Loading...
1991 01 28CHANHASSEN CZTY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETZNG 3ANUARY 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. C~NCILNEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmtel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Oimler, and Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss,.Charles Folch, and Sharmin Al-Jarl APPROVAL OF ArdENDA: Councilwoman Oimier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Mayor Chmiel wanted to add a Public Announcement, Councilwoman Bimier wanted to discuss a Council Workshop to establish goals for 199i, and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss performance standards in zoning and Highway 101. Ail voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. PUBLZC ANNOUNCEHENTS: PROCLAHATTON DESTGNATTNG NATT~AL G~J~LS AND ~N)HEN ZN ~(LRTS ~Y. Hayor Chmiel: This is a resolution whereby the Council will support, reading as such. Whereas, it is known that a girl learns determination, discipline and confidence when she learns to swim and shoot a basket, qualities that will help here in school and life; and Whereas, it is desireable to bring attention to the needs of females in sports; and Whereas, it is recognized that sports and fitness activities can benefit the lives of all girls and women, Be It Resolved that Thurday, February 7, 1991 be observed as National Girls & Women in Sports Day in the communities of Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, Victoria and School District #112. Do I have a motion? Councilwoman Dimler: I so move. Councilman Workman: Second. Resolut/on ~91-10: Counc/1,oman D/mler moved, Counc/lman ~orkman seconded to approve a Resolution Proclaim/rig Thursday, February 7, 1991 as Nationa! G/rls & Women /n Sports Day. Al! voted in favor and the mot/on carried. Mayor Chmiel: The second item that I have for public announcement is that we have received a donation from PMT, Incorporated in the amount of $500.00 for fire education and prevention. On behalf of the Council to PMT, Incorporated, thank you very much. (Note: This action represents acceptance of this gift.) CONSENT AGENOA: Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 a. Approve Low Bid from Collins Electric Company to Replace Lake Ann Light Pole which was destroyed by vandalism. b. Approve Certificates of Correction of Surveys Recorded with Carver County, Ted Kemna, Schoell and Madson. g. City Council Minutes dated January 14, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 2, 1991 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 10, 1991 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. C. REOUEST NNDOT TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTION OF AUXILIARY TURN LANES ON TH_lO1 AT PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND CHEYENNE TRAIL, PROJECT 91-6. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to just bring this up briefly and then as I mentioned, we can discuss it maybe at greater length. I think the engineering staff, Dave Hempel's been kind of following and working with this and that's great. I think we're only getting half the problem corrected on TH 101 by only installing turn lanes on our half side of the line. Eden Prairie being the other half. No turn lanes. It's definitely a sub-standard road as it traverses through our entire city. I know in the southern half we have bits and pieces that we're going to be working on. This half however is difficult and while we're putting, I think this time $35,000.00 into correcting part of the problem, I think we need or what initially brought my frustration on this was that every time I read a memo from staff regarding TH 101, I get the same paragraph about how the State of Minnesota doesn't want the road. They don't want to repair it. They don't want to do anything with it. We can hardly afford to take it over I would think. All of it or why should ue but the fact remains, it is the State's Highway and they're not, nonetheless following through with what I think should be minimal safety standards for turn lanes and passing lanes, etc. and I'll end it right there. We can discuss it a little bit later on how we can plan to call the question with the State. For once and for ail decide what's going to happen with this thing before. I mean we're going to have to lower this speed limit on this thing 30 mph and we're going to have problems but I think the City, along with Eden Prairie should call the question to find out what the State really plans to do because I think they're being negligent with this stretch of highway. So I'd move approval of our request for MnDot to consider construction of auxiliary lanes on TH 101 at Pleasant View Road and Cheyenne Trail. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to request HnDot to consider construction of auxiliary turn lanes on TH 101 at Pleasant View Road and Cheyenne Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 H. FIRE DEPARTHENT: 1) AMEND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BYLAWS. 2) AMEND FIRE DEPARTMENT BYLAWS. Councilwoman Oimler: It's the second portion that changes to the Fire Department Bylaws that I'm interested in. I noticed that Article ZI, Section D and that's on the second page I believe. Yeah. That we have, the Department shall be composed of no less than 20 and no more than 60 members except to provide for 3 additional members on probation. After doing some checking I found out that we currently have 40 fire department members and that 5 more are on line for approval. I think to jump to 60 at this point is a little bit much and I'd like to see us go step by step and amend as needed rather than give them blanket approval of 60 at this point. Mayor Chmiel: I guess one of my concerns that I have as well is the numbers of firemen that are available for each of those calls which would sort of dictate possibly having those numbers depending on how many work out of town during the day is another consideration. Dick, do you-have any thoughts on that as well? Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just add one other thing? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dimler: The reason I pulled this is because it does have budgetary implications whereas the first one doesn't and to go to 60 at thts ttme without knowing what that cost wlll be to our citlzens Ithtnk is excessive. And I think if we amend year by year as we need them, then we'll have a better control of what those budgetary numbers are. Councilman Workman: Does that mean that we're going to 60 members or does that indlcate where we would stop pertaining to our growth eventually? Councilwoman Oimler: Well it is, you know I asked that question too Tom and to say that we're golng to stop at 60 is not reasonable either. At some point they're going to, you know depending on our growth, we might go beyond 60 and to 11mlt them to 60 at thls point lsn't rlght either. So that's why I'm saylng I'd like to see us go year by year as we see what our growth is and what our needs are because really with thls approval, if they wanted to, they could go immediately to 60 and we would have no budgetary constraints on that at all or no say in lt. So that was my reason. It's not that we don't trust them but I also think the citizens of Chanhassen have entrusted us with budgetary items and that we should have a better hold of how it's being done. Don Ashworth: This is an area that I had a number of discussions with the firemen on. It ls thelr deslre not to have to come back on a yearly basls. Councilwoman 0imler is correct in terms of State Aid. That they potentially could exceed the 45 guideline that has been set for thls year and that's currently what's in the 1991 budget. I have again come to an agreement with the flre chief that they wlll not exceed that 45 and that any additional requests would be part of the 1992 budgetary process recogniz£ng that again Councilwoman Dimler ls correct in that they are prepared to put on the 5 additional officers now. And again, before they would look to any adjustments to that, they would City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 wait and persent the justification as a part of again the budgetary process. Again hypothetical].y they could violate that guideline but I really doubt that they would. Councilwoman Oimler: I doubt that they would too Don. It's just that I'd like to have a little. How about if ue make it 47? Give them 2 beyond what you know, rather than jumping to 60 right away. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to throw it open here to Council. Anybody have any feelings? Dick? Councilman Wing: I'd only bring up a little history from Pu61ic Safety and Mayor Tom Hamilton who addressed the issue some years ago and he asked, I think we were at 27 members at the time and they were concerned about the shortage and the Mayor at that time wanted to know what if there was only aZ. Would that not be adequate. He wanted to know where the number 40 came from and that number 40 itself was an arbitrary number. It seei, ed to have no justification, rhyme or reason to it per se so I guess to increase it, I'd like to know where the 40 came from. If the 40 is inadequate or would the number 30 or 20 be an adequate number. I mean I don't have that answer. It's just a suggestion I'm making so to go from 40 to 45 or 60, that assumes the 40 is an inadequate number and I don't have that information nor have I been presented that information to make that decision with. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom, do you have anything? Councilman Workman: Only to echo maybe Ursula's budgetary concerns down the road. Is this a leak? Is this a potential leak that we can budget for? What does each man cost us per year? Maybe we need to find that out. If each man costs us $2,000.00 or $5,000.00 a year, and they can add 15 more, that's a potential $30,000.00 over the previous year. Is that a budget buster? Don Ashuorth: The cost per firemen for retirement purposes is about $800.00- $900.00 per man. so if you're talking about increasing by the 5, we're about $4,500.00. Councilman Workman: Are you talking about hourly pay too? Mayor Chmiel: No. Don Ashuorth: No, that's solely the retirement portion. The pay is really on the number of calls. It becomes difficult to say exactly how many calls we'll have thls next year and ls that, one new flremen, will he make 50~ of the calls or all of them? I guess we could come up wlth some fairly good averages for you. Councilman Workman: Can we go by 1990 and average all the costs to find out exactly what? Don Ashuorth: I don't have those this evening but we could easily get those for yOU, yes. City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do is put the number at 45 and take this back to Public Safety and the Public Safety can discuss it and come up with some conclusions as to where the 60 would be and how that would be arrlved at or why it's being arrived at. Councilwoman Oimler: Or the amendment process really isn't that difficult to process that. You know I would think that they could come in here at any time and if they needed to amend lt, I'm sure Councll would open to that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we could because they were Bylaws. Councilwoman Dimler: So do you want it at 45 or 47? Councilman Workman: 45 would be a freeze. Mayor Chmiel: I think at 45 that we've got right now would probably be the place to put lt. Councilwoman Dimler: Because that's where we are at. Okay. Councilman Workman: Ursula, would you make a motion that would approve the Bylaws mlnus that or no? Wlth that. Mayor Chmiel: Put that referred back to Public Safety for discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing: We're approving the Bylaws, is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Approving the Bylaws. Councilwoman Oimler: Unless you have any other areas of the Bylaws that. That would be my only amendment unto Article II, Sectlon O that the Department shall be composed of no less than 20 and no more than 45 members except to provide for 3 additional members on probation. So we're changlng the number 60 to 45 on that and that would be the amendment to the Bylaws. Mayor Chmiel: I guess my only concern is that we do have enough personnel on hand to provide the services that we have to provide. Councilwoman Dimler: Exactly. But like I said, they have the amendment to come before the Council at any time to be amended. Councilman Workman: I seconded the motion. Cit? Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve to amend the Fire Relief Association Bylaws as presented and to amend the Fire Department Bylaws with the following amendment to Article II, Section D that the Department shall be composed of no less than 20 and no more than 45 members except to provide for 3 additional members on probation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I. ORDINANCE AHENDING CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 3 OF CITY CODE REGARDING THE FIRE CODE. Councilwoman Dimler: Item (i) also has to do with an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Article 3 of tile Chanhassen City Code concerning the Fire Code. Basically this is changing to the 1988 Fire Code. We're currently under the 1982. I agree with everything. I just want to make sure that there's an appeals process still in place. I understand the 1988 Code does have that but on Page 2, Section ? it says that the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting Section 9-46 in it's entirety and that is the section that deals with the appeals of an aggrieved person. After checking with Roger, the 1988 Code although it provides for appeals, it gives rio time line. After checking with Roger, our City Attorney, he feels that we are advised to have a time line so that I would amend this particular' proposal to take out Section 7. And that's, is it Public Safety that would have to look at it and put a time line in? Don Ashworth: As an alternative, the existing ordinance establishes the time line that Councilwoman Oimler is referring to. In some ways it is a repeat of State law except again for that time schedule. By simply reinserting that existing section, you would be accomplishing what you're looking to and not have to take and bring it back again. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, so we delete Section 7. To delete Section ~-4~ is what you're saying. Don Ashuorth: Exactly. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, makes a lot of sense. Okay we'll just delete it. Councilman Wing: Don, why was that deleted? Do you know the reasoning or the purpose? Don Ashuorth: Yes. In talking with the Fire Marshall, since most of the appeal process is duplicated in State law, from staff's standpoint we didn't see where that was important. Councilwoman Dimler ls absolutely correct in that there probabl? would be a benefit in havlng a speciflc amount of tlme and we hadn't considered that in our lnltlal analysis. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'd agree with that part of it. By adopting of course the nlost recent glves the most stringent requirements and it puts the City in protection. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Any more discussion? Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion on it. City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: I would move item 2(1) with the amendment to delete Section 7. Councilman Workman: Would it be referred to Public Safety? Councilwoman Oimler: I guess it doesn't need to be. Roger Knutson: Thls ls the flrst readlng. It wlll come back for the second reading. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. This is the first readlng. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the-Ordinance amending Chapter 9, Article 3 of the City Code regarding the Fire Code with the amendment to delete Section 7 and refer it back to the Publlc Safety Commission for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF SURFACE; DRAINAGE AND UT~LI:TY EASEHENT, EHISS:I[:ON CONTROL TESTING STAT;]::ON, COCATED NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, POPE ASSOCT;ATE;S. Public Present: Name Addres8 Allan Klugman Jerry Perkins Waiter Rockenstein Dennls Palmer Stanley Krzynicki Martha Nevanen Tom Kotsonas Jean Mason, Mason Homes Herb Mason Ned V. Rukavlna Oonald Hagen Gene Borg Eden Prair£e St. Paul Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis 9555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 9555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 9555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 8001 Cheyenne 14201 Excelsior Blvd. 27010 Edgewood Road, Shorewood 5275 Edina Industrial 33-10th Ave So #375, Hopkins 6897 Chaparral Lane Charles Folch: As part of the replat of the Chan Haven Plaza and site plan proposal whlch you'll be reviewing tonlght, the applicant had requested that the City release an existing drainage easement which is overlying the northwest portlon of the Chan Haven plat. In dolng a 11ttle research on this particular easement, it was found that basically the intent was for the purpose of draining a portion of the McDonald's slte of that direction and it was strlctly for the benefit of the McDonald's property. And it was a temporary easement to exist untll such tlme that the Clty found it to no longer be necessary. Glven the proposed site plan for the emission control testing statton and the grading plan that's associated with lt, it is apparent that the dralnage from the McDonald's site, what's limited coming off that site, wlll be controlled down the shared City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 property line between the two parcels and there's no longer a need for the large easement area that is shown in the attached figure. So therefore it is my recommendation that the City release that drainage easement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this vacation? As I had mentioned before, this is a public hearing. If anyone wishes at this particular time, please come up to the podium. State you;' name and your address. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, can we decide this along with item number 5 since it pertains to that? Because it is conditional upon what we do. Mayor Chmiel: No, this is a public hearing. We'd have to. Councilwoman Dimler: But we've had the public hearing and do we have to make a declsion now or can we declde wlth 1rem 5? Mayor Chmiel: I think we could probably decide that with item 5. Is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to amend the agenda to discuss item 3 along with item 5 regarding the emission control testing station. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: We will then at that particular time close that public hearing as well. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Mark Foster Eric Rivkin Jay Johnson Richard Oonnay Peter Moe Craig Mertz Steve Emmings Jlm Curry 8020 Acorn Lane 1695 Stellar Court 7496 Saratoga 8109 Dakota Lane 7141 Minnewashta Parkway 1100 First Bank Place West, Minneapolis 55402 6350 Greenbriar, Excelsior 4817 Upper Terrace, Edlna City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Name Address Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Stun Rud John & Bani Hennessy Linda Carlson Pat Cropsey Charles & Susan Markert Jim Hastreiter Charles & Irene Song Peter Beck Greg Sorensen Betty VanOeVeire Roger & Gayleen Schmidt Paul Knapper Dennis Oirium Tim Keane Mary Harrlngton Jeff Oberman 935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata 2030 Renaissance Court 7305 Galpin Blvd. G950 Galpin Road 9100 W. Bloomington Ferry, Bloomington 74G1 Hazeltine Blvd. 14375 Valley View Road 7200 Galpin Lake Road 7900 Xerxes Ave So., Bloomington 8121 Maplewood Terrace 4980 Co. Rd. IOE, Chaska 8301 Galpln Blvd. Watertown 15241 Creekslde Court, Eden Prairie 7900 Xerxes Ave So, Bloomington Tlmberwood 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. Paul Krauss: On January 7th, the City Council officially recelved the Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission. Although there appeared to be a good level of comfort wlth most of the plan, several lssues were ralsed and staff was given some time through a continuance to respond to those issues. The current staff report provides responses to these questions and I'll touch on those briefly. Staff is continuing to recommend that the City Council adopt the plan wlth revisions if requlred so that it can be forwarded to the Metro Councll as soon as possible. This morning, I should make you aware that I became aware of a serles of phone calls that apparently were made to a number of residents in the area. I was not privy to that but as I understand it, there was some indication that mass changes were belng anticipated in the Comprhensive Plan. Before starting on the land use plan tonight, I wanted to indicate that is not the case. That the plan ls the same one that was reviewed by the Clty Councll on January 7th. In fact it's the same one that was reviewed and approved by the Plannlng Commission in October. Wlth that I'd like to touch on some of those issues that were raised. Jerome Carlson raised two issues. One about a buffer yard that apparently was omltted from a plan around his extsting home down on Galpin. We found that in fact it was included. The buffer yard concept was illustrated on the blue 11ne prints. That map hadn't been corrected. We've since corrected that. Mr. Carlson's second concern was towards the trail designation on the Lake Ann interceptor. There is language that's been provided in the staff report that we think, if it's incorporated into the plan will correct any misunderstandings about that. Mr. Carlson is correct. The City doesn't have the right to build a trail down the Lake Ann Interceptor. It's an easement we'd have to obtain in the future and there may in fact be alternate locations for that that we would explore whenever development occurs. The second issue concerns Lake Lucy status. There was a question regarding it's designation and future use of the lake by the few boats that use it. We wanted to clarify that no changes had been proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. The lake is guided or designated as a recreational lake by the ONR. No changes had been anticipated in that and we have rewritten the section that was questioned in the Comprehensive Plan to resolve that matter once and for all. another issue pertained to a potential neighborhood commercial center at Galpin, City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 northeast corner of Galpln and TH 5. The property owner continues to request the ne£ghborhood commercial designation at this spot be reinstituted in the plan. The plan currently recommends mid-density residential but an earller draft of the plan, in fact well over a year ago at this polnt. The original one Z belleve, dld show that as neighborhood commercial and it was slnce eliminated by the Plannlng Commission. Staff belleves that there's some merit to both sides of thls lssue but is also concerned with changing the plan substantively at thls late date. We did present the pros and cons of that issue and the background of it in your staff report. Basically thls is one that requlres the City Council to make ~ determination on. The Planning Commission had determined that it should be medlum denslty residential. I belleve it dates back to meetings last summer. Neighborhood meetings that were held and staff reatly doesn't have a strong recommendation about changlng that. Agaln, we are a little concerned about changing courses in midstream. The Timberuood area, as you're aware, has been one of the prlme focuses of much of the Plannlng Commission's attentiol]. As noted earlier, no changes are being proposed in the low denslty residential, mlddle school slte designations around Tlmberuood. However, the Clty Council dld request a discussion of how the City could define what, if any type of non-residential uses may be acceptable in the future. The question has often been asked if the City would ever consider a very hlgh quallty offlce campus or simllar type of development there and in fact it may offer some benefits to the residents that a high intensity single family development mlght not. In Plannlng Commission discussions on that 1rem, there was always a general conclusion that if somebody actually ever did make such a recommendation, that it should be brought back to the Clty Councll for examination. You could always decide that you didn't want to go that way but that it at least warranted an alrlng. To respond to thls, as a result of this request in several discussions with the City Councll, a possible change with planned text has been drafted for consideration. We want to stress that the Plan itself is not being proposed for any changes. It would continue to have that low density designation. The text changes outllne some very llmited circumstances where the City may, and I would underline may conslder non- residential development on that slte. And those guidelines that are established require a quality of development that is much higher than what we normally find in our IOP district. The guidelines establish that thls would have to be primarily office or a corporate campus, probably somewhat similiar to what Amerlcan Express ls bulldlng in Chaska. That architecturally would have to have a high quallty of design, mostly brlck and glass. That there would be severe 11mlts on any klnd of warehousing or manufacturing. Densities of development in this area would be anticipated to be lower than what we allou elsewhere and that preservation of the mlddle school slte, creeks in the area and tree cover, would be required .... to be handled as a PUD whlch glves the City the most control over anythlng that mlght happen. Staff belleves that by keeplng the land use plan designation of low density residential with the school slte and with the posslble text change, the Clty holds all the cards. You're st111 in the position of having a plan that says low density residential and somebody really has to come to you and make the case ina publlc hearlng, publlc atmosphere with neighborhood involvement. Again we feel that the ldea has some merlt and we've wrltten J.t wlth that in mlnd but we want to take care that the surrounding neighborhood is assured that their interests are being protected and agaln that the plan designation has not changed. Last week we recelved a letter from Don Halla referencing development of his property down off of TH 101 and Pioneer. He's requesting that thls be incorporated 1nrc the current MUSA 11ne 10 City Council Meeting - January request. Staff is very concerned with this proposal and believes it's quite inconsistent with everything that we've developed up to this date. There's no way that we know of that we can actually serve that area. It's quite a ways from any utilities that we would be extending and it represents a real substantial change in where we would anticipate development occurring and when we would anticipate it occurring. We're therefore recommending that no change be undertaken in that area. Next issue, I believe the last issue is an attorney for Lakeview Hills, which is the apartment complex by Lake R£1ey, raised concerns with the designation, in a letter, of an area of their property as park. Upon exploration of this, this was quite intentional by the Planning Commission. This site is being divided. Being spilt by Hwy 212 corridor. ~s a result, it will strand an area that is currently zoned R-12 on the other side of the highway from the apartment site and the only means of access that we can provide into that area is through a single family neighborhood. We believe the park designation is consistent with the fact that this is a very heavily forested area. Quite beautiful overlooking Rice Harsh Lake and in the recreation plan, the park board agreed that this would be an ideal natural park site. However, we did believe that the attorney had some merit in his argument that simply by designating land as park in a plan doesn't automatically mean it becomes park. We obviously have an obligation to buy it and if we're not in a position to do that, to let the property get some valid use of their property. I note that this same situation occurs on Lake Susan and Bandimere Park as well where there's some significant expansions. What we've done is we've recommended that the Plan be revised somewhat to show underlying residential uses on these properties and basically kind of make an overlay district of the park. Thereby when somebody wants to develop the property, if we decline to acquire it, they would have the rights to develop to that underlying use and we think that clears that up. I think that about sums up the issues that we were asked to respond to. There's several others that are in the staff report that I didn't feel warranted any action but we described what we were doing with them. With that, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the plan for forwarding to the Hetro Council. The recommendation in the staff report provides a list of items which hopefully will direct or help direct you if a motion is to be made. It touches on all the items that were raised. Thank you. Hayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. I'm going to open this up but hopefully I'm only going to address new issues. Those who have already spoken and addressed their concerns previously, we are well aware as to what has taken place and also the concerns. We reviewed the staff's decision and I basically agree with the conclusions that have been reached. I would like to also limit the time period for each individual to have 5 minutes and no more because we've discussed this. We've hashed it. We've rehashed it. We've looked at it with fine kit gloves and as I mentioned before, I think the Planning Commission has done an excellent job in summarizing and reaching a conclusion and finally putting it into the Comp Plan. So with that, anyone who has any new issues, please come forward and indicate your concern. Craig Hertz: Craig Mertz representing the owners of the Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. The planner's recommendation as I understand it and I want to clarify one point and that is he's recommending that the overlay for the residential use actually be a low density residential use rather than the high density residential use that's on the property and we view that as significant change. This property has been indicated since 1963 on both township ii City Council MeetiF~g -- January 28, 1991 proceedings and City Council proceedings as a high density residential development and we protest any attempt to classify this property as parkland without taking any steps to acquire the property. To change the designation of this property to low density residential at the eleventh house after you've been through thls entlre planning process strlkes me as highly questionable. In fact it appears as an attempt to dampen the value of this property prior to it's acquisition by the municipality. I spoke to the owners thls afternoon and they wanted me to tell tile Council that if we lose this high denslty designation on the property, we wlll take steps to challenge the Council's determination on that. Our plea to the Council ls that you maintain the status quo. We can live wlth something slmllar to what Paul ls suggesting, namely show the property as park in the recreational element to tile plan but we would want the property to continue to be shown as hlgh denslty residential land use area so we slmply ask that the Council maintain the status quo rather than take a 180 degree turn after 27 years of history on this property. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Paul, do you have any. Paul Krauss: Well as to the legal ability for the Clty to do that, I'd defer to the City Attorney. However, we have information now that we didn't have 27 years ago. The fact ls that we now know where the hlghway ls officially mapped. We now know how we can serve neighborhoods with roads and sewer and we now have a better ldea of what the City's recreational needs are. You go through a planning process like thls, not only to develop concepts for virgin territory but also hopefully to correct omissions or incorporation new data as it becomes available. I think that the property that the Planning Commission, the Park Board have made ls reasonable based upon what we know now. To the best of my knowledge, we're assuming that TH 212 is a reality. It's been officially mapped. There are funds committed for some early deslgn phases on the thlng. Once that occurs, that property will be completely severed from Lakeview Hills. We're not asklng for dedication of right-of-way or anythlng else. I mean that falls between the property owner and MnDot to negotiate at whatever time that occurs. But we st111 stand by the plan. Councilman Wing: Would you just point out Paul where the apartments are? Just vlsually explaln what's happening. Paul Krauss: The apartment building's Councilman Wing sit down in here. There's actually two properties as I recall. One of which Lakevlew owns and the other one is another owner. The property rlght now extends up to Rice Marsh Lake and there's TH 212 coming through severlng that property. Councilman Workman: Why designate it low? Paul Krauss: Primarily because once this highway come through, the only means in and out of thls area will probably be some extension...Lane and that comes through a slngle famlly neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, did you have something? Roger Knutson: Just a brief comment. Flrst you should remember you're not dealing with your zoning map tonight. You're deallng with a land use plan. Second, I think lt's universally recognized that no one has an ownership 12. City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 interest in any particular classification. You have to act reasonably in your land use plan. You have to have reasonable reasons for what you're doing to kind of provide somewhat of a viable economic use of the property and things like that. I think Paul has offered a pretty good explanation why he's making his recommendation. His recommendation isn't to depress anyone's land values. No one suggests that other than Mr. Hertz. So I think in conclusion that Paul's recommendation is a reasonable recommendation. If you choose to go that way, it's defensible. Mayor Chmiei: Okay, thank you. Mary Harrington: Hy name is Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood and I don't want to say a whole lot. I would 11ke you to clarify something that you said. At the last meeting a number of you on the Councll had made comments in relationship to favorlng Fleet Farm as a commercial enterprise on the corner of TH 41 and TH 5 which would be basically in competition with the downtown area but, and then also some of you had, on the Councll had made comments last meeting in terms of wanting to know why we don't line up TH 5 with commercial. You thought that, or industrial. That would be a wise use of thlngs 11ke you need to spend more time thinking about this and review the plan and what not. And then tonlght Mr. Mayor you made mention of kind of 11ke it sounded 11ke you said that at present you were in favor of the present plan that is before you wlth the Plannlng Commission. That sounded sllghtly different than what was being said 2 weeks ago and I just wanted to understand what is the Counctl thlnklng about the present plan as ts? It just both dldn't seem to square too well. Haybe my hearing wasn't right or something but maybe you could also address how when some of the elected officials were elected here this fall, where they mentioned that they wanted to maintain the quality of life. They realized that ls was a small town atmosphere and I remember that in some of the rhetoric in the newspaper and that how you viewed that and I just wanted to understand from last week to thls week kind of where ls the City Councll because it's kind of tough for people to say or ask or know what to address when we 11stened last week and then it klnd of sounds 11ke you're sllghtly different thls week. Or that's kind of how, maybe I just misunderstood Mr. Hayor. I just wanted questions. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Basically Mary as far as the area that we have designated in and around your Timberwood area, we had looked at that. There were also some meetlngs that we had had wlth some of the people who own the property in and adjacent to that and asking that we possibly look at some other thlngs as well. Potentially that ls zoned residential in and adjacent to what you have now. We were going to explore the possibilities of having some high tech comlng in whlch sometimes could be better. We're not saylng it is better but could be better rather than having a htgher density residential in and adjacent to where you're at. To havlng a quality klnd of business come in to that particular area. To have more land open rather than house upon house. Not glvlng you a good vlew aesthetically as to what we had seen. We had looked at many of those things and I think those are the things we still have to explore in looking to see what the needs for the City ls and what's really, what we think sometimes might be best for the C£ty. But as we're looking at that residential area presently, that I believe ls going to remain as ls. So there's been some discussions on it. We've talked to people but we're going to leave that set as is presently rlght now. 13 City Council Meeting --3anuary ~8, 1991 Mary Harrington: ...land around Timberwood. I'm referring to everything down TH 5. Mayor Chmiel: Well we're exploring the, you're talking about the 1995 study area? Mary Harrington: Yes. On the north corner. Hayor Chmiel: North of TH 5 on TH 417 Mary Harrington: Yeah... Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's something that the Plannlng Commission has already taken into consideration to revlew that particular area to see what's best for there and that wlll be taklng, Plannlng Commission w111 be reviewing that sometime this year. Paul Krauss: Yeah, if I could clarify that though. There's never been a directive to incorporate that area into the MUSA line in anything other than the pace that the Plannlng Commission had recommended. What the Plannlng Commission had volunteered to do and what you requested that they do is to develop a concept plan for how that area mlght develop at such tlme that it ls brought into the MUSA line and there's no commitment that that concept plan is going to make a home for FI. est Farm or anybody else. Zt's basically, that's up in the air. There's no decisions, preconceived ideas that have been made. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Mason: Is this the time to talk about performance standards along TH 5? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think maybe as we discuss it later on. Councilman Mason: Okay, because I think that might address some of Mary's concerns too. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Anyone else? Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt. I live on 8301 Galpin Blvd. and I heard Paul, correct? When he talked about some modifications to this plan. He mentioned something about a buffer around the Carlson property. That would be the property south of TH 5 correct? That's the property you're talking about? Paul Krauss: Yes. Roger $chmidt: Could you explaln that a 11ttle blt more for me please? Paul Krauss: Yeah. The Planning Commission developed a buffer yard concept that would provlde in addltlon to regular setbacks normally requlred in landscaping, it provldes a greater setback with more landscaping from between uses that are of different intensity. What it lmplies, wherever you see green dots, that there's an additional 100 feet...it's $0 feet there. That would have 14 City Council Heeting - January 28, 1991 to be landscaped and screened to provide additional buffering for those neighborhoods recognizing that they're in close proximity. The Carlson's were concerned originally that it appeared as though this buffer near their old home was omitted. It was in fact omitted from this plan but it was on other plans that we've updated more recently so we just corrected the map and included it there. So when that property is developed, there would be a buffer yard. Roger Schmidt: So the buffer actually works down into the purple area then as opposed to working back towards his home? Paul Krauss: Right. Roger Schmidt: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Eric Rivkin: Mr. Mayor. I was in the back shadows there but. Eric Rivkin. I 1lye on Stellar Court. I want to thank Paul for his suggestion that Lake Lucy stay a recreational lake. Is that my understanding? Okay. I would like as Association Co-chalr to get a copy of the new wording. Okay? Paul Krauss: Sure. Eric Rivkin: And I didn't hear any mention of a concern that I brought up last time. I want to know if it was addressed. That the septic systems ability issue. To be able to use alternate drainfield sites. I don't remember if I stated it last time but my feeling is that this would encourage the protection of lower denslty estate settlng deslred in those locations and the protection of natural areas for a longer period of time. Of course the reasons for protecting natural areas are already well deflned in the plan. Was that addressed? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm not actually sure if it's in there yet but at the publlc hearlng we agreed to modlfy the pollcies concerning, if they hadn't already been, to modify the policies concerning on site sewer to make it clear that if you had a new system and you had the alternate dralnfield, that you would in fact be entitled to use that. There was never any indication or implication that you wouldn't. What Mr. Rivkin's trylng to address ls that when a system fails, and if there's no alternative, an owner is obligated to hook lnto the sewer for understandable reasons. But ifa second dralnfleld site exists, it would be our understanding that you could use it, yes. Eric Rivkin: I wonder if there could be a more explicit language rather than make. Paul Krauss: Agaln, I don't know if I could find it in a few seconds but I know that we did write a draft that had it in there. We'll make sure that it is. Eric Rivkin: Okay. I didn't see it in the last draft and that's why I brought it up. Then there's a couple of new lssues. Well one old issue with a new oplnlon and a new lssue. Z understand from an article in the Villager that the Metropolitan Council is reviewing rural development policies with the idea of allowing clustering homes wlthout a minimum lot size and thls would encourage the protection of natural areas. Although it referred to the 1 acre in 10 15 City Council Meeting -- 3anuary 28, 1991 density issue, I think it would be worth considering to extend that concept to perhaps a blanket policy for zoning large tracts of land so that adequate flexibility would allow lot size and type of housing to make it more feasible to meet the goals stated ill the natural feature section which includes the thing ,.~bou[ the trails and the quality parks and ail that and save natural areas. And yet it would stilJ_ have the same or slightly 10ore density than traditional zoning allows so that developer's can still make their' money without compromising the goals in the plan. A good example of this would be what they did in Anderson Lakes in Bloomington. You have a multi density type of arrangement where they planned the whole thing out into several hundreds of acres of tracts and beautiful trails with townhouses that never have a problem selling mixed in with single family of different price ranges and they have lakes and wetlands and forests that they saved and built around those rather [han bulldoze them ali down and rather than have lot line to lot line carving up of, force a quarter acre density or whatever density we choose. It's traditionally been slated for now, I think that would be commensurate with the trends that the Metropolitan Council is hoping to see happen because they're getting a lot of pressure to save natural areas and of course globally act locally I think would be a good premise to start with here. If we could save our forests and save our wetlands and keep drainage away from, pu~ more drainage buffers between them by saving our' forests and the areas and slopes that aren't suitable for building and that sort of thing, that we'd be far better ahead in meeting the desires of the wishes of the residents in the city. I think that it would avoid sacrificing large amounts of the last remaining forests. Wirgin forests in Chanhassen and leave space, adequate space for quality parks and the trails and allow more flexibility. That's a new issue. Now as an old issue, this has to do with Fleet Farm. I think that there's been enough said about what the concerns are and I~m not goi~]g to repeat them but the new, I just want to propose a thought. I'd like to see the Planning Commission review that as a high quality office campus status and that height limits ought to be studied briefly to establish an acceptable limit that would be more suitable to the Arboretum and the view from there. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question of Mr. Rivkin. Eric, are you saying [hen, on your issue there, instead of 1 in 10 you'd like to see 4 in 40? Eric Rivkin: Thai ]. in 10 thing that was in the paper was only, I think had to do with only rur,~l desntiy designations. Not within tile MUSA but outside the MUSA. Is that right? Paul Krauss: Yeah. In fact if I could, that whole program and the City Council's aware of this Eric because we're talking about getting some flexibility for our rural areas. Right now we're bound by a contract we signed with the Metro Council for the Lake Anll Interceptor and we need to change that contract to get that flexibility. But it only pertalns to the rural areas outslde the MUSA line and it's still fixed that you can only have one home for every 10 acres gross. However we compute lt, whether it's 4 per 40 or. Councilwoman Oimler: Except the 4 in 40 would allow the clustering and save the rest of the land. I thlnk is that what you were saying? Eric Rivkin: Well you could apply it to the rural the way the Met Council's looking at it too but ~'nl saying extend that same concept to areas withln the 16 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 MUSA. Pau! Krauss: We do have that within the MUSA. It's called the PUO and we've used it quite a bit. Eric Rivkin: But now solidify that in policies in the Comp Plan more. Okay, to say that we would like to consider sore flexible land uses. You know no minimum lot size in the PUD concept. That kind of thing. Mayor Chmiel: As Paul explained, we can't do that until we get that contract changed with those people. With Metropolitan Council. Eric Rivkin: Right. It seems a lot of things, changes will have to take place. That can be one of them. Mayor Chmiel: Well the City Council's already authorized us working with the Metro Council to get that contract language changed so we're in the process of doing lt. Eric Rivkin: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: I think it warrants more discussion. Eric Rivkin: Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Susan Markert: My name is Susan Markert and my husband and I, Charies live at 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. which is right next to the property that Fleet Farm purchased and I was quite surprised at some people in the City of Chanhassen didn't realize that we still lived there. They somehow thought that Fleet Farm had bought that entire parcel all the way to the wetlands and it's quite frightening to think that something like this could come in when we look at our property as a sanctuary. I will do anything that I possibly can do to prevent something 11ke that from comlng. Z understand that we live on a corner of TH $ and TH 41 which would be conducive to commercial use but to put something like that in there ls like puttlng a strlp sa11 in the Minnesota Zoo or something like that. So I would hope that you would take into consideration all factors before you, as you approach the plan to take a look at it and to drlve by. To take a look at exactly what's going to be affected because once you cut down trees or alter the land, it only takes an hour for a bulldozer to destroy something and it takes hundreds of years to preserve something and I just think that we really need to reassess what we're dolng. Highway 41 ls one of the most beautiful, in my opinion and a few other people, streets in the entire state and to put something 11ke a Fleet Farm store next to the Arboretum is just appalling to me. I mean it's just like, I mean even if I didn't live there it would be appalling to me. So I just hope that you take that 1nrc consideration and ! will be at every meeting to make sure that people know that I still live there and we do not plan on selllng our property at a11. We love that place and we try to preserve it like a santuary. We're both artistic people and we need that to survive and I would hope that people st111 appreciate that nowadays so thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Would you please restate your name? 17 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Susan Markert: Susan Markert. Susan and Charles Markert. Councilman Workman: Are you to the north of that parcel? Susan Markert: Yeah, we're right next to where Fleet Farm purchased the property. We're the yellow farm on TH 5 and TH 41. Mayor Chmiel: To the east? Susan Markert: Right. That's right. Thank you. Councilman Wing: I think there are members on the City Council, I'll speak for myself, that are concerned about the issue that was just brought up. One thing I appreciate for the Councll and for the residents of the City, I'd prefer to hear the name Mill's Fleet Farm left out. I don't necessarily see them as a culprlt. I'd rather dlsouss the issue of hlgh denslty, hlgh powered commercial fetal1 for that corner if anything. It could be a K-Mart or a Target or anybody golng in there. I thlnk what we're concerned about ls the type of buslness that's going to go in there whether it's a Mill's or not so I get a little nervous when we start plcklng on M111's Fleet Farm because I thlnk they're a reputable business. I think our concern is for the type of business that's golng to go in there. I thlnk we ought to refer to that as such. But there are people that are listening to your concerns and I thlnk the word was used, rhetorlc during the campaign. I don't thlnk that was rhetorlo. I thlnk that's sincere concerns that ue had running for City Council and one reason for myself I'm here so I saw the word rhetoric as just a little sarcastic and it hit home being that was somewhat of a sincere. If I made any statements during the campaign, they weren't rhetoric. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Any other discussion? Jeff Oberman: I'm Jeff Oberman. I live very close to Sue but just across the road and I too chose to live there with my family because of the remoteness and the beauty of that area and belng situated between the regional park on Minnewashta and the Arboretum. I'm a wildlife photographer and there's an incredible amount of wlldllfe that ls drawn in that area because of the publlo areas there and the v£slon I have in my mind of a large development like a K-Mart or a Fleet Farm and 10 acres of Hallogen 11ghts at nlght and concrete just doesn't flt with that area and I guess I would like to piggy back on Mrs. Markert's comments. I just don't thlnk that flts with the mode that, at least the local residents of that intersection would like to see on there. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, are the issues being discussed here regarding that corner even relevent tonight because that's a study area for the future? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess it is a study area as we all know but at least what we're doing is lettlng people voice their opinions as to their feelings at this particular time. Councilman Mason: Just to go along with what Oick said, I think a lot of people are gettlng the feellng that we've already sold that corner up the river and I don't know where that's comlng from. I mean that certainly lsn't my feellng and 18 City Council Meeting - January 28, [991 I do kind of wonder where ail these people are getting that. That's all. Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. Good clarification. Nothing has been pre-set in concrete for that particular corner. Eric? Eric Rivkin: To answer Hike, the reason we're getting these feelings is because the gentleman who represented Fleet Farm at one of the Council meetings or Planning Commission meetings expressed a desire to put a Fleet Fare there. H mentioned about how many Jobs it brought... Councilman Mason: Right and it's my understanding at that meeting it was asked that the Planning Commission would start studying that area. Not that Fleet Farm or K-Mart or that anything would go in there but that we would parcipitate that so residents would know what's going on as would the people that purchased that property. Eric Rivkin: I see a lot of seed planting. Councilman Mason: Yeah, all the way around. Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor if I could make one quick point and this is not an easy task of anybody but if it's Hill's Fleet Farm, they own the property. [t's not even ours to sell down the river. I mean when you own the property, that gives you certain rights. We're trying to take care of things as best, I think as we can. ! had a woman tell me, she didn't want any more growth in the city and she said when I moved here there was nothing between me and City Hall but cornfields. ! said I live between you and City Hall. Councilwoman Oimler: She does not want you here. Councilman Workman: Well I don't know what she means. We have ex-Councilman Jay Johnson in the audience and he told this story 12 times if not 20 about the farmer that lived near him was never going to sell and he's out, they were going tO carry him out feet first and he sold. He sold. Mayor Chmiel: And ran all the way to the bank. Councilman Workman: I Just want to emphasize that property ownership in this city, if not nation, still gives you or affords you certain rights and I get real nervous when we're all molding the clay for other people. We do have certain rights as a City Council and residents that are living here but there's an underlying tenant there, both constitutional and other that I think we're running ripshod on and it's starting to worry me. Mayor Chmiel: Good. It's good that we clarify some of these things rather than having people sit back and think about what they're thinking. Okay, anyone else? Okay, if not we'll bring it back to Council for any further discussion. I think Paul has adequately addressed everything that we had some concerns about previously at the last particular meeting to address all those particular issues. I think it's probably due time that we get the Comp Plan moving and I'd like to open up for discussion or if not discussion, to have a motion. Tom, do you have anything? City Council Heeting -- January 28, 1991 Councilman Workman: Well, there's very few people that can own large tracts of land and leave it trees and prairie grass and cornfields. I would presume they're Prince and maybe Jerome Carlson. And maybe a few others so I'm going to go down the list and Jerome's, I don't think we have an issue really with Jerome anymore. Hayor Chl, iel: Nope. Councilman Workman: But he's going to let his 80 acres? Paul Krauss: At last count. It keeps counting. Councilman Workman: Z think the Lake Lucy status item is something that fits in very uell considering some of the work that we're done uith that and I think that ls great that we're able to straighten that out. One of the reasons for my last outbrust was I got a note and a petition from the neighborhood, the Timberwood neighborhood and Z don't know who it came from thls tlme. It's got a lot of the older newsletters on lt, etc. but it had a cover letter to me saylng that what the residents want should overrlde any speculating, absentee iandouner's proposals. Residents are concerned for the town, not 11ning their pockets wlth profit. We're all out to make a 11vlng and I'm not golng to spend time here to put in perspective that we're all trying to make a living. People who oun homes in Timberwood are very fortunate because they can own 4 1/2 acres, 4 acres, 3 1/2, 2 1/2 acre lots and build sizeable homes and they're doing something well at work I would suggest too and making some money somewhere. Paul, had Het Council's plans and you and I had talked about this qulte a bit. Had Het Council's i in 40 or 4 in 40 or clustering occurred, would Tlmberwood even exist? Had we not been given perhaps erroneous, weren't they telling people on the other slde of town they could do that but? Paul. Krauss: Timberwood is a product of a city ordinance that no longer exists because the Hetro Counc11 required us to conform to thelr policy and thelr policy is the 4 per 40 or the i per 10 density. Tiloberwood is developed to a considerably, well lt's developed to a hlgher density than ls now allowed. I don't know if that clarifies it but Timberwood under the current ordinances, because of those Hetro Counc11 requirements, could not occur today and look exactly like it does. Councilman Workman: Well then why did it occur? Why are there houses there now? Paul Krauss: This is speculation on my part Councilman but you know, they obviously met a need. I mean people wanted to live in that kind of a life style and that's flne and there's nothlng good, bad or indifferent about it if it suits your need. We also had a window of opportunity that kind of forced, a lot of people sort of jumped through thls wlndow in 1986 Z guess to get developments platted prior to the imposition of the new ordinance that we were being forced to adopt. The unfortunate thing about it is it sort of made it difficult to plan around these areas once the City grew out to them and Z think we're seelng that with the great care we're trying to exerclse around the Tlmberwood area itself. But it's apparently a successful subdivision. Councilnlan Workman: Was Timberwood the brain child of somebody speculating idea? 2O City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: I'm sure somebody made money on it if that's. Councilman Workman: I think we've addressed the issue surrounding Timberwood, or at least the residents believe that it's been addressed and I don't know Paul that they've really accurately had a reviewal of this memo or not. Paul Krauss: No. No, that was something that was introduced to the City Council last packet and is in there today. And that's part of the reason why you know I exercise a little care. I mean I think that the memo was fully consistent with the directions that we've been given and I tried to adhere to for the last year regarding Timberwood. I mean nothing substantively changes on the land use plan. The City Council still controls all the cards. I guess l put that in there at the request of several Councilpeople and I think it's a valid way of handling things. On the other hand, I'd be relunctant to see that hold up approval of the plan. The plan has looked this way for the best part of a year and it's not changing and I guess I'd rather not get hung up on that kind of discussion. Councilman Workman: When I look at the area surrounding Timberwood and with the northeast quadrant at Galpin there, 13 acres, and I see some pretty strong language in there that says it has to be, if in fact it's going to be some sort of a corporate or commercial entity, it's going to have to be the highest standard and quality and everything else. I think that's good if in fact that should ever occur but what I feel very uncomfortable about, as I stated in the last meeting, was that TH 5 has come down to the r&al rub of this whole plan. And Mike Mason brought up and I brought up as part of a Council presentation later and maybe both of us it was hammered in our heads from a certain developer who's in the audience tonight, who talked a little bit about performance standards and requiring from these developers and people who want to build and do things in this city, to build with what we find to be at least minimum quality standards. Quality materials, etc. and Z don't know that we're doing that all up and down. Are we going about this piecemeal on those two corners or those two areas and we're kind of leaving the rest of it out? You and ! discussed briefly Eden Prairie's going to put a first car dealership in. Ford dealership. In reading some of the details on that, you're not going to be able to tell it's a car dealership. They're going to be able to have 5 cars out front. Lights real restricted. No gorilla's. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with us doing that but if we're just doing it on this corner and we're not doing it on the south side, all the way down to TH 41 and we're not doing it on the north side, which includes the study area, are we doing it piecemeal? Paul Krauss: A couple things Councilman. First of all, as you're aware, we've processed a large number of amendments to our codes in the time I've been here and a lot of those embody performance criteria. Performance standards are kind of a buzz word that simply means that you don't just say you have to have a 10 foot setback or 20 foot setback but you describe what you want to achieve in that setback and the kinds of design you want to incorporate. We've been adding those kinds of things to our ordinance. There's a couple of thlngs to remember. We could totally revamp our ordinance and we're ultimately striving to do that. To incorporate more and more of the currently available technology. One approach that you might want to consider, ideally after the adopting of the comprehensive plan is that you might want to do a specific corridor study and 21 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 get very detailed on that. Just focus in on that. Once the MUSA line is moved and you have the ability to do some work, focus in more intensively on a particular area. If there's a concern along the corridor and develop a new zoning district and specific standards for that. As far as singling this corner out and treating it differently, I don't know that I agree with that. The Planning Commission and staff were fully content to leave it exactly the way it is right now. Without any change in the language or anything else. The City Cour, cil always has the ability to change the Comprehensive Plan and keep in mind that this is a comprehensive plan. This is not the ordinance where those standards would be placed. Councilman Workman: But ue are putting standards. Paul Krauss: But only because at the request of the property owners. They ask well give us some guidance. Under what limited circumstances would you even think about talking to us about non-residential uses there and I vas given the task of saying fine. If you really want to know, here's what has been going around in my head and here's specific guidelines for that site. Again, the only reason it was singled out was because the property owners asked for more information basically on that corner. Some of those standards might apply elsewhere in the corridor and that's why you might want to. Councilman Workman: But could we apply? Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have the mechanism to apply them unless we changed our zoning ordinance because that's the document that enforces all the standards. Councilman Workman: We have the Chairman here tonight. Maybe he'll let us know if he wants to do that. It just seems as though that is the crux of the matter. I thlnk once people get lnto a Mlll's Fleet Farm, they thlnk thls lsa great store. There's all sorts of stuff I need here and people all the way out to Young Anlerlca are te111ng me that, but they don't 11ke what it looks 11ke. And certainly the Arboretum and neighborhoods and neighbors and greens and ponds and things around that thlng are valld concerns. There's no doubt about lt. But maybe we can get it in there or maybe somebody can do something with a corner 11ke that if in fact we dictate that. Again, it's a property owner versus. Paul Krauss: But I guess the perspective here is that you're talking about a plece of ground that for the past year and all the planning efforts has been considered residential wlth a school site. Again, I think staff and Plannlng Commission would have been perfectly content to let it just slt that way but because we were pushed to ask the question of what mlght you find acceptable, recognizing how sensitive that area ls, we thought we'd try to develop some guidelines that recognize that. I don't know that those guidelines are particularly appropriate everywhere in the corridor. I mean that's something that you need to do a corridor study to look at. Councilman Workman: Corridor Study Commission. Paul Krauss: Many communities have done it. Minnetonka did one on 1-394. Bloomington's done one on 494 as has Richfield. 22 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilman Workman: Well, for the amount of anguish that this corridor has caused, Z would say it's probably a good idea. I'm not for taking that corner out of the study area. I think it's just fine there and as your memo indicates, that's great. It's expediant. It's almost cowardly. I'm not at all a person who believes that the northeast corner of Gaip£n is going to be nice houses. In that hole. By a frontage road. That's impossible. I mean that's realistic thinking. Z just don't think that can happen. I don't think it will happen but I think we need to maybe get that commission or something together so that it can be reasonabiy laid out in some more detail. That's all I have. Other than that I think the plan and the report is, that's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tom. You went past $ minutes. Richard? Councilman Wing: Are we going in order? Mayor Chmiel: Well I just thought maybe. I guess I'm already at a polnt here where I feel we have to do something with this. We either move it on or we sit on lt, as I mentioned before. Councilman Wing: This is difficult being so new and I'li let you, as a matter of fact, would you mind if I loosen up here. I put as much time and effort into this as I can possibly do wlth my free tlme and the comprehensive plan, lt's my understanding is a required document. Met Council is saying we have to have a comprehensive plan. It's never going to satisfy everybody. We determined that long ago. No matter what we do, there's going to one side that's going to be made and another slde. We're not going to get all the spaces filled in here. I've heard the words, I think you used at the last meeting, it's a guide. It's somewhat vague but the most important word I've heard through thls whole discussion, it's proposed land use only. I think we could approve this tonight wlthout any changes and not really affect anybody or hurt anybody. I thlnk it gets it off dead center. I think that needs to be done. I think we need to get moving on this. There's going to be many issues coming up. My pet is going to be TH 5. You think I'm not going to be watching TH 5 but it's got nothing to do wlth passlng thls or not. I thlnk we need a corrldor study. Not only a corrldor study. I'd like to see a task force comprised of thls Council and staff, Plannlng Commission and residents of this community and property owners get together and create a picture. 10,000 words and one picture to me is worth 10,000 words. 22,000 words, I don't know but I would rather, I'd like to see this get passed. I think it's a good document. I think Planning Commission has done an excellent job, even with these mlnor changes. People may not get what they want tonight, are issues that are really going to be discussed later anyway. Strong zoning, performance standards. They're not included in here. I think they're issues the Council and staff has to handle. The corner of TH 41 and TH 5 and Mlll's Fleet Farm. It says on the map it's 1995. Ursula has proposed that Planning Commission get going on it this next year which is 1991-92, who knows. That's not even in my thoughts right now. Councilwoman Oimler: They're doing that already. Paul Krauss: If I could touch on that for a second Councilman. The 1995 date was a date that frankly was plucked out of the air at the time...reasonable but it was just at the tlme that we should look back at that area and take another look. We've been asked to take another look or take the look at it sooner than 23 City Council Meeting ,- January 28, 1991 that but not to change anything and I guess that's what we'll be doing. Councilman Wing: I see that as just not even an issue that's worthy of discussion 'tonight. That's another issue coming up later as part of the 6omprehensive Plan so. Things I feel we need to do as a Council is determine some concrete goals for this area and we're concentrating on TH 5 but I'm not so sure that TH 212 corridor isn't something that's going to need addressing and would be a real concern. 61are. Pollution. Traffic. Setbacks. Noise. Storage. I mean all these performance standards. Architectural themes is a big one I'm concerned about. I don't intend that every building's going to look the same but I'd like to have a theme going down TH 5 and if I could just take one minute to drive into Chanhassen from the east and this will clarify where I'm coming from. I drive into Chanhassen completely oblivious of what this city is and the first thing I run into is billowing white smoke coming over the highway. Now they tell me that that's just steam from some dryers but it doesn't smell like my teapot. And then I move on further down and there's buildings on the right and then I get into a nursery area and then there's a building that looks like it might have been built many, many years ago. And off on the left then we have some open space and they tell me there's a garage for pollution checking or something going on there and right next to that a McDonald's. Then I hear a Taco place and there's a cement plant. So far I'm not impressed with the 6ity of 6hanhassen and all I'm saying tonight is I don't want the west end of TH 5 to look like the east end of TH 5 so Z'm real concerned about [hat and count on me to take some stands. I think Mr'. Mayor that kind of, that's probably enough comments from me because I really do appreciate my naivety here. However, one comment that was brought up to me that is interesting that wasn't addressed. Fast food is something we love to hate. I hate fast food driving out their driveway. We all use it. We all stop and I'm not so sure as part of the comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission wasn't lax in taking one street, and I'll pick where the new development's going in. The grocery store. What's the street just to tho west of there? Don Ashworth: Market? Councilman Wing: No, not Market. Don Ashworth: Monterey? Councilman Wing: Monterey. I just wonder if that street shouldn't have been zoned fast food and limit fast food. No, no. We11, now Z don't find this humorous. I'm saying this quite seriously. Fast food street. It's part of the downtown development. Part of the grocery store complex and have a street that's wide open for fast food development. Anybody that wants to come in there. Hardee's, McDonaZd's. I don't care but a fast food strip but then limit Jt and have a stop gap at that polnt. Councilman Workman; How do they get off the highway? Councilman Wing: Well how do they get to the grocery store and downtown area? Or connect it to the highway. Councilman Workman; It's the highway that's the draw. The traffic. It's the 50,000 cars a day that sells burgers. 24 City Council Meeting - January Councilman Wing: So you intend to put fast food ~ii the way out then? Councilman Workman: No. Councilman Wing: Okay, I'm just saying. Councilman Workman: Unless they were all HcOonald's. Councilman Wing: I was just saying, the suggestion that was brought up to me was would a fast food zone be a good idea and Paul, I don't know how we'd address that at this point but maybe the Planning Commission could review that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: Oh gee, there's so much and I think that we have hashed this over so often that I am ready to make some specific recommendations just to get it movlng with the understanding agaln that it is only a gulde and that it probably will change. Okay, so I'm going to go right by what Paul had down on the numbers. Number I was the Jerome Carlson's property. I see no problem with that and I would recommend that we approve it as proposed recommendation on page 4, paragraph 3. It has to do wlth the tlmlng of the installation of the trall connecting Lake Ann and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Number 2 is the Lake Lucy status. I thlnk again as Paul recommended on page 4 in the upper part of page 5. Number 3 ls the VanOeVeire property. I do not like to see leapfrog development of commercial sltes so at thls tlme I would recommend that it ls left as shown on the map and that we put in language that would allow a procedure in the event that we have a hlgh quality, non-residential development in the future. Number 4 ls the area between Timberwood and TH 5. I think it should be as slngle famlly residential as is shown on the map as now. Agaln, with the language in place that a high quality non-residential development would be considered. And then the 1H95 study area as we've sald. The Plannlng Commission is already making that their priority and is indeed probably going to come up wlth some recommendations as early as the end of thls year. Number 6 uas the Halla Nursery request to be included in the HUSA line at this time. Agaln, I don't like the leapfrog development so I would recommend that we do not include it at this time. And then number 7 was the Lakeview Hills and I appreciate the comments that were made by Mr. Hertz. However, I think I see some reasoning behind what Paul has recommended. The northern portion of that slte, once TH 212 comes through, ls definitely golng to be more consistent wlth the low residential neighborhood. And I think lt's 84th Street you said that has to come through there to connect that up so I would go along wlth the recommendation that that is a low residential. Councilman Wing: Is that a motion? Mayor Chmiel: It was indicated as a motion. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Mason: You mean I don't get my turn? 25 City Council Meeting --January 28, 1991. Councilwoman Dimler: One more comment. Can I make one more comment? I do agree with the recommendation that Richard made on the corridor study to include the Council, the Planning Commission, the staff and the neighborhood. Mayor Chmiel: Have a task force per se? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: You'd better let Mason vent. Cour, cilman Mason: No, no. Hey, everyone's done it for me. Going last, you know I wlsh I had a 11ttle pearl of wisdom to kind of tie all thls together. Going last and you don't say anything, people elther think you're a dummy or you don't know what's going on. No, in golng through thls, I essentially agree wlth everything you said Ursula. There's always going to be some concerns. I like the ldea of a corridor study. I thlnk tha['s imperative. I concur wlth what's been said here tonight. I vented Tom. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We have a motlon on the floor to accept all the changes with the adoptlon of a draft comprehensive plan for' conveyence to the Metropolitan Counc11. Resolution #91-11: Counciluoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to accept all the changes as outlined by staff with the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan for conveyence to the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. EHISSION CONTROL TESTING STATION, POPE ASSOCIATES: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EMISSION CONTROL TESTING STATIONS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN BH AND IOP DISTRICTS. B. LOT 2~ BLOCK I, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA SECOND ADDITION (BH LOCATION NEXT TO MCDONALD'S): 1___) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO LOCATE AN EMISSION CONTROL TESTING STATION IN ABH DISTRICT. 2) SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,042 SQ. FT. EMISSION CONTROL ~STI~G STATION. 3) REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK i:_CHAN HAVEN PLAZA SECOND ADDITION INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT. Public Present: Name Address Allan Klugman Jerry Perkins Walter Rockenstein Dennis Palmer Eden Prairie St. Paul Faegre & Berlson, Minneapolis ~555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 26 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Naee Address Stanley Krzynicki Martha Nevanen Tom Kotsonas Jean Mason, Mason Homes Herb Mason Ned V. Rukavlna Oonald Hagen Gene Borg 9555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 9555 James Ave So, Suite 220, Minneapolis 8001 Cheyenne 14201 Excelsior Blvd. 27010 Edgewood Road, Shorewood 5275 Edlna Industrial 33-10th Ave So ~375, Hopkins 6897 Chaparral Lane Paul Krauss: This request is somewhat unusual. Not because the proposal itself ls terrlbly complex. It's a relatively simple slte plan. However, it results in an ordinance amendment to allow Emission Control Testing Stations in the IOP and BH Olstrlcts. The ordinance ls set up as a conditional use permlt so there's a conditional use permit application. There's a site plan approval for the site ltself and there's also plattlng that's requlred to create thls site. Complicating everything is that there's two sites being brought to you tonight. The origlnal slte that was revlewed and recommended for approval on a split vote by the Plannlng Commission is located on Park Road in the industrial park. The other's on Lake Drlve next to McDonald's. I'll try and summarize this as much as possible. I'm kind of going to dance back and forth between the two applications. The proposal ls to locate an emisslon control testlng faclllty under license with the State of Minnesota relative to the air quality protection program that the State ls mandating for the Twin Cities area. These facilities will be scattered throughout the Twin Cities to serve metro area population. The one proposed for Chanhassen will have 4 testing bays. Three maln testing bays and one for additional tests with the tests taking about 2 minutes apiece. No cars are stored on slte. No cars are repalred on the slte. It's only automobiles and light trucks. There's no diesel testing. It's a very restricted operation set to guidelines established by the State. The proposed ordinance amendment is required to allow this use since frankly it wasn't considered when the ordinance was drafted and there's no allowances for lt. Working with the Planning Commission, a new conditional use permit code was drafted that provlded speclflc standards to lnsure that off slte lmpacts would be minimized. The ordinance allows the use in both the IOP and the BH districts. Tonlght you're only belng asked to glve flrst reading of the ordinance itself. What I'm going to ask you to do is if you select one of the sltes tonlght, that before you give second readlng, that you tell us to change, or in conjunction with the second reading, you direct us to change the ordinance so we can eliminate the dlstrlct that thls doesn't happen to get located ln. The first site ls located on Park Road. This was reviewed by the Planning Commission I belleve late last fall. The staff had recommended approval. The Planning Commission ultimately did recommend approval on a split vote but there was a lot of controversy ralsed about that slte. The primary lssues concern the poor visibility. In fact total lack of visibility it had from TH 5 and the rather difficult access. Several adjoining property owners too were concerned about the introduction of traffic and whatever else into the industrial park. Slnce it was clear from discussions wlth individual ¢lty Council members and the Planning Commission had some pretty significant reservations even though they had recommended approval, no further action was taken on that site since last fall essentially. The applicants wanted to take 27 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 an opportunity to show it to you tonight but most of the attention, in fact virtually all the staff's attention since then has been focused on the new site that's been chosen off of Lake Drive adjacent to McDonald's. The Lake Drive site works out reasonably well for the use. The site's located near TH 5 which will minimize impact on the adjoining neighborhood. It does have access to two signalized intersections one of which is under construction right now at Dell Road. The other one's being rebuilt at Dakota. Lake Drive is a commercial street that was designed for this kind of traffic. In fact we just completed rebuilding it last summer. Also I'd note that the site is located in the BH district which could accommodate a fast food restaurant or a convenience store which would generate considerably higher levels of traffic than we anticipate this operation will produce so in a backdoor sort of way, there's an advantage from the City standpoint for traffic management from the adjacent neighborhood south of Lake Drive to having this use in there since it avoids a very high intensity use that could theoretically go there. Utilities are available at the site. Orainage plans are quite complex. The ~ssistant City Engineer can describe them to you in detail if you so desire but after a lot of work on them, to find the drainage plans that are acceptable and will result in the preservation of the wetland that's partially on this property, partially on the adjacent McDonald's site. The plan was very carefully designed to provide the maximum amount of buffering and screening from the residential neighborhood. Screening includes berms, landscaping, tile maintenance of the wetland itself and additional landscaping located south of Lake Drive as needed to kind of fill in the holes in that tree buffer. ~ccess was a major concern on this site and frankly a lot of alternatives were explored up to and including last week. The variety of options that were explored include numerous different kind8 of public cul-de-sacs. Different kinds of designs for them and private drives. Ultimately it was determined by staff that the private drive option offered the best combination of safe and effective access. It's kind of complex but if there's questions about the cul-de-sac it basically is that the way this cul-de-sac ~as designed, all the site, well this site and any future development on the adjoining sites would access off the cul-de-sac and ali this traffic would be crossing on itself in the cul-de-sac bubble in a very unconstrained manner that we felt was I~azardous. So ~e are going with a private drive recommendation on this. The private drive would be built to a city street standard in terms of width and curb and gutter and road construction, everything else but it allows us to get away from the need for a cul-de-sac and we can introduce new developments to the east onto this road in a much more efficient ~ay. Platting will create two lots. The western lot would be occupied by Systems Control. The eastern lot, there's no use proposed on that right now. It is zoned DH. There is a very good potential that this site is large enough that it could be subdivided in half and get two uses but there's nothing going on with that right now. Preliminary and final plat approval is being requested in the interest of saving time and expediency on this. One thing I'd like to touch on in tho plat J.s, as you see from the initial survey it shows a platting of right-of-way for the TH 5 improvement. Based upon some advice we're receiving from our City Attorney, we're requesting that that be platted as an outlet. MnOot is right now in the process of acquiring that from the property owners. ~lowever, we have been in the process of attempting to negotiate a right of access for MnOot onto that property in the interest of being as expedient as possible with the construction of TH 5 this year. The owners have agreed that the>, will be supplying us that document but there's still some last minute glitches into exactly the wording that MnDot's looking for. ~e're asking that 28 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 you add a condition to the plat approval, final plat approval so that the plat cannot be recorded until we have the right of access acceptable to the City and MnDot, signed and delivered. I have every assurance that this is going to occur quite rapidly at this point and I think it's just a matter of ironing out some final language but tying it to the final plat will help. Systems Control is very anxious to proceed on this site and cannot until the plat is filed so I think everything is set up in order that it will all occur as soon as possible. Staff is recommending that the ordinance amendment be given first reading and that the Lake Drive site be approved with associated requests. The conditional use permit and everything else subject to appropriate conditions and the conditions are all laid out by subheading in the staff recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Does the applicant have anything to say? Walter Rockenstein: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an attorney representing Systems Control this evening. We really have two parts to our presentation. First I'd like to have Bare Kelso who's here from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to give you a very brief background on why these testing stations are necessary and then I need to spend just a couple of minutes reacting to the staff report so if Mr. Kelso could begin that please. Mayor Chmiei: Okay. Dave Kelso: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dave KeIso. I'm the program manager for the inspection maintenance program with the Poliution Controi Agency. You'ii have to pardon my coughing. This is my third presentat£on I gave on inspection maintenance since about 3:30 so if I start talking about something that has nothing to do with Chanhassen, this is your chance to kick me. I was asked to make a few brief comments on why we actuaiiy have the inspection maintenance program. Back in 1987 and in 1988 the U.S. EnvironmentaI Protection Agency designated the entire 7 county metropoiitan area as nonattainment for carbon monoxide. This means that we produce enough carbon monoxide in the Twin Cities area to exceed both the State and the Federal Heaith base standards. Because of this, the U.S. EPA then directed the State of Minnesota to develop a pian to abate this problem. They also highiy recommended that an inspection maintenance program was the preferred mechanism to do this. In response to that, in 1988 the State legisiature passed iegisiation that authorized the inspection maintenance program. That IegisIation aIso directed the PoiIution Control Agency to deveiop ruies and reguiations to administer the program and to hire a contractor to not oniy buiId but to operate the inspection maintenance network. With that in mind ue entered into a competitive bid process to hire a contractor. We had 5 responses to our request for proposai of uh£ch we seiected Systems ControI as our contractor and again, Systems ControI wili be buiiding and operating the inspection maintenance program under the auspices and direction of the PoIiution Controi Agency; We beiieve that we do have a carbon monoxide poiiution probiem in the metropoiitan area. We aIso believe that the primary cause of the poIlution is the automobiIe. We aiso believe that the inspection maintenance program is the preferred alternative to reduce that probiem. PoiIution from vehicies is usuaIly measured in pounds of polIution per miie traveied and we think this program wiiI reduce hundreds and City Council Meeting -. January hundreds of tons of pollution per day. With that I turn it back over to Systems Control and I'll also hange around for any questions you might have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Walter Rockenstein: Mr. Mayor, Systems Control in developing it's system of stations, emlsslon control stations, had certaln criterla that were glven to it by the Minnesote Pollution Control Agency. As part of their request for proposal, they requlred that at least I of the statlons be in each of the ? counties in the metropolitan area. They also required that