Loading...
1993 02 08CHAN~LqSSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR HEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL HEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, 'Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dockendorf STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott HarK, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al-Jarl, and Todd Hoffman APPROUAL OF A~ENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendments: Mayor Chmiel wanted to pull 2(c) from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Don Ashworth wanted to discuss Resolution for Easement w£th Bo¥lan as £tem 13. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCERENTS: PROCL~ATIOll DECLARING tflM~CH 7-~4, WLUMTEE~S' OF ~IERICA WEEK. -' Mayor Chmiel: The Volunteers have been serving the area for more than, or 97 years and they would like us to have a proclamation for this. With that, it's rather lengthy. I know it's'going, to'be.a long evening, not that I'want to pass it by, but we wtll have this posted at. City Hall,.if anyone-ts-Interested in. reading the proclamation for the Volunteers of'America Week. So with-that I have a motion to accept the proclamation. Councilman Wing: So moved Mr. Mayor.- .. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resol#tion ~93-0&: Councilman Wing moved, Counc/l~oman Dockendorf seconded to approve the proclamation declar/ng Hatch 7-14, 1993 as Uolunteers of ~merica Week. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried unanimously. ' : CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved~ Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to'the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Settlement Agreement, Shafer Constracting/Noble Nursery/Albrecht Companies, Downtown Redevelopment Project. b. Re~o[ution ~93-07: Approve Resolution Increasing Development Fees for Administrative Subdivisions f. Approval of Accounts City Council Minutes dated January 25, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 20, 1993 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 h. Authorize Public Safety Director to Seek Bids for Replacement of Community Servlce Officer/Public Safety Vehicle voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. THE SUHHIT AT NEAR HOUNTAIN, PROJECT 93-2. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Basically this item has been requested to be pulled for staff correction on one of the conditions of approval. On page 2 of 1rem 2(c)(1), condition number 10. It basloally states that, or the intent of this requirement basically came at the request of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Distrlct whlch says the City and the Watershed District will require that individual lot gradlng plans be submitted for all lots proposed along the outslde perimeter of Oxbow Bend. That should be corrected, or the sentence should continue to be corrected with, with the exception of Lots i and 2 of Block 1. Those two lots were not 11sted from the Watershed District as lots needing to be reviewed ahead of time. So with just that exception, that change also effects 1rem (j) on page SP4 of the development contract. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll make the motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to approve the Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications as amended by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I. INTERIH USE PERHIT FOR A SALE~ TRAILER FOR TH[ OAK PONDS/.~aK HILL PROJECT, LOCATEO NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER AND PO~ERS BOULEVARDS, LOTUS REALTY. Councilman Senn: I had a question, given kind of the, let's call it the predominant Location of this. Is there anything we can do in relationship to temporary, if this thing's going to last a year. Is there anything we can do in relationship to some temporary landscaping or something like that? Mayor Chmiel: Good question. I think this is going to be their temporary facility. I had only one other concern with that is making sure that we're not golng to have mud tracked onto County Road 17. Zt's going to be completely taken care of with crushed rock, hopefully. In the event that it doesn't, we'll make sure that that ls golng to be addressed. With landscaping on a temporary, I don't know what their intent is because I haven't seen that plan. Or I have seen the plan and I've forgotten what was being done. Paul, is there anything in the plans that would show plantings or trees within that particular area? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, there is not but it probably would be easy enough to add a condition that they'd put in at least foundation plantings. And that those can be relocated for use on slte when they remove the trailer. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Senn: I'd like to see that. Mayor Chmiel: That would soften it. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, at the Plannlng Commission they discussed thts I think at length about it's appearance and concerns about how it sat. They were going to sklrt it. The deck was going on. I think this ls sort of the gateway for the new project and their sales. I think that Brad at that time was quite concerned about it's appearance and how it was going to come across but I'm not opposed to the landscaping. I Just think it's appearance was discussed. I think it was a good point to brlng up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We could make that condition number what Paul? Paul Krauss: 6. Foundation plantings. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with that addition. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Is the applicant here? Brad Johnson: Yes I am. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any objections to that? Brad Johnson: I've got to figure out how to do it. When this came up at the Planning Commission we couldn't flgure out how to plant a tree...Paul's idea of something that we could move around on the site Is probably a good idea. Councilman Mason: And I don't thlnk it needs to be a tree so much as shrubs. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman #Lng seconded to approve Interim Use Permit for a Sales Trailer for the Oak Ponds/Oak H111 project as amended to add a condition number & for fondation plantings. All voted In favor and the motion carrled unan/mously. VISITOR PRE~ENTAT)CONS: HARCUS ZBINDEN. CARVER COUNTY E~ZRONtE#T~L SERYTCES. UP~TE ON FU~I~ ~ND ENVIRONHENTAL pROGRAH~;, Marcus Zbinden: Good evening. My name is Marcus Zbinden and this ls Leslie Loffler. We're here to represent the Environmental Service Department of Carver County. We have a few things we want to talk to you about this evening. One is the budget that we have set aside for city funding of environmental projects such as waste related, waste reduction. We did a few things differently this year than we did last year. This year we have a total of $40,000.00 to distribute through all the cities in Carver County. We're going to give each city a total of $2,000.00 for base and then the rest will be adjusted according to population. And with this scheme Chanhassen will receive approximately City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 $7,280.00, and you can use this money towards projects similar to what you did last year as far as the compost bins or actual yard waste drop-off site or even purchase of new recycling blns. However, there lsa not to exceed figure in the contract we're going to sign with you and we had some problems last year with some other cltles golng over the amount. We want to make that perfectly clear that this ts all we have in the budget and they can't go over that at a11. We also plan on having another tire and appliance day collection as we dld last year. It went over real well and we had some good response from that. Last year we had two sites. One here in Chanhassen and one at the recycling center at Norwood. We're plannlng on having one in Norwood and if the City Council would 11kw to have one here again in Chanhassen, we would like to plan around that if that's what your wishes are. Other than that we'd like to discuss about the new hazardous waste unit that we also plan on having to service thls area also and Leslie will talk about that. Leslle Loffler: The mobile collection in Chanhassen will be held May 8th and it will be at the Public Works building. And I'm here to answer any questions and to mention that we'd 11kw to recrult volunteers to-help wlth the collection. It's a fun day. It will be from 9:00 until 3:00 p.m. That's it. Are there any questions? Mayor Chmiel: How many total numbers of people would you need? Leslie Loffler: For volunteers? 30 maybe. We've already recruited your local Girl Scouts to help out wlth some of the lighter work. But some of the heavier work we'd like to find some flre fighters and maybe some sclence background people who could help wlth some of the sortlng. We expect hopefully about 300 people from the Chanhassen area. That's a pretty big number for us. Mayor Chmiel: I know our first tlme was pretty successful. Leslie Loffler: In Chaska. Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully it will even be more so to eliminate all those given problems that may be around. Leslie Loffler: Yes. We've already begun working with Jo Ann Olsen on setting up the different parts that we have to organize so. We're also going to be having a waste pesticide collection for Carver County and Scott County and some other counties in the area and that's for businesses who might have some pesticides and that will be free to those people. They can dispose of up to 150 pounds of pesticides. So lt's a good opportunity for farmers and other buslness people who might have some pesticides around that they need to get rid of. Marcus Zbinden: Any questions at ali? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? When we hear that we're gettlng money, we don't have any questions. Marcus Zbinden: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate you coming down and giving us this information. Thank you. City Council Meeting - February 8, [993 HAPPZN6 OF NEY H]::GHIJ~Y 4,1., BTLL tlEYER. HESSE FARI'I. Bill Heyer: Thank you Hr. Mayor and City Council persons. My name is Bill Heyer. I've owned a lot on Hesse Farm West, just on the west side of Bluff Creek, Lot 11 for, since the summer of 1985. We were surprised, I got a surprise call about 8-10 days ago from Harold Hesse, who had on a chance reading the Chaska newspaper, discovered that a week ago 'tonight Chaska was going to be officially mapping a new Highway 41 corridor which would proceed'south from the currently mapped 212 and the right-of-way would be located directly against the Chanhassen city border. Located in Chaska but against the Chanhassen city border. I was surprised because we had received no notice and knew-nothing of this. It turns out in addition to the corridor being directly against'the Chanhassen city property line, there will-be a-diagonal ramp connecting 212 with the proposed 41. That ramp alarms us in that it involves a taking of property on the Hesse Farm West area, specifically Lots 7, 9, 10, and'Il. I own 11. A number of issues in addition to the-taking of land without notice or process are alarming to us. I'm concerned whether the land south of us, which is also, contains housing. Single family housing. If single family housing will in fact be the highest and best use of that land-in the future with a freeway'style road proposed by Chaska, abutting those properties. There's a pond'on-the Hesse Farm West which is fed by a wetland that would be consumed by this road. -In addition to that, the road would presumably lead to.a very expensive river crossing and at the south, the river encounter Chanhassen ground once more~ 'There'are some pristine wetlands in that vicinity and some fens, I guess it has some environmental'import. Of real concern to us is'the fact that Chanhassen knew nothing about this. Perhaps that's why we didn't-get any-notice. It came'out at the Council meeting that in Chaska that there had not been coordination with the staff here in this city. 'And in essence they had asked MnOot to simply draw some lines in a corridor for them and HnOot had'complied with that. This-TH 41 is not in MnDot's 2010 plan, according to MnDot. It's not in the City'of' Chanhassen 2005 plan, which some years ago Barb sent to me. 'And I think anybody buying a parcel of land over there would not have had an expectation-that this sort of mapping would go on, or the potential that land would be'taken'from them. A number of elements involved but I think you've'got a long agenda and what I would recommend simply is that'the City direct it's planning staff to coordinate with Chaska and make. sure that the City knows what's going'on there. I would recommend that some sort of environmental impact statement be-conducted before any official mapping be done. As I said, there arelwetlands both-in the river bottoms area that may be effected. There are.also wetlands'and a ravine drainage ponding system located in this city that would be effected.-'-And'! - think beyond that there's a basic question of whether this is an appropriate corridor for a farm to market traffic pattern-that currently is of trouble in downtown Chaska, which Chaska is apparently seeking share. To share with the city of Chanhassen and I'm not sure if those'traffic studies or the general thought is to the need for a road in this location, or another location, is in fact recent thought. Needless to say,'these'questions come up-because there'has not been a public process. There. has not been-'notice or has not'been-comments. A lot of the work is apparently old work and work that was not mapped and' somebody looking to buy a parcel of property over there would not have known about or had any cause to be suspicious about. So in essence we would like to see the two cities coordinate their efforts with each other. We'd like to see the ability for some sort of public comments. Some sort of discussion about the appropriateness of the road and the location of the road. We'd like to see an City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 environmental lmpact statement be conducted wlth regard to the effected ground. And until such time as those sorts of steps have been completed, Chaska parathetically is apparently going to seek RALF money from the Metro Council almost immediately on completing their mapping and we would encourage the city to not cooperate. To suggest that delay be the current mode untll such time as the process has been allowed to take effect and work it's way through the system, which to this polnt has not been done, at least wlth respect to the residents of Chanhassen. So I thank you for your time and any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? I did do a little checklng on this and did find out that, that road has been in the picture for something 11ke 25 years rlght now. Conceiveably wlth the 212 corrldor and with thls all really happening, it might take an awful long time before you may see another 20 years. But wlth that staff is in posltion to dlscuss wlth the Clty of Chaska, even though they didn't brlng us into the discussions when they proposed thls. It was all news to us unt11 you brought it forward here. And we've had some discussions with that. Oiscussions wlll continue and I'm not sure whether the EIS or an EAW would be requlred with that proposal. But I'm sure that MnOot and the City of Chaska would go through that particular process as to what would be requlred to do in that corridor. So wlth that, I guess if there are no other questions, we do thank you for coming in and we will keep coordination with them. And if you'd 11ke to, at some tlme get back to Paul Krauss, who ls our planner. Paul could probably keep you updated. Bill Meyer: That'd be great and to the degree that notice can be provided to the homeowners there, that would also be appreciated. Thank you. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add. The Clty Englneer and I met with the planners down in Chaska and MnOot and also wlth the Carver County Engineer this afternoon. We got a lot of background material on thls. They apologized for thelr oversight in not notifying us or the neighbors. As you indicated Mr. Mayor, this ls apparently something that's been lurking in the background for 20 or 25 years, and it probably will stay there for another 20 or 25 years, but it does false some legitimate concerns. What we had anticipated doing is havlng representatives of the County, the City, and MnOot come before you at your, well lt's elther going to be 2 weeks or 4 weeks from tonight and at that polnt we can give you a lot more feedback. We're not at all sure what sort of ability we have to lnteract in the process rlght now. This is only a section of the right-of-way. They're using regional dollars through the Metro Council has set it aside so a developer doesn't bulld houses all over lt. We may not have any latitude on that process, now but we certainly will if anything progresses and there's any environmental studies to be done. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to have a Vlsltor Presentation? It always sort of pleases me to see that we flnally have some faces in those chairs that we normally have. I know we have the moratorium of course discussion comlng up, whlch ls the next 1rem. But lt's a deflnite pleasure to see as many people here. Thank you for comlng and showing your concern. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 PUBLIC HE~RING: CONSIDER IHPOSING ~ HOR~TORIUfl ON DEYELOPHENT FOR PRRCELS LOCATED WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. Public Present: Name ~ddress John Prins Nell Hartman Dean Brown Robert Barth Gary DosdaL1 Jim Larkin A1Beisner Vernelle Clayton Marlene & Theresa Bentz Larry & Betty Van Be Veire Lee Kerber Henry Wrase Rick Wrase David Albright Nancy Mancino Roger Schmidt Ray & Lisa Notermann Ted Bentz Doug Bentz Gene Borg Katie Kaaz Kent Carlson Betty O'Shaughnessy Paul Knapper Cam Johnson Walt Roberts Mike Meyer Paul & Carol Paulson Don ? Ellen Dubbe Lawrence & Florence Raser Jay Kronick J. Harding Tom Kotsonas Steve Buan Charles & Susan Markert Peter Olin A1 Klingelhutz 5120 Edina Ind Siv~. 1841 Center Drive, Centerviile, IL Family of Christ Lutheran Church 3500 IDS Center, Minneapolis Family of Christ Lutheran Church Larkin, Hoffman &'DaLy Haple Grove Chanhassen Excelsior Chaska 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. 405 CImarron Circle 7814 131st St. West, Apple Valley 6620 Galpin BLvd. 8301Galpin Blvd. 1450 Arboretum Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. 7280 Galpin BLvd. &897 Chaparrel Lane 1S5'Choctaw Circle' Suite. 700,-900 2nd Ave So, Minneapolis 1000 Hesse Farm Road &01 Green Avenue SE, Watertown 7127 Orchid Lane 880 Lake Drive 3474 Lakeshore Drive, Chaska 3160 West 82nd Street, Chaska 7220 Great PLains Blvd. 440 West 79th Street 8210 Galpin Blvd. - 78'West 78th Street 530 West 79th Street 8001 Cheyenne Avenue 8740 Flamingo Drive 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Minnesota Landscape Arboretum 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin or Paul, rather than going-through a lot of discertation and having everyone get up at this time, I think I'd. like to just take the position, at least from my standpoint-that I feel the moratorium should not be considered at this time. And I'd like to Just sort of get a feeling from council as to their position and tf it comes to a point where'we can discuss this, we would like to indicate maybe our concerns at this particular time. So with that, why don't I start with you Richard. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: I didn't bring this up. The question maybe which, is being discussed tonight is the moratorium and how it'came about. I think the discussions going back a year and a half ago with former Council was concern about us being in the cabooze instead of the locomotive and being more developers in the cart than there was horses to pull the cart from the city side. And we have for a year and a half been concerned about, or the two years I've been on the Counc11, concerned about piecemeal development on Hlghway$ and careless developments. Strip development gettlng out of hand and I think several of us on the Council have taken the posltlon we would like the west end of Chanhassen to look a little better than the east end has as we drive into town. So I dld not bring up the moratorium lssue. I thlnk it was worth looklng at and I think we've had our packet and staff has covered the issues pretty thoroughly. I think we could if we felt the need, and lt's my susplolsion here that we're not feeling the need right now. Mainly because we have the Highway $ task force golng. The landscape study going. Just a lot of lssues that are going to address the very issues we're concerned about on the moratorium and if I honestly felt we needed the breathing room, I wouldn't hesltate to push hard for a moratorium to stop the development. So I favor, I'm going to go along with Council discussion of the past and decisions of the past not to have the moratorium. I don't feel the need for it at this time and I also at this point don't want to take the pressure over the issue because I don't thlnk it's enough of an issue to involve this many people at this point. But by denying the moratorium tonight, if that's what we choose to do, the other option as a member of this Council is going to be very slow and very decisive, cautious development on Hlghway 5 and I'm golng to be very critlcal of anything coming in untll we get the task force complete and the landscape ordinance up to where we want Some architectural standards developed I would suspect, at least for myself, and hopefully the entire Council is going to be very slow moving in development proposals. So in 1leu of the moratorium, we can forget that word but maybe kind of a slightly dragging Council for a while on any development issues that come before us until we resolve the issues of what we think is best for the city and it's future 20 years from now and it's appearance and so on and so forth. I guess that covers my position Don. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Just one other thing too. There's several parcels in and adjacent to TH 5 whlch could be governed by a PUD, planned unit development which glves the city a little latltude to see as to what they would really like to have wlthin those respective areas. But that's another item that we have looked at as well, at least I have and I feel sort of comfortable with that. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you just stole my thunder of what I was going to say as far as the PUO. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable without passlng on the moratorium. I thlnk my concerns were that coming onto the Council new, I dldn't get a sense of the vlsion that we had for what Chanhassen was going to look 11kw. Granted, we do have a comprehensive plan which gives us lots of guidelines. There are still lots of loose ends that we need to work out as to what we want the City to look like and to develop lnto and we were feellng lots of pressures from developers so. I think Councilman Wing's point ts well taken that don't expect us to hlppety hop through all the developmental issues that may come our way because we're st111 not sure. We haven't finished the plannlng for what we, on the Hlghway 5 task force nor on the architectural City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 standards, etc. so ! guess my opinion at this time is that we'll pass on the moratorium. Councilman Mason: It's beginning to sound a little bit like a litany here. If we didn't have the PUD in place, I quite honestly would be lobbying hard and strong for the moratorium. However, we do and I think with the higher level of competence that our planning staff has exhibited in working with developers and using the PUD, I'm comfortable with the way things are right now and certainly my inclination would be to vote against a moratorium. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Hark. Councilman Senn: I agree a lot with I guess what Richard and Colleen are saying. ! still have a problem that slow and methodical doesn't mean anything other than slow and methodical. Ultimately what.has been happening on the east end for example could continue happening on the east end. All you're talking about is you can slow it down. Z guess I have the same concerns as. stated basically last time, which have a lot to do with'the types of spot development that had been occurring on TH 5. The suggestion I've'seen from.staff in relation to the moratorium and passing and put in effect exempting PUD zoned property as [ understand it. I think that's the correct understanding. I think at least goes a long way towards giving us that control. I'mean right now we have no right per se to require anyone to go PUD. 'So going back to'Mike's comments and stuff, I mean basically-what I've seen proposed by staff kind of takes the extra step and then requires the PUD which allows you a lot more control in relationship to what's going to happen so that in.effect becomes a non-issue discussion wise. 'So again I've got a couple questions. Paul,.I mean is now the time to ask them? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. : Councilman Senn: Okay. Paul, in relationship to the PUO, if a moratorium would pass and the exemption would be in there in relationship to'the PUO.' Ooes that give the Council simply an Opportunity to have a more. direct role in relationship to guiding the type of spot development or does it simply mean that the same thing will occur but now it will be called PUD versus what it was called before? · . Paul Krauss: ...for latitude in influencing the design of the development. I don't think it gives you any more latitude necessarily in determining what the appropriate use is. That die has already been cast by the land use'plan, unless that's changed. The PUO's do allow a.certain percentage of'the total area of the PUD to be in some other use. I think'it's up to 25~ but. Councilman Senn, I know one of your concerns is the potentially inappropriate [ocation of auto oriented uses and I don't think straight zoning or otherwise you're going to get a handle on that until the land.use plan is changed, .'. -. Councilman Senn: And that's something-we're addressing again, through the Highway 5 corridor study. Well, I guess it sounds, like everybody else 'has decided but I guess I again renew by objections to it'and I don~t think I would be for setting it aside. I think'the-east end is just simply getting innundated with the types of uses we're talking about and I really hate to. see it go any further. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I just wanted to, it's not related to Councilman Senn, and I meant to say this earlier. That's my feeling now and I suspect that most of the people that are here tonight would like to see this moratorium dropped. However, I don't want to say that my mind is made up without giving people their shot at it. I mean certainly if the vast majority were in favor of it, I think we'd have to revisit what we've said here. I just wanted to make that clear I guess. Mayor Chmiei: Any other discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: On this land use issue Paul. I'm not aware that the Highway 5 task force, I see them as being west oriented. Are they in fact going to take the time or deal with the land use in the east end of town, or at this point in history with the comprehensive plan in place, are we in fact going to talk about changing the use of that land down there? Or is this kind of a, I guess my concern here, I see that as sort of already cast. It's kind of a done deal if you will. That land use is already established. Could we even change it at this point? Paul Krauss: The potential exlsts but you're right, a lot of it is fairly, if not cast in stone, at least the direction's been set. One of the charges for the Hlghuay 5 task force ls to reassess the valldity of the land use plan knoulng what we know today and refine it. For example to pull one property out, there's been some questions on the ultlmate use of the Ward parcel. It's a real critical parcel to what happens in town. It's zoned industrial with it guided commercial and that bears some looking at. It's a little more problematic to take for example 1 out of 3 parcels left in the Abra/Goodyear site and do something else wlth lt. Theoretically you could but it's probably not golng to happen. OataServ as well is a very large plece of ground. There, thus far the only discussion on DataServ, and lt's been at staff and consultant level, ls what sort of additional flexibility can we get to get some more innovative land uses out there, but probably still consistent with the office/industrial designation. Councilman Wing: I want to be real fair with the people that are here regarding the moratorium in regards to Mr. Senn's comments. If the development pressure and the corporate pressures continue on our back the way they have been with their demands and expectations and criticism that ue don't do this and they can't do this. Our only optlon is a moratorium where it's just a clear cut, go away and leave us alone and let us get organized. Let this visionary process go lt's course so I'm vacillating back and forth. Tonlght I'm not comfortable with this. I don't think there's a need until we get a little more organized on where that task force ls golng to be. But if the problems continue, and if your issues continue to manifest, the moratorium I think is going to be well justified and Z thlnk lt's a real potential for the future. I don't see us singling anybody in the audience out. It's simply a Counctl that sort of elected for the long term vlslon having to get in the drivers seat here and everybody in the audience that has a piece of property has a different idea for lt, and that's just not going to work as we head west. We've got to get a little organized and encompass everybody and try and find some common ground 10 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 here someplace and right now we don't have it. We're being driven by forces we can't control and I don't think it's right to the City [cng term. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can just sort of turn this around a little bit from where we are going to go. I recognize a lot of faces out here who would be in opposition to the moratorium. Maybe I'd 11ke to turn it around and find out for those who would be in support of the moratorium. Is there anyone here that would like to approach us and tell us that they support the moratorium? Peter. And I'd like to put a limitation on this probably for about 10 minutes because I don't to go to 3:00 this morning. Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin. I'm Oirector of the Arboretum and I'm on the Highway 5 task force. I guess I would think that we might'need that moratorium and we need it now. The reason is is that there's a lot of decisions to be made and the Highway S task force is, in my opinion, going a little too fast right now. These decisions that we're asked to talk about and make decisions upon the directions, with very little background and. only cursory review at these meetings. Again, it's very complex issues dealing with'the roadway location and the land use around it. The issues of wetlands and how these go through and environmental impact assessments.which em'were told we could only do two corridors and not look at the connections between those two if part of one was better than the other. And my feeling was that we're going to have to have a little extra time and the fact is we.do-need some'breathing room to make those kinds of decisions. 'The problem is that when we make those. decisions, we're setting the-direction or-.planning'for Chanhassen for the future. Probably for the next'25 years because we,re.going-to-locate roughly where these roads are going to go. 'That's going to effect.the development that goes along the sides of those roads. .It's going to'effect the Highway Sand how that looks and how it's developed and so it's a major impact on'all the~land use along there. Such decisions really'have to have very careful consideration and my feeling is that the Highway 5 task force is going'to, have to slow down a little bit in order to make good judgments'on those-' That you can't in fact race through, zip through a lot of decisions.' We've already zipped.through a couple and eliminated a piece of corridor which.on"second'-thought;-and'Z. seconded that motion, probably should have been left in for study just because it's an alternative and we only had two'choices.~.:So I think with that, that we in essence do need that breathing space that a moratorium would allo~. I mean it's a lot of development pressures-there'right now. Many parcels are looking at some sort of development and I think we-have to-have that in order.-to make a good decision. Again, I gave-my opinion.' Now'if-there's any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Guess not. Thank you. Charles Markert: Mr. Mayor, I'm Charles Markert. I live at 74&1 Hazeltine. We're at the intersection of Highway 5 and 41. 300 yards north of Highway $. And I know you've been discussing it and you've been trying to do an excellent job with it and Z think though that the:moratorium, as the good man.before me has just said, that that's the proper thing to do at this time. Zt's going to effect a tremendous amount of people now and in the future. I've lived here for. 10 years on the same property, and I love it.. I think if I have to change my lifestyle and other'people have.to'change their's,.that we should really consider where roads are going to go? What'the land use'will finally benefit everyone and not just several people~' I.found out that there'was a'road just 11 City Council Meeting - February south of me right along my property and there was a couple of selections and it was decided that that would be the closest one towards my property and I think making decisions like that should be more discussion. I think we are going too fast. I think you are going too fast, Take your time and think about it. It's going to effect so many people. It's really important. It's never been done before in this city in this area so with that kind of a plan, we should take our time and then we'll come back and I'm sure by that time we'll have something pretty much resolved. Thank you. That's a11. Katie Kaaz: My name is Katie Kaaz and I live on Choctaw Circle. I didn't come here prepared to make a statement but I'm concerned about the growth in Chanhassen and the direction that lt's taking. My only plea ls that you do slow down and take your time. We moved here from Westport, Connecticut. A wonderful community where plannlng and zonlng did not look ahead far enough. They didn't take their time. And things happened to our wonderful little community that they w111 never be able to undo as far as roads, traffic, you name lt. It's just a nightmare. You can't go back and I hope that everybody here ts here to urge you to slow down and make the rlght decisions. Brian Batzli: Hi, I'm Brian Batzli. I live at 161 Fox Hollow Drive and I'm Chalr of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. I also dldn't really come here tonight to make a statement. I'd like to hear comments from people who are against the moratorium. But I did want to say publically to the Councll that it's becoming increasingly frustrating as a member of the Chanhassen Planning Commission to see the piecemeal types of proposals coming in whlch do not follow any kind of coherent plan. I think it would be better in fact to wait for the Highway 5 task force to get done with thelr vlslon. To look at the rooms that they've created and to come up with some sort of architectural standards and other types of overlays which can be placed across this district so that we can be proud of it when it's developed. After putting in the time and effort on the comprehensive plan, I don't want to see that effort be smeerched, belittled, have it go down the drain to have the types of developments which we've seen come in to date and not have the proper standards to put against those properties and developments. Thank you. Susan Markert: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. I'm Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. I'm also on the Highway 5 task force and I too am in total agreement with Peter and Charles Markert for planning it the rlght way. I feel that we're under a lot of pressure to plunk instead of plan. Excuse my phrase but I mean it seems 11ke lt's gettlng to that because we're trying to cover a lot of information that we're not really that famillar with in thls short perlod of time. I mean there are some citizens, whlch I'm one of, on the committee and we're not totally famlliar with everything that's going on around everything in the plan. So in order to be responsible in the decislon maklng process I would hope that we would consider doing it the right way and doing it a 11ttle more slowly because this is our only chance. Like everybody says, once it's done it's done and I know I've said this before. Once you take out trees or you move things, lt's over. So that's all I have to say. Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin and I don't know much about the moratorium. I don't know lf, I have very 11ttle background on lt. I guess I'd be somewhat Interested If there were going to be a moratorium, how long it was golng to be. Who proposed the moratorium. I guess I don't even 12 City Council Meeting - February 8, [993 know that. But all I'm, and I don't know if I'm prepared to talk about whether Z'm ~n favor of a moratorium or not, but I am very much £n favor of a thorough planning process to finish off that end of the city. ! think I've lived out here about 20 years or so and I think in the past Z've seen some things done rather quickly that Z don't think was in the best interest of the city long range and I hate to have, I think again, because of the pressure from developers and things like this and I guess I hate to see that happen. Continue to happen. So whether it takes a moratorium or whatever it takes, I would like to see that planning be very thorough. One thing I'm a little bit concerned about, I just hate to see an extension of semifores right, you know marching straight west out on H£ghway 5. I've sat in on the task force committee. I'm not a member of it but I happened to sit in on one of them, and then from what I can tell, it Looks like this is just going to be a continuation of, there aren't going to be any overpasses or underpasses for TH S planned out that way. And Z guess, and Z come from downtown Minneapolis and we've had other people telling us the same thing. ¥isitors and things, that it just Isn't a very good corridor of running into one stop light after another and kind of a hodgepodge of development there. So again, I guess that's my main concern that we plan it well. Or do a better job of planning than we have tn the past. So whatever tt takes to do that. Steve Buan: My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. I haven't lived in Chanhassen very long but I potentiaLLy could live with Highway 5 a lot longer than some people in this room. I'm just really concerned that, like everybody says, go slow. I don't know much about the moratorium because I haven't been here very long but I drive Highway 5 everyday through Eden PTairie and I see businesses closing, things like that and I don't want to see that here. I don't know much about the task force but I think this has probably been done, development of corridors like this elsewhere. You really got to look and see where thlngs failed and where thlngs worked and not just what you perceive is right because where things worked other people have gone through it and where things haven't worked, they've gone through it so I just would like that looked at. Henry Wrase: Henry Wrase, 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. I am one of the property owners within the Gateway development. I dldn't attend Planning Commission meetings but Z had a film that I watched. I was kind of disturbed as the Planning Commission couldn't come up with any solid decisions. So at the last meeting [ attended and I had the same feeling off of the Council that I had at the Planning Commission that nobody had a solid feeling as to what was happening out at Gateway. So [ feel there should be a moratorium so the people can really sit down with the developers and make something come out right. Thank you. Jay Kronick: My name is Jay Kronick. I don't even live in Chanhassen. I live west of t6wn in Laketown Township and [ drive.back and forth everyday and appreciate very much the sp[endor that we have on the western side of town and applaud everyone's efforts to make sure that that's the way it is as we proceed with development there. I own a piece of property on.the east side of town. I own Lotus Lawn and Garden and came before the Counc£L about 5 years ago to take a vacant piece of land and turn that into an independent, sole.owner business. ['m here tonight and there's a lot of homeowners, residents of the city who are here. I feel like a little fish in a big sea when I hear talk of all these developers with hundreds of acres and stuff and dozens of acres. I'm just here [3 City CounciZ Meeting - February 8, 1993 to represent another viewpoint. Whatever you do I think it's important that we take the right steps to assure that this is a quality city. I'm not sure a moratorium is the way to go. I saw a copy of the proposed'ordinance. I think there are some protections in there. I guess from the standpoint of someone like myself, I'm a little concerned about what type of growth I might foresee in my own business here in the next year or two as your planning goes forth and what limits the moratorium would impose upon me, in terms of changing, growing on the site that I have. I hope those and concerns of others like myself would be addressed in the planntng process as well. I'm neither for nor opposed to the moratorium. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to clarify, for any additions or improvement to land, the moratorium would not effect. Mayor Chmiel: No. Not what are existing. Anyone else? Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates and I'm sort of a receplent past planning, or lack of past planning that's occurred along the east corridor and I expressed the same feellngs that I think anything that's done wlthout some really good plannlng or some good thought 1nrc it is very destructive to the neighborhood that I live in. It effects us directly and I really would appreciate this Councll taklng lt's time. I'm strongly in favor of the moratorium. As I said, any further development like what's already gone in on that end. Look at Rapld 011. It's a great looklng site up on the top of the hi11. We have some other things that I thlnk are very detrimental to the looks of Chanhassen and those thlngs came in because of hodgepodge type of development. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmlel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Seeing none. Resident: Mr. Mayor, my sense is that the people, this is the opportunity to the people...that are in favor of the moratorium. My question ls, was your question such that, if anybody wants to talk about it on either side or are we st111 11mited to people that are basically in favor of the moratorium? Mayor Chmiel: Well I was just going to bring it back to Council and then I was golng to bring it back out again because I thought probably the way I was looking at it, that were probably less against the moratorium. As I had seen but I thlnk what I'd 11ke to do ls just have a 11ttle more discussion with Council before I move back to the opposite side or to find those who are in favor or maybe agalnst the moratorium. I think we're going to have to address both sides of that issue. Unfortunately that's the way it's going to go. 8ut I thought it was maybe going to be just a 11ttle blt different. Richard. Councilman Wing: I clearly would like to hear some of the opposition statements on record because we have the proponents on record tonight and my position kind of favors them. This is the lggO's, not the lg$O's and it'~ the decade of rethinking and redesigning and it's going to impose some impositions on some people that are still thinking 1950's, but I don't want Chan to go that direction. So I guess my last comment would be after we've heard some other comments from the opposition, I would clearly like to move this to a Monday night work sesslon, specifically on thls issue to look at vlslon, get a consensus. More of a consensus. Have much more input from staff and the 14 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Attorney. I think we need a Honday, to plan a Honday ntght work session that's open to the public specifically to discuss th~s issue so that everybody's welcome to come in and hear where we're going with this. Obviously another a public hearing will probably be necessary because #e probably do much tonight. That's my opinion. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I think we're ali struggling up here with the issue, can we achieve what we want to without the moratorium and we just don't know. And as much as I hate to table things and say we need to think about it more, this is a big enough issue where I agree with Richard that we probably need an entire night dedicated to it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The thing that .keeps me thinking immediately is that ho~ many parcels and how much land, and maybe Paul you have it off the top of your head. That would not fall under the PUD. I don't want to put you in a position maybe. I'll let you answer the way you feel. Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, in terms of acreage, I don't know but I was sitting here doodling and did up an.exhibit that I think shows that. If you want to throw that on. I was just trying to highlight out the areas that are already PUD or have PUO commitments to go. Basically you start out here. You've got the University of Minnesota Arboretum. Nothing's happening there. Nothing wilL. You've got the study area that's not even in the MUSA Line which was done by...so we have 5 years to think about what happens there. We've got the Opus proposal for a PUD where they were told not to come back until the results of the Highway 5 Task Force were in. We have a residentta! development that I think you have a letter here tonight from Pemtom that bought the 85 acres from Betty O'Shaughnessy. That's a residential project that the developer has agreed would come in as a PUD. You then have that 137 acre, that Ryan and some several others are involved with. They've also begun PUD design preparations. Now these little black x's are the properties where it's unclear. For example you have the site that is on later tonight for the Goodyear/Abra. There's the OataServ. The Press' vacant Lot and the Ward, but a lot of those cases it will either be some sort of an HRA or an economic development district which gives us leverage, similar to what we used with Target... There's a Lot of things to come up with. But these x's where we're reatly not sure. Now on a lot of those properties we haven't heard that anything's pending but that could change tomorrow. , Councilman Mason: Well I want some action on this tonight, personally. I think my personal feeling with the two years that I've been involved-with the city is that the PUO has worked very well, and I'm happy with going PUO. Now if Council can take a look at those specific spots that are not PUO yet, I'd certainly be, I think that's worth taking a look at but at this point, you know depending on the rest of the conversation this evening on this, I question what good another work session is going to do on this..I don't know that we're going to find out any more information than we have now. And I guess PauL, I'd Like to ask you a question. As city planner, are you comforable that we cae do a thorough and' well thought out job without the moratorium? I mean not putting you on the spot or anything. Paul Krauss: I'd have to honestly say I think we've done a credible job to date. You know what we've got is a moving target. Four years ag~3 this was not 15 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 a concern of the City's and I think that my staff has done a large part of unleashing the monster here and now it's a matter of fulfilling the expectation. And we're excited to be able to work with that. Z think each time a project comes in it's been getting better and we use whatever leverage we have at hand to make that happen. It's not a perfect process. I think Rapid Oil shows you that it's not a perfect process. On the other hand Rapid Oil got rid of a junk yard and we were able to rebuild a city street and landscape it where there had been junk autos and dumptrucks. So it all works in the same direction, it's just a matter of how far you can go. You said you didn't want to put me on the spot, and I guess I'd punt a little bit here and ask the City Attorney something. About 6-8 months ago we did look at the possibility of prior zoning to PUD of the corridor for that reason with an intent statement and at the time the City Attorney raised some questions I suppose with the ability to uphold something like that. If you're asking me if every property in the corridor will come in PUD wlthout a moratorium in place, I don't think that that's the case. I think most of them ui11. I think we can leverage most of them but there's going to be some that won't. Councilman Wing: ...discuss the moratorium issue. I thlnk we can do it at our leisure and we can hold a workshop. Pending that I'd like to move that we discontinue this moratorium. Move on ulth business. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor to discontinue the moratorium. there a second? Councilman Mason: Zt's not discontinuing the moratorium. Councilman Wing: Well this is proposed. It's hard to deny it. If the work denlal ls better, I'll deny this issue. The moratorium lssue at this polnt and get on with business. Councilman Senn: Do you suggest then we set up a work session at the same time? Councilman Wing: No, I think we've got, we really should discuss this. If you choose to have a work session, I think this should be a key issue we dlscuss. Or if ue run into problems in the future over the next month or two, I think the moratorium should be held in the forefront and not as a threat. Just as an absolute need for the Council to help the City get it's feet on the ground but I thlnk ue can do that and get on ulth business tonlght and let thls process go it's path for the next 2-3 months. And if necessary, I'm willing to support a moratorium but I don't think it's necessary to dlscuss it tonight or impose a moratorium tonight. So I'd move denial of this. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would like the opportunity to hear 10 minutes, 15 minutes of comments. Councilman Wing: Please. 16 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I think we can hold that in aveyance until we ask the opposition now who are not in favor of the moratorium to come forward and if you can just break it down into just a few words... I think I'd-like to have that done. -- Councilman Mason: If ! could just make one quick comment. Incidentally, ! agreed with virtually everything that was said by the people that are supporting the moratorium. The reason I'm inclined to not go along with it tonight is I strongly believe the City has enough things in place right now to.cover that' ground. I don't think there's a person sitting up here, ! don't think there's a person working for the city that isn't doing what they thing is best for the long range plan of the city and not just. the person that owns the 20 acre lot, which is sometimes not comfortable for that one person but ! think we~ve got all of that stuff in place. So I'll be quiet now,- Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me add just a littlelbit to that. 2.1/2 years ago when we looked at the potential of developers coming in,'I sat down with some of those developers at that time and said-that what wes as a city want, we're at least in a position right now to say what we want. Once we don't carry through with that, they just automatically go and build what they'd like. I sat down with one developer and indicated our concerns. That developer said yes, we can accommodate those proposals as to'what you envision'the city-of Chanhassen is going to be. Highway 5 is an important'corridor.-We want it-to-be a..warm, receptive, aesthetic kind of'thing coming'into our community- And if we can have those kind of things, and ! feet comfortable, enough with, as Hichael- mentioned, with the PUO's. I think, we have. a. sufficient amount'of control to make what we want to see happen-within this-community.. ! think we~ve done'a fairly decent job with the Planning'Commissions.and their'recommendations to us. And ! think we have followed some.of that directton..:Sometimes.we didn't. Sometimes we'd take our own direction=-but ! do. like what.is happening.. I do like our downtown. I do like the'concerns, that we'have for Highway 5; .'ge're going to continue in that vein,.so I'll get off-my soapbox and'open the floor for those who are ready to speak. Please-come forwardu State'your name and your address and'who you're'representing;. Rttorney's, only~get'about 3-seconds. Jim Larkin: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council members. ! am here for a specific purpose tonight and in view of the discussion that's already taken' place, I will keep my remarks brief. ! represent the owner of the property which is the subject of'item 4 on the'agenda~Mr.'Mason and he' No relation, that's right. He testifies to that also, Not that~he'would be. embarrassed by it but he just says there is'no relation. And"Mru Mason has owned-'that property for some 25 years. It has been given it's present zoning I-think about 10 years ago and'there has already been considerable discussion'and"litigation, over' Mr. Mason's property in that area.- So.'assuming:that.-the Council's not'of-'a.'mood to enact a'moratorium tonight; I will-not address that issue;- I-will say-that we have submitted to the-City, and to the-Council our-position, on behalf'of'- Hr. Mason. I simply ask that that be incorporated-'as part'of the.'record: ge are concerned about fairness. 'Mr' Mason has been.'a-taxpayer in'this~city for ! think 20 to 25 years and I would hope to address you for another 30 seconds on item 4. Thank you. · .... :.' .... -' '' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ........ 17 City Council Heeting - February 8, 1993 Dean Brown: Hy name is Dean Brown and I represent Family of Christ Lutheran Church. We're located south of Highway 5 between Dakota and the old Highway 101. I just want a clarification. We already have an existing building but got notice that there was a moratorium on building. Is that, if we wanted to add something, are we going to have to do it again or what? What's the deal on that? Roger Knutson: The moratorium as drafted would not apply to expansion of existing buildings. Dean Brown: Okay. Well I would like to put a plug in for what the Hayor said in that we approached this Council in building and the Planning Director about 3 to 5 years ago and it took us approximately 2 years to get our plan approved. And for those of you who are interested, I mean we had to spend $25,000.00 of trees. Could only build on 70~ of our lot. And that was all within existing rules and regulations so I think as long as the Council just enforces exactly what they have in place and take a long hard look and make sure that those things are there, I see no reason why you need to have a moratorium. Thank you. A1 Beisner: I'm A1Beisner, 7549 Mariner Point in Maple Grove. I'm probably the reason why everybody is here tonight. Unfortunately. I just wanted to throw my comments out on the moratorium. I develop like others in many cities and this is no piece of cake. You have very strict rules, regulations, ordinances as long as they're enforced and as long as we know about them coming into the situation, we don't care. It's when we find out later things that aren't right, we care. I think Hr. Hayor you stated it when you talked to developers 20 years ago. And as long as we know what the ground rules are, we can pretty much abide by them and work with them. And ! think what you have had that's gone on in Chanhassen is as good. Your landscape ordinance is, we even improved on it in the development that we submitted, and I think it's fine. think Chanhassen will continue on. You've been able to attract very good, large developers out here now that I think you'll be proud and happy to be dealing with. And you have plenty of rules, regulations and restrictions in place now that govern and I think will make Chanhassen a good place to be for the next 25, 30 years. Thank you. Hayor Chmiei: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry VanOeUeire: Hello Hr. Hayor. Larry VanOeVeire. Council. I'm from Chaska. I'd just like to make a comment. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of any type of moratorium. I guess my main concern is tonight I heard the word go slow all too much for me. I guess this is an entire new Council that I'm looking at. I've watched the Comp Plan be changed. Go to a Highway 5 corridor study, and now a task force put in place, and now possibly a moratorium. And I'm not so sure slow is the right words to use. I would be in favor of doing everything right but I think there's something to be said with getting something done before the Council turns over and before there's another group of people to start looking at the same old problems all over again. Councilman Wing: Can ~e give that a round of applause? Larry UanDeVelre: You know I want a good job done but something has to be done in a timely fashion also. Thank you. 18 City Council Heeting - February 8, 1993 Don HcCarville: Hr. Hayor and Council. I'm Don HcCarville. I have the Country Clean Laundromat in town, and when I heard about the moratorium I was quite concerned because Z also have a piece of property down on'the highway. And it was because of the City's actions a number of years ago that I purchased the property because the City had, or representatives had indicated that they were going to take my building down and I looked for a piece of'property. Found one. Purchased it only to find out that since I didn't go into the development, I was not going to be taken out and so my:-buildtnglwaS left.. So now I do have the piece of property that Z bought. I've owned ti'for a number, of.years. The taxes have gone up on that-property to the point of about $8,000.00. a year on just a single lot, along with the payments so-I"mlpaying'about $1,000.00 a month to hold a piece of property that I can't~-.use. 'And-you know, I've been trying to sell it all these 6 years. There's nobody so far come. forward'to buy the property and so now a moratorium Just makes it that much longer that I have to continue to try and pay taxee on this:property and.so it:'really does put a hardship on a few of us to hold off.any hopes of selling that pFoperty;-i Thank David Albright: Hembers of the.Council, my name ie David Albright and-I am a resident of Apple Valley, Minnesota-and'I am one of those people that i$ going to be speaking against the moratorium.':Not so much that'I claim to.be the world's greatest expert on it.' Z've.always thought you learned-a'Iot more by listening, and I've learned a few things here.tonight.. But I'm speaking on behalf of some landowners who have the old Hary Waiter farm property' And the point that I would like to make is one, I-do think that there are significant obstacles or significant opportunitles,.depending-on your-perspective, for the Council to impact .on development .anywhere. But there are a.coupte of rulee in the relationship between a government-and it's 'people and in governmantaI regulation that I think need to be brought to"everybody's attention'whether they be pro or con on the moratorium issue.. The first'.is, :the government, and these folks here, the Council need-to have some input tn order'to'exercise or to protect the city and the residents.of the city but they'should not,'and'are ordinarily not allowed, except in.the most extreme circumstances, to say you can't do anything with your property, -I:mean'that is the one thing that you.can do is something. You have a great deal:of impact in'saying, what activity can be done? Whether tt can be'used for this purpose.or that purpose or what 'it's ultimately built. Where it's built' How it's'built. .ButJthe most extreme sanction that a government can take, and is not .justified in every situation. In fact it's not justified in many situations, is to say that you can't do anything with it and I just want the Council to be aware of that and I.guess I think that you probably are sensitive to that, from what I've heard today. 'The.other thing ~ just wanted to talk about briefly, if ~ could, is there ia always going to be individual disagreements.as-to uhere'a-'road'goes~or where a factory goes and - there's a syndrome known as,'not.[n'my backyard-and I've .been-a recepient of that since I now have a brand new section of County Road 38 going basically through my backyard in Apple Valley. So [ can understand where some of the residents, who spoke originally,-are coming'from; But it seems to'me that there's certain givens in this thing and one is that the people who own the property adjacent to or abutting or near where Highuay'S is going to be going, are not going to be particularly enthusiastic about do[ng anything other than a nature preserve or a bunch'of trees so that people can sec'things" -On the other hand, neither should the people who are homeowners be unnecessarily trashed. I don't know anything about Rapid Oil but I can sense that everybody in this 19 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 room wishes it wasn't there. And so I guess the thing I was trying to point out is that there are balancing things that need to be taken, but by saying that we won't even consider entering this delicate balancing process for the next year, which really means two, because by the time the moratorium is over and by the time you get through the process as it begins post moratorium, you're really talking tying up people's property for 2 years in which they can do nothing. It's not like they can't do what they want with it. It's not like they can't do something that is slightly less desireable to them than what they want to do. It's really that they can't do anything. And again, I just want to make it a point that there are an incredible number of things, levers, as the staff has indicated. Ruies, reguIations that allow the city to impact on it and I would urge you not to go to the most extreme measure that is possible for you to do, which is impose a moratorium. I thank you very much for iistening to me. Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. We've done a number of developments in this community. Almost ail of them were done under the PUO ordinance, where applicable and where we met what, 5 acre minimum or 4 acre minimum. One is Market Square. We're just completing the planning of the Oaks up above us here with 210 units. On the average I'd say those projects have taken at least a year to get through the process, and in addition to that it's a very painful process to go through from a developer's point of view. It's very painful for the staff. I think most of the developers that are represented here, and certainly the ones I've seen on the list, recognize that the PUB process is a way of doing it. There's some benefits to us. But the process is tough. I mean I cringe every time I get together with your staff on a PUB because I know it's a control issue. I also developed, or was indirectly the developer of the Rapid Oil site, which I originally proposed as a PUB and was turned down by the staff. Not the staff, but the Council at the time we came before it. So that was originally also a PUD and I think everything that we've done along the Highway 5 corridor has been that because it made sense. Not because it's TIF. Not because of a lot of things. Just because it made sense in the use of the land, because I think a lot of us are concerned about that. So I think for those of you that are new on the Council, and for those of you in the past, I think you can be comfortable that your staff, I think that was the real question I heard a lot of you say, can persuade people like myself to try to carry out a good development. The PUO process is there. It's available for us to use and it has worked in the past. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I would recommend that we close the public hearing. Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoean Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion that has been on the floor. Councilman Wing: Out of order. Mayor Chmiel: That is out of order. I would request a restatement of that as you indicated previously. 2O City Council Meeting - February 8, [993 Councilman Wing: Roger, what's the word? Because this was a public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Deny. Counc/lman Wing: la deny? What's the word ! need on th/s? Mayor Chm£el: What's the proper word? Roger Knutson: [f you want to follow Roberts Rules. Councilman Wing: [ want to drop the ~ssue. Roger Knutson: The mot/on should be to approve f/fsi read/ng of the moratorium ordinance and then second that and then vote aga/nst Lt. Motions are supposed to be in the positive. Counc/lman Wing: With his statement on the record, ! would so move f/fsi reading. Counc/luoman Dockendorf: Second. Counc/lman W~ng: Then [uou[d den/al of the f/fsi read/ng. Mayor Chm~el: All those in favor say aye. Councilman Senn: Of ah/ch one? Mayor Chm/el: Of the first. Councilman Wlng moved, Counc/l~oaan Oockendorf seconded to approve the First Readlng of an InterJLa Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting D~[opaent [n the Htghua¥ 5 Corridor. Rll voted In favor and the motion carried. Counc/lman W/ng: Now? Counc/lman Mason: Can we get some d/scusslon? Councilman Senn: I'd like a little d/scuss[on, yeah. Hayor Chmiel: Sure. ! was going to open discussion after the mot/on. Counc£1man Mason: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You know I th/nk something that th/s leads to is that everybody that ks work/ng with all of th/s, obviously developers want to make a buck. I mean that's their r£ght. I'm not here to comment one way or the other on that. But ! th/nk that we all need to understand, and everybody ks that ue feel we need to do what's best for the c/ty of Chanhassen. And there are pressures from developers and there are pressures from individual citizens to somet/mes not look at-the:overall p/cture and my concern here ks that I th/nk, Just 1/ke Councilman Wing, I th/nk you sa~d it very well about us not be/ng /n the 50's anymore. I hope everyone that dea[s u/th these issues needs to understand. We're not just looking at a 20 acre parcel or a 50 acre parcel, or a 4 acre parcel, but ue are tn fact looking at the whole picture. City Council Heeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: And Z would like to, in regards to Hr. Senn. I think part of his concern is that, do we have the rules to apply evenly right now and do we have these levers and I don't have the confidence in our levers. That's why we discussed this in the first place. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know I agree with what Hike said in relationship to really being concerned about Chanhassen. It's all rhetoric about that the control is in place though as far as I can see. I asked Paul the questions and that's the answer I get back. Put it in the real world type of situation and let's say we pick a polnt in tlme and draw a magic 11ne. Let's say we do it to be fair and say okay, well if for example on the east side of Goodyear and Abra is there or whatever and it's that far along, well flne. Let's say you approve that, okay. Then let's say we say at that point, okay now we're going to stop lt. We're not golng to have any more of that. Well, when you turn around and ask our planners is that doesn't make any difference. We can go as slow as we want but somebody can come in tomorrow and propose an auto mall rlght next door to it, and that bothers me. I've heard a number of residents come up here tonight and say they'd 11ke to see a moratorium. I've heard one resldent opposed to it. I've heard from a lot of people on the east side, which is where I live versus most of the rest of the Councll and there are a lot of people on the east side upset over a continuation of the type of development in that area that's pollferated itself. I'm st111 strongly in favor of seeing the moratorium as staff has suggested. Exempting the currently approved or whatever plats. Allowing the expansion and remodel and even open basically to look at some type of consideration on PUD's but I think that consideration even should be limited in relationship to some overall acreage size. So if we're talking about large master planned PUD's, I don't think I have quite the same problem with those as I do every 11ttle parcel all of a sudden becomlng a PUD. Agaln, that's just for whatever it's worth, the way I feel. Councilman Wing: Hr. Chair, I'm in agreement with Hr. Senn. I'm just hoping that our expediting landscape ordinance, expediting the sign ordinance, and expediting the task force, is going to in fact accomplish some of what you'd like. If not, I'm going to be the first to admit it... Councilman Senn: Well but Dick, if you were in the other side of the position, what would you rush to do right now? And go back and ask yourself the question, how quickly can all these thlngs we're talking about, landscaping, Hlghway 5 and everything be accomplished? Paul's memorandum on the other issues and that, I mean we're not looking at that happening tomorrow. Councilman Wing: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think that's on the top of our list. I mean that's our responsibility. I have a problem when we start delegating type of visionary things that the Council's responsible for. When we start delegating that to a task force or to other subcommittees when really that's our job and I thlnk it's our priorlty to make sure that we develop these standards. Mayor Chm£el: Well there too, by getting the additional input gives us better inslght wlth that and that's why we formed that particular task force. 22 City Council Meeting - February 8, [993 Councilman Wing: I think this needs to be in a workshop and I think it needs to be addressed aggressively and more intellectually with a lot more time on this council's part but until then I'm going to stand by my motion to deny the Interim Ordinance for development of the Highway 5 corridor. With all due respect to Mr. Senn's concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Wing aoued, Councilman Nason seconded to deny the Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Development tn the High~ay. 5 Corridor. All voted tn favor except Councilean Senn .ho opposed and the eotlon carrled ulth a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate your input and we'll take about a 5 minute recess. GOODYEAR TIRE. LOCATED SOUTH OF HZrdflJR,Y 5, N~RTH OF L~KE DRZ9[ ~ST. ~ND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EHTSS]~ON CONTROL STATION: A. REPLAT OF LOT Z, BLOCK i. CHRN ~ PLAZA 3RD ~OOITION INTO 3 LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PE~ZT TO L~TE ~ ~TO ~I~-~LATED ~ ~ T~ BUSI~SS H~G~Y D~STR~CT. C. SITE PLRN ~UZEW F~ fl ~,~7' S~ F~T ~YE~ TZ~ ~DI~. Public Present: Jim Larkin A1Beisner Neil Hartman Vernelle Clayton James Benson Herb Mason Thomas Thompson J. Harding Tom Kotsonas Lark[n, Hoffman Maple Grove 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, [L Chanhassen ~bra [589 Highway 7, Hopkins [01! Butte Court 530 West 79th Street 800[ Cheyenne Rvenue Sharmin Al-Jaff: Approximately a month ago you reviewed the subdivision, site plan and conditional use permit request for the development of a Goodyear auto service facility. Tabled action on the proposal as architectural and site design issues surfaced. Staff was directed to investigate the poss[b[ltty of a moratorium along Highway 5. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by providing additional landscaping along the south portion of Lot [, and change the exterior finish from block concrete to brlck. The appltcant has.not submitted the requested changes. However, staff changed the conditions of approval for the site plan review to reflect your recommendations from last month in conditions 10, 11 and 12. The additional landscaping is reflected as well as changing the exterior materials to brlck is also reflected. There were some additional concerns such as.no[se level. We changed the conditions of the conditional use permit as you had requested and with'that we are recommendlng 23 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 approval of this application. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Jim Larkin: I'm Jim Lufkin and I'm representing the owner of the property, the Mason family and asking that the Council vote approval of the conditional use permit without requiring the two conditions which have been added since the last meeting. That is the brick and the additional landscaping. Mr. Beisner, the developer who has spent over 10 months trying to work with the city and it's staff and has made significant and multiple designing changes over that period of time in order to meet the requests of a variety of constituencies, will speak to what he has done and show you what are the latest drawings and we ask you that you consider them for what they are and not for a particular type of material that is being used. I would note to you that if you look at the Target store which is presently under construction, the exterior material on the Beisner project, or excuse me, the Goodyear and Abra project are as good or better than that material. If you look at the buildings immediately to the north on Highway 5, which would be where a driver coming into the city would logically look first, they are of material that is no better than and probably less than that will be proposed. The result of continually changing the requirements is to impose what eventually becomes an uneconomic burden or such a strong economic burden on the development that it can no longer go forward because who pays for commercial developments ultimately are the members of the public whose prices are raised. These two developments between them will create some 10 to 20 jobs per unit, or at least based on the information that has been made available to me, 25 jobs at a time when the economy is not creating a great number of jobs. So given all of those factors, ! would ask that you listen to Mr. Beisner as he goes through what he has done and shows to you the current views of the property as it would appear upon completion. Thank you for your attention. A1Belsner: I'm A1Belsner, the developer. I'm the one that caused all the commotion before and we are here basioally again with probably not a change tn our design from last tlme. Not a change in the placement from last time. But this tlme with some more answers to some of the questions that we may or may not have been aware of back when it was presented at the earlier meetlng. Some of the considerations that I want you to know and what we've done in this process. Basically we start out, and we started thls project about 10 months ago and we did go to the Ctty. We located the site. We found that the ortginal site that we wanted to build a Goodyear store on was not properly zoned. We went to staff. Went to the Clty and they directed us to the location where we are currently proposing these developments. We submitted all of the information necessary to staff in September and at their request we did virtually everything that was in the requirements for a conditional use and a BH zone. Zn fact we went further. We put in twice the landscaping that was required and throughout the last 4 or 5, 6 months, we have made no less than 8 changes to the Abra store and 3 or 4 changes to the Goodyear store. When I talked earlier about levers that you have, you have some of those levers and we went above and beyond. We have spent almost 2 1/2 times as much on architecture to get to thls point than we had originally proposed. Just maklng all the changes that were requested. We followed, so that this was not a rush job to get through here, we followed a very slow procedural process here. The first meetlng that we were to attend was october 21st. That was a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commiss£on meetlng was cancelled because there was a lack of a quorum. The next Planning 24 C£ty Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Commission meeting was November 4th. That meeting was cancelled because staff failed to give proper Legal notice to the residents. On November 18th we went to the next Planning Commission. That PLanning Commission meeting was, or the item uss tabled. At aLL three of those meet£ngs the staff had recommended the plans we had. The fourth PLanning Commission meeting occurred on December 2nd and the staff recommended our project and at that meeting It was approved. unanimously. On December 14th we were to have the first City Counci! meeting. We shoved up at the first City, or we were on the agenda for the first City Council meeting and then staff pulled us off the agenda because staff didn't like the design at that time. We were rescheduLed for the January llth meeting which was Last month and that's when we decided we'd. go through the moratorium business. And so we're back here now in-February and we have been patient and have done ! think as much as we could within the requirements of the conditional use permit and the BH highway zone. A couple of things that you should be aware of that we go through. When I got ~nto the process early on in the game, it's important that ~ number one arrange financing. It's important number 2 that I have a lease signed. For prior to signing a lease with Goodyear we have to have the project costed out, as Goodyear will sign a lease based upon a multiple of what the costs are and Goodyear does approve the costs and Goodyear, and a representative from Goodyear is here this evening, if.you care to ask him any questions. But Goodyear has built many of these and they know what their costs are. They are Like many of the other Large.major retail corporations. They know the economics of the area by t.he demographics of the area. They know that they can afford to pay so much in rent in this location because they feel this is what the business will be. anything more than that might not be economically viable for the operator and for Goodyear. A lot of the businesses that you see vacant back and forth on the strip here between here and 494 that are vacant, don't Look very good when they're vacant. They went out of business because they couldn't handle it. Their projections were wrong. In the Goodyear store, with the design that we had with the split faced block, the economics are so that ue think the business can make. it and we think that that. is more important, or I shouldn't say more important but that ~s a very, very important consideration when you go forth with.any venture. The Last thing I think you want is to have us build a building that Looks-good on the outside. Have Goodyear sign a Lease. Have the operator come in and can.'t make the Lease payments because the business is not there. He folds up. Closes the door. It's vacant. Even though Goodyear's still paying the rent, it's a vacant building and so there's more that goes into the:whoLe process and Let's Just have some cost here and cost there. We may not have been here today tf in fact back in 3uLy that brick on a building would have been a requirement. We would have said NeiL, this is how much more cost for brick on the building. This is how much more your rent is going to be, and he would have said, we probably can't afford ~t or would have cut down the size. He also went through his process to get thLs Lease approved in Akron, Ohio and that was no. smaLL feat either.because we've just recently received the final signed Leases. back, and that took about 4 months. So it's all a very slow process.. I guess I wanted to show you that so you don't think we come tn here and can slap up a building here or there,. whatever. A couple of things I wanted to address about uses and why I thLnk this building is good for this Location. Number one, there's an emission control building there. TheoreticaLly, x number of cars have. to go through that emission control building every year, every month, whatever to be insaected. If there's something wrong with the emission control or with the car that goes to the emission control building, they need to. have it f~xed. You can have them 25 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 drive right next door 50 feet and have it fixed, or you can have them drive 2 miles through town to the other end of town to have it fixed. What you're doing is just creating more traffic. I think when you talk about a land use that we had talked about previously, this is a good use for the property and we think that having a Goodyear there and hopefully having the Abra right next to it, will concentrate all of those uses together. I was also a little concerned about some of the comments that were made about the gateway and I'm still uncertain where the gateway is because from the west it's Target and from the east, I would have thought the gateway was down there, I think it's on Bell Road. Z understand there's going to be a bus garage there or, that's not the gateway? People have told me there are different gateways and I wasn't sure and these buildings that we are proposing and the Goodyear building tonight, I think is as good a looking building as you will find on all of Highway 5. I'm not particularly pleased with the looks of the emission control building. To me it looks, and I know it's been well liked here I guess, I'm sorry, but it looks more like a smaller Menards to me than it does you know a good building. There are things wrong with the McDonald's. For one their parapets don't go up high enough to cover their rooftop HVAC units. I can see the green. That's not good. A couple things that we have done with that in the Goodyear building I'd like to walk you through. Is we first recessed the building, we've recessed the building. We moved the building further away from Highway 5 because we thought that Highway 5 was a sensitive area. We were told that and so we moved it as far away from Highway 5 as we possibly could. We've also on both buildings, to show you the detail we put into this. We staggered the buildings. We don't have a straight building. We don't have a straight face there. One building is staggered behind the other one. We do not have the doors facing, on the Goodyear building, there are 4 doors on each side. They aren't facing the freeway. They're facing Abra and they're facing the emission control. Something else that you can't see here but if you walk the property, you'll be able to see. This site is about 5 feet lower than the emission control site. I don't know why it was engineered as such but this is higher, our elevation is 5 feet lower. So virtually from the west we will be almost, I shouldn't say it in front of Neil, the Goodyear guy, but we might be invisible because of the emission control blocking the view of this building. We basically, as I mentioned, spent twice as much on landscaping in this location as your ordinance requires. We did that because we think it looks better and we did it because we have underground sprinklers in the green area and we think that will make for good looking green area all the way around. This is a bird's eye view from Highway 5, if you will. We have a 3 1/2 to 4 foot berm that surrounds, or is on the north border of the site. Over on this side we virtually have a 5 foot drop so we aren't visible. The parking lot will not be seen from Highway 5 in this design unlike the emission control and unlike the McDonald's and unlike many of the others. Those are the details that we have gone to on the site plan. On our building plan. This is a colored rendering. The ones that you have, we have two more gables in here to break up even further that roof line. We've introduced this blue element to break up the one color sameness of the entire building. Keep in mind too that this building is only 5,200 square feet where Target's 118,000 square feet. I mean this building is probably maybe smaller than many of your homes and the end faclng the freeway is only 52 feet across. People are rlch out in Chanhassen aren't they? There's the two gables here. And thls we changed again because staff wanted to break up that roof 11ne but you're only looking at 100 feet along here and you're only looking at 52 feet along here and that's not a very blg building. It's not significant. If we City Counc£I Meeting - February 8, 1993 were 3 or 4 stories, or 6 stories, or in the middle of an intersection, there'd be something. [ brought along samples. This is a split faced block that we've used and there are probably 30, 40 different kinds of architectural block that you can use. This is one of the architectural blocks that we plan on using. Something else, and I was going to run a quiz. This is what we all think is brick, and this is brick. But, and it's a gamble that ! was going to take but [ decided not to. The block on the bottom, that's brick. Believe it or not, that's brick. They've come out now with what they call an at[as brick, it's the same size as a concrete block and they're using that, the contractor Ox, down the road distributes this and sells this. There are only 3 or 4 choices of that but we in the architectural group thought that a solid-faced of.that kind of brick is just one flat solid sheet wall that doesn't have any interest to it and really is not in good architectural taste. ! wanted to, 1'have a comment here. [ have a quote here that [ have to get in and it's basically, this is what Frank Lloyd Wright, who we all know was'a wonderful architect, says about architecture and building materials. [ quote, "it's.not what the basic material is as to whether or not it's good or bad, it's how you'use it.' Rnd we can build a brick building that looks bad and we can build an architectural scored block building that looks great. We plan on doing that. We hope to do that and [ think it will be a building'you'll be proud of. [ don't know if many of you are familiar with Summit Avenue area and.Crocus Hill, but i've done.some work in that area and Crocus Hill, Summit Avenue area in St. Paul has the largest concentration of Victorian homes in the United States and they are architecturally sensitive to everything that goes on over in the Crocus Hill area. Several years ago they got together, there were some homes being built in the area when the old ones were torn down.'. The new ones were put up, that didn't adhere to their "Victorian standards". They have about a 28 page standard book that if you are'going to'build a home in that'area again, you have to adhere to all 28 pages of directives and they get down to.material type. They get down to arches and peaks-and whatever.-.'They do the whole thing. About 5th and Summit Avenue, an architect and a public relations person built a duplex. They met with the.architectural control committee'and'they did'everything'that there was in that 28 page ordinance, and then what'they.did is they painted it purple and it's still there'and you can go see it.-'[t'met everything architectural there is to do and I was aghast by it and ! go by-it about once a year to show you that you cmn'impose some things. 'if it's not done in good taste...from the beginning, it's not ever going to'be done right. There is nothing that the Summit Hill and Crocus Hill area people and architectural control committee could do. ge aren't planning on painting .this purple. We want it to be in good taste. Good quality...show you that we'all aren't as bad of developers as some people think. We're trying to. do some'business in South St. Paul and I wrote and asked for some inforaation'and this was an unsolicited letter back from the City Administrator. So in talking about us doing a quality development and quality building, we mean it.:. Sorry we weren't aware of brick before. We weren't aware of a lot of things that we found out later'and we've been patient and I think that staff.will tell you that'we've worked as hard as. we could and be as nice each of us'could to each other under the circumstance. I'm here for questions. '. Councilman Mason: Al, one real quick one. Now this color that we see now is an accurate reflection of what you have?' .: A1 Beisner: Yes. It's sort of like that with the Goodyear... 27 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Please come forward and state your name and your address please. Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas, Chanhassen Estates. Very quickly. The building may be architecturally fantastic but I think it's very important to keep in mind that if Goodyear goes in, Abra goes in, there's another lot that could be Champion Auto. It could be Rossi Auto. It could be uhatever. I mean how do you say no to the last one that goes in there? We have an emission station. We have McDonald's that, excuse me. I'm a little emotional but was shoved down our throat and as he said, architecturally is an eyesore on that corner. It's got a wall that's falling in. We have a Sinclair gas station next to it. You go up the highway. We have an auto something with boats stored outside that you look at from going along the highway. You have the Rapid Oil we've talked about. We've got the Brown Standard. Go around the metro area and you find me a site in the metro area that has this many, this concentrated type of activity and look at the neighborhood around it. The neighborhood that's there now is a fine neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood. I'm also a 20 year plus taxpayer in Chanhassen and I have, and so do my neighbors, have as much right to our protection as a developer who doesn't live here. None of these people live here. They're going to develop and they're going to be gone. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, I'll bring it back to Council. Councilman Wing: Could I just ask that we start, I asked Sharmin to draw up a sketch of a possible option here that I'd just like to show the Council just for information. And I guess this was prompted by Bi11 Morrish stating that maybe it's desireable to kind of keep parking off the road and keep the greenway spaces as wide as we can and I just suggested that if we moved the building north, kept the greenuay and kept the parking off of Highway 5, and moved the trash bins to elsewhere on the property, and I don't know how this turned out or what Council thinks about this but this is just a suggestion I had. And by the way, I want to just, Mr. Beisner's been a very, a real quality gentleman and I told him. I called him to comment on my suggestion here that I wanted to bring this up tonight but I wanted to point out that we don't get to see this until now and then it's dumped on us and it's really awkward. You know last time we were really stunned by it and the neighborhood's concern about land use and you know it's kind of done and so then all of a sudden you get confronted by the Council that is really looking at this for the first time and I can't apologize for that. It's the system but at any rate, Sharmin can you go on with what we had talked about. Just for Council's information. Sharmin Al-Jaff: With this design the building is pushed to the north. You get a 50 foot depth of green space versus the 35 that was there before. The parking was moved to the south. They're losing one parking space but still exceeds the ordinance requirements. Again, it pushes the parking away from Highway 5 to the south and we get additional green space. Councilwoman Dockendorf: With the berms that are currently proposed in front on Highway 5. Will we really see the parking? Driving along or is the berm going to be high enough where if it stays where it currently is platted? 28 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Sharmin Al-Jeff: It should be high enough to where you won't be able to. Councilwoman Oockendorf: So we're pushing the building further back and. Sharmin Al-Jaff: We're bringing the building closer. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Right. My concern is if we can keep the building back off the highway and not see the parking. A1 Beisner: One of the other concerns too, and these are all sorts of great suggestions and some of the suggestions...so there's, three sides ! think to everything in here that we looked at. You will not be able to see the parking lot. If you look closely, these little things here are cars...and that's what you should...you can see the tops of thee. If they are small foreign cars, you won't see the tops of them and that's from the freeway...The berm is 3 1/2 to 4 feet. Mayor Chmiel: We know what the topography is on the highway as opposed to the proposed construction site? Paul Krauss: Well we do know what the elevation of the highway is. We've got the as-built drawings. Mayor Chmiel: Looking at a sight line is what I'm saying. Sitting in a position of a vehicle. Paul Krauss: We have not verified it from that standpoint. What you'd want to do is pick a point on the highway and then go 4 feet' above it because that's where the driver's eyes typically are. A1Beisner: The freeway is 935 according to this drawing. Mayor Chmiel: 935? What's your contour on the site? Councilman Senn: 935. It drops down to the drainage ditch. Councilman Mason: How would moving the building effect the neighborhood behind Paul Krauss: I understand it's a sensitive issue for the neighborhood but I really don't think it effects it one iota. I mean you've still got an intervening site that's going to have a building on it at some point. Mayor Chmiel: Some type of building is going'to be located on the vacant lot. Councilman Wing: What are you going to do with that one, just out of curiosity? That could be another automotive center under the present ordinance rtght? Paul Krauss: It's very likely. That is one of the allowed uses there.- Not to play devil's advocate but also one of the'allowed uses is another fast food restaurant. Now I think this.is really casting the die where they don't have enough parking to do anything like that so you're talking about a lower intensity type of use. It doesn't, I understand it doesn't make'the neighbors 29 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1992 feel any better to know that it could be worst if that's the perspective. But I'm hoping that enough is gleaned from the direction of the Council here that before they come in with that third building, we will have more information to tell them that do it this way and we can give you better assurance of it's smooth passage through the Planning Commission and Counctl. Councilman Wing: How about to the east? Same situation. Paul Krauss: Well east is the Abra building. Councilman Wing: Okay, after Abra. Paul Krauss: There is nothing left. Then you go over to the lOP property. The OataServ property. Councilman Wing: so this is the specific area the neighborhood's going to be effected with? Paul Krauss: This is the end of that commercial use, yes. A1 Beisner: One other thing that I found out in doing a Goodyear store as opposed to others. Goodyear, because they are basically very, very full service, will probably eliminate from use the competition of a Midas Muffler, Meinke this or those kinds of uses because Goodyear does do all of those. And once you have Goodyear in a situation, the others probably won't come i~. There are a couple that are complimentary but there will be less of an option for any servicing going on in a third site is Goodyear is there because they are so full service. If we don't do a Goodyear there and do a Meinke Muffler, then there's a better chance that there would be another servicing kind of thing being there. Right now we have no plans for anything on the other site, and as I mentioned last time. At one point in time, yes. Rossi Big Wheel, we were in contact. We've also had a contact as of late with a dentist in town who's thinking about maybe building a little clinic there. We also had a conversation that Sharmin sent out way from the Dance studio. They wanted to put a dance studio there. It's hard to project right now. We have nothing that we're thinking about beyond these two sites. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: So real quickly, what's the benefit to the city to moving the building? Paul Krauss: Well, if I could touch on that. One of the proposals in the Horrish program is that highways, frontage roads, parking lots, when they're done in the typical sense, it w111 take you about a quarter mlle wlde blacktop strip. And Bill wasn't the first guy to come up with this. There's been articles, a famous one, Jonathan Barnett. And one of the things that he proposed is that you seek to do the opposite. That you focus development on roads such as Lake Drive, you know that run parallel to Highway with a remote location. And that you seek to put as much unencumbered green space, ideally landscaped green space between the highway and the use and that you put the building up close and bury the most obnoxious, the more high intensity aspects of the site away from the frontage. $o that's basically what you're striving to 3o City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 do if you push the building up closer and it's a trade-off. The building is c2oser and assuming it's not an unattractive building, It's not a very big building, it's still going to be set back 50 feet from the property line and it's more than that from the traveled right-of-way because it has a ditch section through there. But the green space, the area of green space is widened out by an additional 15 feet. A1Beisner: To move the Goodyear building forward, and had we done that 8 months ago, it would not have been a problem. Not too big a problem. Right now we've engineered the site for where it is right now. We've taken soil tests for the site for where it is right now. We've done all the architecture for the site for where it is right now. We find out two things. Number one, if we do move the building, we have to pay more for re-architecture. Re-engineer and new soil tests, and that's only another $15,000.00-$[7,000.00 that we can add to the cost. [ mean it doesn't seem like it, plus the front of the freeway, as you go further north on the site, our soil tests are worse, which we didn't know until we actually took them but it-will substantially, yOU knoW cost more. .. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have soil borings on this sire'Paul? Paul Krauss: No. Mr. Betsner ['m sure could provide us with it. We haven't seen A1Belsner: The worst spot that we have ls right here. And It gets, as it goes this way it gets better and that was Just dumb luck because...so that's an extra . cost for sotl correction there... Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Councilman Mason: I think we've got to move on it. It seems to me with this being a conditional use permit, they've done everything they need to do. I understand the concern about raistng the cost. However, I certainly think the city would gain quite a bit by moving the location of the building. So with, boy I'm going to need some help getting through this'one I think. I would move approval of the conditional use permit with the caveat, or i guess it would be number 9, and it sounds like it would probably entail some further discussions with the city about moving the location of the building to create more green space. Hayor Chmlel: Could I just back up one? Could we go back up to item (a), replat Lot 2, Block i and get that. Councilman Mason: Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: Then move into the conditional use. Councilman Mason: Alright, yeah. I'm sorry. I'd like to cross whatever I said and move to replat Lot 2, Block I of than Haven Plaza 3rd Addition into 3 lots. Roger Knutson: Is that subject to the conditions set forth in the report that you have? Councilman Mason: Yes. 31 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for clarification. Is there a second? Councilwoman Oockendorf: Which? 8ut what conditions? Roger Knutson: You have them in your packet, under Subdivision. The llst of conditions. Councilwoman Oockendorf: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: They aren't in sequence. They're a little out of sequence but the subdivision ls wlth the approval of Subdivision Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Hason moved, Councilman W[ng seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision 41~)0-17 for Chart Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plat dated September 21, 1992, with the following conditions: 1. Park and tra11 dedication fees to be assessed at the time bulldlng permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard S-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot 11ne between Lots i and 2, Block 1. b. Orainage easement located over the drainage pond. c. A dralnage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, 81ock 1. 3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the Clty. 5. The developer shall obtatn and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze-up, special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as dlrected by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc. ?. The developer shall construct the sanltary sewer and watermaln improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Oeta11 Plates and submlt flnal plans and specifications for formal City approval. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chart Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted/combtned with Lot 3, Block 1. · 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/ feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line. 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence-Type Z) shall be shown on the grading plan. Type [ silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees associated with the storm water study. 12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review ~92-3 and Conditional Use Permit ~92-2. 4~ Termina[lon of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. Lapse. [f within one year of the issuance of this. permit the allowed use has not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse. 6__. Cr~ina! Pena!ty. Both the owner and any occupant of the subject property are responsible for compliance with this conditional use permit. Violation of the terms of this conditional use ipermit is a criminal misdemeanor. ... /11! voted [n favor and the motion carried unanLeous!y. Mayor Chmiel: Second item would be conditional use permit to locate an auto service related use in the BH, Business Highway district. Councilman Wing: I guess we've decided that. I'll so move. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. With conditions as indicated within staff report? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, would we want to, there was concern about banners. Temporary signage. Flags. Exterior tire displays and I believe this would go under the conditional use permit. I would add an addition here that there be no banner, exterior banners, temporary signage, flags,.on exterior tire displays. And a second one of, ! think this is the recommendation of Council, of hours of not earlier than 7:00 and not. later than Z:O0. Hours of 7:00 to 7:00. Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilman Wing: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilman Hason: Do we have a second on that yet? Mayor Chmiel: No, not yet. Councilman Mason: I'll second tr. 33 City Council Heeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit ~92-2 as follows: Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: Auto Service Facility. 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ("subject property") in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Hinnesota: Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. 3. Co~ditiops. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. No public address systems are permitted. 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site. 3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public right-of-way. 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. 5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Hinnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines at the property line. Doors will be kept closed or no more than a 12" opening. 7. Pollution level shall meet standards set by the Hinnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review ~92-3 and Subdivision ~90-17. 9. There 8ha[1 be no exterior banners, temporary signage, fZags, or exterior tire displays. 10. Hours of operation shall be betueen 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. voted in favor and the eot[on carr/ed unanimously. Hayor Chmiel: Item (c), the Site Plan Review for 5,397 square foot Goodyear Tire building. And that would be Slte Plan Review ~92-3 and conditions I thru 13 and there's been some objections about 1rem 12. Councilman Wing: 12 [ support. I like the store in Eden Prairie and [ don't think we should step below that with the brick so, and as far as moving the store, I'd like to see that left to Council. I don't want to be impulsive on that. It didn't go through the Planning Commission process and suddenly here we are tonight making a major change. I want to make sure that's fair and in the right order and I don't want to see that passed over too rapidly. It's my only opportunity to bring that forth and it's somewhat impulsive to both the 34 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 developer and us I think. I think it's a good idea. It seems to have met with staff's approval. There's some advantages to the setback. There's some advantages to having it up front and I want to make sure that's clarified. Councilman Senn: Oid the Planning Commission consider that? Mayor Chats1: I don't believe that was a part of their recommendation. Councilman Wing: No, and that's my frustration because un[ess ! address them, which [ choose not to do normally, it doesn't get brought up until it gets here and then It's, the process gets difficult. Councilman Senn: Should they? Should tt go back to them? Councilman Wing: I'm not going to send Mr. Beisner back. Councilman Senn: I'm just asking you. You're the one raising the question. Councilman Wing: I suggested that based on Xr. Horrtsh's comments, that he has been working with the city on, that there was some credibility to expanding the green space. Doing away with the trash bins on that north side, which by moving it up the trash bins would have to be moved to the side. Getting that element off of Highway 5. That's all. I mean this is a start in the right direction. Mayor Chmiel: I would probably support that.'. The question that I have in compliance with that requirement, as their counsel indicated, is that can we substantiate that portion of it. Roger Knutson: It seems like a, it's within your discretion to impose that sort of condition on a conditional use permit..You design.'the site to a better, more compatible with the area and is more aesthetically pleasing.. But if you want to impose that, you should impose that as part of the conditional use permit and I don't think you should leave it to staff to decide whether it's further out. That's something you really have to decide. :' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Strictly up to Council. Bring tt back to the Conditional Use Permit, that would make that item 12 into item number 9? Is that correct? Roger Knutson: You have 10 conditions down now? Mayor Chmiel: On the conditional use you have 8'requirements. Roger Knutson: But conditions were added. Hours of 7:00 to 7:00 and no exterior flags, tires, etc. Mayor Chmiel: No banners, temporary signage, flags or tire displays, and operation from 7:00 to 7:00. Roger Knutson: Right. And this would be number 11. Mayor Chmiel: 10 and ll. 9, 10 and Il. Okay. Alrtght, but that should fail back under the conditional use which we already had voted upon. 35 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Roger Knutson: You can put it in the site plan I guess because you've adopted the conditional use permit. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's where it's at is under the site plan review. Okay. That was my question. Councilman Mason: The question I just asked here is would we see more or less if we pushed it back further because of the angle of the berm and all that. I mean if we're going to see more of it I don't. Mayor Chmiel: The building in itself? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Councilman Senn: You're creating, in effect what his suggestion does is create more green space, which allows you to still address the berm just as adequately. And all you're dolng is shoving the building forward. Councilman Mason: Right. Right. Councilman Senn: So you won't see any more or less. I mean I think what Dick's suggestion is more of a consideration of what do you consider more important. The hlghway side or the neighborhood side. Councilman Wing: Well the neighborhood side's going to be blocked and that's gotng to. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be blocked by another building once that comes in. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I would just as soon keep it as far off the highway but definitely move the trash. One thlng I don't 11kw when I'm drlvlng on Highway 5 is I see Festival Food's trash. Councilman Wing: Tell you what, being that the brick is a new condition and it's fairly costly, I'll go along with the present position with the brlck and 1rem number 14 I thlnk goes under thls would be that the trash receptacles be moved to an off highway side. Mayor Chmiel: As item number 147 Councilman Wing: Yeah. The northern trash receptacles would have to be moved to preferably a west, the west slde of that building. Or at least off the Hlghway 5. Councilwoman Oockendorf: East wouldn't you think? Mayor Chmtel: Well, if you're not going to see a car facing Highway 5, you're not going to see the trash containers faclng to the north. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I'm not so sure about that though. I mean that's further back than where the cars would be parked. The cars would be parked right up to the berm. The trash would be. 36 City Council Meet£ng - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: It won't be a straight facade. It will be the north side with the trash receptacles what, up to $ feet or 6 feet? I don't have that. Mayor Chmiel Depending on your sight line as to what you're looking at. Councilman Mason: along with trash what, I don't remember and I'm sure it was in the report. What's the trash receptable? Are there going to be doors? Councilwoman Oockendorf: It's going to be covered with. Councilman Mason: That's right. Yeah, it's covered. It's totally enclosed isn't it, as ! recall. Paul Krauss: Zt's going to be made out of the same materials as the building. Councilman Mason: Yeah, right. Councilaoman Oockendorf: Chainlink door though. Paul Krauss: But that faces to the side. Mayor Chmiel: That's covered. That's taken care of. So that would mean that item 14 would not be on. Leave it up to 13. Okay, call for a motion. Councilman Mason: So the motion is, to accept the site plan review.~2-3, items I thru 137 Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Councilman Mason: Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Mason: I will move approval of Site Plan Review ~92-3 with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Councilwoman Bockendorf: I will second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan Review t92-3 as shown on the site plan dated November 30, 1~2, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 4 foot variance to achieve a 12 foot high monument sign. This sign which will face Highway 5 shall contain on[y the names of the occupants of Lots l, 2 and 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any s£gnage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped lot. 37 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prlor to building permlt issuance. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 4. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Bulldlng Code. 5. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval. 6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memorandum dated October 8, 1992. 7. The applicant shall post "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals and the curb palnted yellow. 8. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. The applicant shall pay $7,580.00 into the Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site. This fee wtll cover Lots i and 2 only. 10. No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the Planning Commission and City Counc11. 11. The applicant shall provlde eight additional evergreens along the south side of Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. 12. Brick shall be used on the exterior of the Goodyear building. Plans shall be developed to staff approval. The brick shall be designed to incorporate highlighting treatments simllar to the or better than the current proposal. 13. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision ~90-17 and Conditional Use Permit ~92-2. Ail voted in favor and the mot/on carried unanimouely. Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you have anything you want to say? Okay. Thank you. 38 City Council Meeting - February 8. 1993 CHP. NH~S[N BUSZNESS CENTER. LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHZC~GO. tLTL~RUKEE. ST. PtMJL ~ND P~CIFIC R~ILROP, O ~ND ~EST OF ~UBON RO~D. RYPJ~ CONSTRUCTION. A. F~NAL PLAT APPRO~/AL AND PUD RGREEHENT. Public Present: Nale Addres~ Stephen & Yvonne Kerm Darcy & Hark Seaton Jeff Boutin Richard & Gloria Kramer Hichael & Patricia Richardson Allen Peterson, M.D. FACEP Lynette Oanz Oarin Bradshaw Brooke Hegge Scott Eggen Marry Andreasen 6S40 Devonshire 7315 Penny Hill Road, Eden Prairie 7017 Woodland Orive, ~301, Eden Prairie 8688 Shiloh Court, Eden Prairie 8828 FLesher Circle, Eden Prairie 361 Trappers Pass 6540 Oevonshire Orive 6975 Pima Lane 425 Chan View, #110 S701 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka 19330 Vine Ridge Road, Shorewood .... . . Paul Krauss: Hr. Mayor, this came before you at.your last meeting in January. What had been proposed is to complete the PUD plan and platting that Ryan had initiated a year earlier, but also to amend that plan to allow a 2 acre site on Audubon Road to be developed with a Jehovah's Witness Church. Site plan approval is not being requested for the church at this time. If it's approved tonight, that would come back in for review by yourselves and the PLanning Commission at some point in the future. There were a couple points that were raised at the last meeting. One had to do with the tax impact. The concern of loss of industrial Land. The City Manager did a rough...analysis that's tn the report that basically says It's pretty close to being a wash as to whether or not this was developed as a, well if this was developed or if it was developed on residential ground. I mean clearly wherever it goes, there's a Loss of taxes but wherever it goes, it really doesn't'seem to make much difference. There was also some consideration of statements made by the representatives from the Witnesses that they'd looked at a number of other sites. 30 or some odd other sites and this was the only one that came to pass. There was some information provided to us by the church. We've included that in your packet. Staff continues to see this as a rather, somewhat innocuous proposal. If we .had our druthers I suppose it would be a high end office building at that corner but tt is a fairly good use to Interface with the rest of Chanhassen'outstde this industrial PUD. It is a relatively low intensity use and if it wasn't going to be an office building, this is probably as good a use as any to fill the void. With that we'll bring tt back to you for action tonight and we're recommending that you approve it. I should also add too that-we're trying to get the Ryan PUD and plat finalized, for other reasons; With this we get easements that we needed to complete an ongoing sewer and water project. And it really gets the bm1! rolling for things like the weather station which is, had it planned to come in here for the last 3 years to get going.and'hopefully other uses in the future. Thank you. : Hayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Paul. Is the applicant here in agreement with Paul's position? 39 City Council Meeting - February 8, lgg3 Councilman Senn: Can I ask the applicant one question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: Last time a lot of my concern related to thls was that there were potentially other sites, or whatever. I've gotten all the material now and I've looked through lt. If I'm interprelating that right, those sltes have been pretty much dismissed as not feasible and so that's why you're ending up here. Okay. Well if I could, I guess slnce I was the one who asked to hold this over, just briefly I hope we don't end up with a lot of churches in industrial areas. But I would be ullllng to move that we approve thls. Mayor Chmiel: Final plat approval and PUD agreement? Councilman Senn: Yes. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Counci-lman Hason seconded to approve the Ftna! Plat and PUD Agreement subject to the plans dated 3anuar¥ 11, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide the following easements and right-of-way: a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements over the proposed sewer and water lines outside the road right-of-way. trail and conservation easements over all buffer yards, Outlot A, and sidewalk connection from Lake Drive west to city trail. Drainage and utility easements over the Bluff Creek flood plaln and all retention basins. A temporary ponding easement shall be dedloated. The radius on the curbs at all street intersections Audubon Road shall be 30 feet. 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provlde the Clty Engineering Department with updated grading and drainage plans including storm sewer and ponding calculations for Phase Z and the overall development designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations to show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event and w111 discharge at the pre-development runoff rate. Permanent ponding areas shall meet or exceed the city's water quality standards. The pondlng areas shall be bullt to "NURP" standards. Oeslgn standards shall be submitted for a temporary retention pond for phase I shall be created on Lot 6 unt11 Phase IZ is developed. 4. The applicant shall provide the City, for review and approval, updated gradlng and dralnage plans including storm sewer and pondlng calculations for Phase I and the overall development. 40 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 5. If only Phase ! of the site is graded, erosion control fence shall be incorporated along the perimeter of the construction limits. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly perimeter of Phase I construction limits. Phase II construction will require the perimeter of the construction limits shall be Type III erosion control. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched, sod or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1993, except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. Areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood fiber blanket. As a part of the erosion control measures, the applicant shall be required to remove any materials (sediment) that enter into Bluff Creek. The watermain loop between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to the southerly property line of the development. 7. Deleted. 8. The northerly, easterly and southerly slopes of the Phase II retention ponds on Outlot A shall be reduced to a minimum of 4:1 for maintenance purposes. 9. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements. 10. The developer shall construct the utility and street Improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city approval. A 6 foot wtde concrete sidewalk/trail shall be tncluded along one side of Lake Drive West (Phase I and Phase II). The developer shall acquire utility construction permission/permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health. 11. The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR and Army Corps of Engineers, and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the approved staff report and shall be resubmitted to City staff for approval. The applicant shal! obtain permission/permit from the railroad authority for all grading activities within the railroad property. 12. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street construction plans. The street lights should be installed at 150 to 200 foot intervals. The street lights shall be designed consistent with existing lighting on Audubon Road. A 250-watt contemporary low-profile-rectilinear-rectangular style lighting fixture with pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high cortin steel pole. 13. The entire tract of land development (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 and Out[ors A, B, C and O), shall be assessed for the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement Project No. 91-17. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 14. The Developer shall be responsible for a percentage of the costs for traffic signals at Audubon and TH 5 based on traffic counts attributed to the overall development. 15. The applicant wlll be required to pay park dedication ($2,500.O0/acre) and trail fees ($833.00/acre) in the development contract. No development shall occur on Outlot A as it shall be preserved as open space. 16. The recreation trail shall be located along the north side of Lake Drive West. The tra11 shall be a 6' wlde concrete walk along Lake Drive West and 8' wide bituminous trall along the sewer easement and stubbing to the railroad underpass in Outlot A. The reoreatlon trall shall also loop from Outlot A along the southern property line up along Audubon Road and to tle into Lake Drlve West. Thls trail (see exhlblt for tra11 route) shall have bituminous surface and be 8' in width. 17. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the storm sewers or retention ponds until both phases of the development are "built out". 18. The trail system shall loop, using the utility easement along to the storm water retention pond. 19. Temporary improvements in Phase I are limited to 3 years. At that point final street, utility and drainage improvements must be installed. Surety shall be provlded to ensure tlmely completion of these improvements. 20. A temporary ponding easement should be conveyed to the City for the interim ponding basin proposed over Outlot C. The temporary ponding easement shall be maintained until the permanent ponding basin is constructed with Phase ZI and aocepted by the City. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of Lake Drive West to the westerly lot 11ne of Lot 1, Block 2. A temporary street easement for the cul-de-sac shall be dedicated to the City until the second phase street improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. 22. The applicant should be aware that City Council is considering approval of the final plat at this time, however, final revlew and approval of the construction plans and specifications may or may not require additional modifications to easements or road right-of-way on the final plat. Staff is recommending that the City Council grant staff the ability to administratively approve any modifications necessary in conjunction with the review and approval of the plans and speoifications. 23. The applicant shall provlde the City, for revlew and approval, updated grading and drainage plans including storm sewer and pondtng calculations for Phase I and the overall development. All voted tn favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 ZONING ORDXNANCE AHENDHENT TO NIEND CITY CODE, SECTION 18-37. EXEHPTIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS, FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to take a quick posttlon on this before we have much discussion. Councilman Mason: Can we quote the City Hanager? Mayor Chmiel: As I would quote the City Manager's comment, I would suggest that this be dropped. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's not quottng. Mayor Chmiel: Well I didn't want to say that because I used to work for a utility company. Councilman Senn: And they might think someth/ng's coming to Chanhassen, right? Councilman Wing: I would like to second that. Councilman Senn: Now does that mean then that we don't do this? Mayor Chmiel: That's right. End of discussion. If hearing none, I'll call the question. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we have a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I made the motton. Hayor Chmiel .oved, Councilman Wtng seconded to deny Zontn; Ordinance Aaendeent to amend the City Code, Section 18-37, Exemptions Concerning Subdivisions. voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDflENT TO M~:J40 SECTION 20-1023. HEIGHT OF F(NC[$; ~ND SECTION 20-1019. LOCATION OF FENCES. FIRST READ/NG. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Fences are common structures in this city. The fence ordinance, as it stands right now does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. There is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. Many tlmes when we locate fences wlthin a sight triangle, we create bltnd intersections and this is what this ordinance is.going to try to accomplish. As far as slde yards and rear yards, the ordinance stays as is. As far as front yards, we're requesting that the height not .exceed 3 feet tf it's a solid fence and 4 feet with mesh fences. With corner lots we're requesting that withln the sight triangle the height of the fence not exceed 3 feet in height if opaque and 4 if solid. With side yards, the 6 1/2 feet remalns. And again, there's another section tn the ordinance that does not address fences within wetlands. We are recommending that no fences be permitted belo~ the ordinary high water mark of a wetland. With that we're recommending approval of the ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. You know I look at these 6 1/2 foot fences, I think we're either building a substation fence to keep people out so they don't 43 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 get hurt, or we're creating a stockade. Just my oun opinion. But 6 1/2 feet, anything at 6 1/2 feet must receive a conditional use permit, as it's indicated. Councilman Senn: Don, could I help you out? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Senn: Could I help you out on that? I have a real problem with that representation, and everything I see here is that representation. Ordinances like this should be a guideline, not necessarily just a hard set of, you know hard and set bunch of rules. I can think of a lot of nice front yard situations, even where people maybe have 10 feet on a cul-de-sac tf they're lucky, that would look beautiful with a 6 1/2 wrought 1ton fence wlth brlck columns and we're saylng gee, you shouldn't do that. Or you can't do that. Fencing isn't all just stockades and solid. I mean there's a lot of other types of fenclng that are open, and I'd really like to see us visualize it in that sense and look at this as a set of guidelines rather than a set of absolutes whlch slmply says all 6 1/2 foot fenolng is bad. Mayor Chmiel: Let me clarify that Just to add more. I don't like fences. Amen. Councilman Senn: Well, some of us who want to adhere to city ordinances that have, let's see what do I have now. Two dogs, two cats. Mayor Chmlel: I'd adhere to the city ordinance because I wouldn't put one up. Councilman Senn: No, no, but you know you've got to confine your animals. Councilman Wing: ...Carver Beach that are really awkward that in the low 50's, do what you want to do. Councilman Mason: Now wait. Now wait just a minute. Councilwoman Oockendorf: I have a question about that too. Whether we do have any leeway in determining what fences can be made of. That's more my concern than where they're located. Mayor Chmiel: Well, we're concerned with intersections so they're not blocking SO access can occur. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh granted. I'm saying in addition, can we also look at building material because I guess I agree. I don't like fences. Councilman Senn: If again, if the type of fence could be constructed whlch wouldn't adversely effect it. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmln, tell us where this oame from. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We've had several applications. When people appIy for fencing and we don't have anyway of telllng them no, you can't put the fence for instance in a sight line area, or I believe there was a house that burned down 44 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 on Lake Riley. They came in and they requested a 6 1/2 foot fence surrounding the property just to keep anyone from coming in to their property. Mayor Chmlel: 6 1/2 foot of chainllnk fence with ! foot of barb. Sharmin Al-Jarl: It was a solid fence that they requested. Paul Krauss: We do prohibit barbwire fences. That's the only thing. But you know, there's really two issues. The issue that concerns us most is the sight triangle. The second one that neighbors have asked us to intervene on and we've kind of punted usually is when your neighbor throws a 6 foot high fence around hls or her front yard, your yard is boxed in. Rnd if you drlve down the street, al1 these 30 foot front yards that we've set aside to turn into 6 foot boulevards and a fence. Now, we weren't so much trying to get at the aesthetic issue with this ordinance. More the safety issue but some communities want to address the, ! mean a lot of communities just prohibit fences in the front yard unless it's split rail or something like that. Totally. We haven't gotten real hung up on the aesthetics of it but it clearly matters to a lot of folks who call us. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, based on my years of experience on the Council, the time to really get orgainzed if you don't like this, is to fight it on the second to sway the Council. The first reading, I think this ls needed and necessary and a good idea and I'll move the first reading. Then if you want to fight it, hit it on the second meeting but..have your eggs in order. :' · . Mayor Chmiel: Sounds like a winner. Is there a second?- Councilman Mason: He's a man with'emotion today..I.'ll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Can I offer a friendly amendment, just to see if it works? If you eliminate the reference to the height'in the front yard. Councilman Wing: They've restricted it to 3 1/2 feet. I don't see it here. No, I think that's the whole issue is the front.yard. Councilman Senn: At least with sight angles as it relates to intersections. Councilman Wing: This is trying to accomplish that. No. I tell you, you research that issue and if necessary on the second reading I'll be happy to take that as a second. Because it's worth looking into since then because the way it stands, I happen to like the restrictions. You're saying, it might be higher in some cases? Councilman Senn: Well Oick, what I'm saying is I don't tike solid fences in the front yard anymore than what he's talking about but again, that's not the same situation for everybody. I mean front yards, you can have a front yard like I do which borders on nothing but back yards. I don't have any front yards bordering me. And at the same. time, I've got 20 feet on the cul-de-sac and that's it. Now if a person wants to put up a fence in his front yard in a. situation like that, where most of his yard, by the way is the front yard, not 45 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 the back yard. And it's open fencing. See that's where I come around to and it's something that makes sense like open fencing. Councilman Wing: We have a committee that I sit on that meets at 7:00 before Council meetings that would be happy to hear your request for that variance. Councilman Senn: Is this the sitting on the fence committee now, like the SWMP committee? Sharmin Al-Jaff: Would you like us to survey cities? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you do that. I think that would be a good idea, just to see what other cities are basically doing. Councilman Senn: That doesn't mean they're right necessarily. Councilman Wing: ...yeah, in your case we do have a real good procedure for that and I would never hesitate to give you that fence on a variance, if that was the case. I happen to 11ke thls ordinance. I'll stand on the ordinance then. Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20-1019, Location of Fences as presented by staff. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACOUISITION OF PRQP_ERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUMfl DRIV(, CARVER BEACH, FOR STORHWATER PURPOSES. Public Present= Name Address Russell Norum Margaret Rossing 3264 North Shore Drive, Wayzata 130 Cygnet Place, Long Lake Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. You'll recall this came up at your last meeting. This was. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. I'd like to make a motion that we acquiesce that property. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. Mayor Chmiel: Because I think it's going to be in the best interest of the city. Rather than going through a lot of discertation, I think we can flnd the money, as was indicated, and I think we would eliminate a lot of glven problems and concerns. And also lmprove the quality of that flow going into Lotus Lake. Councilman Hason: I'd like to second that. Just from personal experience, someone builds a house down there, I can see the lawsuits coming down the road. Wlth the fact, well I second the motlon. City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion. Councilman Senn: Don, if [ could. Go ahead. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seeing that Mr. Terry has withdrawn and that it would be very difficult for the seller to find another buyer and we don't want to see it coming back to bite us when a homeowner gets flooded. And seeing that it's a relatively good deal and we do have the funds for it, there's no reason why we shouldn't. Particularly when the seller has agreed to pay a11 the back taxes on it. Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be part of the condition as what we have in the recommendations. Mark. Councilman Senn: Maybe knowledge is danger but ! guess I'd still like an answer to the question that [ raised at the last meeting which is, if we are going to spend $20,000.00 on this. Okay? (a), how many of the six storm sewers are we going to get out of Lotus Lake next year? Or at least treat before they get there. And (b), of the ones whtch we aren't, how many more would the money going to this take care of next year? Mayor Chmlel: Paul. Paul Krauss: Hark, in trying to get an answer to your question. Sharmin and I and Oave Hempel from engineering went out to the site again with Ismael Martinez from Bonestroo. Short of paying them $t,500.00 to design the thing right now where I can come back and tell you exactly what we're going to do. We had some pretty good ideas. Oh, Mtke Wegler from our street department went out there too because Mike's the guy who we would actually have do the work probably in house so we could save on contracting expenses. We came up in the short term ...with some pretty good ideas for how this property will benefit our program. In the long run there's quite a bit more opportunity but that's contingent upon when the streets, or if the streets in there I should say, are ever upgraded. It gives us a lot more flexibility. To do what we need to do, what we already programmed to do on this wetland, we would probably have to buy easements anyway. I don't know what they would cost but there'd be some percentage of the total lot cost. When we spoke about this the last time, there was an intervening buyer who since dropped out, whtch is why I told you that it could be as high as $30,000.00 which makes you think twice. Relative to whether or not we could do other things, or what we are proposing to do, we had programmed this year two projects for two dratnage points on Lotus Lake. They're not necessarily the btggest ones, but they're ones that we could tackle to get the program going and have a big bang for the buck. They were very cost efficient. Cost effective. This property Is part of one of those deals and will enhance our effectiveness on it. Right now we're working. Councilman Senn: Well wait. Let me stop you right there. But last week you said it would enhance the effectiveness but was not necessary to accomplish the project. Paul Krauss: And that was basically true. That it gives us more flexibility [n how to do the project. If we didn't do it, if we didn't own it, we could probably do the project anyway but you'd have to buy easements and we may have 47 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 to pay some damages to this property because we're raising the flood elevation. So I don't know if that turns out to be a wash or not. I have no way of knowlng. And I wasn't trylng to be cute when I was thinking, because you posed the questlon if I had $30,000.00 to spend, would I spend it here or someplace else. Councilman Senn: No. What I was asklng was, if we had $30,000.00 to spend, how many of the four remaining storm sewers can we treat or stop from running into Lotus Lake? Paul Krauss: Well lt's hard to know because we've only studied three of the major discharges right now. One of the major discharges we figured would cost well over $100,000.00 to flx, and that's the one that comes down by the beachlot. I forget who's beachlot it is but it's where the creek comes down off of Frontier Tra11. Now we're working wlth a developer of a tract in there and we think we may be able to fix that $100,000.00 not with something more in the order of $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 in conjunction with any development. So we're taking these things as we can. Thls ls new dollars. These are not dollards that were going to be made available to the SWHP program necessarily. So they're not diminishing our abiltty to tackle those other projects. Councilman Senn: No, but just as we would make them for purchase of this property, we could make them available to do that, correct? paul Krauss: Or to buy a new fire truck. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilman Wing: But if you've got, then I want to have a couple drainage areas out at Minnewashta fixed up and looked at too. Councilman Senn: No, I'm just asking the question. Mayor Chmiel: That's when the dollars come back into that fund. That's one of the things that they can look at. Councilman Wing: Is SWHP running out of money? Mayor Chmlel: They're out. Councilman Wing: Okay. Paul Krauss: If we fund the projects that we wanted to do in '93, by December 31st we should be broke. Well, I mean next year we get another $135,000.00 but we're spending more in the order of $200,000.00. One of the thtngs I broached at the goal sesslon was ue have a couple of other sources of funding that we're going to explore, so we're going to be bringing that up shortly too. The long and the short of It though Councilman Senn is that at $20,000.00, whlch ue thought it was a pretty good deal and would make our efforts to do what we want to do there a little more efficient and resolve a lot of problems that could otherwise occur. So it seem to be a reasonable thlng to do. Councilman Senn: So can we put a cap on it at 20 grand? 48 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Paul Krauss: Well, the purchase price was at $20,000.00 and prorate the taxes. $o it's a matter of when it closes. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just had a little discussion on the side. Okay. Any other discussions? If not ['11 call the question to acquiesce the property for the Surface Water Management. We have a motion and a second. Resolution ~93-08: Councilwoman Oockendorf moved, Councilman Pla~on s~conded to adopt a 1993 budget amendment to purchase the property at 6921 Yuma Drive for the Surface #ater 14anagement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: Don, could ue, just out of curiousity. ! mean is it possible for us to do something like give some real firm direction on this as far as a price goes so this thing doesn't? Or if it does, it comes back to us ! guess is what I'm saying. Mayor Chmiel: Well, it's a negotiable thing they can do. I'm not saying. Councilman Senn: Well it seems to me we've just written a blank check. Paul Krauss: No. If you wanted to make it, was it $20,000.00. Tell me if I'm wrong... Russell Norum: Yeah, it was $20,000.00 but there was nominal damages asked by this other buyer of $200.00 that he had to pay the City of Chanhassen to collect the names from around the area that he had to give for notice of variance. And he's asked Marge in a letter today that he wants that $200.00 back. Merge would prefer to get $20,200.00. Councilman Senn: So the deal is $20,000.00 plus proration of taxes plus this $200.00. Russell Norum: And proration of taxes. Councilman Senn: We've got it on tape. It's a done deal. Russell Norum: We need to know that. We'd update that Certificate. Would we be dealing with the City Attorney? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Russell Norum: So he would lnstruct us then to update that Abstract and deliver that to you? Roger Knutson: Yeah, I'll just give you my card. You can just, the Rbstract or the CT, whatever it is. Marge Rossing: I asked for a timeframe. When will this be done? Roger Knutson: As soon as we can check title. We'll draft the purchase agreement tomorrow and give it to you. 49 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Just to making sure that everything is where it should be and all the back taxes are taken care of. Once that's consummated. Roger Knutson: Couple weeks, whatever. Marge Rossing: The back taxes will come out of the proceeds. Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Marge Rossing: Because I don't have that kind of money. Mayor Chmiel: Neither do I. RECEIVE EEASIBTLITY REPORT O_N .L~KE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 92-12. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. At the July 13, 1992 City Council meeting, following a petition from two property owners, authorization was glven to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Trunk Highway 41 and County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard. I have included in your packet the copy of that completed study along with some of the other of the previous staff report back in July which wi11 provide some background information. As presented in the staff report, it ls not lntended to build this entire roadway segment at this time. However, constructing a segment of the westerly portlon wlll allow development of these two petitioning properties. On the other hand, officially mapping the entire segment at this time wtli be a benefit from a clty standpoint allowlng us to proactively plan for thls future road improvement. An informal neighborhood meeting is be£ng scheduled for Wednesday, February 17, 1993 here at City Hall. Mayor Chmiel: What time? Charles Folch: At 7:00 p.m. in the courtyard conference room, for which ali effected property owners will be invited. We also invite any of the Council members who so choose to attend. At this time the only aotion needed for tonight would be for the Councll to formally receive the feasibility study and call for a public hearlng at your regular meetlng on Monday, March 8, 1993 at which time our project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of the feasibility study. Councilman Wing: With that definition on record I would so move to call for public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Hearing none, I'll call the question. Resolution ~93-09: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to receive the feasibility study on Lake Lucy Road Street and Utility Extensions, project No. 92-12, and call a public hearing for March 8. 19~3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 50 City Counc£l Meeting - February 8, 1993 APP0TNTI'ENT TO SEN~OR COHflISS[O(~. Sharmin Al-Jaff: On January 22, 1993 we interviewed four applicants for the Senior Commission. We currently have 3 vacancies. One of the commissioners had selected to run again for the position. The votes in the staff report reflect the votes of the Senior Commission with Commissioner Selda Hetnletn in first position. Albtn Olson, second position. There was a tie between Hr. Hark Littftn and Mr. Dale Gevtng. Ho~ever, we would like to remind the Council that at the last meeting you did appoint Hr. Dale GevIng to the Southwest Hetro Transit Commission. -- Councilman Wing: Based on their recommendations and your knowledge, I would just recommend appointments of number l, 2 and 3. Selda, Albtn and Hr. Ltttftn. Mayor Chmiel: I'd second that. And ask Mr. Dimler to stand tn the wings if someone else, and I would like to see he appointed then to that next vacancy... Councilman Wing moved, Hayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Selda Heinletn, Albin 01son and Hark L[ttfin to the Senior Commission. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. . . 1993 PUBLIC WORKS EQU~PII~NT ~IUI$ITIOM UPDATE. CHA. RLES FOLC~. Charles Folch: The staff report that you've received tonight for this Item contains more or less detailed explanation of the Public Works vehicle and equipment acquisition as was contained tn Fund No. 209 of the approved 1993 budget. As the Manager has addressed tn his comments, City Council approval to prepare specs and actually take bids for these vehtcles and equipment is not necessary. However, the approval of award to the low bidder does require your approval and a lot of staff time will be expended in preparing the specifications and going through the bidding process. Therefore, tf the Council should have any questions or concerns with these items, staff would wish to hear from you at this time and hope to address those accordingly. Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Any discussion In relationship to the public works equipment and acquisition update? This has all been submitted to the budget for 1993 and it comes out of the Fund 209 for the equipment replacement. One of the questions I guess I only had Charles ts, I'd like to see the total amount of mlleage that we have on vehicles when we do make replacements. It makes it a llttle easter for me to think about tt as to what we're going to do. A dump trunk with plowing that we're looking for $70,000. I know it's a '76 and it's probably had two motors in it and that particular vehicle ts getting a little rusted out. The body and so there's not much you can-do to that but I think if we had the mileage, that would also be an tnd£cator"back to us'as to what should be done. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Well just the standard, what's wrong with the old stuff? Why can't we fix it? Mayor Chmiel: It can be done if you're behind it pushing. Councilman Senn: Remember that question the next time a fire truck. 5! City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: With that I'd move approval of the 1993 Public Works Equipment Acquisition Update PWO16. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the 1993 Public Works Equipment Acquisition Update, PWOI& as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: The last item is item 13. This is that resolution for easement for between 8oylan on Minnewashta and it's coming past my hands right now. Don Ashworth: The urgency on this is we've been trying to meet with 8oylan's and to reach agreement for the last 3, 4, 6 months. We haven't been able to do it. I'm sure we can get in and finish the construction this spring. We need authorization to be able to literally condemn the property so we can get the road through there. Councilman Wlng: You mean you're havlng to go that far? Condemnation? Don Ashworth: I bet we've met with him 15 times out on the site. This is the one that has the dead trees. Councilwoman Oockendorf: He's just obstinent or what's the problem? Don Ashworth: Yeah, that's a good word. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everybody understand what the proposal is? Councilman Senn: No. Councilwoman Oockendorf: You had 3 seconds to review it. Mayor Chmiel: Check the back page. Turn it around. It's ali there. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Wing: Don, not to draw this out. This has got a real history. You can't appreciate what's occurred out there. Charles, before we get off Mlnnewashta Parkway, I don't know how many calls you've had but the one call tonight on my answering machine specifically said, if you don't do something they're going to start brlnging in what the problem ls and laylng it out here 11ke they dld wlth the goose stuff. Whatever they put down out there it is just an unbearable goo to the polnt where we don't want to take the flre trucks out because it takes us an hour to wash them and that's only going from the station to Hlghway ?. My car can be clean, I can go from TH 7 to the fire statlon and it is absolutely caked solid with this clay mucky. Is there any chance that we can rock that for those people? I know it costs money. Councilman Mason: And dog gone it, I brought that point up and we were assured by Mr. Engelhardt that that would not be happening. 52 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Charles Folch: Well what you have out there is a Class ¥ rock base, okay. It does have fines mixed in with it. It's got a varied gregation of materials in the mixture. What you have is, particularly when you have the spring thaw and you get the frost coming out, those fines will pu~p up to the top surface and when it's wet, it's going to appear to have an appearance, you're going to have a soft surface on top~ :What we can do about that, hope'for colder'weather for another month or so. Councilman Wing: No, because it's going to, the spring thaw hasn't hit yet. We're talking about rain, snow. Anything that dampens the surface. My concern. is that when the spring hits, they're going to be busting down these doors. I mean they are really mad. I mean they're furious what's happening and I keep telling them, my question is, can we do anything to coarse up that top layer to keep that fine stuff from coming up and being such a mess or are we stuck with that? I guess that's the question. We're stuck with it? Councilman Mason: You know, I really think Mr. Engelhardt needs to be called on the carpet for that one because I can go through the Minutes, because I specifically asked that question. Because somebody brought that up. What's my car going to look like when spring thaw comes and it was ali, it will be no problem. It will be no problem and I specifically questioned him on that and he reiterated that, and that gripes me and we're given. I'm not saying it's your fault. It's not your bail here but that's not the message I don't think we should be giving. If it can't be done, it can't be done. So be it. Mayor Chmiel: I've already had some discussions with Charles today with the calls that I've also received on Minnewashta Parkway, and he assures me that they can address by hopefully more rock. Charles Folch: Well and uhat we'll continue to do, particularly as we get into the spring thaw, is we'll have a motor grater out there constantly blading the top surface and respreading it and trying to reroil it. Councilman Wing: That won't solve the issue of what we've got. Charles, my only suggest is maybe if another letter should go out to be really upfront about that it's a Grade ¥ and these particals are coming up and it's going to be a mess and it's sort of the way it's going to be. I think we've just got to absolutely upfront and then there's no more to be talked about. Right now they really, my call tonight was, would you please bring up, should we have rough rock on there just to keep us off that messy roadway. And I said I would just bring it up and I realize it's probably a cost factor but if another letter goes out, be really upfront about the problem and it's going to exist. Excuse me, I interrupted your motion. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: ...Can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 53 City Council Heeting - February 8, Resolution 41~)3-10:. Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to approve the resolution for an easement on the Boylan property on Hinnewashta Parkway. Al! voted in favor and the mot/on carried unanimously. Councilman liason moved, Councilwoman Oockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. voted in favor and the morton carried, The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Hanager Prepared by Nann Opheim