Loading...
1989 02 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1989 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to move the Organizational Items on the agenda to after the Approval of Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING IN AND SODDING OF A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 100 AND 80 SANDY HOOK ROAD, BOB PFANKUCH AND STEVE FROST, APPLICANTS. public Present: Name e Mr. and Mrs. Bob pfankuck Mr. and Mrs. Steve Frost Ci ndy Gi lman Thomas Gilman Barbara Montgomery Susan Conrad Address 100 Sandy Hook Road 80 Sandy Hook Road President, Lotus Lake Homeowners Assn. 6613 Horseshoe Curve Lane 7017 Dakota Avenue 6625 Horseshoe Curve Lane Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Conrad: Just one comment. Our wetland ordinance is more restrictive than the DNR's and our wetland ordinance specifically talks about areas above the ordinary high water mark. Basically what staff is recommending in this report is saying that the areas that are sanctioned by other governmental bodies will get some feedback. I'm curious what we're talking about in terms of the property that's above the ordinary high water mark which our ordinance governs. Hanson: The area above the ordinary high water mark is...Fish and Wildlife talked about. Conrad: So in the red? Hanson: Yes. e Conrad: And then in the blue? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 2 e Hanson: The blue is actually the edge of the shoreline. In the alternative, we looked at establishing... In talking with Fish and Wildlife, they thought that was probably going a little too far. Conrad: Okay, we will open it up for public comments. What I would like to do is have the applicants for the permit speak to us first. Either of the applicants in relation to the staff report or anything else, if you would like. Mrs. pfankuch: recommendation. First of all, I'm a little unclear about the Is this...? Hanson: No. That's just representative. In his memo, I believe he stated a size in the last paragraph that they should be 15 feet in length and come back inland 30 feet. Mrs. pfankuch: And what is the blue line? Hanson: That's just delineating where the edge of the water is now. Mrs. pfankuch: So they're asking for a triangle between our property. One between our property and the Monroe's property and one between our property and... e Hanson: Right. Mrs. pfankuch: Well, all of the information is in the file but what we were attempting to do is get rid of the loosestrife. We called a contractor and he came down and started to do the excavating and the village came and looked at it and told us to proceed. We certainly want to cooperate with the DNR and whoever. We don't want to cause a problem. I guess we're not totally convinced that loosestrife is less of a problem than that sod. We didn't have cattails. We had loosestrife totally. 7 feet tall. You couldn't see anything but loosestrife. As far as wildlife, now we've got geese living on the shore. In fact, they're a nuisance. Our dock is slippery from the geese so as far as wildlife, they certainly like it better now. That isn't to say that we we don't want to cooperate, we do but I guess we're a little unclear about exactly what we'll accomplish by tearing up however much we're talking about here. Conrad: I think, and I don't know if I can be a spokesperson for that because I haven't seen the plan and I'm not an expert in the area but we do have a wetland ordinance and we've been pretty restrictive on a lot of your neighbors. Having bui 1 t boardwal ks where they would li ke to put docks. They had different opinions of what they'd like to do but we enforce the ordinance because the runoff, especially through your area is significant. with the wetland behind your house and Herb Bloomberg's wetland being destroyed, which is probably one of the best wetlands in town, that whole area is real susceptible to, the water quality is really ~ going to take a maj or hi t every time we destroy a Ii ttle bi t of wetland. ~But I don't know that that's an issue. It just happens that that particular problem is in your area. But also, there is a lot of water that's going into the lake and we, as a community, have been trying to Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 3 e prevent that kind of runoff. Whether it be wetlands that are under our control or wetlands that are under DNR control or somebody elses. It's been a city policy to be real stringent on what we do. Mrs. pfankuch: And we don't disagree with your having a policy. Certainly we don't want to cause a problem. The loosestrife, our understanding when we started the project, was that the loosestrife was a major problem. It certainly was a noxious thing on our shore. We had these big clumps of yuk and the tires would float in and stick in it and it was a real mess. It's hard for me to be convinced that loosestrife is better. You were talking about the wetlands, where? Behind our property? You mean up where they've dug out the cattails and build the houses? Conrad: Yes. And the only reason that happened is because they got the permit to do that many, many years ago. They had a subdivision that superceded our ordinance. That's probably one of the best functioning wetlands in the city. It's beautiful but it's being buried right now. It's not your problem and it doesn't really, it may end up to be a little bit of your problem but that has nothing to do on this particular one. Mrs. pfankuch: We have the sewers also, and I'm sure you're aware of that. We have two sewers on our property. One between ours and Frost's property where the water runs down and then out a culvert. Now the e loosestrife had totally filled that culvert. That was not draining into the lake. It was backing up and doing whatever because the loosestrife had clogged the opening of that outlet. That stuff, I don't know what you know about it but that stuff is like, like from outerspace. It just takes over. But we're certainly not in disagreement with talking to the DNR and see what it is that they're proposing. We don't want to be disagreeable here but we are concerned about the lake and certainly about ecology but that loosestrife is awful. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Cindy Gilman: I live on Horseshoe Curve. I am currently the President of Lotus Lake Association. I guess a couple of the things that I was concerned about is that you said that the loosestrife is a problem and that it needs to be handled. There are chemical treatments to handle the loosestrife so that the wetlands can become healthy again and help be restored instead of clearcutting and filling in and then there would be no chance of any type of a natural filter to help the lake along there. I also question, I guess the way it was done. The contractor that did it, I assume most contractors know that there are laws that they have to follow. I had someone come in to look at part of my lakeshore to help redo it because it was falling apart and most contractors are aware that they need to clear things through the DNR. That there are things that are properly done and things that are not properly done on a lakeshore. Anyway, so I question the contractor. The contractor that filled it in. I guess it ~ bothers me that it was gone ahead and done and then after the fact, they ~ are looking to get the permit now instead of before. It seems that there was an awareness there. There was an awareness of the purple loosestrife and you knew that was a problem and why you didn't seek help or talk to Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 4 e counselor talk to people to find out what you could do about the loosestrife and what was legal and what was not. I guess that's it.' Thank you. Thomas Gilman: I'm also from Horseshoe Curve and I guess my problem with this is that this has been done previously where people have corne in. They've altered their land. I don't think these people just fell off a cabbage truck and I think that they know that you need a permit for this type of thing. I think that they decided to step ahead of the law. Have the work done figuring it would be easier to corne and get a permit afterwards. I think they should be required to return it to it's natural condition and then once that's done, then come in and make this presentation because this is an afterfact. I don't think that the lake was taken into consideration. I think that the loosestrife is being used as kind of a scapegoat. Conrad: Two quick comments. What are the contractor's responsibilities steve when they start excavating around a lake? What do they have to do? Do they need a building permit? Wildermuth: Do we require an excavating permit of dirt contractors? Hanson: Yes. _ Wildermuth: So he didn't come. in and apply for one? Hanson: I found an excavating permit in the file. I don't know the history behind when it was done. It could have been done after they had started but I'm not sure if that's true or not. Conrad: Would you make sure that City Council knows whether it was true or not by the time this gets to them. Wildermuth: It sounds like the contractor ought to be... Conrad: I think so. The applicant made some comment about staff giving the permission to go ahead and maybe that was the permit but I'm curious about staff saying go ahead. Mrs. pfankuch: Do you have a copy of the permit? A copy was sent to you. Hanson: I think it's the last page in your packet. Wildermuth: The question is, did that predate the work or postdate it? The actual work. Mrs. pfankuch: It did not postdate... Conrad: Steve, can I assume that when it says paid, 23918 that that means .a we gave, the applicant gave money which basically says we gave .., permission? Is that what it takes? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 5 e Hanson: Well, that's where I'm a little confused because normally on a permit there's someone who has signed off on it. I've only got his front sheet and I don't know if there's something signed on the back sheet or not. Conrad: I think by the time this goes to City Council, you should know a little bit more and maybe Mr. Ashworth can fill us in a little bit on that. Any other comments? Barbara Montgomery: My name is Barbara Montgomery and I live on Dakota Avenue about a block above where this development is. I guess I would just like to say, I've lived there a very long time. My husband and I moved in in 1960 and I feel very protective of the area. Very protective of the lake. I loved it dearly and I've watched and watched and watched as all of the growth has taken place. Somehow I just have the feeling that perhaps some of the people who are moving in are not enough aware of the importance of keeping the lake clean and what's going to happen. Who wants to live around a dead lake full of dead fish? It does happen. It's happening to lots of the lakes. I'd just like to make a plea maybe for more public understanding. Maybe for more respect. Maybe for tougher policing of the ordinance. I guess that's all I have to say but I really feel very strongly about the area and I think maybe that all of you do or you wouldn't be out here. e Headla moved, Batzli seconded to close the publ ic hear ing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: Mrs. Pfankuch, you indicated that the, I don't know what your exact words were. You got the go ahead from the Village. What exactly were you referring to? You got the go ahead from the Village. Mrs. pfankuch: It's in the permit. Have you seen the permit? May I show you the permit? Headla: I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same thing you are. Mrs. pfankuch: Our contractor, they stopped the work and they came down and looked at it and they issued this permit. My understanding is that the permit. Headla: Okay, it's the same thing. So you interpretted that as the go ahead? Mrs. pfankuch: Yes. They didn't say stop. Headla: You indicated here the reason you were doing it is to improve lot to lake. I see no mention on loosestrife at all but yet that tends to be the dominant reason now. e Mrs. pfankuch: It's always been the reason. Headla: I didn't see it on the application. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 6 e Mrs. pfankuch: I didn't do the application so I don't know but we had an early letter, in fact I think it predates that application, discussing the loosestrife. I don't know about the chronology. I've got some other information here. Headla: That's fine. I guess I look at this the same way I started out the first of the year. I think we should not go for a lot of conditions on a permi t. I think we're load ing down the staff. I see no reason why this even came before us until those 3 conditions that the staff recommended to approve, I see no reason at all why those conditions shouldn't be met before the Planning Commission even sees that. At the best, I think we ought to table it until they do get approval. I don't know what the DNR is going to approve. Our conditions are a little more restrictive and I'd like to see that before I'd even consider approving this. That's all I have. Wildermuth: I'm trying to find what our ordinance is. the boats and waterways section right? It should be under Hanson: It's under the wetlands section. Wildermuth: I see it. How and in what manner are we more restrictive than the DNR in terms of...structure? e Hanson: I guess I'm not necessarily sure that we're more restrictive. I think we have a more detailed review and we require them to do a wetland alteration permit and when you do that, that's when you have the flexibility to allow what kind of alteration you do. Normally I think in this situation, if they had come in, I doubt you would have looked at an alteration other than allowing them to have a boardwalk out to the dock. I think that would be your normal approach to this situation, if it was undisturbed. Wildermuth: If that's the case, if that were the approach that we would have taken initially, where a wetland alteration permit would not really have been an issue, or according to the ordinance structure would have . recommended a boardwalk, I think that their shoreline should be restored to it's original state and if a boardwalk is desired by the property owners, then I think that would be appropriate. I'm surprised that Paul Burke in his original letter where he used some fairly strong language saying that the wetland alteration permit should definitely not be granted, would come back and make what appears to be a relatively token requirement of these 15 by 30 triangles. Right across from that property was the Dolce property or adjacent to that and we... Conrad: We didn't let them do anything. Wildermuth: The Planning Commission did not allow anything to be done ~ there. The City Council did not allow anything to be done there. I think W' if we go along wi th Paul's latest recommendation, we send a message to 1akeshore owners that they can perform this work. They can alter the wetland and come in for a permit after the fact and it's alright. I Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 7 e further think that it ought to be very difficult for this contractor to get an excavating permit in the City of Chanhassen in the future. That's all I have. Batzli: I guess I'd like to feel the way Jim does to some extent. I look at that permit that was issued, which we don't really have all the facts on it but if I was a landowner and my contractor went and brought me back a permit like that, I'd go ahead and do it. For us to say now, that well you shouldn't have done it and we don't know under what circumstances we issued a permit, I think is a little bit critical on our part so I guess I'm not in a position to say they should or shouldn't have been able to do it and I'm not going to cast stones at this point because I think to some extent they may have depended on that permit and I'm not going to, I think there's been kind of some allegations that they acted in bad faith and I'm not willing to take that step right now. wildermuth: But there's no indication the permit was granted. You pay the fee when you file the permit. From this we can't tell anything. Batzli: I know and I can't tell anything and that's why I'm trying not to cast stones one way or another. But what I guess I'd like to see happen is I would prefer at this point, without knowing additional facts, we're making a judgment when we're in a position where we don't know all the facts. I assume that we've got these triangles here because there's e culverts running between the property lines? Or no? Where are the culverts located? Bob pfankuch: Not in all cases. Mrs. pfankuch: There's one culvert between our property and the Frosts. Batzli: Okay. I would assume that this report was generated on where the main runoff occurs between the properties and I'd like to think that Burke is the expert and I'd be, at this point, without knowing other facts, say go ahead and do it his way. Conrad: Did the same contractor do the work on Colonial Grove? Hanson: I assume so. I don't know that for a fact. Wildermuth: I don't think so. Al Smith was the contractor on the Colonial Grove job. Hanson: On the entire subdivision, is that what you're talking about? Conrad: No. That's sort of before your time. it to you. I shouldn't have addressed Wildermuth: This one looks like Harlan Johnson. Something Johnson. e Conrad: Didn't we have some problems wi th Colonial Grove dumping, well, that's another story. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 8 e ElIson: I don't have a whole lot new from what these gentlemen said. I'm pretty much in agreement. I'm surprised that this compromise is what's being offered by Mr. Burke, to tell you the truth. I would want it to be, go back to where it's supposed to be. I think it does again send a bad signal to people. If we put in laws to protect these things, the wildlife and you want the nests to grow there and things like that and this can happen as easily as this did, it really disturbs me. Barbara's letter is dated on the 29th of June and there was a reply and yet the application for this alteration permit isn't done until January. I don't know about that. I don't know why it wasn't filed. If Barbara went on this and there was conversation, I think they're almost forced to the point of making this come to a head and they were trying to avoid it as much as possible rather than facing it head on by letting them wait this long. I would see going back and putting the 50 feet back to where it is. I don't even like the compromise of these little triangles. I don't think that's fair to the lake or fair to all the people that we have told you can not do this in the past. Except you guys because you already did it and I realize that. I don't think that's fair to anybody else and to what we're trying to preserve with these lakes. Emmings: I would like to know from the pfankuchs and the Frosts whether or not they knew prior to doing any of this work that there may be DNR and City or Fish and wildlife regulations that would affect what you want to ~ do with your property? We haven't heard you say whether you knew... Bob pfankuch: Can I comment again? Can I say something in addition to that? You've discussed a whole lot of things that some of the answers are available to you that were not presented on open discussion prior to. I think this needs to be a give and take session. It's not like we present our case and you guys talk about a lot of things and sometimes in ignorance because they haven't been discussed. It's how much do you present them with in this case? Number one, the contractor, Harlan Johnson. Harlan was recommended to me because he does work on Lake Minnetonka. On the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and works in the communities in Lake Minnetonka taking care of weeds, racking the lakeshore so I assume that he knows something about taking care of lakes. I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert in the DNR or wetlands or on the city ordinances. I am a property owner. I have a responsibility. I thought I exercised that by hiring a contractor that does work on Lake Minnetonka which is supposedly the great lake of Minnesota, or at least for the Twin Cities. I hired Harlan Johnson. He came down and estimated the work. He talked to my neighbor Steve. We agreed on a price. Said, do you know what you're doing? You work on Lake Minnetonka, you must? Yes, no problem. I hate to say that's ignorance and I'm still responsible and I agree with that. I still am and he's only my agent but it's not like you have to go to the legislature to do.a little work on your lot is what I'm thinking. He's the expert. I hired the expert, although still responsible. Harlan proceeds with the work. Somebody comes down and stops them. He goes down to the City Hall. Comes back that same day and ... said it's okay. I was working without a permit or whatever. The permit's ,., been granted and I've been allowed to proceed and complete the work. And we can argue about how much was started and how much was left but it's a very clear point in fact, according to Harlan Johnson and according to the Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 9 e documents, that the City allowed the work to proceed. Now I had talked to Barb Dacy shortly after I moved into this property. Granted, I'm not a 20 year old landowner who has seen this grow from an urban, wonderful green reserve lake into an urban recreational lake. That's another argument. You may be a protectionists and you may think that we need to grow. I hate to bring that in but it is a fact of life. Now there are several other facts having to do with this. The sewer which runs, and it's a sewer by the way, which runs down between my property and the Frosts, carries all of the garbage out of the city street directly into the lake. Tin cans, pop bottles, you name it. Several unmentionables flow into the lake until they're impeded by the weeds and they build up and eventually shoves this whole nasty garbage out onto the lake. The fact that there's 50 feet of almost impassable weeds makes it impossible to police and clean this wonderful Lotus Lake lakeshore. Of the trash that's left by the ice fishermen, meaning the bottoms of fish houses frozen into the ice and can't be removed, which I personally removed this year after I had access to them. And the tin cans and the pop bottles and the tires and all the garbage because I'm on the bad side of the lake which is where the wind blows so I get all the garbage. If I don't have access to that, I can hardly be expected to clean it although I was in up to my hips in the muck, this wonderful wetland, estolic soil or whatever it's called by the DNR. Carrying all of this garbage sitting on the lakeshore. I mean it's really a beautiful site. You ought to come down and see it. In fact, what I recommend is that you table this whole discussion until next August e and I'd invite you all down on a Saturday to look at the lakeshore, that which has been improved by Frost and pfankuch and that which has not been improved and you can decide what is the best thing for Lotus Lake. I've got to believe that you would be in our favor. I do an awful lot of work on that lakeshore. As far as wetlands are concerned, right now in this drought condition which may exist for another 50 years, there is now 50 feet of wetland out beyond the end of my 35 foot dock which in 3 weeks time takes loosestrife from seed to bloom and more seed. You just can't imagine what that's like. It's totally destroyed. There was an article published in the Chanhassen Villager which talked about loosestrife in great detail, published last August and I brought copies along and highlighted the issues. It totally destroys the area for wildlife. The issue about wildlife is bunk. If you have loosestrife, you don't have wildlife. I have personally picked up one of those clumps. I swear to god it weighed 150 pounds. This big nasty, mucky, floating mess on the shoreline and you just about can't destroy it. I put so little sod in, the City Planner said about a foot, if you look at the plot, I think that the elevation is 6 inches. It's a half a foot over what the ordinary high water level is at the finish cobble wall, as it's called. The rock wall that I put in. I believe that if the lake comes back to it's natural level so it'd be at the top of the wall which will prevent the loosestrife from growing. The loosestrife grows right at the edge of the water and then it proceeds from there in both directions, is a totally unmatchable plan. It has been declared a noxious weed. The property owners are responsible for it's removal and the only removal is a totally .a nonselecti ve chemical called Rodeo which has to be sprayed on the plants. ~ That means it kills all of the growing things. All. According to the DNR, Hollandhorst, whoever he is, I believe it was from the DNR, once you do that, the next year, the only thing that grows on this valuable wetland Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 10 e is loosestrife. That's the only thing that comes back. Would you like to pour Rodeo into Lotus Lake? Because the weed grows in the water, not in the dirt. That's the suggestion to take care of loosestrife. It is a noxious weed and it is the responsibility of property owners to remove it. In fact, the State has offered funds to help the property owners remove it. We didn't ask for that. We didn't throw in 6 feet of fill like was done in cattail swamp on TH 101. I put in 6 inches of dirt only to level it. That was the only purpose of the fill was to level it so it could be sodded so it could be managed. Yet, the pictures, the colored pictures that were presented, shows that the loosestrife is continuing to grow up through the sod. I mean I didn't bury it to the point where I killed it. I thought I did or I thought I would but at least I can mow it and keep it down. This stuff grows to 7 feet. If anybody's been out to the Old Log Theater and looked around the grounds out there, you can see that that property has literally been taken over and destroyed by purple loosestrife. That is a very real hazard. It's a hazard to Lotus Lake. It doesn't do anything to the wildlife, the property owners, the lake users and it prevents me from cleaning up the garbage that rolls down the storm sewer from the street. Dead animals. I mean you name it, it's there. If you think that it's great for Lotus Lake, God help all of us. End of discussion. Any other questions? Conrad: Did that answer your question? e Emmings: No. My question was whether or not you were aware before you hired this contractor to do work there that the work you were proposing to do might be subject to DNR regulations, City regulations or regulation by any other governmental entity? Bob pfankuch: Steve, I started out by saying that I'm not an attorney. I'm not familiar with the DNR. I'm not familiar with Chanhassen's regulations regarding wetlands. I hired a contractor who does work on the lake. Does work on Lake Minnetonka and on Lotus Lake a fair amount. He probably never will again after this and with or without cause, that's for you to decide. The point is, I hired a lakeshore contractor who does a lot of work for governments around Lake Minnetonka. The natural assumption is that this person knows what he's doing. If you need a permit, if you need a wetlands alteration permit, a building permit, I mean when you hire a contractor you expect that person to be able to do those things. That's a normal expectation and I carry the responsibility. I accept that but, isn't that normal to expect that? Emmings: I guess it just doesn't answer my question. Bob pfankuch: The question is no, I was not aware that anything was required on Lotus Lake but I was aware that if it were required, it would be recognized by a contractor who does work on a lake in Minnesota in the Twin Cities area, Lake Minnetonka. .A Emmings: Is that true for the Fros.ts as well. That you were not aware ,., that this would be regulated by any government at the time? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 11 e Steve Frost: The contractor came down and he got a permit and I assumed that everything was okay. He got the permit. That was our understanding. Emmings: So again, then you're telling us too that prior to the time the work was begun, and I'm not talking about the time of the permit. Prior to the time the work was begun, you were not aware that there were any governmental entity that might be regulating what it was you were going to do to your shoreline there? Mrs. pfankuch: We came and talked to Barbara before. I don't know, a year before and we said we've got this loosestrife allover the shore. What can we do? And she said, well we're not sure what to do about it. That's what she said. She said, we're not sure what to do with it. If you can get rid of it, get rid of it. That's what she told us exactly. We didn't do anything until later when we decided to call Harlan because we didn't know what to do. She certainly didn't say to us, you dasten touch the loosestrife because it has all these valuable properties and I resent the implications that we're trying to do something underhanded. We're concerned about ecology also. Bob pfankuch: I'll do nothing to the lakeshore, and you come down in August and look at it. You're going to not be happy. It's like a cesspool. e Mrs. pfankuch: It was just full of junk. Emmings: Mr. Frost didn't answer my question. Steve Frost: I left it with the contractor to do what he knew he needed to do to get permits and anything that he had to do, that's your job. I'm hiring you to do that. Emmings: And did you say that to him before he started his work? That if there were any necessary permits, he'll get them or did you just assume he'd take care of it? Was it discussed at all with him? Steve Frost: ...he would do that. That was part of his job. When I hired him, he's supposed to do that. Emmings: Did you get an estimate from him? Steve Frost: Yes. Emmings: Was it written? Steve Frost: I think it was yes. Emmings: that? e Steve Frost: Were there any items on there for permits or anything like All he gave us was a total of the job I think. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 12 e Emmings: The application for the excavating permit, I don't know, do you get an excavating permit when you fill something in as opposed to removing? Hanson: Yes, you would. In both cases. Emmings: The excavating permit is real vague. It's hard to know what they're going to do but I think there was a screw-up in our, it looks to me like there was a screw-up in whoever might have issued this excavating permit because it clearly included a wetland. There should have been a wetland alteration permit which can only come from the City Council. Something got screwed up here. Who knows what but maybe you can find out more about it between now and the City Council, like Ladd suggested. The other thing, I wondered why we've got another property involved here. This Colonial Grove property and their property is affected by this plan of Fish and Wildlife to do some restoration here too but they're not in front of us for a permit. Hanson: I became aware of that officially when Paul and I went down and looked at the property to see that that area had been altered too. I assume that it was done at the same time but I don't know that it was or not. e Bob pfankuch: It was. Emmings: It was all done at the same time by the same c6ntractor? Bob pfankuch: Yes. And it was mentioned in one of the complaints from the City in an earlier letter and then subsequently dropped for no stated reason other than the fact that probably 150 people belong to that Association. e Emmings: Just comment wise, first of all, I have no doubt that the pfankuchs and the Frosts did something that they thought was an improvement to their property and they don't have any desire to hurt the lake. I'm not even remotely suspicious of their motivation but the problem we have with doing nothing here is that it makes it, like Jim said, it becomes the smart thing to do to be dumb. To be unaware of regulations that are there to protect the lake. If I go out and do the work, I get my hand slapped and maybe I have to sit and listen to people talk nasty about me but I wind up basically with what I wanted. Whereas if I go and apply to the City for a permit to do the same work, I'm going to be denied. So that really puts a premium on being a cowboy and that sure is not what we want to see. On the other hand, I don't think it will serve any purpose at all to punish these folks by making them return that 50 feet to what it was if the people who are supposed to understand this thing from a technical point of view, like Burke, think that something can be done to get some value to the wetland back there such as this plan. Whether this is a reasonable plan or not, I have no way of knowing but I would trust that he does so I guess I'd be inclined to go along with the staff recommendation as a way to get the matter resolved. And I guess I'd say to the Frosts and the pfankuchs too, that we really see a lot more of this than we want to. We're constantly seeing people coming in here Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 13 e asking for wetland alteration permits after they've altered the wetlands and it's real irritating to us. You're presumed to know what city ordinances are and Mr. Pfankuch is absolutely right when he say it's his responsibility. It is. So I guess I'd go along with the staff recommendation but the only change that I'd make is on number 3. If this is approved, that the applicants provide a schedule and I'd just insert the words, acceptable to the City Staff, for completing restoration. Just so the schedule is a reasonable one. I guess I think that whatever ONR, the hoops that ONR and Fish and Wildlife make them jump through I guess would be punishment, if that's what it is, enough as far as I'm concerned. That's all I have. Wildermuth: Just for a point of clarification. Did we actually issue a wetland, or I mean did we actually issue the excavating permit to this contractor? Hanson: That's where I'm unclear whether it was or not. The only documentation I've come across is what was in the packet. Wildermuth: Mr. pfankuch said that the contractor came back and said that everything's alright. He applied, made the application. Mrs. pfankuch: They came down with the contractor and looked .. property. The Ci ty did. They were down there walking around ~Johnson. Now we assumed that if they came down and they gave permit, we had no reason to believe that... at the with Harlan him this wildermuth: It sounds like we've got an internal problem. Headla: We don't know what the story is. wildermuth: I'm surprised that this excavating contractor with his experience and working in wetlands and Minnesota, wouldn't know that he had to come in for a permit up front. But even after he did come in for the permit, if he did get a permit, an approved permit, apparently the City didn't raise any objection. Emmings: He may be savy enough to know that it does pay to be a cowboy. Headla: There are very successful men in our company who's motto was, you're better off going ahead and do what you want to do and get it done, beg forgiveness and get your hand slapped than get prior approval. Boy, he got a lot of stuff done. I see the same thing here. Emmings: I've given that as advice to clients because it does work. I don't know what you do as a City to stop it but here we had the perfect opportunity to stop it. We discovered it was going on and stopped it and then let it continue. That's our fault. That's the City's fault, it seems to me. e Mrs. pfankuch: We heard a lot of talk about wetlands after the fact also. We didn't even know this was a wetland. We tried to mow it. We'd go down there, it wasn't a swamp. It was just clumps of loosestrife growing. Now Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 14 _ we realize it's an exotic wetland but... Conrad: I hate to be an educater and I don't like doing that in this situation but I think the things that you see being a litter in the lake are minor compared to what a wetland does. Again, I'm not going to bore you with details here but a wetland is really taking the chemicals out of the stuff running into the lake. The tires and some of the stuff that you see, that's fine and it's disgusting and we agree. Bob pfankuch: How about the Rodeo sprayed into the lake? Conrad: Rodeo would not be acceptable in my mind but purple loosestrife is better than destroying all kinds of filtration. Grass is not a filtration system. It doesn't do the job. Wetlands, the thing with purple loosestrife is it chokes out the cattails and now the cattails don't have a chance to grow. So if you showed me how you are restoring it so the cattails could grow, I could understand it but you haven't done it. The grass is not a filtration. Mrs. pfankuch: I don't know if that can be. Conrad: I don't know that it can be done either but what you're telling me is not a solution to the problem. _BOb Pfankuch: You need to come down and look at it. Conrad: I see it fairly frequently and I'd be happy to. Again, I'm not trying to be an educater, well I am. I am. Susan Conrad: I just want to make a comment about the education. I don't know how long you've lived on Lotus Lake but every year, at least once a year, a newsletter goes to every homeowner on the lake educating about the value of wetlands. Also, in the newspaper, the Lotus Lake Association has published articles about wetland value and about the control purple loosestrife and the value of loosestrife so we have not only, as an Association, sent out letters but we have held meetings and talked and educated and we have done that for at least 5 years. So not being aware of wetlands and not having them identified, unless you just moved onto the lake. Wetland identification has been available to all of us and sent to all of us on Lotus Lake and all of the city but the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association has gotten that information to their homeowners. And as far, I have just one more point, as far as the DNR recommending taking the wetland back to it's original state. My experience, which most of you know has been years with the DNR, has been that their jurisdiction ends at the high water mark so they will not even venture to recommend anything beyond that. I would ask the Planning Commission to invite the Corps of Engineers in to tell you what the value is beyond that because they are the only agency I've run across that can give you a total picture and doesn't get hung up in jurisdictions. They do have a jurisdiction ending ~ but they are a recommending body rather than permitting in many cases. ~ Fish and Wildlife does that even better so they can tell you the whole picture and I'm sure that's why the DNR is saying to renovate a portion of it. They can only talk to the portion that they're responsible for. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 15 e Conrad: I want to make a few comments without being redundant for other comments. One, it looks like there was an internal problem and I really would like, I really do need staff to tell us what happened. The comments from the applicants are valid. If we don't catch it, if our staff doesn't look at the documents, these are charted wetlands. It's not that they're not charted. They are so it looks like we screwed up and I need staff to review that. And staff to review it to tell us how they're going to prevent that. I just doesn't make sense to me. Secondly, I'm not sure whether the applicants knew what they were doing or not and I'm real concerned with the contractor and I guess we should, I'd also like to have staff tell us what they would recommend that we do to the contractor who was doing this. Anybody who is in the area knows that Chanhassen is a tough ordinance, period. And we do that for a purpose because we have a lot of lakes and we have a lot of runoff and a lot of building. Contractors should know so I guess Steve, I'd like to have staff review to us what we should do with a contractor's that more than likely knows what he's doing. Third, I agree. I don't think we need to restore the wetland totally. We can probably do with what Mr. Burke is recommending here and get some value out of it and I would hope that we could agree. I think my biggest concern is we really have been strict with your neighbors and your neighbors care. They care a whole lot. I think we don't want to set an example, for whatever reasons, we just don't want to set an example that it can be done. We want to set an example that people still care about e this and I think you do. I guess I'll take Mr. Burke's recommendation as being valid and acceptable. On the other hand, I'm not convinced Steve that we've really looked at it from our ordinance standpoint. Again, it's an easy way of looking at this thing and saying, well, this other agency who controls everything above the high water mark says this but I want you to be real confident that our ordinance, that we haven't set an example for another situation. If this is fine, this takes care of the problem, I'm okay with that. If what Mr. Burke says is going to filter the runoff that's coming down between the houses and get the maximum value, that's okay with me but I want staff to tall us and if you need help from the Corps of Engineers or whoever, I think we'll ask them that. The question in my mind is whether we issue the permit. I'm really hung up and the really philosophic thing is that a wetland alteration permit which has been already, the wetland's been filled in. We issue a permit to restore it. I don't know. I don't know how to deal with that one. Those are my comments. I'd take a motion from somebody. Emmings: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the conditions that are set forth in the staff report with the addition that I mentioned in number 3 where the applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City Staff for completing restoration. Batzli: I'll second it. What do we do with Colonial Grove? e Conrad: That's another comment. I think they should be in here. Emmings: Well, we've got people here who've made an application. I think that's not part of this. I time somehow we've got to tell them they've Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 16 e got to come in and apply for a wetland alteration permit too. Thomas Gilman: And they can get their hand slapped too. Emmings: screw up. time. Well, yes. I guess it's not my job to beat people up when they Especially when the City seems to have screwed up at the same Conrad: I think it is a separate issue but I think we do want to. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council consideration, the applicants agree to mitigation plans and requirements of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. Applicants receive permits from Minnesota DNR. 3. Applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City Staff for completing restoration. e Emmings, Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion. ElIson, Headla, and Conrad voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. ElIson: I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13. Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes. What good is that going to do? Wildermuth: That's just the converse of what we just voted on. ElIson: I want it to go forward to the City Council with something but I want them to hash out the details. Like you said, it will be on record that they got the okay to do it. I don't want that to be there. Conrad: But the main reason I voted against Steve's motion is because he talked about, we're really reacting to what the DNR said and I don't know that we're reacting to what our ordinance says. wildermuth: Our ordinance, I wasn't too proud of our ordinance when I just read it. e Emmings: My comment there Ladd would be. Our ordinance tells us what to do when somebody comes in and applies for the permit prior to doing the work. We got a problem with our ordinance maybe when people come in and say, I've already done the work and now I'm here to get the permit. Maybe there should be a provision in there. I'm not even clear why they applied Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 17 e for a permit. Conrad: Because the staff has been asking them to. Emmings: But what if they just said, no, thank you? Conrad: Then we'd have to legally take care of that. Emmings: That got them in front of us. Their application got them in front of us and then I guess, I don't know. I don't think our ordinance tells us, gives us much guidance in this case. Conr ad : It doesn't. Headla: Does the ordinance give you any guidance if they don't follow it? Or the best we could help for is that, I think Jim pointed out that you judge it from how would you treat other people if they came in with the permit? IF it's a boardwalk, the worse scenario for these people would be then that they'd have to go back to that and I don't believe in penalizing them like that. But to me that would be one way that does it. Emmings: I suppose the other thing you can do here too, if you want to send a real clear message, the City Council I guess could ask, what they have done there may well be a criminal offense under the ordinance and e they could ask the Ci ty Attorney to rev iew it for prosecution. That would certainly get people's attention. But again, that's not our function here. Conrad: We should be doing what is best, what the ordinance intends and that doesn't set a precedent for future situations. That's what I want to accomplish. Emmings: I agree and it seems to me, if they come in and they've got a wetland there and they say we want to modify it, then we look at our ordinance and we say no, because we've done that before right next to them. We say, no you can't do that. You're going to just have to live with your loosestrife and put out a boardwalk and that's that. Wildermuth: But the contractor came in and got a permit approved. ElIson: But it wasn't signed. e Wildermuth: But if you read this letter from Barbara real carefully, towards the back of your packet. Read this letter from Barbara real carefully. Your contractor, Mr. Johnson, promptly complied with our requests to submit plans and the needed information for issuance of a grading permit. It implies that the grading permit was granted because she goes on to say, however, it has come to our attention that the area in which you conducted the grading may have contained wetland vegetation. So apparently, when whoever it was from the City went down there with the contractor to look at this thing, somebody from the City agreed to the permit. The implication is that the permit was granted and Mr. pfankuch said that he had a permit. So you can't fault the property owner. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 18 e Emmings: We've got a wetland, we want to alter it. We say no. I think they're coming in at a point where, what's there? They've got an altered wetland. They've removed the wetland or destroyed it and we've got to say, what are we going to do now? Given that as the baseline, it all depends on what you want to pick as a baseline. They're coming in and saying, here's what we've got now and we've got a plan here, again, I have no way of judging it's efficacy as restoring wherever the properties are, the wetland you want to keep, but at least there's somebody here who says that this will do the job to get it back to at least some sort of reasonable... Wildermuth: There's no question in my mind how I'd vote if somebody were coming in for a permit and no work had been done. No question at all. But I think there's an event here that took place that it's not a black and whi te issue. Emmings: And I think we've got dirty hands. Batzli: Well I'm glad the two people that voted for the motion are in agreement now. Emmings: You voted for it too. Batzli: Yes, but I already agreed with you two. e Wildermuth: Yes, but I didn't agree with you to begin with. Conrad: Dave, your disagreement stems from what? How is somebody going to swing your vote? Headla: I don't believe that it should be denied. I really believe it should be tabled until we find out what in the world did we really tell these people. I think staff can tell us. I want to see what the DNR has to say. I have no idea what they're going to say or the other appropriate parties. Then I think the people ought to be able to look at that and then whatever is recommended, then come in with a schedule. Then we can act on it. We've got something documented. Until that, I don't think we ought to touch it. Conrad: This is under discussion of a motion for denial right? Okay. That's not bad Dave. If we don't know. We can vote on it, we can kill it or she can withdraw it if she so chooses but I think you're absolutely right. We don't know what staff did. Steve hasn't done a good job of researching the staff on this one and I think even whether, he can do it for City Councilor he can do it for us. We might as well hear what it is. We've got the ordinance and we can help that ordinance. We can help improve it if we understand how it doesn't get enforced. It's probably good that he bring back a scenario of how this happened. But I also think I'd like, other comments that you said. I'd like staff, things that ~ come in at the last second just bothers me. Staff hasn't reviewed this ~and reviewed it to see how our ordinance pertains, which is my problem. My biggest problem. It's coming in today and staff hasn't told me how our ordinance gets impacted by the recommendation so I guess there's some ~ Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 19 e validity for tabling it other than the fact that we have to bring it back in. That's a real pain. I hate to do that to anybody but... Bob Pfankuch: I asked for you to table it for 6 months. Conrad: Well, 6 months of water going in, if it's bad water, is probably not worth the risk but I think... Bob pfankuch: ...water that goes into that lake? Conrad: A whole bunch of bad water goes into the lake and we probably spend more of our lives up here looking at the bad water than we care to think about. Bob pfankuch: May I ask that the City sewer from the street be removed? Not be allowed to drain into it. Wildermuth: I guess if it's any comfort, in a new subdivision that wouldn't happen because there would have to be some kind of a ponding area but I don't think you want a ponding area in your backyard before it goes into the lake do you? e Batzli: I think the City might want to look into a catch basin or a screen or some sort of trap if that's in fact what's draining into the lake at that point from a storm sewer. Conrad: Where is all the Colonial Grove, being that that wetland is being used up by a contractor, where is that water going Steve? Is it coming between? Hanson: I have no idea. Conrad: Can you find that out because that just fascinates me. Most of that's coming in from Eden Prairie. Most of that water is coming from under TH 101 going into the wetland. I'm just real curious if it's going to the subdivision to the north. Wildermuth: It's going into all the basements around it. Conrad: But anyway, Annette, you've got a motion. ElIson: I withdraw the motion. Conrad: Do you want to or we can vote on it? ElIson: No, I'd rather withdraw it and Dave, why don't you do yours. Conrad: Do you want to withdraw your second Brian? _ Batzli: Sure. Headla: I would like to make a motion that we table this. I'd like to get better definition of what direction the Village really gave these Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 20 e people. If we really gave them the wrong direction, I think we've got to look at it a lot different and maybe the City has to suffer the consequence. I'd like to understand, see what the DNR is going to recommend and then have our applicans look at it and submit some type of schedule and I think at that time the Colonial Grove people should be part of this. wildermuth: Second. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded to table action on Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 so staff can research what happened at the City level. To find out what DNR is going to recommend and then that the applicants submit a schedule, which the Colonial Grove people should be included with. All voted in favor of the motion to table and the motion carried. Conrad: Steve, when do you think this will come back? Any idea? A couple of weeks? Hanson: I doubt it. I don't believe I'll have a response from DNR in that period of time first of all. Secondly, I'm not sure what type of problems I'm run into trying to research it because I think I'm going to have to do some of that by phone calls with previous staff because I don't e bel ieve there's anything in the file. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUIDLING - PHASE I, ARVID ELNESS ARCHITECTS, INC. Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Conrad: Brad, what do you think? Brad Johnson: We've given them some modifications that are minor, from our point of view. You've got to remember, this is being designed by the City for us. That's why he does the presentation. Conrad: You can be critical now. Brad Johnson: I think it will work fine. He's gotten our comments. It looks like most of them have been put in there. Like I said, it's pretty close to what we were requiring. In fact, the traffic guys have to look at it... You should note that we have taken 15 feet off the back of the south side of the apartment building and put it into the parking lot. That has been done as part of your previous approval of the site plan for the apartment building. That's why this original sidewalk had wound .a around here. It was getting too close to the rooms. You know, for a "'public walk right next to somebody's bedroom is not a good idea so it was pulled over to the right. We're really excited about this whole project because it just has a real nice look to it. The way it all comes Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 21 e together, assuming we get it all done, it will be... This is 450 feet long. Will really take care of that thing. Because it's been pulled forward, it will not obstruct. We've still got a lot of open space even though something's...right in the path... It will work out real good. We're happy. Good acceptance by the tenants and the people like that. We hope to sometime during March getting a permit. Batzli: I guess I had one question. Why are we putting the one right-inl right-out entrance right by that intersection? The clock tower intersection. Does there need to be an entrance there? Hanson: On one of the plans in your, it's the second plan in, it shows the overall improvements. Right in that particular location there's a median that comes back. Right now if you drive out there, the curb cut is up is about right in here and you can make the left hand turn around that median and get in. Batzli: I guess my question is, why do we have any entrance there right at that intersection? Hanson: I know that that's been in there from day one on the plans. e Brad Johnson: At one time it was thought that they would remove it but if you look at, if you look hard enough at it, you really don't want to run all of your traffic through this parking lot to go to the clinic so the tenants required that there be an entrance here. So that their customers can get in and go into the area. It will be probably more of a right in then a right out but it really makes, if you look at it without this, this is going to be a major roadway and it wasn't designed to be that. Batzli: Wouldn't they go in in that underpass there in the middle of the building? Brad Johnson: The way the clinic is set up, this entrance here will probably go, people come down, it will be serviced, if you're coming this way, the human element is never one to backtrack. The clinic is on this end of the building so people coming along and want to go into the clinic and they're going to occupy this end, possibly will go up in this. People that are going to use this portion will come in here. People that are going in there will probably come in here. Batzli: But your argument doesn't buy anything with me because you're assuming everybody is coming from the east and if you look at from the west, you're going to have the same problem with people using the parking lot to get all the way to the other end of the building. Brad Johnson: They can't turn left here. e Batzli: I know that. all the way down. They're going to turn in at your full access and go Brad Johnson: Here? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 22 e Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: Yes. Batzli: Then why bother in one case to let them zoom all the way down but from the other direction suddenly it's a big issue and you got to put in another entrance? Just a question. Brad Johnson: And the answer is, we looked at it the other way and we felt that we were putting too much pressure right in there. It's a right turn, left turn here to get into here. This way it's just a right turn in. Batzli: To me it defies logic but if there's a logical explanation for it, fine. Brad Johnson: left turn in. And I think what we've done is, the danger has been the That's where I see the problem is the left turn into that. Batzli: I guess from what I see is we're going to really encourage a lot of U turns right in the downtown drag here, up and down our city. A lot of U turns allover the place with a lot of the way we're designing this personally. If human nature is to go up to where you want to turn in, I can just picture people coming up here and snaking allover the place _making U turns and everything else. If that's really what human nature says. Conrad: Where's the U turn being made? Batzli: We're right-in/right-out everywhere and I can just picture people coming up here to the full change intersection and taking a U turn back around and everything else. I guess I don't see this as being well thought out at all. If their argument is that we need a right turn in at the clock tower because you don't want people racing all the way down here, then what's the difference of people coming from the west? They're going to zoom all the way down here unless they come up and take some sort of U turn up in this area. Conrad: And Brad would say, yes, we haven't solved it for the west but we solved it for the east. Batzli: That's not a solution. Brad Johnson: Our problem with traffic is this movement. Downtown. You've got a stop sign here. People are coming up here with a stop and they have to go through this intersection and come around and come back. Batzli: I gues I'm just not convinced that you're not going to have a lot . of traffic from the south and west and I don't see the problem has been .-solved in any way for those two directions. You've solved people coming "'from the east on that one right-in turn but you haven't solved other problems. I'm not a traffic expert. I'm just saying, I see one thing solved and you've got 2 or 3 problems here that we've saying, well, we - Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 23 e solved one. Conrad: But traffic goes through the arch doesn't it? Batzli: From this direction you're going to be coming back. Their argument for having this is that you don't want people to come zooming through this area. Their going to come zooming through this area to get down to this then. Conrad: But they could go through the arch too if they want? Batzli: No, they can't because... Conrad: Oh, we've got the right-out. Okay. Batzli: And if they're coming up from this direction, they're going to have to go all the way around and zoom through or, I don't see it being solved at all. Maybe there's not a solution. I'm not trying to say that I'm the expert but I'm raising the issue. Wildermuth: Maybe a better answer is to take that whole median out of there entirely. Batzli: I think that's dangerous. I agree that that should be in there _if they're going to have an entrance right there because I wouldn't want to see people cutting in front there. Wildermuth: There's just one thing that bothers me when I look at this and that is, if we ever want to widened West 78th Street, which I think should happen at some point, maybe not in the next 6 months or maybe not in the next 18 months but it probably ought to happen at some point, these buildings that are very close to the street are really going to limit our options. Brad Johnson: We've added 11 feet to it. That was one of the recommendations from the very beginning. What's happened is that we've had to move everything back and that's what they're doing back here. The building's been shifted back... wildermuth: So that's been kind of taken into consideration? Brad Johnson: We cut back our landscaping. If you look at the previous plan, we had more landscaping back here and more space here but that's all gone because we moved the building back. Emmings: I've got a couple of things. There are design standards having to do with the width of parking spaces and how much back up space you've got and all that, does this plan meet all of those kinds of standards? _ Hanson: Yes. Wildermuth: Including radius' around these pylons at the end of the rows? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 24 e Hanson: I think before we said that there may be a problem because we were concerned with that distance and this meets what the standards are. Those spaces are 9 x 18 as far as the space of the parking spaces. Emmings: Those are standard parking spaces? They haven't been trimmed down to meet the site or anything like that? Hanson: No. Emmings: And the number of spaces meets our ordinance and terms for the functioning? Hanson: Yes. Emmings: I noticed down on the right hand corner, I'm looking at sheet 2, and it's on some of the other ones, there's a place here that I want to go as soon as the meeting's over. It looks like it's called a Reality Office. I'n curious what that might be. I think we could all use some. Is that your office? Brad Johnson: Klingelhutz'. I don't know what you're referring to? Oh, that's e Wildermuth: That's Klingelhutz' realty office. Emmings: Well, it says reality. Brad Johnson: Like I said, we didn't do the plan. Emmings: I wasn't being critical. I'm kind of interested. Conrad: Anything else? A motion. Headla: I'd like to make a motion that we approve it but I've got so much reservation on that sidewalk, I don't know how to work that in. Conrad: What do you think about Steve's, Steve is talkin9 about filling in the balance of that little triangle there. Headla: I'm so scared, I think that sidewalk's going to have a lot of traffic and I can just see kids on small bicycles and I can see skateboards going through there. Emmings: Won't there be stop signs? Headla: That's the kind of thing, either speed bumps or stop signs and then I think that's adequate control but isn't this the time where we should at least ask the engineers to look at that? e Conrad: That's a good comment. that's... The snow plow people will love that but Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 25 e Headla: That's why I hesitated on the speed bump. To me a stop sign is a logical thing to do but how they talked about a right-in and then turning. You come in and then all of a sudden you're stopping again. I'm not a traffic person. I don't know what makes sense there. Emmings: I think people ought to be moving slow in that parking lot anyway and I think stop signs are a big inconvenience and that's fine with me. Headla: I've seen so many accidents in parking lots and they're needless and it's due to speeding. I'm going to make a motion we approve this concept plan but make a recommendation that the traffic engineers take another look on the safety of that sidewalk as it goes through the parking lot. Emmings: How about the other conditions? Headla: Yes. And the other conditions submitted by the staff. Emmings: I'll second that. Headla moved, Emrnings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site plans for the parking area of the north side public 4Itparking lot as part of the site plan review of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plans stampted "Received February 8, 1989" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Platting the area. 2. Submittal of final facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. That the traffic engineers take another look on the safety of the sidewalk as it goes through the parking lot. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: I think that they should look more at what they're doind with the traffic around that area. Not that I'm against the plan in general. Conrad: But you're concerned with the traffic movement from the west. Batzli: From the west and south. I don't think that, if it's good enough to do in one direction, what are they doing with the other direction and I don't know that they've really thought about all that. e Emrning s: What do you mean by from the south? Batzli: Coming up TH un here. -- Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 26 - Emmings: But then won't they have the right-in at the archway? Batzli: Yes. Emmings: Isn't that okay? Batzli: I don't know. They've got to get back out and it depends on where they're trying to go. If you guys are trying to slow down traffic in the parking lot, I don't think you're going to do it by putting in a stop sign. If you've ever been at 7 Hi or Cub Foods on a busy shopping day, nobody stops at those. They glide right through almost running over and creating havoc. If you're actually trying to get people where they're trying to go with entrances and exits, I don't think this plan does it. That's why I'm just saying, I'm going to dissent from the motion and say, I don't think that was looked at. Conrad: Do you see an alternative that's readily... Batzli: No. That's not my job as I think you've once said, or somebody said it. I'm not a traffic engineer but from the answers I got, I don't think it was looked at a whole lot. _ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes .., of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 1, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. ORGANIZATIONAL I~EMS. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1989. Emmings: My idea and I mentioned it to some people already, but first of all I'd like to nominate Ladd for Chairman. Wildermuth: And I'll second that. Emmings: The primary reason I think Ladd ought to be chairman is that he has more patience here and it kind of makes me kind of irritated sometimes but I think it's important as far as... Ellson: Letting everybody speak out. Emmings: He does such a good job of handling the public hearings and giving everybody I think a feeling that they have had an opportunity to be heard and he explains the procedures all so well. There may be other people who can do the same job but I don't know. I know that Ladd can. I've chaired a few meetings and it's a lot of strain. It's a little extra strain. It's a lot easier to sit out here on the sidelines and take pot _ shots. And for that reason, I think maybe as far as the vice chair goes, .., maybe Ladd wants to let the vice-chair chair some meetings just so that he can get out on the sidelines. The one thing we miss by having Ladd in chair is getting his comments earlier in the decision making process. A Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 27 e lot of times I'd like Ladd to fill me in on the history of stuff before I start asking my questions and forming my opinion. What I was going to suggest for the vice-chair is that maybe we rotate that and that everybody, or anybody, unless somebody just plain doesn't want to do it. That maybe every 4th meeting or whatever Ladd whats to do or whatever anybody wants to do, we have a substitute chairman or something like so we all get that experience too of chairing the meetings so there is some experience with this as the membership changes also. That was my notion. Conrad: Annette, would you like to chair meetings? ElIson: An easy meeting I would handle but some of those hot and heavy ones, I would be... Conrad: But you would consider chairing a meeting? Would you? ElIson: Yes. Conrad: Brian, would you consider chairing a meeting? Batzli: I'd consider it. Conrad: Jim? e Wildermuth: Conrad: Dave? I'd consider it. Headla: I have no interest at this time. Emmings: I think Tim would probably. He's been here long enough. Conrad: I have no great need to be chairman folks. I think on one hand I think steve would do a great job as being chairman. I think Steve has a good comprehension and is able to steer things. I don't have a great "need to be the chairman. If you feel comfortable having me do that, I would do it. However, I really think it's important that new people, well, not new people. You're not new anymore but that others start chairing this far more than what we have in the past. I just think that's really important. So if that means somebody new comes in and becomes chairman, that's fine with me or if we rotate the chairmanship or the vice-chairmanship so let's say on a monthly basis or let's say 2 out of 4 times, half the times somebody else is chairing it besides me. I think that might be a way to do it. Other than that, I think there are other people here that can chair the meeting so I don't feel uncomfortable nominating somebody else for the chairmanship. Headla: What would we do then? Have like Steve be the vice-chairman in case you aren't here and then he takes control of the meeting until we e have appointed a chair? Conrad: I haven't asked Steve to make sure we can do it but I think we have to have official chairman and vice-chairman but I think in Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 28 _ practicality what I'd like to do is see if we can have different folks chairing the meetings. If that is legal. Hanson: I'll have to check on that. There are two things. I think first of all, if you want to do that, I think we may need to make an amendment to your By-laws because right now it just provides for a chairman and a vice-chairman. Batzli: But you can suspend any rules by unanimous vote at a meeting so in theory you could have the chairman call the meeting to order and then move to have somebody else chair the meeting if you really wanted to. Headla: Could we just plan on going that way but have Steve look into it to see if there's a problem? Hanson: Sure. Conrad: What do you think? What should we do? Headla: I like that idea. Batzli: I say yes, I'd have an interest in chairing the meeting but that doesn't mean I want to do it. I think that you do a real good job of chairing the meetings and when you're not here, the meetings are real _short when Steve does it. I've been very happy with the leadership you two have provided in that regard and having been on the Planning Commission only a year, it's actually helpful to not be chairing a meeting when you're in my position because you don't have the historical background and some of the working knowledge that more experienced commissioners have. So to be honest with you, in the next year I don't envision myself being all gung ho to chair a meeting. Personally. Other commissioners might feel differently. Conrad: Jim, what do you think? What do you want to do? Wildermuth: I agree with Brian. I'd do it once in a great, great while but I have no burning desire to do it and I like the way the commission functions now with a chairman and a vice-chairman. Conrad: I'd sure like to get out of the every two week role. Headla: I can see where you'd want to get out of that role. Batzli: But then I guess we should ask Steve, if Steve were re-elected as vice-chairman, would he want to chair more meetings? Emmings: That'd be fine. It doesn't make any difference. more time to prepare for a meeting if I'm going to chair. only... 4ItBill Boyt: The Park and Rec Commission has gone to the plan that just talking about. I would encourage you to do the same because of, I think the learning opportunities that you've got is to take It takes me That's my you're part on both Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 29 e roles. It also prepares a city because we have more trained people and having a trained chair is a hard thing to find. From my standpoint, I'd like to encourage you to do it as I think a service to the city. Emmings: To rotate? Bill Boyt: To rotate. I thought your plan as you discussed it sounded really good to me. You're not forcing anybody to take the chair but you're making a ready opportunity for them to do that and I think the learning experience would be good for the city to have one more trained person. Conrad: Are you saying one more? Do you like to rotate to different individuals? Bill Boyt: What I mean by it is more trained. Conrad: Annette, anything? ElIson: Like I said, I wouldn't mind doing it but... Conrad: years. You could be the first female chairman that we've had for 100 Chairperson. e Ell son: I thi nk you should give people the opportuni ty, if it's an easy item with two things or something. I just don't like, every fourth time it will be a guest chair. That will be the one where it's that beachlot thing or something and we know how volatile those get. That would be devastating. Emmings: The thing there then might be to just look for opportunities. For you to look for opportunities. Conrad: That would be the only way that I would want to serve as chairman again because like Bill said, I think it's real important that other people start taking this role. I think I know how to do it but I think it's really important that other folks know too. I would like some other folks to, on occasion, take the role and Steve I think you can do that pretty well and I think Annette, Brian, Jim, Dave, I think you can all fill in and do that. So anyway, if that's your choice, if you feel like we should do that. Does somebody want to nominate a chairman and a vice-chairman? Emmings: We already nominated a chairman and that's been seconded. We're supposed to do this really by written ballot. Batzli: That's when we vote isn't it? Hanson: _ Batzli: Yes, that's when you vote. I nominate Steve. Headla: I second it. ~ Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 30 e Conrad: Any other nominations? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the nominations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman were closed. Conrad: How do you want us to vote? Hanson: If you read the By-laws, it says you're supposed to vote by secret ballot. I don't know that there's a ballot. I can pass out sheets if you'd like to do that. Ladd Conrad was elected as Chairman and Steve Emmings as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1989 by unanimous vote. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Conrad: Did anybody see any changes to the By-laws? eBatzli: Typos in Section 4.1. Five lines down. "Fro" and "chosed". Conrad: Everybody comfortable with the 11:00 p.m. curfew? ElIson: How do we enforce it? Conrad: You really can't. ElIson: Right, so why do we have it? Conrad: We ask for Steve to try to use that as a guideline in setting the agenda. The other thing we can do is we can monitor during the course of a meeting and be telling people that the meeting's lasting longer but I think if they're here for a public hearing, we've got to listen to them. ElIson: I'm just wondering if it's all words and no go. Why do we have it in there when truly we can't do that? Conrad: Only to help set the agenda. Only to be a guideline. I like the attendance. I think we're all pretty close to that except for Tim but he's pretty close isn't he? What is he? Bill Boyt: 70%. A little less than that. Conrad: Is there a motion to accept the By-laws. eEmmings moved, ElIson seconded to accept the By-laws as written with the changes in Sebtion 4.1, the typos on the words "fro" and "chosed" to be corrected. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 31 e ELECT HRA LIAISON. Conrad: Jim, you've been the liaison. You've done a really fine job. wildermuth: I've gone to a lot of the meetings but I haven't given any reports because there's a lot of stuff that goes on in closed door sessions. All the good stuff gets decided behind closed doors. Conr ad : And you're not there? wildermuth: You can't be there. Conrad: Would you consider continuing to serve? wildermuth: Sure. ElIson: I'll nominate Jim. Batzli: I'll second that. Conrad: It would be good, and we don't give you a chance to talk about it and that's typically because we've been getting out at midnight but I .a think, how do we, and Steve maybe you can help us on this. I think we ,.,need reports to be agenda items. Hanson: We can add that. Emmings: Reports back on City Council action should be an agenda item. City Council action on items that we did as well as reports by Jim on the HRA. Batzli: What happened to our idea on our agenda having out list of open items and progress reports? Emmings: Old Business. All this stuff you've got on your list here. Conrad: Right now it's pretty clean. The goals and agenda items. During the course of the year it gets added to so there could be 20 items out there. We need a way to track them. In the past I've had a manual little list myself but I think there should be more of an offical way so I'm not the only one keeping track and maybe you can make a recommendation how you'd like to manage that rather than having you have a tickler file. We should see, and it could be on a monthly basis, a status report what the progress is for you saying, hey, I don't have time. We're not going to get to it for 6 months so at least we know. On some frequency we have this report back that goes not only to us but to City Council. Wi Idermuth: . . . wetland ord inance. If we're really goi ng to put some .a strength into the thing, we ought to say that any work done pr ior to "'application to approve it automatically voids the permit and the wetland has to be restored to it's prior condition period. That takes the monkey off of everybody's back and a lot of the discussion of it so we don't get Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 32 e these cowboy efforts. Conrad: Can you take the thing so you can bring it back to us Steve when we have some time and decide how we deal with these after the fact situations? We do have a nomination for the HRA liaison. Jim, a motion has been made. Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to appoint Jim Wildermuth as the Planning Commission's HRA liaison. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1989 GOALS. Headla: I'd like to bring up one. You've heard we talk before on our coniferous leanings on the tree ordinance. I don't think we really favor enough of our native deciduous trees. In this last month now, the Minnesota Volunteer came out and they showed recommendations on how you take care of conifer trees. Particularly when they're alone or if you just have one string, you've got to put burlap up so the sun doesn't scald them. You've got to also protect them from the wind. I'm not a treeologist by any means but I really would like to see us revisit that. I think there's other ways to give adequate screening. I think the ~Arboretum has developed some very good native bushes to give us screen and ,.,I'm thinking right now of McGlynn Bakery down here going around their parking lot. Then another change I'd like to see in our ordinance is that when somebody goes through and butchers the land and blades it down, every tree because it's under 4 inches, I think there's an obligation there to replace it with equivalent wood. Somebody can say, well box elder is a trash tree, knock it down but it's got a lot of the aesthetic value. It may not have good commercial value and I'd like to see us revisit that tree ordinance from that point of view also. But I think there should be several people involved with that. Conrad: Does everybody agree that we should revisit our landscape specifications? I don't know if that's what we call it. Dave's first comment whether we go deciduous more. Do we want to look at that? Elison: Is the ordinance saying it has to be? They have to be pine trees or are they saying a permanent screen is what I was under the impression it was under. If they come through and they could have a bush that will get that permanent screen, I don't believe our ordinance is saying it's got to be evergreen. I know Jo Ann is always saying, add more evergreens but I think it might already be that way but I'm not sure. Headla: One of the questions that I've asked before, the answer has been, we have to have all that screening. The implication is the only way you get it through those trees. __ Wildermuth: Emm i ng s : I things it's Yes, because they don't lose their leaves. think we ought to put it on the list. I think if anybody worth looking at we should look at it. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 33 e Conrad: Could I ask Dave that you kind of look at the ordinance, or the current plan. ElIson: Do it in a Tim report. Conrad: Yes. Tim just does a nice job when he goes out and reviews it for us. Rather than stymied or a lower priority, if you could look through the ordinance and maybe bring it back and talk to Steve about it. Headla: Okay. Conrad: Just flag areas where you think we should take a look at. Headla: Okay, and the other one, Tim and I wanted to do is get involved with a trails committee. Emmings: Have a subcommittee? Headla: I don't know but Tim and I want to get involved with the trails committee. I think we compliment each other very well on that and I think there's other input as well. I think that's a little different. ~Ellson: You're saying by the fact that it never ~they had those changes and things like that? came through to us when Headla: That's part of it. But that isn't part of our goals. We want to work that off line. Emmings: Now you're running into the Park and Rec and I think maybe we've had, that issue came up and showed us that there were some areas maybe where our work overlaps their work and we're not too clear on why that issue never came here because it seemed to be a planning issue. But maybe what we need to do is get some better definition from the City Council as to what we're supposed to be doing and what they're supposed to be doing and maybe there's some specific issues where there needs to be a joint effort. Batzli: Perhaps we should look at a liaison for the Park and Rec Commission or vice versa. I think the point was also raised by, we were talking about there was park deficiencies in some places and did the issue come in front of us or not and it appeared to me that there was a total lack of communication between our two groups. Conrad: But the park liaison, would that be on an on-going basis? Is that what you were thinking Brian? Batzli: I don't know. Let's have it rotate. I'm just talking off the top of my head. e Conrad: Do you have any interest in that area? A. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 34 e Batzli: That was the problem. I knew if I said that. No, my interest in it lies in deciding and at least trying to open up some line of communication. Whether that's me attending their meetings or not but for instance, I have no clue what areas of this city are park deficient and/or why and/or how that fits in with our zoning map. I'd like to at least have a presentation by them to tell us what the heck they're doing and what their long range plans are to put parks in and in what areas and why. I think that affects us. Emmings: Isn't that in the Comprehensive plan? Conrad: It's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's where our consultant has gone out and got their input. We haven't seen it necessarily until it comes back official. Batzli: Did we look at that part of the Comprehensive Plan yet? I don't recall seeing that. Emmings: I've seen it but I don't know if it was formally. in this go around it's been. I don't think Conrad: It's taken us so long to do this which goes back to a major issue. Last year, I'm off the subject because I'm on a pet peeve here. ~Last year we talked about completing the update to the Comprehensive Plan ..,and we didn't do it. And nobody really, and that's my fault as much as anybodys. We just slipped it. So what are the penalties. Nobody's yelling. Met Council's obviously not yelling. Who's priority is that to update the plan? Is it just a City? Was it a nice thing for our Planner to do? Was it a requirement of Met Council, do you know Steve? Hanson: From my perspective it should be a priority of the Planning Commission. A number one priority because that's telling you guys what you ought to be doing. From my own perspective it's a high priority~ Conrad: Bill, as we updated these, did staff bring you the different sections as we went through them? Bill Boyt: Mark Koegler would come in occasionally and talk about status reports but we never saw that you approved anything. If you were. Maybe it's waiting for one grand lump presentation. Conrad: That was the way it was going to be rather than on a piecemeal basis. Again, boy we've beat this one for over a year now. I think we've got to get our hands around this thing. We've got to give City Council a deadline when it's going to be done and if it's not urgent, then we can put the deadline off a little bit but I think it's almost to the point, in my perspective, the revisions have been out there so long, we may need to make revisions to the revisions. They've just been sitting there. ~ Hanson: I think you're hitting it on the head. I've met with Mark .., Koegler about getting a revised schedule on something that he can live with and I can live with to wrap it up. I'm getting that proposal from him either by the end of this week or the first of next week at the Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 35 e latest. I would suggest bringing that, when I've got that, bringing that back to you as far as setting a time line on that. That's what I'd like to do on all these items is set time lines on them. From my perspective, it's getting to the point where it's very critical that we get that done because I think what you're going to see, if my vision is right by the end of the year, you're going to start seeing requests to plan the areas outside the MUSA boundary and you're going to start seeing requests to extend that. There are some things that are starting to happen that are starting to cause that as far as the sewer capacity. Met Council bringing that up and the plant's going to be expanded by 1992 and that will all be on-line. I think a lot of the development communities, looking at what's left in the City and saying, hey, spots, for the types of users we want to bring in aren't available out there. How do you want to deal with it? I've had them come in and say, essentially say, can we do the Comp Plan for the City so I think there's going to be a lot of pressure from that aspect. It's critical for us to wrap up this Comp Planning effort that's being done and really roll into Phase II if you will. I think we're, right now we're quite a ways behind that power curve and that makes me nervous because I don't like being in the position of having to be in a reactionary mode. Conrad: Even already I think you've been around where we've got the updated Comp Plan but it really hasn't been approved yet so it doesn't e apply. We're based on the old plan. Emmings: That's a perfect example of something that if it should become a priority item, it ought to appear on our agenda every time so that we, if we don't do anything else but just, it will keep us aware of it. Otherwise we forget. We plow through these items and even if it's just to say, we haven't made any progress or we're still waiting for a report or whatever but it will keep it right in front of us. Wildermuth: I think the Planning Commission has got to take a position on how they view requests for extending the MUSA line. At some point I think we've got to do that. Conrad: That's a big City issue that Don and Bill have to handle. Emmings: That is on the goals sheet. A-3 and A-2. Wildermuth: Okay. Conrad: Back to trails, and I didn't want to forget it. I made us go on a tangent off of it. I don't know Steve, if you stimulate something within staf and City Council to define our role and the trails in the community. We have to be involved somehow so I guess we'll look right now for your guidance with Don and maybe a recommendation to City Council as to how you think you should bring in the Planning Commission. That doesn't mean we take over the responsibility but we do have to be involved ~ not after the fact but for comments for planning considerations. Before ~ the final plan is cast, we have to be involved. We can be responsible if somebody wants us to be but that's not as essential as our involvement. So I think that has to be on this laundry list. What else? Anything Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 36 e else? And David, forget about you being on, I think when we find out about our role, that may stimulate how you get involved. If there is a committee on trails, I think that can be, you and Tim can get on that committee. What I wanted to do is make sure.that we had a function for the Planning Commission in the trail system but if you want to volunteer for something with Tim, I think that'd be outstanding. Headla: Yes, and the two of us wanted to go in there together. Conrad: In everybody's mind, are trails sidewalks? Are they the same or different? Bill Boyt: Quite different. Conrad: Is there an issue on sidewalks in town that we care about or does anybody care about sidewalks? Bill Boyt: There's a big issue about sidewalks for somebody... They are related issues but they're quite different. A sidewalk is what somebody puts in front of a residential development. A trail is what you put in connecting major areas of the city, which mayor may not have a house, generally wouldn't have a house around it in our city. I think of a trail as what you see along TH 5 in Eden Prairie. eHeadla: Did you call that a trail down here, in Lake Susan Hills or whatever? Remember when they went in through to the west and around the houses there. Bill Boyt: But that's not what's being built there. They're going to build 4 foot wide sidewalks. Headla: That's how that ended up? Bill Boyt: They're going down, what is it TH 101 there? That's a trail. There along TH 101. The Park and Rec Commission has very specific definitions that they worked out over the last couple of years a general standard for what they're trying to do. I think it would be very helpful if you two groups were talking about this issue. Batzli: Talking on any issue. Bill Boyt: I like your idea Brian. I think you'd find the Park and Rec would probably swap off with you so that you could have somebody come to their meeting once or twice a month and have somebody come here or something. Emmings: Do they meet twice a month? Bill Boyt: Yes. e Batzli: It'd be an interesting way to do it. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 37 _ Conrad: Do we want to throw sidewalks on some kind of a list? Does that interest anybody? It is an issue. Emmings: I just don't know what it is. I don't know what the issues are. Don Chmiel: I think there's a lot of pros and cons to that specific issue. Sidewalks. Especially for a lot of the residents. There are areas where they probably go to and from, specific schools or areas where they're going to be involved. Community center, things of that nature. When you start talking sidewalks in front of people's homes, you get a lot of dead indians who start beating tom toms because I've already had some people talk to me about that. They move out to this area specifically for the openness that we have. They move out here to put sidewalks like they have in Minneapolis or St. Paul. They like the openness. They like the green. It's a lot of good pros and cons to those issues. Conrad: Yes, I know there are. You look at Eden prairie and they don't have sidewalks everyplace but they do have some and they're sort of a compromise between a trail and... Wildermuth: Do you think that ought to correlate to lot size? Conrad: I have no idea. It's one of those issues you want to say, does anybody care about sidewalks in town and should we look at it before _something happens or before nothing happens or whatever. I don't know and there may not be any good solutions but I'd feel a little bit embarrassed when Eden prairie has some sidewalk systems for people, not in front of everybody's house but they can move people through Eden prairie and we're developing and we can't move people except on a road and that seems real naive. I don't know. I don't know where it goes. To be very honest, I don't know what the defeat of the trail system, what that really means which is almost a case of, I need... What does that mean? Does that mean that we're not going to require the right-of-way for trails? Does it mean we simply are putting them in? I guess I'm just naive on that whole subject and probably need a staff report coming back telling us what that does mean and how it affects what we ask future developers to do for us. There aren't any easy answers on some of these but we'll raise the issues for you Don. Other issues, growth of the industrial park. Do we have enough industrial space in the community? Hanson: It's a tough question to answer. There's a lot of ways to look at it. Enough industrial for the amount of residential and the amount of area that's in the MUSA line right now and so forth, yes probably. If you want to expand it, no there's not. Another question is, how big do you want, how much industrial do you want? Wildermuth: Or do you want another area? Another place. Conrad: To me it seems, because it's been a rather successful industrial ~park right now and it doesn't look like we have a lot of room for growth, ..,it seems to me an issue that we should look at it because if we really want to maintain that, bring in new residential growth doesn't really help taxes, if we care about taxes, and we don't as a Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 38 _ That's not our role. Emmings: It doesn't? Conrad: New residential growth hurts, it costs money to bring new people in. Emmings: Up for a certain period of time. Conrad: Almost on a per unit basis. Hanson: If you do a cost benefit analysis, typically, and there's exceptions to everything but typically you'll find residential does not pay it's way. Emmings: Ever? Not even after 313 years? Hanson: No. Conrad: I think it would be a neat issue to raise right now in terms of do we have enough industrial? Do we want more? Does it make sense to plan for the next 213 years? Right now we have a chance to do it if we want to make the zones. Now's the time because the Comprehensive Plan is still, well, it might be a good time to do it. So I would put that, and _there's obviously some associated items to that. Residential growth but I sure like the industrial. I'd like us to look at the industrial park. The only other subject that I have on this list, and a lot of this stuff, I don't know if it's our role or not but Light Rail Transit. I keep hearing that thing pop up and I don't know. I don't know what route. It appears it's the southerly route but still, I've got to believe it's going to happen and I don't think we've really taken a good look. Batzli: I don't think it's in our Transportation Chapter. The impacts of what that would do. Conrad: We said, and I can recall this pretty clearly, we said we want to know where our parking lots should be so that we can get there or park there or something. ElIson: We also said we want to show that we're in support of it. Conrad: But that's sort of tokenism type of stuff. Hanson: And there's a lot of ways to look at that. I think the typical way is if you have a light rail transit station, first the gut reaction is to put parking lots there. If you look at what's being done in Washington D.C. areas, they're starting to extend that out. Some of those areas, they're taking just the opposite. They're saying, we're not going to provide any parking at that station because the land's too valuable. What .-.we'll do is we'll develop a bus system that goes out from that point "'because you don't want to tie up all that land with parking lots. What you want to put at the station is you want to put in a lot of your retail use. All those kind of support things so that you get the people coming Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 39 e out of the transit station and you capture them at that point in time on the way home. ElIson: Yes, pick up their dry cleaning on the way home from work. Hanson: Exactly. And if you look at some of those areas back there that are just starting now, they're doing some unbelieveable redevelopment. Wildermuth: Who are they doing that for? Are they doing that for people or are they doing that for the developers and the retailers? I'll tell you, after I got off the el in Chicago, the last damn thing that I wanted to do was ride a bus. Conrad: It's interesting but I think it's an issue that we should take a little bit better look at. Again, Steve, I think we could keep you busy for a long time. You've got great job security here. We can have you looking into a hundred things and we've got to prioritize them. What I hope we can do is take this list and maybe we've not finished with it yet but to pass it up to Bill and the City Council so that they can get some input on those items and say no, they shouldn't deal with this, somebody else should or whatever but I would hope that would be our next step is to take this, and then we also should prioritize and we also should time line this stuff too. What other issues? I cut it off but anything else that people have? e ElIson: Is this sign ordinance thing, I remember way back when BRW was here talking about an overall sign theme for the city and all this stuff. Is this part of this sign ordinance or are we looking at the size thing and the height thing and that sort of thing? Do you guys remember when that happened last year? Emmings: That was the central business district signage. ElIson: Yes, that sort of thing and it sort of went away. I don't think anything was ever done on it. They had a nice presentation and talked about someplace in California that had boots and these other things, you remember for the shoe store. It was just one of those things that I wondered whatever happened to it. It was Carmel, that's where it was. Emmings: We told him to bring it back and show it to us and we never saw him again. ElIson: You're right. Conrad: What are we talking about on the sign ordinance? Hanson: I put that on there because I've seen in on one of the lists somewhere. What was in here was review sign ordinance, partially revolving around gas canopy signage. 4ItBatzli: I thought we were going to also review... Hanson: Illuminated versus non-illuminated signage. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 40 e Batzli: I thought we were going to review large industrial sites and the size of the signs to direct them around large sites as well. Conrad: The City Council, they granted the signage. We didn't change the ordinance. Batzli: I thought Jim and I said that it was going to make a lot of sense to kind of look at the size of the site because it doesn't make much sense to have a 50 acre site and give them 2 signs. That was our proposal and I don't know that that was really something that we were going to look at or not. Emmings: Have you all taken in the sign down at the driving range? ElIson: I drive by it every morning. Emmings: It's just comical. Batzli: Were we going to review the sign ordinance, as I recall, another issue of signage came up on the temporary storage and whether they could. . . ElIson: Whatever happened with those guys? What'd you say to them? -Bill Boyt: They didn't get it-. Conrad: So there probably are a series of small changes to that ordinance that we should be looking at. Batzli: If we want to do anything about it. Conrad: And we probably should. signage becomes a real headache. got to make sure that the signage right thing. Signage, as you grow in downtown, More retailers, more signage and we've ordinance is right and fair and the Emmings: That brings up another point too that we talk about and we talk about it from time to time but a lot of times it's real difficult to anticipate. The issues that come up are never those that you thought of. But then what we have to do is seize on that as an opportunity to revise the ordinance. Every time we have to think, what can we now go back and do that will handle this for the future in a general ordinance. ElIson: Right, storage sheds also became a hot ticket. Batzli: Or we could go to the Napoleonic code method. Bill Boyt: You mentioned storage sheds. Jo Ann a year ~work on mini-storage construction. It had all sorts of "'an ordinance and it never came back. That would be one would be good to be out in front and she's already done it's... ago did some great recommendations on where I think it the work so maybe Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 41 e ElIson: I thought we closed it. Wildermuth: That's done. Emmings: We looked at that 2 or 3 times. We went over and over that. Bill Boyt: Well maybe it's ready but we never voted on an ordinance. Emmings: We had setbacks for the size of buildings and we had... ElIson: Except on the lake you can do this. We thought of everything. Batzli: Was that our sideyard setback? No, that was a different one. Emmings: No, we had the rear and side yard setbacks and it depended on if it was one of these small tin buildings or under a certain number of square feet. ElIson: I was under the impression that we were done writing that. Conrad: I think we are. Emmings: And it had for a garage. eBill Boyt: That came to Council and recall, questions about size. David versus the lot but that's a separate It had a maximum size on a garage. there were some questions, as I had raised some things about the size issue from the mini-warehouse. Emmings: You're talking about mini-storage like... Bill Boyt: Like out on TH 5. Emmings: I don't know if we did that did we? Conrad: No, we didn't do anything on that. that a signage issue, the mini-warehouse. That's a signage issue. Isn't That's what I thought it was. Bill Boyt: When the mini-storage thing came to the City Council most recently, they wanted a sign along the side of it and that was denied. I'm thinking more now about the work that Jo Ann got into as to how many of these units you'd want in one place. Some places require the caretaker to be on site all the time. That sort of thing. We don't have that in our ordinance anywhere. Hanson: The sign was the pylon sign? Bill Boyt: Yes, they wanted to put it on the hill. _Hanson: They've come back and submitted their signage that meets the ~Code. One on the side that faces the street coming in and then there's another one that runs along the side facing TH 5. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 42 e Headla: You mean the one they've got painted on the building? Hanson: No. ELIson: It was going to be up in the bushes. Hanson: The letters are 18 inches high and they run for 47 feet. Conrad: That's a real strange deal. They have so much visibility there. Headla: Well, that sign they've got there now has visibility. Conrad: They're coming back. Hanson: No, they've submitted pursuant to what the City Code allows. ELIson: The one they have now is a temporary. Conrad: Yes, and that's plenty. Bill Boyt: You're saying that the City Code allows a sign of that many square foot? 47 feet long and 18 inches high? Conrad: -- Hanson: If you add up to 80 feet. That adds up to 80 feet. Conrad: That stinks. That's just terrible. Hanson: And I think that points up what Steve was saying is that you don't know the problems until something happens. I guess I look at TH 5 and to me, that would be a logical place to have a signage requirement that applies to TH 5 that accomplishes certain things and I think what you'd suggest, you want to identify that industrial area so if you're a business out there, that's how you identify somebody to get to you is you're going to that industrial park and then once you get inside of the park, then you look for the signage to the business. Conrad: They're really abusing. Emmings: I've got another item that somebody brought up and I think it was Tim that brought it up. That was zoning subdivisions in the A-2 to RR. I think that was another thing we were going to take a look at that we all felt might have some attractive features. You might add that to the list. Batzli: Taking the 10 acre kind of lots and make them RR? ELIson: Because they're turning towards that anyway. _ Emmings: I don't remember that much about them but I think there were a lot of the features of the RR zoning that there's no sense in not having them in any subdivision. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 43 e Batzli: I thought we brought that up in our discussion about contractors yards. We talked about rezoning certain areas RR from A-2 and those were the areas that we talked about doing it in. Emmings: I don't know. Could be. should. It would be unusual but it probably Conrad: That should be on the list. Okay, Steve do you see things as you come from a different area? What things do you think we should be covering? Hanson: I've been trying to look at the list and decide which things are the most important that can be accomplished this year. I guess there's a couple things. Especially after having been here for a while, the one thing that I see, what I see as the most important thing first of all is getting a solid set of procedures that h~ve to be followed with a developer's packet when they come in to resolve the problem that we have every meeting and what David suggested on the one thing is like on the wetland thing, how come it's here when they haven't met any of the conditions? Well, the problem is, they don't know what the conditions are until the Friday before this meeting because that's when we've gotten referral comments back. If you look at some of the other areas, and I wasn't sure if it was unique to Colorado or not, in looking around at some eof the cities around here it's not unique but typically what a lot of the cities will do is they'll set up what they call a design review committee. So what happens if you as a developer are coming in and you want to submit plans, you come in and the city staff has a regular meeting date for technical review of applications and they come in and they submit their applications. Staff goes through them. Goes through a check list. Determines if it's complete first of all. If it's not complete, you give them everything back and you say, come on back when you've got your package together. Once they've got everything that's required and the key to it is being able to tell them up front what they have to do. Right now that's a little difficult to do with just the way some of this stuff is written. So the one thing is to make sure that they know what has to be done and they go out and they do it. I've had developers come in that have asked for that package and they say, boy we'd like to see you do it because we hate going into a city, even though it's a quicker process, we hate going in and not knowing what the problems are until the staff has written the report to the Planning Commission. The way the design review committee works is you come in and you have a complete submittal, you submit the stuff. The staff is under a deadline to review those plans. sit down with that applicant in two weeks. Here's all the things we're looking at. Here's how you can apply and here's any problems we see. You go out and make all those changes and when you've got all the changes made, you submit the plans and we'll schedule you for a meeting. The idea is, when it comes to the Planning Commission, they've essentially satisfied all the regulatory requirements and the only time that they ~wouldn't be is if they disagree with what's being required or if there's "something, for example like on a conditional use where some of those items are negotiable. Then there may be a difference of opinion but at least what happens if you boil it down to what are the real issues that we're Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 44 e talking about. That takes a little time to get the bugs worked out on that but that's, from my standpoint, that's a priority because we waste a lot of time on the applications on dealing with that as well as trying to deal with just citizen phone calls that want to be able to do something on their property and being able to research that and find that, staff spends a lot of time. The one way I see it resolving that is if we had a lot of the land use stuff put on a computer, if it was all computerized on a data base management system but personally I think that that's .a lot lower priority. That's something that would save a lot of staff time and provide a better service for the people that are out there so they don't have to wait 3 or 4 days for us to go down and pull files on a PUD that was approved in 1973 to find out if a lot, what restrictions were placed on that. I guess the second priority that I see is getting the Comp Plan completed. Wrapping up what's been done and getting that done. Then, what I see as a third priority is dealing with a lot of these issues that we're talking about that affect changing the codes. That's why I grouped all this stuff under zoning code amendments. The contractors yards and updating the zoning. Updating the zoning map is a minimal type of thing but it hasn't been updated for almost a year and a half. There has been some rezoning. We have a lot of little things coming up as far as zoning amendments. Contractors yards and just to bring you up to date, we did take that to Council last Monday. Correct me if I'm wrong Bill but the consensus that I heard from City Council was really kind of two pronged. There was a portion that said, let's eliminate them. There was support e for tha t. There was a portion tha t said, let's go the mom and pop way. My sense was that the leaning was really towards eliminating them and the swing vote on that was do the mom and pop thing if we can put a date when it expires. What the legal advice is is that you can't do that under the conditional use permit, although there is legislation being proposed that would allow that type of provision to be placed on it but whether that would go through the legislature or not in a session is anybody's guess. My indication was to proceed basically with what the majority of the Planning Commission had talked about. Conrad: Should we publicize the fact that we're doing this? Figuring out what we should be working on for 1989 and have a public hearing or have the opportunity for citizens to come in and say why aren't you working on this? Nobody will show but would that be fun to do or should we just forget about it? We've never done that. Here we are, we're scheduling work and the citizens always come in and complain, why aren't you doing this and that, we can publicize the fact that we're curious about what they think the City should be, what type of changes to zoning and whatever. Headla: Shouldn't that be up to the Council if they want to? Conrad: Well, it could be. Batzli: e help us Conrad: I thought we were going to send our final list to the Council to prioritize it anyway? Why can't we get the public input? Bill, what do you think? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 45 e Bill Boyt: Well what I was going to encourage you to do is, Park and Rec a couple of years ago surveyed the community for park needs. Trails was one of those. I'd really like to see, building on your point, that maybe you all could stimulate a survey. Maybe it could go out with one of the city bills that gets sent out or maybe just a separate mailing or maybe there'd be another way to do it. I don't think you're going to get, I think you're right, if you put this in the paper is an awfully nice gesture and I'd like to see you do it but I think you're looking at your audience. Headla: Let me make a suggestion then. Maybe build on that. If you maybe would have some of these meetings over at the, you know there's a place west of here that we call western Chanhassen. Maybe Planning Commission meeting once a quarter or once a half a year should be held there and ask the people. Maybe we should be up at the north end. Northeast end. Maybe we should be down in Tim's area once a year. Maybe you want to pick for a particular agenda but I would like to see us get out and get to some of these areas and maybe we could get somebody to attend. Hanson: I think if you want to do something like that, what I would suggest is that you do it not necessarily to handle our normal day to day element type stuff but if you had it tied into the Comprehensive Planning effort and amendments to the rezoning so that you go out into some of _these specific areas say having almost like a workshop on issues that would really pertain to those geographic areas of the city. Headla: I was thinking like having it over at the old West Jr. High when we were talking about that Super Value. There's a lot of local people I think would have come that far. Strictly an idea. You don't have to decide on it but I'd like to do it next time. It gets some of the people out in western Chanhassen who have never been here. Emmings: Going back to temporary conditional use permits like for contractors yards. Every time that comes up, I used to ask Barbara and Jo Ann why couldn't we use a license instead of a temporary conditional use permit and no one ever answered that. I know we can't have temporary conditional uses but I don't see why if it was a matter of licensing, that we then couldn't add the same kind of controls that we have under a conditional use but also limit the length of time the license was good for. I don't know if that's another way to reach the same end but Roger maybe could be consulted on it. Hanson: That's a good question. Conrad: Did we talk about, is there a noise ordinance? Are we okay on noise? Batzli: There kind of is a noise ordinance isn't there? It's the e nuisance ordinance but there's not a specific noise ordinance right? Headla: I was going to bring it up but you'd tell me there's no way to measure it so I decided not to bring it up again. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 46 e Emmings: There's probably State laws that apply. Bill Boyt: We have an excellent noise ordinance that got defeated. The Public Safety Commission and staff recommended it's approval by the last Council. Maybe this Council will be more... Emmings: What was it to do? Bill Boyt: It was an ordinance that defines specific actions the City could take to control noise. Emmings: Are there State laws on noise? Bill Boyt: Sure. Emmings: Did it adopt those? Bill Boyt: Sure. Conrad: Steve, what I'd like to do, when this comes back after City Council review, I want it on the agenda where we kind of finalize priorities and work schedules but I'd like to make sure we get some publicity on it so make sure that you and I are talking in advance and I _can talk to the villager. So we can make a story out of it more than boring work and maybe that will be our opportunity to say folks, if you want to come in and see what we're going to work on, anybody interested with a good idea might possibly show up. Batzli: I think we have seen some people coming in and I think given the right article and the right incentive, they might come in. For instance, on a tree overlay and such. I recall several developments where there were people that told us they moved out here for the trees and wetlands and everything else and maybe if we tell them we're going to work on some issues, they'll come in and present their opinion. Conrad: Anything else? Anything else under open discussion? Hanson: I've got a couple of things. I was going to suggest one thing on the agenda just from the standpoint of organization. What I have used in other areas is, towards the end, rather than an open discussion is items from the Commi.ssion so that if somebody has something that they want to bring up, somebody could bring it up at the meeting but if there's something specific, we could also put it on the agenda so the people know. I think it helps you if you know that there are other items that some of the other commission members would like to talk about so you have a better idea how long a meeting might last. Also, similarly I would have a section for director things. Items that I might want to bring up that ~ aren't, more of just a discussion thing and again, just so we have some ~ idea how much is really on that agenda. A couple things that I did want to cover with you though is just, as far as some of the things that have happened that you may not be aware of. I mentioned the contractors yards. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 47 e On the Taco Shop, that was also, it had been tabled by the Planning Commission and forwarded to Council for some direction relative to whether there was any interest in pursuing acquisition and City Council on Monday did essentially authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition for that particular property. On the Ver-Sa-Til site, the industrial building, you may recall it's behind the Press and it's about 97,000 square feet and we also had a replat on that area. That was approved. That was all approved at Council on Monday night. Then the other item I wanted to bring you up to speed on just briefly is on the recycling. Jo Ann has been doing a lot of that and in all honesty was put somewhat on a back burner while she's been gone but she did come in and write some stuff up and we had RFP put together a draft that we had sent out to contractors and got some input back from them and then Monday night we had that on the Council agenda for authorization to put out the formal RFP so the recycling can get going. We're roughly about a month behind what we had informed everybody that we would doing so the request for proposals on that will be going out shortly. Conrad: That's really a curbside pick up? Hanson: Yes. And it will be essentially a one year demonstration to see how that works and then there will be a recycling committee that will get set up to look at how we ought to handle some of the other issues related to that in the coming years. Then the other thing I wanted to do was let ~you know some idea of what your work load is looking like in the next couple meetings. At your next meeting you're going to have the Eckankar proposal for a conditional use permit and basically it's a request to build a church facility on the entire parcel.. The entire 174 acres. But there will be that item. Also one that you're probably intimately more familiar with than I am is the Ches Mar subdivision. The two lot subdivision. That's coming back. I can't tell you that anything has been resolved after talking with the Attorneys on both sides but from my understanding, the one attorney is requiring the other one to go ahead and pursue something so they're pursuing something and saying we don't have an answer for the access question that was apparently the hang-up previously so that will be coming back. That's all that's scheduled on that meeting and I would venture to say that it will take the evening. Conrad: Eckankar, it just depends. Are you getting calls? Hanson: Yes. I'm expecting that we'll have a fairly full house. Conrad: That could be a two hour meeting real easily. Emmings: I take it that people don't want to see them build here? Is that what the calls are? Hanson: Yes. ~Emmings: And what are the reasons that they give, just out of curiousity. "'They just don't want it? Conrad: You'll hear it. That's a real volatile issue. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 48 e Hanson: Then the March 15th meeting, the application deadline is next Monday, Tuesday. Right now I'm expecting we're going to have 4 to 6 applications coming in ranging from subdivision west of the Near Mountain area that was shown as a condominium area and they want to come back and change it from condominiums and go to single family. It's the high knoll that sits up there. I suspect that that application will come in. There's another subdivision application. I'm drawing a blank on what it was. I believe there's an industrial building that will be coming in. I know there's 2 or 3 other things that I've talked with people and whether they can get their information together or not, those will be coming in. The other thing Planning Commission ought to be aware of is, I've taken the stand with the applicants and tried to be consistent on this in the last, basically the last month, when the applications have come in, I've tried to go through and do a review of whether they've had everything. If they haven't had everything that's required in the regulations as near as I could tell, I've taken their packets, sent them a letter and said it's incomplete and I wished them along. That has happened on the Eckankar proposal. Initially it would have been on tonight. I've tried to be fairly consistent with that and I've tried to be very conservative. Just so you're aware of that so if you're getting phone calls, you know why. Conrad: As long as it's reasonable. Obviously it makes sense to us. _You've got to have the information. Likewise, we need the information too from the referral agencies and what have you so we need that. Hanson: I just wanted to bring that up because there has been probably 3 applications that I've given back and one of them decided not to go ahead, which was at least for the time being. I think part of it was they realized they just didn't have everything and some other problems and it's a conditional use. It's a cold storage down on TH 212 and TH 169 coming back for the second building. So that has backed off. The Admiral Waste will be coming up to Council on the 27th for their extension request. Conrad: On the Near Mountain, when we change the phases that we pre-approved, I think you've got to give us some rationale for allowing a change. We negotiated with them 6-7 years ago the whole subdivision, PUD whatever it is. Was it a PUD? And part of that was negotiating the hill into high density or clustered to save the hill. You've got to help us as they come back wanting to go lower density, residential but yet destroying more of the hill. Hanson: That's what I asked them when they were in and they had the proposal. I basically told them the issue that I saw, reducing the density is one thing and maybe that appeals to the neighbors but I don't know but I would venture to say that based on the plans that I saw before, for what's out there, you're going to have a larger impact as far as actual impact on the site itself because there's going to be some heavy e duty grad ing on it. Conrad: The neighbors will be hostile. Guaranteed because they worked real hard to kind of preserve some of that area. It didn't matter how Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 49 . many people were there as long as you preserve the area. important so it will be interesting. That was rather Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.. Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim e e