all, 90~ of the registered vehlcles be uithln a Smlle average drivlng tlme of these stations. It was thJ. s se~ of criteria plus proprietary programs tha~ Systems Control has developed in it's other locations that led to the choice of 11 statlons across the metropolitan are~. The ones nearest to the one in Chanhassen uill be located in Hinnetonka, on 1-494 in Bloomington and in Savage. Those are the 3 in the closest proximity. This is the station that will be located in Carver County and meets the requirement and the request for proposal that there be one in each of the metropolita, counties. This is one of the smaller stations reflecting the fact that thls lsa growth area in terms of population but it ls slzed to accommodate the traffic that is expected in the year 1998, the last year of the ? year contract and indeed all of the traffic studles that are present in your packets show those figures in terms of 1998 flgures. If there ls any confusion or blame about bringlng two sltes forward, Z guess you'll have to lay that at my doorstep. I advised Systems Control that with two new members on the Clty Count11, Z thought it best to bring both sltes forward and let the City Council make the decision on whlch one they preferred rather than prematurely l'lavlng one site dropped and slmply brlnglng one before the Clty Council. Obviously we don't desire to bulld two testing stations. We deslre to bulld one. We trust the Counc11 wlll make a decislon about where they prefer to have the emission testing stat£on located. ~pprove that site plan and then modlfy the amendment to your zonlng code so that it reflects only one of the two districts, the districts that you choose to put it ln. With respect to the proposal before you for the IOP district, Systems Control has no disagreements with the staff recommendations that h~ve been put forward. With respect to the recommendations that have been put forward ulth respect to the Business Highway district, again we have one major disagreement with that uhich I'll get to ina moment but Z thlnk we should polnt out that the other conditions that staff ls suggesting, both as a site plan review, subdivision and conditional use permit, that we are in agreement ulth all of those conditions including the one that has been most recently suggested by staff, although it is actually the partnership we were purchasing the property from that has to agree to provlde that early access agreement. We do not object to having that made a condition. The one that we have continued to have a disagreement with staff over ls number i under the Slte Plan Review. The requirement for a mansard roof on the building. We begin our difficulty wlth thls agaln from our contract ulth the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and I'll provlde each of you here flrst of all with a letter from Mr. Davld Thornton who's the Chief of the program development in air analysis. When Systems Control bid on this project originally, the bld was based on a set of standards uhlch lncluded the standards that are stated there by Mr. Thornton. Namely that the buildings should be of uniform design, brick over block and that that deslgn was the one that was to be bullt in all of the different communities. As you can see, the pollullon Control Agency is $till interested in uniformity of deslgn and as recently as January 16th in this 3O City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 letter, has indicated to us that they wish us to maintain that contractual requirement. So the first difficulty we have is that our contractual arrangements wlth the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency require that we bulld uniform structures and the design that is being proposed is the design that was approved by them and ls in fact in the contract. We have suggested to staff that in an effort to provide additional screening, we can false the parapet of the bulldlng but that the mansard roof was not something that meets the Pollution Control Agency's requirements. Secondly from an aesthetic point of vlew, slmply looklng at the area lnto which thls bulldlng is golng, there ls only one building in the area which meets the requirement that the staff is suggesting be lmposed on Systems Control and that ls the McDonald's restaurant and of course that's a part of their standard design. The other surrounding buildings, including the Chanhassen Offlce Complex whlch ls the nearest commercial building immediately across TH 5, the industrial buildings of which I have plctures that I'll pass down to you. All of those are flat roof buildings. Same type of building that Systems Control is proposing. The last photograph in thls group ls in fact one of the Systems Control buildings that ls under construction at one of the other sites. Is relatively close to the one that would be bullt here although it shows one more bay than would be bullt on this building. Finally, the addition of this roof is not an inexpensive 1rem. We're talklng about a cost of between $40,000.00 and $45,000.00 which ls roughly 10~ of the value of the structure itself. Even if we slmply added the parapet, that would be somewhere around $9,000.00. Considerably less and Systems Control is in fact willing to do that. So that's the ma3or remaining lssue that we have wlth the staff report. We trust that you would be willing to consider the design that we have proposed with the addition of the higher parapet to make sure that the equipment on top of the bullding ls screened from the residences which we think is a reasonable request by the nearby residential owners. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to try to answer them about either one of the sites that are before you. Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Rockenstein? I guess there are no questions at this time. Tom? You looked like you wanted to say something. Councilman Workman: Are you openlng it up for Councll here now? Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah but I'm going to start at Mike's end this time. Councilman Mason: I guess I want to hear more about how Council feels about the mansard roof thing and I guess I'd'like to hear if Paul has anything more to say about lt. I'm a 11ttle concerned about having two slte plan revlews before us. I think of all the time that Paul and his staff had to put into that and I think the Planning Commission gave Paul and everyone else a pretty clear direction which way they wanted to go. I think it's too bad that the time has had to been put lnto that for two slte plans regardless of how new Rlchard and I are. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We'll go from one end to the other. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't understand where the PCA is concerned about architectural design. I dldn't know, well somebody's go£ng to have to explain that to me why that matters in all of thls to the PCA. City Council Meeting - January 2_8, 1991 Dave Kelso: I knew you weren't going to let me off that easy. Our concern was when w~.; wrote the original specifications for the contract, we wanted buildings that were uniform and identifiable to the public for that reason. Also, the cost that could be spread out with a one set design and now there's a change, or at least a proposed change to that so it's our desire to go back with the original concept that ue agreed to with Systems Control. We're not trying to design buildings that fit into communities. That's your job. But we're just expressing our concern. Councilman Workman.' So the reason that you want them all to look the same is because of cost? Mayor Chmiel: Cost basics. Oave Kelso: Low cost and their identifiability with the public because they can go to any of the ~]_ facilities throughout the metropolitan area. We would like them all to look the same with the same signs in the front, the same directional. councilman Workman: I guess I'm a little confused by that. I know next door is a McDonald's. McDonald's, they try to sort of look the same but they're in competition with Hardee's and everything else so they need to have that identity. I'm not convinced that these facilities need to have an identity. They're kind of a captured market I would think. I mean people from Fridley are not going to come down here looking for this, and quite frankly I don't know if you have one in Fridley. Dave Kelso: I live irl Fridley. No, I don't. I live in Circle Pines just south of Duluth but you're absolutely right. People are not going to be driving all the way across the metro area but when we designed the entire network, we just had the concept that if we had one building, we could approve one concept. We could approve one set of floor plans. We could approve just one entity and we weren't ~n a posit~on at the time we wro[e ouT' con~ract to go ~n and try to approve a separate inspection station in ~2 different communities. Councilman Workman: You aren't getting any of this flack from any of those other communities? Dava Kelso: I have not. No. Councilman Workman: Is there a testing site in Fridley? Dave Kelso: No, there is not. Councilwoman Dimler: Will there be one? Dave Kelso: No, there will not be one in Fridley. Why Fridley? What's with this? My wife teaches... No, that's just our baslc concern and when Systems Control approached us indicating that the City of Chanhassen was suggesting some changes, our immediate response was, well that's contrary to what we have in our contract and so I'm here to just simply express our concerns and we'll play it by what happens wlth the Count11. 32 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilman Workman: Well that isn't that drastic of a change. It's not changing floor plans. Paul Krauss: Maybe a little back-up on that. A little bit ago you were talking about performance controls and what can we do about that and one of the things we've done about that is in the last year we adopted a new site plan ordinance that clarified the fact that the City does architectural review. Now for a lot of reasons it was fairly vague. It doesn't say everything has to be brick or better which Bloomington and Burnsviile do. It doesn't say everything has to have a roof but it basically says each building wiii be reviewed on it's own merits when it's brought in and that gives you some latitude to exercise some judgment on that. I think your analogy to a McDonald's an appropriate one. 20 years ago McDonald's came into every town and said this is what a McDonald's looks like. We unpack it out of a box and that's the way it is. You know since then McDonald's has been getting very adept at having a multitude of different buildings that fit into a lot of different areas but you always know it's a McDonald's. They always get that point across. The only change that's being requested here is the addition of a mansard roof. We just received the information, the letter dated earlier in January and the information on costs today. I did obtain a copy of a letter a week ago however from the City of Hinnetonka who is also looking at asking them to put a roof system on the building and their Planning Commission has approved it with a roof system. The Council hasn't acted on it yet so I don't know the ultimate disposition of that but they had the same concern ue did. In that case you're looking down onto it but it's very visible from Cedar Lake Road which is a busy street and some of the residences. In terms of cost you know, I don't know. We just had a brief time to look at the numbers but if you add the cost for the parapet extension to the roof, the cost differential between adding a parapet and adding a mansard by their numbers is approximately 7~ of the total building cost. [ don't want to say, I mean if that's a major dollar amount or not. It doesn't seem like it's a major figure. The reason ue got into this discussion in the first place was for several reasons. There's been a desire expressed to us by the Council relative to downtown and relative to development along the highway to get a better quality of product. Fiat roof buildings may have been the norm in the past and some of them are quite attractive. We're sitting in one right now but there's been a tendency in downtown to go with pitched roof systems and in fact all the new buildings have them and in fact when we're looking at things to identify the fact that you're in downtown Chanhassen with the TH 5 improvements, it's been the roof lines. Silhouettes of the rooflines that's being considered to highlight that .... that recognize that this lot backs up to a residential neighborhood where there's a pitched roof system. You know I can't sit here tonight and tell you that every building in town has to have a mansard roof or pitched roof system. That would be arbitrary and I think that's the kind of thing you really need to look at more in depth but this particular building on this particular site under the design review guidelines, ordinance that we have, we felt it was a worthy recommendation to make and apparently we're not alone in doing it. And again, I haven't had a chance to talk to the PCA about it but l can understand why they want to have some recognition between buildings so that people know where these are but nobody's trying to paint this building paisley and make it fade into the woodwork or anything else. You're going to know what it is. It's just going to have a roof on it if it's approved that way. 33 City Council Meeti~,g o- Janua~'y 28, 1991 Councilman Workman: But you're going to have to go there every year by force wllether you wan[ to or not. You're going to know where it is. I mean if you're going to be within 5 miles of it, nobody forces you to go to HcDonald's. Incidentally, my c,~r's in the lot in this picture at HcDonald's. I guess we've dealt with. Dealt with. That's a tough word. We've been, tried to work with tho PCA before and that's been kind of, I would say that the PC~ is kind of didn't do it self real good by assuming that 11 communities would want the same looking facility in all of them. I don't know. I guess I would stick by keeping the roof it we can do that. Then the only other question I have. ~ couple questions. Number one, if we're not going to test large trucks or deisels, why do we have the large door? Waiter Rockenstein: It's my understanding, and we can have Mr. Krzywicki who helped ru~, thls program in Maryland and some of the other states, be more specific about it but some of th~., vehicles that come wlthin the welght 11mlt and are gas powered, have roofllnes that are higher than a standard automobile and that's the reason for the higher bay. You can get campers. You can get trucks with the camper tops on them which are under the welght 11mit and are gasoline powered but are still (allef' than a standard bay. That's the reason. Councilman Workman: Okay. ~nd then under the conditional use permit, number 6. ~t says malntal~ site Ln compliance wlth State and Federal air and noise standards. After 6 nlonths of operation, a compliance report shall be prepared by the applicant and supplied to the City, which you guys agree with. Then we go on to say, additional studles requested by the City after the lnitial report shall bt: paid by the City unless the reports conclude a problem exists which you also agree with, which I don't agree with. At a very minimum I'd rather' say the city will., I will disinc].ude that the City will pay for any repof't. We're dealing with the PCA here again and they're trying to save air quality. Or improve the air quality but they're going to ignore these facilities or they're not going to have regular testing in or around these facilities? Then for us to say that we get excited. Are we going to get more excited about the air quality than the PCA would? Paul Krauss.' The PCA has a lot of decent folks working for it but they're often times stretched pretty thin and. Councilman Workman: They had time to sit and watch Instant Webb and The Press t hough. Paul Krauss: And hopefully that white plume across the highway is being taken care of by that new burner that was required by the PC~. Councilman Workman: But let me say. We've got 12 of these facilities, or is it 117 11 of these facilities and they're all looking the same. I would just thlnk that they'd have a built in plan to monitor all of them and for the Clty to say yeah, J.f we have a problem we will test it when we're dealing with the PCA themselves in the first place. We're going to have to call them up to test their owl~ facility in ~ sense. Pa~zl Krauss: I don't know what the PCA monitoring program is honestly and possibly they can fill us itl on that. There was a concern voiced that okay. Here we've got a new anlmal in town. Nobody quite knows how it's golng to 34 City Council Meeting - January operate. They agreed that they'd provide us with a test after 6 months of operation just to conflrm that they're in compliance. At that point, I'm speaklng for the applicant here, they were concerned that the City could start asking for a lot of requests just to make their life difficult without really havlng serious basls to think that there's a problem. They're expensive to do and after the 6 months we should have a good indication that it's operated successfully and there probably shouldn't be, I mean there shouldn't be significant fluctuations in air quality or noise coming from this site over time. We should have good worklng experience after 6 months and possibly they'd like to expand on that further but that's my understanding. Walter Rockenstein: If ! may try to expand on that further. One of the things that I do in my particular practice is environmental impact statements, environmental assessment worksheets and applylng on behalf of clients to the Pollution Control Agency for indirect source permits so I'm relatively famlliar with the Clean Alt standards and specifically with testlng for sltes such as this. In the PCA's requirements for each of these sites, they require that each slte be studled for lt's compliance wlth alt quallty standards and in fact we provided that study to the City staff and they also, we have provided them with a nolse study. That study, whlch lsa model using the Environmental Protection Agency's approved modeling techniques, shows that we are no place close to violating alt quallty standards in the last year of operation of this slte, that is 1998. I'm not talking about, I'm talking about a huge gap between the air quallty at this slte and State and Federal standards. In every other community, that has been sufficient demonstration of compliance with air quality standards. Here there were concerns from the neighbors that perhaps the facility wouldn't operate the way it was advertised and so we agreed to provide 6 months later an actual monitoring study. Not a modeled study but a monitoring study of the site to demonstrate that compliance was being achieved. But the staff also had in there a provision that any time the Clty wanted to, it could ask for another study which would be done at our expense. We felt based on the fact that the modellng study show that thls ls no place close to a violation, that we were willing to do a study 6 months later. That that was not fair to put the risk of any number of studles on Systems Control and so we worked out this compromise which is that if the City feels there's a problem, they can order the test. And in fact ifa problem exlsts, we'll pay for it and we'll correct the problem. should point out additionally that on site there is carbon monoxide monitoring under OSHA to protect the staff who are present, and that ls, it ls very unlikely that those monltors will be tripped but if they are, that protection is there. So that's the genesis of the requirement and we thlnk that it's a falr compromise with what the staff had proposed. Councilman Workman: I've had my fill of modeling studies. They're the same ones that said we'd have 10,000 people in the year 2000 in this city. Modeling studles. I would at the bare mlnlmum take the last sentence of number ~ out. don't think we should assume any liability for it or for a study if a problem exlsts. If a restaurant in town were emltting fumes or something and staff had to go out, check it out, doesn't the restaurant pay for that? Mayor Chmiel: It's their responsibility to correct it. Councilman Workman: I guess I would take that out so that, I don't think me should have to pay for any sort of. I know what the applicant is worried about. City Council M~,et. ing ,. January 28, 1991 That we're 9oing to once every month get them and I can understand their worry but, Councilman Mason: It does say that if there is a problem, not only will they correct {t but they'].l pay for the study too. I meal] I guess I do see that as somewhat of a compromise. I mean that's right isn't it? If there is a problem, yeah. Councilman Workman: How are we going to know if there's a problem? Councilman Mason: If we say, okay I think there's a problem. We go ahead and authorize this study and in fact there ls one. Councilman Workman: But that's why I'm a little shocked that regular or annual or bi-annual tests aren't bullt lnto the whole thlng considering the business that [hey're i~. 8ut it's for us or the 11 other communities to prove and pay for if not. Z guess I wouldn't want the City to blnd ltself. Walter Rockenslein: Ny only observation would be that if the business we're in is inherently one that produces air pollution, then the same testlng requirement should be proposed for the McDonald's because it generates more traffic. The same lestlng process should be mandated For banks because they generate at least as much tr,~ffic. In terms of air quality, this fzcillty produces no more or no ].ess than other business hlghuay uses. In fact it produces less than a fair numb~=.r of the business highway uses you already have and you can demonstrate that elther by modeling o'r by monitoring, whichever you choose to use. Frankly I don't think we have any objection if you want to move to take the sentence out. That would also meet wlth our objective not to be exposed to monthly or daJ. ly studies. Councilnlan Workman: As a citizen I wouldn't know if this thing was causing pollution problems o~' not. Councilman Mason: ...causing the pollution problem though? Councilman Workman: You ca~'t smell carbon monoxide can you? Councilwoman Dimler: You can't taste it, you can't see it, you can't smell it. Councilman Mason: But of course they already have the carbon monoxide in place for the people thai are working in the buildlng so if that gets trlpped, there's going to be a problem. Councilman Workman: I just don't think we should. Hayer Chmiel: I think really what you're saying Tom is basically Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requlres pollution abatement equlpmer, t on different areas of concern for industries for whatever and with this, by bringing in this kind of operation, it's golng to brlng in some additional cars and you sald it's going to be I~o different than McDonald's or probably even less. But you may have concentrations that are there for a longer period of tlme than what you might hava at a McDonald's. Those are in and out. You may have a back-up total numbers of cars that could cause a problem. I'm rather surprised too that MPCA 36 City Council Meeting - January has not taken in consideration with their concern about cleaning up the environment, to rather having a concern in causing a problem within a specific location. Presently that's a clean area. There's not this kind of business or additional businesses. Therefore I think not only our location but the other location should also be looked at in other cities. I'm rather surprised that they have not taken that position. They have the equipment to do the testing in Downtown Minneapolis. On the freeways. By-ways. Wherever. I'd think that they would also take that precaution to do the same kind. Alleviate any given concerns that the people may have. Walter Rockenstein: I'll try to respond again by indicating that the modeling that was done was done not for the average day. It was done for the worst case situation. That is end of the month, maximum month, maximum operation, maximum hour, maximum thru-put of the facility and it still shows the facility a huge distance in air quality standards away from the standard. In fact a distance which many intersections in the Twin Cities area do not even come close to. Routinely large buildings being built in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul are approved with modeling studies which show the air quality much closer to the standards than they are for this building. Secondly, these buildings have been tested in Maryland by OSHA and by the Maryland Environmental Protection Agency and they have consistently come up with clean bills of health even on maximum days with maximum thru-put of the facility. So we're confident that we have built in a large margin of safety for violation of the State Air Quality standards on these facilities. To the extent that the individual operators themselves might be threatened, they have the additional protection of constant monitoring of the sealed levels within the building. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly a hypothetical question. As vehicles come in there, I can't remember in reading it and going through the packet, the purpose for this is to pick up and detect those who are in violation of emissions of...coming from their vehicles. What happens if you have hypothetically 20 cars that are all in violation? Would the concentration be much higher than what it would normally be if you were just driving in and out of a McDonald's? I mean you're getting all these cars in here. Walter Rockenstein: I understand that. I guess that, I can't react to the specific question of 20 that are in violation of the standard. Mayor Chmiel: 107 157 You know, whatever. Walter Rockenstein: All I can tell you is that the experience in other states where they have done monitoring and where they have the continuous monitoring of the carbon monoxide to OHSA standards, is that they have not had a problem. You're golng to have it on any given day a large number of vehicles that are not in strict compliance with the standard and will be asked to go and have their cars flxed. Now that wlll get better year by year as people are required to fix their cars. Mayor Chmiel: I guess one other question that I had that hasn't been really addressed. Are there any outside speakers or telephones that could cause any problems? Saylng puttlng them in Bay 3 or into line 2 or whatever? Paul? 37 City Conncil Meel-~ng --,lanu-a~'y 28, lg91 Paul Kr'auss: Mr. l'layor, you raise ,.~ valid poir, t though and I thought it was somethf, n9 that ue had wri[ten into the ordinance but you may want to add that. I ,,esn if tl,ey're in agreement with it but you may want to add it to the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: ~ think an additional line should be put in. ~nyone else? Councilman WinO: Where did we wind up oil [he roof issue? Councilwoman Dimler: Some of us haven't commented. Mayor Chmiel: One other thing. It slipped my mind. 011 Dell Road, as well as 184th, tha['s golng to be a controlled intersection. To eliminate the congestJ, on going into the specific residential area, Ls there anyway that MPCA can have discussions wlth NnDoL to have slgns for those coming from the east goJng west to go in at that controlled intersectioll rather than going back down to 'tile reslderltlal intersection? And at the same time upon completing their .~nspection, is there anyway we can have them leave tile site and go back up to [)e].l. Road ~nd come back out onto that controlled intersection? WaJ. ter RockensLeln: Z think you will see in the conditiol]s that we are golng to submit s slgn plan to MnDot uhlch has been revlewed by your staff first of ail, which ui].1 suggest the manner of entry to tile station. We will also, as part of the publication process be publishing a map uhlch shows the ways to access the s~tion and it's our intent again that .'staff, although those have to be appf'ovod hy the PCA and HnDot eventually, what we've agreed wlth is that those will be t'evJ, eu~,d first by your staff before we submit them to PC~ and MnOot. Z don't k~ou if there's ~ny way when somebody exlts the faclllty to mandate that they turn left of-'right.. F. guess Z havell't got ~n .'~nswer to that problem. Hayer Chmiel: True. Walter Rockenstein: We can deal ulth accessing and we will try to deal with that both through the map and tile signage. ~ don't know how we can require t'hem to leave a speclfic way. Mayor Chmlel: There's no way you can mandate them to do it but Z would much pr(~Fer seeing that kind of ~ccess from tha~ site back onto the service road as well as hack to Dell and then out on TH 5. Walter RockensteLll: We can do that with the map and clearly people coming from [he east, thai would be the ,lost loglcal way for them both to access and to leave the site. That raJ. ses the other concern which ls that the communication program uh.i. ch is golng to be a part of the beginning of this program is a ? county wide communication program. I think it's part of the concern here of the uniformity of the statlon look ls [hat the hope ls that the materlal sent out uJ. ll be one se~ of materials that wlll go to all people. And if you have tc.~ting statlor, s that look different, you're golng to have difficulty in maillng, trying to mail drivers different pictures of stations [hat look different, and I think that'.~; one of the reasons that the PCA initially was J.:,terested itl a facility which has a single look that can be put into that r,~aterlal. 38 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 I'layor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else? Paul, on the betas that are being proposed, we're looking at approximately 2 to 3 feet high. From a sight line from a vehicle, that's really not going to screen any of that away is it? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it's not going to obscure the total view of the vehicle but wlth the dlstance and the landscaping that w111 go on top, it will really dimlnish direct views. I can't say that you won't see it from off site but it's going to be screened. Mayor Chmiel: I was just looking. They have the option of 2 or 3 feet and I would like to probably see that remain at a 3 foot rather than 2 or 3. 2 foot berm does absolutely nothing. Any other? Ursula. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I would look to Paul now to give us an idea on how to proceed. Agaln, I agree with Mike that having been given two sites has greatly confused the issue and has also caused a lot of extra work and makes our job more difficult. Do we go with the vacation flrst? The vacatlon refers only to the Lake Drive East site. Then do we deal with the zoning ordinance amendment and then the slte plan and then the replatting or what? How do we go about this? Paul Krauss: There ls rather a lot to deal wlth. The best order for you to work with might be to give first reading to the ordinance. When we're touching on that too, Chairman Emmings ls behlnd me and he noted that there were some changes, one of which happened to do with the testing. That's a cond£tion that's lald out in the ordinance but lt's klnd of complicated but the Plannlng Commission approved the ordinance back in October and then they approved this slte plan and modlfled the conditions on this slte plan over here on Lake Drlve so the language is a little different relative to something like that testing than ls contained in the ordinance. To make a long story short, what I'd 11kw you to do is to give the ordinance first reading and any changes that needed to be incorporated, and it's rather mlnor and kind of detail oriented, we w111 make for you so that the second reading is correct. So I would do the ordinance flrst. And then you may ulsh to posslbly act, and I'm anticipating what you might do but act to reject the IOP stte and then you can make all the recommendations or all the approvals. The platting, preliminary and flnal, conditional use permit and site plan relative to the BM site if that's your wlsh. Roger Knutson: Saying that that would have to be subject, you couldn't actually approve the conditional use permit. That's subject to adoption of the ordinance. Untll you have the ordinance in place, nothing else can happen. Councilman Workman: Can we do one reading? Roger Knutson: If you wanted, you could waive the second reading by two-thirds vote of this body. Councilwoman Oimler: Two-thirds? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that's right. 39 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: I guess I would also add too that while we'd like you to do preliminary and final plat o]] the BH site so they can get to work filing that and getting the right of access and everything done. We have scheduled the approval of a development contract for your next meeting so we already have some ltems associated with thls that are going to be coming up in 2 weeks anyway. I~ayor Chmiel: The point that you just brought up. That right of access. That will be in hand so we can provide that to HnDot regarding TH 5? Paul Krauss: Yes sir. It's my understanding that they're fully willing to give it and in fact have several verslons of it available tonlght. We're just not sure which is the correct one. What I'd 11ke you to do is add a condition to the flnal plat approval that requires havlng an acceptable rlght of access agreement endorsed and delivered to MnDot as a condition for flnal plat approval. Councilman Workman: Have they lost time on this due to this? Paul Krauss: Well we've worked this out with the applicants and thelr attorney. Zt's going to take probably the better part of a week or a week and a half to get all the plat documents filed anyway. We've also told them that if you agree to approve the slte plan tonlght, we would allow them to begin site gradlng. Not to pull a building permit but to get site grading done so there's a lot of things that they can be worklng on in the next two weeks. I don't believe it's golng. They're on a very strict timeline but I think if it goes as we've lald out, they should be okay. At least that's what they've told us. Mayor Cllmiel: Okay, is there anyone here who would like to address this particular subject at thls tlme? People 11vlng wlthln that particular area? I know we've had some discussions previously and hopefully you've got some new points to brlng up. Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas. I live in Chan Estates. I'm not too sure if I have any new points on it. Listening to the various discussions, it sounds 11ke it's pretty well set except, at least comlng from the Plannlng Director, that thls is going to go there. I just want to reiterate asking the City here to please keep in mlnd the residential neighborhood that's there. That's been established there and it's been there for 20-20 years and what's comlng in there. To keep in mlnd that we have a gas statlon on the corner. We have a HcDonald's and now we're going to have an emission testlng station relatively in our backyard. Everything that comes up for discussion. They say well thls ls better than what could go in there. I think, and so do the other neighbors, that it's not necessarily true that if this doesn't go there there's going to be a Hardee's or a Wendy's or another multiple traffic type facility. There are other thlngs that could go lnto thls slte I'm sure besides that. Also talklng and thlnklng about the trafflc that goes in there, if you've driven out and looked at the corner that HcDonald's ls and you take a rlght turn comlng off, or left turn to go towards HcOonald's down Lake Drlve East. When we start talking about what they mentlon as posslbly 80-90 cars or 100 and some, ?0 some trlps which means in and out and you add that to what HcDonald's already draws in there and you add to DataServ when they get that going in the morning in the early hours or what comes out from 4:00 to 6:00. If anybody stood on that corner and watched the trafflc rlght now wlthout those facilities or without thls facility, just 4O City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 the two facilities that are there now, McDonald's and DataServ emptying out, you would see long lines of cars already on Lake Drive East. Planning Director says that the road there ls adequate. It handles the trafflc. I'm not sure what they mean by handllng the traffic. If you're talking about traffic back up for 200 yards or 300 yards down the road there now, evidentally that's adequate then. It sure doesn't look very adequate to the neighborhood that's right there. We do appreciate the discussion and the concern. Talklng about bermlng and the shrubs and the trees that go in and protect what once was a very quiet residential area and then is no longer true. I guess that's basically our concerns. We realize that they're are going to be commercial thtngs that go into thls area for some tlme now. Obviously our concern ls that lt's the rlght types of things that is compatible to our neighborhood since our neighborhood is there. I purchased my house long before the Lake Drlve East was there. It was a residential zone. It was changed. It's not like I moved in knowing that these things were golng to be there. I moved in with a different concept. So dld most of the neighbors down the line. We talk about worrying about commercial. Maklng money and proflt and so forth which I understand the world turns on but also when I talk to real estate agents about what's happening to the property value, I'm looking at a large percentage of my house golng down and the difficulty of selling a house. I've talked to a realtor who has sold 4 houses in that neighborhood about the difficulty of selllng my house and the neighbors and the cost and what's going to happen and I guess from a selfish point of view, I too have to look at the amount of money that I spent on my house and what if I chose to sell it. The types of facilities that go in there, I think you can see the decay of a neighborhood. I really do. You can look around the Twln City area and look at what comes into, commercial things that come into a neighborhood. Certaln neighbors move out. It's not a threat but obviously as more and more traffic type, and this type of thing goes in there, I'm very seriously and neighbors are very seriously talking about moving. If I move and have to sell at a loss to move, to move to someplace that's more private, then obviously we're talking about a deoaylng of neighborhood. Not a developing neighborhood. That neighborhood has been there for a long time. It's been a very established and very stable neighborhood and I would 11ke to see it stay that way. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, that's another good point. The access going out of there. Will those people use Lake Orive to go to Dell Road to exit onto TM 5 as well? Would there be any sense of direction glven there once that road ls in fully? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, yeah. There should be. First of all I don't know what the mlx ls. Z know the traffic report has some guesses as to where people w111 be coming from that are going to use this site but this site is, you know just when you know the others one are located, it's going to draw people from much of Eden Prairie, from southern Minnetonka, from those communities and they will be approaching the slte from the east and if we get the slgnage package and the map package that we'd like to have, they wtll be intercepted at Dell Road and brought 1nrc the site at Lake Drlve. Z'd also point out that in our saylng that the road is sufficient to handle the traffic, clearly Lake Drive was built for this in mlnd. ! mean we just finlshed that job. The mlssing link in thls rlght now is Dakota and as the Council is aware, Dakota is going to be rebuilt and I belleve it's got 2 lanes in each direction plus a turn lane and that's golng to happen starting this summer. There are clearly significant improvements that are golng to happen in there. I don't want to glve the impression that there's City Council Meeting v. January 28, 1991 not going to be an increase in traffic, either from this site or the adjacent site that's being created, or probably more importantly all the vacant land in front of DataServ that is now on the market as well too. There is clearly going to be significant volumes of traffic. Now hopefully ue can capture as much of that as possible at Dell Road and we'll make every effort to do that but I don't want to say that it's not going [o change. It clearly is going to change. Hayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard, do you have anything? Councilman Wing: As Paul was talking I was thinking what's next? What's going in next door to lt? Is it golng to be any lesser er11, if I use that word for the statlon but a lot of development going in Paul. I don't know what to do for the residents. I guess we've talked, the roof lssue hasn't come up yet and lt's further down the road but it seems to me if all these going in, if we could protect that neighborhood ulth additional bermlng, additional trees. There's got to be more we can do for them to make this more environmental lmpact less. I don't, I'm... lost in the discussions here and stop there. Paul Krauss: If I can respond to that briefly. This site's pretty ideally sulted for what we're dolng. I mean physically the actlve part of thls slte ls located about as far away from the neighborhood as you can possibly have it and st111 have it south of TH 5. As to what's going to happen next door, Councilman Wlng I ulsh I had a better idea but I don't and I suppose lt's subject to the vagaries of the market and whoever comes up ulth a proposal that's consistent wlth the ordinance flrst. We are sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood. should point out too that it's my understanding that the underlying property owners who are here tonlght, Chanhassen Holding, when they originally platted that area they left a strlp of land that they landscaped that now has trees on it on the south slde of Lake Drive specifically to buffer those homes and those trees are not matured and provlde a falrly good buffer and we're asklng them to supplement that by doing some additional landscaping over there. Lastly, as I recall when Lake Drlve was rebullt, it was shlfted somewhat to the north, you know not significantly but somewhat further away from those homes to even leave more of a buffer concept on the south slde. That land adjacent to most of the homes is permanently set aside for that. It's not developable. It's always golng to be a buffer. Tom Kotsonas: I'd like to counter something that Paul said. First of all, the landscaping that goes down Lake Orlve East was not put there by the owners of that property. They allowed some people that lived in those houses to plant all those trees years ago. Alright? They were told you can go ahead and do it but we're not spendlng a penny on lt. You just go ahead and do lt. Secondly, the road that went in this summer went at least 3 feet to the south and they have gone to the north also and there was a section of all those trees, at least 6 feet off of every one of those trees when it got near the road that was sllced off. You go down there and look, they're cut rlght off so I don't know what you're looklng at but you're not looking at the same thing that we're looking at. And it was the intention of the people when they put that road in there in the first place, they wanted to. The developers dld not out of the kindness of thelr heart put that road where it ls because they wanted to go right up to the property line and they would have taken every one of those trees out if it hadn't been for SOlne of the neighbors who started yelling and screaming so I don't understand some of the things. And if you look at the road plans and look 42 City Council Heeting - January 28, 199l at where the road went, the road did not go just north. Some of the road went further into that property which required trees. Branches of those trees be cut off so you have trees going up 30 feet in one direction. Branches going 20-30 feet south, 6 feet north a big slice of it going down. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Did you want to say something? Craig Hertz: Craig Hertz, 510 Laredo Lane in Chanhassen. Speaking as a citizen rather than anyone's attorney tonight, I would urge the Council to use the industrial park site rather than the site on Lake Brive. I think this activity is more appropriate to the industrial park than to the margins of the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not. Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I would like to bring up one. I know that when we, ina buslness neighborhood type of development, I'm thinklng of TH 7 and TH 41, the neighbors complained about the lighting there. Is there any way that we can minlmlze the 11ghtlng effect? I know those lights are going to be on all night and that will be a problem for those whose bedrooms are right. Paul Krauss: Right. Councilwoman Dimler, as I recall I believe it was due to your suggestion. When we wrote the new site plan ordinance last year, we incorporated. Councilwoman Dimler: I know you're meetlng the requirements but is there some way we can cut down the number of lights? Paul Krauss: We hold them to that requirement uhlch has no more than half a foot candle at the property line and all the lights have to be shielded and downcast and they have submitted an earlier drawing that showed how that worked and they were fully consistent with that. I'd also point out too that this use ls not, maybe they can descrlbe their hours of operation but as I recall, they're somewhat limited in terms of evening operations and weekend operations as well so there's not going to be a need for huge amounts of 11ghtlng anyway. But it's not on their plan now and we wi11. Councilwoman Oimler: But the lights will be on all night as I understand. Paul Krauss: I'm sure some will for security, yes. But we verify their 11ghting plan based on the slte plan whenever they pull a buildlng permit. Councilwoman Oimler: I'm just asking can we reduce the number? I think they have 4 or 5 proposed that are going to be on all night. Is that necessary? Will 2 do it? Will 3 do it? Paul Krauss: I would believe the concerns are primarily security when the place ls closed. Possibly the applicant can address that. Councilman Wing: This building in it's appearance, I mean I hate to even open up the subject of the other site, but it certainly does fit in to that building grouping down there better than up on this TH 5 area. On the other hand, the 43 City Council Meeting -- January 28, 1991 access is so much better. Is Lhe First step we have to do the ordinance or is the issue of the roof and everything else? Mayor Chmiel: I think probably one would be, if so desired, one could re3ect the IOP site. Second would be the first reading to the ordinance. Councilman Wing: Where does that roof fit in? Mayor Chmiel: The roof would come in to as a conditional use requirement. Paul Krauss: It would be under the site plan review. Mayor Chmiel: Or the slte plan review. Councilman Wlng: Whlch ls later discussions? Councilman Workman: Well let's move it. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, would anyone 11kc to make a motlon? Councilman Workman: I'm not entlrely sure why we have to reject a plan that we really haven't reviewed. Can't bulld thls thlng in two spots. Mayor' Chmiel: Maybe as a condition of the contract. Councilman Workman: Who's contract? Mayor Chmlel: Between them and the former property owner as a condition. Councilman Workman: I don't understand why we've got to deal ulth their contract. Councilwoman Dimler: It should be their choice of sites. Mayor Chmiel: I think it probably is one of the reasons. councilman Workman: I don't know what kind of a motion that requires because I don't k~tou what, but I would move to approve the BH site. That I do know. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Workman: Is that the first thing we're going to do? Mayor Chmlel: We can go through that particular, the readlng is something that we have to do. Roger Knutson: What you could do for example is move the first readlng wlth the use being at the BH site or IOP site, designating which one. That takes care of the flrst readlng. Councilwoman Olmler: Would this also be the appropriate time then to move 1rem 3 in? The vacation? 44 City Council Meeting - January 28, 199l Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was something I was going to bring back up as it's being carried over. Councilman Workman: Nobody likes my simple motion? Councilwoman Oimler: Well it gets us moving in a direction. Mayor Chmiel: It gets us going somewhere. Paul Krauss: I'm sorry, did I miss something? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. How are we doing? Paul Krauss: Well you're doing alright. Councilman Workman: So I move to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow emission control testing stations as conditional uses in the BH. Do you want me to add onto that or do we want to vote on that? Let's vote on that. Roger Knutson: It'd be appropriate to take them one at a time. Councilwoman Oimler: Piece by piece, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk so because there's so many things that are tied into this. It'd probably be better if we did it that way. Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Oimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first reading of amendments to Section 20-293, 20-814 and 20-714 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance to allow emission contro! testing stations as a conditiona! use permit in the BH district. AZ1 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Second item. Rejection of the IOP site proper Roger? Roger Knutson: If you wanted to you could move to reject the IOP site since lt's not allowed as...of the zonlng district. Councilman Workman: Is there something that isn't there? It doesn't make sense to me so I won't make a motion to that. Mayor Chmiel: A motion as stated by our City Attorney. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not necessary to reject something that isn't there, in my oplnion. Roger Knutson: You could just pass it as moot since it's not under a conditional use for that district. Mayor Chmiel: Good point. 45 City Council Meeting -. January 2.8, 1991 Councilman Workmar,' Should we move to item 37 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I move vacation of surface drainage and utility easement, emission control testing station located north of Lake Drive East, blah, blah, blah south of TH 5, Pope Associates. Councilwoman Oimler' I'll second that. Resolution ~91-12_:.. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the vacation of the surface draillage and utility easement upon approval and completion of the replat of Chan Haven 2nd and site plan for the Emission Control Testing Station located north of Lake Drive East, East of Dakota ~venue and south of Highway 5. all voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmie].: Now /. believe we would have to go back into now the conditional use permit itself. Councilman Wing' Are we going to waive the second reading? Councilman Workman' No, because we're coming back with it in 2 weeks. Mayor Chmiel: We have something on the table with the conditional use permit wi~.h the City C~¢u~cil. Conditional Use Permit ¢90-5 subject to the following conditions with some of the removals of Tom's concern on item 6. Can we get something phrased differently in there Roger? Councilwoman Simler: ~here are we? gould you tell us the page? ~ay()l- 6hmiel: Okay, you're on page 22. Councilwoman bimler~ On 5(B)? ~ayol' Chmiel: On 5(B). Roger Knutso~]: Again, to repeat myself. On C 1, 2, and 3. All three items. If the Council...to approve them, it'd be conditional approval on all three of these that you taus[ approve the second reading of the ordinance at the next meeting. Councilwoman Bimler: So actually we don't need to do anything else until the second reading? Is tha( what you're saying? Mayor Chmiel: He's saying combine it with the second reading at the same particular meeting. Zs that what you're saying? Roger Knutson: Yeah, you could table [his if you wanted to. You technically can't approve this until you get tile ordinance iii place or you could tentatively approve it subjec[ [o. You would say we approve the conditional use permit if we pass the erdinance. Cottncilma]] Workman: Yo[t're talking about the BH site? 46 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Workman: Should ue go ahead while it's fresh in our mind to approve the conditional? Mayor Chmiel: Go. Councilman Workman: Approve the conditional use permit application with an amendment to Conditional Use Permit Section III, on page Subtracting additional studies requested by the City after the initial report shall be paid by the City unless the reports conclude a problem exists. And to leave intact on page 20, number 1. I'm not changing that I guess. Mayor Chmiel: No. That's going to remain as Councilman Workman: So just wlth the one change. Councilwoman 0imler: I'll second that. Paul Krauss: You had discussed two additional conditions that you may ulsh to add. One was that the berms be a minimum of 3 feet high as a condition added to the slte plan. The second was that as a condition of a conditional use permit, that there be no outside speakers. Mayor Chmiel: Or telephones. Councilman Workman: And that's conditional on passage of the ordinance. Councilwoman Dlmler: Do you accept those 1rems? Councilman Workman: I do. Mayor Chmiel: And that would be as a friendly amendment. Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, and I'll second those. Paul Krauss: Could I make a request that you not make the final plat approval contingent because they'd like to go get that plat filed tn the ensutng 2 weeks? Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Yeah, we can do that. Councilman Workman: Are we approving the conditional use, the site plan and the replat all in one pop here? Roger Knutson: No, just conditional use. Councilman Workman: Okay. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor wlth a second. Discussion. Councilman Wing: I just wanted to discuss thls mansard roof. Steve, I don't recall the feellngs of the Planning Commission that nlght. Was that a unanimous vote for that mansard roof? I remember you discussed it at length. 47 City Council Meeting --.January 28, 1991 Steve Emmings: What I remember of the discussion was just that people were, didn't like tl~e flat roof and Z think also because of the proximity to the residential neighborhood, we felt that something like that. Whether it's mansard or something else but something other than a flat roof that would be more compatible with Lhe residential. Beyond that Z don't think anybody cared... Councilman Wing: I'll just on the record say that I don't like mansard roofs. Every time I see one, I look at them in number of overhead swings with an ax to get at the fire should one ever occur in that type of structure. So that's just my personal opinion. Would ue be better suited in dropping the mansard roof and converting that into additional berms, trees, landscaping appearance for this building? Would that better suit the neighborhood and better serve the residents of the area? In fact isolate that a little bit more and camoflauge it even a little bit more in lieu of mansard roof for appearance sake. That's my only comment. Mayor Chmiel= The reason for the appearance sake basically is so it blends in more with the existing neighborhood. So we have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve, conditioned on passage of the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance mmendment, Conditional Use Permit ~0-5 subject to the following conditions: l. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Provide direction maps reviewed by staff with each notice that vehicle testlng ~s due. The maps shall clearly illustrate and promote entering the site from Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. 3. Applicant is required to maintain col]tract to provide services with the State of Minnesota. 4. No repairs to be performed or gas or parts sold at the site. .5. No testing of diesels or heavy trucks to be performed at the site. Maintain site in compliance with state and federal air and noise standards. After 6 months of operation, a compliance report shall be prepared by the applicant and supplled to the Clty. ?. All vehicle stacking ,~nd parking to be in designated areas. No parking or stacklng ls allowed in flre lanes, drlve alsles, access drlves or publlc right-of-way. 8. Work with MnDot to erect directional signs along Hwy 5 that direct traffic to the slte via Dell Road. 9. There shall be no outside speakers or telephones. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 48 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilman Workman: Then I would move to approve the Site Plan approval for construction of a 4,042 square foot emission control testing station as in the plan whlch would lnclude the mansard roof. Roger Knutson: Conditioned upon passage of the ordinance. Councilman Workman: Correct. Gene Borg: ...I'm the owner of the McDonald's that you've been talking about all night. I had 3 concerns on the site plan. One's been addressed with the wetland... There's one concern wlth water drainage. Paul assures me, off my back corner you guys take out the easement and water drainage I think drains out would be partially on thelr property. On the water drainage. ! would 11ke to see something in writing or along that order that will guarantee that that water flow off the back corner of my property actually goes down into, the highway is suppose to put in a new sewer and stuff but it's going to cross their land somewhat. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the Assistant City Engineer posslbly can provlde some light on that but basically right now the McDonald's site sheet drains across a portlon of the proposed emlsslon control site. The easement that covers that drainage is extraordinarily large and covers much of the property, most of which ls not where the water goes. When Systems Control bullds up their parking lot, basically the water which now kind of flows, sheet drains towards the northeast, is going to be channeled in sort of a dltch that will flow right lnto a catch basin on TH 5 and there is an easement that we're getting in the plat that covers that dralnage and replaces the one that we'll be giving up. Charles, is there anything else to add to that? Charles Folch: No. That pretty well covers lt. Gene Borg: Just so I know it's going on. And also there's going to be a portion of the people that have thelr cars checked are going to walk across to McOonald's. I know they say it's going to be 2 minutes more or less to check a car. Z've seen thelr lanes and they have thelr slow periods and busy perlods. There's times when they're going to be stacking 10. They could stack probably 30 cars in there if you took it down the street, depending on how many employees they have working at the time so if you take 2 minutes a car. If you had 10 cars, that's 20 mlnutes for the last car. Some people are going to walk across. I spent a lot of money landscaping and I would like to see some sort of sidewalks or something between the properties. Mayor Chmiel: The question that I have, good try. I understand what you're saylng. Are they not requlred to stay wlthin their vehlcles at all glven tlmes? Gene Borg: Well, requiring them what to do. Waiter Rockensteln: The only tlme that people aren't requlred to stay in their cars, if they falled a test and they're coming back for a watver test and they go in the slde bay. Then the car ls actually stopped and the hood's opened and they may get out of the car as well but otherwise those lanes uil1 be movlng. If you have 20 cars there and 3 bays, you'll put the cars through those bays ina little under 8 or g minutes. So people are not going to want to get out of 49 City Council Me~:ti[~g - January 28, 1991 their cars because those lanes will be moving forward constantly. Gene Borg; But you're; assuming there's one per-son in the car. Walter Rockenstein: Just talking with Mr. Kryzwicki, we don't want to put a .sidewalk in to encourage people to get out of their cars and walk across to the. McDonald's. Gene Borg: I'm just looking for...being covered. Maybe they could repair the grass because what will happen over time there will be path through there over the grass. That will happen. Now if they would like to repair the grass if it happens, I'd be more than happy for that. Or do something to keep that from happening. Walter Rockenstein: If that becomes a problem, we'd be happy to repair the grass. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilmal, Workman: Did we second my? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, it's been seconded. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan Review ¢90-11 as shown on site plan dated December 3, 1990, conditioned on approval of the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include a mansard roof on the proposed building. Plans must be submitted and must be approved by city staff. Plans should also illustrate screening for HVAC equipment. Wood slat screens are unacceptable. The applicant must obtaJ, n a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a sign plan incorporating the following elements. a. Monument signage incorporating waitlng tlme information. b. On site directional signage as outlined in the report. c. MnOot/Hwy 5 signage to direct westbound traffic from Eden Prairie to enter tile site via the Dell Road/Lake Dr'ire intersection subject to HnDot approval. 3. The driveway shall be designed to incorporate a 36' width curb and gutter, storm sewer and a 9 ton design. Plans to be approved by the Clty. ~ permanent cross easement and maintenance agreement acceptable to the Clty Attorney shall be drafted and filed against all current and future lots in the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addltlon plat. A restriction shall be filed indlcatJ, ng that all lots in the plat and any future divisions are to gain access via the private drive. Provide a stop slgn at the intersection of the private drive and Lake Drive. 5O City Council Heeting - January 28, lggl 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Watershed District and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revlsed as outllned in the report and shall be submitted to city staff for approval. When the easterly portion of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition develops in the future, the storm sewer outlet located east of the prlvate drlve shall be extended to the future detention pond and the temporary ditch shall be eliminated. 5. Type III eroslon control shall be used along the edge of the Class B wetland. Plans for landscaping south of Lake Drive shall be refined to avoid existing trees and to ensure that all material is located on private property in a protective easement running in favor of the city. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the requlred financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to buildlng permit issuance. 7. The berms shall be a minlmum of 3 feet in height. voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Hayor Chmlel: What else do we need? Is that it? Councilman Workman: I move the replat of Lot 2, Block 1 Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition lnto one lot and one outlot following the same. No, not following the same condition. Paul Krauss: But there is a condition to add if you will that basically says provide a properly worded and endorsed right of entry agreement for MnOot. Mayor Chmlel: Yes. I definitely want that right of access there. It's the only one that's holding up TH $ and I don't want to delay TH 5 for a year. Councilman Workman: Yes, absolutely. Councilwoman Oimler: Second that. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision ~0-17 for Chart Haven Plaza 3rd Addition as shown on the plat dated December 3, 1990 with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time bulldlng permlts are requested. 2. Provlde the following easements: a. Standard drainage and util£ty easements around the perimeters of all lots. b. Dralnage and conservation easement located over the wetland on Lot 1. 51 City Co~mncil Meeting - J~nu,xry 2_8, 199l c. Thirty foot wide utili[y easements centered on sanitary sewer and watermain located outside of public rights-of-way. d. Drainage and utility easement dedicated over Lot 2 to accomplish the telnporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer. e. Plat the future right-of-way along the Hwy 5 frontage to accommodate the Hwy 5 improvement project as an outlot. f. Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed private driveway. Theso easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and 2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted ina manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also be drafted and flled concurrently wlth a prlvate maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. g. Landscaping easement over the planted area located south of Lake Drive rlznning in favor of the City. 3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. The applicant shall provide a properly worded and endorsed right of entry agreement for Hwy 5 to MnDot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Paul Krauss'- And we did vacate the easement? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Paul Krauss: You're done. Hayor Chmiel: Yes. It all should be done. That should be the last item. Amen. ZONING ORDINANCE TO AHENB SECTIONS 20-504, 20-695~ 20-215, 20-735, 20-755, 20-774 AND 20-815 REGARDING PARKING SETBACKS AND BUFFER YARDS, FIRST AND SECOND READING. Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval. Mayor Chmlel: Is there a second? Councilman Wlng: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion? Jay ~ohnson: The publlc would like to dlscuss lt. Mayor Chmiel: I don't want to talk yet. We'll let you come up Jay Johnson: Thls evening ls my flrst chance to see thls and since it was my idea last fall, I wanted to take a look at it and it went way beyond what thought. 