conrad: I'm sure I don't want to talk about light rail tonight. Mark, you've got a note in here. Do we need to talk about Mark's note to us about the Comprehensive plan completion schedule? It's there for our information. Anything that anybody wants to talk about on that? Zoning ordinance amendment update. e Dacy: If you wanted to table that to the next meeting, we're just going to have two items on that next meeting. The official zoning ordinance public hearing on some of these items so you will have more time. Conrad: Is that agreeable that we table this so we can give it more time? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 48 e Emmings: Should we add to this, these things that came up tonight? The talking about where we're filling in subdivisions and maybe trying to do something to... Dacy: You mean the lot size issue and the sign ordinance? Emmings: Yes. Then there was that ordinance that we talked about on having access from lots onto collectors. That thing came up when there were some questions there so I think we ought to kick that around and make sure we understand that but the idea that, I think Tim talked about it more than anybody else about when you're filling in areas that were not previously developed or are newly subdivided, to make sure that there's better compatibility in the neighborhood. ElIson: I think you said your transitional comments. Erhart: Specifically the first item Steve was talking about was that Section 12, 6.12 of the Subdivision Ordinance. I think it's extremely vague. I interpretted it a different way than you did because I know the intent. I think I know the intent but I may be wrong but it is real confusing. e Emmings: We all understand it but if it raises questions here, we ought to kick it around and maybe rewrite it a little so we do understand it. Conrad: I don't know how many of these things can staff do. We have the sign height review. Subdivision. Dacy: We can certainly add it to the list. We'll try and see what we can come up with something initial in the next week. Emmings: On sign height and stuff, don't they just use a manual? Some traffic control device to set heights of signs or something. Wouldn't that all be in there? Dacy: That would probably be like MnDot has a published manual. Emmings: Could we just say their signs have to comply with that. I think they have heights for all different kinds of signs. Dacy: Why there wasn't a height requirement in there, that was an obvious oversight. There should have been an appropriate limit. ,e Emmings: People are going to put them where people can see them. They're not going to just stick one up in the air so I don't think there was anything really to worry about. Maybe just by reference to some publication, you can say comply with the Uniform Manual or something like that. Conrad: Barbara, on this infilling or whatever you want to call it. Smaller lots in big lot areas. I guess I'd like to have staff tell us if there are any ways that we can control that. That's really our intent of looking at that thing. I'm not looking for an ordinance amendment right now. I think we just need information. Is there Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 49 e anyway, legally that we can start controlling that given the fact that we have 15,000 square foot lot sizes? Review of contractor's yards. Tim, where do you want to go on review of contractor's yards? What do you want to do? Dacy: If I could jump in Tim. This is beginning to concern me, not so much from tonight's application but we're the only community in the metro area that's allowing them to scale that could get up to 20-25 or 50 trucks, beyond what Merle Volk has out on his site. Word gets around that Chanhassen is the place to go. The only saving grace in the ordinance is that 1 mile separation requirement and that's almost eaten up the entire A-2 area but there's one spot left and you know it. The guy's been calling about requirements for a contractor's yard and that's on TH 212 also. Down the line towards Chaska. You go back and amend the ordinance to eliminate, makes them non-conforming uses. Three years ago, the Council directed staff to amend the ordinance to include them and make them conforming. It's a perception issue from the public in that you'll have to deal with from the property owners. Conrad: I don't know that we see a corretion right now. Let's just put it as an agenda item next time and let's talk about it and see where it goes. It doesn't mean that we need anything from you at that time Barbara. Erhart: The other one was the BF district, we wanted to talk about it somemore? Ie Dacy: We can look at that as a part of that comment on the transportation plan. Erhart: On this sign issue though, there was also an interest in increasing the signage area. Was that something you wanted? Conrad: I come back to a sign that's 2 feet wide and I don't know that it's visible. I honestly don't know that it works. I don't know what standards we use for directional signs but that's my only thought. Apparently it is working for certain people in town because they're not here beating on us. Dacy: Most of your entry signs to developments, exit and entrance, employees, that kind of thing. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS. Dacy: The HRA liason, we do have the HRA meeting this Thursday. Erhart: Who says we have to have an HRA representative? Dacy: If you don't one, that's fine but if you're having concerns about where the City Hall is located and how wide the streets are. e Conrad: Are there any volunteers for the HRA? We'll wait for Jim to return. The second item on the agenda, meetings. For the new members, I think you can see that we've been meeting on Wednesdays. It works for the planning staff on Wednesdays. Not always 900d for all members on the Planning Commission. I think Tim would lIke to consider some other days. I guess we thought we'd hear if you had any Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 50 ~ particular needs in terms of days of the week that you'd rather meet. I think the Planning staff has some, in my opinion, some persuasive reasons to meet on Wednesdays like we do. Any objections to their recommendations? Emmings: I'd like to leave it there just because I'm used to it and it really works pretty well for me. Conrad: Do we need to vote on that? Dacy: No. Conrad: Okay, let's keep it then. Dacy: Then the final correction on the By-Laws. Emmings: Removing the word stick? Dacy: Yes. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the revised By-Laws as presented by Staff. All voted in favor and motion carried. - Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim -