Loading...
1988 11 16 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO. Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report. e Jim Fillipi: My name is Jim Fillipi. I'm with Northstar Engineering consultants and representing Amoco Oil Company. I believe we have been able to work with the staff and the city regarding the driveways and position and the unresolved issues from last time in which we were before you. We feel that all of the conditions with the exception of one that is contained in the staff recommendation are acceptable and we'd like to address the one. We'd specifically like to deal with and that is the signage on the canopy. We will agree to eliminating the one food shop sign that is on the north side. There will be just the two building signs on the building. Each of those would be approximately 9.4 square feet in size. The ordinance as we read it or as shown in the front, would permit to...have a wall sign that could go as high as 50% of the wall area or up to 80 square feet which would be...150 square feet of illuminated sign on the building. We are not proposing any illuminated signs along the building. ...from some of the others that you have seen. Mentioned in the staff report is how the name to direct, for example, is being, sites that do not have canopy signs but at the same time those sites will have in excess of 80 square feet of illuminate wall signage that is visible from the street right-of-way. The signage that is on these two signs is not illuminated in this proposal. In fact, the three canopy signs totaling approximately 35 square feet, they're 11.6 square feet each, would be the only illuminated signs on the entire building or canopy at night. If those were removed, there would be nothing other than the single pylon sign that would be illuminated to identify that a business is there. We feel that trading 160 square feet of signage for approximately 35 square feet can be a reasonable trade-off and that there is justification for it. If you have any other questions, we can answer them. We've gone through and dealt with the staff report and the individual conditions and have no other comments. Conrad: Okay, thanks. We'll probably have some questions for you in a few seconds. Any other comments from people over here? Dave, do you want to start it out? e Headla: Larry brought up one point and that leads to another one. You had in the memo and the contents about the plumbing code. When Larry writes recommendations and some, through an oversight, don't get included Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 2 e in a recommendation, do they even become part of the record? Conrad: At this point in time they will. As soon as we read them in. Headla: Okay, but we've got to read them into the recommendations. Conrad: Yes. We don't have to take Larry's recommendation. Headla: He had a good point on this plumbing one and that started me thinking. Well gee, what if we just happened to miss it. At least for myself, I have to go through these recommendations a lot more careful from all the others. Brown: In this instance, I realize this isn't a blanket statement for any recommendation that's missing in the report but for this instance, this would be required as part of the commercial building permit and be contingent upon meeting these requirements before they receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Our plumbing inspector is very efficient at requiring to follow the State Plumbing Code. He has done a very good job in making sure these are enforced. e Headla: Can we rely on the staff then to highlight something that might have been overlooked? At times we don't go through detail on everyone of these things. If we miss some point, can we rely on you and the safety director to highlight something in case it is overlooked? Brown: We try and proofread these before they go out but in the instance that something is missed, usually we'll be going through and preparing for the meetings and rereading the reports to make sure that everything is in there, yes. Jim Fillipi: We can, if that would suit your convenience, the car wash plans are standard plans. They do include a flammable waste trap and we can provide a copy of those to the staff report prior to the Council meeting. Headla: I was just looking at the principle. When SuperAmerica proposed the place on TH 7, did we evaluate Amoco on the same rules that we used for SuperAmerica like selling items out front? They've got a convenience store. It seems like if we've got rules for this one, we've got to use the same rules for the next one. Olsen: Right. That's correct. The difference between the two was that the SuperAmerica was a conditional use permit. Some of those were conditions of the conditional use permit...but those are conditions that could easily be added to this site. - Headla: It just seems like signage. Some of the products out front. Any of those things should apply evenly across the board. The one I have a hard time with, he offered an alternative to the canopy. Do you have any comments on that? Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 3 e Olsen: The ordinance does permit them to have a wall signs... Again, we've been pretty consistent with not allowing the gas canopy signs but...as a trade off. Headla: I'm uncomfortable with trade-offs only from the point of view that it appears to be inconsistent. I'd like to hear comments from the rest of the commission to see how they feel on that. The rest of it, I think you've been very up front with what MnDot is willing to do and how they make their decision. I think it's up to them. As long as they understand the...that's laid before them. When we go to make the recommendation, I would like to see something about selling products out front like SuperAmerica. That we treat them the same way. That's all I have. Conrad: We don't have that as a standard, the selling of products. That was a condition because primarily the neighborhood up there. It's not really set into any standard that we can apply them but it is something that we can talk about. I don't know that there's an inconsistency between how we handle here and there. I don't know that we're treating them unfairly one way or another. Headla: I guess I'm raising a question more and opening it for discussion. I haven't really decided on it but I wanted to raise the question. I think it's important we do treat them similar. ...why they aren't treated similar, fine. e Wildermuth: I think this application is different from the SuperAmerica application as far as selling merchandise out on the apron is concerned. This is not in a neighborhood setting. The SuperAmerica application was an exception. Two things bother me a little bit. We don't know how much land MnDot is going to need for widening TH 5 so I don't know how we can position or how the building can be positioned at this point. Olsen: In the case of TH 5, they have adequate right-of-way. Batzli: In MnDot's letter they talked about TH 101 might be widened. Wildermuth: Right. TH 101. Olsen: The problem we have with that is that we can not require the applicant, ieven if we knew how much additional feet, this is just a site plan and does not require us to look at that. That will have to be... condemnation...MnDot or the City were to take over TH 101 at that time. Wildermuth: What in your estimation will corne first Jo Ann? The upgrading of the roadway or the construction... Olsen: Construction of the site I'm sure will corne first. e Wildermuth: It just seems like we're kidding ourselves if we don't that that into account at this point while there's still an opportunity. .-, "':.- ------ -~ Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 4 e Olsen: They understand that additional right-of-way will be... It's not really going to, we've been hearing 11 feet, 14 feet and it will impact more the landscaping than it will impact the building itself. The setbacks will be reduced. It's similiar to what happened with the new storage facility on TH 5. They ponstructed a storage facility right where that will be taking property but again... If they had platted the property, you could require them to dedicate the additional right-of-way. Wildermuth: I guess if I could ask the applicant, do you plan to take that into account? The additional... Jim Fillipi: There is approximately 15 feet between the front edge of the canopy and the current right-of-way set us back at 25 feet so even if that were moved another 15 feet, you would still have, and with the single driveway going in, you would still have a totally conforming building and canopy as far as the setback goes and as a good circulation route around the pumps and the building. Wildermuth: That would bring the roadway that much closer though. That is assuming that they allow a single cut through the median. That would bring the roadway that much closer to the pumps, the one island. e Jim Fillipi: We think that with the adoption of the 2A alternate and the shifting of the traffic volume from TH 101 to TH 5, that will substantially reduce the need for the widening and additional lanes in TH 101 at this location. North of the railroad tracks, you're sitting with one lane in each direction and then in this location you would not need to take additional property to provide two lanes...and then if there are median cuts. There may be some but with the 2A alternative adoption, we think the pressure for additional right-of-way is substantially reduced. Wildermuth: I guess the other point that I have is that I don't see satisfaction of the hardship test for a sign variance. That's all I have. Batzli: I thought we talked at length last time about access along the north part of thjs piece of property someplace. Do you recall that at all? Olsen: The Gary Brown car wash? Conrad: That's the car wash. That's Gary's car wash and that's separate. Batzli: Separate deal. Then I don't have any questions on that. I guess I was curious about the two future gas pumps, extension of the gas canopy. What factors do you look at for not deferring that for review process? Why did you decide that wasn't a problem now? e Olsen: In review of the site plan, it would still meet all the setbacks and the circulation was still adequate... Batzli: I was just curious what factors you looked at. opinion one way or another myself. I didn't have an Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 5 e Olsen: How it impacted the site plan itself whereas the separate car wash was... Batzli: What percentage of the parcel right here is impervious? Do you know? Is there any hope at all that that future addition will ever be put . ? In. Olsen: It can go up to 70%. Jim Fillipi: We're currently 57% is landscaping and in the future it would go to, if the future addition was put in, it would go to 35% landscaping and 65% impervious under the future addition. Currently right now you have 43% impervious. Batzli: oil? In condition 7, Larry, is this your condition? The tank for used Olsen: No, it's mine. Batzli: Was there some specific tank that you would turn into to have them install? Olsen: The City has been trying to establish locations that the public ~ can take used oil. Amoco offered to provide the tank facility for that. Batzli: I guess I was just looking at the wording that you provided there. Shall provide the tank for used oil. What you're really looking for is a waste oil receptacle? Olsen: Yes and they are showing that on the site plan and making it clear that it's going to be there. Batzli: I guess my right-of-way question goes away. In looking at the signs, I don't know that there's a hardship for a variance and I don't know that the applicant has really provided us with, did show that there is one other than they want it and it's a good trade-off. I'm really not in favor of it at this time. e Ellson: My first reaction to this is, I don't feel we need another convenience store. I think we have Kenny's and we have Holidy right across the street and Brooke's just up and we're planning a PDQ. We're soon going to be Chanhassen, the home of the Dinner Theater and convenience stores. Come on in. But this is their property and I realize from the standpoint of operating a business, this is the way it's going. I'd like a nice service station there. I think that's what we need in Chanhassen but they can certainly do with their property what they want and I think as far as adding another convenience store, I can't really stop all that. I agree with Dave regarding the display of outdoor merchandise on the sidewalk is a good one to add to this. Maybe we haven't done it always in the past but I think it would be a good thing to add to convenience stores and this type of thing from maybe this day forward or even since the SuperAmerica forward because I think that can be a nuisance when you're going in and out of a store like that and I don't Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 6 e think it looks nice. I think the location more than compensates this location for competing with Brooke's. I don't necessarily go along with the square footage comparison of Brooke's to this one. If we're going to compare how you're going to compete, you've got a location over them by a mile so I really think that you've got an edge in other areas where maybe they don't. The square footage of sign isn't equal. That really doesn't concern me and I don't think that it's worth allowing the canopy signage. Ernmings: On number 3, it's the condition where they have to combine into a central access with the center median when the cut across from West 79th is installed. I think we should probably add a sentence to that, unless there's already some provision that plans for the central access should be reviewed and approved by the City Staff before construction. I don't know, would that be done automatically? Olsen: ...that could be... Emmings: Okay. Then in number 12, it says proposed buildings will be moved 5 feet to the south. We're only talking about the car wash there. Welre not talking about the store itself are we? Jim Fillipi: I think weld move the entire site. e Emmings: That's all done? Jim Fillipi: Just to maintain the separate between the car wash and the pumps. There is sufficient room to move it. Ernrnings: I was just going to add the car wash... I just have, for my own information Larry, water from the car wash goes into the sanitary sewer? Brown: Maybe the applicant can address a portion of this but normally what happens is that they are charged sewer area charges by the amount of water that they use. Mo~t often in this type of installation, they will install a water recycler to cut down on the charges that they have to pay to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Unless the plan has changed, lIve been told that they are planning on doing that but the final affect is yes, it will go into the sanitary sewer. Emmings: What are the considerations there in terms of where, why do you want waste water from the car wash to go into the sanitary sewer? Because it might have oils and grease and soaps? Brown: Soaps become a large problem. Obviously you wouldn't want the detergents flowing into the wetlands or lakes so it almost dictates that it goes into the sanitary sewer. e Emmings: Would it matter what kinds of soaps you use? I don't know. I'm just curious. Brown: It would really create a poor situation with nutrient stripping which we depend on within the ponding arears and sedimentation areas. That would foul things up. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 7 e Jim Fillipi: The car wash is using recycled water. We have gone to a high pressure, low volume. It takes approximately 18 gallons to go through a car wash. Previous history with the Waste Control Commission has been...units for the rollover car washes so that's the type of volume of water we're specifically talking about in terms of rollovers. Ernmings: While you're up there, if I could ask you a question. You've heard a couple people talk about merchandise stored outside of the building for sale. Do you plan to do that? Jim Fillipi: The only place that we would have available for doing that would be just in a small sidewalk area in front because the sides of the sidewalk and the building must be cleared for the handicapped access. So just the design of the layout of the facility does not lend itself to stacking merchandise on the sidewalk. We normally would not have a problem with a condition like that. Otherwise, a case of pop, whatever would be placed out in front. Ernmings: What would be your reaction to a condition that there not be merchandise stored outside for display or sale? Jim Fillippi: I don't think it would have a major impact. e Emmings: Then my only other question is on canopy signs. I've been here through at least 3 canopies and I know you've never allowed a sign on a canopy and I'm not sure why. We don't have anything in our sign ordinance about it. Olsen: The sign ordinance does not really permit them. Emmings: It doesn't allow them but it doesn't say you can't have them either. Olsen: Exactly. It's just been sort of past policy. Emmings: Right. Now we've done that with the last 3. I know we've said no signs on the canopies and then we've made that stick. Do we have any canopies in Chanhassen with signs on them? Olsen: We have Q-Superette who has changed to Total. We allowed...two sides. Emmings: Now why did we allow that? Olsen: They're clustered... e Ernmings: So we don't really have a rationale here to apply? That's all I've got. I don't know what to do about the canopy signs. I think that's a tough one. If we've allowed it in the past when people have asked for it but it seems to me that other people have wanted it and we've said no. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 8 e Erhart: Let me get this straight. We do allow pylon signs. The issue of signs on canopies, I just don't know how many signs you really need. If you have a pylon sign, wall signs, it just adds more visual garbage there. I think we offer enough signs. I realize that when someone new comes down the highway they have to be able to identify what it is but I think it's adequate. The existing pylon sign, how tall is that? Jim Fillipi: It was built at about 24 feet for height. The key is that we do not have any illuminated building sign and in the evening hours, the only illumination that is done is the Amoco along the canopy. Typically around the Twin City areas, food shops and homes are not lit at night... Erhart: The pylon will be lit. My question is, if you only allow a 20 foot pylon sign, this is a 24 foot height. Olsen: They're going to change... Erhart: So even though they're corning in with a whole new site plan, and I'm not suggesting that... Olsen: They're going to change it a little bit. e Erhart: Help me again to understand, what's the trade-off on signs? I know you're proposing to have more signage than what's permitted but what is this trade-off you're talking about? Jim Fillipi: The ordinance permits 80 square feet of signage per street frontage. Erhart: Maximum. Jim Fillipi: Maximum. Or 50% of the wall area. We have more than sufficient wall area to obtain 80 square feet on two sides of the building that we've currently eliminated. The total area that we're asking for on three sides of the canopy, each of the ACM's has an area of 11.65 square feet and at that point we're about 35 square feet in terms of the word Amoco and that's a trade-off of 160 square feet for 35 square feet. Erhart: If that's what it is, I guess I would agree with most of the other conditions. I just don't feel that it's necessary to have all that signage and would like to maintain the existing ordinance and apply it here. I don't have a problem with outside goods as long as it's kept alongside the building. What I wouldn't want to see is to have materials out by the street. Jim Fillipi: We've never put it out there... e Erhart: But when business gets tough and like you say, you get too many gas stations and stores in town, sometimes you get creative marketing ideas so, I personally don't have a problem with the materials as long as it's alongside. Otherwise, I like the plan. I think it would be an improvement to that entrance. I I ; Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 9 e Conrad: A couple questions. Jo Ann, you want, I'm struggling with why we want a right-in. The southerly access, you didn't like the way it was proposed as a right-in only and a no right out. I'm curious why staff does not like that. Olsen: Mostly it came from engineering and Larry can speak to that and also Fred Hoisington and BRW will confirm that the way it's designed was similar to like...not designed well. people still coming to out. He just felt that the way it was designed it was going to be more of a conflict... Conrad: There's a good chance there's going to be a center island or a divider. I kind of like how that's structured. I like the right-in the way it is. Although I understand that people will try to get out there too. Larry, what's your thought on that? Obviously you had some input. e Brown: We had, not knowing MnDot's position fully the last time this came through the Planning Commission, I had suggested or rather in trying to work with this and compromise, had suggested the right-in only. We said that we would take a look at that as an alternative. Part of the problem is, as Jo Ann mentioned, down at Q-Superette we do have a similiar type of situation where we tried to restrict traffic movements. MnDot's policy is well established in that they don't care for these islands because when somebody, let's take in this case, if somebody were to try and go against the intended flow, they actually create a bigger traffic hazard trying to get around the obstacle that we've placed than if they were to have a full movement intersection and just take the right hand turn. So you almost, by trying to fix the solution, you almost create a larger hazard out there. Conrad: So there's no scenario where you can imagine that this would be appropriate? Brown: I can't rule it out as a total never situation but it's uses are limited. In this instance I would definitely recommend that be a full movement intersection. Conrad: Is that a detached car wash on the northern part of this? And then north of that is another car wash. Then to the east we're going to have some more car washes. Do we have any control on creating a little car wash neighborhood here? I don't know that there's a significant need for another car wash next to another car wash. I see a very marginal utility. Olsen: There's nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the number of car washes. Conrad: So we don't have any control, in this particular case Jo Ann? It's not a conditional use so we really are locked out of saying why are we putting that there. - Olsen: I don't know if we can speak... Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 10 e Jim Fillipi: I don't know what the future will hold on the future of car washes. The car wash to the north and the car wash that we're proposing are for essentially two different types of customers. The one that's going in on this site is a rollover. You can stay inside of the car. It's a drive thru one meaning that you do not get out and detail the car, do the drying or do the hand washing so it's a two different market. There's a situation in Brooklyn Park in which there is an Amoco facility with the rollover car wash and after we were in, a full service with dryer and detailer, that went into the north of that. And to the north of that is a self service wash at the same time and all three are doing quite well in that area because they serve different markets. Conrad: Okay, I'll buy that. Batzli: Where do we find out if this is a brushless car wash? It does have brushes? Install an obsolete car wash, I don't know. Conrad: I'm with Tim. I don't have a problem with outside storage of merchandise as long as it's controlled. Headla: What do you mean, as long as it's controlled? e Conrad: As long as we're not putting it allover. In other words, if it's at the front of his store, underneath a sheltered area, like most SuperAmericas are. Right by their door, I just don't have a problem with that kind of merchandise. Headla: How do you control just that amount? Conrad: building. You say it's limited to those 4 feet that surrounds your There's an easy way to do it. Headla: To me the problem is how do you really control it. Conrad: If you mean monitoring, yes that's a problem but if you say you can display merchandise within the 2 doors, entry and exit doors or whatever, for those 4 feet between them. I think you can locate where that merchandise can be displayed. Like we did to the garden center, where they wanted to display their tractors, we did the same thing there. We said you can present your tractors... Headla: We did control that, yes. What about that one over here? Did we control that on merchandise? Emmings: I don't think it came up. Conrad: That didn't come up. - Emmings: I don't think anybody thought of it. of it really was with the SuperAmerica. The first time we thought Conrad: That would be a different situation because that's part of a shopping center and then I'd kind of react differently. But as a stand I J Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 11 e alone, self contained unit, I think visually this stuff is away from the traffic. Wildermuth: And it's not in the neighborhood. e Conrad: And it's not in the neighborhood. It's in a business area so I don't have a problem. In fact, I actually do like that merchandise. They typically merchandise stuff that's needed. It may be salt pellets. It may be charcoal. It may be Coke. It may be a convenience to people and I don't have a problem with that. As long as it's not abused and typically good operators like Standard or Amoco or SuperAmerica, they're good merchants. They typically don't abuse those priviledges. So anyway, that's my comment there. I don't know, whoever makes the motion has the power here. I don't see a hardship on the signs although it does bring out some interesting points. I think if we're going to administer canopy signage a certain way rather than not talking about it, I think our ordinance should talk about them. Which therefore, I think the bottom line tonight for me is to not allow them to do it but also to open it up and take a look and see if that's the way we want it. More than likely I feel comfortable excluding it but I guess I'd like to see staff review it and present it to us and City Council so we can make an active decision versus probably no decision that we've had in the past on canopy signage. Maybe Pat Swenson had some thoughts back then. Right now Jo Ann I'd sure like your work. The other thing that I heard was illuminated versus non- illuminated and I think that's an interesting situation too. At least for us to review. See if there's a difference. Those are my only comments. Anything else? Is there a motion? Headla: Let me make a motion but let me comment first. I'm going to recommend that we go along with item 6 and my rationale for that is, until we can adopt a policy on canopies, I'd like to see them all treated the same. If we approve this, why can't every single one come back in? I'd kind of like to see us be able to handle it before we go with it. I'd like to make a motion that we approve Site Plan Review #88-11 with the conditions recommended by staff. Then I'd like to include in that, item 13, the one about the plumbing code. Larry I think was the one who can put in appropriate words there. Brown: The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building permit. Headla: You convinced me about the products out front. Erhart: Second. e Ellson: I want the thing about the displays. They've already said they don't mind. They're not going to object. If SuperAmerica agrees that they've gotten this before and they don't object to taking it off, I think that it's becoming a real nuisance to people and I think these stores know that and that's why they're always bending on this issue. I think if we had a bunch of people in, they'd all say we don't like it, like me...he's Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - page 12 - already said they wouldn't strongly oppose it and I don't know why we're trying to be... Conrad: I'm not trying to be a good guy. I'm just saying, it's a convenience. When you think of what's displayed outside. El1son: But you can't even get outside parking. You can only go in that one little area where the door is. You have to walk on the street the whole time and dodge cars and you can't get up on the sidewalk. That drives me crazy. Batz1i: Where am I going to buy my salt pellets though? ElIson: They'll have them in there. Emmings: I agree with Annette. The issue was brought up on the SuperAmerica station. Partly because of the neighborhood but partly just because I always thing that's kind of a junky looking part of these kinds of storage places. To me it's one of their worse features. Just aesthetically. I remember asked him what he felt about it and he didn't care. They didn't care so we put that into the conditions. Now we've just asked him and he doesn't... e Jim Fillipi: We do care... Emmings: But there was no strong objection. Conrad: They would have done anything. Headla: Who would have? Conrad: SuperAmerica would have done anything that wasn't a big sacrifice. Emmings: But I don't know why we want to see a bunch of pop and salt pellets stacked outside. Conrad: I don't think you do but... Emmings: You're talking about controlling it but the motion doesn't put anything in controlling it whatsoever. Headla: What about that...right across the street? - Emmings: But here's the deal. At that time that that thing was approved, we weren't thinking about it. That was not an issue on that. It was never raised to us. It should have been raised to us here by the staff, in my opinion, because when they're looking at this one I think they ought go back and look at what we did at the other ones and tell us what we did. I wrote it down over on this one because I remembered it from SuperAmerica but then like Jo Ann points out, that was a conditional use permit where this is a permitted use. But as far as whether we have to do it here. Almost every issue we take changes over time and if we use the rationale Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 13 e that we approved it once so we have to approve it forever, we'd still be doing things, we could be painting on the roof of a cave or something. I don't know. Things change over time, that's all. We changed it with SuperAmerica. Now the question is do we want to continue to do that as a policy or not? I guess a lot of people here, at least think in this zoning area, we don't. I guess I do. ElIson: And maybe this one is just a small part but the next one that comes in will have a huge sidewalk and then you'll it will be... I've just got to say no across the board. Emmings: And there's nothing in this motion that permits any control whatsoever. Conrad: Do you want to amend your motion Dave to include that kind of control? Headla: I really haven't seen any compelling arguments. I keep thinking about across the street and if we want to come up and say, this is going to be our policy. ElIson: You brought it up in the first place. You said we just had SuperAmerica. e Headla: I brought it up and I wanted to hear some arguments on both ways and I was really leaning that we shouldn't have it but then as I heard the discussion, I thought no. They're right, I think I'm leaning the other way. Wildermuth: I like the whole idea. I've got a bad back so I can just drive by car right up next to it and throw the salt pellets and that case of oil right in the back. That's great. Conrad: I don't find anything wrong with it. Say the SuperAmerica down on TH 4 and TH 5. You don't even see it. It's a matter, it can get out of hand. Bad merchants can abuse that. Good mechants don't. They know how to merchandise and they all do an effective job. I respect the lack of polluting, the visual too so I agree that we don't want to do that. That's the reason we have the sign ordinance. Headla: Let's talk a little bit about how you would control. Maybe there is some means for that. ElIson: But then who's going to moniter some of these controls? Headla: Maybe somebody's got some constructive ideas that you could do that. - Erhart: Just require that any outside merchandise has to be stacked within 4 feet of the perimeter of the building and it has to be in the front or 6 feet. Headla: To me that probably would be certainly acceptable. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 14 e Batzli: I can picture it if it's a conditional use but this is a site plan. What are you going to do if they don't comply, yank their site? Emmings: I have one other thing. I'd like to amend, I mentioned it if anybody thinks it's important. On number 3, that the plans for that central access should be reviewed and approved by the City staff prior to construction. Conrad: Would you like to amend your motion Dave to include that? Headla: Yes. Erhart: Yes. Conrad: Thank you for seconding that Tim. Emmings: The only other thing, is 6 clear to everybody where it says, the gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage, including the Amoco stripe name. Can that be read to say that it would allow signage that didn't include the Amoco name? Batzli: I think it's including without limitation, the Amoco stripe. e Jim Fillipi: We can put the red, white and blue stripe on the canopy, not the name is what you're saying? Conrad: I would have to assume that's true because that's really design. I don't think we're into design stuff. We shouldn't be. Okay, you haven't decided to amend your motion in terms of control. Wildermuth: I don't think we should. I think if there's an intent, that there's thinking that we should control outdoor merchandising in these places, we ought to write it into the ordinance. Headla: I haven't seen Amoco, anyplace that I'd say was really a schlauck outfit. ElIson: It's not that we're worried about... Emmings: You all said that SuperAmerica was a very well run outfit too but we didn't let them have it. Conrad: But that was a conditional use. Batzli: And a neighborhood. Emmings: The rationale here is very muddy. ~ Elison: Let the Council grapple over it. Conrad: Yes. They're the ones that get paid. l_ Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 15 e Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-11 with the following conditions: 1. The self service car wash will require site plan approval. 2. The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are approved as part of this site plan. 3. The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDot grants the City a median cut for the proposed island on TH 101. This entrnace would fall directly in line with the centerline of West 79th street. The costs for the reconstruction would be at Amoco's sole expense. This statement shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan approval. Plans for central access shall be reviewed and approved by the City Staff prior to construction. 4. The most southerly access shall not be located further south than the existing southerly access and shall be designed for full traffic movement (right-in and right-out). 5. The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs. e 6. The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including the Amoco stripe name. 7. The applicant sqall provide the tank for used oil and shall allow it to be open to the public. 8. The applicant shall remove the cars, trucks, etc., stored on the easterly portion of the site. 9. The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer facilities which connect to the City's storm sewer system. The proposed curb cut near TH 5 will not be accepted. 10. A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval. 11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the northerly access will be provided for approval by the City Engineer prior to final approval. 12. The proposed buildings shall be moved 5 feet to the south such that adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may be provided. 