52 City Council Neeting - January 28, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Didn't you like it? 3ay 3ohnson: No, I didn't as a matter of fact. We're going from 30 feet to 10 feet with a 5 foot high berm. You know I drive a van. I mean it's way beyond what Redmond was requesting. We're going to end up making a 5 foot high wall, whether that wall be of dirt or of trees or whatever. I'd rather see instead of 5 feet, more like 15 feet. If we're going from 30 feet, cut it in half and have some kind of, I don't like the Redmond berm as is. It's just kind of something that you see in the military around something. Just a straight line pile of dirt. I'd rather see something with some curvature. Some natural look to it to where it aesthetically is something other than just a straight line of dirt. As I read thls, whlch I only read it brlefly thls evening, we could put a 5 foot pile of dirt at a 45 degree angle golng, well not 45. It'd be less than 45. 2:1 from the edge up 5 foot hlgh at 10 foot and then a fence on the other end and that would do. Ny concept was something that was equivalent to being 30 foot away where when I park my van lt's golng to be like my van ls sltting 10 feet from the road. If anybody parks anything of any height, that little 5 foot berm's not going to do anything. I don't think that it ls equivalent to these current ordinance. I don't think it meets what I envisioned as a performance standard. Nayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jay. Is there anybody else that would like to address it? Councilman Workman: Jay, you're talking about you want it 15 feet wide and how high? Jay Johnson: No. Instead of being a 10 foot setback, right now the ordinance is 30 foot. They're reducing it to 10 foot with a 5 foot high berm. Hbout yea hlgh. Councilwoman Dimler: It's as tall as I am. Jay Johnson: Yeah. I drive a van that's yea tall and it's not really one of the tallest around. You know they've got the ones with the raisers and everything else. What we're trying to say is that this 5 foot, you can't do anythlng but a fence but something that's 5 foot hlgh, 10 foot away from the street is equivalent to having a car parking 30 foot away from the street and is vlsually equivalent. What I foresee happening ls just klnd of a stralght 11ne, non-natural looking, look like somebody put up a wall. Whether it's a wall of trees or whatever. I'm not sure if it should be hlgher. Naybe it should be a 5 foot berm with trees on top of that or bushes or something. I don't think, 10 feet seems to be, I mean Redmond was only asking for 7 foot or something. How many feet were they asking for? Paul Krauss: Redmond wants, it was approved for 10 foot setback from the right-of-way. Jay Johnson: It was 10 foot? Okay. Councilman Workman: That's a specific situation. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that was the reason for this amendment wasn't it? City Council. Meeting - January 28, 1991 Paul Krauss: That was the reason for considering a change to the ordinance. 4s yo~[ recall there was a relunctance to just consider a varia~]ce to one off site but that there was some merit to considering some flexibility and performance standard For everybody. Jay Johnson: Berming to me, and this is something Eric brought up in, our good friend Eric Rivkin, brought up a while back on another subject is that putting in a pile of dirt that goes 100 foot that's straight, uniform, looks exactly lJl;e somebody just took and put in a pile of dirt for 100 straight feet, is that what we really want? Is that what we're trying for as an image along TH 5? Councilman Workman: But I still do.'t see what you're proposing entirely different ma/be except that the pile of dirt is zig zig. Jay Johnson: Right. It could have some more natural looking features to it. Nature generally does not dump dirt in a long staright row. If you have a little more room to work with. Now I was wrong about Redmo,d there. I thought Redmond only wanted 15 but you're giving only 10 feet to work with, you don't have much chance to do anything but put a nice long straight line of dirt. Paul Krauss: I would agree that Redmond does have just a nice long straight line of dirt and I don't particularly care for the way it looks. It's effective in screening. Keep in mind that this is part of a site plan review that you have a lot of authority to say you want an undulating berm or they've gel ~o do other things. The ordinance is quite specific that it says just the dirt doesn't work. You've got to landscape it. I~ says fencing doesn't work and basically it says that setbacks may, underline the may, be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet so you may want to work out a compromise in a given situation based on site specifics. I don't know how to. Mayor Chmiel: Leaving it open is what you're saying? Councilwoman gimlet: We have flexibility in [here to get what we want. Paul Krauss: Yeah, I have a dificult time. I mean it's tough to write ordinances that legislate the kind of flexibility you're looking for. I mean I fulJ, y concur with what Jay's striving to get and I think ue can demand that because this is part of the site plan review. You know if ue wanted to in~roduce some language to clarify that the term has to be undulating and effect a natural appearance, ~ suppose we could add some language to that effect. Steve Emmings: I think to add a little bit I guess. I think Jay's outlined the worst case that can happen under what we passed. The Planning Commission and I would hope that it would never happen and the thing that we've been trying to do over the last few years is always put an intent statement in that tells what we're trying to achieve and in here it says the intent is, basically the City's going to trade or reduce setback where additional landscaping is both effective and of high quality aesthetically. What Jay describes was neither effective nor of high quality aesthetically so hopefully if any proposal came in that would meet the description he gave, we'd 'reject it under the intent statement. So Z think this is broad enough so that we can approve good ones and it's not so narrow that they have to come in so everyone will look the same. They have to 54 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 put the burden on them to propose something. If we don't like the way it looks, we can reject it. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and I agree with what Jay's saying too but I do think this document gives us the fLexLbiL£ty that we're Looking for. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's what is here. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Any other further discussion? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman #1nc seconded to approve amendIents to the Zoning Ordinance Section Numbers 20-504, 20-&95, 20-715, 20-735, 20-755, 20-774 and 20-815 reoardin~ parkin~ setbacks and buffer yards. All voted in favor and the IOtiOn carried unaniiously. ADMINISTRATIUE PRESENTATION: SET SPECIAL HE£TING DATE, 30INT CITY COUNCIL/HRA M£ETINGS. Don Ashworth: I had suggested either the 4th or the 7th. In checking with Karen, the ?th every room in th&s build~ng is taken. The other aLternat&ves then ~ould be the 12th, 13th which is Ash ~ednesday, 14th which is Valentines, or just go to the HRA's next regular agenda or schedule which would be the 2~st. Councilwoman Dimler: Does the 4th not work out? Don Ashworth: The 4th is awfully Late not~ce but if the Counc&l would Like to shoot for that, we can do that as well. CounciLwoman DimLer: Z'm goLng to be gone on the ~4th. Don Ashworth: Do you want me to go through why it is that we were proposing to have a joint meeting? Mayor Chmiel: No because I think it is somethin~ that should be done. Discussions deal with each of the respective commissions. February 4th, Monday. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm open. Mayor Chmiel: ~re you open Tom? Councilman ~orkman: ~'d rather do it Thursday, the 2~st but who am I? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'm open both days. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you're saying at what, ~:30 or $:30? Mayor ChmieL: Richard? Councilman ~ing: Z'11 just do what you tell me Don. CounciLman Mason: ~t makes no difference. Ci~.y Coul~cil Meeting -- January 28, 1991 Co~lno.ilwoman Dimler: Well the 21~t is fine. Council. man Workman: I've already got a meeting {hat night and I~d just as ~oon do it. ~:o~nc:Jlwoman Dimler: Are we meeting before then? Before the regular HRA meeting at 5:307 Hayor Chmiel: okay, why don't we do that. On the 21st at ~:20. C~unsil~,~oman D~mn].~r~ P~b].ic Safety ha:~ a meeting that night. Hayor Chmiel: 21st prlor to the HRA meeting. m]on Ashworth: so we'll, have one of our pizza meetings where we could. councilwoman Dimler: Yes, Z oan't make it that night. Hayor Ohmic1: She can't do it the 21~t. Comxncilwoman Olmler: We've got the Southwest Hetro that night. Hayor chmiel: b}~11, w~e're back to the 4th. You can't make the ~th either? You cam~ make it. Councilman Workman: I'm here every rmlght that week except that nlght and I just d~.dn't want to. ~ayor chmlel: Well that's alrlght. Then you'll have a full week. Todd Gorhardt~ We can make it an earlier meeting than Don Ashworth: Well. I thlnk that's st111 the confllct though isn't it? Councilman Workman: Yeah, if we meet right at 5:20 or ~omethlng and we meet for an hour, an hour and a half. Hayor chmiel: Sure. CounCilwoman Oimler~ Southwest Hetro meets at 7:00. Dld we ohange it to the dth? I thought it wa~ the 2rd. But there'~ a publio safety meeting that night too. Councilman Workman: No, Pt~bllc Safety 1~ the 14th. Councilwoman Oimler: No, t~ey changed it to the 21~t because of Valentine's Day. Counoi]mnan b~a~on: Yeah, but that's untll Z:20 though right? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah but then. Cou~mcilman Ha~on: So we could st111 do it at 5:30. .56 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Councilwoman Oimler: He has to be at the Public Safety plus HRA. Oon Ashworth: What time is Public Safety? Mayor Chmiel: 7:00. Don Ashworth: And that's here in this building. I don't see what's wrong with the 21st. Start it at 5:30. We'd done by 7:00 for yours. We'd done close to 7:00 so you can make it to Eden Prairie right. That's where their's is? Councilwoman Oimler: Right. Don nshworth: So we've got to get done at 5 or iO to. Councilwoman Oimler: That's fine with me. Mayor Chmiel: We'll do it the 21st at 5:30. Everybody got it down? 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's go back to Council Presentations. Ursula. 1991 goals. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, good. This is already in the workings and I'm glad to hear it. Could I have an update on when, what are we looking at and when? Mayor Chmiel: Well Don and I have discussed this some time ago and because of me being gone the last couple weeks, I don't think we really have come up with a date but we indicated some time in February. Councilwoman Oimler: Which is difficult. Mayor Chmlel: Whlch ls becomlng more and more difficult and I think we're looking really now at about March. Probably the early part of March. Councilman Workman: What are the rates to Florida? Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, I was going to suggest a retreat. Not just a one day workshop. So we can get away from telephones. Councilman Workman: How about the Hospitality Suites? Don Ashworth: They do have meeting rooms that are quite nice. The IDS faclllty over here is also very nice. Mayor Chmlel: I'd just as soon keep it in town. Maybe Country Sultes would like to have the Council come over and view their facilities they have to offer for us and we could therefore make recommendations to other groups as well. Oon Ashworth: You want me to negotiate with them a little bit? Mayor Chmlel: We have a budget to contend wlth. 57 City Council Meeting -- January 28, 1991 Don Ashworth: I don't know if we can get it free but I think we can take and get a reasonable r,'~te. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Don will work that out. llon Ashworth: Were you thinking then like a Saturday? Jay Johnson: Sunday the 3rd. Mayor Chmi~;l: Saturday or Sunday? That would be wonderful. Councilwoman Dimler: A weekend would be great. DOll Ashworth: Tell you wahL, wily don't you and Z try in getting together very qulckly in the very near future. We can talk about puttJ, ng together a program and present it potentially to the Council uithln the next week. Mayor Cm. hmiel: Okay, sounds great. Councilman Wing: After tonight, are you convinced we can do it in one ueekerld? Maybe ue should do it Monday thru Frlday. Mayor Chmiel: We've got a lot of goals, believe me. Okay, Tom? Performance standard zoning and TH 101. Councilman Workman: Well performance standards has gotten talked about a little bit ~onight. I think we need and it would be nice to have something that we could dlrect Plannlng Commissior, on. T know they've done here and there have done thln.gs but ~ thlnk that's the t~il that wags the dog on TH 5 and if we ,;ould malntaln that. That I think takes care of our fears and the residents fears and if you're ~ quality developer, ~ don't think you mind the performance standards. Zf you're buildlng for life, you're not golng to worry about it. ~ut if you're building to carpetbag, then you're going to worry about it and they're goJrlg to come out in the woodwork real quick. Councilman Mason: That may in fact even attract higher quality developers when they see lt's a town that's serlous about, that's w1111ng to back up. I don't thLnk we can do anything out of line. z mean Z guess that's always kind of the teeter totter there bu~ absoJ, utely. Z thlnk performance standards. Councilman Workman: And despite Councilman Wing's repetroire of ugly buildings on the east side, they are tearing down, we're trying to tear down some buildings. Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. We're going to try to make it aesthetically pleasing for you to view. Counci].man Workman: That's all I had on that. And secondly, maybe I would like to be ~, part of, maybe we need a 25 member task force for the corridor study. I think 25 sounds Ilks a gooU number because you're probably only golng to have about a dozen that participate anyway. But to get a little better handle on that whole situation down there so that we can all envlslon when we drive down there what we thl),k should be down there and get some specifics. 58 City Council Meeting - January 28, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: This is part of the goals that were going to be brought up. Councilwoman Oimler: Right. And like I said, Council should be, Planning should be, staff should be and then residents that want to be. Councilman Workman: And then my last item on the TH 101 and there are some deflnlte memos. Rlght away in the adminstratlve sectlon from Dave Hempel to Mr. Katz and MnDot about Cheyenne Trail, Sandy Hook, etc. and everything else. Can staff come up with a game plan or a resolution that thls Counc11 can pass wlth teeth that will tell MnOot, or whoever. Because MnOot generally is cooperative but Z thlnk they have on TH 101 to tell them to start taklng care of their road or give us what their long range plans are for the road other than letting it fall apart and become. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, all they have to do basically is patch it. They'd be more than willing to turn it over to the County or the City at any given time. Councilman Workman: But that's not feasible. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think it's our responsibility to take that. The County has already taken parts of TH 101. Councilman Workman: Well to what extent, I'm thinking of just north TH 101 rlght now because we've kind of taken south TH 101 into account but when Town Line Road is in and that road gets more and more traffic, at what point can we say to MnDot we need this done? Mayor Chmiel: I guess there's a lot of controversy yet between Minnetonka and Eden Pralrle on that. My understanding ls that a portion of that has already been gone as far as Minnetonka is concerned. And Eden Prairie is not really completely jelled all thls together as a...from what I'm saying. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure of the final status of it although I obviously know the folks over in Mlnnetonka and last I heard was that lt's virtually a done deal at this point. They finally came to terms over the final road design and I thought it was committed for like a 1993 construction. It was originally supposed to be built in 1989. The only reason it wasn't was because the cltles started argulng about where lt's going to go. If lt's not actually on the dotted line, it's getting close as I understand. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what you could do is check on that and see what the status is. Councilman Workman: I don't think that's going to change. Mayor Chmiel: It's not going to change anything as far as TH 101. Councilman Workman: Again, what's driving my thought is that everytlme we get a memo, and I don't have it now in front of me, every time we get a memo we get a synopsls of MnOot since 1940 has disavowed ever owning or knowing about this road and so it's very difficult for us to get anything accomplished and everything else. It would seem to me that the Clty of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, at least for that section, could do something jointly. If I have to go 59 City Council Meeting -- January 28, 1991 over there to their Council meeting myself and say let's improve this piece of roadway or toll us what you're going to do because I don't think with a straight face they can say ah, we're not going to do anything with that road and how can they ,iust ignore the road. Councilman Wing: Is there a problem? Councilman Workman: Well yeah. I mean we're talking about doing speed studies. We're trying to put patched up, temporary right turn lanes that probably don't meet ..~ whole lot of code for length or other. Paul Krauss: The Eastern Carver County study is anticipating traffic increasing to about 15,000 or 20,000 trips a day which is getting up to TH 5 levels. It also anticipates that that's going to need to be 4 lane at some polnt. Councilt4oman gimlet: Who's ooing to upgrade it? Councilman Workman: The owners are. I think we need to zero in on that because we're going to, I tm]ink we're just doing 11ttle spot things here. Not that we shouldn't do them but for example at Cheyenne. If you're coming south you'll be ab].e to take a right turn in there. But when you're going north and you have to make a left in there and you have to stop for any amount of time and they're .starting to come down that hill, people trying to get around and there's a mailbox rlght there. I mean lt's real tlght. It's substandard. Are we going to get some hard answers out of MnOot or are we going to continue to put up with that stuff? Councilman Wing: I guess I'm still curious what's wrong with the road because I relate it back [o TH ? where they actually had a hlstory of fatalities and accidents but it st111 dldn't trlp to HnDot completely. TH 5 has. TH 101, does that have a history of traffic accidents and violations and problems that they can actually document? I'm not aware of lt. Mayor Chmiel: I guess the only thing, you know really with the fact that there's just no way for people to maneuver, foot trafflc along TH 101 whlch ls really real basic problem. Councilman Workman: ~ell gettlng on at Valley Vlew Road is a major. I don't know. I'm sure people are hittlng each other and if we have to prove that too but I thlnk the trips and everything else, and they're golng to do the speed study. Mayor Chmiel: From reviewing the police reports, I have not seen too many accidents coming out of those intersections. I've seen some at TH 101 and ?Sth but I can't recall really seeing how many accidents were along there. 3ay Johnson: Oidn't the State Legislature actually pass legislation requiring Mnbot to glve that road back to the Countles a numbers of years ago. Councilwoman Dialer: Or tried it. I don't think they were successful. Mayor Chmiel: It wasn't successful because nobody would take it. 60 City Council Meeting - January Councilwoman Oimler: They tried it though, you're right. Mayor Chmiel: Hennepin County did because of some specific conerns they had in other areas and that's why they took one. Councilman Workman= I guess if you had people from Kurver's Point on up in here right now and we were saying what's wrong with the road, they'd be at our throats because they're pretty angry about, I mean they like a turn lane here and there but I don't think that's accomplishing anywhere near long term what needs to be accomplished. Councilman Wing: Is that a Level 3 collector by definition in the study? Paul Krauss: No. That's an arterial. Councilman Wing: If lt's an arterial, then it's a major road by my layman thinking. Paul Krauss: Yeah, an arterlal goes between two counties, two or three cltles. It's an intercity road. It's not just a neighborhood road. Jay Johnson: It's the only north/south road between 494 and South Dakota. Paul Krauss: Well, it's the only thing between 494 and Lake Minnetonka certainly. Councilman Workman: That's all I have. Can we get staff to maybe contact Eden Prairie and to figure out if we can't get an idea or meet with MnOot to flnd out what the long range plan ls for that road so we don't have to keep guessing? Mayor Chmlel: I'm afrald they'll tell us. to take lt. Councilman Workman: But they know that's not possible. Councilwoman Oimler: They'll want you to take it. Mayor Chmiel: If Eden Prairie says yes, what are you going to say? Councilman Workman: Yes what. I guess they'll just have to shovel that north side. Councilman Wlng: What happened to performance standards? Paul Krauss: As I understood it, it was going to be listed, it will be brought up when we have thls goals discussion and we can establish that as a program for the Planning Commission. Mayor Chmlel: Okay, if there's no further business. City CoL~ncil Heeting .- January 28, 1991 Counciluoman Oimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting nas adjourned at 11:00 p.m.. Submitted by Ool~ Ashuorth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim