The URL can be used to link to this page

1989 10 23CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1989 Mayor Clm~iel called the ~eeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The ~eeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema, and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwc~an Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: Mayor Chmiel moved item 8 to the public hearings after item 3; Councilman Boyt deleted item 12(d); and Councilman Work~an wanted to discuss sponsoring an ordinance banning cigarette vending machines in the city of Chanhassen under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Co~]ncilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda ite~ pursuant to the City Manager's reco~[endations: c. Approve Development Contract for Cedar Heights Addition, Kelly Bosworth. e. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids for 1989 Sewer Rehabilitation Program. g. Establish In-Service Date for Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain D~rovement Project 88-25. m. Approval of Accounts. n. City Council Minutes dated October 2, 1989 Planning Co~ission Minutes dated October 4, 1989 Park and Recreation Co~ission Minutes dated October 10, 1989 o. Final Plat Approval, Ches Mar Farm 2nd Addition. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. B. PETITION TO ESTABLISH SCHOOL ZONE ON TH 101 IN FRONT OF ST. HUBERT'S SCHOOL. Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this one. I do agree that we should establish a school zone on Th 101 in front of St. ~_%bert's School ~]t I pulled it also, I checked with J~ Chaffee today asking if that a school zone establishment includes stop signs and he said not necessarily so. I do believe I have re, Jests frc~ a lot of the residents that live on Great Plains and also on Frontier that we re-establish 3 stop signs there. Make it a 3 way stop where it used to be a 4-way. I'm wondering, as long as we have to contact MnDot on this, City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 if we co~]ld put that rec~]est in at the same ti_me. Co~]ncilman Boyt: Are you talking West 78th Street there? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Yo~l can't put a stop sign on that. We've already been t~]rned down. We pursued that. We've already been turned down. Co, mcilwoman Dimler: Reason being? Gary Warren: There's not enot]gh traffic to warrant. It's a 3 way condition as you ~nderstand and the north leg movements are not significant enough to meet the MnDot criteria for p~]tting ~]p a stop. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I guess when yo,] have to wait lg min~]tes to get on d~.ring r,]sh ho~r, I wonder if that wo~lld be considered enot~gh. Shall we purstle it again? Gary Warren: We can send them a letter and ask them to reconsider if that's the desire of the Council. Co,mcilman Boyt: The [~.]blic Safety Coumission p~]rs~led this pretty agressively about a year and a half ago because we wanted a stop sign there and they told us there ~s not going to be a stop sign. They didn't jr]st say it didn't meet the criteria. They said, we don't want it there. Gary Warren: It would be unus~]al for a tr~]nk highway of that caliber, for them to go along with it. We are pursuing the crossing and the crossing signals at that location which sho~]ld help the pedestrian sit~]ation. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if you're establishing a school zone there, what does that mean? Just simply red,iced speed? Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilwoman Dim!er: Do you think that the people are going to slow down there? Gary Warren: If we enforce it, I wo~]ld think so. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: I have ~ ~]a]mts abo~]t it b~lt anyway, I think a stop sign there would be a good idea and I would like to see ~]s p~]rsue it again because scmtetimes when you make repeat re~.]ests, perserverance sometimes gets the job done. _Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think I agree with see if there is a potential. Give it one more shot. One more try. Councilman Boyt: Can't we establish the school zone and follow t]p? I mean it would seem to me there would be an advantage in getting that, isn't 25 mph, getting that sign up right now and then if MnDot cortes back later and says we can put a stop sign, let's go ahead and do it. Cot]ncilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I didn't intend for the stop sign to hold up the City Council Meeting - Octobe~ 23, 1989 school zone. Like I said, I agree with the school zone establishment but I thought as long as you' re talking to MnDot, let's do that at the same time. Gary Warren: We'll send a separate letter to Bill Katz req~]esting a second look at the stop sign. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you. That was all. Councilman Boyt: Are you going to move approval? Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item (b) with the additional agreement. CounciL, lan Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the petition to establish a school zone on TH 101 in front of St. Hubert's School and to direct staff to contact MnDot regarding installation of a stop sign at that location. All voted in favor and the motion carried. H. AUTHORIZE INSPECTION STUDY FOR REHABILITATION OF MURRY HILL WATER TOWER. Councilman Workman: Gary, I'm sorry I didn't get to talk to you today. I think we both waved at each other as we were running. This would appear to be something that we should rebid. Can you explain why maybe we aren't. Gary Warren: Excuse p~. CounciL, lan Workman: Isn't this sc~lething that we should rebid? Gary Warren: Professional services? Counci~lan Workman: Yeah. Gary Warren: The actual rehabilitation work will be bid, that's correct. Councilman Workman: What are we paying for now? Gary Warren: We're paying for now what's the e~]ivalent of a feasibility study. An inspection report of the tower s~lilar to what we did of the downtown tower. To have an estimate of what type of repairs specifically need to be done to the tower and updated cost est~late of the repairs. AEC is sort of a specialist in this field and we're very satisfied with the work that they've done. There aren't really many fik~s that do this because they get in a rubber raft and float down as the water's being taken out of the tank and inspect the inside. Councilman Workman: And the cost of that inspection's going to be about $1,000.007 Gary Warren: I believe he had $1,800.00. If we can do it in one day which is our intent here. CounciD~an Workman: Okay, I see it. I thought we were going ahead with the City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 whole thing and yo~ were s~lggesting that we go ahead with that company to do the whole thing. That was my misunderstanding. Gary Warren: No, it would just be for the feasibility study and then after that we would have a handle on the plans and specifications which wo~ld take a separate authorization. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Mayor C~iel: I had one other c~estion on that. Can that be done in that one day rather than incorporating another $800.g0 charge? Gary Warren: It's a matter of hydraulics. The ~]rray Hill tower being in a high press~]re zone doesn't always drain o~]t in one day. It will depend on the system press~]res at the time. We' 11 do it as fast as we can b~]t it may take 2 days at the max im~. Councilman Workr~an moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to a~]thorize inspection study for rehabilitation of Murray Hill water tower. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. SITE PLAN REVIE~W FOR A BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 79TH STREET, CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK. Councilman Boyt: I will start this by apologizing to the gro~]p that brought it in. They asked me to call if I had c~]estions and I just got so b~]sy I didn't have time to get back to them. Reading through, this is the Crossroads National Bank. My problem here is understanding the nature of the temporary building. I think that it's one thing to have a temporary building while they're building the pe~m~anent building but as I read through the Minutes of the Planning Co~ission, the impression I got was a t~lporary b,]ilding was going in and then they were going to begin purs,~ing the pet~anent structure. I'm uncomfortable with that arrangement. Maybe they can clear some things up about it. A3~e you open to hearing fro~l them? Mayor Chmiel: S~]re. Tom Mork: Good evening Mt'. Boyt. I'm Tom Mork and we visited over the phone briefly. In actual fact, as I understand it, we are here tonight to gain a building permit approval fo~: both o~]r permanent building and our modular building inasmuch as we are well underway in tet~s of getting our bank organized. We have received charter approval from the office of the comptroller of currency. We are currently awaiting approval of our holding company from the Federal Reserve Bank. O]r strategy in beginning in a mod,~lar b,~ildlng was to essentially give ourselves solute tire to establish ourselves as a business entity. To establish systems. To get our staff up and running. To get a marketing presence in the co~tunity and it is our intent to begin construction on the pe~.manent building just as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully in 199~ but in reviewing the process and in getting to this point, we spent a lot of talking to a lot of bankers, both in this ~etropolltan area and even as far so~]th as St. Louis where there has been a lot of denoteable bank charter activity in the past 24 months approximately. To make a determination for City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 ourselves that such an undertaking is not marketing suicide to open up in a mod, ilar building and we have been assured and reassured by everybody that we talked to that it is a smart strategy. It gives you a chance to establish your p~esence and that is one of the principle reasons why we would like to start in a modular building. It is not our intent and in actual fact we run the risk of forfeiture of the land through our purchase agreement with the HRA if we do not begin construction and complete construction of the building within I believe a 2 year time frame although we'd certainly hope to initiate construction prior to that. Councilman Boyt: So you're buying the land from the HRA? Tom Mork: Correct. Councilman Boyt: And you' re paying them about how much? Tom Mork: $4.50 a sc~_]are foot. Councilman Boyt: Okay. And that's up front money? Tom Mork: Up front money meaning? That' s with all the improve~lents in. Councilman Boyt: As soon as you sign the deal with the HRA you're giving them $4.00 and something a foot? Tom Mork: We have already negotiated a purchase agreement that has been signed. It was actually signed back in May and under the terms of the purchase agreement there's a one year window to effect closing of the property. Councilman Boyt: Well you're investing a considerably amount of money in this temporary structure. I think it was something like $2~0,00~.007 Tom Mork: That's correct. That's what our initial estimates are. Co~_~cilman Boyt: That includes I imagine the asphalt and that sort of thing? Tom Mork: Correct. Ail of the grading. The asphalt. Sewer and water installation. Lighting and so on. Councilman Boyt: See, what I see you doing. What makes ~ ~acomfortable is I sort of see this as you just described it. As a test marketing situation. When I think of temporary bank buildings, they're usually associated with existing banks that have an e~]ity situation in which there's no question the building's going in. When I see discussions about potentially 2 years from now and understanding that it's conceiveable that 2 years frcm now you could just start construction or 2 years from now you could come back in and negotiate with the HRA to get an extension, I think it'd be ~ch more typical if your modular building went in at the point at which you were beginning construction on your pe~_~anent building. I don't know. Does anyone else on the Council have that concern? Tom Mork: I guess I would like to add that in te~[s of how it has been done in the past, I can point to a n~t~er of examples in the metro area in the last 10 yea~s that have actually spent up to the first 18 months of their existence in a City Co~mcil Meeting - October 23, 1989 ,, modt~la.~- b~ilding and I think, I want to be caref~tl that we differentiate between talking about test marketing and establishing a marketing presence. In actt~al fact we have gone through a nu~er of microscopes to get this far, not the least of which has been approval of an overall marketing plan by both the Comptroller of O~rrency currently being scrutinized by the Federal Reserve Bank and also more importantly to us, the investing public to which we are selling stock in our bank. So I want to make certain that it's understood that we are not eo~arking on a test marketing case. We j~]st hope to establish a marketing presence and t~]rn our attention to iss~]es which we feel at this time are incredibly important such as establishing our operating systems. Developing presence in the market place. Establishing a loan portfolio. Developing a deposit base so that we have a stable enterprise. We will open the bank with no less than 2.5 million dollars in capital so I don't believe we can be classified as an organization that doesn't have the capital as some other banks that have used a mod~lar building as an expansion vehicle for example so I want to make certain that it's understood that we are not an undercapitalized bank by any stretch of the imagination. I believe the other bank in Chanhassen has approximately the s~e level of capital after 7g years in existence so we're opening up with the same level of ec~_]ity capital or approximately the same as the existing bank in Chanhassen. Councilman Boyt: Are you in partnership with another bank? To01 Mork: No we're not. It's an independent group of organizers. There's no legal or ownership affiliation with any. exist]n~ ~ ba~ ...... ~^~'-~g company. Counci]m~an Boyt: So now you're starting? Tom Merk: That' s correct. Co~]nciLman Boyt: With your mod~]lar b~]ilding and 2.5 million in capital? Too~ Mork: That's correct. Councilman Workman: Tom if I could maybe add to some of Bill's cou~ents and maybe what he's getting at a little bit. The HRA agreement is basically, yo~l te~.v~ it basically a window or window of opport~mity. Basically you're not going to be closing on this property until the pe~?~anent facility is~rSady to go. Tom Mork: No, that's not correct. We will close on the property prior to next May. ~e will be closing on the property prior to constr,]ction of the pe}.~tanent bui id lng. Councilman Workman: Can yogi maybe explain to Council the amendment that yogi're proposing? Tom Mork: Certainly. Under the existing p.]rchase agreement we have, well let me back up a little bit. We would like to install the physical improvements to the site for a modular building at a minim~_m~ no later than this fall inasmuch as we feel that as a res~]lt of our capitalization efforts, our hiring efforts, our development of the marketing plan, we should be open for business sometime in early 199g. Frankly we hoped we would be ready for business by the end of 1989 but as I found out from talking to other bankers that have done the same thing that I'm doing, there seems to be no end to soo~e of the delays that yogi City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 encounter. However, to this point we have been ~unable to close on the property for any nLm~oer of reasons and what w~ have requested is an amendment to the purchase agreement that would essentially allow us access to the site, completely at our risk, to enable us to go on and make whatever physical improve~ents we need to make in order to acco~odate ou~ modular building. I~incipally that would involve some grading according to an approved grading plan. The installation of utilities to the modular bank site. The installation of lighting in the parking lot. Paving the parking lot and the construction of a foundation for the modular building and ultimately the installation of the modular building when it's delivered, hopefully as of now in the middle of January or early January. Our sense is that if we're not able to cc~lplete the improvements, particularly the paving, within approximately the next 30 days or at least no later than the end of Nov~oer, then we will be forced to open the bank someti-~e after the frost is out in 199g. Keep in mind that we have been undertaking our capitalization efforts now for approximately 60 days. We have a nLm~er of people who have paid in considerably su,~s. I think the paper c~oted about a million and a half dollars and that's what we have paid in so far. That potential delay presents scale significant difficulties as far as we're concerned in dealing with our potential investor base so that's the reason for the amendment is to acco~m~odate those site improvements. Mayor Chmiel: Any other c~_]estions Tom? CounciL,~an Workman: No, I don't. CounciL-~an Boyt: How would this be different than saying to some other business in town you can open up a Q~]onset hut and run your business out of it until you've got everything in place to build the pe~_~anent structure that we've approved? Is this somehow different than that? Tom Mork: Well I guess I come at it from a biased viewpoint but I believe it is. I believe for one thing the opportunity to have a new business in town with the level of capital that we intend to bring,' that we will bring, is in itself sc~ewhat unic~]e. I furthek~ore believe that the addition of a co~ercial bank to this marketplace is an enhancement to the consumers in this area. I note with interest that already prior to our even opening the doors, the other bank in Chanhassen has expanded it's hours from 3:00 lobby hours to 4:30 and introduced full service Saturday morning banking. We expect that the addition of ourselves in the marketplace will just do nothing more but further enhance the banking climate for cons[~ers in the Chanhassen area. ~rthem~ore, this is not a Q~_]onset hut. This is a building that is built by the Sun Corporation which for the last 18 years has done nothing but construct permanent modular banking facilities. Cl]rrently for example Norwest Corporation has installed a building for one of their branch facilities on a permanent basis up in Anoka. While the renderings that you may have seen I don't think do justice to the building, when we're talking about total cost of improvements of an excess of $200,000.00, I don't think that that represents an insignificant level of investment on our part to satisfy our needs on an interim basis. Councilman Boyt: Everything's relative and I didn't mean to imply that your building was going to be a Q_]onset hut. You're talking about building a permanent structure that's around 2 million dollars so a considerably greater investment than what you're going to have in the temporary sturcture, which I guess is p~;etty natural. I think the Council, hopefully the other people on the City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Council are going to be convinced that we're not sitting in a sit~lation in which this group of investors is trying out Chanhassen to see_ if a bank will work because we're now, shortly later in this meeting we're going to be looking at a shopping center which is talking about a significantly greater investment than the bank is and I guess without having them here, I'm just curious as to how they feel about having a temporary bank structure just down the block and across the street. I don't know. I'm ra~oling so I g~]ess I'm done. Mayor Chmiel: There were some concerns I had too Bill abo~]t that modular building. My main concern was whether or not it was in compliance with the State of Minnesota rec~]irements for a temporary struct,]re and whether it did have the state of approval by the State and it does so that made me feel a little more comfortable with it. I also feel that some of the concerns that Bill has had has been some of my concerns. One basically is to the construction start and they're saying it's being just a little bit of an open period of time as we discussed the sit~]ation. I feel that the bank, with all intent, plans on starting construction I would just as soon see that construction start as early as possible. I'm sure you'd welcome that as well. Tool Mork: Absolutely. I think all of us involved in the bank are very reasonable people and certainly recognize the impact of cc~lpetition. It would not be to our favor when our principle ccolpetition in the cou~lunity is the resident of approximately a 2 million dollar facility, for us to remain in this modular facility for any longer than we absolutely need to until we have our permanent home b~]ilt for us. I guess if I co~]ld just co~lent on the impact of the neighborhood and some of the concerns that Mr.. Boyt, you voiced. I think one of the things that has to be considered is that it would be incredibly difficult for a supermarket to operate out of a modular building just because their spacial needs are considerably greater. We can as a res~]lt of a growing and initially a zero c~]stomer base and a growing customer base, begin in a modular building beca~]se we don't have -those kinds of space needs. But hopef~]lly our growth will be a level that all of us expect it to and we'll be forced to start constr~]ction as soon as the frost is out. I guess if I can give you my con,ii,lent that it is not in our intent to be in this building any longer than we absolutely need to. Councih~an Boyt: What wo~]ld happen if your customer base didn't build? Then are you still going to go ahead and b,]ild the pe~_~lanent structure? Tom Mork: Well, I would say that ce.~.tainly we can't expect to be at home in a temporary building or mod~]lar building forever. In act~]al fact, we have to construct our permanent building within I believe it's a 2 year timeframe with our agreement with the HRA or we forfeit the land. Someone else can cc~e in and develop a bank on that site so we absolutely will construct the permanent building under the conditions of the purchase agreement. I don't think there's any c~_]estion about that. Councilwoman Dimler: Tom, I have a c~]estion. It was my understanding that you were going to build around the modular facility? Tom Mork: Correct. Co~mcilwoman Dimler: Co~]ld you explain that? It doesn't look like it to me. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Tom Mork: We're intending to locate the modular building on the eastern portion of the site. The b~llk of the construction activity will be in the central and western portion of the site and what ~ have attempted to do is locate the modular building in a fashion such that we can acco~m~odate continuing drive up traffic through our modular building at the same time that we're building. Councilwoman Dimler: While you're constructing but after your construction, what are you going to do with your modular? Tom Mork: It will be down within a week after we receive our certificate of occupancy. I believe the Planning Co~m~ission further put in the condition that it would be no later than 9 months after the issuance of the building permit for the permanent building and that's a time table that we can certainly live with. Councilwoman Dimler: I misunderstood you then because when I asked that c~estion to you the othe~ day, I thought that you were going to incorporate it into your... Tom Mork: No. Absolutely not. That will be green space when it's all done. Mayor Clm~iel: Any other c~]estions? CounciL. lan Boyt: Can anybody think of a way to add anymore assurance to this list of conditions? Are you going to have, if worse goes to worse and you do in fact not build, how much money do you have in this piece of property 2 years frc~l now? You've got the $200,000.00 for improve~[ents. Do you have anything else in it? Tom Mork: Well at that point we would have closed on the property and I believe that the aggregate purchase price is $4.50 t~les whatever the a~Dunt of land is. It's approximately 110,000 square feet. Todd Gerhardt: $470,000.00. CounciL, lan Boyt: So your expenses and liability then would be somewhere around $700,000.00 total? Todd Gerhardt: He's incurred architectural fees and rendering, a site plan so. Councilman Boyt: Well that's a ballpark figure Todd? $700,000.00? Todd Gerhardt: Minimtml. CounciL. lan Boyt: I guess I can live with that sort of risk. I would approval of item l(j) with the conditions noted in the staff report. Councilwoman Dimler: I ' 11 second that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Di~er seconded to approve Site Plan #89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989 ~]rsuant to the City Manager's reco~m~endations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 K. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CHUCH (ASSEMBLIES OF GOD) TO BE LOCATED IN THE UPPER LEVEL OF BLOOMBERG'S DINNER THEATRE BUILDING, BLOOM]BERG COMPANIES. Councilman Boyt: ...in ~/nich we've said that we've changed that zone restriction. Given all the disc~]ssion ~e had this spring about churches and taking taxable land off the docket so to speak. Off our ability to tax it, I think there's a very good reason for not having churches in the central business district and that is that that is our most tax expensive land in the city. I'm concerned that we're creating sort of an opportunity if you will for that to be challenged s~]ccessf~]lly. Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you're saying is that the church could after a period of time...that property in that particular district. I don't know if that's the intent of the church. What I viewed here is that they're looking for a temporary facility. Temporary sometimes becomes pe.t~anent I realize. Councilman Boyt: As I mentioned, I agree with what we're trying to do. I just, if the res~]lt of that was that a ch~rch could then buy that piece of property and wo~]ld in fact take it off the tax rolls. I think that's an awf~]lly expensive sacrifice for the City to make. Councilman Workman: Is that a condition? Councilman Boyt: Well I don't know how we could. I guess I'm open for suggestions. Councilwoman Dimle~:: Maybe I could co~ent on that. The way I see it, it was a short tek~, 18 month lease with the possible extension for 12 months to follow and also that it would not be considered a church but a cnltural facility and are cultural facilities tax exempt or did they intend to be tax exempt? Councilman Boyt: I would vent~]re that there's no chance in the wo)~ld that this is a c~]ltural facility. They're defined as a church by the State and we're not going to change that definition. Don Ashworth: The only thing I wo~]ld point to is the property is owned by Bloomberg Companies. Their lease arrangement frc~ the church between Bloo~oerg Companies. Councilwoman Dimler: And they don't pay taxes? Don Ashworth: Nb, just the opposite. They would have to pay taxes. Roger, can a church lease the property and then t~]rn around and seek exemption? I find that difficult to believe that they could. Roger Knutson: As I think this Council is gaining tremendous expertise in this area, there are two rec~]ir~ents. It has to be owned by the ch~]rch and used for a church f~]nction. Don AShworth: And they do not meet n~_~er one. Roger Kn~tson: If they had a 1~ year lease, I think we'd look at it differently but a short term lease, I would not think that is an issue. 10 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: So from a leasing standpoint, we're alright. Once we've given pe~ission to a church to be in that zone, to function in that central business district, then can we exclude other businesses from using that zone? Councilwoman Dimler: Not from leasing. Councilman Boyt: Well from owning. What our zoning ordinance says is here are the things that you can do in this zone and by implication the things that you cannot do. What we're doing is we're saying okay, you can do this there. I'm looking for an answer for how we can allow the church to lease this piece of property without saying that we have now permitted churches to operate in the central business district when we don't want them. I don't want them to take that property off the tax rolls. In this instance wouldn't. I don't w-ant to open the door so that another group can come in and buy one of Brad's retail operations and begin operating a church out of it. Roger Knutson: Two points. First, an economic point. The CBD area is very expensive. I think for that reason you very seldom find churches in central business areas because of the cost. You do. There are churches in downtown Minneapolis obviously but not very often just because of the cost factor. One possibility, and I don't know where this is at, is that there is an ordinance I believe before the Planning Co~m~ission. Paul Krauss: In process. Roger Knutson: In process, which will ~lement the new State legislation authorizing what I would call temporary conditional use pek~its. They call them interim use permits but te~porary conditional use permits. You could look at that way of handling it as well if you wanted to or you could look at it this way. You're right. If you interpret cultural, what's the word Paul? OllO~ral centers to mean churches, that's your decision. For this church you can't tell the next church that comes down the pike that no, you aren't a cultural center. You should be consistent. Councilman Work~an: So what are you saying? Roger Knutson: So I'm saying... Councilwoman Dimler: Go with a temporary conditional use. Roger Knutson: If you call this one a cultural center, then the next church that comes along is a cultural center. My own reaction probably is you're not going to see many of the~ because of the economics and an alternative way of handling it is to wait for your temporary conditional use ordinance to make it's way after it's been digested by staff and Planning Co~m~ission. Councilwoman Dimler: How long is that going to be? Paul tO~auss: Given the t~ needed to get it on an agenda, get it through the Planning Co~m~ission and City Council, have an ordinance beco~ effective, probably 3 to 4 months I would think. Councilm~an Workpmn: Can't we add one of the conditions that one, this is a lease arrangement and that makes it different versus owning or buying? 11 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Likewise, nt.m~ber two, tno_~ shall not buy church property in o~lr business district. Mayor Chmiel: You're shaking your head no. What I'm thinking too is can't we someway indicate with a time 1Lmitation be used for that facility? Roger Knutson: Those are good points but your ordinance doesn't make those distinctions. You could make that distinction by ordinance. You have that far to do that. Your present ordinance does not make that distinction. If it is a c~]ltural center and you detek?~ine it is a cultural center, I can't say a cultural center is something that only lasts 18 months. Mayor Ch~iel: Tr~]e. Roger Knutson: It only has a lease. Co~mci]mlan Boyt: Maybe there's a way to do this. Let's refer the site plan review back to staff and in the meantime let them operate until this gets resolved. That means over the next 3 months this temporary conditional use permit thing gets smoothed out. Worked through us. %ge pass it. Then the site plan review comes ~]p for approval or denial. In the meantime staff is working on it and they can function. Paul }O~auss: One of the things we were using the site plan review to ensure was that the building is brought up to Building Code rec~.]irements. There is an increased occupancy there. We believe the owner has shown some desire to do whatever is needed but what we propose is that a new CO be rec~]ired for this ~]se. We would lose that mechanism unless scm~e sort of an approval was given tonight. They would still have to bring the building into compliance. It just wouldn't be as backed ~]p as it is. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another c~]estion. Is anyone here from the Assemblies of God? Councilman Boyt: They're trusting in ~. Well, I think we can do that. I think that any building that's occupied in the City has got to be safe so we have the right to go in and insist upon that whether we have a site plan review or not. Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe we should ask ~]blic Safety. Is there adequate escape in case of fire? Mayor Chmiel: They're putting in another staircase from my ~mderstanding. Councilwoulan Dimler: I know b~]t with his plan they would be occupying it before we did the site plan review. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they can occ~]py it until once it's completed as far as I'm concerned. Pa~]l K~-auss: The~:e may be adec~.]ate controls. They do have to bring the building into compliance. This was just a nice strong firm mechanism. Councilwoman Dimler: There are two ways to get out of there right now? 12 City Co~]ncil Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Paul K3~auss: Yeah. They're building a second staircase Don Ashworth: I think at issue though, at least from the owner's standpoint. Bringing it into compliance, what we have to realize is the amount of occupancy is a key factor in the building code so if you're going to allow or have a portion of a structure housing 100 or 200 people, the improvemlents that you would have to make to that building are significantly different than if there's simply 1 or 2 people who ~my be housed in that building. The question coming back to the owner could very well be one of should I expend the $20,000.00, I don't know what the a~D[~nt is, if I don't know that I'm going to be allowed that higher occupancy level. I think if I could ask Roger one c~]estion. In Paul's definition in looking at this as a cultural activity, he looked at it as though it was a lot different than a typical church. In other words, they were not looking to the cross on the outside. I think there was a nun~er of factors that a permanent facility would not, that this facility would not rec~_~ire is a temporary type of a condition. Am I not correct Paul? Paul Krauss: Yes. That's basically correct and it goes back to the ordinance's definition of what constitutes a church which is quite lengthy but basically says a church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship. That's the traditional church sort of occupancy. We tried to draw a distinction between renting space in an office building and the traditional church with a separate... Don Ashworth: The point there Roger is can we not put further into writing so that we do not end up with a precedent situation? We may have a precedent situation if somebody else in the future comes along and wants to lease under similar conditions as this church is right now. But if another church came along who wanted a permanent facility with the traditional markings, etc. going along with the church, that would be significantly different. My point there is can we not just simply doc~m~ent the file to take and show what Paul's basis is and thereby issue the pel~it as it's been presented? Roger Knutson: Yes and as a follow up you might even go further and refine your definition of what a cultural center is to make it abundantly clear that this is what you intended. Yes. The answer is yes. Don Ashworth: Then I would suggest that the Council act to pass this with the understanding that the church would be allow~=d as a lease type of facility with staff directed to draft that definition of what a cultural center is and return it to your agenda for November so that you could finally agree or basically adopt the definition that Paul would come back with. That would give the owner the assurances he was looking for and I think relieve Roger's problems. Councilman Boyt: I think that's the craziest idea I've heard in months. You're going to say to me that we can now define what a church is after what we went through last spring? I can't believe it. Don Ashworth: We're not defining church. We're defining what is a cultural center. CounciL-~an Boyt: Well you're telling me a church as defined in our ordinance is, what was that? 13 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Paul D:auss: A building or edifice consecrated to religio~]s worship. Councilman Boyt: And yo~l're going to say that the cultural thing isn't going to be that. Boy, I'd vote against that just to stay out of trying to define the difference as you've laid it out. There ought to be a better way to get at it than having to say that a ch~]rch is a cultural center but a cultural center J. sn't a church. Don Ashworth: But a church is a structure and this is not a structure. The structure is already there. It's only a ~]estion as to what are the activities that are occurring inside of it. Councilman Work, lan: Would an ultimate worry Bill be that the owner of the Riv or the Dinner Theatre would leave and sell it to the church and then we'd have a church so.~ewhe~;e downtown like that? Co~mcilman Boyt: I don't want to see any of that central business district taken off the tax rolls. If we can figure out a way to guarantee that, this is a great idea. Councilwoman Dimler: What about the lease agreement? Don't you think that that guarantees that? Councilman Boyt: I think the next church that comes in and wants to buy it can then buy it. They'll just say we're a cultural activity and we're not going to put up a traditional church so we're in. Councilwc~an Dimler: The seller then has the ability to sell it to them too right? Co~.mcib~an Boyt: Well sure. Anyway, I think that we can accomplish this by just sending it back and letting ther~ come back when we've got a temporary conditional use permit. Then we haven't set any precedent. We haven't changed a definition for anything. Mayor C%m~iel: I'm trying to digest basically the intent of what you have. The other concern I had basically with this district is the availability of parking within that area too. Of what days that they're going to utilize that facility in conjunction with the business people who will need those spaces for their customers co_~ing in. That's another thing that t had thought about. But as I read this, it indicated in here that at the point where the congregation does not exist but is hoped that they will have time to grow to 5g to 75 people in the first year. Additional growth potential is indicated in an earlier phone conversation. It's indicated the church is negotiating a short term, 18 month lease with the possible extension for 12 months to follow. Also in here they indicated something to the fact that once they have obtained that 8g n~oer, of which is all that can be ho~]sed within that area, they just a~]tomatically will have to move. Paul Krauss: Mm'. Mayor, the 80 n~_~er is generated by our tA]blic Safety people. 8g would be all that would be allowed in that focal at any one time. If they wanted to exceed that, the way the conditions the Planning Co~ission established are, is that they wo,]ld have to come back for site plan approval. 14 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 They would also have to lease additional space. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And does existing space that's there now, can that be incorporated into it or do they have the additional space adjacent to where they're at now? Paul K~°auss: Yes, I believe they do. Counci]_-~an Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that approving this gives us anything that we don't have by tabling it and I would suggest that we table this for 3 months ~_~less that proves to be a problem to the c~lrch itself. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and there's no one here to... Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, do you know their timeline? Paul tO~auss: In speaking to themt, in fact we got the~.l on this agenda because they wanted to accele~ate their ability to enter into an agreement and occupy the building. I know that they would like to do that as q~]ickly as possible. Councilman Boyt: They can do it. They can go right ahead and occupy it. It's just that we're not giving theml a conditional use permit. We're reviewing that. In the meantime they can do anything they want there as long as it's legal. Mayor Chmiel: With those ram~ifications with what Bill's saying Roger, can we do that part of that? In other words, let them occupy the building. Within 90 days then view the plan and have that as a temporary conditional use within that facility or within that district? Roger Knutson: Depending on the timeline to getting that ordinance up to you, it could be in granting it, yes it could be a temporary conditional use in 90 days or 120. Whatever the timeline would be. CounciL, lan Boyt: So all the public safety stipulations are still there. We haven't ignored those or set those aside. Tomove into that building, they have to have a second entrance and the other appropriate situations but as far as us giving official approval to it, we're saying, I would reco~m~end that we table that until we have the tools that we need to act appropriately. Does that make sense to everyone? Councilwoman Dimler: Are you comfortable with that? Paul ~auss: Well, I would depend on our City Attorney for so,~ advice on that. The reason we originally thought of a creative way of doing this is because the ordinance didn't really specifically allow it. When the building depart~nt first camde to ~, we said well I don't think you can do it and then we looked at it a little more closely and said well ~mybe there is a way. I think if you strictly interpret the ordinance as I would prefer to do in the absence of having so~ direction from the City Council, then I'd be somewhat relunctant to allow it. It means don't look at the ordinance right now. They're there. I would defer that decision though to Roger. Councilwoman Dimler: The temporary conditional use permit, is that going to be, how do you feel about that? Is that going to be acceptable that we would be 15 City Co~lncil Meeting - October 23, 1989 allowir~3 this church at that time? Paul Krauss: Well depending on how that's wT~itten you co~]ld allow anything reasonably anywhere for a period of time. Now we'd probably want to have some limitations on it so, our whole rationale for doing this is that this is somewhat similar to a cultural facility. The ordinance would probably be struct,]red so it had some similarity to other permitted or conditional uses, then we'd recoumend that you look at a temporary conditional use. So yeah, theoretically it could well work out. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: I kind of hate to leave it hanging. I guess I agree with Paul that I'd like to have something concrete for them to move in there on. Councilman Workman: You're not worried about setting a precedence? Councilwc~tan Dimler: Not really because the only precedence we'd be setting is that they have to come in under a lease agreement. Councilman Boyt: I think that when we allow a use, we allow a use. Whether it's a lease or owne~lship or whatever, we've never differentiated that in any other zone. It's been a matter of can yogi do that particular activity in that zone. Councilwoman Dimler: Well if that they use that as an example, we'll say and that was a lease agreement and you can have a lease agreement. Councilman Workman: If we're not setting a precedence and we're not h.]rting anything, they can occupy the church, why not wait? Mayor Chmiel: You're in agreement of tabling is what you're saying Tom? Councih,~an Workman: Yeah. We're still allowing them to use it. They're still going ahead and ~]sing it so it's just a matter of a technicality. Roger Kn~]tson: ...you have staff's interpretation of the ordinance that this is a cult~]ral center and staff saying go ahead and do it. What will happen, you will not have endorsed it or rejected it. Councilman Boyt: Well i would move that we table item l(k). Councilwoman Dimler: Let me get this clear now. By tabling it we're calling it a cultural center? Roger Knutson: No, you're not calling it anything. You're just tabling it... interpretation of the ordinance. Councilman Workman: I'd second the motion. CounciL.~an Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the site plan review for a church, (Asse~olies of God) to be located in the upper level of Bloo~oerg's Dinner Theatre building. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 VISITOR PRESENTATION: There were no visitor presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER LAND SALE FOR A PORTION OF MURRY HILL WATER TOWER SITE, GIL KREIDBERG. Public Present: Name Address Gil Kreidberg Wayne Fransdal Don Kelly Terry Atherton 6444 Murray Hill Road 6200 Murray Hill Road 2081 West 65th Street 2082 West 65th Street Don Ashworth: Why don't I start it out and then Gary will finish. This it~ was tabled on September 25th to allow for this public hearing. Notices were sent out. City Council previously did consider this. There were questions brought out at the last meeting regarding sale of ~]blic property. Is there a re~]irement for lowest bid. The answer there is no. There are a nl~er of considerations that must be looked at by a City Council and State Statute recognizes that. The sale process question is one that staff feels badly about because we felt that we had entered this item at the direction of City Council to meet with some of the neighbors when there was concern with the Ostrc~ development and that's basically how this entire process got started. O]lminating with again sc~ concerns by the neighborhood that potentially the City might sell a part of that property in the future and to stem off that concern if the city would look to a sale of part of the property to Mr_. Kreidberg with certain conditions to ensure that the large stand of trees that were up there would stay. That a trail would be put in. That the City would still maintain a driveway into the property for access to our water tower but that none of those activities would be interferred with in tek~s of potentially having a single family home there. Again, we had looked at it as though it was a win-win situation for both the neighborhood and for the city. Again, one of the primary concerns of the neighborhood was to be able to get from Murray Hill Road over to the school and part of the agreement was taking the dollars that would be received from the sale itself and building the driveway and the trail with those dollars and again reserving enough area to ensure that that trail would be built. Staff continues to believe that that is a reco~endation which provides benefit to both the City and to the neighborhood. Gary, did you wish to add anything? Gary Warren: No. Mr. Kreidberg is here and I think this ~tter has carried on for c~ite a while. I think in good intentions on all parties here to try to address sort of a co~lex issue that ~y be up front doesn't appear or shouldn't appear to be this complex but I appreciate the efforts that Gil has had in actually coordinating and dealing with a lot of the neighbors in Pleasant Hill here to keep them abreast of some of our activities here. I think the proposal here meets the interest of Gil. I think addresses as best we can at this time the trail issue and also the needs that the City has as far as wanting the auxiallary access to the water tower site frcm the east across our property. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue? 17 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Don Kelly: [~y n~e is Don Kelly. I live at 2081 West 65th Street. My property is i~ediately east of the Ostrom development. I'm concerned with what Mr. Ashworth says because he said that the primary purpose is to provide access to the school from Murray Hill Road. That means that we're dealing with access for a limited n~er of people here. One of the main concerns here, I talked to Mm-. Ashworth about this on Septe~oer 26th is that we're providing access to the school for among others, the 6 homes that were built in the Ostrom development. 8 years ago I appeared before a body with different faces and supported Mr_. Ostrom's subdivision, the way he wanted to do it. The way he wanted to plot it. The way he wanted to bring the road in. The way he wanted to sewer it and there was one issue that I brought up at that time that was important to me and that was that the development not cut off access to the school from my neighborhood. When I moved into my home in 1977, I had no children but I looked out the window and I saw that we had junior high students at that time that were walking through my yard to get to the school. At that time we kind of reorganized things and I asked the people to walk through a different area of my yard and for several years we had junior high students, joggers, people wandering over to play tennis, going through the woods at that time to get to the school. When Mr. Ostrom developed the property, he agreed to include a pedestrian easement. The pedestrian easement, perhaps you can show us Gary. Can you show us where, I think my house is green on there right now and the pedestria~ easement goes down the west side of my property. That's right, and over to the school i,~ediately after his develoim~ent was agreed ~]pon. By the way, the Council directed staff to follow through on the pedestrian easement and get it included so it was included in hJ.s development agreement. As soon as that was firmed up, my neighbor across the street and I paid the legal fees to have a pedestrian easement across my property to M~-. Ostrom's property. We dedicated the easement, the cul-de-sac on our street beca~]se I don't know if you can see on there. Most maps indicated that the street goes right up to the Ostrom development but it actually has been... Gary Warren: Yes it does. The right-of-way goes right up to the Ostrom development. Don Kelly: I didn't get my money's worth then. There's been a cul-de-sac dedicated and the right-of-way has been abandoned. Gary Warren: The half section shows a 60 foot right-of-way that goes ~]p to the back end of the Ostrom develoim~ent. Now the half sections, there may have been a vacation since that time. Don Kelly: l~nat's what I'm saying. At the time of the Ostrom development about Septe~oer 21, 1982, the City Council did approve the partial vacation of West 65th Street and anyway there's a 22 foot utility pedestrian easement along the watermain across my property and then the cul-de-sac was dedicated so the right-of-way doesn't go up to that property line anymore. Gary Warren: The utility easement does. Don Kelly: That's correct okay? And the utility easement is on the south side of the street. ~]at appears here to be the street. In any case, we arranged for a pedestrian trail for the neighborhood up to that line. We're now talking about a pedestrian trail going fr~ Murray Hill to the school and there's a 18 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 missing link in there. The pedestrian trail that Mr. Ostrom was to provide through his develotm~ent was not deeded. He did not pursue it and the City staff did not follow through on it. My understanding when I talked to Mr. Warren a year and a half ago was that Lot 6 on that develolm~ent still had not been sold and that they would not permit Mr. Ostrc~l to sell it until the issue of the pedestrian path had been resolved. I don't know exactly, was that lot sold without encumbrances? Gary Warren: We recorded the develol~ent contract against the lot. The development contract had not been recorded prior to that time so our action, once this was brought to our attention, was to record it against that lot and at that time the conditions of the agree~[ent unfortunately did not reflect specifically Lot 6 as you addressed earlier. The actual configuration for the easement addressed in the development contract was for the trail around the southerly perimeter of the subdivision so as it related to encumbering Lot 6, we couldn't hold it hostage to get sc~lething that had already been released so to speak. Don Kelly: Okay, I don't know what a develotmlent contract means. A contract to me means an agree~lent between parties with certain recourse if the agreed upon things are not met. It would seem to me that Mr. Ostrom is responsible for providing a pedestrian trail that goes frc~ the street on which I live to the school. If that trail is provided across Lot 6, that's perfectly convenient. Unfortunately, well first of all I think with regards to the matter you're looking at tonight, I would like to see the entire trail issue covered as a whole matter rather than consider the trail through the water tower as one little piece and then bring up this other issue at a different time. I'd also think that it would be convenient to use the money from the sale of that property to cover some of the expense of any acc~]isition costs that are required for the trail going all the way through. It would see~l to me that it's Mm-. Ostrom's responsibility to provide a trail through that property and that it's the City's responsibility to ensure that the things that we were promised 8 years ago and have been promised with frequent conversations with city staff over the intervening time, actually happen. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue? Terry Atherton: My na, e is Terry Atherton and I live at 2082 West 65th Street. I live across the street from Don Kelly and my children are grown up so I don't have as large a stake in this as he has but I've been at many council meetings that Don has testified to and most of the things that he has said I've known first hand also as far as the development on the west side of our property. So I do feel that the Council should listen to what Don has said because I basically will someday be selling n~ ho~e and if scale new people move into it with children, they certainly would want access to the school. Thank you. CounciL, lan Boyt: Mr. Mayor, can we get Lori's co~mlents on this trail? I think it was a pretty hot item about a year and a half ago. Maybe you remember how it worked itself into it's current situation? Lori Sietsema: As Gary said, because all of the lots were sold before the easement was recorded, deeded over to the City, we didn't have a willing seller... 19 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councih~lan Boyt: As Ira, ta~tber the situation, it had something to do with one of the lot owners, maybe Lot 5 or Lot 4, had built a fence and that fence was where the trail was st]pposed to be and so then, when it came in and there was scg~e discussion I recall about I think that lot owner had talked to Bill Monk about where the trail is s~]pposed to go. Gil Kreidberg: That's correct and there were some differences at that time. That was M~. Bo~]drie who you were referring to and that is correct. CounciL-tan Boyt: Didn't that get resolved? I mean didn't we talk about putting the trail down someone's driveway or something? Gil Kreidberg: My na~e is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road. That is correct Bill and what has happened and Don's aware of this. There is a pathway between Don's yard and M~. Boudrie's property which they put some bark chips down. It may not be part of the Chanhassen trail systeg_l but it does accog~odate anybody who wants to walk through there. The missing link has been the access once they get to M~]rray Hill to get back to the school. The proposed transaction discl]ssed here this evening will eliminate that issue. What they've been doing now is walking across the City's property when they cut down the barbed wire fence that was there but this way you'll have a nice roadway in which to walk though so I think that people, while they may be part of the sanctioned Chanhassen trail system, are not...from being able to walk inbetween the houses, Mr. Boudrie's home to Murray Hill and then back to the school. Councilman Boyt: Could yo,] show that up on the map here? Don Kelly: It's the dark stripe. Gil Kreidberg: This is Mr.. Kelly's lot right? Don Kelly: Right. Gil Kreidberg: Right in here Y~:. Boudrie's fence runs sort of on the inside here and then he put barkchips down along here up to where his driveway begins and he has no problem with people coming right through here to Murray Hill. All they do is go here and then they'll go down there. Don Kelly: Okay, there is a utility easement. The water line was looped through the area that M~. Kreidberg was just showing tis and there is a ~ttility easement on that property line. M~:. Boudrie has put a fence approximately on his property line so the bark chips are actually on Lot 6 and the kids trot down the bark chips and then ~/nen they get down to Boudrie's driveway, they walk down the driveway. It's fine access. We don't have a problem with that access. My son goes to school that way every day. I know do have kids that go through there and will for c~]ite a nt_mt0er of years. The problem is that Mr. Boudrie has said that that path is, he's c~_]ite comfortable with u~ kids and his kids using that path but he doesn't want it to becc~te a general public path. On that we kind of differ because I feel that if othe~ f~,tilies move into our neighborhood that have children, that I can't tell them that hey, his kids and my kids can walk through my yard but your kids can't. Also, if he sells his house, he might sell it to someone who might say that u~ kids can't walk through there because as long as there's no easement across there for pedestrians, we don't have a path to the school. 20 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 CounciL,~an Boyt: So what you're proposing is that the City buy that easement. Is that accurate? Don Kelly: I think you'd find that challenging but yeah, that would be great. Council~an Boyt: Does anyone recall, I'm not the best source for information about this but I recall that there was ~]ite a discussion with Mir.. Ostrom a year and a half ago about how this was going to be resolved and I thought that the City Council gave the direction to get it resolved. So I guess I'm a little surprised that in the meant~ it hasn't been. Myme~ory ~y be selective here. Does anybody know more about this? Gary Warren: I guess I could offer qualifying ~ memory as you have and ~mybe Roger can throw in a few cents here is that yeah, there was direction to pursue the easemlent and internally we did, through the help of Tim Berg from Roger's office, initiate contacts with Mr. Ostrom to indicate that the City intended to have him make good on his obligations under the develotm~ent contract and that we were willing to pursue that. I think it was after that contact that Mrr. Ostrom then got to the Pleasant Hill neighbors and indicated to them the situation and made allegations that it was the City's responsibilty and because the City hadn't ~]rsued getting the easement, therefore it wasn't his fault and sort of deflecting it back to the City's problem and then concluding that you folks don't want the easement anyway or words to that effect. I think it's true that people that we've dealt within the neighborhood there said hey, wemoved in here with the ~understanding that there wasn't an easement re~]ired and therefore we don't want the value of our properties depleated because of an easem~ent going in there. So we ran ~ against that and then there was a subse~]ent Council meeting where it cam~ back and I think those neighbors pleaded their case with the council saying great, we understand you want a ~ail but sort of not in ~ backyard type of philosophy. So we were faced then with, the Council I guess was faced with then pursuing the easement or the conditions of the develotm~ent contract by basically one or two ways. They're sort of related. One was to condemm the easem~ent which was going to be ~]ite ~%osetting I think to the residents there and also to pursue legal action with Mr. Ostrom to reimburse the City for the cost related to that. It was in that area that basically we started talking about other alternatives. One, we opened up the fence on the City's property along ~rray Hill Road which relieved a lot of the pressue and in the interest from having Cardinal Lane and such, get through the City property to the school so that addressed some of the interest there frc~ the neighbors to the north and I think has been a good solution there. Plus with the willingness of M~. Boudrie to allow the use of the co~on lot line there as a trail as it already has been, people were getting through so we at that time, it was concluded I guess not to pursue Mr. Ostrc~ or the conde~.mation of the easement because that was not going to be palatable to the existing residents so that's, I know I ra,~led there but that's so~ of the highlights that I recall on it. Mayor Chmiel: Is ~]ere anyone else who like to address this? Wayne Fransdal: My na~m is Wayne Fransdal, 6200 Murray Hill Road. I guess at this point in time I have no concerns about the same of the property if the City Council and staff are convinced and the stifles have been done that this property is indeed surplus, there's no future use for the property and it has no 21 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 value for the City in any of their plans. The only conce~n that I have is that the trailway in the future that is built is in fact a true trailway. Has access through that kids can get their bicycles through without having theoretically being able to get thro~]gh it or practically not being able to get through it. That there is thru access and there is a path and a gateway that they can get their bicycles through. Thank you. Mayor Chmiet: Thank yogi. Is there anyone else? Is there anyone else who would like to address the issue? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, do you have something? Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, do I. I guess I was relieved to hear Wayne say that he has no objections to the sale. I gt]ess my concern is too that the trailway that is there must be a true trailway and have true access and I don't know how we're going to go about assuring that. I wish somebody, maybe Roger could address that. Is there someway we can assure that that r~tains to be a true access for the children to get to school? Roger Knutson: The purchase agreement says it and it's going to be the City's trail so you're guaranteeing it. Councilwc~an Dimler: We are guaranteeing it? Roger Kn~]tson: As long as you're sitting here you can make sure it happens. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's good news. Don Kelly: Did you mean the entire trail or just the water tower portion? Roger Knutson: The water tower portion is all I'm talking about. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, your concern was that the entire trail be a true access. Well that was my question. How do we guarantee that it remains a true trail? Do we have anyway of doing that? Roger Knutson: As far as this particular piece of property goes, 6(a) of your purchase agreement says you' re going to do it. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. But I mean the other portion. We can't really guarantee it? Roger Kn~]tson: You don't own it. Councilwoman Dimler: That's not ours to decide. 22 City Council Meeting - October 231 1989 Mayor Clm~iel: I think something like that would have to be worked out with the residents and staff at this t~ along the 65th Street portion and not just verbalness but to have it done. Councilwoman Dimler: Other than that I think it's a good agreement. I think the City gains. I think Mr.. Kreidberg gains and I think if we have the access there, that the neighbors gain as well. Council~an Workman: Hadn't we decided that there was going to be a fence across there? Is there going to be a fence across there? Maybe the access for this parcel could be somehow notify the neighbors of the design of what kind of a fence because if it's 10 foot wide and we're going to still have trucks getting through there? Roger Knutson: 6 (b) of your ~rchase agreement, pargraph 6 (b) says it's going to be a controlled access gate. Councilman Workman: In that light then, perhaps neighborhood in,it once again be used to ~ke a decision. There's all sorts of different ways that we can, I mean that's pretty broad so when it comes down to bikes or whatever happens to be at that t~e, that the neighborhood once again be asked. Get together with the neighborhood and find out what kind of a gate. I thought we had a concern or there was a concern both by buyer and neighbors that this lot's going to become part of your lot? Gil Kreidberg: That is correct. Councilman Work, lan: Are we going to have as a condition in here that that realistically it becc~es a part of the lot, realistically he could then subdivide? Mayor Chmiel: No. That's not the intent. Gil K~eidberg: Not at all. I have no problem with incorpOrating it in ~ lot. Councilman Workman: Is it in there? Councilwc~an Dimler: It says no h~le would ever be built on it. Council~an Workman: Where is that exactly? Gil Kreidberg: It's in the purchase agre~ent. Councilman Workman: You probably have one with more detail. Gil Kreidberg: Yeah. Gary was very specific in laying that out. Councilman Workman: Is that in there s~ewhere Gary? Councilman Boyt: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: We discussed that I think last time. 23 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Wor~an: When you have to read War and Peace before every Council meeting it gets, but those are my only concerns then that that be looked at and that we also look at that other. I know for at least a year now I've had people c~.]estion me abo~lt the trail situation up there in regards to the other side also and that that be rectified and I know that we somehow, as a City, something slipped through the cracks there and I'd like to see that rectified. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bill? Councilman Boyt: Well I'm for the sale. I think it clears up a lot of things that ca~ up a year and a half ago and it was such a relief to have Mr. Kreidberg say that he was interested in purchasing the property so I agree. I've thought a couple times that the trail issue was resolved. It clearly isn't and my personal bias is I think there's a co~oination of former city staff and developer that sort of each chose to interpret what they wanted' to and do, in this case, the developer did what he wanted to do and I'd like the City to pursue that. I would move approval... Mayor Chmiet: Can I put my two cents in? Councilman Boyt: Oh! I'm sorry. Mayor Chmiel: I'm also in complete agreement with the sale of the property but the position as I indicated when Ursula was talking is that the staff should work o~]t the problem with the residents along 65th as far as the balance of that trail is concerned. I see no reason why we shouldn't come ~]p with a motion at this particular time. Don Kelly: I'm also definitely in favor of converting this property to a nice taxable use and I'm all for trees and kids and things and I think that's going to work out very nicely. ~_]t one of the issues I raised with Mr. Ashworth was that here we have $3g,090.0g of windfall revenue that is going to vanish. I don't know exactly where it goes. In the staff's presentation it says that the money will be used for develoim~ent of the roadway and the path and so forth and of course it's talking about the roadway and the path by the water tower. I suggest that you amend that to leave that money available until the entire issue of the path is decided in case there are expenses in acc~_]iring the rest of the path so that money can be used for the development of the path to 65th Street. I have for 8 years been co~lunicating with city and staff and I've been told that we'll get back to you and that it's going to be coming up. There will be a hearing and we'll let you know before it happens and so forth. I don't know exactly how to go about that. Mayor Chmiel: I think that we can probably give that direction to staff and possibly if you don't hear something within a very short period of time, like within... Don Ashworth: I'm not sure what's going to. What is it? Mayor Chmiel: Make sure that you're coordinating this with the people within the area as to what's going to develop with the balance of that path of the trail system that is going along the portions that were previously shown and come up with some kind of a conclusion so that the access is there for the ~]ti!ization of everybody within that particular area I guess. 24 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Don Ashworth: We would be ready to put it onto a City Council agenda within a short period of t~. What I'm hearing the Council say is that they'd like to see staff potentially meet again with that group of owners before the thing comes back to City Council? Again, if I'm hearing you correctly, we've been told by the owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 that they will fight cond~mation. The City Attorney has advised that Ostrom was responsible to obtain those easem~ents. Record them and the City does have the ability to go back and seek, to obtain the ease~ents and then to bill Mr. Ostrom for that. A question is really whether or not we're going to be reimbursed for that. What I'd like to be able to do is to prepare a report, I guess I'd like to be able to meet again with the owners out there. Explain that there is a strong possibility that the City would start that conde~nation process and then to put the item~ onto a future agenda for a decision. So I guess we'd start our informally. That should be able to be acco~tplished within a 2 week period of t~e. Then to take and have it back potentially to City Council within 2 weeks after that. Mmyor Chmiel: I would hope that there would be sort of a friendly ac~]isition rather than conde~mation. Don Ashworth: I don't think that would be possible. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat the motion please? Wayne Fransdal: If I could make one final con~ent. That the review of the access for this trailway and the neighborhood input, that the neighborhood be defined more than the 6 or 8 lots on the Ostrom development. There are other neighbors that are e~]ally as concerned and involved. Councilman Boyt: I believe the motion is to approve the sale of the property with the noted conditions. I would be open to also adding to the motion that the $30,000.00, since that's what it is, $30,000.00 received from the sale be expended on the property per the City Engineer's recc~tendation previously and that any surplus be held ~ntil the issue of the second trail access is resolved. Counc i lwoman Dimler: Second. CounciL, lan Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the sale of a portion of the property at the Murray Hill Water Tower site to Gil Mr. Gil Kreidberg with the condition of making such a part of his existing lot and that the $30,000.00 received frc~t the sale be expended on the property per the City Engineer's reco~mlendation previously and any surpl~s be held until the issue of the second t3~ail access is resolved. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD: A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET. Paul tO~auss: If I can address the vacation of 78th Street. It was n~ understanding that we were going to do the vacation of 78th Street in 25 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 conjunction with the plat that we were going to process with this project. While we have all the information we need to process the PUD, the platting doc~mtents were unfortunately delayed so that we don't know exactly how much of the street we'd like to vacate at this time. We've asked that you continue action on the plat and would also ask that you continue action on the vacation to be handled at the same time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want us to table the segment for the p~blic hearing vacation of West 78th at this partic~lar time? Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? Councilwoman Dimler movc~, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the public hearing for vacation of a portion of West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER. Paul Yo~auss: Mr. Mayor, men,ers of the City Council. The applicants are rec~.]esting approval of a PUD to construct a 94,~g0 sc~,]are foot shopping center that would be anchored by a S~]per Value s~pe~m~arket. It wo~]ld also create a two acre o~]tlot called Outlot A that would be located within the PUD and would be available for development in the future, although we don't have any concept for that right now. The Council last reviewed this project on September llth when it received PUD concept review. Based on cerements received at that stage, the project w-as modified and then returned to the Planning Co-~ission for development stage approval. The Planning Co~mission reviewed the development stage plan on September 2gth. Staff had reco~ended approval to the Cou~ission subject to a lengthy list of stipulations. The most significant of which dealt with future development on Outlot A. Restrictions on how that parcel might develop in other words. Access issues in general a~d a variety of site plan i~prov~ents. The Planning Co~tission generally agreed with staff's position but indicated concerns with the project's appearance from 78th Street. They reco~ended approval of the PUD with additional conditions .... since that meeting the applicant has worked with staff to ~esolve the issues that were raised and to reduce the n~m~oer of conditions that are attached to this proposal. The most noteable revisions are to the northern end of the PUD and this was to respond to issues that were raised by the Planning Co~ission. The vet clinic has been relocated from a central part of the site along West 78th Street to the northwest corner of the property and the size of the shopping center building itself has been decreased and a second free standing structure which would house a dry cleaners is proposed along West 78th Street. Along with architectural refinement, it's hoped that this gives more of a feel fo~ this CBD type of development you experience to the east on 78th Street. Those building are oriented to the street. They're finished on all fo,Ir sides and the shopping center itself is now finished on 3 sides at the north end where it would house a restaurant. D]ring the process of this refinement, the gross building sc~_]are footage has been decreased slightly for the shopping center but at the same time the size of the initial Super Market development has been increased ~]p to 20,g00 sc~.~are feet. 26 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Can you clarify that difference that you just said? It was decreased on the shopping center? How many square foot is that going to be? Paul Krauss: Originally it was 99,416 s~]are feet. It is not 94,158 so approximately 5,000 sca]are feet ~aller and that includes the two out buildings. There's also a n~m~er of other modifications that were included in the plan basically to resolve issues that had been raised by staff and the Planning Co~lission. We believe that the modifications will respond well to the issues that were raised and that the current proposal represents a high quality project. Staff is reco~ending that the PUD plan be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here? Jim Winkles: Good evening. My name is Jim Winkles and I'm part of the development team regarding this project. With ~ tonight also are a couple representatives from Amcon who are the designers of the project and we'll actually ask Bill Brisley to cc~ up and kind of go through, walk you through the project very q%]ickly. In short, before Bill comes up, I think what I'd like to just add to what Paul was talking about is in fact what we have been trying to do in the last few months. We actually sutm~itted these plans for the first ti~ for the Planning Co~ission and staff review this last su~er. Actually in July and have been working steadily with them and with the City's consultants to ~ke sc~e refinements in te~ of access, parking, architectural design, detailing of the building, the lighting, signing, just about everything that you would ~agine on a project like this we have reviewed. In fact have spent the last co~le of months just refining those and ~king changes that we believe now has more or less I think incorporated everything that we've heard frc~ everybody along this route. We've been the HRA. We've been to the Planning Co~lission on a concept basis. We've been to the Council on a concept basis and then took everything through on a formal basis so we start at the bottom. Went up the ladder. Came back down and started up again and we're working our way up to the top ,_~til we are here tonight. We have in fact tried to incorporate everything that we can think of. At the Planning Co~ission level, the Planning Co~ission has in fact reco~ended approval subject to a nu~er of conditions which are really just relating to s~ things that are very standard that are put into development agreements and we don't have a probl~l with that. We've been to the HRA last Thursday night and the HRA did approve the development contract for this project and now our last step is here tonight. Our goal in terms of what we've been trying to accomplished and what we talked about last Thursday night and also in other meetings we've had here in the last few weeks is that we're looking for closure or a closing on this particular property around the middle of Dece~er. That's very, very i~ortant in ter~s of where we're at right now. Everything kind of backs ~%o because we then have to get into our financing and get that done so we can close the middle of Dece~er so we are right on track and have been for the last few weeks and would very much I'd like to stay there. When we talked with, when Bill cc~les up here, we would like to kind of go over the conditions. In general I think that we just received the staff report with the conditions tonight. We've been reading th~ and going over th~. I think in general we don't have any problc~ with any of the conditions with ~ybe one exception and that's sc~[ething that as Bill cc~les up here he can talk about but it essentially involves the access to Outlot A. We've changed the road on Outlot A to put the road, the north/south road cc~ing inbetween the one building 27 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 and on the west side of Outlot A. There's also another access driveway on the sollth side of Outlot A. Right now we just simply don't know exactly what's going to go out on Outlot A. The only thing that we wo~]ld like it to just have the opportunity to come back when we know what that use is. To come back and just put it in front of you and say this is the ~%se. Now can we just talk about that access rather than just simply shutting the door at this time without knowing what's going to be there, we'd simply like the opportunity to come back. We fully understand that you _.light say no, we agree there shouldn't be any on West 78th or on Market Blvd.. We understand that that _.light be the case but we would like the opportunity to at least come back to this body and say this is the use. 2his is what we think and this is how we think it could work. The reason for that is because the way the access is right now and the driveways may work fine. May absolutely have no problem with it. On the other hand, we may find in working with the traffic engineer that maybe there's a better soltttion and we don't know what that solution is right now. We'd simply like the opportunity to come back. With that one exception, we do not have any problem with the conditions the way it's worded in the staff report on pages 11 and 12. We don't have any problem with the language in there° We can live with any of that. Mayor CTm~iel: And 13. Jim Winkles: And 13. Right. I'm sorry. And 13. Those 3 pages. The way the wording is on that, we can live with that. Just the one exception. We'd only like the opportunity to come back. With that I guess I'd ask Bill to come up and kind of walk through the plans. We certainly would try to answer any c~estions that you would have. Either ."~self or Todd Kristoferson who's also from Amcon or Bill or myself. Again the schedule, as Bill's coming ,]p here, we're looking at a closure ."tid-Decem~oer. We would then want to start the project just as soon as possible. There's always things you have to go through with financing and the weather at that time of [he year, towards the end of the year can always wreck havoc om you but the idea is that we want to be in this building, end of next s,t,m~er we want to have people in this space. We do have a couple of our people that will be going in this building present tonight that are very interested in w~at happens tonight. Bernie Hanson's here. Chanhassen Lawn and Sports who would very much like to go in this project and also Gary Cooper from Cooper Super Value is also here too. Both of which are key people in this project and both have a very big interest in what happens here tonight. This is Bill Brisley with Amcon. Bii1 Brisley: Good evening. Let me walk you through the building. Just talk about what the materials are. The b,]ilding massir~ basically is organized in a way to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the same type of use the full length. Lat-ge anchor buildings will be 20 feet high and pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger buildings will be only 18 feet high and will be recessed back between 4 and 8 feet from the larger buildings. ?ne materials used on the larger buildings will be ce~tent, plaster or stucco in varying shades of light to medium gray. The shorter infill buildings will be sided with gray wood lap siding and white tri."t boards. The buildings will have 2 foot steps in elevation occurring 8 times as it extends from north to south on the site. These steps will occur at the transition points between the lower and higher buildings and really lend to the variety of the massing. For a unifying effect I have given all the buildings a 2 foot high warm meditmt gray rock face base pedJ~tent that extends up to 4 feet 28 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 at the piers and the corners and runs around the full perimeter of all the buildings including the two outlot buildings. Also unifying the whole is a continuo~ color of burgandy coping for the top corgal course at the eave. There will be step cordling at all the roof edges on the project. The length of the eave will be punctuated by slight notches over the piers at the low retail buildings and by the step gabled parapets on the anchor buildings. All shop fronts will be articulated by individual burgandy canvas awnings at ge(m~etric intervals between the piers. These awnings Will not be the rubberized translucent and back lighted variety. There will be orarm~entation on the buildings in the form of stucco cannon balls center on the middle steps of the parapets. All piers will have a blue green ceramic tile medallion centered at 10 feet high. These medallions will continue on the back of the center at the same height and interval. At each pier you will see a burgandy goose necked decorative light fixture with it's illumination focused downward. This same light fixture will also be found over each rear entry tenant door. The stucco building fronts will be articulated with recessed panels painted darker shades of gray to enhance their depth and sculptural impact. All shop fronts will be clear mil finished al~_~in~. The back wall of the center will be 14 foot 8 stepping down 2 feet at the transition points. The material used will be an alternate from smooth, light gray, single score concrete block and darker gray rock faced block stripes and will have the same gabled parapet treatment at the center of the anchor buildings. Again, the back wall will have the same 2 foot and 4 foot rock face base pediment details as the front walls. The tenant rear entry doors will be painted out, door and frame, blue green to match the ceramic tile medallions. Please note the diamond shaped opening at the center of the gable of the anchor tenant. Suspended into space will be brightly painted burgandy steel tubes criss crossing the opening. At the intersection of these t~es will be a 16 x 16 inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar ceramic tile. S~ewhat visible by day through the diamond openings will be the brighly painted ~_~dersides of the blue green steel roofing seams and burgandy structural components of the gabled roof. The sense of drama will be heighten at night when the inside of the gables will be glowing from uplighting within. The effect creating sillouettes of the suspended medallions. The lowest portion of the diamond opening will still be 5'4" off the surface of the roof providing the necessary parapet for mechanical screening. This construction will extend back 24 feet from the front face where it will die into a similarly detailed stepped and gabled parapet wall of stucco. The side walls of these front mechanical screens will be 9'4" off the roof. A similar screen at the back wall will be 4 feet at the side walls and extend 12 feet forward into the building te~m~inating into another stepped and gabled parapet wall as does the front section a~d will have medallions centered on the stucco and gabled area in lieu of the diamond openings. Machanical units on the lower retail roofs will be kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screened by a 5 foot parapet wall at the front. For the view from the rear, the mechanical units will be painted light gray to match the back of the parapet walls to draw as little attention to them as possible. The Planning Co~ission voiced great concern about the end treatment of the building nearest to 78th and how we would handle this very visible part of the center. Our solution has been to make the front, the end and the back the sa~ front wall design as specified on the other parts of the frontage so that in effect that portion of the design will only have shop front design with awnings in finished details. The vet and the cleaners will have ~lall buildings that will be in character with the center. The vet building on the corner will be a brick building with asphalt shingled roof. The rock face foundation will be the same as that used on the shopping 29 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 center. The cleaners to the east of the vet will be even more similar in design to the shopping center. You will have the same color standing seam metal roofing as the gables over the anchor tenants. The walls will be detailed in wood lap siding with white tr~l boards as we have done in the retail buildings. There will also be the same rock face concrete foundation wall that is found on all the buildings in the project. The gabled end of the false dok~er to the street side and the drive-thru canopy will be open. This is the cleaners. It will be opened, framed to rese~le the gabled design of the anchor tenants. Window frames and doors will be the same mil finish as the center. If there's any c~.]estions? Councilman Boyt: Have you got any pictures of this besides this one? Bill Brisley: No. Councilman Boyt: So you don't have a pict~]re of the vet? Bill Brisley: What you've been passed out. Not any renderings. Jim Winkles: The renderings just show the rendering of the initial building... or the expansion of the center either. For what would be expanded. That'd be looking I guess right through one of these outlot buildings is there. In total what we have then is a project with the main shopping center would be, as Paul said, sc~ewhat over 90,gg0 sc~_]are feet in size. With the outlots, depending on what all happens here, that would be approxJ_~lately another 2g,ggg to 25,0gg sc~_]are feet of additional space so when it's all said and done, the entire project is built out, you'll be looking at a project probably somewhere between llg,ggg-12g,0gg sc~_]are feet in size. To [~]t that in perspective, tax wise the initial project wo~]ld probably pay a little bit over $200,gg0.00 worth of taxes and all totaled, when this project is all built out, there'd probably be a total tax on this property of between $3g0,gg0.gg and $350,090.g0 a year that would be paid once the project, the initial project plus the fut,]re outlots are completed. Councilman Boyt: That's not counting O]tlot A right? Jim Winkles: No. $200,g00.00 would be initially but when you finish out Out!ot A and the two, initially the first 7~,ggg sc~e sc~.]are feet. 75,ggg square feet, is only going to be about 2g0,0gg. When you finish out everything, the entire project, O~tlot A included, you'd be up in the $3~,~0~.~ to $35g,~0~.~ range for total taxes paid. Including Outlot A. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Is there anyone who would like to address this issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to indicate their concerns one way or the other? This is a public hearing. If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Co~mci]m~an Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor a~d the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Bill we'll start at your end. 30 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Okay. I ~my want more than one opportunity here but I' 11 start by saying that one of my issues that I'd like to hear more discussion about is the part of the shopping center that faces to the west. Monterey Drive. To me that looks like the back of a shopping center. While the shopping center has to have a back sc~ewhere I supposed, except I'm c~ite concerned that eventually Monterey Drive is going to have traffic to other retail custc~ers and I'm concerned that they're going to be driving down a rather long back to a building. It just seems odd to me. It's like creating an alley. So that's one concern. I have another concern that wasn't presented here but there in the discussion from the Planning Co~ission they got to talking about the signs on this. I'm concerned when we start talking about letters that are 5 feet high. That's a big letter and I think it's out of character with what we have in the rest of the city so that's another concern. My third area of concern is anytime we have drive-thrus, I'm a little wary I guess and I don't know that I have an excellent reason for being concerned° It's just a red flag to me so when I see a drive thru for the dry cleaner, I just wonder about the kinds of probl~s that might create. So those are my three areas of concern. My fourth area of concern is that I think the City is, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is investing a good bit of money in this and from what I see, this is a kind of a negative tax situation. It's not generating more than it's costing us in tax dollars in there but they have the whole district to deal with and I understand that. They're making a substantial investment here and I see this as potentially costing th~m~ more in tax dollars than this site is bringing in. So those are my four areas of which really 3, the first three are the legitimate ones for the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Who'd like to address those particular issues that Bill has brought up? Jim? Jim Winkles: I'd ask Bill to come up too. Taking the first one of Monterey Drive. That's an issue that came up repeatedly at the staff level and at the Planning Co~lission level. What we have tried to do, maybe Bill can explain this but what we're trying to do on the back side, which is the west side of this property over there, we've taken a couple different views on this thing. The first one is that what we have in ter~s of Monterey Drive is a cul-de-sac. Our feeling is that as a result of that, we're probably going to have very limited traffic. It's not a thru street. It's a cul-de-sac. We have entrances off of Monterey Drive in the back of our property that are really, we believe are going to be used for deliveries. For employees and for other people, maybe bringing so~ething to the back of a Chanhassen Lawn and Sports or sc~lething like that. We believe that's going to have rather limited traffic. We've also recognized that there still could be businesses over to the west and you have to be sensitive to that so what we've tried to do, carry a lot of the same materials aro~u~d from the front, put it on the back. Take landscaping, some bermings, things like that to create a softer image over there. It won't be nearly as busy as the front of the building obviously with all the customer parking but the idea was to try to handle it architecturally with materials. Try to handle it architecturally with plantings and berming over there. Hiding all of the trash enclosures so you don't see those fr~ the road. Inevitably though you still come down to sc~e project has to have a back. You can't just design everything the same but we've tried to take into account that it is going to be visible. On the northern end of the project we've actually carried some of the window treatments, sc~ of those other treatments around all three sides of that northern end of the building which was so~ething that the Planning Co~ission 31 City Co~mcil Meeting - October 23, 1989 was very concerned about that we do. What we've tried to say is that's the most pro~.~inent area in the north side of the building so let's actually carry the materials all the way around. Glass materials, the whole works there to effectively make that look like a three sided building which it could be depending on what tenant actually works out there. Signing, I guess I would ask... Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a ~estion about that second point if I might. The drawings that we have make it look like there's no accesses to the building from that side. You can't have any employee parking if they don't have any way of getting in the b,]ilding can you? Bill Bristey: There are doors. If you look at the elevations, there are doors up and down the entire... All of these are doors. Jim Winkles: There is a service door in the back for every tenant. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Now that's different than this elevation. Bill Brisley: What that is is a massing .study to give, it really addresses the roof line... This elevation is inaccurate. The elevation that we will presently build from. That is just a massing computer study to show the roof. On that subject I'll bring the actual drawing, they're showing it up on the overhead. One of the things we've achieved on this back wall is we go in and out, created these gables, created these small mechanical units and give a lot of variety going on in the back of that building. A lot more than you'd find in most backsides of centers. Sc~e of the materials that we've used and the colors, I have two colored photographs here. One is, and keep in mind that there's not any signage which adds to the gaiety and adds to a lot of the c~lality of, I might pass these around. One is the back. You almost can't tell the difference between the two except there aren't any gables on it or there aren't any canopies so I think we've gone to a great extent to make that back interesting and be of some q~ality. Councilman Boyt: Well I feel a little bit better about it having seen this. What about the possibility of p~]tting some windows in back there? Jim Winkles: I think windows always becomes a little bit, in terms of who the ultimate tenant bec~es, in terms of what their use is and what they're going to do. It's hard to say in terms of right now, if the tenant wanted windows and that was necessary for his business, they wo~]ld go in. One of the things that you face with windows in the back is they can become a real security problem for tenants. Kids can go by, rocks can get thrown, things like that and they can become a real security problem not only for the tenants but for the police departments so it really depends on the tenant themselves. In general we don't want to encourage a lot of activity in the back of a building. We don't want that to be a place that is welcome to a lot of people. It should be an area that should be a little bit more secure and we don't want to enco~]rage a lot of activity back there. A lot of people waiting back there or anything like that. We want to really avoid any kind of security problems. Signing, Bill can you cease and explain the sign program? I guess the first issue in terms of the 5 foot signs. What that is is for the larger, the end cap type users, specifically the best ex~n~ple being for the Super Value store itself. Many of the particular people that will go into a center like this will have their own 32 City Council M~eting - October 23~ 1989 type of sign criteria. Their own logos. Their own type style. Their own color type letters that they use that is really a trad~lark for their particular business. One of the things in this particular case it happens with Super Value has a very large logo that they typically use from building to building. Same color. Same style. It's also felt necessary here because part of the draw of the center is going to be towards Th 5. To get something that far away, you want to have something of some size that is visible. They very much want a market towards TH 5 and towards that traffic. That is the thought process behind that. It's also as you see in the report, is based into the anchor type tenants type situations so that the majority of the tenants will not have those kind of signs. The other idea in tern~ls of signs is that people would be able to use their own type style colors. That sort of thing to bring out the variety in this particular building. I'm not sure if that was exactly, you mentioned the 5 foot signs and maybe Paul, you want to elaborate. CounciL,~an Boyt: Well it's not a sign. We're talking about a 5 foot letter. Winkles: Right. Co~_unciL-lan Boyt: And not one letter but a series of them. Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that a little bit. We were originally working with a 2 foot high letter size for all the tenants exclusive of Super Value. Super Value always had a somewhate different sign package which we knew from the start. I received some calls from the developer asking that major tenants be allowed to have sc~lewhat larger signage. The 5 foot in particular came about becaues MGM Lic~ors, one of the proposed tenants, and they have a sign that is currently using that height in letters. Councilman Boyt: In Chanhassen? The MGM store has got a 5 foot sign on it? Paul Krauss: According to Brad Johnson. That's what it measured at. Brad Johnson: To our astonishment, we found when we went over and measured the MGM, the letters on the MGM are almost 6 feet high and the small letters are 3 feet high. Paul K~auss: What we did though is we took it a step further which I think was more important information for our reco~lendation in that I contacted some cc~patriot planners to see what they were doing on shopping centers recently and generally found across the board that most everybody gives some sort of an allowance to major tenants. And letters in the 4' to 5' height were not out of, were fairly consistent with what I was hearing from other cities. You know you look at the size of the letters sounds real big. You know 5 foot against a building sounds real large but you've got to realize though it's a very large building and it's going to be set back quite a ways from any external view and the letter size diminishes tremendously when you put it up against a building mass. All I can say is that's a fairly consistent standard and in exchange for that, we are getting a comprehensive sign package. All the signage there will use individually lighted letters. There will be some standardization for that. We know what the smaller tenants are getting. We've proposed that this sign package be extended over to Outlot A. We know what we're looking for in terms of mon%mlent signage so there's a give and take situation here as well. 33 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Mayor Ck~iel: Bill, just as a point. It's not a sign but the cross on St. Hubert's, as Don mentioned, is 8 feet tall. Councilman Boyt: Well it's good to have that as a frame of reference. I appreciate that. It looks to me like if the diagram is correct, your sign is facing Market Blvd. and not TH 5. Am I wrong in that? Paul Krauss: The~le's additional signage on the rear of the building that would be oriented to TH 5. Councilman Boyt: So we don't even have a picture of the signage on here? Paul K3~auss: Well yes you do. It's hard to look at it but it actually is illustrated there. Bill Brisley: The major tenants have signage in here. Paul KIa~]ss: That is not the 5 foot letter size that is ill,]strated on that drawing. This was a relatively recent development while the staff report was being drawn. In fact, to acco~modoate the 5 foot letters they have to modify the gable ends a little bit on the front to provide enough room for that. CounciLnlan Boyt: So we don't know what the signs are going to look like is what you' re telling me. Paul Krauss: Well we know it's a 5 foot letter and we know where it's going to go. It's just a matter of making the changes and I can leave that to Bill to see what would be rec~_]ired to acco~odate it. Bill Brisley: Maybe this is not appropriate to bring this up but I will anyw-ay. This is what the sign will look like but that's a little bit ~aller one. That's contingent on h~ agreeing to put his larger sign on the back side which will look like this. Councilman Boyt: And again these signs are facing the Market Blvd. right? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Boyt: Alright. Well the... Jim Winkles: It's relative to the issue. I think what we're trying to accomplish is a sign plan that has some sense of fairness and some sense of ec~]ality to each tenant within the building with the bottom line being we're trying to do something that is aesthetically going to fit with the building and going to also allow for a good clear, uncluttered signage as well as sc~ething that will be a benefit to the ultimate user which is the tenant which really depends on that sign for ultimately his business. We would hope that what we're suggesting is workable. We have a fairly massive structure. A very big building. Very tall building. We're going to have a big areas to sign. We want to have something that is consistent with what they've done elsewhere and also is going to provide a very nice clean image to this building. I guess I would share the fact that a big building, this kind of signing is probably not going to look out of place at all. In fact it may even look s~all compared to the size of the project we're building here right now. What we don't want to 34 City Council M~eting - October 23, 1989 let happen is we don't want a building that's going to be cluttered with a lot of unnecessary signs. We like to keep our signs on our buildings very clean, very bright. We want the color of the signs to add color to this project. At the sa,~ ti~ we want to recognize that it's vital to businesses to be able to sign their buildings. Their product or their name appropriately and we hope that what we're doing fits all those things. It's clean. It's bright. It's not being obnoxious in the sense that it's being too big for the size or anything like that so it's also consistent with what major tenants tend to want in any project. They typically tend to w-ant bigger signs. Some preferential treatment. CounciL,~an Boyt: Jim, there's some natural contradictions between the desire to design a building that has clean signs that stand out. That conflict on the one with the-desire of the owner of the business to stand out and our desire to not have them stand out too much. So how big are the letters on the develotm~ent here on the west end of town? Jim Winkles: Which one? On Town Square? Councilman Boyt: Whatever we call this right over here by the Superette. Jim Winkles: Okay, Town Square. There we have a maximum sign area out there of 30 inches. Now some of our letters are not that. Some letters are about 30 inches exactly and so~ have double stacked letters. The maximuml sign area from top to bottom is 30 inches so we have some letters out there that are in fact 2 1/2 feet and we have other sign people that have put one word on top of another word and within that they've used the total 30 inches so in general up there, if you look at it together, you'd see 30 inches is the size of the letter. Councilman Boyt: I rem~e~er when that came through. We had, not you and I but there was a similar discussion about signs size and at so~ sacrifice this center accepted letters that were smaller than what they wanted. Now we're turning around and saying to the next center that comes in, well forget that standard. We're now going to give you 5 foot letters for your major tenant. I'm not sure that that's being fair. Jim Winkles: The difference there, and since we were involved in that project obviously and since we still own that project, in fairness to those people out there, I think the type of lettering that when we were involved in that project we went back to the tenants and said can you live with this? This is where we're at and they decided that they could. The anchor tenants in that particular case. The difference though is that that project in terms of the building, the road relationship, this building is set back almost 4 to 5 times greater distance from the road than what this building is. Town Square right there is set back only about 70 feet from West 78th Street. Now some of the distances, now I haven't measured it but just looking at it, I would guess that the western portion of some of these projects is going to be set back 500 feet from Market Blvd. so the distance in terms of the automobile driving and looking at the sign is going to be substantially greater on Market Blvd. and West 78th Street than they would here. Granted however that the Super Value is closer. I mean Super Value is probably set back about 40 to 50 feet farther than the closest point from West 78th Street to Town Square. I grant you that is probably an exception which is I guess in my experience has been that the anchor tenants, the big tenant has typically been given so~ preferential treatment so 35 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 I guess I would argue that the differences here is simply the distance back from the road which I think has a significant impact in terms of visibility. Mayor Chmiel: Jim, what's the difference in structure heights? Jim Winkles: Structure heights, where the signing, the peak of Town ScAlare is probably a little bit lower than so~_~e of the peaks on this building that will be out there. The difference also in this particular case is you've got to remember that we've got, where Town Sca]are effectively has a very level situation to it. Not m~]ch elevation difference. You see the parking lot there's probably a foot and a half grade difference from one end of the parking lot to the other end of the parking lot and this site frc~ the north side to the south side, we're talking about a 2g foot grade elevation difference and I don't think anybody would believe that if you went out and just looked at the site right now, there's 20 feet difference from West 78th Street down to the south part of the site which means the buildings will have a step to it too as you down which means that the building in some areas is going to be much lower than the road so you're going to be_ looking down at different elevations and at c~]ite a distance. This is going to be going all the way through. If you look down from, you know the intersection of West 78th and Market Blvd. down to the southwest corner of the site down there, you're probably talking abo~]t a distance of 1,1g0-1,2gg feet. You're talking about c~]ite a distance here. Councilman Boyt: So one of the assumptions we could make is that the proposed vet clinic and dry cleaners would certainly have letters or sign areas not to exceed 3~ inches. We could just assuage that because that's fronting... Winkles: Yeah. They wouldn' t be allowed the 5 foot sign, wall signs. Councilman Boyt: It seemed to me that when we put this center in, it %ms at some sac~ifice that Total Mart or whatever the na~m is. Jim Winkles: It ' s Brooke ' s. Councilman Boyt: That Brooke's accepted that they would put their gas p~m~ps in but not put prices up and yet because of the City's overwhelming concern about signs and the low ~pact we w-anted to have with signs, there's no gas price signs over there. They had them temporarily but they're gone now. I think we need to have that same sort of conservatism when we consider. Now maybe on the wall that fronts on TH 5, I can see the need if you're going to try to pull vision off of that highway to have a big letter but I would think that once you get people down into Market Blvd., they've already decided they're coming to see you and the letter just needs to be big enough so they can find you out of the whole strip. So I'd sure like this idea of letters to be examined. I agree with you. You are considerably further off the road and that needs to play a part, from Market Blvd. While I was surprised to hear MGM's currently at 6 feet, the thought of a 5 foot letter just has a shock value I guess. Jim Winkles: I think it does because when a person thinks about that, as you're standing out here and thinking ~, that's really large. On the other hand, a distance factor can change that. It really does and I would agree. You think 5 feet or 6 feet, I would never have guessed that MGM is 6 feet myself. I would never have guessed it. 36 City Council M~eting - October 23j 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Besides Bill, there's a lot of near sighted peoplel Brad Johnson: Bill, if you go over and look at the video store over there. That's about 3 1/2 on that tenant. They all were put in because they wanted, I believe it was built before they had the new building...but the idea was that was supposed to be attractive to TH 5. We actually could not believe the height. I went over and looked and...go over and look because I could not believe it but it is and really the distance you are away. Like he's saying, we're 400 to 800 feet away from the major traffic area and signage is, in our leases they're asking for certain kind of signage. The major tenants. Super Value alone is bigger than all of Town Square. Town Square is a 18,000 s~]are foot center and the first phase of the Super Value store is 22,000 and you're just kind of got to get this all in, this is a big building. We're still sticking with the primary idea...15% of it's frontage to be signage. Isn't that correct? That's kind of the standard. There's no letter size but 15% of the frontage that they use to ban for signage. We have in our first center, in all of our centers, set a sign standard in every single one that fits each particular area. Each particular location. So the clinic has like a 2 foot basis. It just depends on where they're located and how far from the road and how big the tenant. Councilman Boyt: Well Brad you know that we've got some real specific re~]irements on sign size. In the City ordinance we have maximum area that you can have. Brad Johnson: 15% of the front of the building. Councilman Boyt: Isn't it 6 feet high and something in terms of total sign? Well, I'm ready to move on. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to do that too. Jim Winkles: There was just one other concern was the drive thru that ca~e up and the drive thru was in fact eliminated frcm these plans and the Planning Co~mission just said, come on back. Effectively said they would agree that they'd let ~ come back again. Leave the issue open whether or not we could have a drive thru...to prove to theml whether or not it could work. Now with the cleaners that's out there, that has to be proven I guess that that works like that. Mayor Ctm~iel: Jim, what I'd like to do is probably have Mr. Cooper just address that issue. Brad Johnson: The drive thru is not a drive thru on the cleaners. It's a covered parking lane. It's not like a window where you're going in. It's you drive in, get out of your car, go in, come back out and go. It's not like, it's a different situation. Jim Winkles: It' s a canopy. Gary Cooper: I j,~mt wanted to address the signage. My name is Gary Cooper and I'm the perspective proprietor. I think I've learned to look at supermarkets differently now than I looked at them 10 years ago. We own two supermarkets and I used to think they were our stores. What I've realized is they're not our 37 City Council Y~eting - October 23, 1989 stores. The people that shop in our stores consider them their stores and I think in re{jards to the signing, I think there's some reasons ~ny when this becomes your store, there would be some reasons why you wo~ld like good signing. If you look ~]p and down TH 5 at our competition. At Rainbow. At Driskill's down here. Driskill's up there. If you look at supermarkets all over that we're competing with, they all have very significant signage and what will happen is, in order to give you the kind of c~]ality and the kind of low prices that we'd like to give you in this store, we're going to need as much vol~,~e as we can. Those signs will help drive that vol%~e add in my business I can have all the intentions in the world to deliver you c~]ality products at low prices but in order to do that you've got to have the vol,~e. So like those signs we're talking about, there's probably $20,0~0.~g-$3~,~gg.gg worth of signs. It's a big expense. The only reason we want to spend that money on those signs is to help ,_Is give you the kind of store that you'd like to call your store and that's a store where %ce can get the traffic in the store to get the vol,~le just to keep those prices and to keep that c~]ality down there. Just the cost of the signs. If it wouldn't drive that volt, re, if it wouldn't be a necessary ingredient to give you that kind of c~.~ality store, we wouldn't want to spend the money on it so that's all I wanted to say about that. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask a c~_]estion? You mentioned Rainbow Foods. How many sc~.]are feet is that? Gary Cooper: I don' t know. Councilman Boyt: What about Driskill's? Do you know how big that is? Gary Cooper: I don't know but Rainbow's is half the front of the building. It's gargantuan. CounciLman Boyt: No, I don't mean the size of the sign. t mean the sc~_]are footage of the bllilding it's on. Gary Cooper: The sc~_]are footage of the building is, I think it's a 60,090 sca]are foot building. Councilman Boyt: Th_~ee times the size? Gary Cooper: Yeah, it's 3 times the size but the sign is much, much larger than what we're talking about. We're not asking for that kind of signage but I'm just feeling that we need t~he presentation so that we can, it's just part of what we need to have the vol~e to give you the kind of store you deserve. That's the only point I have to make. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. Tom? Councilman Workman: Bill started out with the first item on Monterey and I think that's one of the biggest concerns that I have and then going to item 4. One of item 4's, outdoor storage area to be enclosed by a rock faced wall. What I wo,]ld like to see as a condition and incidentally, I like the detail of this }~eport. I guess that's a cc~pliment to staff. We look at a lot of different things and a lot of things were uncovered and looked at. The condition that I'd like to add is that all the conditions must be completed as a part of the general construction of the project and shall not be left to tenants. In 38 City Co,]ncil Meeting - October 23~ 1989 particular the o,]tdoor storage, rear outdoor storage areas. In other words~ these improve~lents shall not become a rec~]irement of a current or future tenant. Taking into account that I think it's sc~lething that needs to be completed so we don't have to go back to tenants and say that looks ugly, let's cover it up. My only other point is, if we can scmehow between the developer and the City in regards to the existing bus stop on Market Blvd., take into account current and future transportation problems and that a curb cut be made to move a parked bus off of Market Blvd. for safety. Does everybody kind of know what I'm talking about? I don't know how we would work with that. If we'd have to rec~ire an easem~ent. I think as Market Blvd. opens up and that's going to be this season yet, I think we're going to have a lot of traffic there. We had a situation up on West 78th where the bus stops in the morning now and evening I believe and it's a problem~. I think the bus stop is an amenity to this site and I think somehow we should work to move it off the road for safety. That's it. Councilwc~an Dimler: I'm looking at item! 1 and especially that the PUD agreement provide for landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. I'm assailing that that's a rec~irem~ent that you put forth on page 9. Paul, is that correct? Paul K~auss: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Has anything been done to have this be a req~]irement for all developers rather than just this particular one? Paul Krauss: Yes Councilwoman Dimler. We have made that proposal to the Planning Co~m~ission and they indicated that tl]ey would support us bringing them~ an ordinance amendment that would make that requirement for all non-single family development in the City. We've got a lengthy list of these things that we have to bring to them but that is one of the ones. Councilwoman Dimler: That is being done and relatively fast I hope. Also on item 5, I guess what I heard Jim to say is that he, it says in there that no additional access will be provided to serve (k]tlot A. Is that what Jim was talking about when he wanted a time? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimle~: Okay. How does staff feel about that? Paul tO~auss: We have very serious reservations of-any additional access to Outlot A. As you noted with the bus concern, there is going to be a~ significant vol~m~e of traffic on those area streets as the CBD develops. We're doing everything we can to channel ize that. To make it flow smoothly and we've talked to BRW about this. Our engineering department has done a lot of work on it as well. We believe there simply isn't room to safely do it between any of the existing curb cuts or the proposed ones and the corner. Everyti~-~ you introduce a new curb cut, you have traffic slowing down. Speeding up. Turning in. Turning out. We also have a site plan here that gives Outlot A the best access of any property in this project. It has the two main access points on either side of the propsrty. It actually has better access than the Super Value does so not only do we think it's a hazard and don't reco~end that it be allowed, we don't see the need either. 39 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Co~mcilwoman Dimler: I g~]ess with that information I wo~]ld reco~lend that item 5 stay as is. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Councilwoman Dimler: That' s it. Mayor CTm~iel: Okay, the only thing, no sense reiterating what everyone else is saying. I think that the sign size of the letters to be put on that building of 5 feet, because of distances and size of the struct~]res that are compatible in ~ opinion. The other thing that I see within the staff recommendation as you indicated in there, that there are lg following conditions. That should be indicated as 11 conditions. With Tom's that would be 12. Paul Kl-a~]ss: That's supposed to be the, not ten. Mayor Chmiel: With the_ following conditions instead of teh? Okay. With that I guess so_~_le of the concerns, the only concerns I had too was given adjacent to Monterey b~]t I think from what I've seen in those pictures, it's sort of clarifies to me that it's not just going to be the back side of the building. Will each of those businesses have access from the back door or is that going to be just a back door policy for loading and unloading? Bill Brisley: Each business will have their own back door. Mayor Chmiel: Will it be accessible from the back? Okay. That's all I have. I'm ready to entertain a motion. Councilman Boyt: I have a couple more questions. Mayor Ctmliel: Are they... Councilman Boyt: They' re pertinent to this. Mayor Chmiel: Let's try to pull it together within a short period of time though. Councilman Boyt: I'd love to. Parking. We talked about parking. I guess I can just start out by saying that I think grocery stores demand a great deal of parking and if it's going to work Gary, you want to have a lot of parking. I see the staff going to 4.5 which they say is standard for shopping centers. I just wonder if that's standard for grocery stores. Pa~l KIauss: The standard that I'm ~]sing... CounciL, lan Boyt: Wait a minute. We've got our expert here. Gary Cooper: The development people from Super Value say it's outstanding. That there's reserve parking for expansion and that they have people that are experts in this and Plan Mark reviewed it and they said the parking situation we have is just outstanding. We don't have to fudge on it at all. We negotiated real hard to get what we want and we got the kind of parking that we think will be excellent for the supermarket. 40 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Boyt: On this landscaping plan there's a berm between Monterey and the back' side of the building. How high is that? Are we talking about something that's going to shield the back of that building? Paul Krauss: No. I believe it's in the 2 to 3 foot height range. Bill Brisley: 4 feet at the... Paul Krauss: It's 4 foot at the top. Bill Brisley: 4 foot at the top but that's only... Councilman Boyt: Interestingly enough, given their desire to have visibility off of TH 5, we're putting in 10 and 12 foot firs along that south face. That's going to contrast somewhat with their desire to have visibility. Why can't we do something like that on Monterey whexe I don't think Monterey's going to be s~ly a back access. It ~y be to your shopping center but there's bound to be develotm~ent on the west side of Monterey which people are going to be driving into. I'd like to see us do more to screen the back of your building frc~ that road. Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could respond to that. The reason we were so sensitive about the back of the building is that there are a lot of things back there that no one off site really need look at in terms of truck loading, trash compacters, outdoor storage areas, that sort of thing. It's also more difficult to screen than the Monterey exposure. The Monterey exposure you can put a bek~ in so they're putting 6 foot trees on a 3 to 4 foot high berm. E~le to the lay of the land, it's not possible to put a berm behind that section of the building facing south to TH 5. In the absence of that, we elected to reco~m~end oversized installation of trees at initial construction. Councilman Boyt: What I'm asking you is do we have enough trees between the building and Monterey, even given the 3 foot or 4 foot berm, is staff convinced that we have screened that off? Paul Krauss: If you're asking if you won't see the back of the building, no. You will see the back of the building. If you're asking if there's enough landscaping to soften the ~age and to screen the trash areas and that sort of thing, we believe that that job's been accon~lished. Councilman Boyt: Just one second and maybe we're done here. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Jim, you wanted tomake a point? Jim Winkles: I guess one c~]estion and one co, m[ent. The question is regards to the bus lane. What's the thought there? Is this kind of a drop off type lane or place for the bus to pull in? Mayor Chmiel: Bus to pull in off the main road. Councilman Workman: As it sits now, the bus is really blocking traffic there. It would be. Jim Winkles: On that southbotund lane you mean? 41 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Workman: Correct. Jim Winkles: The only question I guess there is what's that mean in terms of what are we going to be doing? Do we control that I guess or is that a MTC t~vl0e of a function? It's on the public right-of-way. I guess I don't know. Is that something that 9ae have control over or we can do or something that we should try to work with the City and MIX] to try and accomplish? Councilwoman Workman: Well I would throw the word try o~]t but to accomplish it, I think MTC would only look favorably on it. MnDot. Whoever, wo~]ld look favorably. R]bl ic safety. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, wouid you like to address that? Pa~]l Kra~]ss: Well it's a design issue. We've asked the developer to put in turn lanes elsewhere. In having looked at it though, it looks as though the bus shelter ~o~]ld have to be._ relocated. I don't think there's enough room to actually make a 12 foot wide lane. As to how that would be done. Jo Ann Olsen: It'd have to go through the Southwest Metro Transit Co~mission. Councilman Workman: Well then I guess if you want me to change it, then I would say it should be moved because I'm saying it sho,]ldn't be there then. This is going to be a flurry of activity around here and we're going to have a bus at peak times sitting there and then people trying to get around it. Paul Krauss: Do we have the two southbound lanes over there Gary? Councilman Workman: There's not enough room to make a curb cut there? Gary Warren: You can get by. I think right now, what do we have? Two buses that come and leave. It's not like we have buses all during the day there but I believe you can get around them. That's my own opinion. There's enough width in the lanes out there to do that. CounciLman Workman: At 7:gg a.m. when I'm coming through downtown Chanhassen and people are gettir~g on the b~]s in front of Hooked on Classics, you're right. I can get around. I don't feel co~_~fortable with it and it might only be for a couple of minutes but it's causing problems. 2bdd Gerhardt: Yogi're talking of a different width of street there. I have talked to Southwest. It was bro~]ght up at a HRA meeting of this concern and they asked ~%s to look at the issue of a cut in. I did talk to the director, Beverly, of the HRA's concerns and she was somewhat opposed to the idea of a cut in. She felt that the bus is there for a short period of time and it does pull off to the side. It is early in the morning and she's happy with the location. I mean they did a lot of work and st~]dy on v/here to put the bus stop and they're happy there. Cn the going home side of the street, individuals are to park over in the bowling alley parking lot and they have an agreement or working with an agreement with John Dory to park over there. That was a concern of Super Value's if people were going to park in their parking lot. There will be signage put up there asking them to do that but Beveraly is scheduled for the HRA meeting in Nove~oer to bring HRA up to date on %Fnat they were looking at 42 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 doing in those areas but that was ~ conversations with her. Co,~ncilman Workman: I'm going to maintain ~ stance with a condition. Do we want to temper it sc~what and say let's look at it. I think again, this is an example of where we're not ~]ite fully looking long road down the f~ture at the transportation problems that we're creating. Certainly I don't need sc~lebody to tell me every day how thin downtown is and everything. I think we have all sorts of problems and I think we need to look a little more in the future at and this is just one little problem. I resided in the city of St. Cloud for several years and I'll tell you what, the bus situation, and believe ~ they have more buses than our city does but we're going to be big someday. Where are buses going? Where are they parking? Where are they dropping people off? It was all you heard and so I think we're going to create a problem here. I don't see this being anywhere near wide enough for a full bus to stop and have people board and get in and off of. I would suggest either a curb cut or we remove the bus stop frc~ this location totally. Jim Winkles: Could I just suggest that I don't necessarily disagree. I think your logic in the sense of looking at this as an issue that should be looked at is very good. I agree with you that we don't know what's all going to happen but could I suggest that since the MTC may or may not like the way it is right now and there could be some issues on whether it should be moved or whether it shouldn't be moved, whether this location is exactly right, I guess could I just suggest then maybe that we be rec~]ired to work with the MTC and the staff to take a look at this and maybe come back to you as a separate type of issue on s~ething like this. I think there's some issues out there right now that we don't all have our hands around. I've never talked to the MTC but I guess I'd be willing to do that with your staff and sit down and say, where should this be and what's the best thing to do here. O]rb cut, apparently we don't want anymore curb cuts on Market Blvd. so that might be... Councilman Workman: I'm just saying Jim that I don't see, and I'll have to talk to Todd tomorrow about it but I just don't see MTC saying you know, it's going to be a lot safer for us to leave that bus in the road and not move it a little bit off to the side and out of traffic. I don't see them saying that. I think they' re going to let us put this bus stop wherever we want. Jim Winkles: Again, I'm not opposed to working with the city and MTC to get this thing done. It's just I'd like to make sure I understand what it means and where it should go and try to look down the road as you suggested. Not necessarily 1989 but what it's going to mean in 1982 when there's hopefully going to be thousands of more people out here. Councilman Workman: And we' re going to have 5 b~es a day. Jim Winkles: My other comment then, if I could make one last pitch. Just giving us the opportunity to come back on the access. I understand and we understand frc~ the City Engineers and frc~ the staff that they don't see it and I may not see it right now but there are those uses and there are those things that might suggest it could be different. Otherwise, I guess we would just like that opportunity to co~e back and not necessarily, we understand full well that it might be impossible. Thank you. 43 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilwoman Boyt: I have a quick question. The 13 stalls fo}~ the g~ocery expansion. What hap~cened to them because they've dropped out of your conditions and yet in your staff report you said they were hazardous? Paul Krauss: There should be a condition that says to delete those stalls. Councilman Boyt: ElJm~inate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side? Paul !O:auss: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Any other disc~]ssion? If hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm going to make a _,lotion. Try to put it all together here. The subject being the rezonlng of a PUD ~89-2, develolm~ent stage approval for the preliminary plat for Market Sc~_]are with the 11 conditions proposed by staff and Councilman Workman's condition making it n~m~oer 12. Also that Jim work with the City and the MTC on the bus iss,]e to acco~odate future traffic on Market Blvd.. Did I include everything? Counci]m~an Boyt: It' s Southwest Metro. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So~]thwest Metro instead of MTC. Also, condition 5 stays as is. Paul Krauss: I was just trying to clarify something. Tom, you proposed a stipulation regarding all conditions must be incorporated. Was that part of it? Counci]m~an Workman: Yeah. I think that was condition 12 and then the bus thing was 13. I would second that motion basically then, the condition for the bus stop, I guess I would like to amend it to basically say move it or lose it. Change it or move it. Mayor Chmiel: I like the othe.~: one better. Move it or lose it. Okay. CounciLman Workman: Do you accept that? Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine. I'll accept that. Councilman Dimler moved, Co~mcilman Workman seconded PUD #89-2 Development Stage approval for the preliminary plat for Market Square subject to the following conditions: 1. Enter into a PUD contract with the city that will contain all of the conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted in the project. The PUD agreement should provide for a landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. 2. Obtain final plat approval for the site prior to rec~]esting building pek~its. 3. Enter into a development contract with the city that rec~]ires financial sureties with construction plans to be_ approved by the City Engineer and City Co,tacit for all public improve~ents. 44 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 4. Revise architectural plans as need to: -confi~.~l that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west elevations; -trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with the main building; -relocate the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the building or incorporate it into the structure; -outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall; -the trash cc~pactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall and relocated to the north to provide a 24' wide drive aisle; and -the addition of any drive-up windows will rec~]ire site plan approval wherein it will be the applicant's responsibility to d~onst~ate that internal circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be ~pacted. 5. O~tlot A is rec~]ired to have buildings designed to utilize architectural compatible with the shopping center. No additional access will be provided to serve ~k]tlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed when the outlot is developed. The sign must be identical to monument signage allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the owner shall establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition. Parking rec~_]ir~ents for the outlot should be satisfied on it. 6. Modify and/or regulate access and parking as follows: -provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street curb cut; -delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in front of the super market. A pedestrian crosswalk-shall be installed on Market Boulevard adjacent to the bus shelter. The crosswalk shall be painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Manual on Traffic Controls. That the applicant work with the City staff and the Southwest Metro Transit Cc~ission on moving the bus shelter to acco~odate for future traffic on Market Boulevard; -eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side of the super market expansion andmodify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space at the end of the aisle; -all leases for the main building should r~]ire that ~loyee parking be located at the rear of the center; and -any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a site plan review procedure. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate parking ade~]acy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this requirement; and -all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete. 7. The landscaping plan should bemodified as follows: -increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6' to 10-12'; and -remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and landscape the space. 8. Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should incorporate the following: -the 72" sto~.m sewer is to be installed by the developer; -Installation of the line should be covered by the development contract. The City can reasonably allow building permits to be issued with the 45 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway and utility improvements will be_ installed simultaneously with the construction of the buildings; -the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhold #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius; -project approval by the Watershed District is rec~]ired prior to building pek~it iss~]ance; and -an erosion control plan acceptable to the city should be submitted prior to rec~]esting building pe~its. 9. D:ovide final roadway and utility plans for approval. The existing lg" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing acceptable to the City. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be reproved. The applicant will suh~it detailed const3:uctlon plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built s~lar plans upon completion of construction. 10. Provide wT:itten and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description in the October 23, 1989 staff report. The covenants will be filed with the PUD contract. 11. Review the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the super market and between the two Market Boulevard curb c~]ts. 12. All the conditions must be completed as a part of the general construction of the project and shall not be left to tenants, i.e. rear outdoor storage areas, etc.. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR HIGHWAY 212. Paul Krauss: The City Council is being asked to adopt the official map for Highway 212 corridor. The official map procedures are designed to assist in the identification and preservation of land that may be needed for highway right-of- way. I'd also point out that Eden Prairie, Chaska and I believe Carver County have already adopted the official maps for their co~unities. The atigrm~ent illustrated in the official map has been reviewed extensively by the City and by area residents over a series of meetings. It incorporates the desire north Lake Riley rout].ng and modifications to the TH lgl alignment that were advocated by the City. The Planning Co~ission reviewed the map on Septe~oer 14th and reco~ended that it be approved. If the official map is adopted tonight, staff expects to have re,Jests for funding using what is known as the RALF progra~ to acquire and preserve right-of-way. The program allows the City to use a revolving loan fund administered by the Metro Council, f~]nded by the State, for early acc~isition of right-of-way in those cases where the property owner has e~inent development or the fact that there's an alignment creates a hardship. I'd also point out that work is proceeding on the envirnomental impact study for the TH 212 corridor. A draft has been developed and it's anticipated that ~he final doc~m~ent will be completed and approved by early next s~mmer. M~. Evan Green from MnDot is present tonight and can help answer any c~_]estions relating particularly to the highway corridor. Thank you. 46 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Evan Green: My name is Evan Green. I work for the Minnesota Department of ~ansportation, Golden Valley office. We've been out here many times on this Th 212. I know as Paul stated we've had many meetings and what we brought before you tonight is the proposed official map for a north Lake Riley corridor. The Environmental Impact Stat~lent is still under study. It may be some time before it's completed. What this map will do will preserve a right-of-way and the City has a, it's up the city whether they want to do this or not and keep it clear of additional development. The other routes along the line are filling up as you're probably aware of. I know I see the plats c~ into our department for review all the time and as time goes on I'm sure this area will fill up also with development. If there are any questions I guess I'll try to answer them. At this point that's all I have to say. Councilman Boyt: While you're there, it's my understanding that before the official map can be adopted, the EIS has to be completed. Is that wrong? Evan Green: No, that's not correct. This is an action the City can take on their own. There's a law on the books that they can adopt an official map within the metro area of a proposed highway. It's actually the City's map. I want you to understand that. This is not MnDot's map. We are cooperating with the City in establishing the alignment and surveying. Councilman Boyt: Okay, I don't see it in here but when we approve the process and basically designated two routes, or Jo Ann didn't we establish so~_~e conditions with that? I don't see them in here. Jo Ann Olsen: I don't recall that we did. Evan Green: There are two routes still under study in the EIS process. Councilman Boyt: But we can't map th~m~, we can't put official maps on anything more than one right? Evan Green: Well that's up to you. That's up to the City. Councilman Boyt: So we can officially map both of them? Evan Green: Yeah, but we will not provide you with another map for the south Lake Riley. Councilman Boyt: What does that ~an? We can do it but you won't give us any money? Evan Gr~een: Well you can do it on your own just as you mapped TH 101. You did that alone. Between proposed TH 212 and TH 5. Councilman Boyt: What if, so the advantage of ~]tting this on the official map is that we now, then we c~]alify for these funds? Evan Green: That plus you have, you can protect that corridor from additional development. Councilman Boyt: Without ~.