13. The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building permit. e All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 16 e Emmings: I think the plan is fine and I only want to make sure that the issue of the outside storage and sale of merchandise is raised to the Council. That's the only reason I'm voting it down. Conrad: So Jo Ann, there are two issues that are coming up, that should be put on work que someplace. They may not be done by you for the next month. Olsen: Outside storage? Conrad: Outside storage, yes. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN (5' X 10') FOR METRO LAKES WEST MINI-STORAGE ON PROPETY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7800 PARK DRIVE, MARCUS CORPORATION. Public Present: Mark Senn - Applicant Roman Roos - Applicant e Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Mark Senn: If I could start by possibly correcting something that's already been mentioned twice tonight. Where our building was built, it was not built within the right-of-way for the expansion of TH 5. That is an issue that you addressed prior to the approval of the mini-storage project. At that point the State had no specific location for the highway but we knew it was an issue we had to address. Prior to approval of the project we had three meetings, if I remember correctly with the City Staff and State Highway Department right-of-way staff. At that time a consensus was reached, both on our part and the City's part, that it would be much preferred for the highway location to take a northerly location rather than a southerly location from the current highway in terms of the expansion. The reason for that was the City wanted to accomplish a service road servicing Lake Ann Park and tie it back into the County road. That's the premise we designed and operated on. Since then now the State has come out with an exact location of the highway but we didn't see that at least until after our project had been started. In relationship to it, our buildings yes, are affected by what are called the construction limits of the highway. Not the actual highway right-of-way. When I got into a discussion several weeks back with Evan Greene of the State Highway Department, they had since our original meeting on this, researched the issue and found out some federal funds were used in relationship to the Lake Ann Park...some sort of fund that prohibited them using that land to expand the highway. That's been a...like geez we put a building where the highway belongs but that isn't the case. We put a building where we were ---'-"- Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 17 e e supposed to put it. Highway plans have changed and conditions have changed and where everybody kind of thought it was going to, they found out after it can't go there. Just to make a long story short, that's basically it. As far as the signage issue goes, let me try to walk you through why we're in a hardship situation. Possibly the easiest way to do that is to go back to when the project was originally approved. There were a lot of concerns at the time this project was built over the long expanse of wall created by the mini-storage project. We agreed with staff and then subsequently with the Commission and Council to limit the elevation of the building so only about 6 or 7 feet were actually sticking up above the ground. We built the project into the hill per se and limited the amount of wall space sticking up above the ground. Where the building's are actually, I believe they're around 14 foot clear at that point so we're about 8 feet or so into the ground at this point. The next issue that came up was, while we were still concerned about this wall, let's put a berm in. So we agreed and we put a berm in. That berm was designed to basically run the full length of the project which further impacts that visual elevation. The next thing that came up was, well let's beef up the landscaping. Let's intensify the landscaping. Again, no disagreement on our part to intensify the landscaping. Through all these agreements, we had what we thought was an understanding, which has now turned into a misunderstanding because we thought we were always able to put up a pylon sign. Probably the easiest way for me to bring that to your attention is I'll refer to the September 8, 1986 Council Minutes which I believe you have in your packet. If you go to Page 9...when the issue of signage came up, the third paragraph down. Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn't see anything about signage. Barbara Dacy stated that from her understanding the applicant proposed one sign for the property. Mark Senn stated that it would be located by the TH 5 side. They hadn't decided at which end of the building to locate it. Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn't want a big red and white sign stamped on the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign. That's the premise we always have taken. That was the premise we created on when we agreed to make all these changes along with the project. Those changes now substantially affect the visibility of that northern wall. Now we've come to the point where we're ready to address signage which quite honestly on our list of priorities was fairly low. Getting the project done was much higher on the priority list. When we looked at the issue of putting signage out on the building, we quickly saw that we were going to have a problem from this building standpoint. One of the things that caused that was, as soon as we had some units available, we hung a banner up there on the outside of the building which I think you've probably all seen and our manager started referencing that in terms of getting people to the location. We had a number of people come in and comment that we couldn't find you so we went out and looked at the situation again and again, a limited part of the wall is visible, especially when you consider the berm in front of it and the landscaping. The landscaping is going to mature and it's even going to make the situation worse. Our plans were always to put a pylon sign off of one corner at the edge of the building, i.e. the northwest or the northeast corner of the building. We've settled on the site and we would like to put it basically on the northeast corner of the building...meeting the - Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 18 e setback requirements... The hardship was created by these agreements we reached and by the conditions that have been created around it. This is really not part of the hardship but it's an economic reality to us and that is that yes we are in an industrial district and we are in an industrial park which you could argue a lot of different ways whether mini-storage belongs there or not, but that's where we're at. Probably when you look at the city...you come up with one from a use standpoint. The problem is, mini-storage is retail business. It's not a typical industrial business. We function off people basically calling in out of the Yellow Pages or advertising saying do you have storage units available and we say yes and then they drive down to find the place. Or it would be on the basis of them driving by and seeing a convenience store in the community, they're back to the phone number or stop in. Our units are all rented on a month to month basis. We function very heavily on a retail basis rather than assessment basis so that again...is very important to the success for our operation. Again, I really think we have demonstrated a hardship... In relationship to the council minutes and the premise that we're operating under, that we were allowed to put up a pylon sign and we now find out after the fact no and if we would really like to request your favorable action on this and allow the variance to put the pylon sign in. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. e Conrad: Jo Ann, ground low profile. What does that mean? Olsen: That's one of the kind that has the... Conrad: Built right on it? Olsen: Right. I believe it's 8 foot high height restriction. 8 feet in height. e Roman Roos: Some additional comments to what Mark Senn has offered to you. One of the primary concerns at the time we put this project together ...in terms of stone walls and elevations and...accomp1ish that in the landscaping. I think that was one of the most important...but it's interesting to note that we did this project back in 1986. We also know that the sign ordinance...December 15, 1986. I guess the question I would ask is, prior to that time, was pylon signs allowed? That would still like to explain why Jo Ann has... We were totally cognizant that we could put a pylon sign in. Unfortunately, as Mark said, it was a low priority issue...sign variance to get it done now but it's extremely important. One final comment and then 1111 sit down, according to Jo Ann about the new ordinance, we could have 2 or 3 signs... We could also have 2 wall signs...a1ong TH 5. ...it seems ridiculous to have to do that... This might be a very logical approach... Mark Senn: If I might even correct one thing please. The bottom of the sign would be 10 feet off the ground. The sign would be 5 x 10. We deliberately designed it that way because we don't want to have any impact on the visual sight angles coming off of that intersection on TH 5. We don't want that sign down so low that it's going to impact the vision one way or another. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 19 e Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: The list of permitted and the conditional permitted uses in the lOP District, refresh me Jo Ann, where does this fit? Olsen: In warehouse is what it came under. e Erhart: I wish you had had the Planning Commission minutes from this meeting on this part because at that meeting I expressed my, I guess displeasure with putting that particular business at that location because it was, really was an ideal location for an office being right on TH 5. In the same place, a home office for somebody. I guess the problem that you're really stating and one that we have here is an area called zoned industrial office park and what you have is a retail business which doesn't quite fit the intent of the zoning district even though you look through the conditional and permitted uses, there's several retail oriented uses in there. It's really not the best fit. I guess that was why I was a little disappointed in the fact that we were using that site for that use. I feel that even though maybe Barb had made an error in her statement or whatever, as we look into it, I feel that it was clear that the risks associated with moving into that site for a retail business as a sign interest is pretty restrictive. Additionally, I guess my business is in that district and I'm limited to the low profile, single sign and I feel that if somebody is being permitted to put in a pylon signs, then golly, I'd like to have a pylon sign announcing my business there too. I would not be favorable to a variance to this. Emmings: Basically I agree with Tim's comments. I don't know what Barbara had in mind when she made the comment that she did but it's clearly in error and I think maybe what she's saying is, that you have the right to install a wall sign or pylon sign. I think the fact is, there just was no concrete plan on the table and she was saying, to me it says no more than whatever kind of sign they're going to have that's going to be coming in the future. There's no hardship here. I don't know how we can grant a variance. It's not allowed in that area according to our ordinance. I don't think there's anyway we should allow a pylon sign in the lOP. Conrad: Do you two feel that they have visibility? They can get visibility? Emmings: I think they're going to have to find a way to get visibility and if they've got... Conrad: They're asking for that. e Emmings: I don't have to design their signs. To me that's their problem that should have been addressed when they designed their facility. I guess between the combination of ground low profile signs and wall signs, which they're permitted, I would think you would get the visibility they need. Even if they can't, I'm not willing to look at a pylon sign. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 20 e Conrad: But they have some alternatives that might be more offensive visually. I'm just throwing these. They can put up wall signs and get that awareness. That might be more offensive than what they're suggesting. I just want to make sure you know. Emmings: Yes but Ladd, if they do put up a wall sign, we have provisions in our sign ordinance for what that wall sign can be, is that right? And if they design it within the parameters that they're allowed here, even if we don't like the way it looks, then that's too bad for us at that point I guess. They can do that anyway right? Conrad: They certainly can. Emmings: And I'm never going to listen to anybody say to me, hey we can do something ugly out there so give us what we want that's not allowed. Conrad: But it can be a trade. It might be a rational... Emmings: But then we have to say to ourselves, are they likely to go out and do something ugly to get back at us or are they going to do something that's going to make their facility attractive and I think they'll do the latter. I hope so. e ElIson: I pretty much agree with them both. I can't really see how we could say no to everybody else that comes along if we say yes to this one. They didn't have it in their original plans. If we had said yes, because Barbara had seen it in the plans or whatever, then I think it would be pretty much locked into it but they never really had it in the first place. Conrad: You don't think that the berming and that shrubery is... ElIson: I think the berming and the shrubery is what we require of anybody in there. I don't think we said, by the way do you want to put some extra because we'd like it more. I think they're putting in what we'd require of anybody. Batzli: Where else does the City allow warehousing like that? What other district? Olsen: We allow it as a conditional use permit in the BF district. Batzli: So they could either have gone in the lOP or the BF? That's it? Olsen: In the BF district we specifically state cold storage warehousing. ...whereas in the lOP it's warehouse. Batzli: Do you know what the ordinance was prior to the 12-15-86 date? ~ Olsen: You mean as far as the pylon signs? Batzli: Yes. Were pylon signs allowed back then? 1__- -,j Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 21 e Olsen: I can't remember. I can find that out. Batzli: Okay, so we don't know whether the 12-15-86 codification amended that part or added? Olsen: I don't remember the pylon signs...would be permitted. I can double check that. Batzli: I guess I'm looking at it from the standpoint of, if they were led by the City to believe that they could have a pylon, they might have some kind of case. If we had made them put in additional shrubbing and berming and everything else and they thought they were going to get a pylon all along and they didn't. But on the other hand, if the Statute read no pylons and this was one isolated instance in which Barb misspoke, I don't know that they should have the right to rely on that at that point. I think that should have been something that they should have checked and I kind of agree that that probably should have been part of the plan and agreed upon in advance if they were really counting on getting a pylon. I also have kind of a real sense that the low profiles won't work or the wall signs. Maybe that's the case but I don't know that I really heard them say that we can't make it work with what we're allowing. At this point I'm not for allowing the variance. e Wildermuth: The mini-storage of the caliber of construction that that one is is a good, quiet, non-polluting neighbor. I think they've done a nice job with shrubery. On the other hand, as the industrial park really is a good looking asset to the City and it would be the only pylon sign in that industrial park. I agree with Brian. Unless there was a clear indication that a pylon sign would have been permitted when you came in for approval, initial approval, I'd like to see them make a low profile sign. Conrad: Because you know it will. Do you think it will? Wildermuth: I don't think a lot of signs on the building are going to work. Conrad: Speak to us on that issue. You obviously don't want a low, ground profile because you don't feel it's got visibility? You're going for height. Mark Senn: If we push the low profile signage right out to the limits of the property, yes, it would be visible. We prefer not to push it out to the limits of the property because we don't think, it really belongs there and I think your ordinance prohibits that anyway. I think there are some setback requirements of about 10 feet. Conrad: What are we, at 10 feet Jo Ann? Yes. So if we push it back 10 feet, you're saying it doesn't work? ~ Mark Senn: 10 feet you're going to be right by the landscaping. Regardless of where you try to keep...and especially the mature trees... One of the things I've heard mentioned time and time again up here is there isn't one other one in the industrial park but please consider, the Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 22 e City did not ask any other building in the industrial park to limit their surface to less than 8 feet. That is a substantial different in relationship to any other building in that industrial park. If I had 13 foot wall area, and don't get me wrong...we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But I've got a 6 to 7 foot wall and again, it was something that we agreed to at the time because we were trying to build and design a nice project. We weren't trying to get into an argument... Conrad: Wall signs can't project over the height of the building. that right Jo Ann? Isn't Olsen: Right. Mark Senn: Ladd, if I could, one other comment. This wasn't an isolated incident of the word pylon sign. This was talked about a number of times during the planning stage of the project. You can probably even go back to some earlier plans where we had it x'ed out for pylon signs. We basically threw the issue of signage out as something we really wanted to address at that time because quite honestly, through the whole city process we were redesigning that project. I remember at least 2 or 3 Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings. We made the changes when we did some negotiating, etc. so that was just one of the conditions that we agreed to come back and deal with it then... - Conrad: You may not have been involved with this. Were you around when this came . ? In. Olsen: This one I think I was on maternity leave. Wildermuth: How far up on a berm can a low profile sign go? Olsen: It can be, as our ordinance says, it can be built into the berm. Roman Roos: Just one final comment. I think if we were to go back and pull the other minutes, again, I'm trying to make the position that we went through a lot of detail to get to where we're at today. I think we really went through, the Minutes from the Planning Commission and the Council Minutes, I think you'll find... Again, we're not trying to do anything that's detrimental to the...or to the industrial park but we feel this is a compromise on our signage. It's more attractive than wall signage for retail use... Conrad: Your guess Jo Ann would be that we tried to bury this project to basically cover up the height of the wall for aesthetic reasons so it just wasn't a big wall in the industrial park. So we tried to make that wall less of an impact. e Erhart: What more did you do than was required by ordinance in terms of what the City was requesting? Roman Roos: We came back with a site plan and...additional landscaping. Erhart: Additional height on the berm or what? Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 23 e Roman Roos: We also put the...elevations of the wall. The staff was concerned that the look from TH 5 was...massive kind of wall so they wanted a low profile... Now it's true we could put a sign on the Park Drive side but no matter where we put it, it just does not seem to do, does not identify... Headla: I heard..a couple of comments. One is the majority of his business comes from the Yellow Pages. Those people come out and ask where it is. I don't think you need a 15 foot pylon sign to tell people where you are that are looking for you. They proposed one way to solve alternatives to that problem. They proposed one way. It's either that way or no way. I don't believe that's the case. I think there's other ways to solve the problem so I would vote against the current proposal of the pylon sign but the City wouldn't want to face developments coming back with maybe some other alternatives. Maybe there is a possibility that if there is a problem, maybe something on the roof is a logical solution to the problem. I don't know but I'd like to see us...to possibility some other solutions. Wildermuth: That's a scary thought. Batzli: I big mayonaise jar tilted to the side. 4It Headla: They don't need this but what shape of building... Roman Roos: You're correct on the telephone... We're also trying to attract traffic...but they will identify that they drove by this service... Headla: I think that's a fair comment but I think there's probably other ways to get about the same effect that isn't such a blatant markdown of the land. Conrad: Jo Ann, Brian brings up a good point. Have you gone back through the Minutes and examined what we've led the applicant to believe? Olsen: I went through the City Council Minutes in your packet. I didn't go through the Planning Commission Minutes. The fact is, is that they still have to, they had to receive a sign permit in effect at that time. They obviously did not request a pylon sign approval at part of their site plan. Why, I don't know. e Conrad: It's an interesting scenario. I think they weren't looking ahead because we were trying to bury this project or make the ground profile a little bit nicer so I can see how we may have lost sight of the signage needs. I don't know. I think there's an option folks to table it. To take another look at it and see if there is a compelling reason for a hardship or for the fact that we led them astray. I don't know that we did but I sure can see a little scenario here where I recall this coming in a couple times and we were paying a lot of attention to making it less visible. They did do that. They did listen to us and they did make it a nice effort. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 24 e Emmings: Is the applicant asking us to table it? Conrad: No. The applicant is not. ElIson: Couldn't we ask in the interim they look that up? Conrad: We can do that too. I'm just opening up all sorts of options to anybody who wants to take charge of the motion. Wildermuth: That little mini-storage in Eden prairie on TH 4, can you remember what kind of sign they have? Mark Senn: A pylon sign. Wildermuth: The place is almost hidden below the berm down there. Mark Senn: The pylon sign sits right up at County Road 4 there. Right by the street that you turn into that berm. e Conrad: Generally my comments, it's not an impulse business. It's not where you flash a sign because you want to get the traffic to turn in 500 feet away but I do want to keep you visible. The bottom line for me is, you are kind of a retail business and I think I want to make sure that you're visible. I don't know that you're not however. You do have the options and they're' probably not my favorite options of using the wall but they are there. I honestly can't think of a way around, right now I don't have enough data to tell me that there is a hardship. We've led you astray. We did something wrong. There are some symptons. There are some clues here and there but I don't see it. It appears that there are some ways, what I want to make sure of is that there are ways that the facility can get that recognition and the name out there. As I say, it doesn't need the brash, neon lights. It doesn't need huge signage. It just needs to be made aware that it's there for the passing traffic. I think there are alternatives available. I guess right now I'm having a real tough time saying that we have a special circumstance that will preclude getting us around or that will take us around the current ordinance. Unless you come back in and show us that it just won't work. As I looked at the site, it looked like there were ways to do it so I guess what I need to do is either hear back from staff that we really did mislead the developer in this case and whether we table it or send it along to City Council, when it gets to City Council I think that whole sequence has to be well documented for City Council to review. If we did continue to lead them a little bit away, I think we have an obligation to make the building visible. - Emmings: But Ladd, I think Dave's point is a very good one. We're not being presented any alternatives. One of the alternatives, if one of the things they did was to put in extra landscaping or berming or whatever, maybe that could be modified to make more visible another kind of sign that wouldn't be a pylon sign. Maybe the modification is in the extra requirements or whatever. On the other hand, when I said tonight the SuperAmerica went along with what we said and you said they would have done anything to get their project. Well, maybe this is not different. I _ Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 25 e I'm not persuaded by the fact that they made some concessions to the City, that that imposes an obligation on the City to give them something that nobody else in the lOP has and that's a pylon sign which is real different character to me. I think alternatives have not been considered here and that might be a good reason to table it. But tabling would only be meaningful I think if we wanted to do a complete review of the Minutes. I think I was here when this was considered. At least I remember the issue and I don't remember things about the signs. It would be kind of interesting historically to review it. The only reason tabling would make any sense to me is if we got a good review of everything that happened and we were presented with alternatives. If we're not going to get those two things, then I don't think it would require tabling. I think this is something maybe we should do more work on before it goes to the City Council otherwise it could take them. See when I looked at this at first it was a very simple issue to me. Now it's gotten more complex and I think maybe we need to go into some of these issues. Mark Senn: One thing on that. We're limited right now to a 30 day temporary sign permit. Conrad: You'd like to see this go forward I bet. e Mark Senn: We really need this to go forward otherwise we're going to be without any identification here pretty soon. To go back and address the question of why we waited until now to comply. As I said, then we hadn't even, a pylon sign was allowed and we were talking 50 square feet, we were so positive of the requirements of the ordinance, we were led to believe we had a simple administrative procedure to run through. Only when we came in to now do that at the end of the project, we find out that the rules have changed. It's rather difficult for us to deal with. Emmings: Did someone specifically say to you, yes you can have a pylon sign if you want one? Mark Senn: Yes, on numerous occasions. Emmings: And who said that? Mark Senn: The City Planner. Emmings: Barbara Dacy said that? Mark Senn: Yes. Emmings: I find that absolutely unbelieveable. Mark Senn: Read the Minutes. e Emmings: She mentions the pylon sign in the Minutes. There's no question about it. I guess another thing we might do is find out from Barbara what she recalls about what was going on back then. ~- ~".~-- - Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 26 e Conrad: The applicant would like us to move on it. That doesn't mean we have to but the applicant would like to have us make an action. Again, whoever wants to make a motion, they can consider that. There's some benefit in going to the City Council. One, there may be some people there who remember it. On the other hand, if we table it we might be able to give the City Council more accurate information historically. But the applicant has a special problem too. They do need signage even on a temporary basis so it may be appropriate to move it on. Headla: Let me ask the question. If it looks like this would be turned down in our recommendation, what could we do to help you? Mark Senn: In relation to what? Headla: Like this 30 day limit on the sign? Mark Senn: It's my understanding that that's prescribed by ordinance. There's nothing you can do on that. You have 30 day max for a year period. Olsen: On a temporary sign. e Headla: Okay, so if we table it, can we recommend that that be extended? We're looking for more information. It seems like that would be a reasonable recommendation. This is a business we want to keep. Olsen: They've got the wall signs up too... Mark Senn: We'll be happy to take that down if you want. We put it up and found out it wasn't working anyway so we just have to take it down when we put the other one out there. Headla: You're looking for some identification for people looking for you. Mark Senn: That's right. We've been running into a real problem with that. The temporary sign we have out there now on the corner, which is the lit signs which we have to hook up an extension cord, is serving the purpose right now. Conrad: The applicant would like to move forward I bet you. Emmings: You have no way to extend that? Olsen: Actually they need a variance. Mark Senn: I believe that's a variance to the ordinance. e Conrad: I do believe the applicant would like to move forward so is there a motion? ElIson: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-18. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 27 e Emmings: I'll second it. Batzli: I think we should provide direction to staff. Whether that's part of this motion or whether that's an additional statement after the fact. Conrad: Make it an addition. Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request *88-18. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried. Wildermuth: r'm opposed. I'm in favor of tabling the issue. favor of tabling it because I would like to see the background to see what understanding there may have been, if there was an understanding. I'm in researched Conrad: Annette, as far as your motion to turn it down, are there things you would like staff to do between now and when it gets to City Council? Ellson: Yes, as we discussed, check into the Minutes and the sign ordinance at that time when they made their original application if we did indeed allow them. There are more references to a promise of a pylon sign. e Conrad: Do you want Jo Ann to contact Barbara Dacy to find out what her recollection is? Ellson: I don't really think that's necessary. Conrad: And the reason for your turndown is, do you believe there are adequate ways to give the applicant the exposure they need at that site? Ellson: Right and I like Dave's comment, there probably is another option. It would have been nicer to have a choice of things instead of an all or nothing kind of thing. Conrad: Would you make any recommendation to the applicant of what to present when they go to City Council? Ellson: Yes, I would also recommend that they present maybe some other options like Steve had said. Conrad: This item goes to City Council on the 12th and maybe there are some things you can do between now and then. We'd sure entertain looking at it again but I think instead of tabling it we had a sense that you wanted to take it forward so it's there. Not with our favorable response but you can deal with that. e ~ Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 28 e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ernmings moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOALS - DON ASHWORTH. e Don Ashworth: I'm not quite sure exactly what you'd like to accomplish so if anybody wants to ask any questions. Let me speak first to manpower. As we moved into the 1989 budgetary process, in my own mind the planning department was one of our most critical ones as far as being understaffed. I'm very concerned in that area. We made increases in some of our other operational areas. Some of that does help planning out. Specifically the whole code enforcement area...full time CSO. Full time Fire Marshall position and of course we have Scott Harr who's position is Chief Code Enforcement Officer. Again, I think...planning with a number issues that we're faced with or have been faced with. The Seminary problem, etc.. Again, as we moved into the 1989 budget, I really believed that the best make-up for what our current needs are, are to look for or to have in place in the position of Community Development Director or Chief Planner. That person should be a highly experienced individual. 10 plus years of experience. Someone who could draw on experience from other communities or anything with the private sector. A midstream or good planning person who would be in maybe a 5 to 8 year range may be looking for that top position or maybe not. Then really for an intern type of position. When I say intern I'm not talking about somebody right out of school. Maybe somebody who has interned in another city where this is their first full time job. With that type of department I really think that we could better survive the type of problems that we're facing right now when you lose one individual it's much easier to get along. Where you have 2 people trying to pick up for 3 rather than 1 person running a 2 member department. It's critical. Unfortunately we were not able to fund that additional position as a part of the City's general budget for 1989. The issue is not dead. I have taken it back to the House and Redevelopment Authority and they do have dollars. There is a definite benefit to have in terms of the whole planning process in relation... I feel confident at this point in time that they will look at that recommendation very favorably. I may be coming back to you in a month and saying, they made a decision not to fund that position but I don't think so. I've presented it initially and received a very favorable and strong support. So that would be, at least from my perspective, a recommendation of how that department should be proposed and the number of people. Included in your packet was the resume of Steve Hanson who was selected for the position of the City Planner. He will be starting the 1st of December. It's a Thursday so he will be starting Monday which will be December 5th. In the interim, we don't know from day to day whether or not Jo Ann is going to be with us. If not, as you're probably aware we have entered into contractual service with both Mark and Fred Hoisington and they're helping to split out the projects right now. Mark's role would have to be increased if... Are there any questions? e Headla: resume. Let me make a comment. It was interesting going through the I didn't see anything addressing what I think is one of the J Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 29 e problems we have with the village Hall. I don't think the village Hall has been very highly favorable... You try to talk to the staff, and I'm not talking about Jo Ann or Barb or anything, but people are so busy they present a very cold, non-caring surface to the people who come in and have questions... But the image is that, you're in a cold business. You don't care about people. You've got this and you go on. When I looked through Mr. Hanson's resume, I didn't see anything on how he interfaces with people. To me, if you don't interface. Typically engineers are the worse with interfacing with people and I'd sure like to see something about how he interfaces with people. Don Ashworth: That's an interesting point. Tim may want to take it into account in this area. We interviewed probably the three top candidates. The City Council interviewed those and the Planning Commission was invited to sit in if they wanted to. Tim did come down to satisfy the Council ...and you may want to speak to this as well Jay but it is my belief that one of the primary criteria that was considered in that selection process was exactly your point you're bringing up. How well the individual protrayed themself in terms of the friendliness, openess, as the type of an individual that we would like to take and have representing the community. One of the candidates was not further considered at all. They just dropped him because he had a negative image. The last candidate, it was really back and forth for a long period of time but I think the final decision kind of going on his side was his personality. e Erhart: Yes, I agree Dave. I think that's been one of the problems. The City has been so busy here the last couple years, it's just a constant battle between do I pay attention to that guy who's walking up the steps and wants something or do I get this agenda ready for Don's next meeting. That's a tough problem and it really does add up there out on the street for the public. So I agree with those comments but on the same token, I did have the opportunity to sit in on the interviewing process. We discussed that problem prior to interviewing the candidates and afterwards. I think Mr. Hanson is as smooth as silk. I think he'll just be an excellent representative of the City. I think that was really one of his top qualifications is that he just really presented himself well. I think we're in really good shape there. Another question, I didn't quite follow you. Now what is the organization going to be. Jo Ann's going to be out for some time now. Is it just going to be Steve or did I hear you say there was going to be a third person? Don Ashworth: I feel very comfortable that the Housing and , Redevelopment... Erhart: Okay, but that's still and if though? Don Ashworth: That's still an if. e Conrad: But that would be like a community development director. position would they fund? What Don Ashworth: As I would see it, it would really be the lower intern position. Steve really has the qualifications for a top city planner or Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 30 e community development. Those are almost synonomous terms. Jo Ann does a very good solid job for us in her planning position so I would see us bringing in an intern type of a person. Somebody who has the degree. Maybe has interned 1 or 2 summers somewhere. This would be their first full time... Conrad: When Scott Martin was here Don, he was community development director. Is that right? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Conrad: But you went away from that concept. Was that because of budget? Was that because of a change in the need? e Don Ashworth: It was really ironic because when Scott was brought in, Kraus Anderson had just finished signing the papers for the downtown area and everyone saw a very strong need to negotiate with all the property owners downtown and the relocation of those people and acquisition of the properties and all of the things that would be associated with the downtown. Acquisition was actually funded like 75% by the HRA and 25% the City. Scott had no more than got on board and Kraus Anderson said, we can't do this. We're not going to be able to do this project. They literally took away a good share of duties and responsibilities that we had anticipated at that time that Scott would carry out. Although there is still work remaining within the downtown area as far as moving some property owners, for the most part that is done. Conrad: Who's job is it to bring, I'm not sure how we bring people like McGlynn to town Don. I don't know if realtors are doing the bulk of the job or the City is but promotionally, bringing folks into the industrial park is part of a community development director. Is that something that we need right now? Is that some direction that City Council has given you in terms of we need an individual who is capable of bringing companies in or is there posture really, we'll expand when we expand? Don Ashworth: That's going to be part of the goal process that we go through with the City Council. We have 3 new people who are coming on so their ideas as to... There are different postures. In some instances people want to take an active position in going out and bringing into communities. That might be the role of a community development director or Steve's responsibilities. Other cities are going to work with companies coming in but not necessarily be real aggresive in putting dollars on the table... I'm not trying to evade the answer but I just don't know the answer. e Conrad: I think City Council has got to, the group's got to tell you what they want from the position. Because Dave brought it up, I'm probably going to get ahead of some of the thoughts but in terms of responsiveness to the community, I think Don as you know, the staff is doing a lot of work yet we sure hear a lot of criticism. I think there has to be some standards developed for the City or the City Planner or the planning staff or the people who are talking to the community or the developers. I've heard it from the developers just as well and without getting into names, Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 31 e and without making this, is not meant to be critical. It is meant to be very positive. I think there has to be some standards in terms of how long it takes to get something, a phone call returned or a project returned. There are just a lot of cases where it takes weeks literally, more than one week to get a response or a follow-up phone call. That's one thing that Don, you've got to probably get your arms around. You've got to assess cost and benefits and all that stuff. But the fact is, the community says they call and staff is working on other stuff and they can't get on those little projects. Those other things. I think there's got to be some standards. There's got to be a commitment to the community saying we're going to, and that dictates staffing. If we're not concerned getting back to the resident within a week, than that's okay as long as we made that decision. But I've heard it from the developers and I've heard it from residents obviously. We hear it on projects that we bring up. Projects that Jo Ann or Barbara can't get to because there's so much going on. There again, what are those standards? What do we owe, how long should it take until we review something and get back and we're not real demanding here and we haven't been. We've been more accepting. Saying hey, they're busy and they have been. All you've got to do is look at what Barbara wrote in terms of what Planning Department accomplished last year but still, many cases we just don't get to the task. I think City Council has got to tell you what they expect. We can be part of that process but we don't control the purse strings and I think that's a case e where there's just a standard out there that's missing right now. Batzli: I think that begs to question though. If you're going to have standards on that, is the current staffing or proposed 3 member staffing adequate to do that? Or is it adequate to do something other than to react? What about proactive projects that we'd like to see done and they don't have time to do it at all. Conrad: be Don. Actually it's not a criticism right now. Not at all. I guess, not wanting to Don Ashworth: We should respond to people within 24 hours. That's basically the rule I try to follow. Sometimes people will call in and they don't want to leave a message. I'll call later and that type of thing and about 3 days later I hear, well I wasn't able to get through to Don Ashworth but I never knew the person was trying to get through. e Conrad: But I guess, throw off the comment, I can a similar example to a developer...but that's not the point. The point is, what the standard is. If the standard is we can get back. We may not have a solution but we can get back within 24 hours. I think that's just the type of standards that we need. Do we have a standards that says there will be a resolution or an absolute statement on what we're going to do? Is that a week long? Obviously you've got all sorts of different types of problems you've got to respond to but that's what I'm looking for rather than accusing staff. I think we're really sensitive or feel that the amount of work that's been process through here but in doing all this work, there are cases where we're just not getting back to the people. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 32 e Don Ashworth: ...and I included it into your packet, goals and objectives that the planning department had set for 1988... That's a process that we go through each year with each of our people. Take a look at their position description in terms of whether or not it accurately represents what they think they're doing. Sitting down then with their supervisor and making sure we've got a supervisor is saying that's what they should be doing. Coming to a resolution. Updating the position classification and accurately reflect what it is... Again...the position descriptions for both the City Planner and Asst. City Planner...is really one of setting goals. Staff goals for 1989. I think when Barb started, she went back and talked with Bill Monk and said, how do I do this. Bill had given her advice. He said you set your goals for 1989 and if you set them too high, you'd better make sure that Ashworth will keep a copy of what it is and remind you of the jobs you didn't get done. I think they were a little more cautious in terms of some of the things that they put onto that sheet of paper trying to make sure that they set their goals for 1988 were reasonable. The Commission, I may be wrong but I thought at one point in time that you as a group also were looking at goals that you wanted to see... I really think that you should because that gives myself and staff a better indication and ability to work on what you'd like to see and to do various things that you'd like to do or haven't gotten done, whatever. Again, we've got a work program for...then we're in a better position to say, alright, staff can handle this. How we go about trying to develop...1 think that's the process that the City Council... e (There was a problem with the tape recording at this point.) Don Ashworth: should be. ...The City Council will determine what the overall policy Conrad: Which outline I think sounds good. I think when we've laid out our goals, I don't know that they ever went anyplace. They stayed with Barbara to my knowledge and probably didn't go up to City Council. Did they? Olsen: I think they went to the City Council. Conrad: Okay, but I don't know that we got any reaction back and therefore, the loop, the nice loop is to have City Council taking a look and saying yes, we agree and here are 12 more that you didn't consider. I think what you outlined Don is appropriate. Don Ashworth: I can't remember seeing a sheet. Conrad: Yes we did it. We had 5 or 6 items that we thought were important to accomplish. Don Ashworth: I know I've seen them in the past but I just can not remember this past year having seen that. e Olsen: I think the Council did receive them. Jay Johnson: Yes. We did review it. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 33 e Conrad: There might have been something that you added. Erhart: Do you have more to discuss or are you open to questions at this point? Okay. What do you see for fiscal year 1989 in terms of, for example in this last sheet that Barb's done, it says planning cases. You can see that the workload has grown substantially from 1984. Particularly in terms of subdivisions. Fortunately litigations are down. What do you see for, I see 1988's not on here but what do you see for 1989? Are you seeing the same kind of activity that we've seen this year? Less? More? In terms of subdivisions and site plan reviews and so forth? Don Ashworth: It's so...it's really difficult to say. For budgetary purposes we use the mainstream developments. It's higher than I would have like to have seen... It's higher than I'd like because if you don't achieve that, then we're going to get... e Erhart: The reason I ask Don, I think in particularly the last year. Actually I should go back to the first year I was on the Commission 3 years ago, I think staff had time to support some proactive things and some ideas we had to look into that and so forth. That activity has really ground to a halt in the last year although I think it's picked up just recently. I guess for me personally, I didn't get on the Planning Commission to review or be involved in public hearings and just to look at it from a reactive standpoint. I felt there was some urgent, the City was changing rapidly and I wanted to be involved with the change and make sure that we had a planning process that was at least staying with the changes and hopefully if we're doing a good job, we're ahead of the change. I feel personally that, the thing in the last year it's gotten real frustrating simply because ideas were discussed and I think we know, I think we can speak for all of us, you already know you don't even want to ask Barbara or Jo Ann to do it because you know they're spending 50 hours a week and you know they just don't have time. They have lots of meetings with developers and that's saddening because that's the reason why I'm on this commission is to plan. I personally feel that if the activity is going to remain at the same level, I strongly support the concept of a community development director and 2 additional people. If we thought back in 1985 or whenever it was, we needed one, there's certainly more justification today to create that position. I personally don't feel that we're staying ahead in the planning with the rate the community is growing. I think some things are slipping past us. Missed opportunities. I'm not sure that our Comp Plan, although it may meet our legal requirements, I'm not sure that it's effective the way we do it in trying to develop real plans. As I look at Transportation and Mark, you've done a great job. It's great. It's a necessary document. It's very informative but in the current format it doesn't really allow you to prevent problems like the TH 101 issue and some of the other things that you always come back and say, golly, didn't they know this or didn't we think about this or why didn't I think about this. I don't think we can improve on it because I don't think we have anybody who has time to think about it. I personally think we have to have full time people in the City who look at being in that job for 4 or 5 years. To be looking at what's coming down the Comp Plan? What are the problems we can see. More than e Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 34 e just you Don. Look at what's corning down and bring up issues in front of the Planning Commission and try to say, hey let's do something today to avoid a problem in the future. I think with the staff we've had this last year we haven't gotten anything to try to do things today to prevent problems in the future so I fully support, if the development is going to continue at the same rate, that we expand our planning staff. e Don Ashworth: I think again it's an issue that we need to assess at the Council level. How do they want to see... There is going to be a sudden stop to development in the next 3 to 5 years, maybe less. We have a 1,000 new home subdivision south of TH 5 on Lake Susan. Eckankar of course they have no inclination or desire to develop. Currently we have Saddlebrook, Chan vista and Near Mountain. I think those subdivisions are almost filled. They may well be filled in the next year or two. How long it takes that that can go on at Lake Susan South, we're looking at...units per year. Remember a lot of the population of the total units you had were of higher density. We already have one application in for higher density just to the west of us here. You haven't seen that much apartment type of construction in the last 10-15 years... What this really comes down to is, do we act on the issue of changing the MUSA line or do we simply kind of gain a gasp of air which means taking a period of time before we look to that change...and therefore not make that change... Some of it may be out of our hands as well. The contract period goes to the Year 2000 and the City will have to demonstrate that there's a necessity... If that is not done, there will be a very definite restriction in development. I know that doesn't really solve the problem for the next 3 year period of time but we'd better prepare ourselves for that reality if the City has decided that they do not want to see a change in the MUSA line. Erhart: You're saying that there's adequate for 3 more years of development at the current rate? Don Ashworth: Maybe a little more time. I guess I'd stay with 3 because again, that 1,000 units is... The issue would be...planning process and the actual putting it in the ground process of development. e Emrnings: I don't have too much that's different than what's been said. I certainly agree that we haven't been able, because of how busy staff has been and Barbara leaving, that we haven't been able to do the kinds of things that we would want to do and that is frustrating. I agree with Tim 100%. On the other side, I think there's a certain amount of, it would be nice if we could find a way to forge some kind of a better relationship with the City Council. I know that I, and I think others that we've talked about, feel somewhat isolated out here. Felt like a lot of times when things went up from here to the City Council, decisions got made up there but nothing ever carne back. It even took us a long time to get staff to give us a checklist of what action they had taken on what we'd done so we could see what they had done but even after that happened, we didn't really know why. I quit going to City Council meetings. We rotate that duty and I'd go sit out there and they'd never ask a question. There was a real feeling on, at least my part, I don't want to speak for anybody else, that once they had our Minutes, they didn't care. That was also Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 35 e frustrating so on the staff side there didn't seem to be the time to do the kinds of planning that we all wanted to do. On going up to the Council, there never felt like we were doing things together. That we were coordinated. Felt more like we'd take our look at it and then they'd take their look at it. Maybe that's the way the system is set up to work, I don't know, but if it is, I don't know if that's good. I think there's work to be done on both ends of there. Conrad: One thing I noticed on the job description Don, there's nothing called PRo I think there really should be. I don't know how you word it but it's just such a key area. Such a key responsibility. I think Barbara and I think Jo Ann does an effective job in communicating but I'd like to see it. The other thing that I'd suggest in the coming years, if we could come up with ideas and I know we keep some manual lists and I used to keep a list of what we suggested for staff to do. Maybe every 3 months we asked where are we. I think after we go through some of this goal planning process, I think whether we computerize it or not, maybe we don't need that much sophistication but I think City Council should know what's been suggested on some periodic basis. Suggested for review. Somebody's got to manage staff time. Not only us...because it's economically... I think that work list should be constantly updated and run by the City Council so they know what we're looking at and they can give some clues of whether they think it's worthwhile or not. e Erhart: Don, the Comp Plan, who's the owner of the Comp Plan? Is that the Planning Commission's Plan or the City's Plan? Is it exclusively our job to keep that updated? Conrad: It's the consultant's job isn't it? Mark Koegler: Typically it is, the document is the Planning Commission's. The City Council obviously will ultimately adopt. The Planning Commission will closely monitoring...and at least start thinking about... Erhart: I see in item 4 here in Barb's letter to you Don that the Comprehensive Plan now includes the trail plan that we developed a year ago. That brings another point, something that was asked here some time ago and I'll take the opportunity here to ask. What is the Park and Rec committee's relationship to this body? Is there any or how does that work? Don Ashworth: I think all commissions interact in their role in reporting back... The Planning Commission is really the one who prepares the text, the document itself. To the extent that you obtain information from other commissions, organizations, they are feeding that to you to make decisions to incorporate or not incorporate. Then of course that goes to the City Council. e Erhart: Are you referring to the Comp Plan or are you also referring to subdivisions and other things? Don Ashworth: The question was really for the Comp Plan. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 36 e Emmings: I think his question was broader. Erhart: Yes, you asked a good question a few weeks ago. When I first got on here, when we went through subdivisions we'd get the Park and Rec's recommendations and then we reviewed that and passed it onto Council. Now it's different. Now the Park and Recs passes their recommendation directly to Council. We don't see them unless for some reason they have their meeting before ours and then we kind of get a summary. Am I wrong Ladd? I might be wrong but that's my perception. Conrad: A lot of it. If Park and Rec had reacted to a development, subdivision, we'd always infiltrate it into the Minutes. There were a lot of cases recently when they simply hadn't met and we were reviewing the items so we really, we didn't have anything to review. Erhart: So anyway, I think what we're wondering, what is the correct procedure? Are we supposed to review the Park and Rec's? e Don Ashworth: When it comes to the planning reviews, this gets to be... because on one side we're saying let's not try to create bureaucracy. Let's be able to get people through the process, etc. and then that would go to this commission with that commission's recommendation...onto City Council. All of a sudden we're in that 613 to 913 days just going through the process. Typically what most cities carry out, if there's a burning issue that the Park Commission understands that the Comprehensive Plan development, that there's some trail section, typically the review of an individual subdivision occurs by that commission and their recommendation would go directly to the City Council. Now if there is a strong feeling by this body that the Park Commission is not really considering what you feel to be important as far as the Comprehensive Plan is saying, and you wish to consider changing that process or having the two groups meet and say, we're really not in agreement here. Our long range plan calls for this type of trail versus the Park Commission, you seem to be approving and making... Either of those two processes would work. Meeting with the Park Commission. That or saying, let's come down to a meeting of the minds and in that process the Park Commission do an individual review as it goes to City Council but at least you had a chance to interface with them to see what they're doing. Or we could explore the option of having their recommendation come back to you but I don't think that would, I think that adds a lot to the process. Headla: Why? Don Ashworth: Just because it does extend the time. e Headla: Why would it? Like the Lake Susan. I think it's extremely important that we understand what they have in mind that we have to incorporate in the overall plan. It's just imperative. Like over here by Christmas Lake, whatever, I think it's very important that we get the major ones, I really think we should see a detailed plan. I haven't heard the rationale why we shouldn't see them. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 37 e Don Ashworth: The Park Commission has been meeting on a monthly schedule ...and the schedule here recently...did a review at the Park Commission level. Another one the Park Commission is the Park Commission likes to review their Minutes before that recommendation goes out to some other group or to City Council. They're meeting every 30 days and if a guy comes in and it's 3 weeks before the next meeting, then they've got to wait for the next 30 day period of time to read the Minutes. Then it goes to the Planning Commission...and then to the City Council, you've just added 4 or 5 months. Headla: But that problem seems to be solved. I don't think that's a problem. You meet once a week and you don't review your Minutes. That really isn't a problem. Don Ashworth: I think the Park Commission has to meet... I think the process has not been that bad in terms of them going directly to the Council with their recommendation. If on the major issues you'd like to... that you did want to spend a lot of time, did want to make sure... joint meetings or making sure that... e Conrad: I think we can call special meetings if we need it but typically we've been processing stuff so fast because the Planning Department feels under the gun to get it going, for whatever reason. I've never felt compelled to push things through yet we always get the sense of urgency from the developers that they're going to die unless they get the shovel in the ground within 12 minutes. Unfortunately we don't know if we're dealing with some developers who didn't do a good job of planning or whether the planning staff has been so busy they couldn't work diligently with the developer. We don't know who we're defending. That puts us at a little bit of a, or at least me, at a defensive position. I don't mind dragging my heels to flush out some of the issues so City Council doesn't have to. Over the last couple months, well the last month or so it's slowed down to 1 or 2 items a meeting but prior to that, we were really processing stuff. Rosemount Engineering is another example of something that we're thrashing through and we went through some motions and really didn't do a very good job of any kind of input to that process. I'm not upset, I'm not concerned that Park submits their comments directly to City Council but it typically comes in on the planning staff's report. And if it's coming in on their report, it should probably be coming by us and if it doesn't, it's a major element that's missing that we haven't really looked at. Especially in some of the subdivisions where we did have disagreements with what they were doing. Don, I think the bottom line is, we have to see what they're doing. They should really, we should either be slowing the process down so we understand what's going on or the Park and Rec's got to meet more frequently to get us the information. Not that we're reviewing it but it is coming out in the Planning packet and it affects how we look at subdivisions and how we look at development. I think it's got to be there and it's been missing in a fair amount of cases. I don't know, maybe not a whole lot over the year Jo Ann. What's your opinion? Is it just recent that it's been missing? e Olsen: Recently the schedule haven't been clicking. I've been getting the memo from Lori and trying to get the packet... Her meeting is usually Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 38 e sometimes falls the Tuesday right before you meet. Don Ashworth: The Planning Department is the lead department in terms of anything... They are responsible for the agency referral notices out. They're also responsible for working with the various departments and coordinating their comments into that. The issue is really wider than just the Park Commission. They're including any comments that might deal with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. What their role has been in the whole... The Public Safety in terms of the hydrant locations and other types of conditions that may be set. You are seeing the staff reports from Lori and Jim Chaffee, from Todd or myself as they may deal with the Public Safety Commission or the Housing and Redevelopment Authority or the Park Commission. During a lot of those incidents you're not seeing what action that specific group took on that recommendation and how we bring that back to you, it still does not provide a workable schedule. Conrad: What's your sense? Are we developing, I talk to some developers who say it takes us forever to get something through the City. What's your sense Don? Compare us to other communities. Are we reacting comparably to other communities? We're obviously a growth area so... e Don Ashworth: I think we're way ahead of some of the other communities. I think we do everything we can to get these through. Any city, you'll hear these same type of comments. What you're hearing is not at all, I guess I'd like to insure... Conrad: So really you're sense and I think that's something that the City Council. I don't know how they deal with this or communicate to us but I think we constantly feel that there's a pressure to get it through. As I said before, I've never been sure if that's as a result of just staff not having enough time to work wi th ,the developer and they've been out there for 3 months waiting for somebody to talk to them and all of a sudden they've got to get it there so let's hurry and get it along. Are we trying to catch up? Your feeling is that we're doing a good job so basically I would feel that we could start slowing things down if we needed to. Not that we need to unduly do that but I think just hearing your comments, I might not feel so obligated to move the developers through. I'd much rather have the staff do a better job and give them the support saying, we don't have all the data in. In many cases we don't have all the data in and until it's all in, I'd prefer not seeing it. I think we should be supporting staff with that posture. They can just tell the developer that the Planning Commission doesn't want to see them until it's all in. But I think City Council also has to agree with that philosophy. Don Ashworth: I'm sure that those comments will be considered and again, we will be going through a goal process to try to determine what the Council would like to have done. This issue is one of the issues that we will discuss. e Erhart: Let me bring back the Comp plan again because it relates to the trail plan. I guess a year and a half ago when the trail plan was being Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 39 e developed, I guess I felt that I was representing the Planning Commission on that effort at the time. It was the one that initially we became alerted to this thing when some, particularly the lots down in the Bluff Creek Greens I guess were coming in and there were some, the Bluff Creek itself was in that area and we got a discussion going about whether there ought to be easements and so forth. So I took that particular subject and ran with it on these trails and we worked as a group here with the Parks and Rec to come up with the trail plan. Of course our purpose for the trail plan is mostly, again for land use planning. We put that together a year into a plan and bound it and accepted it into the Comp Plan. It was very disturbing to me in this last referendum that that plan was changed now as it was provided to the public without going back through the process or getting anyone involved. I shouldn't say anyone but at least getting all the poeple more involved in the development to the initial document of the accepted trail plan. That went out to the referendum. In fact it didn't even have the City Council's involvement to change that. I don't understand that I guess. I just don't understand that. I found out that the referendum... (There was a problem with the recording at this point on the tape.) - Emmings: ...you're right but the question is, that was obviously, to me, that was really an obviously a Planning Commission issue. You're planning a trail system for the whole city and the Planning Commission doesn't see it? That's the part that, I don't even care about the particulars right now but I can't imagine how that thing got on the ballot without the Planning Commission ever looking at it. Am I missing something there? Don Ashworth: I don't know of any real change that occurred from the plan that you had approved with the exception of the position on the equestrian versus pedestrian... Headla: Did we approve the trail plan? Emmings: We never saw one as I remember. Conrad: Well, we reviewed it. Emmings: We did? Erhart: I don't know if we ever formally approved it. Mark Koegler: There was at least one meeting that I know of with the Planning Commission. I don't recall...context. . Erhart: I agree Don. I'm not trying to go back and redo everything. Let me just say a couple things. One is that this is right from the original plan that we reviewed was a nature trail. "Nature trails are designed solely for pedestrian useage." The work that I did for that, that was the way I saw it and that's the way the plan ended. But again, that's behind us. Unfortunately or fortunately, I don't know whatever, it didn't pass and we get to look at it again. I really want to go forward in trying to put together a trail plan. All I'm asking is that when you do this, is Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 40 e that when we put the plan together, we do get public input and we do get the input from our elected officials so when we get to the referendum we've got a plan that people have been involved with as opposed to the concept that someone, some of the employees of the City are going to sell the plan to the public. If that's the purpose for organizing a committee, we're starting on the wrong premise. I guess that's what I'm getting to Don. I think we've got to get, when we make decisions such as, the example that I stated, is this City going to be involved in making horse trails? That's an issue that I think needs some debate. Don Ashworth: Part of the problem out of that, I think that we had a very energetic group who was trying to promote the trails and in that process they made some changes...until 2,000 brochures had been printed and things had appeared in the newspaper... Conrad: Thanks for stopping by and talking to us. It's almost 10:30 and that's usually when we talk to Mark. CONTRACTOR'S YARD DISCUSSION - MARK KOEGLER. Conrad: Mark, contractor's yard. We see your note. Anything you want to explain beyond what your note says? e Mark Koegler: No. I was going to offer you either a short overview of this or a lengthy overview and I'll give you the option of a short one. Conrad: Yes, give us the short one just to get us thinking about it and off the other subjects. e Mark Koegler: The southern part of the City, I guess it's been an interesting thing to watch, at least for me over the last 10 years or so because when I first got involved with the City of Chanhassen, everybody was waving this ordinance around that was 23 or 36 or whatever, prohibiting development in the unsewered areas. The Attorneys were all excited about it. The clients were all excited about it and as you know, subsequently that was struck down some years later. Then it was interesting being on the outside watching what I perceived as this mad rush of people to meet the deadline imposed as a result of the recent ordinance change. All of these things had I think probably a more significant impact on the southern area of the community than I anticipated at the time they were occurring. So if you now direct to southern area of the city, it's not at all what it was 10 years ago. basically becoming very residential and that has to have some bearing when you look at this issue and probably several other issues as it relates to the ground. It used to be clear that it was either agricultural or not but since that time, again back in the late 70's, what you've seen develop is now in almost three categories. There's agricultural. There's residential with the 2 1/2 acre lot basis that got in under the wire so to speak and now we have residential at 1 per 10 overall density. In looking specifically at this contractor's yard issue, I had to look at that as how does it fit into those 3 very generalized categories of use. I could argue that it could fit reasonably well the It's on Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 41 e e without