Loading...
1989 12 18CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The ~-~=eting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor CTm~iel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Dave Hempel, Todd Gerhardt, Paul K~auss, Jim Chaffee, and Roger Knutson RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew the name for the Recycling Prize. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions to Council Presentations: Mayor Chmiel added an item for the Alliance for a Drug Free Minnesota; Councilman Boyt wanted to d~.scuss Moon Valley, the Police St~]dy Co~ittee, the Appeal of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the resignation of Candy Takkunen from the t~]blic Safety Co~ission. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Did'fief moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's reco~'o~enda ti OhS: a. Resolution #89-137: Accept Utility L-;prov~ents in South Lotus Villas Add i tion. b. Resolution #89-138: Accept Roadway Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West, Phases I and II. c. Resolution #89-139: Accept Utility and Roadway I~..provements to Kurvers Point Addition. d. Minnewashta Highlands: 1) Approve Plans and Specifications 2) Approve Revised Development Cont,:act e. Vineland Forest Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Plans and Specifications 3) Approve Develolment Contract g. Approval of 1990 Joint Powers Agreem-ent Prosecution Contract, Carver County. k. Tabled per the applicant's rec~]est for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Crossroads Plaza Addition. 1. Approval of Accounts. City Co~lncll Meeting - Dece~-~er 18, 1989 m. C~.ty Council Minutes dated Decen~er 4, 1989 Planning Co~tission Minutes dated Dece~er 6, 1989 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask Gary a c~.]estion. I wasn't able to get a hold of hJ~'t today because of ~ schedule of meetings. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Johnson: In o,]r standard conditions on development contracts which is Attachment B to all of the develoim,ent contracts, is there anything rec,_tiring a professional engineer certify the completion of a project? Gary Warren: There's a requirement that a professional engineer sign the plans that are submitted. As far as the certification, we ask for the developer to certify to the City that the improvements have been completed. ~Typically he has the engineer do that but there's nothing that rec~]j, res an engineer to certify. Councilman Johnson: Because they don't on a, b, c, d. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. Councilman Johnson: In fact one says certify satisfactorily. Gary Warren: Yeah, they always use weasle words even when you want that. Councilman Johnson: ...it was done this way. This is one more little piece. Gary Warren: With us changing to city inspection of the projects now, actually they're relying on us almost more than their own engineers now to certify. We only bring a project in for acceptance after we are satisfied that it is done. Co~mcilman Johnson: I'd like to talk abo~]t that later. (F) AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING EXTENDING HOURS FOR SUNDAY SALES, FINAL READING. Councilman Boyt: Okay, Roger's checking something out for ~-e. I would like to ask that we try to find someway to acco~-~-.odate people for this particular New Year's Eve but not change every Sunday in the year. My reason for that is that we've talked a good bit in the last few months about drug awareness and drug free zones and one thing and another and yet that time period after midnight is one of the highest incidences of DWI's. I don't think we sho~]ld be contributing to that. Co~]ncilman Workman: Isn't this a state law though? Mayor Chmiel: It is a state law. Councilman Boyt: We can be more restrictive and we have been right along. I don't see the point. For one re~]est for one night, why do we change it for the whole year? City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18j 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: We can be more but we can't be less? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know Bill. I made a point of calling all the businesses in town that have licenses ahd I know that in so~ instances in other cities, so~ didn't want to extend those hours. Some of the people that I talked to would not extend those house. They're not going to keep them but they would like to see that availability if something were to co~ up as such with holidays being on Sundays. I guess I don't particularly object to that if they want to have that. The Riveria says they close by 12:00 or even before with %he New Year's celebration. A few of the others do the sa~ thing so I guess that I don't feel that our people within the co~ity are going to be contributing anymore to that. In fact the last hour that they're going to have at the Dinner Theatre, they're going tobe serving strictly coffee. Councilman Boyt: Well I think that's terrific. I think that they have no problem then with stopping this at midnight. Why should we be attracting people into Chanhassen or keeping th~ here and drinking until 1:00 in the morning? It seem,s like it's counter to all the things that ~'re trying to do. I don't want to belabor the point. I would like to vote on it and I'd like to see it amended to read 12:00 with the exception being, I could even live with the exception of when holidays strike on a Sunday if we want to extend it but I think this is a co~on practice to do this every Sunday. We're encouraging something that we don't want to encourage. Councilman Johnson: There's only 3 holidays that don't hit on Mondays basically that I can think of offhand. Christmas and New Years and 4th of July. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwo~mn Dimler: I guess ~question is, this is only on Sundays? They're open until 1:00 on every other day. I guess Bill's point is a good one but if that's the ~]rpose, then we'd have to do a whole lot of work to maybe restrict every other day as well. I don't see just the Sunday, the significance of just the Sunday. Councilman Johnson: With the recent change in the state law, it allows them to go to 1:00 a.m.? This is the last legislature or something. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's the legislature. Councilman Johnson: And it's up to us whether we want to implement that or not. Mayor Chmiel: I didn't get any objections of course from businesses them~selves. Councilman Boyt: Well that figures. Mayor CTm~iel: That's not true. There were so~-~ businesses I know in other cc~-~unities that didn't want to see it because they didn't want to put that additional hour in. Councilman Johnson: They didn't want to feel like they had to compete. So what that does is, if other communities around us don't have the hour and we do have the hour, that brings ~Dre traffic, more problems into our town. I kind of agree with Bill. We can just limit this, put an exception on the holidays. City Council Meeting - Dece~-~oer 18, 1989 Don Ashworth: I don't know if I would agree though. If I may Mr. Mayor. Like the Riveria. They do close early so whether or not a person's coming from Excelsior or not, they're going to be closed at 12:00. Councilman Boyt: Well maybe you're saying there's no need for this in the first place. Places are already closing. Don Ashworth: I think the Riveria might be a good example of one that would like to be able to stay open until l:g0 on New Year's Eve. Councilman Boyt: But we can easily allow for a holiday situation without having to do this every S,mday of the year. Like I said, this isn't something that we have to take a great deal of time about. Maybe to handle this and see if an em~enct~ent would pass and I would make a motion for an amenct~ent to Section lg- lgl, S~Od. 5 to read that with the exception of holidays falling on Monday. Mayor CTm~iel: Falling on Sunday. Council,an Boyt: Okay, I'll accept Sunday if that's the appropriate way. Exception of holidays falling on Sunday that Sunday li~or service be restricted from l~:0g a.m. until 12:gg a.m.. Council,an Johnson: Midnight? Mayor Cbr'~iel: 12: gg p .m. ? Councilman Boyt: Well it's a.m., p.m. is noon I believe. And that on those holidays it would be from 1~:~ a.m. until 1:~0 a.m.. CounciLman Johnson: I' 11 second that. Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask Bill just a ?]estion? Bill, what do you think is the difference between Sunday and every other day of the week? Counci~',an Boyt: Well I g~]ess the big one is that we're increasing something that I don't think we should increase. I'm not going to get on the band wagon that says we should restrict drinking hours the rest of the week but I am saying that I don't think we should be increasing and this is increasing. Councilwoman Dimler: So it's not beca~]se it's Sunday. Councilman Boyt: No. It's another hour_ and I don't see the need to increase the opportunity fo~: people to drink another Councilman Johnson: If the state law changed to 2:g0 a.m. the other days, I'd be against extending of our hours until 2:gg a.m.. l:g0 a.m. I think would be sufficient. Councilman Work~an: What was the state legislature's intent with this? Councilman Boyt: Good ~]estion. Roger Knutson: All I can tell you is what they wrote. City Council Meeting - Decev~er 18~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: What did they write? Roger Knutson: That you can do this. You can extend the hours until 1:00 on Sunday. Councilwoman Dimler: They gave no reason? Roger Knutson: I'm not privy to the debate. I wasn't there but I assume the lice]or industry said that, they realized that the New Year's was coming up and I'm sure that was on people's mind as part of it. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Hearing none I'll call the motion. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the City Code regarding hours for Sunday Sales from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight except when holidays fall on Sundays which will be from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.. Councilman Boyt and Counci]_,~an Johnson voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2to3. Mayor Clm~iel: We've got to go back in for a motion. We have to get a motion that passes. Councilman Work,mn: I move approval of item (f). Councilwo~mn Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwo~n Dimler seconded to approve the Amendment to the City Code regarding extending hours for Sunday Sales, Final Reading as presented. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. N. SET 1990 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE. CounciL,~an Boyt: I think this is a topic that we should be discussing. All of us should be looking at our calendars. Nove~-~er, Dece~er, those changes are far enough out that I can adjust ~ calendar to fit those but if we make this change in May, I miss both those ~etings. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we move to %~]esday the 29th in May? The second Monday and then just mov~ it to the day after Memorial Day. Councilman Workman: I wouldn't be any mood to be reading 6 inches of paperwork on Memorial Day weekend. And I don't think staff is going to be thinking about putting one together before Memorial weekend. CounciL,~an Boyt: Well, if they're going to get it together for the 18th, they could just as easily carry that over and do all their work for the 18th and give it to us on the 29th. You could actually have one a whole week ahead Tom. City Council MeetS. rig - Dece~'~oe~ 18, 1989 Councilman Workman: I'd be willing to do it the Thursday before. I tell you what, it's diffic,]lt with a busy schedule to... Councilwoman Dimler: That will conflict with your HRA wouldn't it? Don Ashworth: No, there shouldn't be a problem with HRA. That should be the 21st of June. Counci]m~an Boyt: It's just that I'm out the 7th, the 18th and 21st. Those 3 weeks. When I set that up I knew I was going to miss one meeting but I knew I was going to hit the other one and I thought well, I can take that 3 weeks out of the country. But now when you're moving the sched~]le, I miss them both. Don Ashworth: If you go to the fourth, it's almost a month between meetings. The 7th thro~]gh the 4th. Counci]m,an Johnson: No, it'd be the 14th. It'd be the second. Don Ashworth: Oh, so you'd go the 14th for your second meeting. Councilman Johnson: For the first meeting. DOn Ashworth: Yo~]'d move the first one to the 14th? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, beca~]se that's the second Monday. Counci]m~an Workman: Why not move it to Thursday the 31st? Co~]ncilwoman Dimler: That' s my anniversary. No way. Councilman Boyt: Well let's do the 30th then. Councilwoman Dimler: That's Me~torial Day weekend isn't it? Councilman Workman: No, it's after Memorial. So just _,'.ove the one then? Counci]m~an Boyt: Yeah. I'm going to miss one of them no matter what you do but I'd sure like to get half of it in. Mayor Ctm'~iel: Yeah, the 29th or 3gth wo~]ld be alright as far as I'~ concerned too. Councilman Workman: 3~th. Why did we want the 31st? Councilwo~mn Dimler: That' s my anniversary. Don Ashworth: Okay, it's the 14th and then 3gth? Mayor Chmiel: No, the 7th. Councilman Johnson: Why change the 7th? The second Monday is the 14th. Co~]ncilwoman Dimler: So you want to go with the 14th and 3gth? Mayor Chmiel: 14th and 3gth. Okay. City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: That way we keep it at least every other week part of it2 Todd Gerhardt: Is that a Planning Con~ission night? Are you talking May? Councilwoman Dimler: That is a Wednesday, you're right. Councilman Workman: No, it's not. It's the fifth Wednesday of the month. Mayor Chmiel: So that should be alright. Shouldn't be any conflicts. Councilman Boyt: Well I would move approval N with the May dates changed to the 14th and 30th. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Workman: I think were the Council can decide to go to the National League of Cities Conference in Dece~er, that that date might conflict wouldn't it? Councilwoman Dimler: Is it in Dece~er? Councilman Johnson: I have a schedule right here. Councilman Boyt: It's usually in Nove~0er sometime. Councilman Johnson: Dece~er 1-5. Mayor Chmiel: So the 3rd would be a conflict as well. Councilman Johnson: Instead of having it on Christmas Eve we could move it to ~]esday, Christmas Day. Mayor Chmiel: Okay Jay, you can be here. Councilman Workman: Have a big ~=eting the 10th and not one on the 24th? Councilman Boyt: Quite possibly you could be dealing with a la~ duck Council. Maybe one is enough. Councilman Johnson: That's the way it was a year or so ago. If I r~e~er right, the year Bill and I were c~,ing in almost no decisions were made. They tabled just almost everything. Mayor Chmiel: Just the 17th. Delete the 3rd and just have it on the 17th. Councilman Workman: Or meet the 10th. Oh, meet the 17th? Mayor Chmiel: Just the 17th and delete the 3rd. Councilman Johnson: Why don't we move to the 10th because that Fakes it, that would be 4 weeks. Mayor Ctm, iel: 10th? Okay. Did you make motion Bill? City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18~ 1989 Counc i lman Boyt: Yeah ' Councilman Johnson: But we're changing Dece~'~er 10th also? Councilman Boyt: Dece~oer 10th. Council~-.an Boyt moved, Co~lncilman Johnson seconded to approve the amended 1990 City Council meeting schedule changing the meeting dates in May to the 14th and 30th and only one meeting in Dece~er on the 10th. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION REGARDING CAMP TANADOONA, BOB BERGAN, SITE MANAGER. Bob Bergan: Good evening. I'm glad I could get on your calendar. I'm Director of camping operations for Minneapolis Council of Camp Fire. I'm also the site manager for a 105 acre site that's located here in the City of Chanhassen. Looking at the map over there, there's a Tanadoona Drive that goes up to TH 41 and we own that whole area. Over 2,O00 feet of lakeshore and go frc~ there to the right now to TH 41. We own that whole area right there going along there partly adjacent to the Regional Park. I moved into the co~,unity here about 2 years ago and I ended up working, I was a teacher in South Washington County and I ended ~ working for Ca~ Fire on a part ti~e basis and since then they've hired me to be the site manager and director of ca~ing. One of ~ tasks is to make a co~unity awareness, i~rove the co~unity awareness of our camp and what we have to offer for the youth in the cc~unity. We serve Minneapolis area and all the surrounding s~urbs and we have over 1,200 children that go to our camp in the s~r~ertime in the fo~r~ of resident camp or from Super Day Camp. Now how can the camp help yo,] in the co~unity? We have a facility out there that's not used very much. 9 months out of the year we have rental groups that cc~te out. Church groups. Men's groups. Ladies groups. Minnetonka Teachers come out for workshops during the day. We have some food service and we are building up our environmental education program,s. What I'd like to do tonight is just to let you know that we're there. If you can think of a use or have some information of other agencies that could use our facility, we would appreciate it. For years, or for the last 65 years we've been out there and basically everybody knows us as Cc-m~pfire girls. Well 1974 the government wanted so~e agencies to go co-ed. The Girl Scouts said no way. The Boy Scouts said no way and Cad,fire basically said sure. We're here to serve all the youth so that's what they did. ~]t since then it's been an uphill battle to let people know that we are out there for boys and girls. In fact, in Chanhassen here at the local sports shop, the map for Lake Minnewashta has us labeled as a Girl Scout Camp so even though we've been there for 65 years, we haven't had a chance, in fact C~pfire's never had anybody really to do much promoting for the camp. Partly because they didn't know if they wanted to and we have so~e special progra~ that I'd like to just tell you a little bit about. One's called self reliance. That's to help kids build up their self esteem and also learn to do things for the~self. We have another program in Campfire called Teen Suicide Prevention and we work with teenagers in a preventative mode. Not after the fact. To teach them how to look around them and observe their friends and stuff and how they can help them prevent suicide. Also we have a real special program called Special Sitters. We teach youth in the co~unity, primary youth groups, teenagers and that that City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 are interested in being babysitters for kids that are handicapped. Hearing impaired, sight impaired and these programs, all of our programs are open to the co~tunity. We serve several thousand kids every year that are non-Campfire m~'~ers. So those are the two main things that I wanted to get across to you tonight is one, we're there to help in the co~tunity in whatever way we can and we are open to the co~unity. We're not self contained or just there for our own me~-~ership. A little bit about the camp. Like I said, it's 65 years old but it also was the home for Governor Lynn. He was Governor of Minnesota in 1898 to 1901 and we have the su~er hc~ out there. I left it on the desk up there if you want to pass that around. The top picture shows, there's an older picture of Governor Lynn's mansion. The bottom picture, one of th~ there shows his horse barn. Those were the only two buildings that were on the campsite when we purchased it 65 years ago. Since then we have 14 cabins and several other out buildings. We have a front 40 acres that has like 15 campsites in it so we do tenting besides the cabins itself. So are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: I have a couple. You're talking about facilities for the teachers to meet and stuff like that. You have some meeting facilities there? Bob Bergan: Yes. We have a dining hall that will hold about 150 people. I have a custodian or caretaker and a cook that's on hand to serve just about anything you would like. In fact I have the American Legion, just recently the American Legion of Chanhassen and the Lion's Club of Chanhassen has agreed to co-sponsor the camp and to help us out there in the forms of some financial assistance and also sc~-~ volunteer help and they're cctv,lng out for a dinner in January to look over our facilities and see what they can do to help us and then also talk about how we can help them. Councilman Johnson: There's groups always trying to find meeting facilities in this town and it's good to know that there is sc~,ething like that and you do, so this can be leased out? Bob Bergan: Sure. And Governor Lynn's ~nsion for example, it's not as fancy as it used to be. It's kind of been Menard's. Paneling you know over the walls but it does have 4 bedrooms and we can sleep 16 there. It has a kitchnette' and that we do rent that out in the off season and we have another lodge that sleeps 28 so we do have so~ winter facilities. In fact Robbinsdale school comes out for 4 days in February for environmental education and we provide a naturalist to work with their group. Councilman Johnson: Do you have any sports facilities? Baseball fields, soccer fields, whatever? Bob Bergan: We have a large field that we use for sports plus in the su~'~ertime of course we have 2,000 feet of lakeshore that kind of helps. We do have a cross country ski trail. All we need now is snow. A couple of bog lands. We get to walk through the swamp in the sunnier for enviror~ental education and 2 wetland areas and 2 wildlife areas. Lots of deer and pheasants. Any other questions? Mayor Chmiel: I guess you answered my question when you said you'd be able to serve anyone. I thought I heard you say something about serving youth in that specific area. City Council Meeting - Decem-~er 18, 1989 Bob Bergan: O]r main goal in Campfire is to serve youth and to work with youth. To help ther'L feel better about themselves. Give them a chance to succeed. Council,,an Johnson: If you get money from parents using your facility, you'll be glad to use that to help the youth? Bob Bergan: Yes. Renting out to the Minnetonka teachers for example for workshop does not fit our main goals but it does help pay the bills. Mayor CTm~iel: Good. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: Good to know. Thanks for coming. Mayor CTm, iel: Are there any other visitor presentations? Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. Mr.. Mayor and me~'~oers of the Council. With regard to the proposed rebuilding of F~ontier Trail. Several methods were discussed for assessing the hcr~eowners for their share of the cost. One or two people spoke in favor of the unit type of assess~-~ent. The consulting engineer, Bill Engelhardt, spoke in favor of the front footage method of assessm~ent because it is the historical way of assessing and is the most easily defendable in the courts. I would like to present to you a petition signed by 6~ of my neighbors who are in favor of the front foot ~thod of assessr~ent. These 6~ signatures represent 33 of the 47 households involved in this project. As you can see, this is a clear majority in favor of the front foot method of assess~ent. Incidentally, in contacting these people many of them expressed the opinion that they would rather delay the project until a fund is established by the City to pay for the rebuilding of the road. Most of you campaigned on the promise to listen more to the people than had been the case in the past. Here's an opportunity to make good on your promise and use the front foot method for assessment purposes as the overwhelming majority favors. We rec~_]est that the City Council go on record in support of the front foot method of assess~ent. If you have any c~_]estions, I' 11 be glad to try and answer them. Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Bill, do you know how many people on that petition would, that signed your petition, benefit by the per parcel method? Bill Loebl: Everybody would lose. CounciL,~an Johnson: Everybody on your petition would lose? Bill Loebl: Yes. Wo~ld have to pay more. Councilman Johnson: Would have to pay more. Okay. So if you went to the per parcel method, the people who are paying more now, the minority who are footing a larger portion of the bill, their bill would be ec~.]alized over the entire 47 families? Bill Loebl: Yes. 60 people would lose and whatever it is, 20 or so would gain. Mayor Chmiel: How many total parcels were there? Gary Warren: I don't recall off the top of my head. You said you had 47. Bill Loebl: 47 hc~es. That's according to the list frc~ Bill Engelhardt. 10 City Council Meeting - Decem-~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: That's about right from what I re~,eF~er. They're saying something in the teens would benefit from a per unit assessment because they have very large front footages and still only one driveway and then the majority of the people benefit from this front foot method. The majority of the people benefit at the cost of the minority. Bill Loebl: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Bill, what we'll probably do is, at some time get this on our agenda and have it discussed then at Council. Bill Loebl: Thank you. I want to present you with this. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional visitor presentations? Please state your nam~e and address. Jerry Boshane: My name is Jerry Boshane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. For anybody in the audience that doesn't know where that is, that's Highway 169 TH 212 on the highway. First I would like to say thank you to the entire City Council for putting up with ~ for the last few weeks with all ~ phone calls and in~]iries and so on concerning these ~mtters that I'd like to talk about. I have two items that I would like to discuss. The first is the Moon Valley Sand and Gravel Pit. We have a concern in our i~,ediate neighborhood but I think the concern goes well beyond our neighborhood and encompasses the entire city of Chanhassen regarding the Moon Valley Sand and Gravel Pit. I don't know how many of you folks from the City Council have been down there to actually visit this site and see what's going on but if you are not aware, the pit is being expanded continually and in the last several years since new owners have bought the pit, it has been expanding at a rather rapid pace. Unbeknownst to me and apparently ~]ite a n~m~er of other people in this city and so~,e of the people on the Council here, they have also started an additional pit north of the original pit. It's ~ understanding that they purchased this land north of the original pit. Went ahead and just started mining this additional land without permits. Without approval. Without any knowledge in effect by the City Council or anyone within the City so I'm here tonight to plead with the City Council and the City of Chanhassen to please do something about this unrestricted mining of the land down there at Moon Valley. If you folks have ever been down in that area, it is an absolute gorgeous, beautiful piece of land. That entire river valley area of canyons and ravines and creeks and so on that has not yet been spoiled by mankind. At the rate this pit is expanding, it probably will be in short order. There is a rather selfish concern on my part about this whole operation. We live just west of the Moon Valley operation itself, within literally a stone's throw. It has been brought to our attention that the land between my property and the Moon Valley land and gravel operation is being considered being sold to the Moon Valley Sand and Gravel. It would be ~ contention that the only reason these people would want to buy that land is to continue expanding the sand and gravel pit. Now if that happens, they will be going right into a natural spring fed creek which flows into the newly acquired wildlife area on the south side of the highway which flows into the Minnesota River. So I think the ram, ifications here are more than just a sand and gravel pit that is being expanded relentlessly inside of the city limits but I think it also goes into an envirorm~ental issues concerning the DNR, the EPA, the polluted Minnesota River and the like. I would like to ask that the City Council upon reco~m~endation and approval have this whole matter looked into and a definite time frame or a 11 City Council M~eting- Dece~-~er 18, 1989 definte date set up so that this whole matter can be resolved. As you know, you start getting into the bureaucratic morass and things start taking time and time and time. Spring is really not too far away. As soon as the roads are opened up, this pit is going to be into full operation again and if they are as unrestricted as they have been in the last 3 years, that whole valley area is going to be co~'.pletely leveled. Now also too I would like to rec~]est concerning that same operation, that the City consider contacting the EQB and asking about a possible envirorm~ental assess~'Lent worksheet being done on that whole project. It is my understanding from the EQB that the City can do this and ~v~der some circ,m~stances, based on State guidelines, that they not only can do it but they are rec~_]ired to do it by law. I don't know if the City or anyone else has looked into this area but I again would reco~-~end that~ it be done. My second issue has to do with the Tri-Y, the old Tri-Y Drive In which is located at the junction of TH 169/212. Again I don't know if anyone in this city is aware but there was a fire within that struct~]re a n,~'~er of months ago. T~e place was completely gutted. Half of it's burnt out and the structure is still standing. I would like to ask that steps be taken that that entire structure and area be leveled and cleaned out. Again, for any of you that have not seen that particular structure or the Moon Valley Sand and Gravel Pit or have seen either first hand visits to either of these two places or aerial photographs, I have taken it upon myself to obtain photographs concerning both of these places and I will leave theg. with you people. Does anyone have any c~_]estions? Mayor Chmiel: Terry, you and I have had some discussions on the phone and I'm wondering whether Paul has had discussions with you on some of these things and I think you probably know where the City's going with this presently. I am assam',lng we've had some disc,]ssions with our attorney as well. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, yes. I've talked to the City Attorney and Mr.. Boshane and a n~m~er of other people over the last month concerning this matter. I think as you're all aware, basically we have a grandfathered in non-conforming use down there that has expanded their gravel r~oval operations dramatically in the last few years. We became involved last s,m-~er when they jumped up to a site near Pioneer Trail pulling out some clay material. Roger was involved and sent them a letter asking them to stop. They had a limited amount of dirt they were pulling out and they have stopped up there for one reason or another and there are some issues rem~aining there because they haven't restored anything or anything else. In talking to Roger, we think there are a n~-~oer of ways we can approach this. A lot of these options involve some risk to the City in terms of legal exposure. Maybe possibly even breaking new ground in terms of how we address this issue. As a non-confok~,ing use, they do have some rights to continue and we're not exactly sure at this point which options we'd reco~'~end to yogi. We have looked into the EAW approach and we'll do something with that. At this point we don't think that's going to be the solution here because they're not asking us for any approvals in addition. We have nothing to trip an EAW. We're doing property title searches to find out and date in time what they did control. When they became non-confo~ting with the expectation that they're not allowed to add property at that point. By nature of it's non-conformity though, gravel pits are different. Are a different animal fro~~, any other non-confo~tity. It boils down to a simple fact that a non-conforming use is not normally allowed to expand. However, it doesn't apply to a gravel pit because every time you take a shovel of dirt out, it's bigger than it was before so by nature of the use, it's a perpetual expansion. Again, Roger is looking into that and we have been following up as well. We expect to come back 12 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 to the City Council at the second meeting in January with basically a position paper outlining the options and so,re reco~,endations on what to do. CounciLn~an Boyt: You're saying January 30th or 28th or scmtething like that? Paul Krauss: Whatever, I don't have a schedule here but whatever it was. Gary Warren: 22nd. Councilman Boyt: Why is it going to take so long? Paul Krauss: We needed to have Roger do the research that was intended with this. There are some options that are relatively involved and I guess I'll defer that to Roger. Roger Knutson: You're looking at options that other states have used...should never have been used in Minnesota. Trying to ~ke sure it was a Minnesota law. Try to set [~ a permitting process is one suggestion, annual permitting process. It's fairly involved and it's taken a few weeks to accomplish. Councilm~an Boyt: This is extremely frustrating given that we started this a year ago. It's also frustrating in that imagine if any of us were in Terry's position of living within a stone's throw of this thing and watching it grow. You mentioned something like a 200 foot drop? Jerry Boshane: On parts of the pit. The original pit, yes. Councilman Boyt: Do we need to be on firm ground before we launch into what could be a costly legal battle since we're representing restricting these people's ability to ~mke money, inco~e. On the other hand, I'd sure think the City would be rem, iss if we expand out timewise until the frost is out of the ground and Eden Prairie is again looking for so~eplace to grab clay. It's ironic that Eden Prairie wouldn't let anybody take clay in Eden Prairie to put in their landfill, but they were happy to see Chanhassen give it up. Jerry Boshane: I would like to make a co~.m~ent concerning the EQB. Now when I talked to the people down there and I talked to the~., on two different occasions. The EQB, ~ understanding of the regulations is that one of these enviror~ental assessment worksheets can be started in one of two manners. Now they can either be undertaken by an appropriate government agency, which in this case would be the City of Chanhassen or they can be taken independent of a goverr~ent agency by the citizens them~selves and petitioned to have this worksheet done. Now the way the rules of the EQB work is that this goes to what they call the responsible goverrm~ental unit. It is my understanding from the EQB that that is you people. So that we can initiate some of these worksheets ourselves as citizens by drawing up a petition and handing it over to the City Council or the City Council can do it themselves. That you really need nothing else to start this. Councilman Johnson: I looked into that with Jo Ann. She and I went over the rules one day on the phone. (There was a tape malfunction at this point in the discussion.) 13 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: ERSBO ADDITION: A. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. B. PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS. C. APPROVAL OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. t%]bl ic Present: Richard Ersbo - Applicant Roman Roos - Representative for Applicant Mayor Chmiel: We'll act on each individual. Item', (a), which is a plat approval. (b) is a p,Jolic hearing for vacation of right-of-way and easem',ents and (c) approval of revised development contract. I said this is a public hear ing. Paul? Paul Krauss: Very briefly Mr. Mayor, the applicant is rec~_]esting several approvals relative to the replatting of the Ersbo Addition on Lake Lucy Road. these include final plat, vacation of underlying plat and right-of-way'and approval of development contract. As you're aware, the City approved a previous plat on this property last year but it was never filed. The current final plat is consistent with the reco~',endations. Oh, I'm sorry. It was filed. Back up there. It was filed but it was never developed. That's why we're vacating the right-of-way. The final plat that's being req~]ested tonight is consistent with the reco~'~endations of the City Council and the preliminary plat approval process. Again, consideration of the development contract is also scheduled for tonight's meeting. As far as we can see, there are really no new issues pertaining to this project and staff is reco~'~'Lending that the plat and vacation be approved as rec~_]ested subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here who wishes to address this? As I said before, this is a public hearing. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seConded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing for the final plat approval was closed. Councilman Workman: I move approval. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt: That's 3 (a) ? Mayor Cfm~iel: Item 3(a). We're going to move on each one individually. Councilman Bo~vt: Condition n~er 7. Under City Council reco~endations, as long as we're talking about this thing. It started out as 11 and got moved under City Council reco~endations to 7. I'm sure this is what staff meant to say. All trees lg inches or more in caliper that are r~,oved or damaged, need to be replaced. Mayor Chmiel: Clarification? Okay. City. Co,_mcil Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the final plat for Ersbo First Addition #87-36 as shown on the plat dated Dece~er 4, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide final detailed plans of the streets and utility improv~Lents for approval by the City Engineer. 2. Provide final erosion control plans acceptable to staff. Type III erosion control will be req~]ired along the western perimeter of the site adjacent to the wetland. Prior to the initiation of grading, staff will walk the site with the developer to mark out trees designated for preservation. Staff will modify the plans as required to improve tree preservation efforts. Drainage swales are to be provided around each of the ho~es. The berm located in the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way is to be relocated onto Lot 1, Block 1. 3. Provide final drainage plans for approval by City staff. Watershed District approval is required. 4. Co~liance with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-7. 5. At such ti~ as a new public street is provided to the south of Lake Lucy Road, the private driveway currently serving the existing home shall be r~Loved and the driveway shall access to the south off the new public street. 6. Stake off the trees to be saved at the dripline. 7. Ail trees 10 inches or more in caliper that are r~oved or da~ged need to be replaced. 8. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement is re~ired across the easterly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 and also between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. 9. The drainage and utility easement located on Lot 6, Block 1 should be extended westerly to the west line of Lot 7, Block 1. This easement is necessary for an outlet pipe from the sediment pond to the wetland lying west of the plat (see attached). 10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these ~rov~m~ents prior to c~encement of any construction or grading. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwc~an Dimler seconded to close the ~blic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The ~]blic hearing on the vacation of right-of-way and eas~Lents was closed. City Council Meeting - Dece~.-~er 18, 1989 Resolution #89-140: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Vacation Recy~est #89-12 to vacate street right-of-ways and utility easeo.'~ents as plat of Ersbo Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. APPROVAL OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Roman Roos: Mr. Mayor, me~ers of the Council. Just one co~'o~ent on the last item regards to different areas in the development contract. Under the area of Security, what we're trying to do is to adjust that amount of that security. If we can work with staff on that ite~-~ subject to so~'~e bids and the engineering estimates we had from Engelhardt who did the original platting. Can we have the ability to work with staff on that? Councilwoman Dimler: Where's your problem? Roman Roos: It's c~]ite high. It's about $30,000.00 over. Gary Warren: Those n~_~-.bers came from Bill Engelhardt. Roman Roos: I have Bill Englehardt's bid with me right now. Gary Warren: Unless he's got a new one but. Councilman Johnson: It'd be easy to say we can give staff the authority to determine the amount of the security. They've already determined it once. It's going to be changing their minds. Mayor Chmiel: Is that alright? Gary Warren: Yeah. We'll double check his ntm'kers but. Roman Roos: We had two different guys Engelhardt and I think that's where the confusion is but I think we can iron that out. The second ite~i then has to do with, as I understand it from Paul, as far as the DNR we're not going to rec,_lire that permit. Am I correct Paul? Paul Krauss: I don't believe the DNR is going to req~]ire a permit no but you've got to look at where that out structure is going to occur and if they require a pe~.~',it, you need that. If they don' t, then let us know. Rc~.~an Roos: So I can go by the contract and at least look at that step and confer with you people as to whether it has to be accomplished or not then? Councilman Johnson: Should you ask DNR. You should contact DNR. Ro~an Roos: Absolutely, yes. We were talking last time they said we would not need the DNR permit but if that'd be so, I will contact... Mayor Chmiel: Unless you go beyond what Paul said. 16 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Paul Krauss: When Rc~,an brought up the security stat~,ents I was looking at that and realized that we may have had a slight oversight here as well. On the Vineland Forest plat we asked for so~ security to be devoted to tree preservation and for replanting. We do have a condition or several conditions relating to that but there are no financial guarantees provided as the development contract is c~rrently structured. In light of what we did on Vineland Forest a few minutes ago, it may be appropriate to consider something like in the order of $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 be allocated for tree removal, tree replanting. That sort of thing. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on that? Councilman Workman: Can that be included with the discussions with Gary or do we need to put sc~ething? Paul Krauss: I think as long as you acknowledge that if we can w~rk out a n~m-~er with Bill Engelhardt's final calculations, if we're allowed to work that in, we will. Gary Warren: It should be a line item and then we can work out the nu~er after that. Councilman Johnson: There's one thing I want to get clarified here on the DNR side of things. We are not saying you do not need a DNR permit. Roman Roos: I understand that Jay. Councils,an Johnson: Okay. I just w~nt to make it perfectly clear that it is up to the developer to ask the DNR if he needs a permit and the DNR makes the determination. We don't make the determination for the DNR. That's kind of what I heard Paul. Paul Krauss: That's correct and we would want verification from them one way or the other before releasing the project to the work. Roman Roos: And there's one final cc~ent that Jay has to do with your co~ent to the Planning Co~-~ission. Regarding the possible rerouting of another road parallel to Lake Lucy Road coming on the south side of the property and the tie in of Lot 1, Block 6 which is the original house to this new roadway if it should happen in the future. I think the way the Planning C~,ission, I think the way the Minutes read, that we would consider it at that point in ti~'~ is c~]ite a ways in the future and surely should not be one of the development contract items. I don't know how we can handle it. Paul Krauss: I guess I would disagree with that. What we had said at the last meeting was that we anticipated sc~e point in the future there's a likelihood of a road coming through along the south side of the property and in light of that and a long term desire to have the nu~er of curb cuts up on Lake Lucy Road limited, that if a road is provided in such a way in the future that we felt it should be an obligation to turn around the driveway at that time. If a road comes through in the future and there's no such condition in the development contract filed against the property, there's no hook in the property owner at that time. 17 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18~ 1989 Roman Roos: I don't think the intent is to hook the property owner. I think the intent is if it makes economical sense, that the property owner would hook up to that road but as I said at the Planning Co~'tission and I think at the Council meeting, Jay you and I discussed this during that meeting. If it's logical and if it makes sense, naturally the owner of that property would want to hook up to it Paul. g_]t we've got roughly about 5gg foot of blacktop coming off of Lake Lucy Road that is in in place and being used. It would be a shame to destroy that kind of road, especially if the grade is very severe on the other side. In other words, I don't think it should be a condition that we have to hook up to that road. Gary Warren: Mr.. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Gary. Gary Warren: This w-as the same arguments were discussed I believe at the last City Council meeting and I have the sa~-~ recollection that Paul has here in that we, and the owner Mr. Ersbo was present also and agreed to the fact that we were interested in limiting curb cuts. I think the way that it was posed is that if it was feasible to ~]t in that road, that the City would be interested in having h~'~ connect to the new road. The arguments about he's got substantial blacktop and this and that, were posed. We con,'tented that he would probably have a shorter driveway and maybe the maintenance costs would offset the whole scenario but my recollection also is as Paul said. That was a condition of approval. Mayor Ck~,iel: Yeah, I remember that also. Councilman Johnson: One of the problems is the feasibility side of this fell out of the statement. It no longer says if it's feasible you'll do it. It says you will do it. You shall do it so is there anyway to water it down. Pa~]l Krauss: Well it co~]ld possibly be modified by leaving the feasibility dete~m~ination up to the City Council at such time as the road is made available. Rc~an Roos: I think that's fair. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I would be too. Roman Roos: So that's a minor modification to the develolm~ent contract and I suppose staff can handle that but I did want to bring it up to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the ~]blic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing on the revised develolm,ent contract was closed. Councilman Johnson: I move approval of item 3(c) with the amount of the security to be determined by City Staff. A line added on reforestation or tree red,oval security and replacement security. On item 8(1) being modified to include the connection, if the City Council at the time of the new road determines that it is feasible to connect, that he'll connect at that t~e. 18 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I ' 11 second it Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the Revised Development Contract for Ersbo Addition with the following changes: The amount of the security and a security on reforestation or tree re~oval and replacement shall be determined by City Staff. Item 8(1) shall be modified to include if the City Council at the time of the new road determines that it is feasible to connect, the applicant shall connect at that time. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF LOT LINE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILLS. Gary Warren: The ~]blic hearing is to consider the vacation of the lot line, utility easement along Lot 1 of Pleasant Hill Addition which is near the City's water tower. The vacation is rec~]ested as a part of and as related to the subdivision of the City's property just to the i~mediate north of the property. In which case the property owner who was acquiring this parcel as requested that since the lot line be eliminated, that there's no reason to have the utility easement through the middle of the property as it would turn out in the subdivision. There are no utilities currently located in there. The City would receive a replacement easement along the new north boundary line of the property such that the perimeter easements are continuous as required. From a City perspective, we have no utilities there. We see no reason why the vacation req~]est should not be entertained. Also, the approval of the vacation would be conditioned on the approval of the subdivision. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Johnson: Well let's see if anybody fro~_~ the ~]blic, I can see some of the neighbors here. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who wishes to address this? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The ~]blic hearing was closed. councilman Johnson: The only thing I'd like to know is what's the progress being made on the trail and getting the trail from, what is it Crestview or 65th over to the junior high school. There's one of those fall between the crack projects that needs much higher attention. Gary Warren: Don, you're closer to that with Lori. The trail issue on the east side. The Wolf property, etc. Don Ashworth: I have a m~.orand~m~ in my in basket. I' 11 have that in the next Adminstrative Section. Basically it's saying that we're continuing to work with Wolf and with Shivley in developing an easement across those properties. Councilman Johnson: I hope we learn a lesson frc~., that one. 19 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Don Ashworth: I hope we did too[ CounciL,,an Johnson: That's before. Bill and I are painfully aware of this one and I get painfully aware from it every Sunday since Kelly's goes to the same church I do and he asks me about it every Sunday. Mayor Chmiel: It's nice to hear you go to church every Sunday Jay. Counci~,an Boyt: Way to get that in. Councilman Johnson: Sometimes 3 times on Sunday. I go to 2 services every Sunday. Councilman Boyt: It keeps getting better. Resolution #89-141: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve vacating the drainage and utility easement for a portion (192') of the north property line of Lot 1, Block 1, Pleasant Hill as shown on the map attached to the staff report dated Dece,'Joer 12, 1989 and conditioned on the City's approval and recording of the Pleasant Hill 2nd Addition subdivision scheduled for review by the City Council in January, 1990. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: FIRE DEPARTMENT FITNESS EQUIPMENT. Councilman Johnson: I move approval. Mayor Clm~iel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Council~an Boyt: I have a c~_]estion. Mayor Chmiel: Question. Discussion. Councilman Boyt: Normally, and I think over the last 3 years I've pretty generally taken anything the fire departm, ent's rec~]ested and felt it was a bargain. I understand that this money is budgeted but I am amazed when I look at the cost of a bicycle that goes nowhere. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but it's in a basement. You can't go anyplace. Councilman Boyt: And a treact~-~ill. Mayor Chmiel: That doesn't go anywhere either. Councilman Boyt: They've got a Schwin Aerodyne and my understanding of this is that, and we've probably got somebody from the Fire Department here that maybe can talk about this but frc~ the standpoint of an exercise bike and what an exercise~o~ke' does, ~'.v understanding' is that that Aerodvne is sort of the top of the line in terms of ]~t's ability to withstand a lot of~use and so I asked myself, and I think those things sell for about $80~.0~. So I ask myself, what 20 City Council Meeting - Decen'~oer 18~ 1989 is it that ~kes this one worth $2,700.00? It see~ to me like you could buy several more exercise bikes for the same amount of money and have a quality piece of machinery there as well. Mayor Clm~iel: This one I think probably checks out your pulse, pressure, and everything else as you're going along, as many of theist do. CounciL-lan Boyt: Well you know in reading the description on it, I gathered that it has all sorts of bells and whistles on it. I don't want to get into the business of telling the Fire Depart~ent how they should do their exercise. I'm just absolutely amazed that they'd put $4,800.00 in one treadmill when I think you can get a very s~stantial one for less than half of that. Mayor Chmiel: True. I don't know what the maintenance and upkeep are on but maybe that's a part of it. CounciL,~an Boyt: I don't know, they have a study committee that does this. I guess I'm a little disappointed if we don't have anybody from the Fire Department here. ~nat they just automatically assume that we're not going to ask any questions about this. CounciL,~an Johnson: Jim was here a second ago. Don Ashworth: I'm surprised. I had seen Jim as well. I think if, I had talked with Dale on the item. I'm not c~ite sure, normally they do have someone here. I can tell you that they did look at a n%m~er of different manufacturers. In fact I was invited over to the department when they had brought in various of the manufacturers. They had also brought in Dr. Welsh and he had helped the co,~ittee look at some of the different pieces of equipment. I can't answer your c~.]estion. I don't know how this piece compares to the one that they looked at. One of the companies is a Chanhassen company, right in the business park. Why this piece ca~'~ up over the others, I'm not sure. Councilman Johnson: I like the pulse monitoring and stuff. When you're exercising alone, it's important to have, be able to monitor your pulse easily and that kind of stuff. When you're in an athletic club and you've got all the professionals around, or other people around, it's less i~ortant. Mayor Chmiel: Most bikes have about a year warranty. This one has a 3 year as well. It's probably another additional portion to the cost. Councilman Boyt: Well I can assure you that none of us could wear out that Schwin Aerodyne. That's an industrial grade bike and it's, I'm guessing but I think it's right around $800.00. Don Ashworth: The Fire Department is meeting this evening. Maybe that's one of the reasons, maybe there's sc~'~ebody going to be over after their business meeting but if you want to table this item, I can go out and I could quick call and make sure that they're here let's say within a half hour, hour. Mayor Chmiel: Is that your desire? CounciL,,an Boyt: I'd like to talk to the~,. 21 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18' 1989 Councilman Workman: I've had some discussions with them. I talked to both Jim McMahon and Chief Gregory about a lot of this because I know they were sensitive to this ite~., coming up. I mean not sensitive in that they thought it'd be a big problem but that it was a lot of money and that they were trying to be frugal about it. There's not a lot of room down in that lower room. You couldn't put 6 of those bikes in and do much else so there's not a whole lot of room. I think they were going for the c~.]ality and not the c~_]antity with a lot of different machines. I have talked to them. I know that they were sensitive about it and they were shocked themselves about how much all this stuff costs. Council~an Johnson: They're driving to Iowa to pick it up to save 10%. Councilman Workman: Again, I think it is budgeted and it's something that we planned for. I don't think they're being, I don't think they were trying to be excessive is what I'm saying, in my discussions with them. Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is the difference between a Yugoslavian car as opposed to a General Motors car? Councilman Boyt: Why don' t we ask them to co~e over sometime and when they show up amend the agenda and talk about it. Would that be fair? Mayor Chmiel: Fine. We'll table item 5 and bring it back up at the end of the meeting. YOUTH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONTRIBUTION. Mayor Ch~iel: This is going to also be tabled. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to vote it down. Don Ashworth: I wonder if Margie Karjalahti or one of the others were sent notice on this. Counci]m,an Johnson: If they were Margie would be here. Don Ashworth: I would have guessed that she would as well. Mayor Chmiel: I would say that we should table rather than vote it down until we get sc~e more infot~ation on this. Councilman Johnson: I'd rather table it too beca~se I want to see if, this youth development co~-~ission is a good thing for the County. There seems to be some problems on how they're financing it. I think it's good to bring it up to them but it's sc~,ething that I think is extremely necessary here in the County. As you all know, I'm involved in the youth sports here and the coordination of youth sports between groups is terrible. This could act as part of that and if they could help the youth sports, it can help all other aspects of our youth co~'~'~unity. But being split between two school districts has really messed us over on this one. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that' s right. 22 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Don Ashworth: Is there anything more staff should be doing on this as far as, I tried to get input from Minnetonka School District but I haven't gotten much from them. Councilman Boyt: I liked your memo. I think your ~o really hits at the key issues here. If it makes sense to table this, why don't we table it and go on. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on the Youth Develotm~ent Con~ission Contribution for more information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING TO PROVIDE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCREASED PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF WARRANTED BY SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND TO REQUEST ENCLOSED PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: At the last meeting the City Council first reviewed the proposed off-street parking and loading ordinance. The draft ordinance is a co,~rehensive approach designed to deal with all aspects of site plan parking and loading issues. At the last meeting there was extensive discussion of the proposed parking standard for ~lti-fam, ily dwellings. At the present time 2 parking stalls are req~lired, 1 of which must be enclosed. As currently drafted, the new ordinance would re~]ire the following. For efficiency and 1 bedroom apartments, we would continue to require 2 stalls, 1 of which n~st be enclosed. For 2 bedroom or larger units we would re, lire 2 stalls, 1 1/2 of which on a gross basis ,~]st be enclosed. Let's say if you had a 100 unit building, all 2 bedroom apartments, you'd have to have 150 enclosed parking stalls. ~nere's also a visitor parking require~ent proposed of 1/4 stall per unit. That would be done in exterior parking. The City Council continued the matter to give an opportunity for additional feedback. Accordingly staff sent notices to the owners of multi-family residential property in this city and notified them, of tonight's ~eting. Staff is continuing to reco~end that the staff ordinance be approved as proposed. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Is there anyone who wishes to address this proposed zoning ordinance amenct~ent? I would like to have you just state your na~ and your address and I'd like to sort of limit this to about 10 minutes each. Don Patton: Can I do less than that? Mayor Chmiel: I'll take it. Don Patton: My name is DOn Patton. I appeared before you before with the Lake Susan Hills Partnership which is on 17 south of the city. We do not have any multiple family currently under develotm.~ent but we'd certainly anticipate something will be happening as the development maturity in the City is coming around. I guess the reason that I'm appearing before you is to oppose philosophically what's happening. As a part of development, and I've developed almost 15,000 units throughout most of the cities of the metropolitan area over the last 20 years. The thing that's happening and good developers, bad developers, whatever, but we've just continued to have a creeping regulation, a cook book of develolm~ent. The thing that's done with the planning departm~ents 23 City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 18, 1989 saying this is what has to happen to the lots, as far as sizes go. With the parks people wanting more and more. With engineering rec~_]iring more and more and the Fire Department a~d the DNR a~d the Corps of Engineers, etc. etc. We've continued to drive up cost and I as being in so~ething that you can't legislate called the market. You can't legislate the market and there's a lot of people in the Twin Cities that are not low income. They're medium income getting into the older, transitioning out of high technology~that are having job problems. You also have a lot of people that are in the early retirement situation from companies. I think that we can go so far and at so~'~ point we have to stop with legislating what the market is because you're not going to legislate what the market is. One of the most desirable sections, if I can call it that, that everyone says I'd love to have it in ~'~ co~.'oiunity could never be built in the Twin Cities anymore. Anywhere because it's legislated out. The lot size doesn't fit. The green space doesn't fit. Nothing fits. The County Cl~zb of Edina, it couldn't be built an?~'~ore but every city would love to ha~e it in their co~-o't~_mity. It doesn't happen because city councils...allow it. The thing that it's done, it's continued to block creativitv.~ As a developer, I can't come in with much creative because there's so many rules that you have to abide by so we're just going to have the same bland stuff that we've always had. I don't think that's good for any of us. I think you need two, in some market and again I emphasize the word market which you can't legislate with anything. Maybe you need 2. Maybe you need 3 but I think the developer in choosing the market that he's going to cc~-~ before you with a project needs to make that decision and not the planning department or the City Council or the Planning Co~'~ission. Thank you. Rick P~]rray: Mr. Mayor, me~-~ers of the Council. I'm Rick ~]rray. I happen to live in this co~-o~_mity as well as do a little developing here. I got a copy of the ordinance the other day and went through it. I guess what I'd like to speak to, I won't take anywhere near the 10 minutes but the fact that Chanhassen in this market that Don just mentioned, that Chanhassen restriction wise is stepping right up to the top of rec~]ire~ients for multi-family housing. We're already there and there are a lot of co~'o~unities that rec,_lire 2 attached single family dwellings or 2 attached garages for single family dwellings. I think that after going through both of the drafts, the ordinances and what the Planning Coo~',ission came out with, it's fairer however it's right at the top of what you folks are going to compete for. Whether you like it or not or whether we like it or not as developers. We only have a certain amount of dollars and everybody's competing for that. Co~-~iunities are cc~ipeting for the best developers to co~e forward with their dollars in their co~'o~unities. When you set standards that are beyond what the norm is, you're discouraging the best developers because they're going to go where the market is. If you address those markets and you say, these dollars are going to go to serve the middle income market and middle incc~-te is surprisingly low. It's amazing Middle income now in the Twin Cities, median income is somewhere around $~5,0~0.00 to $28,~00.00. I don't know what this year's figure is but amazingly low. Back in college I can reme~'~er trying to rent apartments while I was going to school. Even after school. $20.g0 made a big difference and that's about $2~.~0-$25.gg is about the cost of that extra garage. If you made both stalls were going to be enclosed. That makes a difference. I got the situation right now in Excelsior. We own 12 do~]bles over there. One of the buildings has a double garage. That building is $25.00 more than the other buildings if you're going to rent them. That building's vacancy is twice that of the other ~mits. Anyway, in cc~ipeting for development dollars, as a co~,~unity must do, it affects 24 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 renters. It affects townhouse owners. The qualifying, if I did my arithO, eric right, the c~_]alifying difference between a single car enclosed or 1 1/2 enclosed vers~ that other half space that I think the original ordinance had in it, comes to about $2,500.00 a year. $2,500.00 to some of us isn't a lot of money but I can r~e~er when it was an awful lot of money. I didn't cc~ frc~, a background where, my neighbors generally liked me wherever I lived and I think that might still be the case, most of ths~. Anyway, we weren't a detriment to the co~,~ity and there's a lot of people like that that are out there that need a place to live. Who does the higher cost affect? It doesn't affect people who can make a choice of where they want to live but it affects the younger and it affects the older. People who really don't have the advantage of Faking that kind of choice. I would suggest that Chanhassen needs a broad market. We're a developing co~unity here. We have the advantage of setting rules and ordinances and a picture that w~uld attract people. Developers, quality development, development dollars and people who would want to live here. We've done a tremendous job downtown but I think, I don't think we want to segregate our markets to say we don't want this class or this category of people here. I think you want to keep your markets open to everyone and make a spot for them. Not that Chanhassen can be hc~e for everybody. I'm not suggesting that but I'm suggesting that the opportunity should be there. That it could be. This ordinance smacks of architectural censorship. I agree with Don. In the last 12 years that I've been developing, we have lost a lot of the creativity that at one time we could exercise ourselves in that now are, it's pretty structured. You're in this zone. This is exactly what you do. There's a lot of merit to doing that. I've seen a lot of reasons for doing it in co~unities where I've gone in to look for property. I think that regulation is good but I thin it's got to be metered with discretion. An ordinance that sets out this is how it should be, or this is exactly what it can be and only that, removes a lot of the discretion and that's what this body is for. I know that you don't like that because the approval process, if it's cut and dry it's real easy. I know I've said before that I like rules being set out verbatim but if you're going to verbatim, if you're going to take and segregate your markets so there's no flexibility between markets like this intends to do or I think this starts to do, you're really condensing the amount of people or the market that we can develop for. Then if you go beyond that and you say okay we're going to address markets. Feasibility of projects, our company happens to be involved both in the development section of the marketplace and the financing section of the marketplace. If there is, the worse projects I've seen are projects that a developer thought were going to work out okay and ended up not. You might get people who are trying to cc~.~,pete with other cc~unities that have lesser standards. I'm not talking about lesser quality now. I'm talking about lesser standards. O]r State ~]ilding Code and the City ordinances and building codes, those standards all r~ain the sa~-~ if they're reasonably applied by officials. State officials and City officials. So I'm not addressing quality. Just addressing the ordinance standards. If we're cc~;peting with other con~,unities that have lesser ordinance standards and the same c~]ality, the developments that are in those other cctv, unities and if you go through your list there, I think the staff's p~etty well laid them out for the western suburbs and the southern suburbs. You're directly competing with the sites that are available in Eden Prairie. You're directly c(m~;peting with sites available in Plymouth. Sites available in Minnetonka. We're the most restrictive here, or we would be the most restrictive here. If someone had a site in Chanhassen to develop and they we~en't being competitive by that $20.00 or by that $1,200.00 or $2,500.00 fo ra townhouse, people are going to go to the, they're going to go to the lesser 25 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~oer 18~ 1989 expensive site. Not lesser c~_lality but lesser expensive site and they're going to spend their money there. The worse thing for a co~-Lunity is when a lender comes in and fills the ,mits up because he's not going to have anywhere near the leasing criteria or the sales criteria that that original landowner had. Those are the worse projects I've seen. Now you might pass an ordinance like this that sets those standards or very structured standards. Very limited standards but I would suggest that you're still going to compete with the sites that are available. Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Maple Grove. If you go around the other way, you're really not going to compete with Edina. You know the average sale price of a townhouse in Edina? It's $275,000.~0 last year. We can't fool ourselves. We' re not going to compete in that market here yet. Don mentioned something about maturity of markets. We've got to get there. I don't think that we' re c~]ite there yet. I'd suggest that you consider, there are sc~-~e very fine changes in here. I don't think the attached garages are one but Paul's pointed out several that the old ordinances skipped or were overlooked. I think that some of those bear merit. I don't think that the n~er of enclosed parking spaces bears merit. CounciL,~an Johnson: Rick, are you primarily going for the enclosed parking spaces? The defining of how big a parking space is, 1/4 for a visitor's parking spot, you don't have any problems with a lot of those? It's primarily the 1 1/2 enclosed? Rick ~]rray: Yes. Councilman Johnson: Thank you. A1 Klingelhutz: A1 Klingelhutz, Chanhassen residence. I'm here as a landowner in Chanhassen. Possibly getting some of this type of zoning on my land sometime in the future when TH 212 and TH 101 intersect ~ farm. I guess my biggest concern is, have you ever thought of affordable housing? Affordable housing to the people that work in Chanhassen. The young people that haven't got a $40,000.00 a year job at this time that have to start somewhere down in the $20,00~.~0 to $22,000.0~ or even $15,000.~0 to $18,0~0.00. Are we going to zone ourselves out of this kind of a place for our children and some of the people that work in some of our industrial plants which we're really acc~,ulating c~_]ite rapidly in Chanhassen. Most of those people that work in c~]ite a few of these places are down in the $6.~0-$6.5~ an hour range and they can't afford to even buy a $70,~00.~0 house much less add another $10,000.~ onto a unit of a quad unit or an apartment unit that is being sold out in individual sized ,mits per family. I guess I'd ask you to really take that into consideration when you're asking for 2 enclosed units. Off street parking I can ~nderstand that but if the street is wide eno~]gh in a residential area and these same streets are in an apartment area and you allow the street parking in a residential area, what's so wrong with allowing sc~e of that for guests and visitors in an apartment area because these people are actually paying the same assessment of front footage as the people in the single family residential area. I've seen several apartments in Chanhassen that have been in existence a long time and I don't think there's been really many probl~-~s. I know of about 5 of them that have no enclosed parking and they seem to be doing c~]ite well. They're no~.n'~ally at 95% capacity. We've got a lot of our older residents living in the~ and as the city gets older and the people in it get older, we're going to have a lot more of that coming up and these people are going to want a place to live in Chanhassen. Thank you. 26 City Council M~eting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, any discussi0n~ Councilman Johnson: I would think it's pretty plain from what I said the last ti~ that I'm against the 1 1/2 parking spots. I like most of the rest of it. There's other parts of, on-street parking you can only do it overnight certain parts of the year. It's not something you can do year round here which as usual as it comes into winter we need to r~,ind everybody of before the snowplows get out there but this weekend before last I went to a housing conference sponsored by the Lutheran Church here in the Twin Cities on this and this type of ordinance is one of the things that they're fighting. In order to maintain life cycle housing and housing for everybody, it is this type of ordinance that makes it to where people cannot afford the housing. We need the housing in this town to fit the e~loyees in this town, our kids as they grow up and want to move out. Right now if our kids want to do it, there's a couple apartments available but if they're full, then they've got to go to some other town. They can't afford to live in Chanhassen. I'm going to vote against this because I think 1 enclosed parking spot seems to be the standard of all the other suburbs. I think we should be settingminim~ standards, not maximum standards. We go to 2 or 1 1/2, I don't think you'll ever see anybody go to 2.6 or anything bigger than what our standards are. I'd hate to feel that we are being more exclusive than Edina, given all the jokes that people make about Edina being exclusive. I'd hate for us to start becoming the brunt of those jokes. We have people in this co~m~t~ity who are on minim~, income and we have a lot of jobs in this community, bi~. Carlson from United Mailing, Instant Webb, victory Envelope, was in here arguing for affordable housing one time. Very few of his employees live here. They co~ in to work but they can't afford to live here. It's your project he was arguing for. Don Patton: More than the young people, it's people who are retiring on reduced incomes. It's the spectrum of the age, not just the young and the people that are starting. Councilman Johnson: I agree with you. When I said the life cycle and I talked about youth, knowing everybody here has kids but Don, both Don's here are getting older quickly. Mayor Chmiel: That's maturity. Councilman Johnson: Oh maturity. Maturing quickly. And they may be on fixed incomes pretty soon. But true, the elderly in our society is more and more becoming pushed out of housing. It's becoming a problem~. If you do go, when I was campaigning 3 years ago, going through the aparhr, ents out here. The apartm~ents without the garages, it was very high percentage of elderly, retired people in those apartments. Council~an Boyt: Which ones don't have garages? Counci]m~an Johnson: The ones on Chan View over here. Ail they have is parking lots. There's about 4 buildings over there. 5? Our ex-mayor used to live over in one of those. Still does. I haven't followed where he's gone in the last 2 years. I think it's very important for this city not to, I think the R-12 is a district where people are going to be moving into start or ending up when they get onto the fixed income and they can no longer afford our constantly rising taxes and everything in this area, or in the case of this yea~ hopefully 27 City Council M~eting - Decem'~er 18, 1989 declining taxes slightly. But yeah, no such thing as massiue declining~ I still, I'm going to argue against it but I'll let you guys argue for it now. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to hear the other side? 1'11 give it a go. I don't know if this will prevail. I've argued every time Jerome Carlson has come in here and said give me housing for somebody who's making $13,000.00 a year, that unfortunately that housing doesn't exist. Councilman Johnson: Not at $13,000.00. Councilman Boyt: Show me a house that somebody can buy on $13,000.00 a year and that's what $6.50 an hour works out to. The other thing I think that the Council I hope keeps in mind is that residents are not de~anding, asking for, hinting at the desire to have this kind of housing. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have it but there are better ways to get it than allowing people to build to a reduced standard. I think we'd find that when we've made lots smaller, it hasn't resulted in lower house prices. It's resulted in more proble, s for us. I think that what we want to do on the Council is give people the highest standard that we can. I think that in Minnesota, and all you have to do is go out tonight and try to start your car, we have a situation in which during part of the year having a garage may pass beyond the desirable into the necessary. We've set for single family homes in Chanhassen 2 car garages are the minimt~. I think we ought to say the same thing for multiple family. I think that if we don't, we're in essence not offering that option to people. We're forcing them to take 1 car. If they've got 2 car garages and they don't want to use it, maybe they can use it for storage. Maybe they can rent it out to a friend but I suspect that if we went around and checked how many of these apar~',ent dwellers have 2 cars, we'd find that a very large percentage of them', have 2 cars. I'd like to see them have the ability to put those into parking. I think that when we talk about, and I read the Planning Co~ission Minutes in which they talked about the average income in Chanhassen, those figures are so far fro~.~ reality that I would consider th~, to misleading, and maybe intentionally misleading. 5he Planning Co~..mission, Fir. Johnson gave a figure of $29,00~.0~ as the median income in Chanhassen. In 1984 it was $39,686.00 according to the Met Council. Councilman Johnson: The median was $39,00~.007 Councilman Boyt: The median was $39,686.00. Now if you want to con,pare that with surrounding co~',unities, it was $43,00~.00 in Eden Prairie. It was $47,000.00 in Edina. Now let's suppose that over the last 10 years that that's gone up $10,~0~.~. The last figure that I heard but the Met Council didn't have it officially, was that the median income in Chanhassen was $50,000.~0. I'm saying that one of the things that the City Council does is it determines the flavor of a co~'~.unity. I think that when people live in apartments in Chanhassen, that we ought to do everything we can to be sure that that apartment gives them as high a standard of living as possible. Now we can choose to let them~ build to the lowest possible standard but I'll bet you that that money goes to the developer. That money goes to a c~_~ick sale for people who are hard pressed to find a hco~e. I agree. But I don't see Chanhassen residents saying we want to be that kind of cc~',unity. We want to be Noah's Ark to the western s~burbs. I think people are saying protect my property values. Keep my taxes as low as you can and relatively low priced ho~]sing does not keep the~r taxes low. We s~bsidize those people in tek~'~s of taxes. So I think there's a couple 28 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 of reasons why we should do this. Nlm~er one of which it gives people something they need, which is they need a place to put their car, or their cars which I think is frequently the case. I think we should go for the 2 car covered garage standard for multiple famtily homes in Chanhassen. Whether that carries the day or not, there's I think a less controversial issue as well and that is that we talked a few months ago about daycare parking require~,ents. Out of the whole list of rec~irem~ents in there for parking, daycare was overlooked so I think we ought to amend the parking require~,ents to include something for daycare facilities. Paul Krauss: Mm-. Mayor. Councilman Boyt spoke to me about that earlier this evening. I do have a proposed standard for daycare parking that was based on so~ survey work that I had done of a n,~er of daycare facilities. It works out to a require~ent for 1 stall for each 6 children of licensed capacity. With your average daycare center which has about 110 children, you're looking at about usually 19-20 stalls. The problem, with daycare centers is that they have a rush. Everybody comes at 7:30 in the morning or at 5:30 in the evening and you need to have enough capacity so that people aren't parking out in the streets when they have to pick up and drop off their kids. In my experience, that standard seems to work pretty well. Councilman Boyt: So I would like to see this rather lengthy amencl,~ent modified to include parking standard for daycare. Mayor Ctm~iel: I'm not sure whether I want to go into that yet. Looking at daycares that I've seen and watched and observed, I don't find that a real problem~ of having 1 stall per each 6 children. I've observed one on...sat back and watched that on a constant basis and this was when w~ were discussing it son,time ago. Councilman Boyt: Irem, e~er well. Mayor Chmiel: That flow was not there. Not there. I watched another and that flow wasn't there. It seemed like they were more staggered than what you're saying. It wasn't congested. Councilman Boyt: Well I think that we've gone through here and I couldn't think of anything else that we haven't put a standard in here. Bowling alleys, c~]rches, service stations. We should work out a standard for daycare centers, whatever that's going to be and put it in here. Councilman Johnson: Send that back to Planning Co~,ission. Councilman Boyt: Well if we're going to amend something this lengthy, we should get that taken care of somewhere between now and the final reading I would think. The other point, you know I watched something right outside n~ back door. When Chan vista was approved shortly before Saddlebrook was approved Rick, I was concerned about the price of homes there. My bet is that you felt pressure from them because as I understood it, you were planning an upscale develotm~ent from what Chan vista was going to be in Saddlebrook but I don't think you've been able to do that like you planned to do because of all the competitive pressure from Chan vista. Rick Murray: It's not only Chan vista...Joe Miller Homes. 29 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Rick, would you like to co~-e up to the microphone because we can't pick this up for the Minutes. Rick Y~]rray: I guess without naming a lot of names but there's been a lot of competitive pressure in Chanhassen and it has been for lower priced lots. We were getting near, for the size of lot that we were offering, we were getting near top dollar for those lots from builders. Chan vista was tough competition and so was Lake Susan. Councilman Boyt: And I suspect that what happens is people build to our lowest standard. I mean not all the people but we've got to face it, there is going to be economic pressure on our lowest standard wherever we set it. In this regard, when I think about multiple dwelling apartment buildings, we have c~]ite a few buildings that have 1 car garages or no car garages. I think it's time that we started building them with 2 car garages and move the standard up. Rick Y~]rray: Do you need the toughest standard in the Midwest to move it Councilman Boyt: Maybe. Rick Y~_]rray: Find me a co~_~-~unity that has 2 covered garages in the Midwest. Councilman Boyt: Well Rick I know from the survey that Paul did that this would be the toughest standard. Rick Y~]rray: Not only in the Cities now. Let's expand it. Go find one. I don't know of one Bill. Council~-,an Johnson: Engineering wise, could you build one easily? Rick Murray: Well you'd have to spread things out. That's what I mean when I said censorship of, architectural censorship. You're really going to be limited when you start putting all of those. CounciL,~an Johnson: You can't build a 3 story apartment. Rick Murray: If 2 stories are parking. Councilman Johnson: Dig a deep hole. Rick Y~]rray: You know you are definitely creating the market. With that standard you're saying that this is the price. Councilman Johnson: I think it's your hill R-12. Rick Murray: I only own a little piece of it. Councilman Johnson: You sold most of yours. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Tom? Councilman Workman: Well Rick, you sold a little piece of your southern part of Saddlebrook there over to Dean? I think what we're all kind of forgetting about City Council Meeting - Decem-~r 18, 1989 is maybe why all this all ca~ up. I think a lot of why this all c~ ~_~p was because I don't think the City Council or the Planning Co~Lission or any, Park and Rec Co~ission, anybody felt comfortable about what was going to be built up on top of a very prominent hill in Chanhassen and so people start~=~ running around trying to figure out a way maybe that it wouldn't occur. I'm not sure Dean how many people you were trying to get to have in there but you were trying to get about a half an acre of park in there with several hundred people in there which anywhere in the midwest would be laughable I think. So it is a two sided, we have a lot of developers in here tonight and there's a developer's standpoint and we' re coming up on at least my one year anniversary on the Council. I still consider myself fairly new to the job but I do know one thing and that's be careful when a developer's coming in. I was telling so~_.Lebody on the phone today that one word that I've heard c~]ite a bit over this past year was free. It's free. We can build this. We can do it. It's free. You know nothing's for free but we have Frontier Homes you know. Even with all of the guards that you trait on, if I could be blunt, people are getting it. I won't be blunt. I live in a townhouse. I've said that everyti~'~ this doggone issue's come ~1o. I live in a townhouse. I thank God that I've got a 2 car garage and $25.00 is a big deal to me. It is to my neighbors. I live in a quad. The other 3 people in the quad are retired. If they don't have 2 cars, they've got it packed with firewood or something else. On the other hand, the twinhc~es right near by also have 2 car garages. They've got boats and trailers and pick-up trucks and I cannot get down the street. I can't get down the street. I don't mean to keep anybody, as I repeat this, I don't F~an to keep anybody frc~, sharing the beauty of our co~,unity. As I mentioned before, I've got some c~_]estions about apartment buildings but when it co~es to townhouses and single family homes, you've got a lot more stuff than you've got when you're living in an apart~ent. When you move out of an apart~ent, you throw the shoes out that you haven't worn since the last move. Or whatever. You keep moving it because you're moving. I j[%st think that a lot of the discussion of philosophy about atte~;pting to keep people out of the market, $70,000.00 ho~ is a pretty inexpensive home I think these days. Councilman Boyt: Unfortunately. Councilman Workman: Yeah. I think we're talking about going to $50,000.00 and less ho,~s. Then it beca~ a matter of a prominent area in our city. We've got Readi-Mix in one end and we're going to have a parking lot on the other. It sort of beca~ that thing so everybody got real nervous about that and I think that's where a lot of this came from. Maybe it needs sc~e fine tuning so that we don't beco,~ the hard guys. I'm by no means living down by Herb or anything. You know I'm living in a townhouse. I mean I'm ~ybe a part of the group that you're talking about here but I don't intend to stay in it either but to go lower and to see lower, much lower than that starts to get into an area where I think so,~ of the ideas that Bill has had start to F~ke a little bit of sense. To start saying we're trying to divy up the categories of people or pick on these people or the homeless and the downtrodden and we kind of get shoved down this hole. I don't feel comfortable being pushed in that direction. I don't think it's fair. Again, when a developer comes in and says he wants to ram~ several hundred people into an area and provide a jungle gym on the quarter to half an acre piece of parkland, I don't think anybody thinks that's fair and that's where this whole thing has taken off I think because we felt that maybe we were being taken advantage of which wouldn't have been the first time. 31 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiet: Urs~]la? Councilwoman Dimler: I have emotions both ways here and then I have some thoughts so I' 11 concentrate on my thoughts. I appreciate all the co~'~ents that were made about keeping the envirorm~ent cc~tpetitive. I do believe that we should do that. I also believe that maybe we are setting the highest standard here within the State but I guess ~'~ main concern is that, you know and I've heard a lot of co~ents about affordable housing and I do agree that Chanhassen should have affordable housing. I don't want to keep low income people out but I guess my c~estion is, what's low income? Would it be under 3g? Is that kind of what everybody thinks is low income? Mayor C~m~iel: Probably so. $30,g00.~ I think. Councilman Boyt: If you go with Jerome Carlson's $6.50 an hour, that comes out to $13,00g.g0 a year. Co~_mciL~an Johnson: A~,ost everybody in that group's got at least 2 incomes in their household. A lot of the~ have 2 jobs. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but u~ point is that I think that we are already precluding the very low incm~'~e by our tax base. They just simply can't afford the taxes here in Chanhassen and therefore we're not even going to be targeting the~, even if you do build it $10,000.00 cheaper by not putting in the 2 garages. Those people can't live here because of the tax base. And I do wonder sometimes if the difference between 60 and 70, the low incou'e people, if they can't afford 7~, I wonder if they can afford 60. So although I agree with all your co~'~ents, when I'm looking at the figures here I j~]st, I don't see that the really low income could afford to live here anyway and then I would go with building the higher standard because I think it's more a safety issue than a profit issue here. Dean Johnson: A lot of what they've been talking about is because of ~ and also stuff that I guess I've given, I guess I'd like to go over it a little bit. So~ of the cou~ents here I guess hinge on this. This is the overlay or the transparency I showed you. This is a 1989 survey. This was done this year. This was done by the Minnesota Labor and Economic Development and this comes frc~'~ a letter that they put out on your co~unity. These are the types of jobs you have in your co~ity and are getting in your co~'~unitybecause of Rosemount and the Press and other things. Min~%~ wage $3.75 is $7,800.00. Shipping clerk, $8.10, $16,g00.gg. %~nese are the low end and the high end that was done on that list that was made up on your co~unity. $25,000.00, when you get to the high end here, your accountants and tool and die makers. Okay? They've determined that $29,gg0.gg is the difference between high inco~ and all the other incomes. Moderate, median and low income. At $25,000.00, those people cannot afford a $70,000.g0 loan. At $60,~00.00, instead of $23,g0g.00- $25,g00.00, those people just ~]alify so you should realize that low income or average income isn't $7~,000.00. And what you're saying can't afford the $70,~00.g0 and I ad~it that. The project that I'm talking to you isn't going to take everybody on this list. Councilwoman Dimler: Very few. 32 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Dean Johnson: It's going to pick up about 3 or 4 groups basically. What do you want to do? Do you want to cut that machinist out of there? Is it fair to cut that ~mchinist out of there who's single and the only income he has is what he makes at that plant in ROS~Lount. Councilwoman Dimler: Well on the other hand, housing should not take up more than what is it, 35% of your income? So we don't want to stretch these people either you know. Dean Johnson: But that's what qualifying is for. That's what mortgage bankers are for a~d that's why FHA sets top ends and low ends of debt and qualifying ratios so within those they take into those things. Councilwc~an Dimler: But they just barely ~mke it. Dean Johnson: Not all of them. Sc~e of them have gift letters. May have come out of a divorce with $5,000.00 so they can put it down so they can qualify for those types of things. All of that stuff enters into this. The other thing I wanted to show is something that Bill said. I don't know what you're average inco~ is in Chanhassen. The $39,000.00 you know I'm sure you know... Councilman Boyt: Well you quoted it to the Planning Con~ission. Dean Johnson: No. I ~]oted $22,385.00 and that was put out by the Carver, or excuse ~. $21,112.00 and that was the median wage in Carver County is what I had. CounciL,~an Boyt: When? Dean Johnson: That was from that same thing. Councilman Boyt: No, if your statistic is within 7 or 8 years of today, I'd be amazed. The Metro Council doesn't c~]ote a nuF~er anything like that. Councilman Johnson: Carver County? Councilman Boyt: Carver County is surprisingly not a lot different than Chanhassen. Dean Johnson: This comes out from the Minnesota Jobs and Training and ~loyment and Wages. Councilman Boyt: And what year? Dean Johnson: I don't have the year written in this report. The other thing is, I guess in ~ project, because I know a lot of this hinged on ~ project, was when we were talking about the park. If the issue is, the reason that you didn't want ~ project and all these subsequent things that happened and now you're looking at making strict zoning ordinances so nobody else can go on it. When I first ca~ with it, staff you know, because of your park director and stuff like this, recc~ended that I give cash and put in this playground equipment. I never offered to have it for a ground or I never tried to put park e~]ipment you know in one corner of the project because that's what I wanted to do. The staff from the park staff, the park co~,ission, recor~ended cash and 33 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 this park ec~_]ilm'.ent so we concurred with it. I have 3 staff reports that say this. Then they changed their mind and went to land and so now we've given land. We did not try to come out and say we're trying to get away with anything. We were going to be paying fees and putting in the park ec~]ipment. And then it changed to land so now we are trying to give land so at least that should be clarified. That's all I have to say. Councilwc~-Lan Dimler: I have one more co~-~ent. I brought out last time under I think it was Section 20-1123. It's on page 5 about the lighting. I wonder if anything was looked into there. We were going to look into the n~-~er of l[~ins or foot candles. Mayor Chmiel: Foot candles. Councilwoman Dimler: Page 5. Urder lighting, it's Section 20-1123. Paul, was anything looked into there? I had rec~]ested that we specify a certain amount of l~m~ination. Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, no. I really haven't looked at that. Now this ordinance is structured to minimize J~'~pacts, off site impacts fro~-, lighted parking lots. It doesn't get at I think the issue that you have about the safety of those parking lots. Possibly if this ordinance passes tonight in the first draft, I can talk to Jim Chaffee and see if there's a minimum', standard for lighting that's an accepted standard. I'm not aware of one if there is. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I would like that researched because the cc~ents that I've had that the parking lots that are already existing are not well enough lit. Paul Krauss: We also do circulate plans as we get them to the various departments in the city and it's been my experience in the past in reviews such as that that you get public safety input. If you have undergro~md parking lots, that they want them~ well lighted. That they want TV surveillance and that kind of thing. Councilwoman Dimler: You're not aware then or we have another ordinance that covers lighting in parking lots? Paul Krauss: I don't think we do. This is where you probably sho~]ld put it. Councilwc~an Dimler: Wo,]ld you check into it? Paul Krauss: Sure. Councilman Johnson: Ursula, trying to get more lighting into a parking lot and then we look at the new shopping center where we're trying to bring the lights down lower. We're at odds with each other there. Councilwoman Dimler: I know but that's why I thought it'd be good here. This is just multi-family residences. Paul Krauss: No, this would apply to co~-~'~ercial. 34 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: It's all co~,ercial, industrial and multi-family parking lots. This is all parking. ~nis isn't just multi-family residence. Councilman Boyt: You don't have to go higher with the light in order to provide more lighting. Mayor Chmiel: You can get a direction of light flow depending upon which way you want it to go. Councilman Johnson: But more and more and more for more and more and more cost. Then you're driving the cost of businesses... Councilw(m~an Dimler: My concern is that we have safety in the parking lots. Councilman Boyt: There is. Councilwoman Dimler: Especially for the elderly. You know they're di~Ling anyway so they're having a hard ti~-~ seeing at night. Mayor Ctm~iel: Rather than go into reiteration as to basically what's said, I too am leaning towards the 2 car garages. I think that it's ti~ that we probably take a stand within the co~,unity. I feel basically that 2 car garages are needed not only for the availability of having 2 cars. If you have 1 car, you're still going to utilize that for the other storage because normally in those kinds of buildings you don't have capacity or storage. Things that I think about are the boats, sc~,e trailers and things of that nature that are parked out there as well and they're there. So I guess without going into much further ado, I guess I would lean towards the 2 car garages contained within that R-12 family dwelling. Any other futher discussion? Councilman Workman: What is, maybe Dean you can answer it for me. I know you talked about this last time, what's the difference in the cost on a ho~ that you said between the 1 car and the 2 car? Councilman Boyt: He said $10,000.00. That's what he said. Dean Johnson: In townhomes. The reason for that is to stretch the face of it out enough so that you can get the 2 cars in. You end up having to increase the living area at the same time. Understand that the garage stall itself does not cost $10,000.00. The fact that you have to have enough face to the house in order to do it, especially when you go with the 35% impervious surface that you have on it ~kes it, for any type of design, al~.ost mandatory to be somewhat tucked into the house. You have to increase the width of the house and consec~_lently you get to increase size and the second stall garage and that's where the $10,000.00 comes from. Councilman Workman: So we're talking about the difference between 50 and 60? Dean Johnson: You have to realize that you know that the low end units that I was talking about, your single car ones, keeping square footage down were going to sell in the mid-50's so what you're talking about is the mid-50's to mid-60's. $10,000.00 is increasing cost to these people by 1/6. That's what you're doing to them. Making 1/6 of a payment which could be as much as $150.00 more than they're paying. 35 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 Herb Bloop'berg: It's not that important but obviously I've been observing your co~'~Lents in regards to storage and double garages and all that sort of thing. I know that over here on the Villas tip on TH 101, we insisted, we wouldn't sell that property unless they used double garages but the main thing that I think of is that everybody needs storage. And if you realize that the present technology is all built with trusses. We used to have an attic. We don't have any attics anymore. We've got space. There's a great place to store popcorn but absolutely you can't put anything up there. I think that this to me is the biggest factor is that there is no other storage. I've done many homes, expanded because they had an attic and you could go up and build extra roo~s. Today you can' t. I mean we've got these great structures and the technology is all filled with nothing but trusses. But the difference, you've got to build your walls anyhow and if you really analyze that material, like a garage floor and a couple of trusses and some roof, that section doesn't start to commence to get to be $10,~0~.00. In fact I don't think it gets close to $5,00~.0~ to make the difference between a single. I think any engineering study would prove that out. But we all need storage. Of course I'm interested in historic preservation. Most things are found in attics that people have saved and nowadays, you've got a generation now, there's no place to save anything but we have to live with that. But the one way we can gain a little storage space is by having at least a double garage. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other further discussion? Council~-~an Boyt: Were we going to then hold the daycare for a future day? Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have that yes. Councilman Boyt: Well I would move approval amending the multi-car parking to 2 spaces. Councilman Workman: Where's the apartment rec~_]irement? Paul Krauss: B (6) . Co~_mci~an Boyt: I think one area for discussion is do we want to have a different standard for efficiency, 1 bedroom units than we do for 2 bedroom and larger units. I guess my off hand esti,mtion would be that probably maybe an efficiency but a 1 bedroo~, unit can very easily generate 2 cars. Councilman Johnson: There could be some people with no cars. Councilman Boyt: Not in Chanhassen. Co~mciLman Johnson: Why not? Councilman Boyt: Well the only reason I can think of for having no car is you don't have a driver's license. Councilman Johnson: That' s possible too. My brother-in-law' s about to lose his for c~]ite a long, long time. Councilwoman Dimler: Don't tell us why. 36 City Council Meeting - December 18~ 1989 CounciL, ian Johnson: Because of what we talked about earlier~ Alcoh012 His third DWI. Councilman Workman: What's his name? Councilman Johnson: He doesn't live in this town. Mayor Chmiel: Don't say it. Councilman Johnson: I won't say it but it's the sad truth. According to my mother-in-law, it's going to be like 10 years is the mandatory thing in Nebraska or something for losing his license. My mother-in-law is very misinformed a lot. Mayor Clm~iel: I hope she doesn't live too close either. Councilman Johnson: You don't distribute in Omaha do you? Councilman Boyt: Would it be amendable to the Council to have Section B amended to such that effeciency units would have 2 stalls 1 of which would be completely enclosed. R~nat 1 bedroom units and larger would have 2 stalls which 2 units must be enclosed in the garage. Councilwoman Dimler: We're separating item 1 into two different ones? Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on? CounciL-;an Boyt: On page 6, Multi-family. Item 6(b). Saying efficiencies, just strike 1 bedrock, units out of that nu~er 1 clause and move it down to nlw~er 2. And nlm-~er 2, change the 1 1/2 to a 2. Where it says 1 1/2 must be completely enclosed. Change that to a 2. I would move passage of this. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: Just a minute here. Are you saying that 1 bedroom and 2 bedroc~.~ and larger units must have 2 stalls then? Councilman Boyt: Right. So I would move approval of the first reading. Brad Johnson: Could I say sc~.~ething before you go too much further? Just a co~ent. Councilman Boyt: Let's get a second. Mayor Ctmiiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second it for discussion. Brad Johnson: I'd like to ask a procedural c~]estion. When you have your first reading, what happens on your second reading? Can you rescind your vote or anything like that? I was not able to be here and I would say this is one of the more crucial votes that you're going to be taking and I don't own any multiple land and I'm not involved. I've got one that we're building but I think you really should think out this whole ordinance. What I see it as is far more stringent than is necessary to accomplish whatever the goal is and it 37 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 doesn't deal with just tons of issues. I can say you've got a St. Hubert's sitting over here planning on building an elderly housing project and you're not going to have a garage in an elderly housing project. Build a 28 unit and we've got 8 parking spots. You just asstmie they will not have cars and there's all different kinds, types of housing. Not to say if you had over here a 3 story apartment building like we're building over here or have been built all over the co~'~unity. Maybe you can build an apartment for 45 for rent. For $45,00~.00 to $50,000.~ cost, maybe $55,000.~0, you've just ~ade it impossible to build the standard 3 story apartment building in Chanhassen. That just doesn't make any sense to r~'~ at all. It's just impossible. You can't build it and be competitive in cost because you have to provide one parking lot. I think Dean said it 2 meetings ago. You provide 1 parking spot underneath the building. To provide 2 you have to then put all kinds of garages around it. It just doesn't make any sense and I think you guys should look at this. I think you're reacting to an overall multiple question when you may be having to deal with coverage. All kinds of things that, neighborhood associations. There are all different ways of taking care of what you're trying to accomplish and I think you should all look into it. Have Paul look into it. I told the Mayor the other day, I've been driving around trying to look at, there are good projects and there are bad projects that are multiple. If you go over to Hazeltine, they're building a very nice one there. Each one with 1 car garage. I think you guys should just look at all of those and rethink what you're trying to accomplish because I don't think, we're going to come back to this in the future. There's a guy sitting right there, units do you have to develop multiple? It's going to sit there forever. It's just life because you're just beyond what Chaska's is. You're beyond what victoria, maybe not victoria. Waconia. You're way beyond Minnetonka and Eden Prairie and they've got a lot of land left that's multiple. We've got land to develop. You should have a percentage of it in housing other than single family. I think these are j~mt decisions you're going to have to look at and I think that's all I've got to say. This ordinance to me makes no sense whatsoever from a technical point of view. You're accomplishing maybe what you're trying to accomplish but you're really limiting all f~ture development within this co~unity. I think you'll be back at the table about 10 more times, I would think you'll be back a n~m-~er of times. You encouraged him because I was here. You encouraged him to put multiple in for low inco~'e and now you just made probably impossible for him to build any and that would be ~-~ concern so, there's another reading. I think you all should just take a look at other co~'~unity ordinances. Take a look at other projects and see what they've done because there are good ones and bad ones. I agree. And we're just co~'~enting, there's a n~-~oer of apartment buildings over here that have no garages at all and the parking lots aren't full. If you go over and look. I mean it's just different. I think that's ~ concern. I'm not pro or con on what's going on over there but I think you should look at that ordinance heavily because it is, I build a lot of apartment buildings. This is ridiculous from a point of view of strictly an ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Brad. Paul Krauss: ~. Mayor, if I can address a couple things that Brad brought up. On page 7 pertaining to senior citizen housing, there's the third paragraph down. It says that the City may apply a decreased parking rec~_]irement for senior housing projects or other residences which by their nature should generate a decreased parking de~and so you have the flexibility to work with seniors. I don't think that that's an issue per se. Theoretically I suppose 38 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 you could also make a determination if federal funding for low income housing co~s back and the HUD guidelines insist that you have 1 car and no car parking, you canmake a determination to waive that requirement for some higher purpose. If those projects exist so I think you can deal with that. As to the issue of 2 cars per unit versus the 1 1/2 that had been proposed. I guess I'd have to give you ~ own judgment that I think the 2 per unit is by everything I've seen on the excessive side. I think there's a real physical limitation in ter~s of being able to acco~odate it in the types of buildings that are being built. In the architectural plans that I've seen, I don't believe that you can. What you would have to do and I've seen a few buildings that this is done, you basically have a footprint for the building and the underground parking garage has to go out under lawn area beyond the footprint of the building. Rlaat's not impossible to do. Not many people do it. It's fairly expensive and it has some design limitations but it could be done. I'd like to reco~Lend that you look again at the proposal that was developed by the Planning Co~u~ission. I think that represents the upper end of the spectrum in terms of the expectations placed on multi-family housing in the Twin Cities and I think would accomplish your goal. Mayor Ctm~iel: I think what I'd like to see is if anyone else has additional information before it goes to it's next reading, give that information to us. Enlighten us. Give us more specifics as to some of your concerns and then we can go from there. We had a motion on the floor. Any additional discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: He had an amendment to that. Councilman Boyt: I just gave the motion with that in it so it's really not. Co~uncilman Johnson: You're approving the whole thing with that. Councilwc~an Dimler: I think we should separate it. Mayor Chmiel: If it's indicated. Councilman Johnson: Is there something else you want to amend? Mayor Clm~iel: Multiple family is what you made. Councilwo~an Dimler: I'm not sure that a 1 bedroc~ needs... Mayor Chmiel: Well the efficiency is left out with the 1 bedroom. Councilwoman Dimler: No. That's not what you meant was it? Efficiency has 2 stalls? Mayor Chmiel: 1. Councilman Boyt: One covered and one not covered. The effeciency does. Councilwoman Dimler: And you wanted to move 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom or larger units to 2 stalls with 1 1/2 completely enclosed? And I'd like to have Paul address that. Why did you put 1 bedroom? Paul Kra,~s: You have a lot of single people these days. You have couples too but you've got a lot of single people these days buy 1 bedroom condominium, s. 39 City Council Maeting - December 18, 1989 For example, if you're going to invest in a place to own~ an owner occ~lpied situation, for the extra sc~_lare footage and a lot of people I know that have done this, ~ke the decision if they're going to buy it, they're going to own it for a period of time. They want the extra sq?]are footage. They buy a 1 bedroom rather than an efficiency. They still only have 1 car. Granted you could have a situation where there's a couple living together or two unrelated people living together, whatever where it happens but when you average the whole thing out, you' re not looking at the need, probably in ~ estimation for 2 enclosed parking stalls for every 1 bedroom apartment. Councilman Boyt: If I might respond to that. You've indicated in here somewhere that you're only rec~]iring the~'~ to include one of those garages in the lease or sale of the property. That's part of it so if you don't have a need for 2 cars, ~'~ybe you only have the 1 garage but it's sitting there available. As Mr. Bloo~erg pointed out, there's a tremendous need for storage in these buildings and none of those covered garages are going to go empty. I think that there is, I'm interested in the architect~]ral problems that we're posing. I'd like to see how that gets worked out. Maybe we end up going to stand alone garages as we have now in our apartment buildings. Maybe 1 bedroom apartments fits where they are right now with efficiencies. I'm open to that but the way I proposed it, I moved the~~, down to go in there with the higher standard. Councilwoman Dimler: I was wondering what Paul's reaction, why he wrote it up at the top there? Councilman Work~,an: Maybe where we're r~ming into...is in this multi-family. Multi-family is anything from a twin home to a 390 unit apartment building. Is that right? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Workman: I think when we start to mix those twins and c~ads, etc. I don't think we've got enough definition there. I've said it now both ti,~es we've talked about this that the apart~ent building doesn't make as much sense as the townhouse idea because as far as getting parking under and around and where it's going to be doesn't c~_]ite make sense to me yet. So while I'd be willing to go along with passage of the first reading, I do want to see some I guess, I don't see the word apartment building in here. Because I think that is a completely different category of housing from twins and c~]ads. CounciLn-,an Boyt: But see down in here we talk about 20 dwellings. You really don't get into the complicated garage structures until you get over 20 together. 20 is your typical apart~ent building. Brad Johnson: That's 40 parking spaces. Councilman Johnson: Enclosed. Brad Johnson: That's a lot. CounciLman Work, an: I don't think we're going to be restricted to, as Chanhassen grows and A1 Klingelhutz down by TH 212, etc. I don't think people are going to continue to build this simply 20 unit apartment buildings because they're usually a lot bigger than that. I guess just in ~ mind I see some 40 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 problems with that. Because I think apartment complexes are a co~,pletely different thing than what Dean wants to build and townhouses so I think when we're kind of l~m, ping th~ together, it doesn't... Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to create a separate category then for apar~,ent houses? Can we do that? Councilman Johnson: Put twins in. Put c~]ads in. I mean you know, your R-4's, your R-8's, your R-12's. We've got different zoning districts and we're applying one standard to all three. I personally think that the one standard, it's good to have one standard. It should be one car. Councilman Boyt: The issues are almost the same. I think the design issues and our desire to flex to that changes as a building gets larger but the issues of either the storage or the parking rec~irements, the standards that we set, I think are the sa~'~ whether we're talking about a quad home or whether we' re talking about a 100 unit apartment building. The design issues are different but the issues of storage and protection of property. The ability to store your car out of the winter are the same. Councilman Johhnson: One of the twins behind ~ has a single car garage. Of course they've got 4 people living there and each of th~, have a car and some of them have more than 1 car. So a 2 car garage would help but we're still going to have cars in the street. Don Patton: I guess I would like to ask the Council to table this and expand it. As long as you have multiple zoning, I think you should really look at the parking re~]irements. I realize you're trying to simplify this into a couple things but I really think that multiple family is completely different. Tom, I really support what you're saying and I don't think it's, especially with the R-12 that we'll be looking at in the future. I don't see that as we had it approved in our PUD here, it isn't going to work that way. Councilman Johnson: You've got 4, 8 and 12 in your PUD. Don Patton: Exactly and it's not going to ~rk that way. Councilman Johnson: What do you think about 2 cars enclosed in 4 and 8? Don Patton: Jay, I'd really hate to coherent on that at this point but one of the things again, a ~]ad, a townhouse, I can understand a little bit of that but the thing I disagree with Councilman Boyt, I just hate to see everything legislated. You're going to get a lot of 2 cars with efficiencies or whatever but I just don't think, I think that should be for us to come forward to you as a Council and justify that to you rather than setting up so~ type of rule for it. Asmuch as I respect Mr. Bloo~erg, there's another industry set up for storage which you have in the city of Chanhassen for people that need that. Mayor Chmiel: The only trouble is that they don't go there. They're all on the street and that's what I've been seeing. Not only here but in other con~unities that I've reviewed also and that's ~ major objection. Don Patton: With apartments? 41 City Council Meeting - Decen-~er 18, 1989 Mayor Ctm',iel: With apartments and multiple dwellings, yes~ Councilman Johnson: Storage of cars. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Cars outside on the streets. Counci]m,an Johnson: They do it on houses too. They do it on single family houses with double car garages. There's one across the street from me, they have 1 car in the garage and 1 on the street. Counci]m~an Boyt: Not now. Councilman Johnson: Yeah now. Councilman Boyt: Well it's illegal. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We have a motion on the floor. We also have a second. Councilman Johnson: I think we need to have the motion restated. It's been so long we don't know what the motion is anymore. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well this is for the first reading. The motion is as stated in the written doc~m~ent with the change to item 6(b)(1) moving 1 bedroom unit down to n~mber 2 in that category and changing item (2) so that it reads 2 stalls must be completely enclosed in a garage. As we all understand that the first reading so it's open to change. CounciL,,an Workman: How many readings are we going to have on it, two? Mayor Cbm'J. el: Yeah. We can always change it the next tJm',e. Counci]m,an Boyt: I could have added a lot more restrictions but I decided not to. Counci]m~an Johnson: No, I mean being the most restrictive in the Midwest is not too bad. Councilwoman Dimler: Should we vote on this amendment separately from the whole ordinance? CounciL. tan Boyt: This is the ordinance. There is no other. Councilman Johnson: Is there any other amendments to vote on? Councilwoman Dimler: I want to vote the whole thing through b~]t I don't want that amtenc~tent. Mayor Chmiel: The am~endment of what... Councilwoman Dimler: Of moving the 1 bedroom down to 2 enclosed stalls. Councilman Johnson: Then it fails. 42 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: Yeah right. You just put it back together. It'd be just a quick. If you want to vote, if you don't like it the way it is there, then vote against it a~d then bring up a new motion. It'd be just as quick. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. And a second still stands. Councilman Workman: Do you have another motion in mind? Councilwc~,an Di~er: That's what I'm trying to figure out. Councilman Boyt: It's the first reading. You can certainly change it the next time around. Councilman Johnson: Your changing the motion will be easy. It's just you don't move 1 bedrocks. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah right. Just leave it as it is. Councilman Boytmoved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code for Division 2, Parking and Loading as written by staff with the following amendment to Section 6, Dwelling: b. ~]lti-Family: 1) Efficiency - Two (2) stalls one (1) of which must be cc~pletely enclosed in a garage. 2) One (1) Bedroom and Larger Units - Two (2) stalls of which two (2) must be completely enclosed in a garage. This requir~Lent is to be assessed on a gross basis for the entire project. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. AWARD OF BIDS: FIRE DEPARTMENT FITNESS EQUIPMENT - CONTINUED. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's just move back with the Fire Department fitness equipment. John, are you ready to answer sc~e questions? Just state your name and address and there are sc~ questions. John Wolf: My name is John Wolf. I'm a 4 year ~-~=~er of the fire department and I was more or less volunteered by the fire department to help th~ put together sc~e exercise equipment reco~,endations to the City Council. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Bill, you had so~ ~]estions. Councilman Boyt: Right I did. It's my understanding that you have this amount of money budgeted but I was wondering why is an exercise bicycle and a treadmill so expensive when your Schwinn Aerodyne is a third that. I think treadmills 43 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 that are standard motorized treadmills can be~ very good ones can be had for half that. So. John Wolf: We c~]rrently have a Schwinn Aerodyne in our exercise room right now and it is a valued piece of equilm~ent. The aerobicycle that we're proposing brings sc~-~e additional benefits and it more or less, as we see it, enhances the safety of using the equilm'~ent along with it has the capability or at least based on the experience we've seen at health clubs, it's a more interesting type of machinery to use. If we go back to the reason why we proposed exercise facilities to being with really was two fold. One was for the attraction and retention of me~oership. The other was to enhance the physical capabilities of the fire depart~'~ent. The Aerobicycle Four that we're proposing has preprogra~ed workouts. It's a co~',puter assisted device. Your progress is monitored against YMCA standards so you're able to more or less keep track of your impr_ovement or lack thereof. There is a pulse monitoring device which we do have some overweight, some inexperienced exercisers and we have some people that are on the opposite end of the spectr[~ but there is a concern that people may overexert. Hopefully and we've tried to encourage or at least using ec~]ipment that has pulse monitoring devices so that was another reason why we selected this piece of ec~_~ipment. The Schwinn Aerodyne is an air driven flywheel machine. For people that are relatively new in exercising, it's kind of a strange phenomena to have air blowing all over you while you're exercising. It's also an upper body and a lower body device which for some people they want to just isolate the lower body. With the Schwinn Aerodyne, that's difficult to do because those upper arms are back and forth. I guess those are the prJ~ary reasons why we're looking at this piece of ec~]ipment. It is an expensive piece of ec~.]ipment but we hope to have this piece of ec~]ipment 1~ years from now. It is a long te~.n~ investment in that regard. You can purchase cheaper exercise bicycles but if you go to Northwest or to Flagship, you' 11 notice the equiim.~ent that's being used is the Treacl,'~ill. It's the Stairmaster and it's the Aerobicycles. There are sign-up lists in health cl~.~bs whereas they have a lot of this other ec~.]ip~ent around but it really sits there. We're trying to outfit the room with equitm'~ent that people will use and they'll want to use that will be popular. So that's the objective is to try to encourage maybe marginal exercisers if you will, to ,.~se the ec~_]ipment and to compete against the health cl~fo environment for those. Council~an Boyt: Ce~.~tainly the heart ~onitor is a good idea. You can get the best available chest heart monitor for $200.~g. You could outfit several of your people. You could, I guess as I look at this, I just thought ~about it. If you're talking abo~]t 34 to 4~ officers, certainly you can't put the~ all in the room at the same time but you really have a very small amount of exercise equilm'~ent there and you have a great deal of money and 3 pieces of equipment. guess in a sense I'm second guessing you. I basically feel it's your decision. I just am cautious that it's a great deal of money for 3 pieces of ec~_]ipment where you could get industrial grade ec~_]ipment for half or less. I appreciate your coming over. Councilman Work~an: Were stairs looked into? John Wolf: We have a stair machine that we purchased from a local vendor, Fitness Master and it's not one of the computer assisted machines. We have 3 pieces of ec~_]ipment in there now and they're not getting the use we'd like them to get and c~_]ite frankly we think the reason is is because they're not the 44 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 cc~puter assisted machinery. ~ne other reason we think the room itself doesn't get a lot of use is because currently there are no weights or upper body exercise devices in the room now. We think that once we balance the room with the weight machines, the cc~,puter assisted devices and the current equipment plus the racc~]etball court, that we will get more use out of the room. Mayor Chmiel: Okay John. Thank you. John Wolf: Thanks for your consideration. Mayor C~;iel: Do we have a motion? Co~u~cilman Johnson: We already have one standing. Councilman Boyt: Well I'll move approval of the Fire Depart~.,ent's Fitness Ec~lipment. Councilman Johnson: It's already been moved and Tom seconded it. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid for the exercise ec~]ipment for the Chanhassen Fire Department to The Fitness Store in the amount of $11,821.50. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, me~ers of the Council. Last Septe~oer you reviewed a draft ordinance regulating convenience stores and other uses with gas pumps. Staff got feedback frc~~, the Council that the ordinance should be revised to provide separation standards both to separate individual CUP's having gas p~,ps from one another and also well basically to prevent clustering at major interchanges and also to provide a setback standard from residential properties given the high impact that these types of uses create. We reviewed past discussions on the ordinance and believe that a somewhat different approach may be appropriate at this point. We therefore separated out all uses with gas pumps and classified them as conditional in those districts where we propose that they be allowed. Convenience stores without gas pumps are proposed to be treated as any other lower impact or retail use might have been and is permitted where appropriate. There's a table on page 3 that illustrates where uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. Under CUP guidelines, a minim~, separation of 250 feet is proposed between gas pumps of uses which are applying for CUP's. This is in an effort to discourage clustering. We think it's an effective nu~er tO reduce the possibility or eliminate the possibility that you'd have 4 gas p~,ps located at an intersection. You may have one kitty corner frc~; another or down the street frc~, another but you wouldn't have 4 at the same intersection. We're also proposing that a setback of 100 feet from residential properties be required. Basically that will allow a greater than normal setback where hopefully we can through the site plan review process get a high level of screening to be offered. The ordinance would also correct what we view to be an omission in that it would allow auto servicing in the highway 45 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~mer 18~ 1989 business district. In reviewing the ordinance we felt it odd that a business district dedicated to highway uses, i.e. auto related ,.uses, prohibits servicing. I've talked to a n[m-~er of people who were looking at the possibility of automalls or a Goodyear or Firestone type of operation and if it's to be allowed, that's probably a district where one can consider that to happen. We've proposed correcting that with the change in the ordinance. The Planning Con~ission discussed the ordinance in Noven'~oer but was unable to make a reco~'~endation. This item was scheduled for City Council review at the last meeting but wasn't heard due to the late hour. At that point Councilman Johnson noted that the current and proposed definitions for a typical gas station prohibit any kind of significant auto servicing. Consec~]ently the normal, the formerly nor~al type of gas station is actually prohibited in Chanhassen. Minor servicing was allowed, changing wiper blades but nothing more than that. On the basis of Councilman Johnson's inc~]iry and ~ expectation that this may have been an oversight, I proposed a revised definition for motor fuel stations now calling it motor fuel and service station and tinkered with it so that it would allow auto services without restriction. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Any discussion? CounciL~'~an Johnson: You can have a service station without gas p~m-~ps like a Goodyear. Where would a Goodyear fit? Paul Krauss: Well we think it would fit in the Business Highway district if we amend it. Councilman Johnson: I mean as far as definition wise. Do we have a definition that would... Paul Krauss: No we don't. We do have auto service listed as a conditional use in several districts but not in the business highway district. Councilman Johnson: Yeah but we deleted the definition of auto service. Paul Krauss: We deleted the definition of was it auto service station? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Paul Krauss: I use the launching point for this, the ordinance that Mark Koegler developed last s~m-~er which talked about motor fuel stations instead of auto service station. Council~,an Johnson: The only place we see motor fuel station it should say motor fuel and service station? Paul Krauss: Right. Councilman Johnson: While you changed the definition you didn't change it back in the additions? Paul Krauss: If I didn't, that was an oversight. I changed the definition on page 1 of the ordinance. 46 .City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Right but on page 3 it's not. Under 20-714, Conditional Uses it j,~st says motor ~]el station. ~ne next page it just says motor fuel station. Paul Krauss: Oh yes, that's an oversight. Ail those should be corrected to motor fuel and service. Mayor Chmiel: Just one ~]estion Paul. In dispensing gas within residential parcels, you're proposing a min~, separation of 100 feet. Is 100 feet really enough? Paul Krauss: Well if you have a gas station or a convenience store that's say at the end of co~ercial center and adjacent to a residential parcel. ~]tside the ~,ediate area for gas ~m, ps, you may have 50-60 feet of blacktop to allow for circulation and trash storage and everything else. If you accept that as kind of an average, then you're looking at about 40 foot of green space. That allows you to do ~]ite a bit. This was ~ att~,pt to address that issue. Whether or not it goes far enough is the question I think but you have to keep in mind that these things are reviewed not only with a conditional use permit but also in conjunction with site plan approval where you get to approve the landscaping and screening as well. Councilman Boyt: There is Mr. Mayor, I think if we took this particular part of that ordinance to TH 41 and TH 7, that they would be in arms against us. If we said that a service station could be 100 feet away from their house. CounciL-~an Johnson: Two miles is too close. Councilman Boyt: So I agree with you that 100 feet is not far enough. And that doesn't mean that the individual service station has to build right on the border of a residential neighborhood or has to have 40 feet of greenspace. It si~le means they can't build on that border. They've got to be sc~ewhere in the zone. They can't build right on the edge next to a residential development. Councilman Johnson: Is the 100 feet from where? Paul Krauss: From the gas pump itself. Councilman Johnson: To the nearest resident. Do you know what we have from the p~m~,ps over here at Brooke's because... Paul Krauss: I'm sure it's doesn't make it. The residential's right behind the fence. Mayor Chmiel: That's part of my concern. That's much too close there. Councilman Johnson: But the vents there are on the back of the building. That's where the odor problem, cc~es from. Not as n~ch, when they're filling the tanker and they do a lot of their tanker filling at night. It's easier for tankers to drive around at night only with the drunk drivers. Counci]_,~an Workman: Your brother? 47 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Brother-in-law. Just my brother-in-law. I think the distance fro~ the tank storage vents have to be taken into account because sometimes those vents can be a long ways away from the building or the p~Lps. In the case of a station I'm working on [1o north on a leaking underground tank situation, his vents are actually at the back of the convenience store again across from the alley but it's probably 75 feet fron_.~ the tank. From the where his vents end up because of where his tanks are. So again that's the worse case is as close as he could get to putting them next to residences. And the Brooke's is even worse. It's right there and a slight southern breeze with an inversion condition and the neighbors back there get a real good whiff of fuel. Councilman Boyt: What about the possibility of saying, what's the typical lot depth in the zones we're talking about? It's 125 feet? Paul Krauss: It's 125 feet minimt~-~. Realistically they're typically somewhat p'Lore. Council~an Boyt: On a residential we move it to 125 feet. Is that true in the co~e~ercial areas we're talking about? Business highway and so on. Is that the min~',[m'~? Off hand I don't remember the minim[m'~. Paul Krauss: If it's in proxJ~ity to any kind of single family that's been developed in the last lg years or so, yeah, that's the standard. CounciLn~an Boyt: ...lot depth in the corre~ercial area but it see~ to ~e like there should be one lot between the lot that whatever we're calling these things, motor fuel station sits on and any residential development. Would that be reasonable? Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if you want to put another lot but I think a greater distance than 1~ feet is what I'm, depending on what those lot depths are. Counci]m~an Boyt: Well yeah, I don't know whether 25~ feet's reasonable or what but it would see~ to ne as ~ybe a street width and a lot depth would be, we're at least saying here's some kind of cushion. Min~m~ lot depth is 15g feet. Still? Roger Knutson: That ' s what it says. Councilman Boyt: That's not residential right? That's commercial. Roger Knutson: That's business highway. 15~ feet. Councilman Boyt: Well my point is, rather than just pick an arbitrary n~m~er of 10~, 200, whatever, it would be nice to have so~ething to reference it against. If we're saying a lot, it's got to be one lot in from a residential zone and maybe that's 150 feet. Maybe we take a lot and a street and say okay, if there's 60 feet width for a street? Paul Krauss: For local residential street. CounciLn~an Boyt: So it's 210 feet. I'd say so~ewhere inbetween there is a distance that makes sc~e sense. 48 City Council M~eting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Paul Krauss: Yeah. I think that that has so~,e potential~ Councilman Boyt: Well we're into a first reading situation again right? Mayor Ctm~iel: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: Aren't these fun? Mayor Chmiel: Exactly. That's where we're at. Councilman Boyt: I cut you off. I believe you were ~king some co~ents. Mayor Chmiel: No. That was one of the ~mjor concerns that I have with this is that I was thinking about Brooke's as we have now with John living directly in back there. Sc~ of the people are saying that they get the odors of the gasoline and that's one of the concerns I had. Second concern I have is a safety aspect. In the event that there is sc~.,ething would happen. That's a ~mjor concern there so that's why with 100 feet, I just wasn't too comfortable with that. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest another change ~er Motor Fuel Stations. Other appropriates. This might be a good time to add. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, what page are you on? Councilman Boyt: Section 3, page 2 I guess. I asked the Recycling Cor~ittee to look at this issue. I know Jo Ann looked at it and proposed something to the Council about a year and a half ago. I think that people who service motor oil, sell and service motor oil should have some means of collecting it for recycling by the public. Mayor Chmiel: Isn't that a ~ndate? Councilman Boyt: Well the State mandate is that theypost a sign that says where it can be collected. Mayor Chmiel: Any specific station that sells it is rec~]ired to take it in also. Councilman Boyt: No. Just post it. And so what we did was we, TH 41 and TH 7 as part of their conditional use permit, required th~, to do that. Councilman Johnson: And Amoco also. Councilman Boyt: And Amoco, Jo Ann worked with Amoco and as part of the deal there they agreed to do it. We didn't really have much leverage but they agreed to do it. This would be a chance to say to motor ~el stations, when you plan to build, plan to put in that extra tank to collect recycleable motor oil. They're there 24 hours a day and that's what we need is somebody who's there to monitor it. So I'd like to see us include that as another condition. Councilwo~-~n Dim]er: So that'd be condition 9? 49 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~er 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Before we add that as a full condition, would you just review that as to the State rec~_]irement. Councilman Johnson: No, he's absolutely right. Mayor Clm~iel: Is he? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I thought that they were mandated to take oil. If they sell it, they have to take it. Councilman Johnson: That w-as originally. That was the original legislation. That got in the next session, that went down. It didn't last. Mayor Chmiel: Check that out would you please. Councilman Boyt: Just to show you the problem Don, the previous Council even went so far as to say we will pay you $50g.gg a year to be open to collecting it and they refused. Councilman Workman: I think the nearest place is Chaska. Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm not objecting to what you're saying. Councilman Boyt: And I agree that we should check it out. Councilman Johnson: If you catch the Sinclair on a good day, he'll take it. Am~oco has taken it in the past. Mayor Chmiel: Amoco's taken it from ~%s. We've taken ours there. My kids have. Councilman Workman: They haven't taken it frc~-, me. Mayor Chmiel: My kids took it there Tom. Counci]m~an Workman: Down at Carver County Auto Body in Chaska is the nearest place they'll take it as far as I know. Councilman Johnson: TH 7 and TH 41's got one. I've gone into Amoco before I was on Council. Brought it in. It depends on which kid's working there. Councilman Boyt: They turned me down any n~-ber of times. Mayor Chmiel: If you buy your oil there, they take your oil. Council,,an Boyt: That's probably the secret. Councilman Workman: This thing is so dog gone weighty and bulky that I don't even know where it's going. If the developers that were in here earlier have one point that I support is that we're as heck getting into the business of kind of trying to fine t~]ne an awful lot of things in this city that I'm not sure we should have so much control over. There's a lot of good arg~m~ents for why we want to control this. My real only concern was how far a gas p,m-~p set up is 50 City Council Meeting -Dece~er 18, 1989 from a residential because I know that is a constant proble~, or going to be a constant problem. Other than that, this trying to separate stations, etc., I'm not sure how much of a problem we' re going to have with that in the future. Maybe we've peaked. As far as convenience stores, we're getting a grocery store in, maybe we won't have that problem an~Lore. I don't know. I don't know if I feel comfortable t3_~ying to plug all these holes and I'm kind of losing the focus, this seem's so like it's got so many different focuses that it's not focused. Does that make sense? Mayor Chmiel: Say that again. Councilwoman Din-der: We're trying to cover too much. CounciL,~an Workman: Yeah, I think we're trying to cover too, I don't know if it's the Planning Co~ission can't decide and we can't decide and staff can't decide. Councilman Johnson: I think it's comprehensive. Mayor Chmiel: I think you have to take a position Tom to look at something of these types that they're proposing and not having one on every corner. Councilman Workman: I guess you know, and that's what I'm trying... Mayor C?m, iel: Termed as gasoline alley and I guess that's what I look at it from. To n~ that's a visual blight. You need those kinds of services for the motorists coming through the community but if they need gas, there's always that availability getting gas sc~ewhere. They may not have the right credit card but you have to be sort of selective in where those kinds of stations are going to go. Councilman Workman: And maybe this isn't a good argument. ~nere's an awful lot of insurance agents out there. Nonetheless I got into the business. I think I can do a better job. I think I can offer better service. I can blah, blah, blah, blah. Likewise a businessman, maybe somebody can do a better job with a Dinner Theatre. I don't know, are we going to put a dinner theatre on every corner? But for us to tell a person, a property owner on a very busy intersection that this in fact would be, something's telling a permit that this is a very good intersection to sell gasoline because there's an awful lot of traffic going by. You can make a lot of money doing this. Maybe all four corners are being told that and there's that co~petition thing so I'm interested in doing so~thing. I'm interested in passing the first reading. I'm just letting everybody know that the second reading I'm going to have ~ybe so~ more refined ideas on this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're only limiting 5 different specific ones from not being permitted within those categories as we have listed. The others are permitted ,_~es and conditional uses and all those are being permitted in there with just specific conditions as to what they have to meet. Councilman Boyt: I think one of the things to keep in mind, it is pretty comprehensive. There's a lot of ground that's covered in this thing so ~ybe it does seem~ to lack focus. What I entered it trying to avoid was probably what we can't avoid very easily and that is the feeling that there's too many 51 City Council Meeting - Dece~:~er 18, 1989 convenience stores with gas pt~tps in this town right now. 250 feet I see as being the absolute minimt~. I guess I can kind of live with it because as Paul said, it keeps th~ off every corner. Co~mcilman Workman: Let me just ask you this c~_]ick. Are any of those convenience stores going broke? Councilman Boyt: Well what's going to happen is, I hope not. What will happen is unlike the insurance business where you can enter and leave and pretty much not leave something that everyone else has to live with. In the convenience store gas pu~-~o, once you build that building, it's there. Try to find an alternate use for those things and it's a challenge so you see empty gas stations sitting around from the big crunch 1~ years ago. People can't enter the Dinner Theatre because of the large fixed cost. Councilr~an Workman: Right. I was using those in basically a larger philosophical in that maybe my investment in getting into the insurance business isn't as great as somebody that's going to be building a convenience store which is a big investment but they've got to think that through and I'm not going to baby the~ through it, you know what I mean. That's all I'm saying. That's not my job to tell this g,~y, hey watch out you're going to fail because businesses fail every day. And it's also not my job to say for the convenience store that's already there, hey I'm going to protect you because I don't want you to fail either. I'm going to start getting into this juggling act. That's what I'm nervous about and I understand completely where Council wants to go with trying to...out a little bit but it's like pornography. When does pronography start? It depends on what decade you were born in maybe but so there's all sorts of different definitions about where that competition should, where our role in competition should begin and end and that's where I always get a little nervous. I'm nervous talking about garages. Telling people how to build houses. Councilman Johnson: I don't think we're trying to protect anybody or tell them, protect the~ from failure or guarantee the~'~ success by protecting the~ from competition. I think what we're trying to say is that the look we want for our town, such as what is being said with the garages, the look we want for our town is not the look of four convenience gas service stations at the corner of Great Plains and TH 5. We don't want to see, I don't know how wide that right-of-way is. Whether 25g feet crosses the right-of-way there or not from Holiday to the other side of TH 5 but is that what we want as our vision for our co~-~'~ercial develolm~ent in town. One of our main entrances to town to be a Holiday, a Super America, Super Q and an Amoco and I guess we've got room for one more gas station yet to be tossed in there. Councilman Workman: I'm just saying don't let our vision get in the way of a p~.~operty owner making sc~'~e money. That's all I'm saying so I know what you r,'~an. Councilman Johnson: Now is there other things that can go in there that would be co~o~ercially viable also? We put those uses in there and then there's no room for a ~]rger King or a Bonanza or Mills Fleet Farm or whatever. Mayor Ct~-,iel: Any other discussion? 52 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Council;an Johnson: So I agree with you. Councilwoman Dinf[er: Yes. I've been ~ncomfortable with this all along and I guess mainly because of the problem_s with li~,iting free trade and restricting competition is my main concern. Also I think this puts the City in the business of, or into a position of granting on a first come basis and I'm not real sure that we want to be in that position. Again I think we're coverning too much. Trying to be too restrictive. I believe so~ of this is necessary but I think as far as the convenience store aspect is concerned, I no longer see that as an issue. I kind of feel like we're closing the barn door after the cows are out. I think that that was the issue last year as they were springing up but I don't see that happening and I don't think that will happen. Councilman Johnson: The issue's about to start again because Amoco didn't do anything within their year. They're about to lose their... Councilwoman Dimler: Well, like you know with the grocery store coming. I don't know if too many more convenience stores will want to cc~ in here. Paul Krauss: As far as Amoco goes, they're working with us on building permit. The thing that's hanging the~ up right now is the need to clean up existing contamination on the site. Councilman Johnson: They thought they'd have that thing whipped out by spring. Gary Warren: They're looking to bid it so they can start this spring. Councilman Johnson: They have applied for the building permit? Gary Warren: They've applied for the building permit. They are currently reworking our site plan to coordinate with the TH 5 and the Great Plains Blvd. expansion and they're looking to get us, we've been provided a temporary plan for the clean-up effort out there. We had a big ~=eting 2 weeks ago with MnDot and others to coordinate that because we do need an easement from them to do our ultimate Great Plains Blvd.. Councilman Johnson: Now that we've ventured off the subject slightly, do they need any kind of extension? I mean they haven't moved any dirt. Mayor ClmJ. el: Let's try to stick to what our subject is. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I guess ~ final co~ent was what the gentleman said before here. Although we did legislate the market there, I'm real uncomfortable with doing it in all cases. Councilman Johnson: We have eliminated apartments in this city on the last one. Councilwoman Dhr, ler: No, no, no. We left an opening there to separate that out. Councilman Johnson: It's a first reading. Mayor Ct~,iel: Yeah. 53 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~oer 18, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well I would move approval of the first reading, adding t° Section 3, point 9 that motor fuel stations provide for the collection and recycling of oil. Council~an Johnson: You can just rewrite 6. Council~an Boyt: Well, whichever. Mayor Chmiel: Section 4? Councilman Boyt: Sure. The intent would be any place that sells motor oil which some of these may then decide that it's not worth selling motor oil but certainly the service stations are going to. Mayor Chmiel: Okay...that 100 feet and so on. More than 100 feet. Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Work, s, an: I' 11 second it. Council~an Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores, gas stations and automotive service stations with an amendment to Section 20-282, condition 6 to include that all motor fuel stations provide for the collection and recycling of ,.%sed motor oil. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Paul Krauss: Two points of clarification if I could briefly. Did that condition also apply to convenience stores that sold oil? Councilman Boyt: Yep. Anything that sells oil. Paul Krauss: Okay, and was the setback increased or it has not been at this time? Councilman Boyt: Not yet. I think we asked to consider 150 to 210. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Boyt: But we didn't change it yet. Councilman Johnson: And the typo's corrected right? Mayor Chmiel: Right. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. Paul K3~auss: M3~. Mayor, I'm prepared to go ahead with that. Would you like for ~'e to skip this one tonight in favor of going to what we have left on the agenda? This isn't pressing. 54 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that is a pressing situation. Maybe we could just table that. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to make a co~Lent on it. Just real short. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, say it. Councilwoman Dimler: I was just wondering if we're sc~,ewhere including seasonal sales of Minnesota grown products? Paul Krauss: No we're not. There was another ordinance that was drafted last s~,er that I think we lost in the pile sc~,eplace pertaining to sales of far~., products. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, should we mention this in that one? Paul Krauss: I don' t know. Councilwc~an Dimler: I would like to have it covered sc~'~ewhere. Whether it's in this ordinance or in another one. Paul Krauss: I suppose we could, sure. Councilman Boyt: It might be better to have so~ sort of permit process for that rather than going through the getting sc~e sort of interim conditional use. That's kind of involved. Paul Krauss: The problem with this is if somebody wanted to sell their corn crop or whatever off the back of their pick-up truck. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what they did last year. Paul Krauss: But through this ordinance it would take them 2 1/2 months or so to get it approved. Councilman Boyt: We need a permit that... Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay, so what do we have covering. Paul Krauss: If you go through the Planning Cc~ission, City Council you're probably looking at 2 to 2 1/2 ~'~)nths. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, fine. I understand that and the season's over with but what do we have covering that because we had, that ca~ up last season. Do we have anything covering that? Roger Knutson: We drafted an ordinance. Paul Krauss: We can resurrect that and bring it back. Council~-~n Johnson: Didn't that get passed? Paul Krauss: No. It's never been reviewed. 55 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 Councilman Boyt: I have a couple other, excuse ~-~ but I think these, are fairly important if we're going to bring it back. One, I think we o,lght to strike mobile homes as an interim use. I think we're kidding somebody. At least I would be, if they thought I'd vote to put mobile hc~es in Chanhassen. Councilman Johnson: Construction trailers? Mayor Chmiel: Well no. For instance, if sc~eone were wanting to build their own home and ~]tilize a mobile home for that interim. I've seen that happen. Councilman Boyt: I think there's some sort of construction situations where people p~t one on site for their construction crews. Well, okay. If you guys want it but... Mayor Clm~iel: I can see where that might be. Just for that s~ecific use. Councilman Boyt: That's sc~ething to consider before bringing it back is how do we take care of that ,me without... Councilwoman Dimler: Well on any of these, we have the final say when they come in and apply don't we? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Boyt: The other thing is, I think we should, staff should review all conditional uses currently and take out of, use that list as a starter list to come up with interL~ because we don't have enough on here. This is hardly worth doing. Churches are the only thing that show up but I think if they went back and referenced other things that we said are conditional uses, they'd find a whole list that they could put in here. Not that all conditional uses should be interim but it'd be a good starting point. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwc~an Dimler seconded to table action on Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding revisions to the zoning ordinance to allow for the review and granting of conditional use permits for uses that are te~porary in nature in all districts, first reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOARDWALK ALONG THE EDGE OF A CLASS A WETLAND, 7280 KURVERS POINT, WOODDALE BUILDERS. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, me~ers of the Council. The applicant's rec~]esting approval for a wetland alteration permit to build a boardwalk out to an elevated area located adjacent to Lotus Lake and to add so~e fill to an area located above the high water of Lotus Lake, basically to firm it up. It's rather soft and sc~.~ishy at this time. To firm it up so that it becc~es usef~l lawn area. The boardwalk will be located 5 feet at the closest point outside the protected wetland area and neither it nor a retaining wall that's already been built for the house, encroach into the wetland. We support the idea of using a boardwalk in this area rather than the use of woodchips or gravel because it will run atop a dyke that is used to create an J~Lpoundment area for storm water and the 56 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 boardwalk results in fewer problems with this ~terial running off and plugging up the outlet. As I noted earlier too, the area being filled adjacent to the lake is located above the ordinary high water mark. It's high ground. It's not anything the DNR regulates at all right now and the area is just being filled to make it more useable. The Planning Co~,ission reviewed the proposal and reco~ended it's approval pending several additional conditions. The developer has since clarified how fill will be moved onto this site without damaging the wetland. The idea is to do it during the winter months and one of the things we've also looked at pending, well based on the Planning Co~Lission's recommendation, is that a $5,000.00 bond be established to insure that the site is properly restored. A revised accurate survey has been provided. There was sc~-~ c~]estion about the original survey at the Planning Co~ission meeting. With that staff reco~Lends approval of the wetland alteration permit subject to appropriate conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, I just have one question. Regarding that $5,000.00 letter of credit or cash performance bond. Is this a requirement of all people proposing to do this specifically? Paul Krauss: No, Mr. Mayor it has not been. We've been using it with, well as evidenced earlier tonight, with more re~]larity. As these requirements are placed on properties we find we need a mechanism to enforce it and having somebody's money in the bank or sc~ sort of a financial co~,itment is the best way I know to do that. Councilman Johnson: This is one where this see~ very appropriate. This is one where they can mess up big time. Actually $5,000.00 is cheap. ~ney could mess up and fill wetlands and do, get pass the ordinary high water mark and really have sc~ substantial cost of restoration. Without any kind of backing, it's tough to go back in there and correct it. I'm wondering if this is boggy area, is this a wetland that they're filling? Has anybody surveyed the fill area to find out what type of vegetation is within that area? Paul Krauss: Yes. We were out there and we had Fish and Wildlife folks go out there as well. The area they want to fill is not a wetland. It basically looks like lawn right now. It's just a little squishy. Councilman Boyt: In the dry season. Mayor Chmiel: And that's understandable too. Councilman Johnson: It's squishy because it's wet or it's squishy because of the type of soil. Paul Krauss: It's virtually, I didn't dig a hole to see the type of soil but it's virtually at, it's above the OHW. It's not significantly above it. Councilman Boyt: Why don't you have Type III erosion control along the lake? Paul Krauss: If we don't, that would be an oversight. That should be that along the lake front. Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can start this out with a couple of cc~nts if it's alright. When we have wetland alteration permits, we in the past have given 57 City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989 alteration permits for boardwalks so I don't have any problem~ with that[ I think we've set a precedent. Well, this Council may not have but previo~%s Councils have, which isn't binding on this group but we've done that. What I think this Council has done, as well as previous Councils, is say that any wetland alteration pek~it has to be an improve~ent to that area. An actual improvement in one way or another to the functioning of that area. We've got this need to go through and get a permit because we consider these areas to be so fragile and here we've got somebody who's filling in right ~_1o to the lakeshore. Personally I think we ought to allow the~ to put the boardwalk out there so they can get to the water but that should be the end of it. They bought the property as is. The City certainly didn't promise the~'~ a beach and we've had this desire to protect not only the wetlands but in this case Lotus Lake, but setback areas from that so they can do their job to filter runoff. To do all those sorts of things and if this fill is going to be approved, it's got to be d~onstrated that it actually J~proves the ability of the land to do it's filtration job. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but isn't that fill going to be placed above the high water mark anyway so what effect would that have on it? Councilman Boyt: Well because that high water mark is merely a standard from which we back off 75 feet and say you can't develop there without an alteration permit and we have shown historically that alteration permits are granted for improvements. I reme~'~er the guy who cam-e in here in the last 6 months who wanted to do a little bit of fill in his backyard next to a wetland. Not a lake, just wetland and we said show us how that's improving the ability of that piece of property to filter and what not before it gets to the wetland and we'll approve it. Councilwcm~an Dimler: Can you address that right now? Paul Kra~]ss: Yeah. I think our wetland ordinance is a little unusual in that it's not only work in the wetland that rec~.]ires a wetland alteration permit. It's work within 200 feet of it. This boardwalk is not in the wetland. The fill is not in the wetland nor is it in the lake. Nothing is being altered in either the lake or the wetland. There's a larger philosophical issue about our ordinance and Jo Ann and I are going to be putting together a position paper on the wetlands ordinance for you hopefully this winter yet, and that's one of the things we'd like to address in that one of the things about the Ersbo Addition has a wetland alteration permit. The hc~es are nowhere near the wetland. They're impounding the ~%ostream water and maintaining c~.~ality. There's an issue with the ordinance but in this particular case there is no impact directly or indirectly, well possibly indirectly but there is no direct J~pact on the wetland of the shore. Counci]m',an Johnson: I'll have to disagree with that. When you're right on top of the shore, right on the edge of the wetland, right on the edge of the lake and you're going to put dirt in there and you're going to put grass in there, you're going to put fertilizer in there to make that grass grow, tell me you're not going to have an increased r~n-off. You're not going to have increased nutrient loading into Lotus Lake. Do they need a Watershed permit to do this? Paul Krauss: The area that we recc~o'~ended that they not be allowed to manicure is the area between the wetland and the retaining wall. It's not that high 58 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 ground that they want to maintain. Councilman Johnson: If we're going to fill this area, I'm going to w-ant to put sc~te restrictions...in fact the entire state needs sc~e restrictions on use of fertilizers along the edges of lakes and whatever ~lt I think this is, ve got the ability to do this. No fertilizer can be utilized in this fill area. We can very easily say that because they need a permit to do it. Councilman Boyt: How are you going to monitor that? CounciL,~an Johnson: How are we going to monitor it? Mayor Ctm, iel: That's almost impossible to do Jay. Councilw~)man Dimler: You have run-off from other lawns as well. Councilman Johnson: Not in this location. The only thing would be frc~ that knoll. Councilwoman Dimler: But what you're generally talking about, that would be very, very difficult to regulate. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, well in this area we could monitor it. It'd be a little expensive because we'll have to do sc~e testing of the soil before and after. I didn't get a chance to get out and see this one but I'm not happy on the fill area. I think the boardwalk's a good idea but I'm not terribly sure of the necessity of the fill area. Councilman Boyt: There is, if you take Ladd Conrad's co~ents out of the Planning Cc~-~ission. Ladd lives on the lake. I think he sort of lives and dies wetland ordinance from time to time. Certainly Sue does. He says in his first cc~'~ent, I'm real surprised. Then he goes on to explain why but in his second co~,ent he says in 10 years I 'ye never seen anybody go right up to the edge of the lake. I think what we've got here is a change in staff approach to our wetlands ordinance from when it was written and as a councilme~er, I'm not ready for that change. Councilman Johnson: ~nat 200 foot protects that wetland. That's why we're not, when you start getting up and to say okay, here's this blade of wetland grass. This is the edge of the wetland. You can now do anything you want as long as you don't disturb that blade of grass. You're not protecting that wetland because that blade of grass is then going to move further down because that one dies and pretty soon you don't have a wetland. You're shrinking it. I have a real hard time filling right next to, doesn't DNR control any filling adjacent to lakes? Paul Krauss: No, it's only when it goes below the ordinary high water. Mayor Chmiel: That's what it says in the Minutes too. Councilwo~n Dimler: So you're saying DNR would have no problem with that being done? 59 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Counci]m~an Boyt: That's also why we have the toughest wetland ordinance in the state. Councilman Johnson: DNR shows ours to a lot of other cities and says use ours. We're trying to preserve our wetlands. That's what people move here for. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any additional discussions? Councilwc~an Dimler: I guess I'm concerned again with the rights of the property owner here. As long as the DNR doesn't oppose it, I don't see why I should. Councilman Johnson: We have tougher ordinances than the DNR. The DNR is pretty laxidasical. Well, I shouldn't say laxidasical but they're a big picture people okay and they're restricted by the legislature and you know what they've been able to do. We've been able to get in here and produce a model ordinance that I think ... Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know though. Yhey came out for that little pond there in ©iffy Far~'s. I thought they were c~]ite concerned about that. I think they are concerned about... Councilman Johnson: They are. When there's the rules to do it with. Sometimes they've said geez, it's Chanhassen rules that we can use to force something to happen here. We can't do it on our own. Don Ashworth: I'm concerned with the one co~-~;ent in regards to staff looking at this differently. I'm not aware of that case. As this application deals with the wetland, I'd like to go tb3~ough that with Paul but as it deals with adjacent to the lake, I mean you can go around to any of our lakes and we have continuously disturbed up to the lake area. Whether it's fill in the back yard of different h~',eowners or the actual construction of new homes or the boat access or the park on the north side. I think there's a 100 examples. It's because of that that we put in the fencing req~]irements to keep run-off from going into the lake so we toughened our ordinances to insure that wouldn't happen. I didn't see anything on this application that would lead ~'~ to believe that we're not doing that in this particular one nor are we not trying to protect the wetland, right? Paul Krauss: I believe that's the case. In fact there is a retention pond on this property that's designed to intercept water flowing out through the project and hopefully clean it up a little bit. Councilman Johnson: Also, on ~Type III versus the other type, Type I, Type II, whatever, depending upon the slopes here, I don't see there's much of a slope in this area. I'm not sure if we want the haybales. What that ends up doing is giving you a larger area of no growth. If you can have just the fence stripped in there, you will have less disturbed area than the haybales. If you don't have a steep slope, you're not going to need the Type III. It's going to be overkill. It's more expensive and it may actually be environmentally worse than having just the silt fence. Refer that over to Gary to see if he agrees with that opinion. Mayor Ch~'~iel: Is the Wooddale ~]ilders here? 60 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Don Beg in: Yes ~ Mayor Chmiel: Is there something you'd like to say? Would you like to come up to the mic please. Just state your name and your address. Don Begin: My name is Don Begin and I'm a serviceman for Wooddale Builders. Tom, the superintendent couldn't make it down here tonight so I came down to sit in. I think you're discussing it adec~]ately. I've been in building all my life and now have stepped aw-ay from the supervisory and into the service area and I've seen a lot of building, a lot of run-off and everything. I think this has been looked at real carefully and I don't think that the custc~er is requesting this and I don't think he's going to do anything to damage the lake in any way, shape or form. We're going to bring that fill in there on frozen ground. I believe there's only going to be about a foot of fill put in there and then sodded ir~'~ediately when sod is available in the spring. Whatever way we can keep the run-off from, if there is going to be any which I don't think there's going to be any run-off. Whatever way Council decides to hold it, we' 11 maintain it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to take issue with Mr. Ashworth. I think that if you look around the lake at develolm~ent, a good bit of that took place before the wetland alteration permit was ~]t into place. That since then if we go back to a year and a half ago, staff was at that point trying to pursue with the DNR the correction of an alteration to the lakeshore where the owner did a whole lot less than is being proposed here. Went out and pulled sc~ cattails out and we felt that was enough of a violation to get the DNR out there and talk about complete restoration. I think it's a big change when staff comes in now and says let's put a foot of fill right up next to the lakeshore when in the last year and a half we were onto people because they were pulling cattails out. Don Ashworth: I guess I don't see where those two are one in the same. The other portion, I don't know if you've had a chance to walk this area but it's, you' ve got mature oaks there that are, I don' t know how big they are. 36 inch diameter. Councilman Boyt: Not where they're filling? Don't tell me they're where they're filling because that will kill th~. Don Ashworth: No. I don't know of any fill that's proposed to go around those trees. My point there is in walking that, it's a lot different situation than the cattail issue that you're describing and I totally agree. I can't rem~er the incident but if sc~teone was out there with cattails, filling in there, staff would be the first one to say let's get that corrected. Councilman Johnson: As I understand, this is basically yard right now? Open grassy area? Paul Krauss: Well there is open grassy area as you walk down to the lake and you co~ out through here. The wetland is up closer to the house. It kind of ~anders out that way. There is high ground out here and the City retention pond is right there. The area that's being filled, this is the old survey so it's sc~,ewhat inaccurate but the area that's being filled is sc~ething like 61 City Council Meeting - December 18, 1989 that. It's about 30 feet wide so it's ~ell away from the ~etland proper. It's close to the lake. Councilman Boyt: The lake is... Councilman Johnson: A wetland also. Councilman Boyt: Class A. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any additional discussion? Councilman Johnson: Is there a ~ay we can get a little more distance from the ordinary, instead of getting right to it we, because you get sc~e wave action going in there and it will be, you'll be having wave action hitting your silt fence if we have a heavy spring. The ordinary high water mark, you have a heavy spring, it's going to be above the ordinary high water mark. So maybe filling no closer than 5 or 10 feet of the ordinary high water mark. So you taper it, instead of tapering 30 feet, we'll taper in 2~ or 25 feet. Give us that little extra for protection. Councilwoman Dimler: Would that be acceptable? Don Begin: I think what the owner was really looking for here is, like you said, it's a sponging area and what he's looking for is to walk out onto the boardwalk and have a sod area. An area where they can sit out by the edge of the lake. I would almost agree that he's not going to sod right up to the lake. He's not going to sod way out there and leave that sod wash into the lake. It's just non-sensical. Co~on sense is going to tell you he's going to hold back so when yo,] say 5 or 10 feet, I think that's probably what he's going to do anyway. Councilman Boyt: I think if you allow him to fill in this spongy area, then where does it stop? Mayor CTm~iel: Bill, if you look at the review that they did have in the Planning Co~,ission meeting. They took all those things I think into consideration and they basically approved it with no dissenting votes. They do have the 7 conditions contained within there. One Jay was talking about, that would make condition 8. Council~an Boyt: You know it amazes me that they took all this concern to say you couldn't sod between the retaining wall and the wetland but you get o~t to the lake and they say go ahead. So maybe they shouldn' t sod there either. Let's let prairie grass or whatever is going to grow up along the lake do that so that it serves it's natural function. I don't think we should be filling it. I think it's a mistake. Councilman Johnson: Actually it's probably just going to settle in. Mayor Ch~'~iel: I think it would too. Councilman Johnson: I think in a couple years the sod's going to be wet. It's going to fill in your... Councilman Boyt: Well if it is, the dirt's only gone in one spot. 62 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: It's going straight down~ Mayor Chmiel: Com~cts. Councilman Johnson: Not only compacts but will migrate into that, it's probably a peaty soil that's there from the tree areas that has created this soil. The clay will create a clay cap for a while and then that soil's slowly going to migrate into the peat. It will be gone in a matter of a couple years. I'm trying to think of what the purpose naturally, if we're coming out of a forested area your run-off's a little higher acidic frc~. humanic acids. Hitting this area and absorbing prior to going directly into the lake. ~ne sod's not going to probably let it absorb a little too. Councilman Workman: Jay, your 8th amendment would be to not sod within 5 feet of the ordinary high water mark? Is that what you said? Councilwoman Dimler: Or 10 feet. Councilman Johnson: Well, I was going to start at 10. I would start negotiating at the fireplace you know. So my condition 8 would be no filling within 10 feet of the ordinary high water ~rk and I'll move approval with those 8 conditions. 1 thru 7 as reco~;ended by staff and 8. Councilman Work~an: Is that fill area 40 feet wide? Councilman Johnson: About 30 feet wide. CounciL-~an Workman: That's a friendly compromise. I'd second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #89-10 as shown on the site plan dated October 20, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the Class A wetland and between the ordinary high water mark and the altered or filled area prior to any improvements Fade on the site. Also, soil in the fill area must be stabilized after it is placed. 2. The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility cc~any needs to use the utility and drainage eassment. The city or utility company shall not be responsible for any damages to the boardwalk or restoration costs. 3. The area between the boardwalk and the wetland shall be maintained in it's natural state. 4. The area between the retaining walls and the wetland shall be~intained in it's natural state with no sod. 5. The boardwalk north of the Class A wetland up to the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake shall be of permanent construction. 63 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 6. A $5,000.00 perfor~.,ance bond must be posted with the city to guarantee that any overland haulage to the fill area is restored to its present condition, that any dan-,age to the retention pond is repaired and that all distrubed areas are seeded or sodded as soon as possible with erosion controls being maintained througho,~t. 7. A grading permit shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to any work beginning on the site. 8. There shall be no filling within 1~ feet of the ordinary high water mark. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL, COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL. Paul Krauss: Mr.. Mayor, members of the City Council. Last Thursday, we've been reviewing building permit plans for the Country Hospitality Suites and last Thursday received some information that there were going to be architectural changes proposed to the building. There's two reasons for the changes. One was apparently the franchise corporation took exception to the roof line that had been proposed. That it didn't match ~%o with their corporate image I guess and that can be explained by the developer in a minute. The other was that there was a basic underlying thrust of trying to save money on constructing the building. There are a lot of changes to the building that were being proposed some of which no longer are being proposed. Some of which are basically acceptable but they were significant enough that when taken in total, I was unwilling to sign a building permit because I didn't think it was the building you had approved. The changes included modifications to the roof line. Deletion of cedar shake shingles for asphalt shingles. The elimination of one canopy, the s~Lall canopy on the west side of the building and a significant downsizing of the main entrance canopy. The building is 12 feet shorter than it used to be. I believe that's probably all the changes that we looked at. Now with regard to the roof line changes, I think there's been some modification since it was first proposed to us last Thursday that took into account suggestions that we made to improve the sight line. Basically the original roof syste~ that had been proposed was a massive slab pitched roof that had nothing to break it ilo or not very much to break it up. As you can see from the drawings that they're providing tonight, that there's additional detailing being proposed. The developer's here tonight to address the package that they want you to look at in total. I guess I also had a philosophical issue with this that I should lay on the table and it's that there's been some occasions in the past where the buildings that have been approved were changed during the building permit process or after that and I was uncomfortable being a party to that. It's my belief that when you tell ~e that you've approved a building, that you have an expectation that that building is actually going to be built. Therefore, and given the time constraints that this developer has, therefore I wanted to bring it back before you tonight and let you make the decision and direct us which way to go on it. In the future, given your direction, my preference is when these conditions crop up is to just say well, if it's a significant deviation from the approved site plan, you've got to go back through the Planning Con~ission, City Council and go through it again because that is not the project that we approved. I coordinated this review with Todd Gerhardt 64 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 and he indicated that the HRA would probably have similar concerns as well. City has a significant stake in this project and he's scheduled a comparable review for their meeting on Thursday. Councilman Workman: Is there a page that shows the changes? Paul Krauss: Well the rear 3 pages, and I'll let Mr.. He~iinger explain that but the rear 3 pages of the original in that packet will beco~'~ what they're proposing now. By the way, I apologize for the late date of getting this to you but events occurred rather fast and we just got these ourselves to look at today. Dave He~'~tinger: Good evening Mr. Mayor. Council,'tek, ers. My name is David He~-~iinger. I represent D.W. Hutt Consultants Inc.. Construction mangement for the firm and Mr. Bloo~erg and a partnership for the Country Hospitality Suites Hotel. As Paul mentioned to you, last week I approached him with a request or a consideration of what changes could be made to the building to conform with the Country Hospitality Suites signature requirements and by signature require~tents I ~an building identification. In the hospitality industry, they like to be able to have their buildings identified by certain trade~,arks. One of the trademarks is of course the country look porch at the front of the building. Also the roof pitch as he had mentioned. They were strictly opposed to the flat roof so our alternative was to. approach you with going to a 6:12 pitch roof and trying to get a pitch that would conducive to the other buildings in your city. In doing that I guess I didn't convey well enough to Paul what our intentions was. I understood that he thought we were looking at a pretty well flat roof with no detail. Basically I was trying to get information from him as to what type of detail you'd be looking for and then take it back to the architect to find out if that's in fact what we could do and fortunately I think we were able to do that quite well and keep the original facade that you had agreed upon... This illustration here showed the flat roof with a mansured and if you look at the vertical elevations of the building you can see that these roof lines right here are still predominant in the gabled roof. They extend a little bit higher though because we're going up about 20 feet further with the roof pitch. So the accents are still there. In trying to meet the Suite's requirement though for the pitch roof we ran into another problem and that was with the cedar shakes. The Code rec~_]ires that they be fire treated and to fire treat using that type of a shake on that massive of a roof gets to be a pretty substantial cost factor. We ~ere considering in the other application to use a non-treated shake but have it painted over or treated by fire chemical process. That however is no longer acceptable in the State Codes. So what we wanted to propose instead is using a Timberline shingle which gives you the sa~.~ appearance as cedar shakes. The type I'm referring to is what you're seeing put on the Riveria right now. Not what is on the shopping center and not what is on the apartment project behind the shopping center. And this shake is a Class A rated shake and it's built up in layers and we're talking in the excess of 250 pounds. In fact it's more like 300 pounds. I'm pretty sure it's 300 pounds. This will give you the same effect as the wood shake. If you drive past the Riveria and you look at the snow or at the light, it gives you the same cast from the distance and it has the same effect as a wood shake but it's half the cost of a wood shake. If you look, getting back to the roof again, if you look at the second page underneath the site plan you can see in a view looking down upon the roof. I'm pointing this out to you again to show you that this view is the accents and shows how the shadowed effect of the roof is going to take place so that you'll have that 65 City Council Meeting - Dece~oer 18, 1989 same appearance when you look onto the building. That there are jogs and offsets in the roof and it's not just a single plane roof that we're cont~'Lplating. The issue on the canopy, what happened there is kind of two fold. Nu~'~oer one, it took away from the country porch appearance and nl~'~er two, it beca~-~ a massive structure because of it's span. The canopy that was proposed or wound up in the final drawings was one that spanned 48 feet and was 32 feet wide. It had to carry a lot of structural load and the eye beams became very massive in it and so what we want to propose is a lesser type of canopy. I should back myself up here a minute. The reason this canopy got to be so big is that it's my understanding it went from a 24 foot driveway to a 3g foot driveway to allow buses to turn in there and unload. That's why it went to a lot bigger than the reco~'~endations of BRW the engineer. However, no cost factors were applied to this or engineering at that time. It's our intention that we want to see a canopy and I think we can do this by if you look at the elevation on the next page behind the roof. The top elevation to the left shows you the entrance into the motel. (~_]r intention is to take that center portion and try to bring that out. However, at this particular ti~e and because of our financial restraints and so forth, we haven't been able to do the engineering or the cost value on that. It's our intention however to do sc~ething in that area and what I'm asking for is your blessing in letting us go ahead with a permit and work on that. I think Mr. Bloo~erg would even support me in the fact that he's pretty adamant that he wants that canopy and he usually gets his way I think. So we're not throwing that entirely. We want to look at some different alternatives and we want to try and satisfy the franchiser by giving a still a porch type appearance and maybe we can just bring that little canopy of that doorway, bring it on out and serve the same purpose but look at some different engineering, structural engineering on it so we can accomplish that. The situation, we have shortened the lobby by 12 feet but there was sc~_-~e discussion also that we wanted to move the building 12 feet to the east. Now we have abandoned that idea because again our time restraints and we don't want to go through the process unnecessarily of having to go before zoning again and so forth if we should move that building. So that has been abandoned. One of the concerns was that there was a watermain located along our west foundation wall and Gary was going to do souse research on that. I don't know if he's done that yet for me but he was going to look at that. Gary Warren: I haven't finished. We've been looking at whether we can get by witho~]t them but I haven't concluded yet. Dave He~'~inger: So that's an area that we have to address somehow but our intention is not to move the building. Counci]m~an Workman: Why do you want to move it back 12 feet? Dave He~-~.~inger: Well we were going to move it at first to take it off that watermain so we could construct without having to concern ourselves with the main. Clayton Johnson: The wate}_~ain is going to be abandoned but right not it's underlying the footing. Gary Warren: Be abandoned and replaced. Councilman Johnson: As part of the construction? 66 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Dave He~inger: Be routed around~ Gary Warren: As part of the proposed city public improv~tent project there. We're looking to see if we have enough looping capacity right now to allow it to be abandoned since we wouldn' t be entertaining construction of the new main until the weather breaks in the spring. Councilman Johnson: Will they start construction this winter yet? Dave He~inger: Would we start? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Dave H~inger: Yes. We already have. In fact our lender has required that we start as of last week and so that's part of our restraints here. Councilman Boyt: I have a question if I might. Mr. Bloo~erg, don't you have cedar shakes on your building now?. Dave He~inger: He w-ants to know if you have cedar shakes on your building now. Your existing building. Yes he does. Council,an Boyt: Well how is this going to match if you take Timberline and match it up against cedar? Herb Bloo~erg: You can't tell now with the shortening of the building, it has it's advantage. It's going to have almost a 40 foot distance between the rebuilt area that's being...and the hotel. My feeling is that is going to be a roof line which ~y be more flat up to a railing on it so the hotel architecture will stand separate from the one going to it. That is the rebuilt one. Our plan was to run the shakes around there and continue like what is on the Animal Fair building, a mansur roof and if we have to use the fire rated shingles that's fine with me but to the, I think when we get to the hotel then it will be the asphalt. I think you'll understand the dil~a that we've gotten into on this, a few of these changes. One thing, I wasn't that close to the architect when they started but they were approved and very muct involved with the Country Suites Hotel and I'm as surprised myself that they didn't design in the first place with this gabled structure because I saw these and I was even at the grand opening of the one in Burnsville which was one of the first ones here. But our position today is that we have the permanent financing. We have the interim financing but the probl~, is that we have to furnish a term construction statement that it can be built for the financing. So what we're asking for is the permit to go ahead on this basis, which is with the asphalt shingles and as far as the carport's concerned, I'm in hopes that we can somehow s~eeze that out and get that like a carport. The appearance will be essentially what is on the original plan and I think the roof will be a little higher but I think that with the 3 story building, and as you look at that one now, it will be another third higher perhaps in the roof system which I think will be desireable rather than this projection. This presentation...the man who is actually doing the construction management and we've gotten the bids in and this can be done now in this budget but we do have I think a good group of partners and I think I can sell th~, on doing sc~e other things for the hotel to change the interior to the 67 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 benefit of what we're trying to do in this co~Lunity. I think that's more or less the story. Council',an Boyt: Thank you. I guess that explains why you're coming in here because you can't build the initial building for the a~unt of money you have financed. Dave Hemminger: That' s correct. Councilman Boyt: Because what I see you doing is I see you taking a lot of cost, maybe not proportionate to the_ total cost but a significant dollar amount out of the building cost wise. I'm not sure, one of the things that always troubles me is when the City Council and the HRA are both v. oting on the same issue. I'm not comfortable with that. The HRA has considerable money in this thing and when they put money into it, I really like to see us come out with a product that's everything we hoped it ~ould be so I'm a little relunctant to see the building shrink in size. That's unfortunate that we have to give up the cedar shakes. We've given them~ up other places in town. I guess I can live with that part of it easier than I can live with the building being 12 feet smaller which means considerable less sc~_]are footage. Clayton Johnson: Bill, if I could co~ent. The 12 feet is only in the pool area. It's not in the main building. It's in the pool area that the building is being shorten 12 feet. The issue of shakes goes back to on the old plan, when we had a mansured roof, cedar shakes were an insignificant ite~L but now when we go to the full gable roof and with the new rec~]irements that are in place for fire retardancy, the cedar shakes are just not a practical solution. That's the way it is. Up until just recently we could have put on the cedar shakes and fire proofed them-~ with a spray on material. That's no longer permitted under the Code so we have to go to a Class A shingle and Timberline would appear to be the best solution. One other co~ent. In regard to the canopy. It's like Pinnochio's nose. It keeps growing. We started out with a very modest canopy. %he canopy on the Dinner Theatre is about 20 feet long. When the decision was made to tear down the gabled roof building, BRW ca~'~ in and helped us redesign all new parking and the stacking in that area. When they did that, the driveway grew to 30 feet because obviously it would be nice to acco~a~odate buses in an orderly manner. When the road grew to 30 feet, now the canopy grew to 44 feet in length. 44 x 36 so I mean it was just one of those issues that the architect didn't really go back and address after the changes were made by BRW. So Herb's hope is to maintain the canopy. Come out to the sidewalk. Project it out over the road. Maintain the sa~e look from the street but get away from that 48 foot by 36 foot mass. It's really huge. Councilman Workman: So you're saying you're going to keep the canopy on there? Clayton Johnson: Yes. It's just not going out all the over the road and anchoring on the island. Instead of being 48 feet. Dave Hem~J. nger: It won't be 48 feet. Clayton Johnson: It won't be 48 feet long. Councilman Workman: It will be how long? 68 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 Clayton Johnson: Well I don't know. What is it to the streeet it's what Dave? Councilman Work~,an: When you say to the street, you're talking about the north side? Clayton Johnson: No, you go out to the sidewalk and then canolever out to the street. 8 feet? Dave He~minger: 8 feet. 8 feet to the sidewalk and then probably another 6 feet or so, it'd be 14 feet. CounciL,~an Workman: What's 14 feet going to cover? Clayton Johnson: It will permit a cay to go underneath. Dave Hemminger: A car and a vehicle to pull up along the end of it so they can get out on one side and go through at the same time. Councilman Johnson: When you say to the street, you're not talking West 78th? Clayton Johnson: We're not talking West 78th Street. See there's that big turn around in there that's 30 feet wide and the original canopy went out to the sidewalk, across the 30 foot street and beyond. That's why it ended up so huge. Dave He~inger: But as Herb has ~ntioned, we are going to t~y in the hopes to ~mke that a longer one yet. To try and get back to that 48 if possible but we have to look at the valued engineering and the structural capability of it. Mayor Chmiel: The days that it rains, if it were to be up to 14 feet, you'd probably get 1 or maybe 2 cars in there at the max. Councilman Workman: One with the doors open. Mayor Chmiel: Right and I've know that I've gone into different motel/hotels and it's nice and convenient plus I think it adds a lot of aesthetics to it. Makes it look a little more complimentary just as I see the shake shingles because the present Dinner Theatre is all shake shingles and by continuing with those I think would blend in much better than going to the proposed shingles that you're talking about as well. CounciL, lan Johnson: The flat roof too. Isn't the Dinner Theatre so it's just the sides that are shake shingle. Councilman Boyt: It's got a big sloped roof on it. Mayor Chmiel: When we approved this, I liked the appearance of it. I think it had ~]ality. A look that was co~li~.~entary. I don't know if these changes now are going to 'do the same thing for it. I know there are some other shingles I believe that are out on the market that are very close to the shake shingles. Dave Hem~minger: What are you referring to? Mayor Chmiel: In an asphalt kind of shingle and I'm not sure whether those. 69 City Council Meeting - Dece~-,ber 18, 1989 Dave He~Linger: This is itl Mayor Ck~'Liel: No, there's some others that I've seen that are other than that. Dave Hezm'~inger: There's a heavier grade. Mayor Ctm-Liel: There's a different grade and it has a little different effect to it. It has a ripple in it just as a shake shingle has. Dave He~minger: Have you seen the roof that's going on the Riveria? Mayor Chm].el: Yes. I don't like that one either. My own opinion. Dave He~-~inger: When you see this and the size that it is, you won't know the difference standing on the ground and looking at it whether it's going to be a cedar shake or an asphalt shake. Mayor Chmiel: I c~]estion that. I can distinc~.]ish the difference believe me. Aesthetically in just looking at it, you can tell the difference. There's no c~estion in my mind. Dave He~-~-~inger: You'll tell it in a certain w~y but c~_~ality wise it's going to give you the same impression. That's what you're looking for is, what kind of a~-~ience it gives to you when you're looking at it. Does it give you the J~pression of the country look, the western look and I think that's what it does for you. And it gives you the best fire rating you can possibly get. Mayor C~'~iel: Right. I realize that. Dave He~inger: And I think that's a big consideration that should be considered when you're considering it. Herb Bloo~-~erg: I was just going to co~-~'~ent. I was watching them laying the shingles today on the Riveria, finishing ~]p and there was a light snow and you could see every row of shingles. Actually these are 3 thicknesses if you look in places and the minimum, of 2 so it is that effect. Obviously this is a sample, I don't think gives you the flavor of it at all. This shows how thick it is. It gets to be about a half inch thick there... All the way through the town there isn't a single new shake roof. However in the rebuilding, what they're going to be demolishing, that will be shake and it will be mansured which will be very dominant because it's a very high, and then from there down, it must be over 1,090 feet of shake buildings from that building around to the hotel. Down beyond the theatre will be all shake and I think it's the flavor of the town...going to be okay .... re~'~odeling of the kn~erican Legion when they moved in where the Riveria is now. We gave them the shakes for their front entrance. I started the shake business but the closest we've gotten now is the Ti~er 1 ine too f. Mayor Chmiel: Any other disc~]ssion? Councilman Boyt: What did the HRA decide? Councilwoman Dimler: They're going to review it Thursday. 70 City Council Meeting - Decem-~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: So what we have control over is the building permit. Is that the thought? Mayor Ctm~iel: Yes. Counci]m~an Boyt: Well what does the HRA have control over here? Don Ashworth: The only thing the HRA is doing is has an incentive regarding the special assess~ents or parking lot improvements. They are not in any way financing the structure or the land write down or anything else. Councilman Johnson: But they're going to be the special assess~_~ent reduction program that goes through the HRA? Don Ashworth: Yes. Co~ncilman Boyt: So I guess the question then is would we have approved this if it was coming to us as it is being presented today. Tonight. Councilman Johnson: I think I would. CounciL-~,an Boyt: I think a canopy's a nice touch. I agree with the Mayor. It will attract so~'e people just because it's a convenience. Councilman Johnson: I've been to too many hotels without the canopies in the rain. It see~s like it only rains at the hotels without canopies. Councilman Workman: I guess quickly and for expedience sake, it looks like there's 4 deals here. One, shakes. Two, the building's going to be 12 foot shorter. Three, shorter or no canopies. Dave He~'~inger: Shorter canopy or an extended canopy. Mayor Chmiel: 14 feet or. Dave He~-~inger: Or better. Councilman Workman: And a higher roof line. I like the higher roof line. I don't mind the shakes. 12 feet shorter, I've got to know more about where that sewer line and that, I don't understand that. Then I think the canopy, I don't mind the country look but a screen door in the front end you know kind of thing. Dave He~'~inger: It's not a screen door. CounciLp.;an Workman: It sure looks that way on the picture over here. I guess the apartment building went up in town and gee I heard, I'm also on the HRA and I heard the rest of the HRA kind of mu~ling, geez did we approve that. Cccz, was that that close to the road for the ~=dical arts building and holy cow and it was looking kind of bare faced because they had gone through some of the same processes. Stripping it down kind of thing. I'm not so sure that there's lots of people that are really happy and I don't want that to happen to this. This is going to be a class act and when you call your room suites, that means it's a fancy place, otherwise it'd be just rooms. 71 City Council Meeting - Dece~'~er 18, 1989 Dave He~inger: Don't let that mislead you though. It has a country theme to it and you have to reme~'~oer that. The idea of the country suites hospitality franchise. CounciLnLan Johnson: You mean they've got an outhouse? Dave He~-~inger: No. It has the country look and the 12 feet that we' re affecting does not affect the units themselves and the suites concept is a bedroc~ and a parlour concept. That's the concept there. It's not, it going to upgrade it from a budget but it doesn't make it a high class. Councilman Workman: I understand. I just don't have a very good clarification yet on why it has to be 12 feet and ~-~ybe Gary can give ~-~ that explanation. It's just a general idea of kind of now we're stripping it all back and then worrying later about yeah, we approved it and yeah, it doesn't c~.]ite come ~1~ to where we thought is was supposed to. Dave He~inger: But your 12 foot concern is a s~'~all part. I go back to what Herb was saying earlier in your 2 garage affair. It's a s~-~all section of just roof and open space. Councilman Johnson: It's the lobby and the swimming pool. Dave He~'~'~inger: That's right. It's wide open area so you're not taking a lot of... Clayton Johnson: There's a lot of history to this. I really don't like the connotation that it's all done for cost. It's done trying to work with the franchisee and part. The whole issue of the pool gets back to an issue of supervision. If you're not going to have full ti~'e supervision in the pool area, then they want to keep the pool area s~',all. Smaller. In this type of facility you're not going to have full time supervision in the pool area. CounciL,~an Boyt: There's not full time supervision in a pool area in any pool in town in a hotel. Clayton Johnson: There is in a large Holidome or a facility like that but there won't be here so they want to reduce the amount of extra space around the pool. It's trying to satisfy both the franchise and owner. I think we're very tuned into the concerns that have been voiced in the past about what happened to the apartment project. That's why we're co~.ing back to inform you at every step of the way as to what the changes are so you're in a position of being informed rather than surprised. Councilman Johnson: You suggested to Paul to bring this back to us? Clayton Johnson: It was Paul's decision ~nether to bring it back. Ail we can do is keep him posted. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we send it back to Planning? Do they need to see it? Paul Krauss: That's an option. I think you have to determine if the changes are significant enough to warrant that. I think in the future if we continue, say Market Sq~]are cc~es in and it doesn't look like Market Sca]are, it would be 72 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 my inclination to send it back to the Planning Co~,ission. But in this case it might not warrant that. Councilman Boyt: They're trying to get this built. I would think personally, I can give you the shingles. I want the rest of it. I'm not sure about a 48 foot long canopy but I am pretty sure that I don't w-ant it 14 feet long. That won' t go so sc~ewhere inbetween there. Higher roof. I agree with what Tom just went through. I'm saying of the four, I guess given the way we've shingled the rest of town, that I can live with the Timberline shingles but I don't see the rest of it. I think that was the deal you came in with. I think that's what you should have financed it to do. I'm surprised you didn't finance it to do that. Council~an Johnson: I don't even think the 12 feet doesn't bother ~ that much. It also provides a bigger separation between the existing buildings and the hotel then. The hardware store building. It's currently a hardware store. It provides a larger separation. I think that's an improv~ent to changing to shake. Herb Bloo~'~erg: ...as I say it's almost 40 feet now and that's enough of a separation so we can set off the difference in the architecture which I still think is going to be complimentary but it certainly won't look like...abrupted change...really c~]ite handso~Le transition there. Councilman Johnson: The water pipe issue is on the other side of the hotel frc~, the 12 feet issue. What the issue is is ~fnether we can get along without that water pipe while you' re constructing and before we have the new water pipe. Is that what I'm getting and engineering is looking at that issue? Dave He~-~.inger.: That' s correct. Councilman Johnson: What happens if it comes ~ that we don't have looping capacity and we have to have that water pipe functional during your construction? Does all heck break loose? Herb Bloo~erg: An engineering study there wouid prove that that can be handled. Obviously the soil test will be taken so we know that...leave the pipe in there and just bury it underneath... Councilman Johnson: Abandon it and place it in the future? Gary Warren: The development contract states that if it is left in place, that basically Country Suites, Bloo~erg, whatever assumes the responsibility if in the future it collapses after it's been abandoned but it would abandoned in place full of sand and grout or whatever so that it would stabilize. Councilman Johnson: What if there's building settlement that breaks the pipe, erodes the foundation and their building falls in? Is that the City's problem or is that Bloc~erg's problem? Dave He~,inger: That becomes a partnership problem. Gary Warren: Partnership. Not the City's. Councilman Johnson: Better be. 73 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~oer 18, 1989 Herb Bloo~erg: It's our probla~ because... Dave He~inger: We would have soil borings done by an outside facility and if the soils warrant that it has to be dug up, then we dig it up and recompact it. If their findings indicate that we can bridge it, then we fill it as Gary has mentioned. Council~an Johnson: Are we going to be looping it before they move in so there's no problan~ with that? Mayor Chmiel: No. Gary Warren: No. Councilman Johnson: So it's going to be, when they build it's going to be a functioning watermain underneath their building? Gary Warren: At this point in time it ~uld be a functioning watermain. What we're looking at and should be hopefully resolving it I would hope this week, is do we have enough looping capacity with the ~,provements that we've done in the downtown ~®rovements in Phase 2 of the downtown such that it's not as integral a main as it was before. One of the ~pacts to that decision is that the Market S~]are plat and subdivision which as you know also has some modifications to the watermain which provides an alternate loop to this connection here so we're looking at how those 2 might end up happening at the same t~ in which case we'd be having so~.~e problem,s. But ultimately the new main would be constructed in the spring which would give us back this connection. Councilman Boyt: How long is the canopy to begin with? Mayor Chmiel: 4~ so~'e feet. Councilman Boyt: Well it's 48 now. What was it when we first started? Before it kept getting... Clayton Johnson: We started with a 2~ foot street so I don't know what that is. Probably 10 feet shorter. Dave He~-~-~inger: When we first started it was real short. Councilman Boyt: Well, 3~ something right? Clayton Johnson: I can't tell you Bill. All I know is the street grew. Councilman Boyt: Well I'1i make a motion to see if we can get this moving along. I would move that we approve the building permit allowing them to change to shingles. The canopy be it's original length or the closest reasonable thing to that which isn't the 4~ feet, it's 3~ sc~ething. Clayton Johnson: Well Bill, if it's 3~ feet, you're going to have to go all the way over the street. Councilwoman Dimler: It won't go halfway over the street. 74 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Well 30 feet starts frc~, the building or 30 feet starting from the street? Clayton Johnson: 30 feet starting from the building. You're going to end up in the middle of the road. Dave H~-~inger: It has to be 48 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: You have to go all the way across the road. Councilman Boyt: Well if you go out to the island, the first island, is that what we've been talking about here tonight is that 48 feet? Dave He~-~inger: Yes. Councilman Boyt: It looks like 38 in your diagram. Councilman Johnson: It's another 10 foot to the building. The sidewalk's 8. Dave He~'~'tinger: Does he have an old site plan? Councilwoman Boyt: Well I'd be open to an amendment on the canopy but my basic motion would be that, I have no idea. It looks to me like it's got to be 48 feet but if sc~ebody feels differently, suggest it. I would move approval allowing the heavy duty Timberline shingle in place of the cedar shakes. Everything else, the high roof line. The 48, whatever length canopy should be the original length of the building. Councilman Johnson: How about the 12 feet? Councilman Boyt: Mymotion would be keep the 12 feet, the high roof, the 48 foot canopy and allow th~ to change the shingles. Mayo~ Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure why you're so hepped ~ on the 12 feet. To~ in a building that's 300 foot long and this is their entrance, whether their lobby is 12 foot bigger or not. It seems to be a really minor manner if they can bemore econc~,~ically viable and their franchisee wants it that way, I think we should be able to live with that rather than going to the detail of what we originally approved because what we originally approved wasn't a whole lot more detailed. Councilman Boyt: We're talking about value of the building I think. Square footage translates into value. If they want to cc~e back and say we can spend that money better doing this with it, I'm interested. Councilman Johnson: Well if they don't build the building at all, then we don't have any value. Councilman Boyt: That ' s true. That ' s an option. 75 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: And that's an option if their financing and their franchisee says go take a jump. CounciLn'~n Boyt: Well I would suggest to maybe what they w~nt to do is go back to the HRA and see how much money they can get. That's what the people in the apartment building kept doing. Clayton Johnson: We don't have any assistance other than the straight special assessment. Council~.~an Boyt: Well, suggest an amendment to that. Councilman Johnson: Leave the 12 foot. Let them decide what's economically viable. Mayor Chmiel: Explain to ~-e one more time with that 12 feet. It's the main entrance. It's the pool area and the main entrance cc~ing in. What else is in there and that's it? Dave He~inger: That's it. Mayor Chmiel: What in dollars does that cut back? Dave He~'~inger: Roughly translated. Mayor Chmiel: How much per sc~_lare foot? Dave He~-~inger: Less than $25.~g a sc~.]are foot. Councilman Johnson: A single story area. And that's what, 7 feet by 12 feet? Councilman Workman: Which end is the 12 feet going to come off of? Dave He~-~inger: The east end. It separates it back from the existing building. It'd be this end. Councilman Workman: So as ~_his top cover sheet sits, it should have been 12 feet longer. You're showing it shorter. Dave He~inger: Yes. Councilman Work~an: So it should be out to here. Dave He~'~inger: That 11 foot 6 is an error. It should be 16. It's 11'6". It should read 16' 8". The architect made... Council~'.an Work~an: So it's about 924 sq~]are feet? Dave He~inger: Well 25 x 76. Councilman Johnson: So about $25,~g0.~g. Does an insurance man's calculator do square feet? He could be doing house insurance. 76 City Council Meeting - December 18~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: I can't believe that $25,000.00 is killing this project~ Clayton Johnson: It isn't. It was the design consideration. It wasn't an economic consideration. Like Herb points out, the only difference is going to happen now, you're going to lose 12 feet off the building. You're going to gain 12 foot in the connecting link. When the connecting link is built, which is an aisle connection, enclosed, heated, it's going to be 12 feet long. You're going to force us to go all the way back through Country Hospitality again and revise the plan. Councilman Johnson: Country Hospitality, are they local? Dave He~-~;inger: It's a Radisson corporation. Councilman Johnson: That' s what I thought. Councilman Boyt: Well I agree that, I sure don't want to be in the position of designing your building for you but that's apparently what we're in here. If the Council seems to think that we can get rid of the 12 feet and it's not an economic issue, then put the shakes back on and take your 12 feet off. Councilman Johnson: For fire safety, which is better the shakes or the Ti~er 1 ine? Col~cilman Boyt: Well it's sitting next to the Dinner Theatre. Don't talk to me about fire safety. Councilman Johnson: It's 40 feet away. Clayton Johnson: The Dinner Theatre is all sprinklered. Councilman Boyt: Right but I mean we've already got cedar shakes. Clayton Johnson: On a mansured roof Bill. The whole theatre is a mansured roof. It's got a flat built ilo roof top. That was the original design. We do not have a building in town that has a roof this massive that's got cedar shakes. I don't know where it is. It would be huge. Councilman Johnson: That's like say because your right foot hurts, you ought to drop a ha~ter on the left so they both hurt. Mayor Chmiel: The only one you'd have would probably be St. Hubert's. Old St. Hubert ' s. Councilman Johnson: So there's a motion on the floor. Mayor Chmiel: There is a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you amend it? CounciL,~,an Johnson: Well they didn't accept my amendment. I would move an amendment. Mayor Chmiel: Make a friendly amendment. 77 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I tried a friendly amendmen%2 Council,-tan Workman: What w~s your amendment? CouncilP~an Boyt: He tried to shorten it up 12 feet. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I was going to put the 12 feet back. There were 4 things you were asking for. Dave He~'minger: Actually there's only 3 things. The fourth one is so~ething I approached Gary on. It's 3 things. One is the roof. The second is the shakes and the third was the canopy. Councilman Johnson: We want a canopy. You want a canopy. We're in agreement. We just don't know far you can canolever the canopy out. Whether it goes all the way out the 48 feet or not... Herb Bloo~erg: Somehow the canopy's going to be built. We have to work with my partners and I think I have enough.., on it. However, to get the permit now, we have to keep within the budget. Otherwise we can't get a disbursement for the building pe~P'~it. So we're locked in unfortunately but I'm satisfied that it's going to make a good project and I think everybody's going to be happy with it in the end. Unfortunately we've kind of run out of tJs~e to where we're on the job and we' re ready to excavate. Dave He~'~inger: I'd like to add one thing here since everybody is relating to the budget. When the budget was established for this project I was not even involved in it. I came in with a budget that was already established. That's terrible to be honest with you but like we tried to say before, a lot of these things were written by the Radisson Corporation to the architects and it was suggested that it doesn't go in here. That it does not conform to their prototype, etc., etc. and there are certain amenities that they are demanding and don't want to sign off on and we're trying to make everybody happy and get the project going. Councilman Johnson: Do you happen to have a letter from them tonight to show us, you know say here's Radisson's letter saying... Clayton Johnson: Yeah, I have a letter here. We've exceeded all of their criteria on about 27 out of 3~ in terms of specs on the hotel but the one is the gabled roof. Councilman Workman: We had a special ~'~eting Hr. Johnson, we had a special meeting of the HRA to kind of help out, because I think it does kind of come down to a budget thing here. We had a special ~-~eting to discuss or to take care of a collateral situation. In other words move back everything and move it around and maybe you could sense I was a little nervous that night about it. Asking a lot of questions. Now we're kind of scaling things back a little bit and it sounds to $'~ a little bit like it's a budget thing. I still haven't been given a real clear idea of why Hospitality Suites thinks that that 12 feet is a consideration in the overall design of a 300 some foot hotel. I don't know where the city gains by having a longer corridor connecting this thing versus more hotel. I'd rather have more hotel but it all does kind of, if the 78 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 HRAhadn't helped out with that collateral deal, no hotel. If w~ don't shorten it by 12 feet and do these shakes, no hotel. We hear no hotel. It is kind of a budget thing. That's where I'm starting to get even more nervous because what are we going to do next? Next we're going to have no pool. Dave He~minger: The thing about lobbies though and pools is they're non-productive areas. They do not bring the revenue in. Pools are used notionally and you can check any industry standard on this, are used by children. Small children. Adults don't use them,. So it's a very costly, expensive daily operational expense. Councilman Workman: But we knew that when this first came in. Dave Hem~,inger: Okay, but the Radisson and the management people were probably not involved in it. I don't know. At that time, in the preliminary stages and design of this, they probably were not involved in it because I see their plan review was in July of 1989. I believe that was probably presented before that to you. Co,mci lman Workman: Which end is the pool in? Dave He~r~,inger: It's in the east end. Counci]_-~an Workman: By the main entrance? Dave He~-~inger: East of the main entrance. It's between the existing building and a new building where that walkway is. The walkway leads into the lobby portion and the pool is adjacent to that area. Cot~cilman Johnson: So the southeast corner of the main building. Dave Hemminger: The pool is right down here. Then the lobby's up here. Then you've got prep kitchens. You've got registration desk. You've got exercise rOOU~. Council~ian Workman: I think maybe you know where I'm coming from. It just see~s rather natural and a lot of it, it's not just this deal. You get a deal and then it starts to trim up and that's what I get worried about. CounciL, ian Boyt: Well we have a motion, I think and I don't think it's been amended. Mayor Clm~iel: We have a motion on the floor with a friendly motion. Councilman Boyt: A friendly amendment that hasn't been taken so far. So that we have the full length building, the full length canopy and the higher roof line. I think the option to that is if it passes, and they don't like it, go back to the Planning Co~.~ission. Co~mcilman Johnson: They want the higher roof line so that's one that we're... Councilman Boyt: That's one where there's no problem~. So the only two it comes down to is the canopy and the full sized hotel. 79 City Co~]ncil Meeting - Dece~.'~oer 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Let me try my friendly amend~,ent...an unfriendly amendment. Okay, I move we allow them to knock off the 12 foot and that they have a canopy that's, I'm not sure of the length though. We want a canopy. Mayor Chmiel: I think build a canopy to a portion that will be a little more excessive than that 14 feet. It might be 15 but I think Herb wants a little ~ore than that. Councilman Work~'Lan: 14's in the street then. Councilman Johnson: That's canolevered so there's no post at the end of it. He can't go too much further. Councilman Workman: I know what that w~rd means now. Mansured roofs, I'm going to find out what those are. Councilman Johnson: So that's ~ motion is that we have it extend at least 14 feet. A canopy extending at least 14 feet. Paul Krauss: Is that measured from the building or from the curb? Are we talking about the canolevered here, what do you want to cover? Dave He~'~inger: It's 8 feet to the sidewalk and then another 6 feet out over the driveway. Councilman Johnson: It's 10 feet to the sidewalk, 8 feet across the sidewalk, you're at 18 feet before you even get to where the car is so let's say a minim~m~ of one car width with the doors open across the parking lot and it's not a Hugo. Paul Krauss: So a canolever of at least 10 feet beyond the curb line. Clayton Johnson: That was the intention of the redesign. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That would be the motion then. Mayor CTm'J. el: Bill, do you accept that? Councilman Boyt: He needs a second. That's completely counter to what I was trying to do. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I know. Councilman Boyt: Well mine has a second. We can vote on that. Council~'~an Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the revised architectural details for Hospitality Suites Hotel to keep the 12 feet in the building, approve the high roof, keep the 48 foot canopy and allow changing to Ti~-~erline shingles. Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and Councilwc~'tan Dimler voted in favor. Councilman Johnson and Mayor CTP'j~e voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Dave He~minger: So you just approved what? City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: We approved basically the asphalt shingle, the high roof and the remaining of the 12 foot. Councilwoman Di~er: And the canopy has to be 48. Clayton Johnson: And if we can't do that, we go back to Planning, right? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Johnson: Or you convince one of these 3 to ask for reconsideration at the next Council meeting. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: We're going to hit these Council Presentations real quick. I'd like to just make you aware of the fact that the State of Minnesota has taken a positive step for our children by passing what is called the drug free school and park zone act. This law provides tougher penalties for those who sell and use drugs in and around schools or parks. In other words, what it will do now, the tougher penalty will mean anyone holding or possessing a narcotic drug, cocaine, crack, opium or heroine, up to 20 years in prison and up to $250,000.00 fine. Councilwoman Dimler: Possession only? Mayor Chmiel: Holding or possession. Selling a narcotic drug is up to 25 years in prison and $500,000.00 fine. I'd glad to see that they've taken that to alleviate sc~.,e of those problems within schools. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see what it'd cost to get solute signs put up at our parks advertising that. Mayor Chmiel: That's something we could look at. We'll discuss that later but I just wanted to point that out to you and I think it's a good proposal or a law I should say. Okay Bill, Moon Valley quickly. Councilman Boyt: We can cancel that one because he came in and talked about it. Mayor Chmiel: Police study. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask to have that reconsidered. Councilwc~an Dimler: You don't want a study cor~tission? Councilman Boyt: Well, first off I don't, what I read in the staff report wasn't an accurate reflection of the Public Safety Co~ission's motion so that's one bone I have to pick with it. The other one is, I agree with a lot of what you and Tom said. I'd like to have this thing discussed briefly again but not being here I don' t know what right I have to ask for reconsideration. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I feel that that's true and I don't know whether that's necessary. 81 City Council Meeting - Dece~-~oer 18, 1989 Councilman Johnson: It was a heck of a battle~ Mayor Chmiel: So I would say that I would not move on that myself. Councilman Johnson: What are your concerns? Mayor Chmiel: Well he said it's not consistent with t~blic Safety's. Councilwoman Dimler: Those that voted in the positive would have to ask for reconsideration. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'll pursue that with Roger after the meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how about the appeal. Councilman Boyt: The appeal to the Board of Adjust~ment and Appeals' appeal, what I'd like to have happen. I think if the applicant wasn't able to attend, it undoubtedly would have been tabled. As one of the two people who appealed the appeal, I would have appreciated it, and I would certainly offer this to any other Council person who wasn't there, that we table it. Unfortunately I couldn't predict that I was going to be out of town. As soon as I knew, I called. I don't know if it would have changed the vote. I'm not interested in attempting to get this reconsidered. I'm just asking that in the future we offer that courtesy to each other. Councilman Workman: Bill, I guess I think we felt that ~ all indications from the meeting that we had that you were here, that we were giving him the indication that that's where we were heading. I mean that's the way I felt. So not to be, not to sneak one in under the rug while you' re out of town. I mean that wash' t the impression. Councilman Boyt: No, you didn't create the impression that you were trying to sneak it in. I'm just saying that if I appeal these things it's because I've got a pretty strong feeling about it and I'd just like to have it carried over. As you all pointed out in the Minutes, he's not going to p~]t this thing in in the next 2 weeks. Enough said I think. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought we had a pretty good disc~]ssion on that day though. Both at the BOA and at the Council ~'~=eting. Nothing changed. Councilman Boyt: The third item-~ I had was the i~]blic Safety resignation. I think you were supposed to get a copy of it. I don't know if you did. Mayor Ctm~iel: No. Councilman Boyt: I have one. Candy Takkunen has resigned. J~ Chaffee: Bill, she's not seeking reappoin~ent. Councilman Boyt: Well she said at the end of the meeting that she's not serving anymore. We are going to be in need. 82 City Council Meeting - Dece~er 18~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Does her term expire at the end of this month? do we have expiring? I thought there were sc~;e more. What other items Jim Chaffee: There's 3 on the ~]blic Safety Co~_~ission Mr. Mayor. Councilman Boyt: And there's others. Park and Rec. So I'd like to see us advertise for those in the next week. Public Safety needs those people. Mayor Ch~tiel: Okay. ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Mayor Ch~tiel: We're going to have this tc~orrow evening at 7:00 prior to our budget meeting, is that correct? Don Ashworth: It would be proposed to do that, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and you'll have those two candidates there for the Planning Co~ission? Paul Krauss: Is that yo~r preference then? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. DOn Ashworth: DO you wish to add any others? Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Co,~uncilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a .m.. Suk~itted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 83