~ing these funds. I mean we can't just say you can't develop them? 47 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Evan Green: Right, and that' s where tine r~b comes normally. The developer's ready to go and you can't stop him. With the official map adopted, you would have the opport~]nity to get a loan from the Met Council, interest free to purchase that right-of-way. Councilman Boyt: Okay, how much money does the Met Council have to help us out here? Evan Green: I don't have t_he exact figures. Paul, do you know? Paul tO:auss: I don't either. The State has appropriated several million dollars several times. In speaking to Ann Braydon at the Metro Council, she indicated that right now there are still funds available but basically that you've got to get it ~fnile the getting's good because they anticipate a lot of demand. If I could too Bill, there's also the concern that this official mapping process does more than just make the RALF f~mding program funds available. It provides a level of certainty or greater level of certainty to property owners as to what will be the impact of the highway. ~nere will it go or where do we anticipate it going. It also allows for a process whereby when a subdivision comes in, we know what to ask for in terms of dedication. We would be in a position to say, we want to take as much for public purposes as we have a right to. The third thing is that it has that building permit process where it takes a variance to actually pull a building per, tit for a structure located within the official corridor. Councilman Boyt: Well Paul, one, both of these routes are extremely enviror~ental sensitive. Once we do an official map on one of them, then we have by default let the other one go and the interesting c~lestion to ute is we go thro~]gh and we do this and then we don't have the money. A developer comes in and says well, now that you've got it, I want to put a hotel in there, or whatever is the max~mtt~t that's allowed by the zone so we go and we apply to Met Council for the money and they say, well we'll give you half of it. Or we don't have any to give you. Now what? Evan Green: That could happen. There's all sorts of things that could happen. I think what you're trying to do with this official map is look a little bit at the future in trying to protect a possible alignment for that future highway. know most of the developers along that alignment have been in and I know Chan Hills has platted according to this alignment. I know there are several others along the alignment that are about ready or I don't know where they're at with their develoimtents exactly but it's bound to happen I know that. CounciLman Boyt: I reme~oer the discussion of about a year and a half ago when the room was filled with people and there certainly was not any uninemity over whether this should be the north or the south route. One of the key c~]estions was what's it going to do to the wetlands? How are we going to protect the wetla~ds? b~nat's it going to do to noise in my neighborhood and so on and now I see us doing something that I'm real skeptical that the Met Council has that much money because I know that we' re not the only highway in town that's appealing to those ft]nds. I see us making a decision, for good reason. Clearly we've got a lot of pressure from developers and they have a right to know but I don't see the City in a position where we can win no matter what we do. 48 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Evan Green: I don't see where you can lose by adopting it CounciL-~an Boyt: Because then we take the south route and we say, well we're not going to do that. Gary Warren: If I could add a co~m~ent maybe. I guess from ~perspective in looking at the process, what we're doing is putting the control in the hands of the City, the City Council in particular, to decide once we do official map ~nether we do want to restrict development there or not because and Paul you can correct ~ if I'm wrong here, if a plat cc~es in, a bonafide proposal or subdivision and we choose for whatever reason that we don't want to buy the property. I mean we let the plat go ahead right? Just because we've officially mapped it doesn't mean that we have to buy the property. It's our option all the way through the process here. It does provide us the control on a plan, ,~thodical basis I think to react with this tool to develotm~ents that do co~ in to the benefit of both parties. Concerning mapping both alternates, if that's a consideration, I think the last thing that anybody wants to do is i~ly that this route that we have foregone any further consideration on the other routes that are being looked at in the EIS but it's I think limited resources g~e here. MnDot has taken their best evaluation of what they believe in all good conscience to be the most preferred route taking in a lot of factors here. That's their decision and they took the effort, survey expense and whatever to plot this map for this route. To look at the other alternates would be city expense I guess obvio~ly to do the surveying and to do the amount of effort that they've done similar to what we did on TH 101 at our expense to officially map it, which we certainly could do as Even co~m~ented here but it's a financial resources ga,~ I guess. CounciLn~an Boyt: What happens when we get a million dollars in loan? Does that mean that MnDot is now fully co~m~itted? We're not going to postpone this thing? It's actually going to be built? Evan Green: I can't say right now that we're fully co~m~itted to building the whole route. I do know that we have 9 million in the '93 program, 25 million in our '94 prog~am and 22 million dollars in our '95 program to construct out here. CounciLn~an Boyt: So if there's no legislative cut in your rec~]est? Evan Green: That's right and that's where the official map comes in though. I mean you know yourself sooner or later some sort of a highway's going to be built out here. TH 5 is not going to handle all of the develotm~ent that's being proposed out here day after day in your city and in Chaska. And I might say, we're co~m~itted to ~mking whatever we build there environmentally sound. I mean we're also concerned about the wetlands and stuff and we share your concern there so that will be considered in whatever we do out here. Councilman Boyt: This is a very major decision. I hope there's so~ ~blic on this to comment. I'm done. Thanks. Mayor Ctmliel: Unless someone else has some specific c~]estions. CounciLnlan Workman: Is this a public hearing? 49 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: This is a p~]blic hearing and I'm waiting for some public co~ent. Anyone who's wishing to address this, cc~e forward and please state your n~,~e and your address. Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm here representing Lakeview Hills Inves_tment Group which owns the Lakeview Hills Apartments. The Lakeview Hills Apartment property is on the east end of Lake Riley Boulevard where it terminates at the Eden Prairie line and the property is bounded on the north by Rice Marsh Lake and on the south by Lake Riley. That's R-12 zoned property. We have 52.8 acres there approximately and about 170 apartment units on that property. When the investment group bought the property, it was with the intention that they would ultimately develop the balance of the property. The history of this property goes back to 1963 when the Chanhassen Town Board approved the plan for the apartment complex and that plan contemplated that there would be 350 additional units on the property and the owners have had that intention of ~]ltimately developing the property to it's full potential. The corridor in question here takes a very wide swath through the property. We believe it results in the loss of virtually all of the buildiDg sites on the property. It diminishes the value of the residue which will be located north of TH 212 where we will have no access to that property seriously d~inishing the value of that residue. On the southerly portion, which includes the buildings, the apartment buildings, we believe that it also will have an adverse affect on the apartment buildings in that there will be additional noise. We won't be able to have ready access to that particular highway. The character of the project will change as a result of the project. We lose the country living type atmosphere that goes with the project. O]r buildings are turned into a highway buffer type of apartment project which has a totally different character from what we are accustomed to doing and in s~m~ary, the owners are opposed to this particular alignment because we believe it has s~]ch an adverse affect on the value of our property. Mayor Chmiel: Any specific c~]estions? This is a public hearing. I knew yogi were going to come up Al. A1 Klingelhutz: Why do you think I was sitting here for all night. I'm going to wear two hats tonight. One as a County Co~issioner and one as a resident of Chanhassen and the road which really affects ~ property considerably. First I'm going to be a County Co~issioner. Eden Prairie, Chaska have already approved the mapping of this project. Tomorrow at the County Co~issioner meeting we will be approving the mapping in Chaska Township ~nd I hope you go through with the mapping here in Chanhassen tonight. I've sat on the TH 212 Corridor Co~tission upwards of aLnLost 30 years now. It's been a long battle. I personally like the south of Riley Lake aligr~tent better but since all the other co~unities and Chanhassen has indicated that they prefer the northern rottte, I'm not going to fight that route even if it very adversely affects -my property. I think it's time that we get a cohesive effort and tell the highway department this is where we're going to put this road. If we delay mapping in Chanhassen, it cot]ld delay the putting in of TH 212 c~]ite a few years yet. There's been an awful lot of discussion on this road for I don't know how many times there's been meetings up here. There's meetings over at the Carver County Courthouse and I think it's very important that you go ahead with the mapping of this project tonight. I think there's one thing I'm going to say about, as a citizen and a land owner in the corridor. Especially in the TH 101 corridor. Last spring I had Keith Barts' property for sale. Had four different offers on the property and camle up to City Hall here and asked where TH 101 was going to go. City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 I was pretty much told where it was going to go and when the offer came in, one of the buyers came up to City Hall and they were told it was going to go on a different area. Eventually there were four different alternates for it to go where it is now, where it's proposed it's going to go to the east of Barts' barn. We didn't lose the sale and I don't know if it's still hanging in there but they said they wouldn't go any further on the purchase of that property until they definitely knew where TH 101 was going to go. R/aat's why I think it's important for landowners to know what's going to happen and I think it's also important, and I understand the Planning Co~lission is going to start working on so~ zoning on scale of these areas, that the zoning be completed as soon as possible in the areas where this highway is going to go. You can't let everything hang in li~oo until sc~leone comes in and says this is what I want to do here. I think the zoning should be t~]t on the property so that developers and landowners know what they've got. Thank you. Co~nciL-~an Workman: That ' s three hats A1. Resident, realtor, con~issioner. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who'd like to address this issue? This is a public hear lng. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dim]er seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any specific concerns and I'm ready to move on it. Councilman Workman: I think I'll remain silent at this point. CounciL, lan Boyt: It may be difficult to recognize the emotional atmosphere that we had a year and a half ago on this issue. I can only guess that the people that wanted this to go through the south route have given up, since we didn't hear from them tonight except for the apartment owners. I can see the need to have an official map. I just, it really, I find it difficult to get pushed into something and we really are. Eden Prairie has pushed us into this thing. Oar own desire to have the road pushes us into it. Eden Prairie dealt with their official map quite some time ago. Chanhassen didn't. So now we find ourselves with I think very limited options and ~k3ybe officially we still have a south option but I maintain that once you drop, we accept this map, we've given up on the south option financially. I can understand the need to do this. I'm real ~elunctant to see ~_m go forward and vote on it. We ought to have the EIS done. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Okay, I guess I feel that the TH 212 has been something discussed ever, much of the Minutes that I had read back in 1987. It's been here for a long time. It's been a discussionary item~ to try to pull the traffic flow coming off through Eden Prairie and of course in adjacent to TH 5 and coming off of the TH 212 corridor. I think as the city's growing and the city's progressing, the need basically is there. There's no question. Having problems with TH 5, if any of you drive TH 5 as I do every day, it becomes rather congested and I wouldn't want to see that corridor becc~e any more congested within TH 212 either. Having another access going through means it's going to move that flow a lot better, a lot c~icker and it's going to accommodate more of the people within the area to make Chanhassen grow as well. 51 City Collncil Meeting - October 23, 1989 I gl]ess I'_nl co;~ing from that particular area saying that I think we should move ahead and have the official map for TH 212 indicated. Any other discussions? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to add that I do believe that MnDot does have our enviror~tental concerns at heart and I think that they will include everything that we would include as far as protecting our environment so I'm really not concerned about that. I can understand Bill's concern about that but I think they're taken care of. Mayor Chmiel: I'm assured too that MnDot does look at the environment very closely. Has as much concern as the balance of t~he state and in all locations they're constantly looking as to how to dive~t and go past so, re of those specific real concerns. With that I will entertain a motion. A1 Klingelhutz: I know you've approved a portion of TH 1~1 mapping but have you approved it from that portion to where it connects on the south end of the farm? Col]ncil.nlan Boyt: TH lgl? A1 Klingelhutz: Z~ lgl. Gary Warren: The official map has been approved to the TH 212 connection. A1 Klingelhutz: Not the portion from TH 212 south? To where it turns south to Shakopee again. Ga~y Warren: It's been approved from TH 5 to Lyman Boulevard basically. Mayor Chmiel: With that I'm entertaining a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I move that we approve the official map of Trunk Highway 212 as presented in this report. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it. Councilman Boyt: This doesn't take a unanimous vote does it? Three-fifths will do it? Mayor Ctm~iel: Three-fifths will do it. CounciL~an Boyt: I'm going to vote against it so. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, clarification? Roger Kn~]tson: A c~]estion. Are we going to have any abstentions? Councilwoman Dimler: Are you voting? CounciLn~an Work~an: I should probably abstain. Roge.~: Knutson: I'd recou~end that the matter be tabled until your next meeting. Councilman Wo~:kman: Maybe I should explain. 52 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: No. Your abstention is understandable because of one of the other positions that you hold. Yeah, why don't you explain it. Councilman Workman: How cc~ Workman's so da~m ~iet during this whole thing. I'm cho~ing at the bit. I'm the coordinator of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition which is prc~oting Highway 212 and the development of expanded TH 5 so I've chosen to be quiet and I choose not to vote this evening. Councilman Boyt: Maybe I don't have the luxury of voting against this. I'd like to but on the other hand, give me an alternative. There isn't one. That's what led to the vote of a year and a half ago and that's what will lead to this thing being approved so if Tom isn't going to vote, then let's be on with it I guess. Re~tution-~89 1t4: Councilwoman Di~er moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the adoption of the Official Map for Highway 212 as presented by MnDot. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who abstained and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF LAKE LUCY PUBLIC ACCESS. Lori Sietsema: This item has been placed on the agenda to tie up some loose ends on the whole chain of lakes clean up project. I've received verbal notice, nothing in written fo~m~ yet but I've received verbal notice from the MPCA that the grants for the Lake Riley chain of lakes clean up project will be diverted. The bulk of those funds will be diverted to other projects. They do not feel that the money can be spent ~]ickly enough for th~ to keep the funds in that project. They are however leaving enough funds for the project to complete the work plan and all the revisions that are re~]ired of the work plan. That's EPA's way of showing that they feel that it is a valid project and that they are supporting it although they can't continue to keep these funds in this project. They've indicated that once the work plan has all been revised and the access is in place on Lake Lucy that funds, another grant can be applied for at a later time. They also did caution however, that it is likely that if a future grant is pursued, that the local matching share will very likely be greater than it was on this project being as ~ch 25% to 50% of the project. If a future grant is sought, a public boat access will be re~]ired to be in place prior to consideration of any application. The EPA has indicated they will not consider the City's offer to fund the Lake Lucy portion of the project as they feel there are benefits that will go to that lake with the rest of the project being done. Given that, three options r~ain on what to do tonight. We can choose a site or we can choose to do nothing and wait to see if a future grant is applied for. In the meanti~ the DNR has offered to construct a boat access, a t~orary access that would be gravel, just extending the gravel road that's in Greenwood Shores. ~]tting in four parking spaces and a concrete plank ra~ into the lake. That would be at no cost to the City. What could happen then in doing that, it would allow us to monitor the traffic amounts that this access is going to generate when we look at a long term, permanent access for the lake and reviewing how the access is used, we can take that into consideration as we design and purchase property for an access elsewhere. If a temporary access is ~]rsued, it's likely that the Dirk's property will not be available in the future. They have offers on their property or they're looking to build a home on their property and sell it. That would l~it our choice for a permanent access right now to either 53 City Council _Meeting - October 23, 1989 re, lain at Greenwood Shores Park or for the Christensen property. To tie up this whole project process, what we are looking to tonight is if we're going to go for pe~.~lanent access on one of the sites or have the DNR put in the temporary access or to wait and see when a future grant is applied for. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I'm still in the position of saying wait and see right now. I'm also in contact with an ir~ividual to see if we can't get some dollar allocations for Lake Lucy of which the rec~.iest was asked about $52,090.gg. I've not had a response back yet. Ho~fully I will get a response back. Put that life back in to a condition as to ~nat we are looking for. N[m~er one, the killing off of whatever fish are contained in there. I still have some real concerns. I don't know if you've seen this Lori but On Poison Pond. This is something that was put out, what affect it really has on the lake, the fish and whatever else happens for years to cc~e. It specifically addresses the DNR and those issl_ies. Digressing a little bit wlnat I expect to see a potential of having that fish kill in there with some aeration within that lake which would be part of it and the restocking of the lake with fish. Hopef~llly, probably by next council meeting I sho~ld have some indication one way or the other but as Jay has indicated previously, that would be ludicro~%s to put this in in that particular location. I think I've indicated some of the reason before hand when that park was given to the City it was indicated as a walk in kind of park and r~lain as such. There are safety factors contained within that area. It's within a residential area. A lot of children there and that's one of my real concerns. I don't think it's a location of having fishez~en cc~ing in with their boats and cars and it's not a very safe area to locate or to even go in and out. So it's sc~e of those concerns basically I see there's, and I'll reiterate the dangers to the neighborhood children. I think I'm still in that position of wait and see. I'd like to get the balance of those lakes cleaned up. I think if we can sit in on the position as I've indicated, we can eliminate a lot of those given problems. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess Lori you said that another grant could be applied for. Do you have any indication as to what our chance of getting after we apply, getting another grant although it would be smaller, at all because do they tend to see that once, they put lesser importance on it because we passed it up once? Lori Sietsema: They've indicated by funding the co~pletion of the work plan that they still feel that it's a valid project. EPA has never waivered really from that point. That the cleaning up of Lake Riley and the ~]pstream lakes is a valid project. They're only contention is that they cannot hold these funds for this project any longer at this time. They've encouraged the Watershed to complete that work plan with all of their comments and make the revisions and to reapply once we have all of our ducks in order. 5he grant was applied for and received before all of this stuff that really should have been done was done. The cart was a little bit before the horse on this one but it's likely that with the DNR's participation again and agreeing to do the work of it which is half of the project, that the funding portion of it would be split between the EPA and the Watershed would continue to be the local sponsor or if Eden Prairie or Chanhassen would have to do a joint thing or one of the cities would pick up that local sponsoring agency is really not detez~lined at this point. Councilwoman Dimler: The ~rk plan originally indicated that the major lake of concern was Lake Riley .and that we could go ahead and I think we co~]ld do 54 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 something with Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake and not really touch the upper lakes. Loir Sietsema: No. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I know it flows down into and has some affect but you know, if push comes to shove, we could do that couldn't we? Lori Sietsema: I don' t know. I've never heard that before. Everything that I've ever heard is that they can't do anything, spend dollar one on Lake Riley until they clean up the upstream lakes because it would not do anything. All they could do is prevent what's cc~ing up frc~l the river, to cc~le and put that fish barrier in and clean up Lake Riley but anything that's upstreaml, the rough fish would come right back down into it so that would be, of everything that I've ~nderstood and read, I think that would be fruitless. I don't think that that, I've not heard that that was a possibility. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess ~ feelings is if the funds are really that iffy, whether we'll ever get the project is real questionable, I think maybe also that I would be in favor of letting the Lake Lucy publiC access rest at this time. Especially in light of the fact that we're looking at other ways to cleaning up Lake Lucy. Councilman Workman: The work plan is nowhere near completion. According to Don Roberts, the work plan that we had was a work plan to do a work plan basically. Without the work plan, basically the Watershed will not spend any additional money on that work plan without the access. With the access at Greenwood Shores, the park is dead. We have high traffic in a neighborhood. We have serious safety proble~ls. I don't see anything moving on this. The funds aren't there, and you're not an EPA person. If Lake Lucy was completely blocked in by developed land and homeowners ~unwilling to sell, would EPA, PCA, be concerned about the conditions of the 4 lower lakes? Would DNR be concerned? What I'm saying is would these goverr~ent agencies be concerned, are they concerned about the condition of Riley, Susan and Rice Marsh? Lori Sietsema: The concern, the whole jist of this project was to clean up Lake Riley. There would be added benefits in that there would be conle clean up procedures that would happen to the upstream lakes but that was not the focus of the project. The project was focused on cleaning up Lake Riley. CounciL.~an Workman: Right. And without that, without the access on Lucy which there's very limited clean up in the plan. Kill off the fish. Put some aerators in and what I'm saying is, I think Christmas Lake was a situation where there were no willing sellers but finally somebody did and they jumped on it and they got it correct? Lori Sietsema: Yes. CounciL,~an Workman: If there Were no willing sellers on Lake Lucy, imagine that for a minute. Would anybody be worried about cleaning up Lake Riley? Would anybody be concerned about these lakes if in fact they couldn't get their access because it seems as though the access, and I'm not being ignorant of the fact of how the mechanism works. The access has beconle so important that actually the clean up of the lake and the health of the lakes has become so secondary that 55 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 we're willing to compromise just about anything to get fo~: DNR that access. Lori Sietsema: I know that from a local standpoint it really appears that w-ay and I can see where people would think that that is probably the case but I don't think that, the State law, the legislation says that we cannot spend public dollar one of state or federal funds witho,]t a public access on the lake that you're spending that money on. Councilman Workman: So if Lake Lucy were landlocked, they would not be concerned and could not be concerned about the health of Lake Riley? Lori Sietsem_~a: It's not that they wouldn't be concerned. They'd either have to conde~un property to obtain access. Counci]m~an Workman: l~ney don't have that option do they? Jo Dm Olsen: Yes they do. CounciL~an Workman: Everybody has that option. ~]t you know what I'm saying. That's where the frustration is because they're, I see some private initiative by the Lake Lucy homeowners and I like what I see there. They're putting in some effort and I like a lot better the way they're planning to clean ~rp their own lake than the goverr~ent agencies are planning to clean up their lake and they're willing to spend scale of their own money and we're willing to lose a neighborhood park in the process I think so. CounciLman Boyt: I think that 2 years ago when the City entered into this agreement, there was some discussion about the need to put accesses on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy and the discussion, if we had the Minutes, would show that we said it will be no problem on Lake Susan. The City has property there and anticipates getting more. It's going to be a problem on Lake Lucy. Are we sure we want to do this before we co, mit $8,ggg.gg of the City's money to this project? The Council unanJ~ously said yes we do. We're going to put access on Lake Lucy. Now if the paper is accurate, the newspaper, they've said if I interpret it correctly, that the MPCA has said we will clean up Lake Riley if you put an access on Lake Lucy. You do it and we'll do our part. There's going to be_ a shift in kind of the, the City isn't going to get the deal that it had and lost but it's going to be a very good deal and I think we need to reme~er that Lake Riley is not in very good shape and it has a great many people that live on it both in Chanhassen and Eden Prai~ie and we're doing them a real disservice. We're basically holding them hostage because we're afraid to put a temporary access into a neighborhood. Now in my neighbo~hood we've got an access on Lotus Lake and i'll match that against Greenwood Shores Park any day in team,s of difficulty to access. The access has been there for years and I'm not aware of anybody being hurt there. That's not to say that we don't have to be cautious. We're on a terrible curve. We've got a narrow road. We've got a long gravel path to get down to it. It's not a good situation and I personally don't use it but I know a lot of people do in our homeowner, s association so it can be done. My point is, if the DNR is willing to spend money on a temporary access that costs the city nothing, that the city can then t~]rn around and say this isn't working, let's spend $1g0,g0g.g0 and get it right in another location on Lake Lucy. It's a real shame that we're not going to take them up on that. That we're not going to get that piece of data. I think that there isn't one chance in a tho~%sand that the DNR is going to spend any money in Lake Lucy 56 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 without an access because legally they can't do it and I don't think they're going to spend any money anywhere else in the chain because legally they can't do it. Not because they don't want to do it and here we have an opportunity where they're coming out to us and they're saying we'll put in a min~l~ml access operation and I just think it's too bad that it's not going to pass. I agree that there's safety problems and they have to be dealt with but there's also a serious lake problem~ here that has to be dealt with and we can't do that as a city without federal government and the state being involved. So I think we should put this in. Mayor CTm~iel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to clarify again that the funds really are not available to clean up Lake Riley at this point and if you put an access in and we're not ass, ired that the funds will be available in the future so to me it doesn't make sense at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to clarify that point. Chris, in your newspaper article, did you talk to the people at the MPCA? Chris Burns: Did I talk to the people, about what? Councilman Boyt: About funding. Wasn't it your article that reported that they would fund this if we got an access on it? Not the access but the clean up. Chris t~]rns: I don't think there was any guarantee. I don't think there was any story that I wrote where they guaranteed that... CounciL-tan Boyt: Okay. Thank you. Is there any way we could fund one of those other accesses? Don Ashworth: Not without a grant. You could go back to referend~m~. You could re~iodify your park capital budget but I mean you're talking about major, major expense and I personally don't see where there's anyway to fund it without assurances that there'd be a grant to cover at least 50% of the cost. Councilman Workman: I guess our only options are either spend $250,000.00 to put in an access or lose a neighborhood park when really we don't have the funds, we' re not going to have the funds right now to do the clean up and then the clean up itself has proven from the residents as questionable in itself as our city received prominence in the Tribune as far as the chemical treatment of Rice Marsh Lake. It's all very questionable so I don't know that we've got, we don't have a guarantee that, EPA will not fund something unless it is a pez~anent clean up and that work plan missed by a long shot from being a permanent clean up. So with all those things hanging, I don't know how we can support, I can support. Councilman Boyt: Well the EPA said they'll come back and cc~plete the study so it is a good clean ~%~ when they do it. They are going to be responsive to the City and the neighborhood when they come back to do that. 57 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Workz, lan: But it's not their project. It's the Watershed District's project which will not do a thing or spend another penny. Lori Sietsema: But they've been given the funds to complete that work plan with EPA's, EPA has approved the work plan and what revisions need to be made. They have allocated the funds for that to be completed o~]t of this project and they' re diverting the rest of the funds so the work plan would be completed and approved by EPA. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone from the audience that wishes to discuss this? Councilman Workman: Lori, are you saying you support this access in Greenwood Shores Park? Lori Sietsema: I'm not s~]pporting a pers~anent access at Greenwood Shores Park but I don't think that I would vehemently oppose a tem~porary access if it truly was temporary in nat~re. Council~an Workman: Whe~e would we go after Greenwood Shores? Lori Sietsema: At that point we could review what kind of traffic levels are. Councilman Workman: Let's say we were going to leave Greenwood Shores. Where would we go then? Lori Sietsema: The Christensen property is very doable. It's probably... Mayor Chmiel: Have you ever seen a temporary sit~]ation? Every temporary situation I've ever seen has always been permanent ~mfortunately. Councilman Boyt: Write in a sunset cla~]se in this thing. Tell them we'll accept it for 3 years and then it's going to have to close. See if they'll take that. In 3 years we figured out a way to fund the other place. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to make a motion, if I can put it all together here. Due to the opposition to a boat access in Greenwood Shore Park, recognizing existing policies and potential dangers to neighborhood children and without assurances that grant monies will be available and noting that the City does not have funds to acc,.lire the Dirks or Christensen properties, I ~ove that we instruct staff to notify the Watershed District, the EPA, the PCA, the DNR and the property owners that we will not be pursuing access to Lake Lucy at this time. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that due to the opposition to a boat access in Greenwood Shore park, recognizing existing policies and potential dangers to neighborhood children and witho~]t assurances that grant monies will be available and noting that the City does not have funds to acc~ire the Dirks or Christensen properties, the City Council instructs staff to notify the Watershed District, the EPA, the PCA, the DNR and the property o~ners that the City will not be pursuing access to Lake Lucy at this time. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. 58 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 REQUEST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A Dt~K ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: A. SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. Jo Ann Olsen: On the Lotus Lake Estates beachlot, the first thing is they are applying for a variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback for a deck. The deck was located on the site without prior permission from the City. It did not receive a variance, an amendment to the conditional use permit or a building permit. They did go in front of the Board of Adjustments for the variance to the 75 foot setback and it was denied by the Board of Adjustments. They are appealing that decision to the Council. This goes along with the amendment to the conditional use permit. They are rec~lesting to allow the deck to be located on a recreational beachlot. The zoning ordinance does not allow structures, decks to be located on recreational beachlots. In addition, Lotus Lake Estates has a conditional use pea_mit for the recreational beachlot that also prohibits any structures on the recreational beachlot other than those specifically allowed in the conditional use permit. So you have two actions tonight. The first would be the appeal of the Board's decision for the variance setback and the second one would be whether or not to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit. Staff is reco~n~ending denial and suggesting that if the Council feels that structures such as a deck should be permitted on recreational beachlots, whether that should be allowed. Nu~er two, the ordinance and the conditional use permit that are a variance to the ordinance, that they should amend the ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the t~]blic who wishes to address the issue? Nick Gassman: Mr_. Mayor, Council, my na~e is Nick Gassman. I'm with Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and Jo Ann has described to you what we'd like to do tonight is pretty much to ask the Mayor's and the Council's permission or assistance in directing us as Lotus Lake Honleowners Association to go down the necessary paths and approach the necessary channels to allow Lotus Lake to maintain the 12 x 14 deck which has been placed about 60 feet off the high water mark on our 1,500 foot site of lakeshore on Outlot B which we maintain with your petmission and the conditional use permit which we now have. The Association is here to readily admit that we had erred in the construction of the lot as you've outlined in the previous meeting Minutes or the Planning Co~m~ission Minutes. We built a deck in my misinterpretation of what I didn't know existed at that time as a newly appointed officer of the Lotus Lake Honleowners and we had the 12 x 14 deck constructed to take care of a part that Mother Nature played. In 1987 we had a very large rain that took a portion of the hill onto the sand blanket that we had on our outlot so we built the deck the size of the, approximate size of the washout to take care of that eyesore and to better improve the outlot and it's appearance. Since that time, as Jo Ann did not say, the deck's actually. been constructed since the first part of July. We've realized son~le additional advantages that we didn't consider. Other than the fact that it beautifies the outlot, it makes it much _,lore accessible to men,ers of our 44 homeowners and their children and for their enjoyment in that it allows for sc~e shaded area for the people not wishing to be on the sand and out of the sun and what I mean by that is by parents and/or grandparents that do want to cc~le down there and 59 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 enjoy the beachlot which we have. Also, one of the distinct advantages that we've noticed and taken note of throughout the s~ler was the advantage of being able to have a better birdseye view so to speak, kind of on the same principle as a lifeguard chair in that you're about 38-40 inches off the sand area so you have a better visibility down toward the lake water and watching the childre~ playing etc.. But the deck is not permanent. There's no footings involved at all. There's no concrete. It' s imply a platfok?l that' s laid upon two cross beams and with the appropriate man power could be moved. It could be considered almost a little bit larger than the 10 x 10 swimming platfok?~ that we now have floating on pontoons in the swi.~ing area that we have marked. What we've done is in good faith and when I was notified by staff, by Jo Ann that we had erred, we did fill out and follow her direction. Filling out the necessary permits and [maying the necessary fees to go through the process in order that we may maintain and keep this deck area. .What we've heard now through the first two meetings that we've been through is that Lotus Lake Estates cannot prove that we have gone e_hrough any type of hardship. That we cannot use the beach area with or without this deck. Well, it is not true that there is not so~e hardship. Obviously there are for some of the older and less capable homeowners in area but that is not an unduly hardship in that we did have the beach area and that we did ~se the beach area and that is true but what we did when we built the deck is not how we did it. We did err in how we did it but why we did it was to beautify and to increase the value of our outlot and of the 44 homes in the Lotus Lake Estates. It just goes with the attitude that we have in our homeowners association and what we've tried to do is take the fees that we collect frc~ each homeowner and beautify the area so that we have a better place and that goes, I don't know if many of you are familiar with the front entrance that we've tried to improve and certainly beautified that with trees and flowers and additional rock work so that it's a pleasant place to come into to show that we do have interest in maintaining and presenting a good co~unity on Lotus Lake. ~_]t we're here tonight simply to ask w~nat is the next step? We're here in good faith. We~'re here to make it right with the City and we'd like to maintain the platfot~. It is an advantage to our outlot and we didn't build it with a big gazebo in mind where we could sell soft drinks or cold beer. It's a mere 12 x 14 platfot~ and it certainly adds and beautifies the outlot that we now have as a conditional use permit. If you have any c~_]estions of me right now I'd be happy to answer them. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes Nick, could you tell me how many feet do you need in variance? It's a 75 foot setback and you said you had how many? Nick Gassman: There's no way in the way God created the landshore there on the high water mark. When the earth came down frc~ the rain, it broke off some of the hill and when it did, it washed sc~e of the dirt away. What we did was move the dirt away to make a cleaner area and with that, it's frc~ the front end of the platfok~ to the high water mark or to where it's been the highest since the rain, it's about 56 feet. To the back of the deck would be with 12 feet, that's about 66-68 feet away from the water. I tell you that this thing is above grade. It's not on the beach level. It's not on the water level and again I reiterate that it's not a permanent fixture. There's no footings. There's no concrete footings. ~ did not dig any holes. It is simply a platfo~l laid across two heavy tic,ers. That's it. Councilwoman Dimler: So you're re~_]esting about a 19 foot variance is that right? 60 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Nick Gassman: Yeah, frc~ the 75 foot, right and again as I recall, the infok~ation that Jo Ann has supplied us, if it's not a man created problem, which indeed this is not, that that would be a reasonable request. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, did you have any questions? Councilman Workman: I got an opportunity to stand on it today and I wish there were a cold beer down there. It's very tastefully done as I mentioned to one of your neighbors. It certainly doesn't look malicious. Nick Gassman: No, and when we ~]t it in Toni we didn't have, again we were very sensitive to the enviror~ent around it. We didn't want to ~mke it obtrusive. We were very conscience of the fact that we do have neighbors other than the people that live on our part of the lake and from ~ informal su~ey,~I'm a fishe~.man as well as a lot of people around the lake, and just when I'm asking how they're doing, I've also proudly asked them~ what do they think of the deck on the beachfront and I didn't have one negative cc~mlent. I had several co~m~ents that said, it's good to see that there's something in that da~m hole. Excuse n~. Councilman Workman: Yeah. We've got an awful lot of building going on that we don't know about and we end up finding out about and then it really makes it do~le tough for the Council because then we... Nick Gassman: We understand and that's why when Jo Ann notified ~ that we had erred, that we wanted to get this up front, on the table and go through the necessary paperwork. Pay the appropriate fees to make it right. I n~an that's why we're here is to make it right and to do what we can to maintain it and if you agree that it was done tastefully, that it doesn't ~]rt anything. There are certain things in our conditional use pernlit for instance that to a lot of the new people that have moved into Lotus Lake Estates since the signing of the original conditional use permit, that we would just as soon gladly give back to the City of Chanhassen like a fire pit for instance. To ~ a small 168 s~]are foot platform on 1,500 feet of lakeshore is a lot less of an eyesore or a hinderance that a 6 foot fire pit would be in the middle of that beach which we have pe~m~ission to do and to ~, and the rest of the homeowners, the majority of the homeowners in ~ association, it see~s to be a very good trade-off I guess if there is one. I don't want to say that I'm in a position to trade because I'm not. I'm here for the next step. For the next step to be able to maintain our deck. Councilman Workman: Maybe there's more than 2 ways of looking at it. One is to look at your instance specifically and look at it on it's own merits in regards to our ordinance and everything else. The other side is to look at it in the general scope of things and look at it in the general scope of the entire boundary of the lake or each lake and I don't know how many lakes we have, 11 lakes that people live on in this town? Nick Gassm~an: I would agree with your responsibilities. As a person that has the task and employed to make those decisions and considerations, I would ask that you look at each set of circumstances that were brought to you and evaluate them on their merits as opposed to trying to consider other things that may have happened in the past or may some day happen in the future. The facts as you see 61 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 them evaluate them for what their merits hold. I would hate to be the person to say that we know all but I think at this point in time our good faith and honesty... Co~mcilman Workman: Well Jo Ann, the difference between a portable, this being portable~ versus pezmanent. Jo Ann Olsen: It's still a struct~]re. Councilman Workman: Doesn't change a darn thing does it? Jo Ann Olsen: And again we're saying the proper way, if you want to approve it, the proper way to do it would be to amend the ordinance. Councilman Workman: What does that create? Jo Ann Olsen: Create? Co~]ncilman Workman: If we amend the ordinance. Jo ~n Olsen: Then they would still have to go thro~]gh the amendment to the conditional use permafit. Their conditional use permit but it gives them... Councilman Workman: Are we talking abo~]t just decks? Jo Ann Olsen: It's something that we could look at. We could look specifically at just decks. At ~all decks. With other stipulations. Currently right now there are no structures at all permitted on a recreational beachlot. Nick Gassman: The interpretation of that now is a deck isn't one but it would make sense since the cor~ents that I've had and some of the other discussions that we've had, we've not had staff really say that decks may not be an appropriate use for an outlot or a beachlot, which I think the majority of you if you were to see what has transpired here would agree but if the City Council were to maintain or retain the authority to say and modify the conditional use pek~it with the variance to such thing, I'm not sure of the legal te~.m, but that anything like that would have to be run through the City Co~]ncil for approval. Whether or not it maintains the environmental considerations that 'the City Co~]ncil wo~]ld like to see. Whether it is envirorm~entally conscience. Those are types of issues that certainly ought to be addressed to the City Council. That would make sense. Councilman Workman: What I'm trying to get at is we have a 75 foot setback and the past leaders of the City decided that 75 feet was as close as they wanted people to get. That was based on something. If we decide that we wanted it 56 feet or 5~ feet or we don't care. Maybe the deck can hang out over the edge of the water. We' re a long way from ~ending I think because what wo~]ld be proper there I have no idea. Jo Ann Olsen: They would still need the variance to the setback and that is the DNR regulation that we've adopted. Councilman Workman: These rilles frc~ people that wan~ to boat accesses through 7 acres of swa~p so it's a mixed ~]p world and that's an inside joke. You have 62 City Council M~eting - October 23, 1989 to attend all these meetings if you want to catch all these jokes. I guess I'm interested in listening to everybody else. Again, it looks tasteful. It's inside the 75 foot setback. That's a proble~. We've got all sorts of sides to this. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, before I go to you, I have a question I'd like to ask Roger. How clear are we in classifying this as a structure and is staff correct in their assumption as to calling that a structure because it's not on foundations. Roger Knutson: The definition is very clear and the staff is right. Let me read you the definition. It's all encompassing. A building, fence, shed, advertising sign, portable structures, stockpile, dock, boardwalk, culvert, hard surface parking area, anything constructed or erected...and that includes portable structures specifically. Councilwoman Dimler: A canoe rack is a structure also? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: But we do allow that? Roger Knutson: Yes. That's spelled out. Councilwoman Dimler: So we can spell out decks? Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I think you're right. If you want to pursue this, you need to go through sc~e sort of ordinance change. As a var iance, it doesn' t, in my opinion, it doesn't meet the definition of a hardship and it doesn't have a chance as a variance. I w~uld suggest before you launch into an ordinance change and it's a legitimate thing for any citizen to do that, is as your neighborhood knows as well as any, your walking into a field with land mines all over the place. You ask about the 75 foot shoreland setback. When that w-as developed and went through a committee that was formed to look at this whole thing along with recreational beachlots, fortunately I wasn't actively involved in that but from what I hear from a distance, it was a bloody affair and so before your neighborhood decides to open it back up, just be sure that you really want to wade into sc~ething that will take a great deal of time. I don't venture you're going to have this straighten out by June would be my guess and I think the reason is because it's such an ~otional issue. It's not that your deck is such a big problem. It's that when you open up the recreational beachlot ordinance to amenc~ent, I think the room will probably be full of people because so many people live on lakes as Tom mentioned and recreational beachlots to some, as you neighborhood knows, to s~ people they see that as a threat all by itself. Even without a deck so I'm just saying, go ahead and pursue an ordinance amendment. I think the chances of this, even if you had approval to ~_lt a deck in a beachlot, which might very well make sense to do, your particular beachlot doesn't have the 75 feet to put it, if I understand that correctly and I would say the chance of getting a variance to that, even if decks were allowed, the chance of getting a variance is very sl~J~ and I w~uld go so far as to say ~possible because those five criteria rec~]ire that you have to have a hardship. You have to have sc~ething that is required to be there in 63 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 order to use that beachlot that you don't now have. Nick Gassman: Can I ask you a cj.]estion? Take a for instance then. Because of what the rain did a couple years ago, would we then be obligated to put up a gigantic ti~er wall to hold back the hill which would not be 75 foot off the water? Co~mciLn~an Boyt: That's a really good c~_]estion about your obligations to prevent erosion. I s~]spect there is some obligation there but I don't know what that is. Gary would be a good person to involve and I'm sure if you put, if that land had slid down in the lake, you would have been obligated to get it out of there if you could reasonably. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill if you're done, I have some cou~ents. Councilman Boyt: Well t would just s~m~arize. I'd just say, yes. Go after the ordinance. I still think you've got a problem with the variance. Mayor CTmtiel: I'd pose the c~.]estion to Roger and maybe Roger can clarify it a little further with the DNR with their new proposals. Roger Knutson: Yeah, the DNR came out with a new shoreland regulations either in June or July of this past year which the cities now are just getting and examining and there are some new rules on decks which I have just read once and I can't tell you for sure what they are but they liberalized the rec~_]irements. Now cities can be stricter than those rec~.lirements so you could be and that's something you may want to, and it might not have any affect at all. I'm not lgg% can't recall exactly what it said but they do liberalize rec~.]irements on decks. That's a possibility and another one would be of course amending your ordinance if you wanted to amend your ordinance. Councilman Workman: What do you mean Roger, liberalize? Roger Knutson: Can be closer to the water. Councilman Workman: Because that might be seen as something that might help say an elderly person or a child safely enjoy the... Roger Knutson: As I understand it, it hasn't been for recreational beachlots. That's not where it's been aimed. There's an awful lot of old cabins on lots of lakes all over the state where people in the old days, I guess they wanted to be right next to the edge of the water or fairly close to it and now they want, someone's buying it and they're upgrading it and they want to put a little deck on the front and under the existing rules they just couldn't do it. They yelled and hollered at DNR and had input and DNR said yep, that's reasonable. We'll allow you to put some s~all decks in front of these old cabins under these rules so I can't tell you for sure what they say but I know they liberalized them and it's something you'd want to take a look at or you might want to take a look at. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few cou~ents. I g~]ess my main concern with this is that I wo~]ld like to see us be able to dispense justice with mercy and I think that the applicants have indicated that they're well aware that they did something that was illegal at this point but they are trying to make it right an I think the problem is the City doesn't have a procedure in place to help the~ 64 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 ~mke it right. I think they've paid their application fees and they've applied for all the required permits again showing that they're willing to do everything to make it right plus they applied for the variance. I'm wondering if we can follow a 3 step procedure here which I would favor. Nu~er one would be that we do change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots. The stipulations can be considered by staff. Whatever is reasonable. I don't know if we need to go into all of that now. I did do a little bit of research on decks on beachlots and how the public would react and I called people on Lotus Lake, on Lake Lucy and on Lake Riley and so far I have found no opposition to decks in general. A lot of riparian lot owners have decks already on Lake Riley and so I see no reason why they can't be included on a beachlot which is owned by a nu~er of homeowners in joint. Also I think that the original purpose was that, for the ordinance, n~er one. No decks or no structures were allowed because it was not aesthetically pleasing perhaps or there were no stipulations in place. Also, my main concern is to protect the ~]ality of the water. That's why structures shouldn't be any closer than 75 feet is to protect the quality of the water. In this case, it's aesthetically pleasing and I can see that it doesn't do any hakm to the quality of the water whatsoever so again, if those were the reasons for the ordinance, then I can see why we might be able to do a variance. Also, I would recommend that we change their conditional use permit. I can't see that if we are all willing that that would be a tough thing to do to include a deck. Then having done that, then a variance would se~ like it would come under a hardship because we're going to allow them to have a deck and they cannot meet the 75 foot setback requir~m~ent because of the configuration of the lot and this configuration was not self imposed so they do meet 3 of the 5 criteria. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too like everybody else have gone down there and looked at the deck. One of your neighbors escorted ~ down. I didn't find the deck very obtr~.~ive of course. There as we've had our discussions and some of ~ concerns, but I think I can agree with sc~e of the positions that you're taking on it. It's really not har~ing anyone. The appearance is there. The safety aspect is another thing that I look at. Children are i~ortant too and you do get a little better observation from that deck in looking at that water. I have a c~]estion, how many more people are here from Lotus Lake Homeowner's Association? Okay. With that, at least we agree with some of the things that Ursula has indicated. With that, any other discussion? Councilman Workman: Again, I'm trying to figure out where we're going to go with this. Given if this was approved, where are we headed with decks on recreational beachlots? Mayor Ctm~iel: Well there's one of the factors yet that Roger is looking at too and of course to see what DNR's new requirements are and they can be, we can always have things more restrictive than what the DNR puts out but we can never have it less than what they basically have either. Councilman Workman: Is that what he's be doing though? Mayor Chmiel: That would be one thing that we could look at, yes. Jo Ann Olsen: We're doing that anyway. Right now we're looking at adopting the new shoreland ordinance as part of our ordinance. 65 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Workman: And that says what? Jo Ann Olsen: We don't have it specifically in front of us. Councilman Workman: Is that the one that Roger's talking about? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Councilman Workman: But it will have specific... Jo Ann Olsen: It will have specific setbacks a certain n%m~er of feet that it has to be back. Counci]m~an Workman: Why don't we wait? Leave it as it sits and create a big agenda s~etime down the road and wait at this point ar~] wait until we see it. CounciL~an Boyt: I think sou~ebody's going to have to pursue putting decks on beachlots. That's a whole separate issue frc~,~ the setback and if this neighborhood feels that that's important and wants to pursue it, I think they should do it. I think that conditional use pe~_~it in regards to your beachlot was set after a great deal of struggle between your association and the City as I recall. I don't think we should be messing with that. We should do this through an ordinance process. If it passes tb3~-ough the necessary gro~]ps and gets approval, fine. ! think there's a very good reason for having that 75 foot shoreland protection and that's beca~]se we want to maintain some sense of lake shoreline and so maybe 75 feet was pickled somewhat arbitrarily but it provides a cushion between that house and the shore. To see how close people can build, go out to Lake Minnetonka and look at some of those older homes out there. You can sit right on the rocks next to the shore. Without some sort of a setback, that's where people ~ould build. I don't know what the magic distance is. Maybe the DNR can int~]ite that for us so I'd be all for postponing a decision on this if that would help. I still think the hc~eowners association has got to pursue an ord]~nance change to get it through. Councilwoman Dimler: Are yogi willing to do that? P%]rsue an ordinance change? Nick Gassman: Your advice. I feel the homeowners association is committed to, we firmly believe as you heard tonight that we are, it's a very unobtrusive structure and it is back off the water to the point where, other than the railing~ you don't know the deck is there. Like I say it's as far back into the hill as possible given what's been placed there by Mother Nature and our intention by no means is to build it out into the water. There are a couple of decks on Lotus Lake unfortunately already that were long before any ordinance was probably passed that are out over the water. There's also a couple boat houses that are of recent construction that are on the water and that is something that I don't like either frcr~ the standpoint that that and the big concrete, or I'm sorry, not the concrete but the stone boulder walls that have been placed around the takeshore, especially last s~mer during the low water time, that when you mentioned Councilman Boyt that we want to preserve lakeshore, that is totally the intention of Lotus Lake Estates. Perfectly the reason why there's &bsolutely manicured beach area and preservation of the 1,5gg feet that we're blessed with. Much to our chagrin to the develoim~ent along the lakeshore, of the water to the lakeshore, has been re, Ich to our chagrin as well. Especially the boulder walls but you wT~ite it up to well, it was a decision that 66 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 was ,lade and we live with that decision but this 168 square foot deck or 12 x 14 and again, I would invite you or any of the men,ers of the Council that have not been there and seen it, your fears would be calmed if you were to see the way it is placed. I'm amiss at not having a photograph to show you but like I say, the compliments that we've had have been all. I/qe cc~plaints we've had have been nil. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like, I know we gave there's a gentleman that had a deck built and what was his name, I forget. Anyway, basically what we said to him was we aren't going to grant you this variance but we're not going to do anything to you for another year so in light of that, if we're not going to go ahead with these steps that I proposed which I still reco~mlend, that we start with the ordinance change and maybe the association should pursue that but I know that you have at least a year because we have to be consistent. Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to think that we could get this resolved before the ice is off the lake. Councilwoman Dimler: I would too. Councilman Boyt: I think we should table this. I don't think we should pile up variances that we haven't resolved. It doesn't leave a~ybody in a good situation. Councilwoman Dimler: What does tabling do? Councilman Boyt: Hopefully staff can come back with how the DNR is going to impact on this thing with their change in ordinance. If they're already changed their statute, it's there. It's done. With that we can either pass this or reject it based on what the DNR is proposing. Or we can at least say to them, go back and if you can get the recreational beachlot ordinance changed to allow this sort of structure, the setback will take care of it and we've got some confidence it will go through. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I intend. Do that rather than table it. Because whatever the DNR comes out with or whatever they have already come out with and then we find out what it is, they'll still have to go through the, I would think they'd still have to go through the ordinance change. Because decks are not allowed at all right now no matter what setback. We'd have to allow th~ to have the deck in the first place. Councilman Boyt: If the DNR didn't change the 75 feet, then we can save them a lot of trouble. Councilwoman Dimle~: No, but they still need to have decks as a structure allowed on beachlots regardless of the setback. If the DNR does not require the 75 feet any long and maybe in fact only requires 46 which you have. Nick Gassman: 56. Councilwoman Dimler: Or 56, then you won't need the variance. If they still need to change the ordinance to allow decks on beachlots so I'm saying that's 67 City Co~mcil Meeting - October 23, 1989 why we should go ahead with that and not delay the process any f~u:ther. The DNR ruling will only affect the variance and not ~he ordinance. Councilman Boyt: If they don't get the variance, I'1t bet they're not going to pursue the ordinance very hard. Mayor CTmliel: That will be up to their discretion. Nick Gassman: Only one thing that maybe I'm not making clear. The 56 foot is c~ite a ways and pl,]s the deck doesn't sit on tlne grade. It's up about 38 inches I think was what the measurement was. It doesn't sit on the flat so if you were to, even if the water carnie all the way up to where it was in the rain, it would not be in the water at all. Again, I wo,]ld invite you to take a look at it. It's a long way away from the water. It's not like it's close to the shore at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll look for a motion. Councilman Boyt: I wo~]ld make the motion to table this and direct staff to come back with the DNR regulations that impact on this decision. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? It dies for lack of a second. Councilwoman Dimler: I would'make a motion that we follow the three steps that I've proposed. That the homeowners association and staff get together to draft changes to allow decks on beachlots and that stipulations be, oh what do I want to say. I'm tired. That staff come up with the stipulations on size, color, etc. or characteristics of the decks. That n~m~oer 2, if we need the change in their conditional use pek~it, to allow th~ the variance then. I would recommend that they go ahead with the change in their conditional use permit and then n~mlber 3, that after we find out what the DNR new rules are, that we see whether they need a variance or not. If they do, then they apply for the variance. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jo Ann has all that done. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Can I have 2 explained? Mayor Clmliel: Clarification? Councilman Workman: Explain to me 2. Councilwoman Dimler: They have a conditional use permit which allows, how many it~s are you allowed? Councilman Boyt: 7. Councilwoman Dimler: 7. Okay. I couldn't find anything in there that says we can't add or subtract to that. Is that correct? Can we add to their conditional use permit at this time? Jo Ann Olsen: No. You'd have to go... Mayor Chmiel: You'd have to reopen the conditional ~me hearing. 68 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Is that a long procedure? Jo Ann Olsen: Right now we probably, until you amend the ordinance to allow a deck as part of a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot, you really can't approve it unless you approve a variance. Mayor Chmiel: Right. The variance still has to be there. Jo Ann Olsen: You probably should just table everything to work on this and bring it back. Councilman Workman: Table with those conditions? Councilwc~lan Dimler: Oh dear. We don't have a starting point at all? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Not unless you grant a variance which have to show a hardship. Councilwoman Dimler: We can't change an ordinance without... Jo Ann Olsen: Without public hearing. Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I'm saying. To start that procedure. Can we do that? Jo Ann Olsen: That's what we're doing. We'll have to take it back in front of the Planning Co~lission. Councilwoman Dimler: That's ~ motion. So we don't want to table it right? Jo Ann Olsen: Are you denying... Councilman Boyt: You have to table it ~lnless you deny it or pass it. Mayor Chmiel: I think by tabling with the conditions as such. It will cc~le back with the answers so we know what they are. Roger Knutson: What you're doing is tabling with direction. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move that we table with those 3 directions. Is that clear? Co~uncilman Workman: I ' 11 second it. CounciL-~an Boyt: Not exactly. On c~estion nu~er 2 which Tom brought up. You're saying to go back and... Councilwoman Dimler: If they need a change in their conditional use permit, to make the variance a hardship. If it's not necessary, then let's not do it but if the conditional use pe~lit, having it in there which allows them to do it then and then makes the variance a hardship okay because they cannot meet the 75 foot setback because of the configuration of the lot which is not self imposed. 69 City Council Yeeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Let's ask Roger. Roger, if the conditional use peri,it is changed so they a×e allowed to have a deck, does it then become a ha×dship u?nen they can't find a place fo× it? Roger Knutson: You have to look at the property as a ~nole and are you getting a reasonable use of the property. It's a Council j~]dgment as to whether they're getting a reasonable ~rme of the property without the deck. Councitwc~tan Dimler: See that's why I'm saying if you include it in their conditional use pe~mtit. Roger Knutson: That' s what they're asking for. Councilman Boyt: But see what we've done in the past... Councilwoman Dimler: They're saying they can have a deck and now then we have to grant the variance becattse you can't meet the rec~]irements. Counci~tan Boyt: If we go on what we've done in the past, we have said if the City doesn't re,lire it, then it's not a hardship if you don't have it. There's a big difference between re~ired and permission to. Now I just lay before you the bodies of all the other people who've lost their variance becattse the City didn't re,lire it. I don't think we want to mess around with those dead bones out there. Roger Kn~]tson: It's just like, if someone has a house right now and let's say they, I'll just make up some d~ensions. Let's say there's a 2g foot rear yard setback rec~_]irement and their house is built to the 2g foot mark. They came in and said I want to build a deck on the back end of my house. I would advise you that they probably don't meet the req~.]irements for a variance because they're getting a reasonable use of their property by most standards because they have a house there. Councilwoman Dimler: I understand what you're saying. My main purpose with this was to dispense some justice with mercy and I don't think we necessarily want to be seen as a city without mercy and these people are really trying hard to right the wrong that they've done. Roger Knutson: If you find that not having that deck deprives them of reasonable use of their property, then they c~.]alify for a variance. Councilwoman Dimler: Well, they don't have any grass area where they can have people that don't want to be in the sand. Older people don't like to be in the sand. Babies are not good in the sand. They don't have any area where they can do that. Would that be something? They need the deck for that. Roger Knutson: I know the answer you're looking for. CounciLman Workman: Urs~]la, I p~]ld not for ~ own... Councilwoman Dimler: Is this a football game? Councilman Workman: What was your state, tent here? Your original statement on that? 7~ City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilwc~an Dimler: Justice with mercy? Councilman Workman: Oh, that basically because somebody did a wrong we want to help theml because I think then what we're doing is we're promoting to go ahead and do wrong. Councilwoman Dimler: No. We have a lot of those. Councilman Workman: I don't want that. We've got two of those tonight with one more I think this evening. Councilwc~lan Dimler: I understand that. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just suggest something. That we let staff take a look at what we've got. That we table the situation with all those conditions to see the alternatives and t~_]rsue it from that point. Okay? Councilw~lan Dimler moved, CounciLn~an Workman seconded to table action on the shoreland setback variance re~est and conditional use permit re~]est for the placement of a deck on a Recreational Beachlot for Lotus Lake Hc~eowners Association with the following direction for staff: 1. The homeowners association and staff get together to draft changes to allow decks on beachlots and come up with the stipulations on size, color, etc. or characteristics of the decks. 2. If the conditional use permit needs to be changed, to allow the variance at that t~e. 3. After finding out what the DNR new rules are, to see whether they need a variance or not. If they do, then apply for the variance. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Let me make a statem~ent. As we are ~]ickly progressing towards midnight. We normally cut off at 12:00. We will take the next agenda item and discuss that. The balance we will do, what nights is everyone else going to be available? Counc i Ln~an Boyt: Thursday? Councilwcman Dimler: Wait a minute. Mayor Ctmliel: I know you've sat here all night. What are you here for this evening? Councilwoman Dimler: The Curry Farms one. Councilman Boyt: Can we do 12(b)? Councilwoman Dimler: The wetland alteration. 71 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Counci]~tan Workman: Roman doesn't look happy about that. Councilman Boyt: Roman's not happy about that? Councilman Workman: I say we give each of these items 5 min~ltes. Councilman Boyt: 5 minutes. It isn't going to do it. Mayor Chmiel: No. We won' t be able to touch them. There's a meeting on Thursday that I've got with the neighborhood group. Councilman Workman: Let's set a new record for longevity. Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to continue? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. be_t's go. I'm all for it. be_t's keep moving. RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CANCEL RECYCLING CONTRACT. Mayor Chmiel: Basically everybody knows v/nat it's about. What we're looking at. We have had the different costs brought before ~]s and maybe a quick st~mmar i zation. Jo Ann Olsen: The c~]ick s~m~ary is we're recor,~tending that you continue the contract. Tomorrow Carver County Board will be acting on it. The staff is reco~ending that they provide us the $5,000.gg, whatever the odd dollars are to pay for the rest of this year. Again, that ties you into 1990. We still think you should go. We should continue with the contract. We have lots of options that we can pursue that will take the cost out of the general fund so right now you just have to make the decision whether to continue with the contract. We're rec~iending you to. Mayor Chmiel: Yogi hear reco~rtendations. Don and I are going to be before the County Board tomorrow morning bright and early to discuss the issue on this and to see if we can acc~]ire the additional dollars to offset our cost for carrying it through to the e~d of the year. In addition to that, of course there's also, what about the balance of the contract for 1990 Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as paying for that? Well they are not, as far as Carver County staff, they are not making any rec(I~endation on a n~oer, dollar figure. They are essentially saying let's wait and see. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any disc~]ssions? Councilman Boyt: Okay. If we pass this, it should only be with the condition that as of January 1 no money is taken o~]t of the general fund. There is, do you have the percent of participation for the month of October? We're not finished with that. The month of September? Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet, no. 72 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well just doing a rough survey through our neighborhood Ursula, I would guess it's 1 in 8. This is awfully expensive. I know we've got to do it. I think that this is probably the most reasonable plan that we're going to see. We're down from looking, before we started this discussion at possibly $2.00 a household a month sc~.~etime during 1990, to now the guarantee that it will not exceed, what is it a $1.607 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Boyt: There's no c~lestion that the City's going to be involved in some ki~d of curbside recycling by the end of the year but I have ec~]ally strong co~itment to this money will not cc~e out of the general fund, in my opinion. It's ridiculous to fund it that way and so I think the only way we can pass this is, the only way I feel comfortable voting on it is if the Council said yes, we agree that it's not going to c(~e out of the general fund. Then that forces the recycling co~ittee to get on it and get these public hearings done and get this resolved in the next month and a half. Otherwise I see, this thing could easily spread out in October, we still won't have a decision about how we want to do this. A lot of issues here. Mayor Chmiel: Of course ~ major issue, Bill you know what it is. It's an implementation that we started back in May and I just don't want to see this die because we're going to be forced into it. As our citizens look at us, they'll say well they can' t make up their minds one way or the other so why should I even recycle. Throw it all in the garbage and I can understand that. I guess from my standpoint, I want to see the recycling continue because I think it's something that we have to do. It's something that's going to be necessary. It's going to be mandated by us and it's a necessary function by this state through the County's implementing that cities do this. It has to be started by October of next yea3~ to be in place and start moving and therefore we're so far ahead of what we've done as a city. I don't want to see this thing die. Councilwc~an Dimler: Don, can you tell me how long it will be before the recycling co~ittee is ready to make a reco~endation to us? Mayor Chmiel: I think we have one of the men,ers frc~ the recycling co~ittee here. victor Halberg: victor Halberg, 411 Del Rio and the cc~ission I think is it's fair to say really wants to move away from an approach that requires us to use city funds for recycling. I think most of us have talked in that format and we're really looking at here is a time frame in which to develop one of several different options in order to move it to a feed base service. It could take one of several different fo~s. Perhaps the best one is one that Jo Ann reco~ended in a memo that I think have you all read that, in preparation for tonight? Which is to pass an ordinance requiring our current haulers to add recycling to their services. If they do that, then we don't disrupt the normal course of business that has been occurring in Chanhassen for the last couple of years. Well, we're going to look at that tomorrow night. I don't know, none of us are in a position to predict how q~]ickly we can move on it but I think we do want to move in that direction and as quickly as possible. January-February I think would be a realistic guesstimate. 73 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I g~]ess what I see is that we have to go to this anyway. The c~_]estion remains really can we get it done any cheaper. Have there been any studies done? ~nether the haulers will do it cheaper? The regular haulers. victor Halberg: We haven't gone out to get another... Councilwc~an Dimler: You don't know at this point? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Boyt: I think it's fair to say Urs~]la that many of regular haulers will not be able to do this. That when we start looking at what appears to be a pretty reasonable idea of rec~_~iring haulers to do this, they're going to have to contract with sc~ebody to do it. They just don't have the trucks to do it and you can' t recycle. The trucks arch' t designed that they use everyday, aren't designed for recycling so they're going to have to have a different truck. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Already there's somewhere too abo~]t the possibility of doing it jointly with Chaska to reduce cost. Has this been p,]rs~]ed and what' s the status... Mayor Chmiel: That was another thing that I understand that they were going to p~]rsue with Chaska. Whether that has been done or not. Jo _Ann Olsen: I spoke with somebody from Chaska and right now they have that successful drop off center and they're not actively pursuing c,]rbside. If they do and when they do, they're most likely will just ~u~sue the once per month. Mayor Chmiel: Ail cities of 5,g0g or above are rec~]ired by next October. Councilwoman Dimler: They have to by next October... Jo Ann Olsen: Right so they're not pursuing anything as a~itious as what we have had or it sounds like we wish to continue but they would be willing to work with us. That is an option. It's not one that we are reco~ending. It is an option. Mayor Ch~iel: I'd like to see us p~]rsue that a little bit more with them. Craig Mertz: Craig Mertz, 510 Laredo Lane. I would like to see the recycling program continue rather than be abandoned and then we have to start up again. I wo~]ld point out that in Hennepin County, Bloomington and Brooklyn Park have taken the recycling costs off budget by declaring recycling program be a public utility and there's a bill going out c~]arterly going out to each ho~]sehold for this service. There are ways to get it off budget... Councilman Workman: I would think if people saw it on their utility bill, they'd dang well get their stuff out there and use the service because I don't think there's anybody that's not using their water. Councitwc~an Dimler: That is a good way to do it. Those are the only ~estions I had. 74 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 CounciL, Jan Workman: I say continue it. CounciLn~an Boyt: Well what about some kind of cap on how long we're going to continue with this sort of funding? CounciLn~an Workman: Well where's the funding going to come from? Finding an option such as utility bill or something? CounciL,~an Boyt: As soon as we start to say to local haulers here are additional conditions on your being able to work in Chanhassen. I suspect they're going to line up in here and tell us why they can't do that, some of them. I'm saying that I think for us as a City Council to fund this out of our general fund is to spend a great deal of money to pick up newspapers and I don't think we can do that. Especially not when we've got a neighbor just down the road that says we're not doing it. Mayor Chmiel: But they're doing something Bill. CounciLn~an Boyt: Right and we tried to do something and we can go back to that. I'm not encouraging us to do that. I'm just saying let's, sure let's continue this thing. We've got a pretty good rate for the rest of the year but let's continue it with some kind of a push on the co~p~ittee and the Council and the co~l%~nity to get this thing resolved quickly. If they need to go to February, okay maybe February's reasonable but if we don't have it resolved by February, then somebody doesn't think this is a priority. Jo Ann Olsen: We do have .funds until April to cover the cost with the 1990 budget. Councilwoman Dimler: Wait, I'm getting a little confused. Are we approving this contract to go all the way through 19907 Jo Ann Olsen: That's part of the deal is yes, we would have to go into the contract but that would have the early release clause. Councilwoman Dimler: With penalty though. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. CounciL-~an Workman: And what would that penalty be? Jo Ann Olsen: I've got it, it's listed. Councilman Boyt: It's the amount we're paying not. It's not a big penalty. Mayor Chmiel: I can't see where that's going to be a big problem. CounciLn~an Boyt: They're reducing our price and just saying if we buy out, we have to pay what we're paying now. It's no big deal. Councilwoman Dimler: I would say we continue. Councilman Boyt: Well then let's make a motion that we continue the service, paying for it out of the general fund through the month of February and at that 75 City Council M~eting - October 23, 1989 point, an alternate fundi~g source must be in effect. Is there a second that? Councilman Workman: Second. Co~mcilman Boyt moved, Councilman Word,an seconded to continue the curbside recycling contract with Waste Mangement paying for it out of the general fu~d until February, 1990 at which ti~e anot/~er funding source must be available. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST TO AMEND BUILDING PERMIT FEES, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, BRAD JOHNSON. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Todd. Where'd Todd go? Don Ashworth: Todd has left. You do have a rec~_lest to modify the building pet?~it for Heritage Park Apartments. I recognize that this is a larger amount of money for them. However, we did ask the City Attorney what type of proble~ this would create and it was his opinion that this is simply not a good idea. You're going to be opening the doors for literally every other party that doesn't really care to follow the Uniform Building Code to cc~e in and ask for a rebate. The policy is to use the Code and to determine the valuation in accordance. So staff reco~ends denial. Mayor Ctmtiel: Discussion? Brad Johnson: Can I say sc~tething? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty representing the Heritage Park, the partnership that owns the b~]ilding. I think this is mainly a point of principle on my part at this point after reading all these letters and having a negative staff recommendation which we try not to do. The setting is that we had just written out a check for $135,00g.00 and then when we were taking our pen_~it out on this particular building then we're asked to w~:ite another check out for $35,0gg.gg so we're at $170,ggg.0g and we tho~lght we were done. We had budgeted another $11,ggg.g0 for a building per, lit a~d we want in to pull the building permit, and we're already $90,0gg.gg over budget on city fees. The point being that there's no method of appeal. We went to city staff and said this doesn't sound reasonable. We've got doc~_~ented evidence that the building is going to cost us $2.3 million and sc~ebody said to tls that the cost has to be $3.5 million because that's what the State said and it wasn't. It was $2.3 ~lillion and we went down. We had the Assessor reappraise the building. It's a 2 million dollar value. The value of our building is less than our cost because in this particular case the buildirg happens to be a subsidized product and therefore the rents don't bring it ~_~p to it's true value. My concern is there's no method of appeal of sc~ething when we're 5g% higher fee and the valuation based on the State guidelines is set at 50% higher than o~lr actual cost of the building. So my rec~lest was that we look at it frc~ the point, and as the letter states from Roger, and it's a letter not an opinion I think right Roger? It's technical. The fact is that there should be s(m~e method for appeal because we're sitting here looking at so~iething that on one side, the guidelines says it 76 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 should be a $3.5 million building which is an ec~]ivalent of a for sale townhouse and we're in a rental business trying to build as least expensive building that was going to cost us $35,000.00 a unit and we have no way of doing it. And I don't like staying here until 12:00 to talk about $5,000.00 but it doesn't make sense that there's no method of appealing this so I'm here. It seems to me that that procedure should at least read that if in fact somebody, because you also say in your letter that normally it underestimates value right Roger? Roger Knutson: That's what the Building Inspector tells me. Brad Johnson: Yeah. And here we are 50% over. He couldn't figure it out either. The building inspector couldn't figure it out. Nobody could figure out how we could be where we are yet we've got evidence that this is what our costs are so I'm just looking to appeal this particular one and suggest that some guideline be set ~to with the staff so we don't have to stay here and keep these people here longer than they should have to stay. That if in the future there is, just nothing should be this firm. Especially when we're that far off. We couldn't believe it and that's ~ comment so I'm asking for some relief. You may not give it to me but the worse case this evening is at least set up some kind of appeal policy so if this happens again, and it will happen every time, based on what I see here, the next apartment building. The reason it doesn't happen very often is you only had 2 apartment buildings built in this city in the last few years of this size. That's it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: As I see here that that $3,595,000.00 which was arrived by using State guidelines which was the 85 Uniform Building Code and they basically designate these different building uses and construction types for square foot in costs. I guess I come from the same position as that there are different ways of figuring buildings. With your overheads in or your overheads out and that's probably some of the c~]estions that I'd raise. Does this fully consist of all your overheads? Brad Johnson: Everything but financing. Mayor Ctm~iel: Okay, financing is part of that particular project. I still see that the $3,595,000.00 value of that where it's at, I guess I agree with the Attorney's opinion as well as the Building Inspection area. Councilwoman Dimler: I see that another apartment building, the West Village Heights, or is that what we're talking about? I'm tired. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dimler: They too came in with a complaint and a procedure was not changed for theol. Also I concur with the building inspection department and also with the law permit at this point, that we should not change the procedure. Don Ashworth: The only issue I just wanted to bring out is the procedural one, when the letter was first brought in, I've sent that back over to the building department and this is what has occurred as a result of that. Brad did have the right then to talk with the inspectors. Talk with our people. We also went back over to the State trying to figure out if there were any changes. Anything different there and then back up to myself and finally to the City Council so I feel that there are steps to take and pursue. It's just not that in this 77 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 instance that it's coming out well for the apartment people but I think this is the tool that we have used for all of the people to date and it provides some form of benchmark, even if there may be some holes in it. Mayor Chmiel :. Any disc~lssion? Bill? Councilman Boyt: Well I can see your point. It sounds to me though like what the City is saying is we set o~u~ fees based on so,~ formula that really has nothing to do with market. It's just the formula. This is interesting. We've got appraisals that people get that are under the City's at certain times and appraisals we get when we're trying to buy the property that are always over the City. I don't know how the appraisal process works but I know if I was a million dollars off and I suspect any of the rest of us, that we'd be in here doing the same thing so it's a legit]~late procedure. It sounds like staff is saying we just did it the same way we always do it. If the Co,mci! is trying to be consistent, I g~]ess I vote to support that. Don Ashworth: May I make one c~.]ick addition co~ent and that is, we recondite the appraisal fr~m the County Assessor and that comes about as a part of the HRA activities and what we want to do there is assure that there is going to be a certain minJ~%m~ value for tax purposes that will be used. So if there is any form of an incentive program that's going to be considered, what is the absolute floor. If you look at that, all he's saying there is, here is the absolute minJ.m~l value that we would be assigning to this property. I'm not saying that that's what Orlin is going to take and have as a final value. I'm just saying my initial review of this is this is the absolute minim~m~ that would go on that property. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I get a motion? If not, I will make a motion that we deny the rec~]est as so indicated in the cover letter that we have. Councilwoman Dimler: I' 11 second that. Mayor Cb_miel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to deny the request for rei,~m]rsement of $4,527.gg to Heritage Park Apartm~ents on the basis that it would violate the intent of the State Unifo~_~ Building Code valuation tables used by tJ~e City of Chanhassen in determining building valuation. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK ROAD AND PARK COURT, ROME CORPOPJ1TION. Paul Krauss: The applicant's proposing to build a 32,000 sc~.]are foot office/ warehouse building at the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. The additional building shown on tlne plans concept~ally that would be built in the future. We thought it was a fairly well designed product. Basically they responded to most of the issues that were raised by staff. O]r only concern with the proposal was in regards to the eastern access on Park Road. Staff believe that it represented an ~unnecessary traffic hazard in that the site could be basically adeq~_]ately served by the two other curb cuts that had already been proposed. We went to the Planning Co~mission with this several weeks ago and the Planning Co~ission agreed that the general concept was a good one. After 78 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 examining the issues with regard to the curb cut though, they ultimately decided that, they reco~ended approval of the site plan with that additional curb cut. They believe that the traffic hazard was not as great as had been expressed and they noted that the second building being proposed with no additional curb cuts. At the same time there was a grading permit requested through the City Council that was acted on the Consent Agenda recently prepared by the engineering department. The applicant wasn't present to argue it but that grading permit had in there a stipulation that they could leave that access point they were concerned about. Since the Planning Cc~ission meeting we've reassessed it. The Engineering department has some additional information. We remain concerned about that curb cut. The new information that we have is that not only is it a hazard due to it's proximity to Park Place but it also interferes with a couple curb cuts located across the street. So we're continuing to reco~end that it be approved but we are moving to recommend that the...curb cut be deleted. Councilman Boyt: Might I ask, this is so straight forward. If we could focus everything on the curb cut, maybe we could get out of here on this issue pretty c~ickly. Mark Johnson: I'm Mark Johnson from Rome Development. I'll just bring up a couple of points if I can. We were trying to be sensitive to the access onto Park Road with the site. It is a 4 acre, slightly under that,'parcel of land and on that we have just two points of access to the site. We were trying to be sensitive I say in that we had two building pads proposed for the parcel and by doing the one further to the west, we incorporated the one drive into the two sites. The property line on Park Road is 600 feet long. We've got 300 feet of distance between the two drives. We are approxJ~ately 130-140 feet frc~ the corner curb of Park Place and Park Road so we were trying to be sensitive. We think that due to the size of the property, that it is reasonable. We anticipate seeing the traffic pattern on the site being semis and delivery vans and things will enter the curb cut to the west. Pull in behind the two buildings and then leave the property onto the Park Place road so that's really the main reason we wanted to have the drive entering Park Place was for the lower amount of maneuvering that these semis would have to make. So due to the distances between and the size of the properties, we feel that it is reasonable. I did not know of any conflict that was across the street there. There happens to be another curb cut right there? Paul Krauss: There's actually a double curb cut across the street. It's illustrated on the aerial photograph... Mark Johnson: Do you have any ~]estions that I can answer? Mayor Chmiel: I guess basically the major concern that we have, Bill mentioned this is very straight forward and in the staff reco~endations they are asking that they eliminate that eastern curb cut on Park Road and place it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars and redesign the remaining curb cuts as req~]ired to facilitate truck turningmov~ents and to reduce the grade on the r~aining Park Road curb cut from 10+% to less than 5%. I don't know if that's a real probl~ with you in regards to that. If there isn't, I think we can, besides the other conditions contained on there and I'm sure you've had a chance to review those Rc~an. Do you have any objections to those either? 79 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Roman Roos: Yes Mr. _Mayor. As Mark eluded to, the property's about 60g feet along Park Road. In that park, we checked everything after made the report the first time with the Planning Cou~ission. In that park there's four major companies. United, Victory, CC and DayCo and all of those people have curb cuts identical to mine but even shorter distance to the corner of the curve. Park Place is a cul-de-sac. A dead cul-de-sac. The intent is somewhat unreasonable when you have a piece of property that's 600 foot long that one single curb cut coming in to service two potential building projects is just unreasonable. As far as the traffic pattern, I can address the amount of traffic you have on Park Road going through tl~e park east/west would be no greater than that which is cc~ing in the main drag coming off of Park Place which is the main street coming in off TH 5. If I tho~]ght there was a traffic pattern, I would say definitely we'd change that but as far as a hazard I do not see that. We envision the main traffic that Mark el~]ded to would be ccm~ing off of Park Place and off of the co~_~on drive between the two b~lildings. The drive closest to the east would be strictly a small car entrance for the personnel working in the office departm~ent in that building. I have a very difficulty with staff's opinion that there's a traffic proble~l on that site. Mark Johnson: Particularly when I drove down Park Road this evening before coming here just to look at the other drives and I would say that the majority of the on centered distances of the drives down that road, which there are c~_]ite a few, were lg0 feet, 150 feet apart and you're looking at 3gg feet for two sizeable buildings and being a f~]ll 140 feet off of the intersection of the two roads which are, the Park Place road is not a very major road at this point. Will not be adding a lot of traffic co~.mts to Park Road. Gary Warren: Park Place frc~ the engineering perspective, we look also with an eye to the future here. The closeness of that curb cut is part of our concern here. In fact as recent as this morning we're talking with a package delivery service was interested in Lot 6 at the end of Park Place for example. Was talking about establishing a tande~l trailer route in the city that's going to be, if approved, would come into this area here. Ten trucks a day and I think the activity in that area has got a lot of potential for traffic and especially with the closeness of that cut to the corner and the fact that it's opposite two cuts was our concern. You could move that thing to the west in our opinion and live with it or indee~d planning Co~ission said to further restrict any cuts in the expansion. We could tolerate a cut I think in the expansion more than we could tolerate a cut at this location. I'll readily admit that there are other examples of cuts that are close to corners but I don't think that should be the justification why we should continue to tolerate a bad situation in my opinion. That' s our rationale. Roman Roos: ~nen you analyze it from a traffic point of view, what criteria and what type of accident are you talking about? Gary Warren: What type of ~nat? Rc~an Roos: Accident. Gary Warren: We were looking at conflicts, l~]rning movement conflicts from the two driveways and it's best shown I guess in the graphic, the aerial graphic, from the cuts across the road and also from t~lrning move~ents. The tandem route that is proposed for traffic is coming off Park Place to the west down Park Road City Council Maeting - October 23~ 1989 and then up Aud~_fl~on so we see a lot of movements going out towards the Audubon Road area. Mark Johnson: I guess I think in ~ mind about the distance whether the drive is entering Park Road directly across one another or they're 50 feet one way or another but the closeness in proximity to all the drives down Park Road, they cannot be that far off that there's going to be that much of a reduction of danger of one car pulling on, turning one way and one from the opposite sides of the road and just continuing to look at the distance between the drives here. Roman Roos: Gary, what is the width of those roads on Park Road? Gary Warren: It should be 36 I believe. Roman Roos: That's at least a car and a half per side. For a passing lane if scmebody's trying to turn into it. I don't care... Gary Warren: We talked earlier this evening about having to divert around buses and things of this nature. I guess sure, it's manageable. The question here I think is, is the site adequately served with the two cuts and I guess in our opinion we felt there was adec~]ate service without having to tolerate further congestion at that intersection and could indeed support a further cut to the west in the expansion if that would be a trade-off. Roman Roos: With the lot like it is, you have to, because of the odd shape of Park Place and Park Road, it's very difficult to take the building and set it into this area and make it useable. Okay? That's one of the reasons we backed it off so we have a lot of visibility effect on the front of that building come down Park Road. We've tried that building at several different locations. The site was configured to put two building pads on it...the day I bought it but after... The one time we had it over here which was a straight line into this bypass area and we shifted it all the way over to this point. That's 100 and so~e 40 foot over to that corner. There's no drive in that park that is that far frc~l the corner to the building. 20 foot is common. Now I'm not saying that's precedent. I'm just saying I just don't see the justifiable reason saying you can't have a curb cut off of Par. k Road. It's an industrial park. Councilman Boyt: It's also a collector. Roman Roos: Bill, there is no ordinances contolling that at all. If there was an ordinance saying that you can have 35 foot or 40 foot frc~ the corner, we'd comply with that ordinance but there's no ordinance. CounciLn~an Boyt: I thought I heard Gary saying move it further to the west and he could live with it. Roman Roos: Well I did. I shifted it as far as I could Bill on that site. CounciLn~an Boyt: If you shift it to the east you're then too close to the corner I gather from what staff is saying and as far as your shifting it to the west, I can see where it lays up by your building. It appears to do that pretty nicely. Unfortunately it's right across from a couple other existing drives. I think staff is pretty consistent Roman when they're saying to us, we don't like to have that many accesses in such a tight area. 81 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Gary Warren: Roman, have you looked at that cut being on the east on Park Place instead of on Park Road? Roman Roos: Again, the site, what I tried to do is have the access into the property from the primary road on the site and that is Park Road. We were not going to have a truck entrance at all because I'm going to have a co~on easement for this building to access this site but it seemed to be the best method to get truck traffic in there...in this front section so that was a whole site to have truck traffic cc~ing in on Park Place and back out. This traffic here is car traffic. It is not truck traffic. You're talking about tenants, the tenants in that end of the building, you're probably looking at I'd say ballpark maybe 2g-25 individuals having cars parking in the office department of that building. It is not truck traffic. That is cc~ing out of the other western driveway. Councilman Boyt: What are your hours of operation? Rc~an Roos: Typical office hours. 8: CounciLn~an Boyt: So it's going to be d~.m~ping the cars about the same time the others in that, is that what you were saying Gary? Does it make a difference that it's car traffic? I'm s~]re it must make a difference. Does it change your opinion knowing that it's car traffic? Gary Warren: I guess anything would help but car traffic is more easily managed I think at an access like that than truck traffic. Councilman Boyt: So if Roman posted that no truck entrance or exit, could you live with it frc~ a staff standpoint? Gary Warren: It wo~]ld improve the sit~]ation. Councilman Boyt: What a diplomatic answer. Mark Johnson: I liken the distances down to Park Drive which goes up to TH 5 and A~]dubon Trail and the traffic going like this and splitting at that point to get onto TH 5. We're about dead center there so t_he traffic would be abo~]t 5g-5g each way for the businesses down to the western part, they would go down Aud~]bon to TH 5 and the others to the east of us would go to Park Drive and take that way wo~ld be logical. Roman Roos: ...It was never intended for trucks in the first place because traffic that would turn around with a truck is very diffic~]lt. Very difficult. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably discussed it enough back and forth here. Councilman Workman: I don't see a problem and I would think to me the logic is to have it across from another entrance but I don't see it is as a problem but I do see it being kind of a void for this building if it isn't there too so I'm a fence sitter. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I appreciate staff's consideration here and I think they have more of an expert opinion than ! do. We did approve it on the 82 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 consent agenda with the elimination of the eastern curb cut so I guess I'd stick with that. Mayor Chmiel: With? Councilwoman Dimler: Keep the curt cut eliminated like we approved in our consent agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roman Roos: ...the reason for the grading permit was initially we were trying to get this thing ground breaking... When it became obvious that one tenant couldn't get in the ground that quick so we're going to stall it until spring so the grading process...so that's the primary reason there wasn't anybody present at that time... Mayo)~ Chmiel: How about if we were to just post that for cars only and no trucks? Gary Warm, eh: I was going to suggest, it depends on the timing of Roman's Situation but if he's talking about springtime construction, he mentioned some other alternatives for the building site that he had gone through and I don't know if Planning has-looked at those in the past but I'd be interested to look at those also to better understand the restraints that he's talking about for other alternate curb cuts here. It depends on the timing here but I would suggest that maybe it's appropriate to table the item~ or approve it with the understanding that we'll resolve this curb cut issue. Mayor Ctm~iel: I think I'd like to just as soon approve it with resolve~ent between the two of you. Between staff and yourselves. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. That' s fine with me. CounciL-~an Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that Site Plan Review ~89-8 for the Rome Office Building be approved without variances subject to the following conditions: 1. t~ovide trash storage enclosures built with materials compatible with the building or store all trash internally. 2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen constructed of ~'~aterials compatible with the building exterior. Details should be prepared for staff approval prior to City Council review. 3. The developer will work with the City Engineer to resolve the curb cut issues. 4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the Phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until construction occurs. 5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 83 City Co~mcil Meeting - October 23, 1989 6. Utilize concrete curb and g~]tter and design it to connect to improve~ents in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe. 7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion control may be rec~_]ired along the south property line by staff to prevent erosion into Park Road. 8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest corner of the building. 9. t~ovide lighting and signage details for staff review. All voted in favo~ and the motion carried. Council~an Boyt: Co~]ld I ask, could we go right to 12(b)? Councilwc~an Dimler: I' 11 second that. 12 (B) CURRY FARMS WETLAND ALTERATION, SENIOR PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen: This was brought in front of the Council tonight because there's been some activity o~t in ©~rry Farms which tpyically would rec~_~ire the residents to go through a wetland alteration permit to rar~ove 'the vegetation around the ponding areas. Yhe whole purpose for this ~ras just to, I know that they were going to be contact with the Council, was just to bring them up to date with what was happening and to allow the residents a chance to speak. I know it's really late and this co~]ld be a really long it~ so I'll kind of open it up to for them b~t essentially when O~rry Farms went through the subdivision process, t~hey also went through a wetland alteration pen?~it and there were sc~e low Class B wetland areas that were dredged and allowed to be dredged and ~]sed as ponding areas. As part of that, those areas have taken on c~.]alities of a wetland. They now have cattails and other wetland vegetation. There has been some red,oval of that vegetation. Staff has contacted the ~esidents stating that they would have to go through a wetland alteration permit process for that to be pez~itted. We understand their reasoning for wanting to remove it is to allow views into the ponding areas or to allow them to be used actively like in the wintert]~e and we acknowledge that there might be a compromise that we can come to working on but they do have to go through the process because what is happening now is not the correct way and it's removing a lot of the vegetation and taking away the benefits of the area. So with that I guess I'll let them, however you want to do this. Maybe have one spokesperson. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'd really like to do. Can we have a spokesperson for this? Jo Ann Olsen: And there would be no decisions made tonight. Also, there are residents who also do not like what is happening out there a~d wish to see the vegetation remain too. 84 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Boyt: I would encourage us to listen to anybody that wants to talk. Mayor Ctm~iel: I'm all for that too but as long as we can confine it to very short, brief point. Please state your name and your address. Barbara Spiess: My name is Barbara Spiess and I live at 6610 Arlington Court. I think first of all that the whole situation didn't need to occur. It was set up as an advesarial situation with people from City Planning coming in, infok~ling people they were going to fine them because it was a registered Class B wetland. I don't understand. We checked the plat and I called and several of us have checked with Carver County. The recorded description which was approved by the City has it listed as a drainage and utility easem~lent and the Certificate of Title show no covenants, no restrictions, absolutely no conditions. Dedication of the plat shows no wetland designation so we continued to move on. I called Miss Olson who told me that on Friday and we had a meeting on Friday afternoon, she informed that yeah, they possibly were remiss and this is something that should have been done and probably would be done in the future but hasn't been done to date. So ~ question came back to, this was not even a pond prior to it being created as a detention pond for the area. So then I picked up the zoning codes. Well page 1189, Section 2404 Establishment of Wetlands, if I can read the last two sentences in that section. It says the wetland map entitled Chanhassen Wetland Map dated May 22, 1984 is hereby adopted as prima facia evidence of the wetland areas and an official copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Land within the wetland area shall be classified as Class A wetland or Class B wetland as delineated on said map. Now we've got a copy of this map and we're not delineated as a Class A or Class B wetland. It didn't exist in 1984. It was a horse pasture from what we understand so then there was a little bit more confusion. There's no notification in the form of a letter or public form or anything calling us together. There was simply a notification by City Planning of 3 families out of 34 that are impacted. When I asked why the rest of us weren't notified so that we could then understand the infok~ation, it was explained to me that Ms. Olson ass~m~ed that those 3 families would notify the rest of Curry Farms. I think that's a little, well anyway. It · didn't happen and I don't really feel it was their responsibility. Again, back to where is it designated as a wetland? I can find it called everything except a wetland. Now Ms. Olson told me that it has been a wetland forever. Well, I picked up some additional information and that information says that in 1987 when ©Iffy Fa~s was proposed and when you were going through a City Council approval of the plat, that a Dr. Rockwell was called in and I ass~m~e that's Dr. Rockwell who's from the federal goverr~ent? Fish and Wildlife. Dr. Rockwell, if it's always been a Class B wetland, why was Dr. Rockwell called in to deter_mine whether it should be dedicated as a wetland or not? I think we're all so totally confused as to whether this is a wetland and I think it brings us a lot of issues. Nlm~er one there's a safety issue for our children. The reeds and cattails have grown up to the point where we cannot see to the interior of that pond. There are 67, approximately to 70 children about 55% under the age of 5. We can't see that water. Those reeds totally now, or prior to them taking them out, encompassed all of that. I think there's a safety issue and that it needs to be cleared out. We're not asking that it be enviror~entally raped or whatever. All we're asking is a parternship with us. Discuss it with us. Don't come in weilding a club and telling us that we have violated a wetland ordinance where we can't find anything that designates a wetland ordinance. Not on the map which zoning says is prima facia evidence of wetlands and the City of Chanhassen nor on plats or on certificates of title or 85 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 dedications of plats, nothing. And I think maybe there were some hurt feelings because we didn't just simply accept what we were told to do but there was research done by the people who were impacted by this in Curry Farms. I u~ean we didn't just say, ah, too bad. City Planning. Let's go out and pull reeds. We did look at it. We looked very carefully at it. We've also understood from calls that we've made to Fish and Wildlife and the DNR that we're going to lose what wildlife we have there or had there last year in the form of ducks and geese beca~]se if they have no access to shore, they will no longer come in there to nest. So my next c~_]estion is, what are we dedicating this to? What is our plan? What is the long tet~ goal that we're looking to do? Is it preservation for the sake of preservation for a detention pond or are we looking to bring in wildlife and who are the ecological environmental subject matter experts that are going to help us and tell us what we sho~]ld be doing. We are more than happy I think and I think I can speak collectively for the people that are here, we'k'e more than happy to be cooperative but we'd like to see some sort of a plan. Technically, if you get down to it, there are drainage areas all over. Drainage easements are everywhere. A3~e they all considered a wetland? What constitutes a wetland? One cattail that grows where there's water? We don't understand and we are seeking that information. Now one resident was told that he wo~]ld get that info~ation but that has not been sent out to him from the City and we have sought the information. Then what happens when you get to the park. I mean is the park a wetland? Can the people around the park not do any grooming of that at all because technically if we're using the same standards, then they have to be unilateral all the way around Chanhassen so the park is also a wetland. We're a little confused as to What direction that City Planning would like us to take and I think we're also a little confused and maybe, if there's any anger at all I think it's over the fact that What people were told is we can do this to you beca~]se we're the City and I think what we're conf~]sed about was we thought maybe we were the City. Maybe as taxpayers we were the City. We weren't trying to destroy the property for our property values. We're trying to upgrade it. We knew we were responsible for maintenance and we thought we mere maintaining and we were given no other options except stop. Don't touch it. You do not have the right and I think, I just don't see that that's a very pragmatic approach. Suitable for the City or for the residents of Cl]rry Farms. It doesn't make a great deal of realistic sense to me. Long term or short term. The cattails can stay but I don't see that we've accomplished anything and right now the way it looks, if they overgrow and those drainage sewers or the grates are clogged with all of this that are going to fall event~]a!ly when we let it grow in, then what happens? Does it block up and go back in our back yards as it did last spring and then what's the impact to Christmas Lake? I think there's a lot more to it and I don't see that anyone had a long term plan as to how it was supposed to be handled. No perameters seemed to have been created at all and I guess I'm a little bit concerned. I don't understand, if City Planning wanted to take a stand on wetlands, which I think is fine, I don't understand why the time and the tax dollars were spent on a marm~ade drainage and utility ease~ent, essentially a detention pond. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else ~/no would like to add to that? John Witlman: My na~e is John Willman. I reside at 651g Wellsley Court. one of the 3 of which they're speaking who removed reeds from the land. What I would like to do is show you sc~e pictures of the pond if I may of when my ho~]se was first being built. It will show you basically the natural aspect of the way 86 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 the pond looked and was always meant to look in ~ opinion. I wish I could be as eloc~]ent as Barb was in explaining our thoughts. Our main concern with the pond, my wife's and ~self was not just to open it up for open water but for the fact that we have tw~ young children and we were very, very concerned about the~ getting lose in the reeds so to speak. So we took those down. Not only did we do that but we went and we were very ecologically, for lack of a better word, motivated. We called the DNR. We tried to get in contact with the City Engineer. My wife left repeated messages for him to call. My wife is always home. She does not work and we also have a recorded. We never received any information back from this gentleman. I realize that he is a busy man so what we did do is we called the DNR and I asked them about removal, first of all if it was a wetland according to the State which it was not. Since it was not, I asked him if there was any problem removing the reeds. Not only did they tell me that there was no problem but they also told me exactly how to get rid of the reeds. So I guess we v~re concerned when people came around and told us that this was an improbable or something that should not have been done and I'd just like to say to you all that it wasn't done to impact or to hurt the enviror~[ent. It was basically done to protect our children and to give a chance for the ducks and the geese to be able to get to land so scale of can feed them. We appreciate that. Thank you. Tom Schafer: I'm Tom Schafer. I live at 6501 Devonshire ~nich is Lot 12 on there. I chose that lot because of it's climate orientation. That was very important to me. When I walked that lot in the spring of '88, there wasn't a drop of water in that back yard and when we went to look at the plot plan of the subdivision, I noticed the water shown on there and I asked the salesman what that was and he said it was a sto~ retention pond. That was his words. He said that all the runoff is eventually going to fill that thing up to a set point and that's the way it is but you own that property. That's your ladd back to the center. Where the lines were shown. I'm here to say that there wasn't any water there in the spring of '88 and if that map was done in 1984, how could this have been designated a wetland area? That's my co~ents. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tom. Anyone else? Okay. Questions Council. Barbara Spiess: Could I say one more thing? I'm sorry but...and I think it's very relevent and possibly not to the detention pond we're discussing but in driving around and now becoming conscience about this and in looking at registered Class A wetlands around the area, there are a n~er of Class A wetlar~s and it's very visible from the road. One doesn't have to travel far to find them, that trees are being felled on them. Dirt is being mounded so water is diverted. They are legitimate Class A wetlands and I guess that concerns me from an ecological point of view that Class A wetlands or what would appear to be legitimate Class A wetlands are possibly being destroyed or altered and I'm certainly not casting aspersions at these people. Maybe they have a right to do it but I think if a map has never been updated since 1984, priorities should be such that we start looking for those Class A wetlands now in protecting them and listing them, if indeed that is pri~m facia evidence on a map because it is happening and they are all over the area. And I took an afternoon just to drive around and see and it's amazing how many, you can find lu~oer stacked this high were trees have been felled on wetlands. Some have been designated on the map and so~e are not. But if we truly are concerned about the wetlands and there is something that we want to do about them, I think it might be a terrific place to start in possibly those Class A wetlands are being destroyed might be a great 87 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 place to start. Thank Councilman Workman: Gary, aren't we mapping right now? Gary Warren: Frc~ the engineering department we have no wetlands map that's being prepared, no. We've done aerial topography of the entire city in April so we have a database. Councilman Workman: Apologies all around for everybody I guess. It's kind of an issue I guess that, I didn't ask if there was anybody else that wanted to speak either I guess. I'm j~ping in but somewhere a misunderstanding got in the way and now we're, usually it's your whole neighborhood against us. Not the neighbors against each other. When we have develolmtents and we need to create a retention pond and we're going to need clarification on wetlands ourselves probably. Take one pond for ex&~ple, say the Rosemo~]nt pond which they had to basically create or any other housing development, we ask them to make uneven bottoms on those ponds. How it sho~]ld be sloped. What shol]ld be planted around them. They're meant to do many things. One, take care of the filtration. The water that isn't going to go anywhere because of the homes up and around and I'm winging this one here, to sift through the mud and so that it won't go into other larger wetlands and to also provide for wildlife. Correct? So it's supposed to do everything. It's not meant to be a sewer. It is meant to be an infiltration place which beca~]se of development has been taken away and so where the City decides and when they decide this thing is a Class A wetland, is probably up for anybody's guess. Councilman Boyt: There's a procedure. Councilman Workman: But it's meant to be, and Bill's had a lot more and I'm sure if Jay Johnson was here he'd be foaming at the mouth right now. So you know, I'm sure if it looks like a wetland, it probably is one in my mind but how the legal, how the exact description of what that is. Councilman Boyt: I think staff opened it up with the right approach when they said they thing they can work with the neighborhood to get so~.~ething that people can live with. There is apparently a good bit of confl]sion here. Anytime that I think those of ~ who work with these issues a lot make some probably ass,t~ptlons that the rest of the community, maybe we don't do a very good job of educating them about. The wetland map in no way designates all the wetlands in Chanhassen. I think it was a pretty convenient way of saying we know these are wetlands bl~t everytime a development cc~es in, if we suspect that there might be a wetland there, we ask Fish and Wildlife or the DNR to come out with our staff and go out and they investigate. It's our intent as a city to not drain wetlands so we rec,_lire an alteration pe~m~it for anyone who wants to change those. If Mrs. Spiess discovered some damage being done to wetlands, you should report that. I think that's your responsibility to do that so we can follow up on the~. There is, To~_~ let me take a minute here and just say I think if you can come ~]p with a plan that improves the ability of the wetland to do it's job, then I'm sure staff will be happy to work you with to accomplish that and made arrange~ents with the DNR and Fish and Wildlife and as a cosm~unity, you may well be able to accomplish some of what you want and still protect that area. It se~s to me like the reasonable thing to do. 88 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Barbara Spiess: Can I ask a c~_]estion, and I'm confused again. So you're saying that what we thought we purchased as real property, even though there is an easement on it, we understand that,~but what we felt was purchased as real property you don't have to designate on a wetland map. You don't have to declare a wetland? You can just simply at any given time say this now becomes a wetland. You should all be aware of this and as you are subject to whatever fines will ensue if you touch that particular wetland? Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Spiess, it's fairly co~on for the City Council to require developers to build wetlands whenever there's an opportunity. So if there's a drainage pond we, as Tom just mentioned, we've got 5 pretty specific criteria that the developer needs to follow so that that will become a wetland if it isn't now one. There are criteria that Fish and Wildlife have that set apart these wetlands in ter~ls of whether they're Type A or Type B. The City is much more restrictive in how it handles wetlands than the State of Minnesota is by intention. We have a great many wetlands in this city and we feel they're extremely val~]able. Staff can go through all this with you. They have a lot of background and I think that they'd be quite willing to see if sc~ething can be resolved with the neighborhood but it's my understanding that the development contract set those up as future wetlands. I know that given the history of the Council, at least during the 3 years I've been on it, that would have been our intention. If there would have been any possibility of creating a wetland, we would have done it. Barbara Spiess: I think that's fine. I don't think we...and I'm back to my original c~]estion. There is no process then? Once it does collect any water, then even though it is not designated a wetland, then we should take the initiative to call and say does this now constitute a wetland? Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you that a wetland is a wetland by characteristic, not by identification on the map. Barbara Spiess: Right. And where do we get those characteristics? Are they documented? Councilman Boyt: Yes they are. Staff can give you those. Mayor Chmiel: Rather than having a lot of conversations going back and forth here, what I'd really like to see done is that staff does work with the neighborhood. I'd also like to see that they set up a specific meeting night. Bring in the DNR. People who can inform you as to what it is and what it consists of and hopefully we can resolve the given problems that are there. So with that I'd suggest that that's what we do and we appreciate the fact that you did come in this evening. We're sorry that you had to wait so long but it's one of those things. Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to ask Jo Ann, did I read somewhere that a 75 foot setback is not-required? Jo Ann Olsen: That is correct. With this, the only area the 75 foot setback was req~]ired in O]rry Fakes was with the Class A, the large wetland to the west. The reason that the 75 foot setback was not rec~]ired with these areas was that it would r~ove all those lots around there. They felt that they were low Class B wetlands. That they were going to be ~lproved but that the 75 foot setback 89 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 wasn't necessary at this time. That was part of wetlar~ alteration. Councilwoman Dimler: It wasn't necessary because it .wasn't considered a wetland worth considering then? Jo Ann Otsen: Well it wasn't a large Class A wetland. Councilwoman Dimler: I find that a little bit... Jo Ann Olsen: It's just that part of working with the developer, it was just one of the things... CounciL~an Boyt: Compromise. Councilwoman Dimler: But I mean, that does give a dolfole message. That was my point. Mayor Chmiet: Anyway, I would like to .see that direction Bill and to work with the neighbors and to have a meeting and invite DNR in. Who would be the individual spokesperson to be contacted ti]at Jo Ann can make the contact with? Don Ashworth: Maybe if Nann, you could pass around a sheet, we could get everybody's name and address and we'll send it directly to each one of theme. Jo Ann Olsen: I've already got their addresses. Mayor Chmiel: You have a list of their names already and addresses? Jo Ann Olsen: That's why they' re here tonight. Don Ashworth: What you have is the ownership for the Ck]rry Farms area? Is there anyone out there who is not an owner in that area? Okay. So we have your n~mes and addresses. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We appreciate your cc~ing in and having you sit lip with lis this late. We needed it to keep us awake. REVIE%7 APPRAISAL FOR CARRICO PROPERTY. CounciL~an Workman: I would denial right or move on with it? Is it something we have -to discuss? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Councilman Workman: Isn't it dead? Lori Sietsema: Basically the Park Co~mtission reviewed the appraisals that were prepared for the City and the one that was prepared for the landowner. They came in at the, the two that came in that were prepared for the City camte in at $58,ggg.g0 and $85,ggg.g~ for the entire 11 acre site and Mr.. Carrico's came in at $33g,~gg.gg for the site. The Park and Recreation Co~mlission felt that going through the condemnation process, there was no guarantees that it would be come in close to our appraiser's price and reco~t~tended to the City Council not to 90 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 pursue conde~nation procedure for the entire site. They did want to reiterate to the Council that it is a priority for theml to acquire a piece of park property in this area as it is park deficient area. Since the time of the Park and Recreation Co~mission, we met with Mr. Carrico and he's planning to proceed now, pending your decision. If you decide that the whole entire site shouldn't be pursued, he's decided to proceed with his site plan and proceed with his site plan and see if the MUSA line can be moved. He's talking about a willingness to sell or dedicate a portion of the site. Mark Williams: My name is Mark Williams, 1655 Lake Lucy Road. Initially I got the report from the Park and Recreation Co~mission meeting and was a little bit disappointed that I didn't think they were going to pursue any other ideas and I 'm glad to hear. they were coming up with some ideas because instantly some came to mind such as trying to work with Mr. Carrico and come up with a portion of that property. That might allow h~ to develop it and also a chance for us to get a park in that area because the bottom line is, if that piece of property goes away and there's no park on it, there's really nothing left in that i,m~ediate vicinity so I'd just like to see some people use some innovative ideas here and come up with something that could be benficial to everybody in that area including Mr-. Carrico and not have to go through some condemunation proceedings and everything. I'd just like to see people not drop this issue and keep working on it. I guess I'm going to speak for a few neighbors that are home in bed with their kids right now but there are several people that are interested. There's a general interest in the area to have a park there and I'm sure if there's any concerns about the Council or the Park and Rec Co~lission on that, that that voice could be heard very quickly and loudly. Thank you. Lori Sietsema: There were a nun~er of people here..othey decided not to come. Mayor Ctm~iel: Any other discussion? Mr. Carrico, did you want to say sc~ething? Carl Carrico: Your honor, I had a 45 minute dissertation but we're running a little short so I'll do it in 4 1/2 seconds. I want sc~e action on the property. I've owned the property since 1971. Have purposedly waited this long to develop the property. I'm not a newcomer to Chanhassen because I originally zoned the Sinnen property around the American Legion Club so I've had a great deal of e~lpathy for your problems in Chanhassen and for your future. All I want is a decision. For the last year and a half I've followed all the procedures of the City and I can't get off dead center. I'd just like a decision made one way or another so I could get plan accordingly. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I should ask if anybody else wants to talk but I'm sure Chris doesn't so we'll move on. Council~an Boyt: I'd like to make a motion that the City pursue arrangements with M~. Carrico to acc~]ire part of the property. Mayor C?mliel: That ' s it? Councilman Boyt: That ' s it. That by implication says we ' re not going to acc,.lire it all. Councilwoman Dimler: For parkland? 91 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Yes. For parkland. Do you need a second to that? Councilman Workr~an: I want to figure out how we're going to acc,_lire it. Roger Knutson: I would interpret that to mean that as part of the platting process you're entitled to take a certain percentage of the property for parkland and that's the process. Councilwoman Dimler: When he goes for development you say? Roger Knutson: Yes. That's how I interpret it. Councilman Workman: .Second. Co~]nciL,~an Boyt movc~, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to acc,_lire a portion of the Carrico property for parkland through the development process. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ACCEPT DONATION FROM CHANKASSEN LIONS CLUB AND ALLOCATE PROJECT. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor CTm~iel seconded to accept the donation of $15,85g.gg frc~ the Chaska Lions Club and that a portion of the funds be used to construct a fireplace in the Lake Ann Park Cc~r~unity Picnic Shelter and to establish a fund for soccer field lights with the intention that future donations will be added. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BOARD, SENIOR PLANNER. Mayor Chmiel: Appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Board. In addition to that I'd also like to have Ursula sit on that, Metro Transit Co~mission. The reason I say that is because that leaves 2 council people with a staff person on there at this Jo Ann Olsen: If they still have a third position, do you want ~s to go out for ads for that? This year we have 3 people. Do you keep Dale? Mayor Chmiel: No. We need 2 people. Jay is already on. Jo Ann Olsen: You need 2 additional. Mayor Chmiel: Two additional would be one, the senior planner or... Jo Ann Olsen: We already act as an advisory role. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then I suggest that we go out for one more person to sit on it as a citizen. Council~an Workman: I'd like to Ursula's view on transportation. Councilwoman Dimler: i have a 3~ min~]te speech. 92 City Council Meeting - October 23~ 1989 Councilman Workman: Does that req~lire a motion? Mayor CTmliel: I would think that it does, yes. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to appoint Ursula Dimler to the Southwest Metro Transit Board and to run an ad in the newspaper to fill the third vacancy with a citizen at large. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FRONTIER HOMES, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. Jim Chaffee: I'm going to try and make this short since it's 10 after 1:00 in the morning. Mayor CTm~iel: We ' d appreciate it. Jim Chaffee: Two weeks ago the Council directed me to pursue complaints by Frontier homebuilders and buyers. We did that. We sent out 26 letters to Frontier homebuilders in the city of Chanhassen. As of October 20th we have received 7 responses back with various problems. Of the 7 responses, at least 5 of them have had mechanic liens filed against their homes. I have memos from Scott Hart dated October 20th with the itemization of the complaints and I won't burden you with those tonight. I just wanted to let the Council know that we are pursuing this. Frontier Homes continues to receive bad press in the papers. In Eagan, in Eden t~:airie and in Chanhassen. I've talked to our City Attorney who indicates that we're still pretty much tied as far as what actions we can take against Frontier but rest assured we are doing something. We are keeping them on the forefront of publicity if you will and after conferring with Roger, I think what we will do is dog them, if you will, and every move they make on every building that they build in the City of Chanhassen and make sure that they do comply with every letter of the Code. To my knowledge though they aren't doing anything in Chanhassen. The one house I am aware of that they are building, no work has been done on that for at least 2 weeks now due to sub contractors not willing to do the work. That's pretty much where we stand. We're still t~]rsuing it. Scott now is attempting to contact the homeowners who have responded back to us to see if they will let us release their names to the Frontier Home Corporation so that action can be taken and this is all because of the data privacy act and we just want to make sure we comply. But we are following up on that. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Counci]m~an Boyt: I have a response before you leave. I think that the City should run the ads. We said we would and we should do that and we should run them, normally I wouldn't run them in the Sailor because it's not the official newspaper but they have done a lion share of the work in researching this thing. I think we should run an ad separate from the normal city notices. I know Roger's ad is pretty innocuous but I still think we ought to run that and I do not think we should dog them. I think the City shouldn't be doing that. The City should be enforcing the Code with everyone but I do think we should run the ads. That guy came in here and did not tell us the truth and so I think we 93 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 should follow up. I would move that we place ads in the Villager and the Sailor. They can be small but I think they need to. J]sl Chaffee: If I might co~lent on that. My problem with that Bill is that we haven't really given them enough time. We haven't even contacted Paul yet with these problems. What i'd like to suggest is that during this next 2 week period that we do contact Mr. Oaks with these problems and have him do what he can do to take care of theol, i know it's another timeframe but in fairness to Paul, I did tell him we would contact him. I was out of town for a week. It took some time getting responses back from the people. I think it's only fair that we do give him another 2 weeks to see if he can correct these problems and if he can, it's going to help the citizens who are complainirg. Mayor C[~iel: I would think that's reasonable. I'm looking for adjour~lent. Co~]ncilman Workman: Can I mention something under presentation just really c~_]ick? Councilwoman Dimler: Vending machines. Councilman Work~an: Go home to your papers today and it was, I heard abo~]t it last week but they had a nice big a~ticle in there. Few mourn Bear Town's cigarette machine ban. Bear Town being White Bear Lake. They are being called leaders, international leaders for doing this. i'd like to see us p~]rsue it in the City to, not to aggravate cigarette smokers but to keep a product away from children self serving themselves with this deadly habit and I'd like to work with staff if I can to arrive at that. Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be a good idea. Counci~lan Wor~,~an moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:12 a .~l.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 94