significant irrigation measures in the two larger scale areas. Either agricultural or the 10 acre parcels. In going through Lake Riley Woods, I can't see contractor's yards fitting into the context of what I think that neighborhood will become. In other words, I'd like to see very nice housing going in there...and that again taints my thinking again on how we see it works. The bottom line in my comments on contractor's yards, after reviewing the issue. Reviewing how other communities, both here and in the whole Metropolitan area look at these kinds of things, I don't find any instances where anybody really considers them anything other than industrial land uses. And you get into the scale argument. If we bring this thing down to a mom and pop scale to try to allow certain people to operate certain businesses, maybe on interim uses or whatever, I think there is a certain area that begs the long term question of what is the best land use for the City in the southern part of the community. As you're well aware, Don talked tonight a little bit about the MUSA line not being amended maybe until after the year 2000 because of the Lake Ann sewer agreement. To date there's been no targeting of industrial areas in the south and I don't see that happening probably in the near term...so we don't know which areas these might ultimately fit into. It's just a random pattern. I couple that with the experience that the City has had in adminstrating these things. Probably when they adopted it, the 1 mile separation sounded great. Now in reality that's filled up and where do we go from here. In an adminstrative context, I think once you allow them on any scale, even if it's a mom and pop scale, it's difficult for instance if we say, you can only do this, you can only do this, you can only do this. If the owner is there and the Planning Commission has changed, Council's changed, staff changed and that began to errode over a period of time so the commitment to looking toward the long term future use...the best way that that's served is maybe not allowing an opportunity to continue any longer. At any rate, coming through all of this rationale, I've at least tried to layout for you, my bottom line conclusion is that I would question that contractor's yards are appropriate at all in the unsewered area. There are clearly other areas that answered that question with a no. I don't think it's in the City's best long term interest and I think it raises some short term problems to do that. If there's a strong feeling in the City that you want to allow them on a limited scale, I think there may be some techniques that could be used but I still think you have some jeopardy on administrative, day to day operational basis in trying to make sure that you stay with a consistent policy and control this. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them from the A-2 zone. If you choose not to do that, and try to scale them down, you put them in more of the context of an accessory use. Not to create a new accessory use category but to create language as part of the conditional use that makes them accessory to a residential structure. So they are strictly a family business. I think I even use the term family in a possible definition. Keep in mind though that that is defined in your zoning ordinance as it could be 500 people. Family means a lot of things in today's language...zoning ordinance. So there are some suggestions there that if you take exception, you try to define it so that it literally is a small scale accessory use but again, for discussion purposes, I put in some language, some area requirements that deal with that. I think the possibility then of looking at, and this potentially making a simple argument as part of this, looking at some of these rural e Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 42 e residential areas and...rezoning at this point in time is something that may have some merit. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them and if you do not find that to be feasible, to enact a control mechanism similar to what's outlined to try to make them a strictly defined accessory use. Conrad: Good job Mark. Interesting comments here. Dave, what do you want to do? The result of this is for us to come to some kind of a consensus and let Mark draft some language for us that might be a recommended change to the current ordinance. So what we're doing right now is setting direction. Whether we outlaw, make them illegal altogether and grandfather in what we've got or modify it to some degree. Why don't you tell us what you think. Headla: I like the ma and pa, open end. I can't tell you why. When I look through here it made a lot of sense and then you left this opening and I thought the wording was good. In reading over your definition, where you mentioned..., that one I thought could be used. Mark Koegler: That was the second to the last page. Headla: I felt comfortable with that but you still agree it has some real reservations. This one has a lot more restraints than...and if you have 'e reservations, I guess... Mark Koegler: ordinance... I wanted to make it clear in my comments...the zoning Headla: But they can't expand from their present set up without another application. Mark Koegler: Correct. Headla: Can that be an appropriate way to control that? Mark Koegler: It solely depends on the consistency of the... It can be if you have a good...to enforcing the policy. You had a couple of variances tonight. We've seen hundreds of variances... You see a lot of variance applications and each one is reviewing on "it's own merits" under normal procedure. It's very difficult to put it out back from a motion and say that's a reservation that you have but once you allow the opportunity, it's hard to say, well it's now just a minor incident. If you consistently can do that. Headla: I'd like to hear what Jim has to say. Wildermuth: I think if you look back at the open land in Chanhassen is becoming increasingly more rural residential. Not agricultural. It probably isn't a good place for contractor's in Chanhassen. e Jay Johnson: ...in the definition where it talks about home occupations? Maximum of 1 employees. As such...contractor's yard. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 43 e Conrad: Home is in the home within the existing residence. I was assuming that this related to out, something outside. wildermuth: Accessory structure. Emmings: It says it's conducted as an accessory use in the resident's dwelling unit. That's the definition of home occupation. Mark Koegler: virtually every zoning ordinance of home occupation has language in it that requires it to look for all intensive purposes, just exactly like a normal single family structure. Any sign that it's anything but that, signage, parking of vehicles. Batzli: Something that Jim said kind of got me looking in here. Are we trying to just limit it to like lOP? I agree with Jim's reasoning that I think in view of what's happened in Chanhassen, it's becoming more residential, I wouldn't like one next to me obviously. They start out with great intentions but a lot of them get out of hand slowly and the enforcement I think has been very weak. I would like to, if we can, eliminate anymore. e ElIson: I go along with Mark's recommendation that they are totally inappropriate in that A-2 or any kind of residential area. I wouldn't go for allowing the mom and pop and I think it's mainly exactly what he said. It's real easy to say that now but if I'm the one later on trying to interpret it and it's a friend of mine and it's just growing a little bit, you just don't want to have to deal with it. You'd rather just say black or white. And no white but only if it's has this. It's just too hard to try to meet the constraints. You have no idea what is going to corne about. Emmings: Mark, you've done a really good job at distilling or crystalizing the issue. Whatever side you might be on, you treated both sides and this is really a nice piece of work. I underlined two sentences even though I basically agree with everybody else. One is that Chanhassen is rapidly urbanizing and the other one is that in the long term they are compatible only with industrial land use. And those are the two things that sort of stuck in my mind as being what ought to control our decision in this. This is a chance for us to do long range planning in the best interest of Chanhassen down the road which is what we were just complaining here tonight about not having the opportunity to do very often. This is a chance to do it and I think we should just get rid of them in the A-2. Get rid of them except in the lOP I guess. Erhart: I want to comment. I think Mark did just a great job of taking all the issues of this thing and putting it in a 6 page thing and making it so that it really makes sense, even though it pretty much agrees with what I said. You did a good job. It clearly spelled out the issues and I won't say anything else. I think you know my position. e Conrad: I'm like Dave. I think there's something romantic and charming about somebody buying 40 acres of property and... Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 44 e Batzli: And putting a bulldozer on it. Conrad: putting a bulldozer in the garage and going out and cutting down the forest every now and then. No, I still go back. There's something romantic to that. There's something nice. I can relate to somebody who wants to do that. Buy 40 acres and maybe have a home occupation out in their garage or their barn or something. Wildermuth: There isn't going to be 40 acres left in Chanhassen. Conrad: The point is, I don't believe the MUSA line will move for 10 years. I think a contract's a contract so we're talking about for the next 10 years we're going to eliminate this to get ready for the next 40 years. I guess I don't hear a lot of requests coming into town saying, we're not aware of a big demand for contractor's yards. I don't feel badly moving it one way or another as long as we restrict their use. I sure hear a lot of sentiment for getting rid of it. I just keep thinking, when we're talking at least 11 years away and maybe restricting somebody's alternative or option to use it at a less intensive use for, well actually forever. Batzli: But we haven't been seeing these ma and pa people come in. We've been seeing Admiral Waste people come in. e Conrad: And I think that's a good point Brian. Batzli: If this were the case that we were seeing people who were actually going to run a small business out of their home, I might be in favor of that but we're seeing larger scale ma and pa operations come in. They're not low level uses. Conrad: I buy that argument. Emmings: Isn't it going to take lead time to get rid of what we got so we are ready 10 to 11 years down the road? Don't we want to do it now so that what's here clears out we don't have any new applications to have to consider. e Erhart: Let me state Ladd that I would be satisfied, I think we should get rid of them for the same reason. I think you just get something and it's just impossible to get rid of later on. Not in 10 years but these things go with the land. The other thing is if they grow, like any business, if you have a business, every business has to grow almost by definition. Very few businesses just stay small. Unless we can define the little family business. It would be acceptable to me that if we wanted to take what truly is the rural area of south Chanhassen and cut this thing down so it's a really ma and pa operating out of it's garage and then take the other half of south Chanhassen that's essentially residential, as Mark is suggesting, make it an RR such that it is totally eliminated. I think that's an acceptable alternative. I still think it's best to completely eliminate them. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 45 e ElIson: We had this 1 mile control supposedly in place and that just got waived for the last one that came in. Even at the Council level so even the controls you try to put in, it still has these... Batzli: It was a hardship. Come on. Ellson: I know. I'm just giving you another example of, who knows when that mom and pop is the next door neighbor and like you said Brian, they're not the ones coming in right now. Conrad: It sounds to me like the sentiment is to rule them out. In terms of the best way to develop this, Jo Ann is it a wise idea to pass this concept by the City Council? What's the procedure you want to follow? Olsen: You have that option. Either sending it to Councilor you can just proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment... Batzli: We need a public hearing. I would think we'd kind of want Council's okay before we do that then. Conrad: It's one of those cases where I'd like passing it up to hear what they have to say before we spend a lot of time drafting an ordinance and they say, well we haven't seen the other side of it. Although they ~ certainly can see Mark's comments here. Headla: They see our Minutes. If there's a problem. Olsen: The Council will be changing too. Council now and get their comments. If you want to pass it onto the Erhart: I would prefer to see this whole thing just go to the new Council in whatever form we want to pass it up. Either as an amendment or just for discussion. Conrad: There's a lot of background. Emmings: With Mark's memo. Of course, there's the experience. Conrad: It's all the cases of violations. Let's do this. Let's pass it up to them just in terms of, to get their comments back. I can't do that. I was thinking that was smart to get their feedback but what do you think? Do you want to pass it up for their awareness or do you want to make... Headla: Forget that. We're wasting time. Let's draft something. Conrad: There's a vote for a draft. Jim, what do you want to do? Wildermuth: Put it up to see what their thoughts are. -- Batzli: I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of amendments to be done if we're just going to eliminate it. It's kind of like cut and slash from one section but with that amount of work that has to go into it, I think we might as well just let them approve it before we waste more time. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 46 e Ellson: I think they know it's coming too. I was at the last meeting when they did that one. I think they're looking for something on it. Like Dave, if we bring them the amendment or what have you, it's like any surprise. What's this we didn't know anything was going on with this. Erhart: Didn't we bring this to Council once already? Ellson: They got your memo I'm sure. Erhart: I made a presentation at Council from the Planning Commission. Olsen: They knew it was being considered. They know that staff is working on it. Conrad: Annette, what do you want to do? Ellson: I just said, didn't you hear me? I said I want to go on with Dave. Do the amendment. Emmings: When you started out by member I was going to say let's send it up. Now I've had my mind changed. That's how wishy washy I am. I guess I think it is a waste of time because I'd forgotten that we've already had some interaction with them on this issue as to whether or not we should work on this, as I recall. e Conrad: Yes, but they haven't seen this. Emmings: And they said yes, go ahead. I think maybe the thing to do would be to say, let's delete it as a use except in the lOP and make sure that we pass Mark's report on and say, here's a good discussion of the issues. This is the way we've come down on it and if you agree with us, then act this. That presents them with a nice, finished product and something to discuss. Ellson: If not it will corne back with comments. Emmings: I guess I would say, let's get the work done. Conrad: But that means we have to hold a public hearing before they see it. Emmings: We're going to have to hold one anyway. Erhart: We're going to have to hold a public hearing before they see it? Conrad: Right. As soon as we draft something, we hold a public hearing and we pass it up. e Emmings: Let's go ahead and have a public hearing. I think it's alright because they've already indicated to us that it was something they wanted to do. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 47 e Conrad: To look into right but we don't know what they want to do. Erhart: I think the fact that there's two alternatives here to this. Being that this is the issue that I've been pushing, I wouldn't mind going back up and saying, look it, here's Mark's report. There are two approaches. Conrad: So you'd like to forward it up for their information and input? Erhart: Yes, I think so. Conrad: I'm for forwarding it up. Tim is for forwarding it up. Batzli: Forwarding it up. Emmings: So am I. Conrad: Can we adminstratively send this forward to the City Council with our opinion that we prefer eliminating them as any use in the rural area and to have their comments sent back to us? Olsen: We can put it on the 28th agenda. e Emmings: Can I make one more comment on this? It seems to me that if we're going to eliminate contractor's yards, I think it's important that somehow we get a handle on what we've got in the City. Again, it seems to me about the only way, I don't know how it can be done but we ought to identify every contractor's yard and find out the extent of their present use. Whether it means going out there and taking photographs or whatever, spend a day and drive around and take photographs of each one, I don't know what but find out how big they are so we don't wind up with people saying, since I can't go in here and have a contractor's yard, maybe I can rent space from Joe who's already got a contractor's yard and just put my stuff in with his. Maybe we're running a risk of that but we better get a handle on what we've got. I don't know how that's done. Conrad: Jo Ann, when you take maternity leave, how long are you going to be gone for? Olsen: Three months. Conrad: With Don as Mayor and two new people on Council, somebody's got to go through the background on this. Mark, I guess it will be you to do that. They really need a lot of background to look at the problem. Olsen: Do you want that type of information before we go to the Council? e Ernrnings: No. I just think if we're going to close the door on these things, we'd better know what we've got with it. Batzli: One more comment. I think your idea to rezone it just to 2.5 acre residential developments to RR is not a bad idea regardless of whether we look at the contractor's yards. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 48 e Emmings: Another thing that goes on the list. Now is there really a list someplace? Conrad: Only if I kept it or Barbara kept it. Olsen: We had that one updated that we gave you. Emmings: Do you have a list? Olsen: We had one that you got in the memo. and I lists a lot of outstanding... Then that memo that Mark Emmings: Would you see that this gets onto the list? Olsen: I'll just keep adding onto it. I'll keep that coming with each planning packet because you wanted that and then add with that memo and add what you want. e Erhart: To follow up on your comment Brian. I had this discussion with Jo Ann today. I feel that we should do that. Representing south Chanhassen and living in an area where all these big houses are going up and seeing what's going on, I really firmly believe that if there is an"RR area in the City, that is the most representative of the intent statement for the RR district. I'd like to see us move to change the area where those subdivisions are to an RR. If the Commission would ask staff to do that, I would really support that. Batzli: I think we just did. Conrad: I thought we did. actually did it. I was wondering if I thought of that or if we WETLANDS, HORSE TRAILS - TIM ERHART. e Erhart: Jo Ann called me on this and I talked to you Ladd about it. I think this is a bigger subject than just the wetlands thing. I guess, as you can see from my memo on this thing, I'm concerned about wetlands. On the other hand, I'm not sure that we have an issue yet. One of the things that's going to happen, as soon as you get discussion with horse trails and snowmobile, because if it's horse trails then it's going to be snowmobile trails and it's going to be 3 wheeler trails. You're going to get a big, emotional crowd up here. That's what was going to happen tonight. So I asked Jo Ann, Ladd and I discussed it, we said let's defer it to another time and let's find out if we really want to get into this discussion. I guess I'm hoping with the discussion that we had with Don tonight, that we will go through, when we come up with a trail plan, whether or not it has horses and snowmobile trails on it, 3 wheeler trails, I hope if there's a process that we follow so we come up with a plan that represents what the public wants, then I don't think we need to have this discussion right now on these wetlands and horse trails. If we have a discussion in a timely and orderly fashion as the trail plan Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 49 e develops so that's why I've sort of taken it off tonight. it happen in an orderly fashion. I'd like to see Conrad: Given that the trail stuff will come back to us and we have to decide and groups have to decide whether to leave it alone or phase it in or do anything with the trails, I think it's probably worthwhile to defer it to the time when it comes back to us and look at it. Unless Dave you want to jump in and talk the issue tonight. Headla: I don't think we're going to gain anything by talking about it. I'd like to see that trail plan redone. I don't think it was representative of what I perceive a lot of the people in Chanhassen would like. Tim started it here and I think he's got some good points that we've just got to talk about openly and hold it to the public's best interest. I live on the west side of Chanhassen, I'm not sure we got the best shake out of that. Conrad: Unless there's a contrary point of view, we'll just defer this item as Tim recommended and wait and bring it up when the trails come back to us. Any other items? Would somebody like to talk about any new business? e Headla: Yes, I'd like to bring up something. I was at the, Annette was there too, at this meeting on Ches Mar. The comment came out again about mailings that went out. This isn't the first time I've heard people say they didn't get this or that. I wondered, Jo Ann, some more work again~ but to me do you ever do a spot check to see if people did in fact get the mailings? Olsen: We keep...do go out, we use the property owners in the applicant's file. That comes through an Abstract Company and they guarantee proper names and addresses. Headla: That says we've gone through the motions. We're more interested in getting the job done and to make sure we get the job done, it almost seems that we ought to do a sample. On 2 or 3 mailings, pick out what you think is a reasonable sample. Call the people. Did you get the letter? Yes, okay. If you find that say out of the 3 times you're satisfied that people are getting it, fine but right now, and the one that really sticks in my craw is the property to the northwest of mine where Dave Johnson sent out that mailing. So many people claim they never got it but I think Dave Johnson in his own mind felt that he really did what he was supposed to do. Olsen: He notified a lot of people on that one. Headla: But only 2 people showed up and some people felt well, you can't always just can't come in the middle of the week. I guess I would like to see a check on some of the mailings to see if in fact the people did get it. e Emmings: What can you do Dave? If you take an envelope and you put the person's name on it and put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox, you Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 50 e find out they're not getting it, what can you do? Headla: If I know they're not getting it, I know damn well I can get the problem solved but I can't solve it if I think they're getting it and then I don't know if they got it or not. ElIson: You can send it registered mail. Emmings: What are you going to do? Headla: You call the people up. So many people up. If you know in fact you're doing a good job, fine. You walk away and you know you've done a good job. But if you don't sample what you do once in a while, how do you know if you're doing a good job? Emmings: But if this time I call up 2 people and they didn't get their mail for whatever reason, does that mean I'm not going to do the same thing next time? That is, address an envelope, put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox. What will I do next time? Headla: I would go back and take a look at the process that I did do. Maybe they used the wrong address. Maybe they had a misspelling. Maybe it's a different street address. There's got to be a reason. e Emmings: There's an easier way to do this. You just put a note on the bottom of the letter that says, if you don't get this, call the City. Olsen: As far as Ches Mar, that was a matter of a public hearing. Headla: I knew you were going to say that but my point is, that isn't the only time. If that was the only time I heard that comment, that would be the end of the discussion but that isn't the only time. ElIson: It's also in the paper right? If you've got an Affidavit of Mailing, that basically says there's supposedly to be 10 things sent out and we've got a receipt that shows the Post Office got 10 things and that's as far as you can take it. If you show that you've got 9, then you're right. Somebody may not have gotten theirs. Headla: I get very frustrated with these comments. I come from more of a database management. Database management is, you get data. You did the job. Yes, I did the job. Here's the response. I got the answers and you did or you didn't. Did we do the job or didn't we? Went through all the motions. Hey, we're great guys. The job didn't get done. I don't care about that. I want the job done. You don't want to go through to the final line and say yes, the job did get done. e Conrad: Trying to narrow in on the problem, and a lot of people say they didn't get informed. Typically when they don't get informed, they were not the landowner of record which is what generally happens. The letter of the public hearing went to somebody else but as long as staff says they sent a letter and they have an affidavit showing it, how are we going to solve the problem? If staff says they sent it, where's the missing, and Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 51 e somebody says they didn't get it but it went to the right address. Is it a city problem? It's the best form of communication, other than calling. Headla: If people perceive it's a problem, it's a problem period. I'm not going to say if it's a people problem or a city problem but it's a problem for us and let's get it resolved. Conrad: But what's the solution? Headla: You tell me what they're real problem is and then I'll let you know. I don't know if there is a real problem or not but I'm asking to collect some data to see if there is a problem. If people complain about not getting notified and we can say, hey we sent these mailings out. We did a sample. We called the people. They are getting it. We verified our process. I wouldn't go any further. Erhart: What you're saying Dave is to take one example and test it through a test? Headla: Do a test sample. Erhart: Take one subdivisions or one public hearing... e Emmings: All you're testing is whether the post office can deliver the mail. That's all you're testing. Headla: No, I'm not. How do I know you've got the right name or the right address? Emmings: But you're going to run into problems there because of the problem that Ladd just mentioned. People who get the notice are the people who own the property. If they're not the person who lives at that house, it goes to them at their address. If they live in Florida, they get it down in Florida. But now is she going to call that person in Florida to see if they got it because that's the person... Headla: I haven't heard anybody in Florida complain they didn't get a mailing. Emmings: Don't take me literally. Do you understand what I'm saying? Or do you want her to call the person who's living on that property and ask them if they got it? Headla: If they send it to an address in Chanhassen, you call that person. I don't really understand. Are you objecting to having the receptionist call somebody? e Emmings: No. Dave, I guess, it seems to me, and I don't care, if they want to do it they can go right ahead and do it. I have no strong objection to it but it seems to me that all you're doing is, you want me to take a letter addressed to Ladd and put it in the mailbox. Now I'm going to call Ladd up and say Ladd, did you get it? If he says yes. Now I verified that, all I verified is that the post office can deliver a damn Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 52 e letter. Now if he says no, what am I going to do next time? I'm going to do the same thing. I'm going to put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox. Headla: No you're not. Emmings: Why not? Headla: You're going to go find out why he didn't get it? Emmings: I'm going to go to the post office and say why can't you deliver a letter. Headla: If I did that, the first thing I'd go do is verify my mail. Did I have the right address on it? How am I dead sure that I got the right address on it? Emmings: Where do you get your addresses? Olsen: From an Abstract Company. Emmings: She gets them from the Abstract Company. e Headla: I tell you, so many things fallout when you start doing a test sample on it, it's amazing. Emmings: I think the Abstractor gets, it's essentially the tax information I think. She gets a list certified by an Abstractor. Headla: You're talking over my head. I don't know what an Abstractor is. Emmings? Okay, when I have to give notice to somebody. Say I'm doing a project and I have to give notice to everybody within 500 feet of my property, I have to go to an Abstractor. That's somebody who keeps records of land transactions like they do at the courthouse like the County Recorder keeps. You have an abstract on your property or you have torrens property. One or the other. You know what your abstract looks like. That's put together by an abstractor. They go to him and say, I need a 500 foot property list. This Abstractor gives you a letter stamped and certified that these are all of the people who own property within 500 feet of your property. Here are their names and addresses. That list is then given to the City as part of the application and they use, that's how they get their addresses and names of the people who have to be notified. Then they do an affidavit that we gave notice to all the people listed on the Abstractor's certificate. Headla: But then we want to test it to see if it works. e Emmings: The addresses that are on that list County uses to send the tax statement to you. it in pretty good shape. I don't care but it testing anything other than the post office. That's all. are the same addresses the By God, they probably have doesn't seem to me you're That's my problem with it. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 53 e Headla: I wanted to tell the people who said they didn't get noti fied, they can give an explanation. Erhart: What percentage of the people in this group do you think would tell you that they did get notified if you called their home? Headla: I have no idea. Erhart: Is it only 30%? Headla: I don't have any data at all to show which way to go. Emmings: What is the specific example you're basing it on? Who didn't get notified about what? Headla: The latest one, is the one on the Dave Johnson property. Conrad: Who's that? Headla: That's that contractor you know that I really went after. Where he said he had sent the notices out to all the people around and he got the addresses from here. e Olsen: No, we did the affidavits. Headla: You did the mailings? Olsen: Yes, for the public hearing but he had a neighborhood meeting. Ellson: meeting? They're saying they didn't get notified for the neighborhood That was his business but we're saying... Emmings: Now if they didn't get notice from him, that's not a city issue. If you're talking about notice from us... Headla: Unless you got the names and addresses from us and I have no idea if he did or didn't. Elison: So it may not even be a problem. Conrad: There are cases where there are and usually they're not the registered land owner. They're not the land owner. Somebody else owns it and somebody in Florida gets their mail and that's a problem. I think you're talking about Jerry Eickus. Headla: That wasn't a valid meeting anyway. e Conrad: There's nothing you can say other than the City sends out letters. They have an affidavit. I think it's our obligation to make sure that they always do that. They do typically. I don't know Dave how to solve that. I know what you're hearing. People love to talk about, I was not informed and that's a classic. That's classic community , ---- Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 54 '. involvement stuff. I wasn't informed of this. Nobody told me. Headla: But I don't have any information to go back and tell them they did get it. Conrad: But you can say the staff has an affidavit showing that it was sent. I think in this case, with Jerry Eickus, there's an affidavit saying it was sent and she's saying she didn't receive it. Batzli: Then she should go to the post office. Emmings: But there's another thing too. You may be talking to a person who's outside, in the case of the 500 foot thing, you may be talking to a guy who's 1,000 feet away and he doesn't get notice. Then we may want to address that. When I came on here to selfishly guard the lake I live on, one of the first things I tried to get through here and was lucky and we got through was a thing where if there's development on the lake, not only do you give notice to the people 500 feet around but to all the people who live around the lake because it impacts them all. So in that case, we changed who gets notice. You may want to look and see if we're getting the right people notice. Now that would make sense to me. That would be doing something. . Conrad: I think it's our obligation when we hear that, that they haven't been informed is, us individually, to follow up with the City and find out why not. Headla: Check the facts. Conrad: Yes. It's got to be factual and we've got to talk to Jo Ann and we say, okay show us that it went out. Then I think you can definitely go back to that, and as long as we're convinced that the address was right and that the City has the affidavit showing it, I think we can go back to that person and say, hey you've got to look at your mail. But I think it's our job to follow up on that. Anything else Jo Ann? Olsen: I just need to know who of you are coming up for reappointment, if you still all want to be... Conrad: Who's coming up? I am. Olsen: You and Steve and Tim and... Headla: Me. I think it's me. Batzli: It might be me. . Emmings: Now do we come up in front of the new Councilor the old? Olsen: Council did discuss what they wanted to do and the ad that I'm going to be placing in the paper will simply state that we have four openings but the present Planning Commissioners who's positions are up L Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 55 ~ still want to continue in that position. Make it clear to the public that most likely those four positions will still be filled. That anyone who's int~r~sted can apply. Then the Planning Commission is to interview the people and the Council will take your recommendation. I just wanted to know if everyone was still interested. Conrad: Is there anybody that is not interested in running again or being appointed again? Erhart: Do we talk about pay first? Batzli: Do we know for sure who the fourth person is? Is it me or is it Dave? Olsen: There's four but I'm sorry, I don't remember who the fourth one is. Headla: I think it's me. Emmings: I just want the record to reflect that if it's the new Council that is considering my appointment, the only reason I was the treasurer for Bill Boyt's campaign was because he had my son tied up in his basement. r Olsen: We'll call you and let you know. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim