Loading...
1989 03 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 1989 Mayor Chm~el called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeti_ng was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema, and Jim Chaffee APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Counc~.lwoman Dimler seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the purchase of the property east of Lake Ann Park; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss variance policy and smoking at City Hall. All voted in favor and the moth. on carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations: a. Approve Grading Permit for Chanhassen Hills Third Addition. f. Resolution #89-38: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Utility Installation for Extension of Lake Drive East to 184th Street. g. Resolution #89-39: Approve Advance Encumbrance of State-Aid Funds. 1. Approval of July 4th Celebration Contracts: 1. Banner Fireworks 2. Hi-Topps o. Ordinance Amending Code Concerning the Acceptance of Gifts, Second Reading. p. Resolution ~89-40: Approval of Furnishings for Fire Station and City Hall Additions. q. Resolution ~89-41: Approval of Change Order No. 3 for City Hall/Fire Station Expansions. r. Approval of Temporary Use Permit Extension, Westside Baptist Church, 1268 Park Road, Brian Pike. s. Approval of Accounts t. City Council Minutes dated March 13, 1989 Planning Con~n~.ssion Minutes dated March 1, 1989 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. C].ty Council Meeting -March 27, 1989 B. ACCEPT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLEANING, REPAIRING AND PAINTING THE 10g,gg0 GALLON ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Councilman Boyt: When we painted the new water tower, we did something that I thought was received very well in the community. That was, we sent notice to · the people lJ.ving i.n~nediately around the tower about the color and asked for their response. As a result, we changed the color and I believe have had several con~nents s].nce J.t was painted by the neighbors that they liked the color. I would suggest that we do the same with the City tower. Telling them that we have picked the color because it was so well received with the larger tower and we' re going to need to send a notice to them anyway about the sandblasting and how that would be handled. I'd like to see J.ncluded ].n that not]ce that we tell them the color and ask for theJ. r response. It adds nothing to the cost but certa].nly coinnunicates better with the neighbors. So I would move. Counc].lman Johnson: I'll second that. Will that cause any problem to engineer lng? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt and I spoke earlier about it and that's no problem. Resolution %89-42: CouncJ. lman Boyt moved, CounciLman Johnson seconded to accept plans and specif].cations for cleaning, repairing and paJ. nting the 100,ggg gallon elevated water storage tank, notifyJ, ng residents as to the color select]on and asking for their opinions, and authorize for the advertising of bids. Ail voted J.n favor and the motJ. on carrJ.ed. C. ACCEPT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY/TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to pu].l this for one questJ, on and that was, ].t's about the aerial photography and topographic mapping proposal. It says that money has been set aside each year for the past 4 years for th].s and it didn't specify the amount. Could you 9ive me the amount? Don Ashworth: That was put in t/ne Administrative Trust Fund and if you would go back, each year we had tried to put money aside to insure we could fund that. It ranged about $2g,0g0.gg to $25,ggg.00 per year. Councilwoman Dimler: For 4 years? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept the Aerf. al Photography/Topographic Mapping Proposal and authorize contract negotiations. All voted in favor and the mot]on carried. City Counc~l Meeting - March 27, 1989 D. AUDUBON COURT] Councilman Workman: I brought this up for one reason only and I won't take credi, t for the idea. I did read it in one of the papers. It was action by Victoria C~.ty Council in that they are not looking favorable upon new additions with new roads all being named basically the smme thing. It becomes very difficult for law enforcement, fire department, UPS drivers, mail delivery, etc. to all have Boyt Boulevard, Boyt Drive, Boyt Circle. Particularly when we have an Audubon Road or something on the north end of town and now we've got some more coming down here and we've already got an Audubon Road. I spoke with Jim Chaffee today and Fire Inspector Littfin, they both agreed and Jo Ann I also spoke with, they concurred that it might be a good idea if we got a little more imagination into naming of the roads so we don't have problems such as fire calls. Councilman Johnson: That's something staff has pointed out before. This is just one place I guess we kind of missed this one. Councilwoman Dimler: I would reinforce that too. When I spoke wi~h the Carver County Sheriff's Department, the people at 911 have a terrible time, just a terrible time when the roads are named the same. Mayor Chmiel: How about the final plat portion? Any other discussion on that Tom? Councilman Workman: No. I have no other discuss~_on of that. I'll just make a motion that we approve Audubon Court final plat, Develo~nment Sites, Ltd. with the condition that they find other suitable names for their roads. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Audubon Court Grading Plan and Development Contact and the Final Plat for Development Sites, Ltd. with the condition that they find other suitable street names. All voted in favor and the motion carried. E. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN THIRD ADDITION. Councilman Johnson: First paragraph, with the exception of a few last minute changes, have reviewed this document with the developer. Does the developer know about these few last minute changes at this point? Gary Warren: We faxed a copy of the development to his attorney and I have not had any discuss~.on with them after that. There's no real major surpr]~ses in there. We're not pulling a fast one by any means. Councilman Johnson: When did you fax that? Friday? Gary Warren: Thursday afternoon. City Council Meet].ng - March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: They've had time to respond. Is the developer, his attorney here tonight for Trappers Pass, Nea~ Mountian Third Add]t_]on? Mike Pflattm: Yes. My name is Mike Pfla~. I'm with Lundgren Bros Construction and I've reviewed the changes. Mayor Chmiel: No problem? Mike Pflaum: No problem. Councilman Johnson moved, CouncJ. lwoman Df_mler seconded to approve the Development Contract for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain Third Addition. Ail voted in favor and the motJ. on carried. H. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR BLUFF CREEK GREENS. Councilman Boyt: There is a trail planned for Bluff Creek. We already have easements on part of the creek and I noticed that in this development contract there's no reference to easements for the continuation of that trail. I'd hate to see the City have to come back later on and buy those easements. So I would suggest that a tra].l easement over Outlot B and below the 857 contour, which by the way is in the non-buildable area on Lot 1, Block 3 would provide this link. So we have a trail easement over Outlot B and also below the 857 contour iine on Lot 1, Block 3. Mayor Cbniel: Is the developer here for Bluff Creek Greens? Dave Johnson: I'm in a little bit of a tenuous situation tonight. My name is Dave Johnson. I'm Art Johnson's son. One of the partners of Bluff Creek. Or my father is. He has been on vacation for a week. Wi. ii be back on Friday. His other partner Norm Berglund had left everyth].ng i.n the Attorney's hands and I got a call about 2g minutes ago letting me know that the Attorney is out of town today and so there is nobody here to represent that tonight. So I ran up here and i.t was supposed to go through, is this right Gary, 2 weeks ago a~t it was tabled at that point in time and I was wondering if it would be possible for a 2 week extension. Discussion I'm sure on what you're speaking of Bill could be done in that time too. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that unless you have a problem Gary. Gary Warren: No. Initially the 2 year time clock on the preliminary plat ran from March 16, 1987 and that's why they were trying to get on the March 13th agenda to get the development contract approved and get everything signed up. We had no time to deal with the item at that time due to the magnitude of the agenda at that time so I could not place them on that agenda and that's why we said we would follow up on this agenda. So it's really Council's rules as far as the preliminary plat and if you want to extend them another 2 weeks, ! don't see a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Roger, is there any legal problem with that? City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't have any problem with that. CouncJ~lman Boyt: I have no problem with that. If we're going to extend it, I would like to add a couple other points for consideration when you're reviewing it. Dave Johnson: Bill, I can not speak for it at all. Councilman Boyt: Since you're going to have a couple weeks to mull these over. Since this was originally approved, the City has pretty consistently asked for a DNR review of tree cutting plans and when those have been severe, have asked for alternate plantings. I'd like to have you look at that as well. Rather than just go through and sort of pick apart the whole thing, those are my two big issues and I'll stop with that. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a motion on a two week extens~on on this? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I move that we provide an extension to the preliminary plat to such times as the trail issue and woodland issue can be discussed w~.th the developer. If that takes 2 weeks or if it takes another 2 weeks after that, I don't think we need to tie our hands. Councilman Boyt: Second. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to put a max on it though of 6 months. We're not indefinitely extending the preliminary plat. To the maximu~n of 6 months. I'm not sure if you're in a hurry to develop this. Gary Warren: They're intending to construct the project this year, so I would expect them to proceed expedit~.ously with ~t. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to grant an extension, not to exceed 6 months, to the prel~.minary plat for Bluff Creek Greens to such times as the trail issue and woodland issue can be discussed with the developer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. RESCHEDULE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE POSITION COMPENSATION PLAN. Councilman Workman: The set special meeting date 1989 position classification plan and comparable work plan for April 17, 1989 is something that I can not make. Todd Gerhardt: I'm open to councilmembers of setting another date or do you want to go ahead without Councilman Workman? Councilwoman Dimler: I'm also, I mean I can make it but it's inconvenient for me on the 17th. Mayor Chmiel: What about April llth? ~y Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 CouncJ. lman Johnson: Yes, after the Park and Rec joint meeting we just said we're going to have. Todd Gerhardt: It'd be better if we could push it farther back. Councilman Johnson: You'll just have to work harder. Todd Gerhardt: It's not my problem. It's Karen Olson. She also ].s a negotiater for union contracts for other cities in the metro area and this is the earliest time she could meet. Councilman Boyt: I'd l_]~ke to see us meet as soon after the 17th as possible and before the 19th. Mayor Chmiel: How does the 18th look Todd? Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reschedule special City Council meeting to discuss the position compensation plan for April 18, 1989 at 7:3g p.m.. All voted in favor and the motion carried. K. APPROVAL OF LAKE ANN PARK CONCESSIONAIRE. Councilman Johnson: One of the things that was discussed a lot at Park and Rec when I attended this one was the noise level issue. I've done some research into it. Unfortunately I did the research this afternoon instead of in a more timely manner and I'd like to make sure that the generater purchased on here has a muffler that is rated for critical use. They have industrial use mufflers, residential use mufflers and critical use mufflers. According to Zeigler Inc., their caterpillar group, they have a critical use muffler, 1 inch diameter for $76.gg so we're not talking a lot of money for the best muffler available. So that's why I'd like to state that we need at least what the Zeigler Caterpillar sales people classify as a critical use muffler. This is a muffler to use next to a hospital. If you've got a generater in a hospital and stuff so it's the quietest possible. I have a real concern that we get a noisy generater go].ng by the beach that the lifeguards utilize their hearing as much as anything else so I don't want anything ~.nterferring with that Plus it would just float right across that lake and over onto those homes up t~e side of the hill on the other side of the lake. Councilman Boyt: As long as you've pulled this, I'd like to make another recorm~endatf_on. That the concessionaire make every effort to have some sort of dJ. stinctJ, ve paper items so J.t's possible for us to determine when they're doing a good job of picking up their paper items. Part of the contract is an obligation to do that. If they have some distinctive, a name, a color, anything that we can tell what's theirs will help us keep track of how we're doing. Mayor Chmiel: There you'd be imposing on them to make sure they have their logo on their napkins or whatever else. Councilman Boyt: I don't want to require them to do something that would be particularly expensive but I want to be able to say to them, yes very clearly City Counc~.l Meeting -March 27~ 1989 this litter isn't yours or it is. If we could do something that would just make it distinctive. Councilman Johnson: If they purchase industrial quantity, those usually look different than what the residential homeowner is buying and bringing out for his picnic. Then aga_in, you may not be. Hopefully they've also use biodegradeable versus plastic or styrofoam. I don't know if that was in here anyplace. Was it Lori? Biodegradeability of their containers? Lori Sietsema: No. Counc~.lman Johnson: I don't want to see styrofoam cups out there for coffee. I thought we had discussed that. Or I shouldn't say we, I thought you had. Mayor Chmiel: They hadn't mentioned coffee on here. What they ~ndicated that they'd have is just 4 flavors of soft drinks. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but it's going to be served in cups. Mayor Chmiel: I would imagine those are pretty much paper, waxed covered. Councilman Johnson: I think it was discussed. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think they'd have styrofoam because your costs are less on the paper. Councilman Boyt: Well can we reconxnend those and if there's a problem they can always come back to us? There's plenty of time. Mayor Chmiel: I thJ. nk it'd be alright to make that recommendation. Councilman Johnson: So I'll move approval with 3 modifications. One is to require critical use or equivalent muffling on the generater. Two would be the biodegradeable paper goods. Three would be distinctive paper goods so we can tell whos is whos, if possible. That's a very nebulous one. Couniclman Boyt: Second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Lake Ann Park concessionaire to be awarded to Domo Products, Inc. with the following conditions: 1. Require the use of a critical use or equivalent muffling system on the generater. 2. The paper goods should be biodegradeable. 3. The concessionaire carry distinctive paper goods. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. ~C~.ty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 M. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, FIRST AND SECOND READING. CounciLman Boyt: I guess I'm a little surprised to see a zonJ. ng ordinance amendment that's taken over a year to get here appear on the Consent Agenda when it finally arrives. If you would, it might help J.f you refer to page 5 in your pack. I guess to sort of tell you where I'm heading with this, I'm going to recomend that this be tabled for a couple of major reasons. One of them is, this is a very significant change in our ordinances and I think that the current council needs to be involved in discussJ, ons about it before we just vote on it. Another one is because I have some serious questions about parts of it and I'd like to demonstrate some of what those are. We're talking about allowing people in the residential single family area to have an accessory building that's up to 1,ggg square feet. Now to keep that in perspective, we allow people to buJ. ld houses, one level houses in their that are 960 square feet at a mini.mum so it's conceivable that somebody could build an out building bigger than their house and they can put it lg feet from their lot line. The back lot line. Now I think that one of the issues we've got to look at here is why do we have a 30 foot setback in the first place? If we have that because we're saying we want neighbors that back J. nto each other to have a co, non green space, by allowing a building bigger than a house to be buJ. lt within 10 feet, we've just allowed one neighbor to take advantage of that green space. I think that's an awfully important issue and we really need to look at whether we want to, if 30 foot setback makes sense in the first place, why are we now coming back and sayJ. ng you can put virtually the same size as a house within 10 feet? I don't think that's a good way to design a neighborhood. The other thing that I would suggest is that we're allowing these buJ. ldings to be within 5 feet if they're up to 200 square feet. So that means a single car garage can be buJ. lt 5 feet from the back lot line. I think the idea of these accessory buildings is something like a storage building. The largest storage building that I'm aware of, unless you custom build it is going to be 10 x 12. That's 120 square feet. The discussJ, on J.n the Planning Commission talked about that but then they referenced 200 square feet is what other communitJ.es do. I don't think that Chanhassen necessarily needs to follow that lead in this particular example. So those are a couple of the areas. I would suggest that some of the changes that should be considered if we do table this, one is we should never allow an accessory building to be bigger than the permanent house. I would make that point (d). The secor~ thing that I would suggest is we need to make some minor changes in item 2. That is, if you'll see in the second line where it says located Jn the front or rear yard, we need to cross off the word setback because if we don't cross that word off, then the second part of the statement conflicts with the first part where we're talking about buildings may be located in the front and rear yards. If we say they can be located J.n the setback, then it doesn't make any sense to go on to say they must comply with the front side and applicable other setbacks. Just in conflict. Councilman Johnson: Typo. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's probably right what you're saying. This probably should be tabled and further discussion begun on this at that particular time and I'll second your motion to table this particular portion until those considerations should be brought into view. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: It might be, if others have some comments Don, it might be good to get those back to our staff to work with. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a question Bill. You said something about the accessory structure of 1,000 square feet never to be bigger than the home but you're talking about rural single family here. That means you can't have a shed bigger than your house. Councilman Boyt: No we're not. RSF is residential single family. Councilwoman Dimler: What's R-47 Councilman Boyt: R-4 is higher density yet. Councilman Johnson: It's duplexes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought that was rural. Councilman Johnson: Actually these are much stricter than what's in there right now. It's a step in the right direction. We currently have a similar problem on my block except for they actually put it on the lot line. Even though the drawing showed it 5 foot off the lot line, when the structure went up, it ended up on that lot line. Public Safety's working on that one but it does on a small lot create a big problem. Maybe the 30% is something we need to look at. 30% for 1,000 square foot building is only 3,000 square feet. Allowing 30% of a back yard to be filled with a single structure is really a very large reduction in that back yard. Especially when you start getting into your smaller yards. 3,000 square feet is not much of a yard. That's what 1,000 square foot structure. We don't allow 1,000 square foot home to be built on a 3,000 square foot lot. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Accessory Structures, First and Second Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CouncJ. lman Johnson: Do we send this back to the Planning Con~nission then? Reopen the public hearings on it? Don Ashworth: I don't think so. We're just going to respond to the questions posed and if you don't feel comfortable we could send it back at that t~e. Councilman Johnson: One thing is the zoning ordinance amendment, you're required to have a public hearing on your proposed, this is what went before the public in their public hearing process. We get more stringent than this, I believe it should go back before the public and public hearing again. Mayor Chmiel: I think that can be determined at that time as to what's decided. DOn Ashworth: We'll have Roger respond to that question as well. Mayor Chmiel: To approve the balance of the Consent Agenda. Item b, c, d, e, h, j and k. DO I have a motion to approve those items into the Consent Agenda? ~.ty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I so move. Councilman Johnson: We approved them individually. Mayor Chmiel: We'll do it one more time just to make sure. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve items b, c, d, e, h, j and k from the Consent Agenda with the changes mentioned above. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: There were no Visitor Presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED USES OF YEAR XV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. Steve Hanson: You may recall we talked about this at your last meeting just very briefly. I just wanted to bring you up to date on the projects that you had mentioned and some of t/nose that we could operate under and some of those ew could not include in the block grant allocation. There are $33,488.g~ available J.n the Year XV. Some of the things you had mentioned previously was the library expansJ, on, neighborhood park programs, handicap accessibility, housing rehab and the South Shore Senior Center. A couple of those are not allowed to be granted under the block grant program and that includes the library expansion and neJ.ghborhood park programs that we talked about. They do not qualify. We did get a request from the South Shore Senior Center for an allocation of $6,935.gg which is consJ, stent with what you've done before to help their operation. Also, the City has a track record of doing housing rehabilitation which that program J.s run by the County and would not involve any city staff ti.me. Staff is recorrmending that $19,~53.g0 be allocated into that program. Then in consideration of the handicap accessibility that was mentioned by Council, we've identified to potentially use some of the funds for the Lake Susan handicap to make a boat raunp handicap accessible. I don't have the firm cost for doing that project but the minimum you can put in for a project is $7,5gg.gg so I put that minimttm amount in at this time. If we need to adjust that, we can do that adjustment later but in order to get the allocations we have to have that amount in there at this point in time. Also, there were some additional projects we identified that potentially could be funded through it although they weren't ones that you'd brought up before and they exceed the grant amount but we did want to include those for your benefit as well as to let the County know what other things we might do if all the funds aren't allocated and we have a potential to get future funding. With that I would conclude my remarks unless you have any questions. Mayor Cnmiel: I have one specific question that's regarding our ii. ability Roger. If we provide a handicap accessibility to the docks, what is our liability? Roger Knutson: I assume public docks? If someone concludes you designed them improperly, you would certainly have liability. But if you design them correctly and you go Code, you should not have a problem. Which is not to say you can not be sued of course but you should not have a problem. City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the concerns I had is making sure that that is constructed in accordance to whatever regulations there are, if any. Make sure we're doing it right. Lori Sietsema: I believe the DNR has some specifications for handicap docks and boat access...and we would comply with those. Councilman Johnson: Roger, if a handicap person used the docks without it being a handicap accessible dock because we didn't make the public facility handicap accessible and they got injured at that point, would we have greater liability? Because we can't put up a sign saying no handicap allowed. That would be ludicrous. So theoretically everything public is handicap accessible, is the way I believe it is. So if we don't do this, are we in greater liability than if we do do it? Roger Knutson: I don't believe there's a mandate, existing mandate that we do everything in the world today, new construction yes. I suppose you might have a greater liability is someone got hurt but again, if it's clear that it's not handicap accessible and someone is negligent in trying to use it in any event, I would think... It certainly could make that argument. Councilman Johnson: South Shore Senior Center is only $6,935.00 and the minimum grant allowable is $7,500.00. How does that? Steve Hanson: The grant that goes to the South Shore Senior Center is managed through Hennepin County. The funds don't come directly to us. There are a lot of con~nunities that are contributing to it so I believe the total amount that ends up going there is $23,000.00. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so we're one small portion of a larger grant that's greater than $7,500.00? Good. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to note that I did attend the Senior Citizens Day that they had over at Eisenhower in Hopkins. It was absolutely amazing the amount of t~me that these people spend providing their time to help other people as well. We have from our con~nunity here attending Eisenhower, if I'm not mistaken, there's 65 or 66 with a total hours of their t~ne which they combined for assistance in many different varied items of somewhere in the neighborhood of about 1,500 hours which I think is pretty great. But anyway, I'd like to just bring this back to any other discussion here before I open this up for the public. Councilman Workman: I have a question in regards to the demolition of properties. What would that be? The Hanson property? Is that something that we should maybe keep separate? Is that an HRA item that we should maybe keep separate? Councilman Johnson: I really think we should in that the three things that we are addressing here, handicap accessbility. This money is coming from Hennepin County and the fact that the City of Chanhassen is both Hennepin County and Carver County. Carver County doesn't have these kinds of funds, only Hennepin County. Items 1 and 2 really benefit not only Chanhassen residents but Hennepin County residents. Item 3 is really only Chanhassen residents. When we start 11 ~fty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 talking using demolition, HRA money, I'd hate for Hennepin County to start objecting there when we're in delicate negotiations with them already on utilizing of other monies derived from Hennepin County and bringing it slightly across the border. Which is HRA related. Councilman Boyt: I think these are approved uses for the money Jay. Councilman Workman: I don't have any problem w~.th that. I just want to know if maybe we shouldn't keep them, I don't know. I do see the Senior Center and the handicap uses kirk] of maybe more in line with the use that maybe this money should be used for because it is hard to come by money where I'm sure we'll find someway to tear down a building but it isn't always easy to find the excess for things such as those hard to fund projects. Is HRA going to miss $19,00g.0g? Councilman Boyt: This isn't a matter of spending the $19,ggg.gg to tear buildings down in downtown Chanhassen. This is if the County has money that's not claimed, then we have back-up projects as I understand it. These three projects are stand alone~, top priority. What we do in downtown that might benefit the City of Channassen and could be covered by HRA is just if the County turns up with more money that we've requested. .We should have some list in case that should happen but I ~uldn't want you to get, any of us to get our hopes up that it's going to happen. But if it does, we_ want to be prepared. Councilman Workman: So this is money that we're not giving to the South Shore Senior Center? We might be able to give J.t to them. Councilman Boyt: No, that's different. The South Shore Senior Center and the other two projects are money where %~ have $33,090.0g and we're committing it. They're getting it. Now we're saying, if it turns out that someone else doesn't claim all the money available, then we should have a project that's on the burner, so to speak, so that they know that we're interested in getting more money. But they're two separate issues. Councilman Workman: Okay, but we are allocating $19,gg0.g0 for the demolition of buildings? Councilman Boyt: Not downtown. This is for restoration of residential property. CounciLman Johnson: The Housing and Rehabilitation program is a progr~n where we've helped to rebuJ, ld some_ homes in Carver Beach is one area. The old part of downtown. Some of our, it's a very successful progr~n over the last few years where people who have some rundown property and fixed income, etc.. CounciLn]an Workman: I'm just reading a paragraph. Staff has also identified the following projects which utilize the CDBG funds. There are additional demolition properties in the downtown ~fnJ.ch total $3~,0gg.0g. That's where I'm getting my info. CounciLman Johnson: But they're not recommending those projects. Those are back-up projects. Councilman Boyt: I think if you change the %~ord would to could we'd have captured the sp]~r].t of what staff was trying to say. Is that accurate Steve? 12 C~.ty Counc~.l Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Steve Hanson: Yes~ Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions on it Tom? Councilman Workman: Yes. Isn't it possible for us to shift $19,000.00 to something else that we might want to use it for? Mayor Chmiel: There's that potential, sure. Councilman Johnson: If you don't want to put that into the housing program, then yes, we could shift that elsewhere. That's why they gave us the list of the other things. We could put $19,000.00 into the demolition of downtown buildings versus letting our fixed income people get grants to improve their homes. Councilman Workman: I see. I see what you're saying. I want it left the way it is, the way I'm reading it now. I had my eyes opened. It's such a short paragraph. I got spun around with the woulds and the coulds. Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this? Shana St. John: I'm R~na St. John from the South Shore Center and we hope that the Council would approve our request and also glad to have seen you at the recognition. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Resolution #89-43: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the proposed uses of the Year XV Con~nunity Development Block Grant funds as presented by staff. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: AUDUBON ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 88-20B. Gary Warren: The Audubon Road improvement project we solicited quotes for, this is basically the, we call it Phase B which is the reconstruction of Audubon Road from the railroad tracks north to TH 5. We are very pleased with the results of our bidding process here. Things seem to be very hungry so to speak yet for the contractors. Bill Engelhardt's memo attached goes into detail on the results but basically we had a number of very competitive quotes submitted. The low bidder, Imperial Developers estimated bid is $523,332.55. They are a contractor we're very familiar with because they've been doing the site grading for McGlynn Bakeries. They've done our Kerber Blvd. improvement project and we're satisfied that they will do a good job here so I would recon~nend awarding the contract in the amount of $523,332.55 to Imperial Developers. Resolution #89-44: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to award the bid for the Audubon Road Improvement Project #88-20B to the firm of Imperial Developers, Inc. in the amount of $523,332.55. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 13 City Council Meeting ' March 27~ 1989 LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION. Gary Warren: Again we advertised for bids for the Lake Ann Park expansion project. The results are attached in the bid tabulation and we, again had very competitive situation. The engineer's estimate $282,66g.0g with the low bidder again being Imperial Developers. I think because they're workirg in the area here they've sharpen their pencils. They're about $59,800.00 under our engineer's estimate. We had shown two alternates in the project. Alternate 1 is for the construction of concrete barrier curbing on the parking areas which we believe is good for the parking areas and tt~ park. Also, Alternate 2 which recognizing that the existing road sections in the Lake Ann Park are going to be encountering further construction traffic and they're already in a state needing some sealcoating. We had bid an alternate for sealcoating which also' is in this. It's my reco~rnendation that we award this contract to Imperial Developers including Alternates 1 and 2 and that the total award be $239,393.0g. Resolution #89-45: Cmuncilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded 'to award the bid for the Lake Ann Park Expansion Project No. 88-13 including Alternates 1 and 2 to Imperial Developers, Inc. in the amount of $239,393.0g. Ail voted in favor and the motion cauried. REVIEW LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL ISSUE. Councilman Johnson: I've spent q~ite a bit of time the last, quite a few weeks. I drive Lake Lucy a lot and over this weekend, only on one trip across Lake Lucy did I not find anybody walking on that trail. The maximum number I saw at any one time was 8 people. Besides the one time I went through, there was no people so obviously that ~as the minimum but usually there was between 3 and 8 people walking in there. Sunday I went over it quite a few times because I was looking at flooded areas and watching the snow run off and looking for problem areas there. It's a well used area by a lot of people. People come down Yosemite. Some joggers come up Powers and hit the tr_ail. I think the least expensive option is to go with similar to what we've done in Greenwood Shores over the years. Is when somebody needs to have a party or whatever and they know they' re going to have some guests comirg over, they make the phone call and the Sheriff will be instructed not to tag the parkers at that time. Just leave everything as is. Councilwoman Dimter: I wanted to make a correction here in Gary Warren's letter to Don Ashworth. It starts out with at the February 27, 1989 City Council meeting, Council tabled action concern~.ng the Lake Lucy trail issue and directed that the issue be taken up by the Park and Rec Commission for review. I rem~nber specifically saying, we voted that it would not be taken to Park and Rec because it did not originate with the Park and Rec and that it was merely... Councilman Johnson: We sent it back ~{nile you were on vacatJ, on. Councilwoman DJ.mler: But not at the February 27th meeting. Councilman Johnson: Yes it was. Councilwoman Dimler: No it wasn't. 14 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: You were on vacation2 Councilwoman Dimler: I was here. Councilman Boyt: You missed two meetings. Councilman Johnson: You were in Colorado. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry, but still, the time before that then. Councilman Johnson: We said it wasn't going back. We changed our minds while you were in Colorado. Councilwoman Dimler: Why? Councilman Boyt: We wanted an open discussion of the issue. Councilman Johnson: We wanted to give some more input from the citizens through the Park and Rec. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the point was that it didn't originate with them and what could they do with it and what did they do with it? I just didn't want it to be a time waster. That was my point. Now I do have a recommendation and it parallels kind of to what Jay is saying but it's a little bit different in that I've checked with the Carver County Sheriff's Department today and they indicated that the City can issue parking permits. Is that correct Don? Don Ashworth: I've heard that term. I don't know of any that we have issued. The note that Councilman Johnson brought up where citizens have called, where they've had parties and I know that the Sheriff has honored that. As far as there being an actual form that says parking permit, I don't recall seeing it. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but we can get them. Waconia dispenses them. They told me that other cities do have that and that the City has the authority to dispense them. So I would recon~end that we do that to the citizens that live on Lake Lucy Road that have a parking problem and that want parking on Lake Lucy Road. That they would come to the City and would apply for that permit for each one of their vehicles. Then when they have guests, that they would have an x number of, maybe 6 would be an arbitrary number, for their guests as well. And these would be permits that they would have in their possession at all times and then they can just dispense them and they would recollect them after their company is gone. That probably they should be renewable every year but the permit would be good for one year. Then that way, it gives them a little bit more to stand on rather than just saying, hey I called the sheriff on this because if the guy that's on duty may not have gotten the message and then there's a problem. This way there's a permit there and it tells everyone that's informed. Then we would also send a letter to the sheriff's department indicating that this is what we're doing and that these permits have been issued and that they're legal at all times. Councilman Johnson: I thought about that and actually came up with the n~mber 5 myself for probably the same reason you came up with the number 6. It sounded like a logical number. The only thing that I had, and when I discussed that within my own was abuse of it in that sc~ebody decides, it's an easy thing to 15 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 abuse if you have it, to continue it all the time. I would think that we'd still not want to, none of the residents say they need it for their own vehicles. The Tichy's have said they've got 4 wheel drive vehicles. They can get up and out of their parking place okay. It's just when guests came over. As such, I would make sure it's not overnight and if they want to do something overnight, it would have to be something different. Plus in the winter you couldn't do it overnight anyway because of the snowplowing problem but I think it's a workable solution. Councilman Work, nan: I guess I would say that we work with it in that sense that we work, and maybe we put same time on ].t to monitor the situation. You've monitored that road about a half a dozen times now as far as I can tell but we look at it and that's the thing that I mentioned to the Tichy's earlier is that we look at maybe boxing it in and trying to figure out what would be, to give them an open permit to park any time of the day above and beyond ordinances and everything else. ~e can't do that obviously. I think they realize that. And I think they are just looking for the occasional use but I think we monitor it. I drive by there all the time and I think somehow we set up something to monitor it. Hopefully we won't monitor it the way we're doing Moon Valley down there. But to monitor it and look at it that way. If there's abuses, then certainly we've got to look at it. There a~e sonde concerns about the ability to get through there. There's some trucks and the snow kind of makes the road ~naller and so, you get a little claustrophobic in there with that but I think it's something that we should monitor. I don't think the City is in any way, shape or form prepared to tear up or put a trail on the north side and spend $8g,0gg.gg or w~natever it is at this point. In talking to the Mayor of Greenwood, he said they do do this all the time and that it works. Councilwoman Dimler: They do it in Waconia and it works there. CouncJ. lman Johnson: One thing, our sheriff is pretty good. As you note, right now you can"t get at that one house that's under construction because of the mud and everything so the construction vehicles are parked out there and the sheriff drives by and bm_'s not tagging th~n because they're reasonable. He knows the construction workers can not possibly get off the road, and it's functional that way. That's perhaps something we might want to look at. Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jim Chaffee about this earlier today Ursula and he said he could live with it. HJ.s choice, first choice would be Jay's suggestion of a 'temporary request at the time of need. I guess Tom, I agree with you that if we do this, we need to make sure that the permit is for special use. That this shouldn't be some way of permitting continual parking on the street because parking on that street compromises safety so we don't want to compromise safety. At the s&~e time, we've been trying to balance this out all along and the neighbors have been working to balance this out and it would seem to me, if a special card or somethJ, ng they could put in the window when they need to park there will meet everybody's needs, it allows us to maintain the trail, gives the Tichy's the parking they need, we don't spend a lot of money to do it, it sounds like a good compromise. Councilwoman Dimler: But I do want to emphasize it's not only the Tichy's but all the residents along Lake Lucy Road that need it. Councilman Boyt: It wouldn't be a matter of it just being available to them. 16 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: It would be available to everybody on Lake Lucy Road that wants it. Councilman Boyt: I would think that we would have, we could tell if this was a problem if we have continual parking on Lake Lucy Road. Then it's not a special event. Mayor Chmiel: Let me just say something. In our area, as you all know, we have no parking. For situations of a party that we had at one time, the other my daughter getting married and those were the two particular times that we really had to use that probably in the last 14 years. But I'm sure, and of course I can put enough cars in my driveway where there's really not that much problem, but I think with this kind of useage and with the neighbors there, I would think that that probably would be the most acceptable. As we've looked at it, with the dollar costs as T~m has indicated. I think too there's a lot of concerns. I just can't see expediting those x number of dollars at this particular time. We don't have those dollars and I'm not about to allocate or say we're going to spend those either. So I think this is a reasonable solution and maybe if any of you would like to address the issue and see if your concurrences are with ours because this is basically where we're coming from. Brian, do you have any? Councilman Johnson: Mr.. Mayor, as Brian's coming up, there's also the possibility of combining the two. Giving the people the passes and say call into the Sheriff's office when you plan on using them so the sheriff's aware that they're going to have a pass in the car. Mayor Chmiel: Once the sheriff drives by and he sees those in there, that would just eliminate the need of calling. Brian Tichy: I'm one half of the Tichys. I'm Brian Tichy .... something that we could live with. I think we've known all along that the money's not necessarily available for a lot of the projects that we discussed along the road. We did have an informational meeting with quite a few of the neighbors from Pheasant Hill and people that have abutting property and we went through, as you've probably seen, a myriad of options. This solution appears to be the least expensive and if not abused, maybe a very good option. Jim VonLorenz: Jim VonLorenz from 5371 Yosemite Avenue. I believe I had something to say about this because I was instrumental in getting those bike paths put on back in the years ago when we started to improve the roadway there. My wife and I do a lot of walking and riding on these streets starting in our Yosemite address, plus some of our neighbors do also. I've done it over the years and I have found that the bike paths are very important and they are a safety belt along each side of the road that gives us room to avoid the traffic that we have as we've upgraded these roads. I think that this permit system looks to me like a reasonable solution. When you have a special use, yes, that'd be fine. I think that we need to maintain our bike paths and they are utilized. I just want the council to realize that there's a lot of us that do get out there, once a day at least or couple, 3, 4 times a week get out and use these so it's important that we keep those and don't let th~n go by the wayside. Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me Mr. VonLorenz. Did you say you lived on Lake Lucy Road? 17 ~ty Council ~e~..ng March 27, 1989 Jim VonLorenz: I live on Yosemite. I live about a block and a half from there. We start our walking from Yosemite and go down to Lake Lucy and then go down to CR 17 and around and come back on Apple Road. Councilwoman Dimler: Does Yosemite have a trail on it? Jim VonLorenz: No we don't. We've got a narrow road and that's probably part of a concern that we have that there is a lot of, that's where we start and the driving on there is more rapid than we like to see it often. In fact we had to dodge a car here t_he other day my wife and I coming down on Apple Road and it does happen and it's just nice to have a Lake Lucy Road wide enough and have the bike paths on there on both sides. It gives us the ability to use this road without any fear or concern of having to be dodging vehicles. Either on a bicycle or walking and it's very important that we keep these that we have. Councilwoman Dimler: But you're not affected by the parking lane? Jim VonLorenz: No, no. That isn't a concern. That doesn't bother us. Councilman Johnson: As a matter of fact, he doesn't even have asphalt on Yosemite Road no less a trail. That's one thing we need to look at. Nancy Tichy: I'm Nancy Tichy. The other half of the Tichys. I agree with the parking permit. I think that's a good option. There are service people that have come to our house several times where I've had to push them out. Even if it's not a snowy day. Our driveway still is very icy and people that come to service our area have a difficult time not being able to park on the road. Also, we hold meetings at our home on occasion where we do need people to be able to park on the road and because our driveway does not service that for people so I think the parking permit, if we could get them for certain occasions would be a good option. I also think the option using a bike route is still a good option. Leaving the existing roadway the way it is and we presented this at the last Council meeting. Another option to t~hat might be, and this would require a State variance, but if they auto lanes could be cut back to 11 feet instead of 12 feet? I don't know if that can be done but if it could, it would allow 2-11 foot auto lanes and an 8 foot parking lane and then a 6 foot bike route. Hopkins and Minnetonka have done this on many of their roads. Two roads in particular are Tonkawood Road and Baker Road which are inbetween Minnetonka Blvd. and TH 7. Both of those roads are 36 feet wide and they are both high density roads and they are both classified as collecter roads and they service more than 1,ggg cars a day so they're almost ident~.cal to Lake Lucy Road and they accomnodate the people for parking and just designate it as a bike route. I guess as far as safety, the way the road is designed and the way it's set up, I really can't see a major difference just designating it a bike route instead of a bike lane. I guess I'd like to make one other point regarding the petition that we suhnitted to the Council. The people who signed the petition basically didn't, I th.ink the whole thing got kind of out of control. All of the elaborate options and costly things. Basically all we wanted was to designate it as a bike route instead of a bike lane. People were getting pretty worried that there would be further encroachments on their property and further assessments and that's not ~nat we wanted so I'd just like to clarify that. Councilman Workman: If I can make a quick point. In talking to Gary today, I think the problem as far as Gary's comments were with a route was, and Gary's 18 City Council Meeting - March 271 1989 not looking at me, he's leaving me here, is that a route kind of has to connect to, it has to be part of a connecting trail. We don't have that right now with Galpin and Powers. Nancy Tichy: You could put route on any of those roads. I think. Gary Warren: What the State had told me, and again we get into this where it's who you talked to it seems, is that in order to put a bike route sign on a road, you have to have a bike trail. In other words, if you have a bike route sign, that on it's own doesn't stand to indicate the trail. So we could put bike route signs out there right now for example. As long as we've got the trail there, it would make sense but if you've got a bike route and you don't have a place for the people to go so they know where is the route, that's where they say it's not compatible. Mayor Chmiel: Excelsior has that bike route. Termed as bike route. Councilman Johnson: Doesn't that connect on through and all the way down to Minneapolis. It's a part of an overall system. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that Ursula has come up with a good compromise. I'd like to not make it more complicated. We've got something. We've got a time to try it. We don't have to make any changes other than print the cards and I'd like to see us move approval of a special permit parking system for Lake Lucy Road. Councilman Johnson: Nancy, how many? 6? 5? 107 What kind of number do you think the people? Councilman Workman: I think we ought to have staff kind of look into that because do we want to make them transferable? Mayor Chmiel: I think individually, each individual one should have to apply for that themselves and that it not be transferable. Councilwoman Dimler: visitors you mean? Mayor Chmiel: No, no. The residents themselves within the area. Councilman Workman: But if I have 6 permits and gee I'm going to have 12 cars here, I can go over and borrow my neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: That would warrant just a call to the Sheriff's department indicating that you're going to have more than what's there. Those that will have the passes in the windows will be shown but there's going to be 6 more cars or whatever. Councilman Johnson: Because you're not going to have somebody come down and say, hey, good I can park here because. Mayor Chmiel: They're very acconxnodating with it. They really are. Don Ashworth: I need to talk to public safety but I would really like to develop a system, if this is the direction the Council wants to go. Some means 19 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 by whJ.ch we can monitor it and at the end of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year we can say, during the course of 1989, x number of permits were issued for an average of whatever so %.~ have some ideas as to the number of vehicles that were out there. I don't really think it makes any difference if on a particular occasion there's 24 permits that were issued to a particular home for a particular activity but I don't think it would be good just to have 6 that would be a yearly thing and you can pass them around and whatever else. I just don't think that will work. Councilwoman Dimler: Except ! can foresee a hardship to them if they're planning an event and then they have to come in and apply for 24 permits too. Don Ashworth: The way we'd set it up, it would not be an application. We could set up a process to insure that they could get that permit literally Jn~nediately or within a very short notice. But I think we should have way to monitor parking J.s occurring. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that the key here is to make this simple. If staff can work to get a baseline, typical need and issue those permits and then we're done with it. If they need more, you arrange for more. If we have to get into monitoring this continually, it's going to be staff time we don't have. ,_Mayor Chmiel: I think we can work this out with staff and come up with the easiest syst~n that we possibly can. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want just a motion then with the general theme or are you just going to take what I said earlier? Mayor Cb_miel: I think basically what you indicated previously. Councilman Boyt: Well we have a motion, if we could get a second to it. Councilman Wor~nan: WhO made the motion? Councilwoman Dimler: i did. Mayor Ckmiel: I think Bill made the motion. Councilman Boyt: Go ahead and make it. Councilwoman Dimler: I presented the ~nole thing... That was a motion by the way. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to restate it? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would move that the Council would authorize City Staff to issue parking permits to the residents on Lake Lucy Road and stipulations and useage to be determined by City Staff. Is that acceptable? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize City Staff to issue parking permits to the residents on Lake Lucy Road and stipulations and useage to be dete.cmined by City Staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 20 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 REVIEW MEDIAN CUT PROPOSAL FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY, 7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Gary Warren: Basically Council had asked staff to investigate the curb cut. As crude as this sketch is, and I apologize for that, this is to show the existing construction plans that were approved with the downtown Phase 1 improvement project. North being up. The railroad tracks through here. 5he Klingelhutz property in this outline form shown here and the medians as proposed in the construction plans for the downtown are darkened in here. The driveway access which is maintained as a part of the downtown improvement project is in this location and also a curb cut here into the municipal parking lot with a drive thru into the driveway access to the Klingelhutz property. We asked BRW to take a look at this to address the concern that Mr. Klingelhutz had expressed to wanting a left turn into the property fro~ southbound West 78th Street. Basically the staff report that you have in your hands shows the four alternates that they have put together and I' 11 just briefly run through them for you. Again, the Klingelhutz property here. The current driveway access there. This is Alternate 1 which is again, that just shows the current design scenario. Alternate 2 is basically to construct the median with the exception of a curb cut in the median to allow southbound traffic to make a free left. Make the left into the Klingelhutz driveway. It manages obviously to give southbound access to the property without having to come through the City, the public lot. The disadvantages are that you have a left turn movement being made from a through lane which can cause, it's not a protected left turn. The protected left turn being the most safe but conditions such as we have here, as an example, is the safest. So here we have sc~e potential conflicts and also the potential of crossing movements across the northbound lanes in an unanticipated area. Typically when a driver's coming through, he doesn't see your typical intersection configuration which alerts them to crossing traffic. He has to be a little bit more perceptive to kind of notice if there's a car maybe here waiting to cross or, in the worse event, where somebody's going to try to hot foot it through. But it does give the access. It also provides us the median separation consistent with the downtown scenario which is especially important at the railroad crossing here where we have crossing arms that need to honor the design for those crossing arms. This also continues with a channel ization of traffic coming from the south and north so that we don't have a void in the median scenario. Alternates 3 and actually Alternate 4 are some modifications of that which actually get to be a little bit more wide open scenario. Especially it will probably cause a little more concern. Alternate 3, the whole median has been removed and we would be using a painting scheme basically to mark out the median area which obviously anybody could take any kind of a turning movement through here unrestricted to get into the property. Disadvantages are similar to what I mentioned earlier as far as crossing movements. Also here your left turn lane, especially in the wintertime there would be a lot of adjustment on the part of this left turn here as to really where the left turn lane is, to the point where he could actually encroach out of this area and have some potential conflicts with southbound traffic. So it's a lot more wide open scenario. We do get back to the median section here before we hit the railroad tracks and the crossing here so we do meet that. The final version that was presented is to show specifically what I call suicide lanes almost but it's the left turn scenario for both southbound and northbound traffic. It has a lot of potential I think for congestion between the turning traffic, especially when we have Dinner Theater traffic and the more congested periods. Again reinforcing that this median really needs to be a part of the 21 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 system. Ail of our alternates really are dealing with this extension of the median. From a safety standpoint, I believe there's no question that Alternate 1, or the current design alternate I should say, is the safest. It provides protected left turn movement for the traffic that we anticipate in here and channelizes that traffic properly to make that mov~nent. No unexpected cutting through the medians. All the mov~nents are at the intersection. Legality wise, I guess the access to the property still meets the legal requirements as far as access to it because he does have right-in/right-out access on the laneage. It's just the left turn mov~nents have been anticipated that if you want to get into the Klingelhutz property, the public parking lot is the location for it. Out of the other alternates, if the median or left turn movement is desired, I guess I would conclude, as did BRW, that the curb cut, Alternate 2 is probably the second best option there because it does provide for definition up here and the left turn, northbound movements at this intersection so we can't get encroachment in the southbound lanes and it does allow traffic to get into the Klingelhutz property from southbound. Recognizing that there are going to be some conflict potentials there depending on the magnitude of traffic and the perception of the northbound drivers. If an alternate such as this were decided on, I think that it should definitely be conditioned on the review depending on warrants and traffic experience. If we for ex~pte go ahead with this and end up having lots of conflicts that amount to traffic accidents, I don't think anybody would want to see that continue. Likewise, if a more intense use is planned for this property at sometime in the future, this curb cut should be looked at at that time to evaluate the traffic demands and the impacts on these movements. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, have we checked with the Fire Deparhnent for the accessibility in through the public lot? For instance, with our new engine that we' re going to get, is that accessible to that? I see that probably by putting in that new drive w~.th that new cut in between the median would probably give it a little better accessibility into that facility. Gary Warren: I haven't specifically talked with Chief Gregory about it. The turning radius in here, I don't know what the new turning radius is. I think it was like around 50 feet, at least the specs were looking at that. Maybe Jim knows. I would imagine that there will be difficulty although the curbing in here could be mounted by the vehicle to get in and then to make a left turn to get back in here. I'm not a fire fighter. I don't know how close they need to get to this building. They certainly can get to this point to fight that fire. Even with this movement I would imagine with the turning radius, they will have to to up on the curb to make the full turn but I think it's makeable. CounciLman Johnson: Go down to Market, come around 79th and come back up if they knew they had to come in that side. Gary Warren: They apparently do, at least in talking with Dale and Mark Littfin, when we were working on the north side parking lot, they do work through in their minds what's the best way to access some of these properties. By necessity they do that so if they know there's a fire call ].n a certain area, they do have a preferred route which recognizes some of these challenges. Councilman Johnson: Not only in their mind but they actually sit down and pre-plan. 22 City Council Meet~.ng - March 27~ 1989 Gary Warren: Right. I know A1 is here as we recognized in good health~ Councilman Boyt: Why is the curb in the road there further down, further toward the south on Alternative 2 than it is on Alternative 17 In both of those. That's interesting because on this one, you'll note that it stops right where the curb starts and on your two transparencies it extends into the turn. Do you know what I'm talking about? Gary Warren: No I don't. Councilman Boyt: Okay, up further north. Right there. See where that comes across? It comes across to the second side of your. Oh maybe that's it. The twist is different because as it's lined up on our drawing, it's right even with the northern most side curbing. On your drawing it's definitely not. It's much further down in there. Which one is right? Gary Warren: February '89 is on both of them. Councilman Boyt: Yours doesn't make a lot of sense actually. The way it's lined up there, you'd make it almost impossible for the person trying to go across and take... Gary Warren: From here to here? Councilman Boyt: Yes. What about coming out of that lot? Gary Warren: The nose here, the turning radius, maybe the rendition is improper but like any of the other noses that we have, to establish this arc line, the turning radius is established. Councilman Boyt: But don't you want the cars to go in that entrance? Why would you put that nose of that all the way down to the south side curb? You have to turn backwards to get in. It's a sharp angle. Gary Warren: It's the extent of... Councilman Boyt: On the drawing here it comes out level with the north curb. Mayor Chmiel: I think your transparency might be off a little bit. The print that we have on Alternate 1 and 2 are consistent. Gary Warren: We would actually plot the design standards for that. That's a standard nose and maybe this schematic just doesn't show it accurately. Their emphasis was down here obviously. A1 Klingelhutz: I haven't too much of a problem with number 2. I have a big problem with number 1. In the first place, the entrance to the parking lot would not let a semi. or a large fire truck get into my lot from either the south or to the north because the driveway is only about 12 feet of blacktop. 'The problem is showing itself already coming in through the parking lot. For some reason when two trucks went out the access into our property from the parking lot and ruined a sidewalk already and there was four 12 x 12 posts put up through the inside of the sidewalk which was part of the driveway which made it another foot narrower. That's a pretty good indication that the width of the 23 Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 driveway ar~] the direct]on of the curb was not very well established prior to the time it was constructed. One of my major reasons for objecting, having to go through the parking lot because of the fact, you come in the parking lot, the driveway going into our place turns out toward the road and you've got to make a wide turn into our parking lot. The only way we can get into it is from the south. You know, if you make a perfectly safe road, you wouldn't have any intersections. But ~Fnen you've got a business in a town, I think you have to leave access to those businesses to make them a viable business. We've got a rather old building on the property ~nich we try to maintain in good historical condition. It isn't saying that that's all that's going to be on that 3/4 acre of land there. Right now the value of the land is far in excess of what the land capacity can use as far as a business in Chanhassen. To take a driveway access away from that property would depreciate the value, in my business, I think I have the knowledge to know what that would do, would depreciate the value of that land approximately 5~%. One question I have~ you've got alternate 2 up there. Your concern is about thru traffic here. You've got a wide median here. Isn't there some way of just putting a curb cut down the center of this and leave this as a left turn lane just like you've got it up here. Have the left turn this way then. Left turn this way with an obstacle inbetween to assure that traffic wouldn't cross over_. So there wouldn't be any hazard as far as obstructing all the thru traffic c~ming south to make this turn in. Gary Warren: It's quite possible that that could be narrowed up. I think that's what you're suggesting. I think what's shown here was a typical 4 foot section for your star~ard barrier median and we could take a look at coming up with a narrower, section but it still needs to be I guess somewhat insurmountable if you will, in providing protection. A1 Klingelhutz: But that would leave your left turn lane away so that the thru traffic, if there was that much tr_affic, would be a way to save the thru traffic. I think there would be sufficient room there fo_r a left turn lane. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the issue? If not we' 11 bring it back to the Council. Is there any discussion? (A tape change occurred at this point ].n the meeting.) Councilman Johnson: That lot was very difficult to design. This whole section, we went around and around and around on. The parking lot in here was an extr~nely big issue two yea~_s ago when all of this was getting designed. Councilman Workman: I guess this is a difficult, this is kind of a sad corner over there. We've got one business kind of going out of business soon up there and t know this is an older building with an older business resident in it, A1 Klingelhutz. I don't like the idea of shutting him off. I'm more concerned about the intersection to the north with exiting Dinner Theater traffic going north. Taking a left out of there. That's got to be a very high volume situation. In the evening hours after they've had some dinner and a few drinks and they're coming out of there and that's a dangerous intersection. I think with a median cut for the Klingelhutz property here, and I don't have any figures to support this but I would assume it's very seldom used. It's not a retail building but more of an office building but to provide the convenience for the Klingelhutz customers with that cut and then review and monitor the situation, just like we've done for the parking permits. 24 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: I would propose that it's going to be, it's awfully difficult to crystal ball this. I remember all the times over the last couple years that A1 has come in here to champion somebody elses cause and done a very effective job of it usually. When I look at this situation I imagine what's going to happen when we encourage people look at a second access into the public parking lot by putting that turn there. Maybe they see a few cars backed up ready to make a left hand turn through what's now the entrance, Alternative 1. Say well I'm not going to wait there. I'll just go down to the Klingelhutz turnoff and come in that way. I'm a little concerned. I agree when Tom says we may not be generating very much traffic, or at least not a high volume of traffic into the Klingelhutz Realty. Maybe that's not the big draw. Maybe the big draw is the public parking lot. Especially as the city develops further. I just wonder how we want to control access. We've got what BRW, and everybody knows they're not my favorite engineering firm, has told us is the best traffic flow, safest design. We've got the engineer who says that to go with any other alternative is to comprc~ise that safety and we've got a business owner who I think legitimately points out that this certainly does restrict flow back to your business to some degree. I have no way of even guessing what people's preference would be. People may prefer to take the guaranteed left turn lane and turn into a wider opening than try to go through a cut in the middle of a median strip when they know there's thru traffic backing up behind them. I have no idea. My inclination on this A1 is to hang in here with the engineer. I'm willing to hear more about it but I'm a little wary of creating a situation that I think might draw more traffic than we want going through that route. Councilman Workman: Could we shut off the south entrance to that public parking lot? Gary Warren: The main reason that that access is there, was access to the Klingelhutz. I guess that would be something for A1 to comment on. If you're provided with a left turn, southbound access of the property, what kind of impact does that have on it? How necessary is that connection to the parking lot to the property? Councilman Workman: There's a pile of dead shrubs in downtown that you could probably transplant there. A1 Klingelhutz: It really doesn't do much for any access out of there. I know beer trucks have tried to make it and driven on the sidewalk and cracked the sidewalk. Most of them put in on both sides and I guess it's ~mpossible for even a truck to get... Mayor Chmiel: I guess I look at that alternative aspect of it as to what Gary has indicated in here about the next best alternative would be Alternate 2, opening in the median and I think that would be in agreement basically with A1 as well. This option would be conditioned however as a temporary median cut conditioned on a re-evaluation to land use intensified on the Klingelhutz propety and/or traffic accidents or safety considerations warrant a change. I think that's something that we have to look at is from the safety aspects of the people as well. I would have no problem in going with that Alternative 2 mysel f. 25 City Council Meet].ng - March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I would have a big problem it personally. I hate to say it but being a victim of a rear end accident and leaving with the back injury day by day on that, that's inviting a rear end. Not having a protected left turn. This reminds ~ a lot of the TH 7 and Oriole Lane, which is what I was going to bring up to Council on Council presentation. It could be a protected left turn if they'd ever get the painting down the road and the signs up, but we've got a situation there w~ere we've got a lot higher speeds but here, I just can't see it. We've got access. He's got two accesses c~ning in. He's got more access than we're planning for the medical center. The medical center is a far higher useage here. If you're going to put plantings in that one median cut there, they better just be the little short stuff because... F~yor Chmiel: Ground cover. Councilman Johnson: Yes, ground cover. We've got some planting problems already but in an unprotected left turn situation, you're not going to want to stay sitting out in the middle of the traffic waiting to take a left turn. You're going to take the small opening and that's dangerous. I feel we've given southbound, he's got two different access ways. Northbound he's got two ways to get in there. One before, one after. Southbound he's got one before. That's more than a lot of other properties downtown. I also feel 'that if we do anything special, causing the city to incur extra money on this, that those monies should be assessed back to the benefiting property owner, which is only one in this case. So any cost incurred here, if we do vote for somethinq, that incurs more engineering or other changes, other than correcting, if he's got an existing probla~ that has to be corrected that we're ruining some existing stuff, that's different. But I know that we've already got the final plans and specs written on this so we're going to have to rewrite the final plans and specs %fnich is going to cost a couple thousand bucks. I don't think I'm willing to pay our taxpayers money for this without it being assessed back to the benfiting property owner. A1 Klingelhutz: I wish some people would have been concerned about our taxpayers money a year or so ago when they put in main street with two single lanes. Taking out a piece of concrete costs less money than leaving one in. I can't quite understand your thinking on that one Jay. Councilman Johnson: There's not significantly less concrete going to be put in there. A1 Klingelhutz: All you would be doing is leaving out maybe a 12 or 16 feet stretch of concrete that they wouldn't have to put in. Councilman Johnson: And then putting in two additional curb sections that you wouldn't have to put in otherwise which are more expensive than street sections. A1 Klingelhutz: ~nere's the curb sections going? Councilman Johnson: Around the ends. A1 Klingelhutz: Well you'd have to put on the end anyway. Councilman Johnson: Now you've got four ends instead of two. But it really doesn't matter. If there's no additional cost, it won't be assessed. 26 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 A1 Klingelhutz: Have you taken a look at the driveway that they've put into our property? I'd like to have you meet me coming into that driveway. It's actually a one lane driveway. Councilman Johnson: Maybe that's the problem. If we have poorly designed that existing driveway, that driveway needs to be... A1 Klingelhutz: You're talking about costs of designing Jay. Take a look at what you did there. A truck coming out drives over the sidewalk and the City has to put in 12 x 12 posts in order to keep the truck from driving on the sidewalk. Councilman Johnson: Now that's on your south side driveway? A1 Klingelhutz: That's on the south side and they put a couple of them on the north side. I th~nk I talked to Don about that last fall. Then he puts up a sign that completely hides my sign. There's absolutely no place for me to put up a sign for my real estate office. It's all hidden by brush and trees and the City of Chanhassen...sign. Now don't tell me you didn't hurt my property when you did all these things. Now you want to take my access away. An access going through somebody elses parking lot. It just don't add up at all. It seems the long time landowner and business owner in Chanhassen has been getting the shaft and the new ones are being kissed. I think I've heard that from a dozen different old time businesses in Chanhassen. Why is Pauly's closing? Leaving an opening there, maybe it's my butt that I'll get rear end but I'm not afraid of that but I think if you just put in a center abutment between those two, you'd have a left turn lane as good as you have for the Bloomberg properties. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to make a comment and A1 hit upon it. I would like to say that earlier that we are hearing now a lot about safety concerns and I think certainly safety is a top priority but when the intersection there, just north of there was built and I thought too, my gosh this looks unsafe. This looks terrible and now it probably isn't as bad as I feared it would be. How many accidents have there actually been? I'm sure there's been some but is it really as bad as some of us feared it would be? So I think maybe in this case here we're now starting to react in fear of being rear ended when in fact the danger isn't as big as we' re making it. So I would go and support Alternative 2 because I also believe that .when we do new development we should take the concerns of the citizens into consideration. That's one of my main points. If we can make it easier for even just one citizen that has been there a long time and that has run a respectable business, then we ought to do that. Councilman Boyt: I guess I will respond. BRW designed the corner of TH 101 and Great Plains and we've lived with the results of that. They've come in here, and it looks to me like the problem is the island. The problem is the shortage of parking. That's why we put the island in there, I gather. The island makes it hard to access from the north side of the parking lot. It prevents people from coming in and driving over to the real estate building. Why should we compromise safety to protect parking. We need to do something with the parking lot apparently. Maybe we redesign it. Maybe we lose some parking spots but I'd rather do that than encourage people to make an unprotected left turn when we've got protected left turns throughout the city. Now we're going to have a 27 ~y Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 unprotected left turn. Why start that? Why not just design 'the parking lot so people can access the realty building? If that's going to be our priority, let's do it that way. Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, were you on the Council when they approved that intersection on TH lgl? Councilman Boyt: Ursula, we don't have enough time to talk about that. Councilwoman Dimler: Did you approve that though? CounciLman Boyt: The HRA approved that intersection. Councilwoman Dimler: Did it ever con%e to Council? CounciLman Boyt: It c~ne to Council for comment. Council made coherent. The Council raised questions about, do you think that's going to be safe? Do you think people are going to be_ able to drive through there? But that was built with HRA money by the way. A1 Klingelhutz: It's our money too. Councilman Boyt: It's your money because you're part of that tax increment district and I don't think we want to get off on that topic but if we do, we can spend the afternoon discussing it. Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but I'm just saying, you're concerned about safety and we should have been all along. CounciLman Johnson: That was one of our biggest discussions on the entire downtown was that intersection and would that intersection work. Can we take a fire truck through it? All that kind of stuff. Same kind of dJ. scussion we're having on this. CounciLman Workman: Why don't we ask A1 if Bill Boyt's comment about pulling that median and rearranging that parking lot is a viable option and we can go from there. A1 Klingelhutz: I think J.t's a more costly option than just putting in a narrow center island down the road and leaving the left turn lane into my property. I forgot to make this con~nent. The -total center island project on TH 1~1 and the four lanes across the railroad tracks, down TH 5 was proposed 3 years ago, 2 1/2 years ago. When TH lgl was supposed to be_ located at it's present site and not moved over to Market Blvd.. I think that could have a big effect in traffic generated coming into town when the future main entrance into Chanhassen is going to be from TH lgl over onto Market Blvd.. Would we even need a four lane if there's not going to be a TH lgl south of TH 5 where it is at the present time? We talk about if J.t was designed for the traffic coming into town when TH 1~1 south was supposed to stay exactly where it is and be the main entrance into the downtown. That has been changed within the last year and was replaced over to Market Blvd.. That's going to be the maJ. n entrance into downtown. Are you going to have four lanes there and four lanes here? Four lanes are nj_ce but someday in tine future it's going to be very important, knother thing, on our piece of land, J.f ever the old building goes, I guess I wouldn't have any 28 City Council Meeting ' March 27~ 1989 problem moving our parking lot to the north side of our land along side of the c~metery and including it with the parking lot that's already there. But at the present time it doesn't work that way. The building is setting on the wrong place for that. I think Don and I discussed this a year and a half ago. Why don't you build a new building and move it to the south and make more parking to the north? It would help the businesses that are there now and it would be parking for our place. The building is where it is now and I'd sure like to keep a complete approach to it. Mayor Chmiel: I think it's time to call a question on this. Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that we send the parking lot design to the City Engineer to try to come up with a proposal that would make more direct access to Mr.. Klingelhutz' property. Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second that. Councilman Workman: Gary, when's this median got to be approved? Gary Warren: This spring is when we would anticipate putting it in. As soon as the railroad gets their act together. I had a call from them today in response to my phone call but I haven't made contact with them to find out if they're still honoring their second quarter construction schedule for that intersection. Once that work is done, then we could come in and finish up our median. So I would think in reality we' re probably 2 to 3 months yet away. Councilman Johnson: Did they say if they were still were going to hit the second quarter? Gary Warren: We passed messages so I'm going to try them again tomorrow. Relating to the median in the parking lot, if you recall, sometimes these things go through subtly but the trash collectors are not located in the median. That was the result of considerable negotiations and discussion with the Kallsted property and the rest of the businesses there. They Pony, Pauly's, Pryzmus and we were hard press to locate that trash collector and that was the alternate that we came up with so it's not only just the transportation access issue, we' re going to be looking for another trash location which has already been difficult to find in that area. Councilman Johnson: I think if you lose one parking spot in that parking area, you're going to have all those businessmen in that building plus the...saying where's our parking going because that was one of the other real hot issues in the design of downtown was that parking lot and how we can maximize parking in that. Put the church and old City Hall at an angle and whatever to get us more parking in there, which I've gotten used to after all these years. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my question is, does it really, is further study going to come up with any solutions or is it about tLme that we move on this? I like the idea of Alternate 2 with the attachment there that we will study it as it's being used and if there are any problems, that we will then correct them. And that's really even better than what we've got for the intersection up north of there. We don't even have that we can correct the problems on that one. 29 Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Council_man Johnson seconded to send the parking lot design to the City Engineer to try to come up with a proposal that would make more direct access to Mr. Klingelhutz' property. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor; Mayor Ckmiel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Mayor Ckmiel: I' 11 entertain another motion. Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the cost? If this turns out to ~nere we decide then to close this, do you know what that cost is going to be? Mayor CT~m].el: Who says we're ever going to have to close it though? Councilwoman Dimler: That's right. We'll deal with that when it comes along. CounciLman Boyt: I assure you that it's going to be next to impossible to close it once you open it up. CounciLman Johnson: That's right. No matter what your study says. Your study could say we're killing people every other day and it's going to be tough to close it. If somebody does die there, we'll probably get it closed but at great expense to the citizens of Chanhassen. I don't know if HRA, would that be under HRA then to make that closing or does that come back against the general populace? Don Ashworth: How far into the future? The HRA does have a closing off period of time. Generally, once something is put in and it turns back to general maintenance and that's exactly it. It becomes general maintenance of the City. CounciLman Johnson: Let's say it's probably 1 or 2 years. Don Ashworth: 1 or 2 years, the project is still open and still occurring, it could be paid out over as long as the project stays open. Usually a project does not stay open longer than a 3 year period. Given the size of this project, it probably will be open 4 years. Councilman Workman: Are we dJ. scussing the cost that it might cost to build a cap there someday? Councilman Johnson: Yes, because that was part of the study to see if, to put it in and then study it to see if it was the right idea ot put it in. Then if it's not, then you take that action and correct it. I'm saying, we have to look not only at today's cost but we're responsible for all the money. We're gambling that we' re not going to spend taxpayers money 3 years down the road for this project if we_ put this in now. Councilman Workman: What is that, about a 12 foot median? I don't think that's that big of a deal. Gary Warren: 6 maybe. Councilwoman Dimler: I would be J.n favor of crossJ, ng that bridge when we get to it. I would make the motion that we accept Alternate 2. 3~ City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilman Workman: What w~uld be the estimated cost on that? On filling in the median? Mayor Chmiel: I think it would be minimal. Gary Warren: Less than $10,000.00. Councilman Johnson: That's minimal. $10,000.00. Councilman Boyt: I have a question Don on funding of this road surface. How is this paid for? Don Ashworth: This was assessed back to abutting property owners. The roadway itself was assessed back on a front foot basis. Landscaping. A certain portion of the costs were paid by HRA. Generally the roadway itself was assessed back to abutting property owners on a per lineal foot basis. Councilman Johnson: And that's already been assessed? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Boyt: So this is a city project? The roadway? Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to make a motion that we accept Alternative 2 with the option that we study it, re-evaluate it and at that time make any changes necessary. Mayor Chmiel: I ' 11 second that. Councilman Workman: I guess I would just amend it to say, just approve it as it sits with number 2. I think it goes without saying that we'd monitor any situation in the city. Mayor Chmiel: I think that probably should be in there too then just to clarify it. Councilman Boyt: There has to be a better plan than the one in front of us. We don't want traffic stopping in a traffic lane. Gary Warren: If I could suggest following through on the discussion that A1 had presented here, we would take a look to see if we can not get a left turn in that median and shrink it down as a part of that action which would, I think address everybody's concern for the rear ending situation. If possible we will do that. Also, I think that it is ~nportant that the motion call it a temporary cut if you will with the caveats that we've commented here on. Intensified land use and such. If there's a site plan that comes in, if the Council wants to look at leverage for being able to work, if that needs to be closed off as a part of a site plan review process, that could be a condition of the developers to do that and possibly to even pay for that closing. One other thing that A1 had con~nented on that I also think might make sense here. If A1 is agreeable to closing off that access from the public parking lot, it's probably a way to get two more parking spaces in the parking lot. 31 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Mayor Cb_miel: You indicated we still have a couple of .months. that in with the balance of the motion? If we included CounciLman Johnson: Are you going to call this temporary too? In your motion so you don't handcuff the future? Mayor Cnmiel: I think we should. Councilwoman Dimler: That's fine with me. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to accept Alternative 2 with the option that we study it, re-evaluate it and at that time make any changes necessary. Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Workman and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted ].n opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CounciLman Johnson: I'd like to state, according to our procedures, I don't believe it's a safe design. That's the reason for my negative vote on this. APPROVAL OF 1989/9g LIQUOR LICENSES. Don Ashworth: City Council previously established the license fees. You have attached the person who have applied for the specific licenses and the a~mount of such for each using the new fee schedule. All applicants have submitted all of the information required under the ordinance and we have verified that it is in conformance. The only applicant who is not really aware of the procedures and what was required was the Anh Le Restaurant and as of today Karen tells :me that his application Js nearly complete. Approval of the licenses as listed is recommended. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following liquor licenses for 1989/9g: RIVIERA CLUB, INC. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales BLOOMBERG COMPANIES - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales KALLSTED ENTERPRISES -On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales PAULY' S INC. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales CHAN~HASSEN BOWL, INC. - On-Sale Intoxicating, Sunday Sales CHANHASSEN LEGION POST - Club License, Sunday Sales MGM LIQUOR WAREHOUSE - Off-Sale Intoxicating KENNY'S SUPERMARKET - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating SUPERAMERICA - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES -Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating BROOK'S SUPERETTE - Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOCIATION - On-Sale Non-Intoxicating ANH LE RESTAURANT - Beer and Wine License ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH - Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating All voted in favor and the motion carried. 32 City CouncJ. 1 Meeting - March 27~ 1989 APPEAL D~CISION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARD VARIANCE REQUESTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HIDDEN VALLEY, BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT COMPANY. Steve Hanson: Mr. Mayor, this item was presented before the Board of Adjustments and was unanimously denied by them and the applicant has appealed their decision to you for your determination. The Board of Adjustments made three findings in their denial. First, that the present setback requirements severely limit the development of the parcel. However, the variances do allow uses exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. Second, the variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Third, circ~nstances are self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the site. Since that review by the Board of Adjustments, the applicants have suhnitted a revised plan which basically has eliminated some of the parking spaces and reduce the size of one of those spaces down to a compact car size. The applicants also had submitted some information at the Board of Adjustment hearing. Specifically it was a brochure describing the facility and in that it notes that the facility is designed to accon~nodate approximately 100 children and 20 staff members and staff went back and re-evaluated the parking. Initially when we had met with the applicants, we had indicated that the 21 spaces they had shown before were adequate for the facility but my recollection is there was no mention as far as the number of children or staff members. After the Board of Adjustment meeting and before your consideration tonight, I went and looked at previous day care facilities that the City has approved and the parking that has been required on those and that was 1 space for every 6 children plus 1 for employee which in this case would work out to a total of 37 spaces. The revised plan that the applicants have suhnitted does remove any parking space itself from the 25 foot setback but does not eliminate some of the access drive to service some of those spaces from that 25 foot setback. The 25 foot setback is a setback that was in place prior to the present zoning. It was a setback that was in place when they initially site planned the property. The reason that staff has brought up the 25 foot setback is we have looked at that as a way of a compromise to allow the development on this particular parcel. I'd like to go over a graphic quickly with you that includes the property. This is the portion that's in question tonight. This is part of the property that's already developed with this proposed strip center in here. The area shown in orange is the daycare facility that they' re proposing. The brown area is a parking that they're showing as the 18 spaces for the center. This red line is the present zoning requirements for setbacks. What their proposes encroaches on all setbacks that apply to this particular property. The dashed line along the front is the 25 foot setback that was in place when their site plan was approved. The zoning was subsequently changed roughly 4 to 6 months I believe after their site plan was approved after the city had been working through that. The problem staff has, if it were agreeable that this would be appropriate for them to go out to that 25 foot setback, where staff has a problem is in this particular area right here. This access is provided to access approximately 4 parking stalls in this area and that access is within that easement. Parking within that setback area, staff does not feel that is appropriate. Does not meet the intent of what staff had intended. Lastly on here, the green area outlined is the playground facility to serve the daycare area. Also within your packet are referral comments from some of the agencies that we did send this out to and although we're not looking at site plan approval, I think it's appropriate for me to look at some of that information. One of those was a letter from engineering 33 'C~.ty Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 regarding the site visibility problem that may exist at the entrance. That's due to some of the berming on the existing approved area. Staff looked at that and I think maybe was a little concerned that the fence kind of compounds that problem even though there's a chain linked fence. The angle of it is going to...and I think really that's a site planning issue as opposed to part of the variance we're looking at tonight. Staff is recommending that Council confirm the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's decision to deny the variance and based on the followir~ findir~js. That the granting of a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Number 2, circutmstances are self-imposed hardship due to the size of the building being proposed for the lot. Three, while the zoning requirements have changed, the proposal does not comply with the previous zoning requir~nents. Number 4, the present setbacks limit the development of this parcel. However, the proposed variances will allow useage exceeding what was anticipated on the approved site plan are inappropriate. That would conclude my r~narks at this point. Mayor Chniel: Thank you. I see_ that you're standing arid ready to come forward. Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm a partner in Blue Circle Investment Company. We're the owners of the property. Before I get into this issue in depth this evening, I just want to explain that we've had a little bit of confusion in our mJ. nds regarding what actually is a parking situation and what is the code and what we're expected to meet. Up until today at approximately l:3g when I opened my mail was the first time that I was aware that there was any kJ. nd of a parking situation for daycares in the city of Chanhassen. The 21 number was not any magic number. We went back and designed the site plan that we suhnitted to you at finis point in time feeling there was no code for the city of Chanhassen for daycare centers. That's the only thing we'd been told until I received the staff report in the mail today. I do have somebody here this evening that I would like to have address it. I do have some more further in depth information from the people that would be utilizing the property. They could not on short notice get here this evening but I did have a short meeting and visited with them this afternoon about their parking requirements and how they see it. I'd like to introduce Mr. Gene Peterson and while he's visJ. ting with you, I'd like to give you each a coloring rendering of our site which does show fairly graphicly the green areas, the parking areas and the building outlined in color so you can review it and you can see that we really do have a tremendous ~nount of green and not very much asphalt on this very difficult site to work with. Gene Peterson: Gentlemen, my name is Gene Peterson. I'm one of the owners. I sit in a unique situation. I probably am the pioneer of the daycare of the Twin City metro area. _About 75% of the major daycares built J.n the Twin City metro area, I either built or own right now and I've been sittJ, ng here, and we own several of them, and taking the parking issue momenharily now. I've gone through it arr] to date you've got an interesting deal. Not only do I do them here. I do them in California. I do them in Colorado. I do th~m on the east coast and yet, if you could figure out an answer on what a daycare needs, anywhere in the United States, they have not established yet the daycare. You've got the argument of backup. You've got the argument of this. If you were to basically, and we have done extensive research and I don't care what time of the day you go to one of the major daycares in the Twin City metro area, where you've concerned, if there's over 8 or 10 cars there, that's a lot. What nobody understands about the daycare, the most beautiful part time profession 34 City Council M~eting - March 27, 1989 out is being a daycare instructor. So while they look at a potential of about 20 people working for them, they stagger th~ so there is very seldom that there is over that many cars there. And I'm not trying to sell you on it. I'm just trying to give you facts frc~ doing th~m over the course of the years. I started out, it used to be 12. I think the most that I've put to date in a daycare, and you could call me a liar on this, is 23 I think is the most that I've ever done. And the funny part of it is the one with the 23 has probably the least cars there. We built one on 44th and Drew right off from 50th and France. It's got 12 parking spots on it. They've got a city parking spot right next door to it that they could use. They don't even use the 12 parking spots on 40th and Drew. These are all the same sized daycare center. So the thing I'm just trying to bring out is your city planner has no choice but by virtue of the way that your codes and such are written to, and your Board of Adjustment, to basically turn this down. It's a problem that the daycares have to come most of the time for a variance or special use permit because nobody yet has established it. Something that I think that you should give serious thought as to this decision. Why are we here asking you for the variation when there is still open land here? One of the biggest problems that's happened in the daycare, and if any of you have children in the daycare, is the costs are spiraling daily. It is a never ending battle. I think when I started out and my son had his first child in it, it was $47.00 a week. Maybe it was even less than that and the baby, a 6 month old baby I think at that time was $65.00 and I believe today, if I'm not mistaken, it's over $100.00. We took a look in Chanhassen. Chanhassen is definite, really needs daycare out here and everybody's crying for it. One of the things that we try to do before we do the daycares is we will go into a neighborhood and ask if there's anybody against it. I understand and I'm gone a lot so I don't get in always on the daycare. I happen to be in town now and I was asked to come out to this meeting. We'll go into a neighborhood and first of all see if there's any of the neighbors that are against having the daycare. I understand that a petition was put out to everybody in the neighborhood is there. Another thing that a daycare does, in Minnesota, I don't know, you may not be aware of this. One of the toughest daycare regulations in the United States is Minnesota. Minnesota is so far ahead. If you really want a sick deal, go down to Texas. They don't even have any parking codes or anything on it. I understand your planner originally come from Denver. Look at the changes that have taken place in Colorado just because of some of the problems. I've done quite a few of the daycares in Denver, I understood and I may stand to be corrected on that. But I have been a consultant for several years for Children's World who have just, and I've built most all but about 3 of the Children's World here and we own all of them here. We also built several of the Daybridge and as you may not be aware of it, Daybridge bought out Children's World. I brought Kinder-Care in here and built the first 10 Kinder-Cares and did several of the Kinder-Cares. So I've had the opportunity many times to be in here on variances. What we're looking at is, we went on this piece of land because of the location. Because of the cost and it was our feeling with the green area and the consensus of the people there~ that it was worth coming in asking for the variance. The concern of the parking, I can appreciate in looking at the codes and as I say, if you can find anywhere in the country where they are. I just finished coming back from San Diego County, doing some in San Diego County and the same situation come up about parking out there. The average daycare out there, and I think California is probably some of the toughest place in the united States for zoning on it, we are putting in anywhere from 18 to 23 for the same identical sized daycare. It's not a problem. Take my word for it. I can verify everything I'm telling you here 35 Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 from ownership. From taking you and showing them to you if you had the time. I'm not trying to sell you on the parking. I understand where your planner is coming from a variance. The reason we went in there, because of a zoning change that was unique. It makes the piece of land a little bJ.t difficult. I think if you take a look at the green area that your fellow gave you, you will look at it, that we have extensive. I think it's an asset to your area. We're looking at about a three quarter of a million dollar project. We're looking at potential of jobs of anywhere from 15 to 20 jobs. We're going to build a daycare somewhere in Chanhassen if you don't do it here. Our approach that we looked at here was, that we felt it was ~cn asset. We did not feel that ].t was a detriment to your city. We felt that the variance, with the green area and everything it more than off set it and that's why we're in here asking you to give us the variance. The parking problem, I can understand where that came fram. I only tell you this from my experience. If you will bear along with us, I could verify everything I'm saying on the parking. We would like to have you offer us the variances so that we can proceed. We are ready. If you approved it, we would start construction tomorrow. There's that much demand in Chanhassen for a daycare. The difference in cost to look at, we looked at 3 different sites here. We are looking at almost half the price of this land versus another 2 pieces of land here in Chanhassen. Land is not too cheap in Chanhassen. It's a fine suburb on it and it is a very growing one. That's ~fny we're in here. if you can understand by this variance that you could possibly be s~ving the opportunity, and I can't promise this because there are other costs that are coming, but the difference in that land cost could be as much as $10.0g a week in the future as to daycare costs. There are other costs coming up stronger contingent. As you know, New Horizons has a very fine name as far as the quality of their care, if I think that you did that research. We're asking you for something that's probably difficult but I think with the green area tinat we're putting in, and I think I can verify to your planner's satisfaction by taking the time and showing him at different times or any one of you, t_hat the parking is not a problem. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer anything that you have. I don't have all the answers. I have a lot of th~n from 14 years in here but I'm still old enough to still learn somethJ, ng too so if I could be of any help, I'd be glad to. I understand that one of the residents, if I'm correct, is here that they did check with and I would like to have him give you the opportunity to find out what the reaction right around there from the residents are too. Uli Sacchet: Good evening. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle in Brookhill development which is immediately adjacent to where this project is proposed for. When I first heard about this proposal of the daycare center, I was very excited about it. I'm sure that you're aware there's a new neighborhood there. I've never seen a neighborhood with so many little children. It's unique. It's very special. And I took it upon me to check with some of the people that live there. I went around talking to people and collected some signatures which I would assume that you've seen that. It's not excessively many. It's about 3g or 40 signatures. Basically I almost felt silly going around getting signatures for this sort of a purpose. It seems such a clear issue. People were so enthused about this sort of thing coming so close to where they live. They were more interested to hear about how they can sign ~p, to reserve themselves space or several spaces J.n that daycare than they were interested to hear and look at the blueprint that there was a situation with variances. I personally feel relatively confident, having put some effort into supportirg this proposal even though I'm not an expert in variances and your 36 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 building codes and all that, but it is my understanding that this proposal basically complies with what setback requirements were at the time like when that shopping center was put in place and that. there w~re some changes of the rules. I don't know to what extent that's true. That part I have to leave up to you but I do like to make a point that as far as the close by residents, the neighbors of that neighborhood, it's very unanimous stand of support and it would have been easy to get more signatures but it was really not necessary. I think the point is very clear and that's all I'd like to say here and hope that you can support that proposal from the technical aspect as well. Thank you for your attention. Gene Peterson: I have wi. th me, if you would like to see actual site plans of about 6 or 8 different daycares. One of them on 494 and Fish Lake in Maple Grove which we just opened about in the last 6 months on it. That has, I think it has 16 parking spots on it. So rather than take your time, because of the time element here, if you would like to look at them, to verify what I was saying about the parking on ones that are either new or have been open. I' open for questions. Fire at me if you need any. Pat Hallisey: I'd like to address in a little more depth the issue of parking. This afternoon, as I said, I visited with the President of New Horizons daycare centers and the planner is correct. There was a brochure given out that said there was up to 20 employees and up to 100 children in this facility running at 100% maximum occupancy. That does not mean that they're all there at any one given point in time. Their requirements, their maximum staffing requirements at any one point in time, absolute maximum is 12, more likely 10. This is at midday maximum staff parking requirements. And these are absolute maximums. This is at the midday when the people are not coming and leaving the children or picking them up. The staff parking during the 7:30 to 9:30 and 4:00 to 6:00, when the great majority of the children are coming in and leaving, are 7 to 8 staff people. This is due to the staggered arrival and departure of the staff as the numbers of children in the facility increases and decreases. The maximum trips for pick up and drop off generated by a facility of thi. s size runs between 20 and 25 trips per hour. The average length of stay within the daycare for drop off and pick up is 6 minutes. If we expanded that 6 minutes to a 15 minute stay, that would mean that each parking stall is capable of handling 4 trips per hour. If we have 18 stalls, 8 staff at the time when the kids are comi. ng and going, we still have 10 stalls for the parents to use to bring their kids in and out. If they're there for 15 minutes more than twi_ce what they find operationally is the average length of stay, we can accomodate 40 trips per hour when 20 to 25 is the normal. So we don't feel that the 18 parking stalls is a problem. As I said earlier, we didn't know that the number of parking stalls was going to be an issue until this afternoon when I received the mail. But we've done what we can to try and address that concern in your mind. I have done one other thing in order to try and give you an option, and thi. s is a little crude because it was done fairly rapidly but the staff had at one time supported 21 parking stalls. What I've done is I've taken that site plan and I've outlined the green area there and if you want the 21 cars, really what we're asking for in a variance is thi. s area in yellow here in order to get 21 cars in there. This bei. ng a small portion, approximately a half of that parking stall, a quarter of that one and drive access to thi. s. With 18 stalls, what we're really asking you for, and we didn't know there was an interpretation that the driveway to a parking stall is considered part of a parking lot. This area right here is what you're talking about as far as being outside the setback. 37 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 That's only if staff's interpretation of the code is correct. That that driveway access is part of the parking lot. I'm not here to dispute the staff's interpretation. I've not seen your code, but we were not apprised of it until once again we saw the staff r.eport at 2:gg this afternoon. I guess we feel, and I've tried to point out to yo~ in my letter, to you, that the denial does reek a tremendous economic hardship on us. We tried to show you that without variances, we can build an 1,85g square foot building on this lot. Totally. The plan is contained in your_ staff packet. It's totally, economically unfeasible. That's a hardship that was imposed on us by a zoning change. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. I've tried to point out, to give some credence to that, that the normal economic guide for land planning is 4 square feet of land for each square foot of building. Ther. e is something in you~ prior codes that substantiates that. That is your prior code. Your present code has no requiremen~ as to the a~ount of building coverage on a site. Your_ prior code said not more than 25% of the site can contain building. That matches what I just told you. Exactly. Once you start exceeding tha~, you have gone past the bounds of economic reality. If we're to build on this property with without a variance, we have exceeded that ratio by 79%. The upper ends of the economic ratio, i don't think that's fair. We have come to you with what we feel is a very, ver.y clean use. It does ne~ a variance. We feel that no matter ~at we build on this property we're going to need a variance. We have tried to bring to you a ver.y clean use. One that has strong neighbor.hood support and one that can be implemented now. As I say, it does need a variance. Whatever we build is going to need a variance. I guess I would like the opportunity, as I said in my letter to you, to r.espond to any questions or. concerns that you may have because this is an issue. Mr_. Peterson brought up a point and before I close, he said that he had looked at 3 sites in the city of Chanhassen and that he could buy this site for. half pr.ice and that was going to reflect in the potential of a lowered cost to the people in the con~nunity. Well there's a reason he's buying it for half price. It's not because I love to give land away at half cost. As I pointed out in my letter and as I stood before present council, we'r.e fighting for. something here. We're fighting for our economic life in our shopping center, next door and we've told the past council here that we'r.e willing to do what we can to avoid future problems with the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Peterson just told you, he's getting land for half price. I thJ. nk that's pretty good concession and indication that we come here in good faith trying to work with the City of Chanhassen and give you a good, clean use that the con]nunity needs and supports. If anybody has any questions of myself or Mr. Peterson, we' 11 be happy to answer them. Gene Peterson: I have only one thing to say. As the owner, the buyer...and that is this. I've told you what the variance and why I felt when I came in here. I appreciate there's some problems with your land and your variance. I just want to say this, that I can understand, having been a planner which I was many moons ago, they had no choice but to come up with a way. I think that you have listened to a hardship from people who own the land. Selfishly, yes we can come in with a lower program because of the price. I think the deicision you have to make is not whether your planner is right or wrong. Not if your zoning is right or wrong. Is by issuing this variance are you going to be haunted down the way or is this good for Chanhassen? That's what I'm asking as the variance tonight as the owner. We don't build them and spec them. We end up owning them. The chances are, and you can say fine, that's easy. We own them and keep them. We will be the owner for sometime on it. We will become a part of...as one of the owners. So we' re looking at it far deeper. What my concern is, I 38 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 don't want it to become an issue between you and the land. People came to us and said we will do this and we're at the opportunity to take advantage of the price but you, probably many of you that are sitting there, have children in daycare. We've got to live with you afterwards for a long time and it's tough enough at $75.00-$85.00 a week for kids today no matter what you have if you're dual parents, to turn around and keep that price down. I only say that so you understand where we come from as owners of the daycare... Councilman Johnson: While from the discussions thus far it seems like there's minimal variances here, under the existing ordinances, this would be probably the largest set of variances ever passed in this city. Under the old ordinance, it is minimal variance. The question comes up, who designed this lot? Pat, you're the owner of Blue Circle. Blue Circle subdivided the lot. You made the lot. Now we need massive zoning changes under the existing ordinance. It's a hardship that the zoning changed but I think when a lot is designed under a given ordJ. nance, whatever goes onto that lot should match that ordinance. You will find that a parking lot is considered a structure by City Ordinance and a structure can not be put within the setback. Sidewalks are a structure unless it's a public sidewalk in the public right-of-way so we've got two sections on this existing drawing. You notJ.ce I folded the drawing. The green area that's the City's property, is going to stay green no matter what happens to it except for the sidewalk that's in there that's not shown. But the other thing I'm wondering, because we've got this nice green area shown here, is the playground going to be grass and dirt or is the playground going to be some kind of play surface? Gene Peterson: It is all lawn and where each piece of equipment is, it's squared around with sand underneath it but it is predominantly grass and it's pretty well kept. What's changed is we used to do them with all sand and now what we have done is, we have put in, like our little tric walk and like a sidewalk type in there or wherever we have the tires or anything, we put the square like this and put the sand in there and we put it high enough to keep it in so we get as much green area as we can. Councilman Johnson: One of the biggest discussions, how much parking is needed? Quite frankly our zoning ordinance that was in place at the time that this was zoned said adequate. That doesn't help much. What is adequate to one person is not adequate to another. I disagree with you when you say there is no more than 8 cars or whatever it was. I drive by one of your daycare centers everyday on Valley View behind Rainbow. This morning there were 5 cars that were overflow from parking. They were parked in front of the building on both sides of the driveway. Where you're normally driving it was down to one lane because of all the cars parked there during the drop off time. Drop off is big. This is next to one of our, this particular location is very close to one of our larger bus stops. That particular daycare center, the one on Valley View is used by people as a park and ride lot. Your customers come in. They park their cars there. Put their kids in. Get on the bus. Go downtown. Gene Peterson: I'm glad you brought that one up .because we do have that problem and it's one... Councilman Johnson: And the Southwest Metro Transit Commission, which I'm a member of, also was petitioned by your customers to put a bus stop there and we put a bus stop in for you so the bus does stop there to pick up your people. 39 City Council Meez..ng March 27 1989 .. Gene Peterson: It backfired on us CounciLman Johnson: Well this is also one of the bigger bus stops in the town is right there at the America Legion. I suspect you're going to be having this sane problem here if you allow it. Now what you're going to have to do is tell your customers no park and ride. If you do do that, tell your customers no park and ride, it may wo}:k but you're going to have to eliminate 2 mor. e parking spots to do it because_ the paved surface is a structure and it's got to get out of that 25 foot setback. The sidewalk next to the compact car lot is a structure. It's got to get out of the 25 foot setback. Steve, I want to ask you a question right away. As I -~ead the old zoning ordinance, it said ~erking lots can be g setback as long as the adjacent property is also zoned C-2. This was C-2. Now both properties are BN. Under that, if they took thei. r parking lot and moved it to the north 5 feet to give themselves a little more room there. I see one of their biggest problems wi. th the parking lot is having the ability to come in, drop the kids off and turn back out. Just movement. If 'they can make that parking lot 5 foot wider and leave only a 5 foot strip, would that be within the old zoning ordinance? Steve Hanson: I'm not that well versed in your old zonJ. ng ordinance to be honest. CounciLman Johnson: It's in the packet. I'm just reading what you gave me. Steve Hanson: I think what it's probably referring to is sharing parking facilities. CounciLman Johnson: Here's ~nat it says under parking location A. The parking area may abut the property iine ].f the abutting property is zoned C-2 or C-3. Parking areas adjoining all other districts shall not be located closer than 25 foot to the side or rear proDerty lines. So obviously this must be the same or else you'd have a 25 foot rear setback for his pa~_king instead of lg foot. Right now he's on lg foot. I would think that he could probably gain some by moving it to the north a little bit. I still would like to see him leave some shurberies and some room there for some green space and some plantings. I do believe this is a fairly good use. I think we're trying to put, this is an odd piece of property that's left over from the shopping center construction. I know it was a business decision made a long time ago and it ends up haunting us. This is one of these things that we have to look at as we look at new zoning requirements ].in the future. When other shopping centers come in and we look at other shopping centers, we want to prevent these little parcels from getting put in there. I'm not sure ~nether 18 or ~natever. They're are 16 parking spots at the larger daycare center that's behind Rainbow at Valley View. This morning at 7:3g there was 5 or 6 cars parked out in front of it and I did not observe whether the whole parking lot was full on the side of the building. Their main problem there is the park].ng lot's on the side of the building. If you park in the parking lot, you've got to walk around the building. Most people are too lazy. They're going to park in the fire zone and take thei~ kids in. Here there is no fire zone per se. I'm sure you're going to have people because there's always those people who aren't going to bother parking. They're just going to pull straight up to t~m front door. The beck with the rest of the world, I'm parking in front of the front door. Unfortunately that's the att].tude of some people in the world today. I think you can make it but I 4~ City Counc].l Meet].ng - March 27, 1989 think, you may think~ and peopl_e in the aud_]ence may th]_nk us f_~ght].ng over these l_]ttle zoning things, oh, ~t's only 100 square feet of parking l°t in here~ But the actual is about half the property or probably a quarter of the property is now asking for vaiances from our existing. The last point I'd like to make is to counter, you said there's nothing in our new zoning ordinance on lot coverage. We allow you to cover a maximum of 65% of the lot now with structures and parkJ, ng lot, etc.. So there ]_s a number. The old one was 25% building only. They dJ.dn't say you could put the rest of it as parking lot if you wanted. The other 75%. But the new zoning ordinance, the C~.ty of Chanhassen has chosen to be a green city without buildings crar~ned right next to each other so we've said we want at least 35% of your property to be green area. I don't know, I think we're getting awful darn close here. There's not that much. If we can move it to the north, we might be able to only lose one parking spot then. I don't know. Gene peterson: Let me bring something up about that stat that might help you too. One of the thJ. ngs in daycares is, almost 50% of staff comes from, because of the unJ.queness of being able to be, because it's called part-time/full-time, that they can come in at different hours because of the drop off and the kids, that we will run into quite often that about 50% of our staff where you're sitting with neighborhoods close by like this or housing that's close by like you have there, w].ll come right out of the neighborhood. I'm not saying that that's definite, but as an example we've got several of them, like Apple Valley. We've got two of them in Apple Valley where almost half of our staff walked over to it because they're right from the neighborhood. That's because of the way that you can work. While it's called a part-time/full-t~_me job, the variation because when they drop off kids and going back using, and I think you brought up a real good one ].n Rainbow. We did an expert.merit on Ra~.nbow on a park and shop. The problem we run into was half of the park and shop didn't leave the kids off and the other one was, we_ thought it was a convenience because we had extra parking. If you remember when we first built it, we run into the same thing is, we had about 10-12 parking spots so as a gesture, the manager there said that some of them that were leaving their kids off and if you want to leave your car there, we're not using ~_t anyhow. And we got a loaded deck on it. We did it in two different spots and we ended up having parking problems. So we will not get there again but you're right. Counc~.lman Johnson: At this point, the Metropolitan Transit Comm~_ssion built a park and ride lot just a couple miles from there. They can drive over there and park there. It's almost full now but my wife used to work in one of these and it was in Texas as you talked about and there was no parking. This is in a residential neighborhood. If you parked, you parked on the street. The daycare center she worked at is not someplace we would have taken our children, to tell you the truth. She ended up talking to the health department about her employer. Gene Peterson: You've got so many things on Minnesota staffing that really protect you from the daycare that would be concerns unless you were really close here, that they do such a tremendous job on the staffing regs here. It really protects you an awful lot if you get by your variance that you're talking about. From protection, a lot of the things that you're worried about. Pat Hallisey: Did I understand that you were suggesting moving the lot 5 feet to the north? 41 Council ~eting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Right. The entire parking lot. Pat Hallisey: You don't have a problem with that. We don't have a problem with that. Councilman Johnson: We'd also probably have to eliminate the last two so you'd be down to 16 ~xarkJ. ng spots which is what you have at the one by Rainbow is 16 parking spots which gets pretty low but then again... Gene Peterson: It wasn't a problem before we did that park... Councilman Johnson: Before you did park and ride. I meant to stop at another one in the Opus area to look at it and I don't think they have that many parking spots either. I don't think they have 3g in there. But to me, as a purist on variances, get it out of the setback. Mayor Chm~.el: I'd like to ask an op~nJ, on of our attorney. What can we do with this Roger? I see here by what your letters indicate, maybe you could just sort of clarify that for everybody. Roger Knutson: Sure. Don asked me to write you a letter about the proper procedures for appealing a decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. I set those out in wr.~.ting to you. Anyone can appeal a decision. Any agree person can appeal a decision from the Board within lg days of that decision requesting making an appeal to the zon].ng adminJ, strator who ]s Don Ashworth. Your Code then goes on to say you must follow the same procedures in your handling of it that the Board of Adjustments used in it's handling of it. So you're required to have a public hearing preceeded by published and mailed notices by this body for that appeal. That's an internal policy procedure which under your own internal rules you can waive by a four-fifths vote from this body. State law does not require that published and ma.41ed notice. Councilman Johnson: What's the question and what's the... Roger Knutson: I just learned, and I guess I made an assumpt].on, that this had been advertised for a public hearing for tonight but it had not been so to act on it, you're going to have to waive that rule. Otherwise, send ~t out for a public hearing. Councilman Johnson: Was it advertised as a public hearing? Mayor Chmiel: The motion basically has to be waived as he ind~.cates. Then we would have to have a public hearing on Jt and all adjacent prope_rty owners would have to be notified with published notice in the paper as well. Councilman Johnson: Didn't we publish it? Don Ashworth: We published this and it was for the Board of Adjustments meeting that occurred from before. But you did not publJ, sh tonJ. ght's meeting. City Council meeting of tonight. Steve Hanson: My recollect4on, it was tabled at that last Council meeting when it was before the Board of Adjushnent. 42 City Council Meet~,ng - March 27~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, with some consideration as to looking to see what they could really do with that particular site with the facility. We also talked about the probability or possibility of shrinking that building down some as well. Don Ashworth: But even the last one, what the notice said was, you're invited to attend the Board of Adjustment meeting at 6:30. It did not address the City Council meeting at which tJ~ne it was then tabled to this meeting. Again, there is a procedure. It becomes one of, in the determination of the C~.ty Council are all potentially affected property owners at tonight's meeting so you can make that decision? If you feel that those people logically affected by this decision are here, you can go ahead and waive your ordinance and take action on it. If you're concerned that potentially there is someone who is not here, then you should table it. Gene Peterson: Would the petition that's signed by a majority suffice as the same... In other words, you have a petition on file from several of the homeowners there, also be suffice... Councilwoman Dimler: I guess the Legion has property, and they're not here. I guess I would be concerned as to how they feel. Councilman Johnson: Of course they haven't con~nented as of yet and they were familiar with the previous advertising for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. They made no con~nent there at that point either and they were notified. Mayor Chmiel: But I would not want to put myself in the position to speak for the Legion on this particular one. Councilman Johnson: I th.~.nk they've spoken by their silence, if you can say that. Councilman Boyt: There's a major drawback to putting this off. April 10th is going to be an interesting meeting all by itself. I think we better have some pretty serious reservations before we add another item to that agenda. Councilwoman Dimler: Does it have to be the next meeting? Don Ashworth: No, it's actually within 30 days but I'm sure there's a desire on the owner's part to move as quickly as possible. Gene Peterson: We have a time element out here. Any consideration at this time is important to us. Roger Knutson: Let me just point out. Under State Statute, most people are unaware of this, but under State Statute you do not have to have a public hearing before anyone to grant a variance. All it has to go is on the agenda at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. No public hearing is required. But you do it, and that's just fine. That's your internal policy to do that. It's not required by Statute. Councilman Boyt: At the very minimal we certainly ought to give Mr. Hallisey some sort of sense of whether he's on reasonably good ground or not. Know whether to continue to proceed with this or whether he needs to look elsewhere. 43 Counc~ 1 Meeting -March 27, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to continent. I know Mr. Hallisey indicated that thJ. s property, and I feel it i.s, is just a little bit over a half an acre and the way ~.t's la_~.d out, it is going to be difficult for anything that is proposed there and that he' 11 have to come in for variances of some sort for anything that goes in there and I th~nk that's where we now maybe have to make a deicison of what would we l~ke to see there. I guess daycare is a good thing. I would be in favor of that rather than something else so I think that's a cons~.deration that we do have to look at. I don't like granting that much of a variance but maybe in this case, I don't know if I agree that the hardship is self imposed because of the fact that TH lgl moved and there's certain p~oblems with your property as a result of that so that's my con~nent. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess I look at the aspect too, the zoning in itself did change from what it was previously. Even though those take place, that's something that everyone has to live with. I guess I bas~.cally agree with w~nat Ursula is saying too. I think a daycare center is needed in the co'~rrnunity. We have one in the midst of ~oving and I think we need another as well. Whether or not this facility can be located on that piece of property to be in accordance with all of our requ~.r_ements, that's the question. Whether or not a variance is going to really be the answer, I guess I'm not much for really moving on something when there's not been any variances within the specJ, fic locations for anything to date. I guess I'm still keeping an open mind to it. Bill, do you have anythJ.ng? Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy to encourage you in a direction. First, Uli if I might ask you a question since I r~member only too vividly the discussJ.ons about 6 months ago about h].ghway traffic concerns and ch].ldren playing J.n the area. You know 184th Street is going to be extended out and this pJ. ece of road J.s going to become considerably busier. Separating your nef_ghborhood and that road is what, a 6 foot wood fence? I don't know how high but it's a wood fence. SeparatJ. ng the daycare and that highway J.s a 4 foot chain lJ. nk fence. Someth]ng to think about. I think when I look at the other uses for this property, J.t J.s a quandry and I can see the advantage of havJ. ng some sort of a traffic generater. I think you're going to get quite a bit of traffic w~nen 184th comes through. I know that might not be a bird in the hand so to speak but I do thJ. nk that we've got to be very careful about where we put daycare centers. This is s~nethJ, ng where we're really speaking for a group v/no can't vote for themselves here. Uli, did you want to respond? Uli Sacchet: Yes, since you addressed the... I may not be lgg% informed of all the details with this but I believe a s~.miliar question was raised at the Planning Co~.~nission meeting about the distance. If my recollection ~.s correct, I believe there was some say that there would be a s~milar distance actually from the daycare to the road, that is from the road to the residential area. Maybe I can pass the question on to you to address this. I agree that this is a concern. There's going to be more traffic there that is not necessarily enhancing to safety. On the other hand, it's going to be much less traffic than if it would be the TH lgl proposal. Councilman Boyt: Let's hope so. Uli Sacchet: I would certainly hope_ so. It seems from that angle, coming from that angle, it seems like this proposal to put a daycare center there' is making 44 City Council Meeti~ng - March 27~ 1989 113 the best of a relatively bad situat]~on. You got kind of hung up a little bit in a crack in terms of a business location and when I heard that it was going to be a daycare center, I felt that was someth].ng that I felt 1]_ke supporting because I felt that it makes good use. There's certainly lots of children. I have two children. I drive one k].d to Hopkins and the other one to Southdale every morning plus I work in Rosedale so you can imagine how much driving I do. I'm very excited. My children might be too old by the time this is in place, I don't know, but there's so many small children in the neighborhood. I would urge you to consider that safety aspect very thoroughly. I don't want to dissuade you at all Bill but please, maybe you can address that. Pat Hallisey: Yes. The question regarding the fencing. The Board of Adjustments was looking at the different distances from the street and what have you and whether a fence was in character with the neighborhood and I was the one who pointed that there was a fence across the streeet sheltering the neighborhood from the commercial and that's a lot line fence just as this is. Most fences are on the lot lines. That is a wood fence. This is a chainlink fence. Although it's a 4 foot chainlink fence, ]~t's not like you've got 100 kids running around in a street, in a fenced in play area where there's a bunch of traffic going by here. They're supervised. You have supervisors in that playground with the kids when they're there so they're not just... Councilman Boyt: But it is a bunch of kids in a playground by a busy road whether they're supervised or not. I'm just pointing out it's a busy road. Pat Hallisey: Right. But it's certainly going to be far less busy than what it was originally intended for and it is a permitted use for that site. Gene Peterson: If you want a h].gher wood fence, w~ don't have any problem. If you'd rather have a wood fence than a chainlink fence. In other words, that's not a problem with us. Our reasons for going to chainlink in most cases is to view openness but ~ have some with a wood fence if that's the question... Councilman Boyt: I haven't gotten to that concern but the other part of it is, you talked Mr_. Peterson about an economic advantage. This is something the Council needs to be, I think quite concerned about. Not that we don't want to give people economic advantages but that, I think we have to be concerned that in granting variances we give people an economic advantage. We have one other daycare in Chanhassen and we' re going to have other daycares .in Chanhassen because there are other neighborhoods that have the same growth that you' re talking about. To come in and grant variances so that a daycare can locate in an economic piece of property is to put the other day.cares at an economic disadvantage. I think we have to be careful when we do that. If we do that. Pat you requested the subdivision of this piece of property the way it's divided. Pat Hallisey: I'd like to address that for a minute if I could, and Councilman Johnson brought this issue up also. We've gone through a tr~endous multitude of changes with this property. The road alignments. The whole 9 yards. When we looked at this, planned this whole property in the first place, it was under a different, a totally different scenario. It was with TH 101 being here. Lake Drive East being a high traffic roadway from Dakota to TH 101. In fact it was so high traffic, that there was going to be no access anywhere other than here and here. Lake Drive North. Your designated street. Lake Drive North. There 45 1!4 City Council Meetin9 - March 27~ 1989 was going to be no more access to Lake Drive from this point to the Sinclair station. ThJ. s is the dividing point between the Kerr property and the Legion property. What was goJ. ng to happen when TH 101 widen~d and was upgraded, the Legion was going to lose access to this property from TH lgl. All traffic was going to come down around here and come in. We had to agree to move this curb cut to this point right here when that happened. It's in your Planning Co~rnission notes. I'm pointing this out so that you know there's been tremendous changes and how some of those changes affect this particular piece of property. That's not there anymore. We now have access. We could have planned our whole development differently and not had this screwball shaped piece of property had that been the case. But at that point in time, the City said you can't have access here. Everybody's got to come through here to get to that property. That's 9/ny you've got that crazy looking plan that has never been an approved site plan. There's never been an approved site plan for this piece of property. CounciLman Boyt: Mr. Hallisey, my point is that when you requested that you get two lots out of this piece of property instead of one lot, you did make that request right? Pat Hallisey: We did. Councilman Boyt: ~nen you submitted that request, you submitted it indicating a 4,000 square foot building would apparently meet the setbacks. Is that correct? Pat Hallisey: As I pointed out in my letter, we didn't even begin to think about 4,000 square feet. All we were doing was showing a building on here so the lot could be used under those circumstances. Councilman Boyt: And that I think is the key line. The lot could be used. I think the City Council at that time, and I didn't have their minutes to read but what I gathered from reading your letter and what I know of the group that reviewed it, my guess is that they didn't want to give you that lot as a separate lot and that you came in and demonstrated that it was buildable and therefore you wanted it. Pat Hallisey: I don't want to be argumentative but J.t was their suggestion that we did that. Staff's suggestion at that point. CounciLman Boyt: Staff's suggestion but then you came in and demonstrated that it was a viable lot as a separate lot? Pat Hallisey: Without access on Lake Drive ~/nich at that point couldn't be because of the high number of traffic... CouncJ. L~an Boyt: And are you now claiming it's a hardship to be given an access? Pat Hallisey: No. What I'm trying to say is that we would never have designed that "approved site plan" in anywhere near that fashion had we been able to have an access here at that point in time. We had a whole different size configuration buiiding on that. 46 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: Well I'd be interested in seeing how you could put more than 4,000 square feet on that piece of property given the plan that you've got here in front of us. Pat Hallisey: This plan that's in front of you right now with Councilman Johnson's suggestion of moving the parking 5 feet to the north and eliminating 2 parking stalls fits all of the criteria that was in place at that point in ti.me. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't think the City ever comnitted to allowing you to put a 5,600 square foot building on that piece of property. Pat Hallisey: I don't mean to suggest that they did. Ail I'm saying is with Councilman Johnson's suggestions, we could have done it. CouncJ. lman Boyt: I think that in terms of coming in and saying that by not allowJ_ng you to put a 5,600 square foot building on this we've created a hardship, I just don't buy that. We never agreed to allow a building of that size. I agree, things have changed. I think that among other concerns, before we vote on this, the fire, Mark Littfin, the Fire Inspector, should look at the need for a fire zone. It came up, I didn't see one.- I think Mr. Peterson makes a good point when he says we need to be very careful that we're not haunted down the way. Daycares are unique J_n that they're built for kids. Mr. Peterson wants th~n built in the right spot. In the right way. You're just building one down on TH 101 right now. How many parking spots are you putting in that one? Your competition, you know it's an interesting corner. It's like gas stations. There's now 3 daycares out of the 4 corners. The other one has a home on it I think or you'd probably have a daycare there too. Well out of those, one of them has 24 parking spots. The other has 19 parking spots. Yours is going to have 18 parking spots. Gene Peterson: I think it's 19. Councilman Boyt: I don't know, and maybe Steve doesn't know where we came up with the figure of 1 out of 6 but we really need to look at that and see if that's what the right number should be because that represents space and space is money to these daycare. And we've already got a daycare that says it can live with that and interestingly enough, they claim that they can put it in our industrial park, which is expensive land, they cgn put it in there and make a profit with it and provide all the space we require and all the parking spots we require. You're coming to us and saYing to build a viably sized daycare, we can't do that. Gene Peterson: No. I didn't say we couldn't. I said that due to the inflatJ, ng costs of daycare, that it was our feeling that this was worth pursuing. It isn't a questS.on of whether or not we can or can't do it. There's a ne~d for a daycare. It can be built somewhere else and I have to clarify what you're saying. That isn't saying that we can't put one in your industrial park...and probably make a profit. I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying that you have a protection for a hedge on it as to it going up if the cost is there...and what I'm trying to do, very selfishly, is trying to keep the costs down. They're going up in daycare...and the regulations but I don't want to leave you with the opinion that if we don't go there we can't make any money. 47 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 CouncJ. lman Boyt: No, I don't mean that. I just mean that to go here, you're saying we have to have these sorts of considerations. Mr.. Hallisey, I've felt all along that the City owes you some consideration with the traffic changes that we've made. I don't thJ.nk putting a daycare in this site is the right kind of consideratJ, on. My main reason for feeling that way is I just ~ uncc~nfortable putting a bunch of kids on this road and that constraint. So I'm going to have a great deal of difficulty voting for this variance as it works out. We need some better answers than we've got here certainly in terms of your piece of property and I think J.f I had to hang it on anything else, I'd say come back to me with a 4,ggg square foot daycare and we can talk further. I'm finished. Thanks for giving me the 15 minutes it took me to get through all that. Councilwoman DJ.mler: I guess I'd have one question. That is Bill, do you know the one in the industrial park, does that service citizens of Chanhassen or just the workers in the park? Councilman Boyt: Ur. sula, we started out recommending that that serve just the people in the industrial park and by the time we had approved J.t, we approved it for the City as a whole. Councilwoman Dimleu: Okay, but you do see the need for more daycare in Chanhassen? Counci ]_man Boyt: Cer ta J. nly. Councilwoman Dimler: My point is that this would serve, being out of the industrial park, J.t would service the citizens of Chanhassen and not the people in the industrial park necessarily. They wouldn't probably use that one. Councilman Boyt: Well I know they're advertisJ, ng in the Taco Shoppe right now. CouncJ. lman Work.~an: I'm not going to be able to touch too much on what anybody else hasn't already touched upon. Maybe my perspective as being the only person who has daycare aged children. I think Don has a younger sister. I really don't have an opJ.nion on these one way or the other. My daughters are not J.n a daycar, e of this nature. They're in an J.n home daycare. I read Plato's Republic and I didn't like it. I do have questions of course brought out by the Board of Adjustments about this maximum size and the locatJ.on. I have probably way too many concerns in regards to t'ne entire corner to make a comfortable decision ].n regards to this. I do understand the concerns of the neighbors. I think if it was, maybe, maybe not. If J.t was as big a concern for them to have a daycare and I thought maybe more than one of the neJ. ghbors might be out here tonight. But I do understand the need for_ daycare. If there is anything anybody else can add to this that will give me a little bit better direction. My major concern when I came in here tonight was the question, who divided the lot? How did the lot get there? And now that it is there, how much forethought was used to decide what could go on it? 1 asked the question of Steve not too long ago, what's meets and bounds? Can't we slap a few lots back together and add it onto the end of the office complex there? Does Willard have any questions or concerns? Is Willard here? Willar. d Johnson: I hadn't followed the latest report so... At the time I felt, and I still feel the same way, that... I don't feel we should overcrowd it 48 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 there. It w-as brought up...and that's just a minor thing...This is a pretty good sized project in a sense and I don't... Councilman Boyt: I would move that we deny this request for variance because it does not meet the criteria as staff has pointed out. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Things seem to be dying around here. Councilman Workman: I guess I'm still tied up as far as, I guess I'm looking for time. Can I have 2 hours until tomorrow? Councilman Johnson: My concern here is that we meet every zoning requiren~ent that was in place at the time the lot was platted. To me this, with the new zoning requirements, the new zoning requirements made this lot unbuildable without any variance whatsoever. Maybe you could put a putt putt on here with 9 holes but I don't think you would really want to do that because you'd still need a parking lot for the putt putt and it probably wouldn't fit. So I feel that the hardship is there as long as they don't require a variance from the old zoning ordinance which the plan as proposed does. I think we can solve that. Good supervision, I don't think we' re going to have a problem with the kids crawling the fence. I think that in the site plan review, we will be looking a lot closer at the berming and the changes to make good vision in that area. Then it comes down to one last question. What is adequate parking? In order for them to meet the old zoning ordinance, we're down to 16 parking spots which is the actual number at the Rainbow site, behind Rainbow Foods which is a larger center than this. I think that's an 8,000 square foot center versus a 5,600 square foot center. This one is never going to expand. There's absolutely, I know you say you can't now. We hear a lot of people say they can't and 3 years later they're trying. One more variance. Gene Peterson: Regs will control that so we can't. Minnesota regs. Because of the playground situation so you're safe on expansion unless they change the State's regs on it. Councilman Johnson: I can't imagine the Legion having any questions on this. They went to the Legion and asked the Legion if they could buy some property from them. The Legion is well aware of what they're trying to do because they wanted to fix this lot by making it bigger, which is a very logical thing to do and the Legion did a very logical thing from their standpoint in saying no, until we figure out what we're going to do with our property, the whole property, we're not about to sell off a little piece of it and shoot ourselves in the foot. So I guess what I'm getting down to, this will probably be the Baptist Church was one time and this will probably be the second time when I'm push~ng my hatred of variances but I think I can live with it if we go down to 16 parking spots and I think we can probably survive there. So what I will move is that we allow the variance as long... Councilwoman Dimler: There's a motion on the floor. Councilman Johnson: No there isn't. There's no second. It died. I would move that we approve this as long as no parking area, sidewalk area, other than the driveway, is within the setbacks. They consider moving, as I read the zoning ordinance, moving the entire parking lot 5 feet to the north and give themself a 49 l<~ Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 larger parking lot so we have better traffic movement within the parking lot. I don't necessarily want to move the entire parking lot but I want to give you a little more parking lot there. I think in site plan reviews, we'll have all the you have to meet this code apJ that code of 'the Daycare Association but this is only the first of many hurdles. Site plan review is not going to be much runner. I don't know, is there any other conditions you think you might want on there Steve? Basically you can't impose into that 25 foot setback winatsoever in curbing. That's my motion then. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to add to that motion to waive the r. ec~_~.irement for. a public hearing. That's going to take a four-fifths vote. Should it be a separate motion? Roger lOnutson: I would just point out procedurally the difference between co~llbinirrg them and having them separately. There may be 4 of you who vote to get it over with tonight. There may only be 3 of you who want to approve. Councilman Workman: Would you repeat that motion? Councilman Johnson: Well, why don't we do this one at a time. First motion is I move we waive the public hearing requirement. Councilwoman Dimler_: I' 11 second that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to waive the public hearing. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt ~no opposed and Councilman Wor~nan who didn't vote. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Roger Knutson: I should point out that there's a rule of procedure that the Council adopted. If a counci]imember is silent when someone is voting, it's a vote yes. Councilman Johnson: I think Tom was still thinking, t don't want to cut Tom off because I' 11 give him the opportunity to vote against it. Okay, that's the first motion. That passed. We waived our public hearing requirement. Then the other one will be, the motion will be that we approve the daycare variance where no parking lot area, sidewalk area, etc. extends into the setbacks that were established at the time the lot was platted which in the case of the front yard, which is the main setback we're concerned with right now, is 25 feet. In order to do this, he's going to have to remove 2 parking spots. It looks like. Further consideration be given to maximizing the size of the parking lot by moving it to the north, if my interpretation of tim zoning ordinance is correct and they can go zero lot line by the old zoning ordinance. By the new zoning ordinance they can but by the old zoning ordinance. I think the new zoning ordinance is 25 foot. Unless you're sharing a parking lot with your neighbor which I don't think you're sharing one with the Legion. That's pretty much the second motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I' 11 second that. 5g City Council Mee%ing - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: There's discussion. I have a question for you. How many staff are you going to have in this? Let's assume you're running at maximum. How many staff? Gene Peterson: The total potential for 100% would be somewhere between 18 and 20 but the staggering of it, it varies so that you're looking at 8 to 12. Councilman Boyt: So if you were to have 100 children in the bu~.lding, how many staff would you have? Gene Peterson: I would rather do it this way if I could on it. The problem that you've got on the staff is you're going to ask with a 100 kids and then you've got to go back in all honesty, what are their ages. Then you run into, it's 1, if it's a concern, I can get it by ages and give to you and it varies. Councilman Boyt: So you're talking 8 to 12 staff? Gene Peterson: I think you're safe all the time that you'd be looking at 8 to 12 if you had 100% capacity. Councilman Boyt: You're talking 100% capacity now just for a second so we're talkJ, ng 100 kids. We've got 8 parking spots available because we've got 8 staff minimum and we might have 4 parking spots. That means 4 parking spots. 1 per 25 children. I would guess that they're probably going to be picked up in roughly a fixed time frame. I think one of the biggest risks we run in a daycare is we get some kid hit in the parking lot. I think Jay that we're reducing the wrong thing when we reduce the size of the parking lot and leave the size of the building. Especially leaving it 1,600 feet bigger than the City ever even remotely approved. If you accept the $4,000.00 as being a ballpark idea of what might go on that lot at some time. Councilman Johnson: It wasn't an approved idea. Councilman Boyt: But it was kind of, well yes, we can understand how you can put up to 4,000 square feet on that property. We've now got 5,600 square feet on the property. I would suggest to you that it's simply too big and the wrong use for that piece of property, especially when we look at reducing the size of the parking lot so we end up with a potential to have a situation where even if we had 8 spots, we're now talking 1 spot for every 12 children. Gene Peterson: One thing you should be aware of on the children is that might help you on th~.s decision. It's something that might help you is that one of the things that are stipulation in the daycare, major daycares...daycares is, that children have to be brought, when they sign to bring the daycare in..., when the child is brought, that the parents have to bring them to the door. Another thing is, a child can not go off the floor without being given to the parents. The safety factor has been established and even though you have parking, I'm not saying what you're trying to accomplish isn't right or wrong. What I'm saying is, I think they've eliminated the fear factor of the pick-up and delivery as far as safety to the children. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that more adults are going to be coming in to get those children and my fear isn't that the wrong adult gets the wrong child. It's that once they get in the parking lot, there's enough cars moving 51 ~-{~_~fy CouncJ. 1 Meeting - March 27, 1989 around there to complicate the issue. Mayor Chmiel: Hr. Peterson, let me ask you a question. With all your facilities, how many accidents have you had within your parking lots? Gene Peterson: None. In all the time that I have been in the daycares that I have been involved J.n the Twi.n Cities, we have not had an accident of any child that I'm aware of. That does not say that there has been one that has not been reported. I'm not always posted but as far as I know, and I would be glad to check with the 4 majors that I've been involved with and ask them specifically to correct myself if I'm wrong. But to date I have not seen. We've had accidents but they have nothing to do with the parking and there have been other factors... In St. Paul there was a child lost...but I have not, in all my time, in the 14 years in my daycare association, whether it be in California or anywhere, I have not run into a parkJ, ng accident. I think you've got as good a one to use as a comparison, and I'll go back and tell you this. Rainbow, and that's double the size. We're talking a bigger daycare over there and we have 16 parkJ.ng spots. Then we run into this transit deal. We didn't have a problem. ~4e have not had, honestly I'm telling you, the only problem that I can tell you on parking that we have had is we will run into on special deals, on pick-up and drop-offs. We will run into a back-up there out onto the street. You would have that problem though...because of the way the configuration is. I wilt tell you this, that has happened. It has not been a big problem but we did run into that. The funny part of it is, the ones we run into it, were not the ones with the smaller parking. They happened to be where we had ample parking, o. Councilman Boyt: I'd just like to finish my comnent that daycare is a unique use. We're talking about preschool aged kids many times. We're talking about the most valuable resource a parent's got and I think the City should not be granting variances to put a daycare in. If there's one thing that ought to meet all the codes, it should be that kind of use. Gene Peterson: Are we...the way the Code is asking here before we do it? The variances are beJ. ng based on the old zoning ordinance? That's the way I interpretted it. Is that not true? Councilman Johnson: The reason we changed the zoning ordinance is because it was not adequate. It did not meet the requirements of modern day life. Gene Peterson: I stand to be corrected. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd prefer not to see Jay's suggestion in moving that parking lot to the north. Councilman Johnson: That's only to be studied. Councilman Workman: Are we leaving this at a study stage to come back to us? Councilman Johnson: On the parking lot to the north, we still have the site plan to review. Mayor Chmiel: Right, the site plan will have to c~ne back. 52 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilman Johnson: Say look at the advantages of moving it to the north. Actually Bill's arguments, when he starts talking putting 12 in there, 16. I can see how we can get 17 slots in there now. That leaves only 5 for drop off and pick-up. The chances of having only 5 people in there at any one time are slim. I'm leaning towards voting against my own motion. It won't be the first time. That's why we have discussions. Councilman Workman: I guess maybe that's part of my problem. We're being asked to give and give. How far are we willing to go with shrinking the daycare to whatever? Gene Peterson: The peak of the building, let me tell you where you're at as far as the...building. It has nothing to do with what you can...building. Then you' re back... In other words, the problem you run into with the playground costs and that, it becomes an economic profit review. Councilman Workman: Are you saying you can't make money? Gene Peterson: A 100 unit daycare has become the realistic approach to do it. If you were to say, and I'm not using this...I'm just answering the question. If you were to have to cut down the building, what I'd have to look at immediately is the performance schedule to see if it works. I'm not saying it's not possible to do. I'm saying to you that the chances are possibly then that it will be...to move it to a better site is all I'm trying to say. We have cut this down already from our normal size of over 6,000. If you were to cut it down to fit the lot, and I'm not saying if you make that, then we would go back in on the basis of however you do it here and see if it's feasible. But it would be my quick judgment that you cut down the size of the building...and I'm sorry Pat but I would have to look at possibly another site. Councilman Workman: Is there a possibility of a two story daycare center? Gene Peterson: No. From a safety factor... Councilman Workman: Could you sink one floor lower and have a circling ramp or something? Gene Peterson: Then I better go get another lot. In other words, I'm not saying if you go to a smaller building. I don't want to get into that position. I'm saying that I would turn it down. I would just have to review and see if it's feasible and come back and say it's not workable to buy the lot at that stage. I'm coming now the way that you're asking for the variance and that, it's workable for us but that's very selfish on my part. That I'm not asking you to do. I'm asking for a variance based on what it is. That's what we are saying is feasible to do. But if you want a smaller building, I won't tell you that it couldn't be done. We would have to do a performa and it might be that the performa would say, there's such a potential for daycare out here, as to the size, we may be defeating ourselves. It was a feeling that the location and many of the factors that we..reshash it, it's getting late and having sat on both ends of it here, I hear where you're coming from. I don't want to get into the position of whether it is right or wrong. I'm trying to give you as much as I could as to where we were at in a daycare. I've tried to answer the parking and that. Not question you as to be tried fairly as I could to you to say that I think you're worried about the parking is more than you need to be. That's 53 City Council Meeting - March 27j 1989 all I was trying to establish. From my experience of having a variation at various locations, that that's not a safety probl~n and that's not a problem. As to whether it's a problem on your. variance, that's something you have. You run your city. I'm looking ah a profitable business. I'm good hearted but not that good hearted so I mean, I'm in it for a business. I don't want to deceive you by no means on it. I'm looking at this as a profit but I think some of your worries about the safety that the gentleman on the end here has, I can only tell you frcra my experience that's not a problem and it's not one that we have had that I think you're concerned. As to ~nether the building is too big or not, that's your decision. Would I go along with it if you cut it down? I can't answer that right now until I do a performa as to ~aat the costs are. The suggestions that he made on your old zoning are workable. Something I think you should think about that has become very prominent now in development. I not only do daycares, I do several other things, we invest in a few, is with the realistic of specifying compact cars as well as big cars. I think that's something that you can work when you start talking about your parking that has become nationwide in trying to come up with not putting all big parking spots but specify compact. That's something you might take into consideration to accomplish more parking because what is it today, 65% or 75% of the cars today I believe are compacts or something. So the need of the parking that we're showing sometimes can be accomplishing something that would satisfy your...and the variances that you're talking about. I've had zonings come up now in the daycare where it specifies so many compact and so many other. If that helps you. Mayor Chmiel: It's been so long I've almost forgot what it was but I'm sure we have it down. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden Valley, Blue Circle Investment Company but that no parking lot area, sidewalk area, etc. extends into the setbacks that were established at the tfme the lot was platted and that further consideration be given to maximizing the size of the parking lot by moving it to the north. Mayor Chniel, Councilman Workman and Councilwoman Dimler voted J.n favor. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted against the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Gene Peterson: Let me say this to you, if you will basically work with your planner and you staff, each one of you and put any directive ideas or concerns you have...and mostly with you to come up with... I want to thank you for your time. APPOINTMENT TO PARK AND RECRFATION COMMISSION. Lori Sietsema: Everything is pretty straight forward. In the staff report the Park and Recreation Commission has recon~nended that the position that Carol Watson has just vacated, they've recon~nended that you consider the last two finalists of the last set of interviewed people. The criteria was that we were to send two people to you per position and since there are still those two finalists, they'd ask you to consider them rather than to go through the whole interview process all over because that is very time consuming. 54 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I think we have the applications here as well, of all the - applicants and I think we've gone through the review process as well so we know pretty much what was there. I think that the total numbers that we have are to be considered and I think not just the last two but all of them should be still looked at to come up with a conclusion as to who we should have. Do I have a motion? Councilwoman Dimler: I have a nomination Mr. Mayor, if that would be in order. I appreciate the Park and Rec's recon~nendations but I have another concern. I think they're all excellent candidates and I'm going to place a nomination, the name of Jan Lash for the following reason. I prefer to replace a woman con~nissioner with a woman coranissioner. The balance that consists on the coaxaission now is that we have 4 men and 3 women and I would like to see that balance maintained rather than going to 5 men and 2 women. And the 2 candidates that the Park and Recreation recomnended were both male and that is the reason that I'm placing the name of Jan Lash into nomination. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to nominate Wes Duns~nore, if we're doing nominations then. Or do we need a second? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I guess I'll second Ursula's Jan Lash. Councilman Boyt: Well good, I'll second Wes Dunsmore. That ought to make for discussion. Councilman Johnson: I think Wes' experience in being an urban park worker, much as Mr.. Schroers experience at being a rural or nature type park employee. He's an ~nployee of Hennepin Park preserve system. Works out at Carver Park I believe. I'm not sure exactly which park he works at but he's really been instrumental in a lot of the decisions that the Park and Rec board has made on your nature type parks. I think Wes, being experienced in urban park planning and maintenance in the specific issues of urban parks, would be an invaluable resource that we should not let go. I thought Carol was a very good resource in her years of experience in planning and zoning things. I was sad to see her leave but I think we need to replace her with somebody with a lot more experience. Now Jan, I know her from soccer and whatever and is interested in the kids and kids sports a~d all that and has that kind of interest and I think that's good but I'm swayed by Wes Dunsmore's experience. I really like Mike Schroeder too. This one, I sat on the phone with Lori for a long time trying to get her to say something that would convince between Wes and Mike Schroeder and unfortunately she never did. So up until 5 minutes ago, I hadn't decided which one of those two I was going to nominate but I think I've come down to the technical expertise that Wes has that we'll be able to utilize in this city without having to pay for the consultant fee is invaluable. It's valuable. It would be $60.00 an hour without it. There's my argument for Wes. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I looked at what you're saying Jay too. It'd be two people from that south end but yet there'd be no one up within our area is what I'm looking at too. Councilman Johnson: That's why I was looking at Mike because he's in the Carver Beach area that's not well represented either but you do have Schroers who is 55 Council ~Veeting - March 27, 1989 right across the street. He uses Greenwood Shores Park. He ].s up J.n your area. He's the first house ].n on Carver Beach Road across the street from you so your area is represented. Councilman Boyt: I believe that when we interviewed these candidates, as I recall the discussion, we were impressed by all three. Wes Dun~more has a superintendent of parks for the city of Eden Prairie, our neighbor. Wes has attended I think every regular Park and Rec meeting since his interview with us ].f not before that so he's dedicated to the thing I gather. But with that expertise, I don't think that tv~3 people from south Chanhassen is overloading the Park and Rec with south Chanhassen people. Especially since we're going to be_ locating a quarter of a million dollar park in south Chanhassen. This is an advisory body. I guess we could almost put anybody on. I'd just really like to have the expertise that we get when we have someone that works with these problems every day. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a comnent to back up my nominee and that is that, I have liked her statement that said that she's willing to look into the future, listen to people and have realistic expectations and ideas and someone who's willing to take direction from the Council and from citizens. And I guess when we met earlier today with Park and Rec, that was one of my main concerns is that the con~nission recognize it's purpose and that is to make recommendations. Also to take direc~tion from Council and to feel free to call me and get my input before we_ get together or have it come up as a surprise and I feel that Jan would do that. She'll also listen to the citizens and take their concerns into consideration. Mayor C2nmiel: t would a]~nost have tendencies to go along with gan only because of some of the things that she does have in here so I would probably, I would cast my vote for Jan. .Seing that we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Boyt: We don't have a motion on the floor. Councilwoman Dimler: We have two nominations. Councilman Johnson: This body has not interviewed Jan yet. We've interviewed the other candidates and we've made it a policy to interview all candidates. So it sounds like what we want to do is reopen interviews then. If you'd like to bring a new... Councilwoman Dimler: I forgot because I was at the interview when she was before the Park and Rec. Mayor Chmiel: I was there also. We can go one or two ways. Either go by the way that Jay is requesting or we can proceed and vote for the appointment. Either or. What's the pleasure. Councilwoman Dimler: Well maybe I would make a motion that we waive the requirement to be interviewed at this point. Councilman Johnson: It's not a rule. It's just somethJ, ng we decided we would do. 56 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: I think it's a good thing to do. To interview and I would be opposed to appointing anyone without interviewing them. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'd been at those interviews too at the time. Councilman Boyt: Well I wasn't. Mayor Chmiel: I know. Two of you weren' t. Were you at them Tom? Councilman Workman: At the Park and Rec, no. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 3. Let's do that. Let's have an interview Lori of Jan and Wes. Councilman Johnson: Should we bring Mike in again? Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. And ~Like Schroeder. And we could have that, when do you meet, tomorrow? Lori Sietsema: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: What's the availability for tomorrow? Councilman Boyt: I'm gone. I'll be back on Friday. Mayor Chmiel: What does it look like if we were to do this on Friday? Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if I'm going to be back in town on Friday. I'm going out of town on ~dnesday and Thursday and Friday is the pivotal day. If I'm through on Thursday I come back Friday. If not, I won't be here. I can't guarantee this Friday. Councilman Boyt: Will you be here on Saturday. Councilman Johnson: Saturday I can guarantee. Councilman Workman: Saturday is out. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how about Monday? Councilman Boyt: I'm gone all next week. Councilman Workman: Saturday morning? Councilman Boyt: I can do it Saturday morning. Councilman Johnson: I can do it Saturday morning. Councilwoman Dimler: The first you're talking about? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And no April's fools either. How about 9:00 a.m.? Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action until Saturday morning, April 1, 1989 at 9:00 a.m.. All voted in favor. 57 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 CONSIDER HIRING ONE FULL-TIME BUILDING INSPECTOR AND ONE FULL-TIME MECHANICAL INSPECTOR. Councilman Boyt: I move approval. Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second that. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, as you are aware and I think most other members of the Council, we've been looking at the necessity for additional help in the inspection deparhnent for pretty much 2 months now. ~ were caught in late February not being able to fulfill our require~nents to the developers, to the homeowners in completing inspections in a timely manner. We wanted to be sure that we knew what we were doing when we started the research into what our requir~nents need be in the inspection depart~ment. You are aware, we met with various builders, realtors in the area and they expressed their concerns about the fact that it was winter and we weren't able to keep up when it was supposed to be a slow period. We looked at the needs, the growth that are occurring in the City of Chanhassen right now and quite frankly, we are not able in the inspection department to keep up with the growth that is occurring. I think the report was pretty much self explanatory as Councilman Johnson said at the beginnirg of the meeting. It's a lot of information packed into a very small report. I would like to dispense with most of it if I can and get down to the recommendations and I' 11 just throw up a quick graph on the overhead that pretty much highlights what we're trying to do. If any councilmembers have questions on the graph, I do have the building inspector and the mechanical inspector here. This graph is as a result of the building inspector Steve Kirchman's work. It explains, pretty much the dark area or the number of inspectors from 1979 to estimated in 1989. In about 1986, 1987 we reached a point of 3 inspectors but you can see the number of inspections just skyrocketed so what 2 inspectors were doing here, 3 inspectors were doing here for this amount of inspections, J.t just went up almost explanationally. That grai~n pretty much hJ_ghlights it. You might have seen t]nat graph in a couple of newspaper articles in recent weeks. I'll just leave that up there. I'll get right to the recon~nendations. QuJ. te simply they are to hire one building inspector, one mechanical inspector with support vehicles and support pe_rsonnel. I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I'd entertain any questions from the Council and again, I have the building inspector and the mechanical inspector here to assist me. Mayor Chmiel: We already have a motion on the floor. I just have one point of discussion. I sort of agree with what we have here and what you're saying and I'd just like to clarify this that similar to the approval one year ago, the inspector's proposed to be employed would be informed that their positions are being paid solely by the additional building revenues anticipated in 1989. That any reduction in those revenues would require reduction in inspector services. Jim Chaffee: That is correct. Councilwoman Dimler: I've talk~J to Jim about this and I'm certainly in favor of keeping up and helping everyone out but I do have a question here. Now you just said something about having auxilliary personnel or what did you say? Councilman Boyt: Clerical. 58 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: To help them? Jim Chaffee: Yes. Support personnel, yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Then my other question was the two vehicles. Although I can see a need for them, because this is a non-budgeted item and we have to adjust the budget for 1989 for it, I was wondering if we couldn't cut just a little bit and is it a possibility that they drive their own vehicles and then we reimburse th~ for gas and mileage? Councilman Boyt: That's not a savings. Don Ashworth: I honestly do not think the City would save anything in that. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm asking a question. Also, then on the numbers where you know, I was a little bit confused here. You're using these numbers to indicate the need and the total numbers for 1987, how many inspectors did we have in 19877 Jim Chaffee: Are you looking at building permit totals in new residential? 79-88? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I just can't see that drastic of an increase. When I did the numbers, I totaled all the new construction and it was 329 in 1987 and 373 in 1988 and that's only an increase of 13%. If you were using the numbers to justify your need, I guess I don't see it. Mayor Chmiel: You don't have the con~nercial buildings on there do you? Jim Chaffee: Right. And the numbers that we're using to justify our needs are the numbers of inspections that are done and permits issued. Not evaluation. I think that's what you're getting at isn't it? Counc i lwoman Diml er: Yes. Jim Chaffee: Yes, it's the number of inspections that we actually do have skyrocketed. Not necessarily the evaluation of the construction that is occurring. Councilwoman Dimler: Those were my only two questions. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Only that we're probably being too conservative. Mayor Chmiel: I think we probably are but we're going to have to see where we're going with th economy that's coming in. The situation that's happening, I know we have to do something. Councilman Boyt: I would make the other point that I think we discussed this at other budget meetings in previous years but the City has got to get out of the business of directing building permit fees into the general fund. You just can't do that anymore. We've got these on the backs of the building inspectors ride a good bit of the funding of the City as a whole. It's not designed to 59 Council Meeting -March 27, 1989 work that way and that's why we have a problam right now[ Councilman Johnson: We're doing, this particular thing is a fee for service and people are paying the fees and I don't think they're quite getting the service yet. Resolution #89-46: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the hiring of two additional full-time inspectors (one mechanical and one building) and to amend the 1989 budget, Fund !25-401g, Personal Services in the amount of $52,gg0.g0. In addition, Fund 299-4794 should be amended to include two inspection vehicles (4 wheel drive) in the ~ount of $32,090.0g, as well as the Manager's recommendation of $20,000 secretarial services. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTP~ATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CURBSiDE RECYCLING, ASST. CITY PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen: At the last minute Mr. Gnade pulled out of his bid to do the curbside recycling and it was for personal reasons. His wife became ill. Waste Mangement Inc. has stated that they can still provide the service. It's 87 cents per household per month and it would be through the end of December, 1989 and it comes to around $24,ggg.gg to $25,gg0.gg. It's still within what is budgeted. Staff is reco~nending that the City Council accept their bid. They are also willing to provide, they will not be able to start the service until May 1st but they are going to provide a special pick-up in April on Saturday on the 15th, April 15th, to allow the people who have been collecting items since December to get rid of them. We are recommending that you accept that bid. I think it will work out. Mayor CnmJ. el: Have we had any discussions with any others like SuperCycle or any? Jo Ann Olsen: I have gotten letters back from like BFI and they're just not interested in the bid. I think it's because it's such a short term. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, one year period. (A tape change occured at this point.) Councilman Johnson: So we still have to supply our own containers? It's not like some of the other places where you've got the little thing with the slots? Jo Ann Otsen: The City usually has to purchase those to do that or else you have to pay a lot more for th~n to provide that so we'll look into that for next year. CounciLman Johnson: I certainly hope the newspaper, since ~we had a front page article and people are ready to start throwing them out there, we get as good of coverage on oops, it didn't happen. My wife was very excited to read about this. I move we approve. Counc i lman Workman: Second. 6~ City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept the bid for curbside recycling from Waste Management, Inc. at 87 cents per household per month. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Bill. Purchase property next to Lake Ann. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well, there's been some discussion about this in the past so I am going to, I recognize that unless we suspend our rules, all I'm proposing is that we put this on the next agenda. I would actually suggest that this might well be worth suspending our rules and going ahead and passing the motion. I would move that the City Council begin preparing, or the City begin preparing for the purchase of the property located to the east of the existing Lake Ann Park property. I think we should contact the school district and we should contact the HRA. This is a piece of property that needs to be developed to the best benefit of the citizens of Chanhassen and to do that, the City needs to purchase it. As part of that, I think the City should prepare some sort of survey to find out if we're going to be supported by the rest of the residents in it's purchase request. That survey could take place between now and April 10th so we know how we stand. The survey would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $700.00 to conduct and would be done through the mail but I think we need to know. There might be other possibilities but I think this is one that's actually conceiveable. The City could pull this off and it would be, from an economic standpoint, well worth considering. Councilman Johnson: Bill, the reason I mentioned earlier what side of Lake Ann, I think we ought to be looking at the west side of Lake Ann also. We're talking currently we're seeing what's happening in our search for property on the south side of town. What's happening to property value right now. We're looking at unsewered land on the west side of Lake Ann that also would be fitting once sewer gets there which may be now, maybe a little while from now. I foresee the possibility of saying, taking 174 acres and change it to one building site. Dear Met Council, can we transfer some of this unused sewer capability, this 174 acres to this property on the west side? And now for a quarter of the cost, we've achieved the s~me purpose. We've achieved a site for a school. We've achieved a site for a community center and achieved a site for extension of Lake Ann Park at probably a quarter of the cost that it would cost to buy the land now. Because we're buying unsewered land and then trying to put sewer into it. We' 11 probably have to pay $6,000.00-$7,000.00 an acre for that land because I'm sure the people owning it believe that they will get sewer right away, in the next movement of sewer and we can see, I don't think you were at the last Park and Rec meeting when A1 discussed properties and what's happening in the unsewered area. They've gone from $3,000.00 to $6,500.00 an acre in the last 3 or 4 years. Councilman Boyt: Jay, I don't think it's that's easy to take sewer away from somebody so I would suggest that the place that the City can develop the best, get the biggest economic return and granted, it does take a substantial investment to do that but the opportunity for return is in~ense. I think we have a pretty good chance that we could sell this and run a combination of situations between the HRA, the school district and the City and purchase that piece of property. 61 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Workman: And I strongly second that. Mayor Ckmiel: It' s been moved and seconded. Councihnan Boyt: Don, ! don't know exactly what we're doing witJn this thing. Mayor CT~m].el: Well we've got to go somewhere with it. Councilman Johnson: ~at are we looking for? What is the purpose of the purchase? To buy land for the schools or what? Councilman Boy-t: Hang on a minute. ~at I'm trying to get in is a procedural point and then you can discuss it. What I'd like to see us do is suspend our rules and make this a motion and get staff acting on it so we've got some information to respond to by April lgth. So I guess my first motion would be, that the City Council suspend it's rules and agree that we can approve a motion off the Council Presentations. Councilman Johnson: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to suspect the City Council rules of procedure to approve a motion off the Council Presentations. Ail voted J.n favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: My second motion would be t3~at we direct staff to, and this may need some work but I would say that we direct staff to survey the con~nunity about their support for the purchase of the property east of Lake Ann. Councihnan Workman: Second. Counci]m~an Johnson: Will that survey include indicating during that, what the affect on their tax rates will be? CounciLman Boyt: Oh definitely. Councilman Johnson: So pu're going to say, if you have a $100,000.00 home, we estimate it's going to be between $1gg.gg and $2gg.g0 or whatever dollars and if ~.t's $15g,0gg.gg, we'll have that information for them during the survey? Okay. Councilman Boyt: I think we need to give them something so they can react to it. CounciLman Johnson: Can we expand it to looking, there seems to be a real need for additional parkland, additional school land. I would like to not only look at one si. re. If we are looking at this, we should look at available sites for these options so there's more sites available that we should be looking at because quite frankly, our chances of getting a willing seller in this are verv slim. We can have a willirk3 buyer but we're not going to have a willing seller_. Now obviously there's a need for future park, future community center, future school land and we' re sayJ. ng there's that need by making this motion, is the way I'm interpreting your, unless there's a different purpose for your motion. Do we come straight forward and say ~/aat the purpose is or do we say that we have a 62 City Council Meet~.ng - March 27, 1989 131 critical need for a corm]unity center, school and parkland? If so, we should look at all available sites and see what is the most economically viable site for the citizens of Chanhassen. It's almost 5 million dollars. Councilwoman Dimler: Are you talking about just, is there only one owner of that land? There's not multiple owners? Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing Jay is that this is in fact a sewered piece of property. To my knowledge the largest sewered piece of property available in the city and because it's sewered, it has ~nique possibilities for the City to develop with. I wouldn't be pursuing this as a piece of parkland. I'd be pursuing this as a unique sewered piece of property in Chanhassen. How we use it, probably needs a little closer study. I'm just saying that let's get the first hurdle out of the way. Are the people willing to pay the price to get it a~d is the HRA willing to get involved in this thing? Do we need the school district involved in it? I don't know but the key ingredient there I think is do the residents in the City of Chanhassen, are they willing to accept that sort of financial tax responsibility in order to make this happen? Councilman Johnson: Do we have any idea what the price is? Councilman Boyt: 3 1/2 million and up. Councilman Johnson: And up. They've turned down a heck of a lot more than 3 1/2 million. Mayor Chmiel: How do you know? Don Ashworth: I don't know if that's correct. My concern is the turn around time. Normally when we have talked about any type of surveys and then the data collection period and who we should use to analyze and what not, we've been into 6 month period of time. Now we're talking about 2 weeks. Staff can do everything we can and one of the ways we can do that is to keep it simple. If it's one question and try to provide some information regarding the potential taxes and put a postcard with it where a person can send it back just saying yes or no. Councilman Boyt: Tell them the date we need it by. Don Ashworth: Hopefully and then we just start counting. Councilman Johnson: Now Bill, is this an all or nothing proposition? If the seller is willing to sell two-thirds of the property, north third and south third, are we still interested in the property? Because we already said we want the south third for our pond and that they've already expressed they're willing to sell. I have inklings from them that they're willing to sell the north third too. Councilman Boyt: I don't want to make it complicated, as Don said. Let's hit at the heart of the issue. Councilman Johnson: What is the heart of the issue? I don't think that's been heard yet. 63 City Council Meeting -March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt: The heart of the issue is having a piece of property that we can economically develop. That's the heart of my issue. I don't know what the heart of anybody elses issue but that's mine. Councilman Workman: The heart of my issue is that it's not going to be used for any kind of a tax base in the present form or in the future intended use and that we ought to use it for our future middle school, high school, con~nunity center, softball fields. Councilman Johnson: That's still untaxed. Councilman Workman: NothJ. ng gained, nothing lost. Councilman Johnson: In that scenario, you go west and buy the land at a third of the cost. I can't see wasting the taxpayers money for sewered land for future ballfields and future uses. We don't need sewered land for ballfields. Councilman Word, an: Middle schools and high schools need sewered land. Councilman Johnson: That's still a future use. We're not going to be getting a middle school or high school here in the next couple years. Councilman Boyt: I would argue that that particular piece of property will attract a Rosemount or better that will in fact pay for the whole piece of property and give the City the econ~nic leverage it needs to develop other parts of that property. Counci]_man Job_nson: Unfortunately it' s zoned residential. Councilman Boyt: Not all of it. Councilman Johnson: Yes, all of it. All the way to TH 5. Councilman Boyt: It can be changed. Don Ashworth: The City Council previously looked at approving Minnetonka Inc. for that property. Bill had called earlier today asking the question. Can the City bond for and come up with enough bonding capacity to purchase that property? If you look at just your general obligation, remaining debt, that legal margin, I doubt very much we could do it. You're talking about basically 3 million dollars and I sincerely believe that the final price tag will be 4, if not 5-5 1/2 million dollars. And Bill posed the other question. Can the City establish an economic develoi~nent district for that property and would in fact that potentially pay itself off? The analogy I used was Rosemount in saying that's about 6g-80 acres. The taxes per year are $905,0~0.g~ per year. That would be sufficient to basically pay for a 5 to 5 1/2 million dollar site over let's say a 12-14 year period of time. In other words, you've paid off the entire site with just that one user. Where people get larger, fine. The big gamble is will you find another Rosemount out there who is willing to come in arid pay the $9gS,ggg.g0 per year taxes. CounciLman Johnson: And is that the proper zoning for that? 64 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Don Ashworth: And that's the other question. If all of that were to occur, from what I've heard council members say, I've heard various people say that it really bothers them that you're going to have a church using 174 acres. 5 to 10 acres of land of some of the most prime property within our con~nunity. If you firmly believe that it would have a higher and better use, the economic development district route does have the potential of providing a vehicle whereby the property could be purchased and again using the Rosemount analogy, taxes generated of anywhere from 1 to 3 million per year from that piece of property. Then again depending on how much of if you use for other purposes. That scenario does not really work though, while again there's significant risk in trying to find that type of developer to come on there, because if we don't, then that means the citizens as a whole will pay that 5 1/2 million dollars. Councilman Johnson: Plus the people of Greenwood Shores have stated emphatically that they want residential next door to them. Don Ashworth: I don't know if that's totally true. I believe that they had supported the proposal from Minnetonka Inc. I do not think that Greenwood Shores was in opposition to that proposal. I may be wrong. Do you recall of your neighborhood? Mayor Chmiel: I don' t recal 1. Councilman Johnson: Because I know it was from their pressure that we rezone the entire area from what it was to RSF, R-4 and R-12. Because the bottom used to be con~nercial, if I remember right. Then as it went up, it got into residential. I think we ended up with like R-4 up against the existing single family. We're talking actually slightly before my time when I was involved in some city work at the time and they changed to where we had single family residential next to single family residential. Now it makes sense for zoning. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ask a question. I think we have, the paper has discussed this. I'm sure most of us have thought about this possibility and I'd like to see us take a vote on whether we're going to move forward with this or not. Granted there are a lot of issues that need to be worked out but I come back that the critical one is, does the con~nunity as a whole want to see us move in that direction? And we've got to get some feedback to know that. Councilman Johnson: Okay, but what happens April 10th? Councilman Boyt: Well April 10th, if we don't have the feedback, then we'll get more time. Councilman Johnson: Are you familiar with the correspondence we have that says until this is approved, they won't entertain any offer? Councilman Boyt: Sure I am. First step is find out if the con~nunity wants us to move in this direction or not. Mayor Chmiel: I think the con~nunity are the people that will tell us what they want to do. Either Minnetonka Inc. or have it for either of the things we just discussed. Jr. High. Sr. High. Community center. Whatever. I think we're going to have to listen to the voters. What they want. 65 ~ Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to survey the coa~nunity about their_ support for. the purchase of the proper.fy east of Lake Ann. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: The first one was my smoking issue at City hall. It was brought up I believe in a memo on tl~e aclministrative packet by Public Safety Director Jim Chaffee that there was not going to be smoking allowed in the new addition at City Hall. Being that smoking is a dear topic to my heart, I asked why we don't have that policy throughout. I understand one of the biggest smokers left earlier tonight. She was there. I think I've got most of the smokers in City Hall pegged and I'm not turning my back on them. I am in fact not picking on these people individually because for personality reasons other than smoking is a generally accepted hazard to those who do not .smoke and who have to work wi. thin the surroundings of it. I'm just bringing this up to Council to perhaps, maybe we can generate a no smoking policy or a strict no smoking policy where smoking can be allowed out of doors or somewhere else. That's basically where I wanted to leave it. Don Ashworth: I can put it on the next agenda and let's give the Council some options. Councilman Johnson: Let me give you some quick feedback. Honewell has instituted a no amoking policy. Then they had to roll back from that a little bit and establish smoking rooms within the building. It is the single largest waste of time that v~e have. These people, the smokers now I would say waste a good hour a day of productive work time t~hat other people then have to take up the slack for, by havirg that kind of strict policy. I think that there's other ways to handle it. Ventilation ways. Segregating smokers from the non-smokers and things like that which is better than a strict, I'm a non-smoker. I don't like smoking. I've got allergies. It bothers me but smokers have rights too. They've a right to kill themselves. Councilman Workman: But Jay, I'm just bringing up the point and I'm probably going to hold pretty steadfast on this in that there's no way to pollute half a room witha cigarette. That's an issue that's been argued and argued and I just want to bring it up and maybe we can discuss it some more. I know it's getting late. Councilman Johnson: Put all the smokers in one room and ventilate it right and let tha~ smoke each other out. CounciLman Word, an: I say .we discuss it at the next opportunity. The second one I have is in regards to the Board of Appeals. At the last Council meeting, and let me bring up one other point before I get into this part of it. It was possibly suggested that two members of the Board of Appeals who do not currently carry business type, City of Chanhassen cards, perhaps get them since they do go out to each site a~nd then can knock on a door and say hi, I'm with the City of Chanhassen and perhaps they don't have to snoop around and they can save themselves some harrasement. But the problem perhaps arose at the last meeting with the variance to the Jessup property on Lake Riley. I guess the issue was brought to Don and then brought to Roger and we're kind of sitting right there with it as far as ~¢nat Council's offical duty was in case of a unanimous approval of the variance. 66 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 135 Don Ashworth: The opinion was received back from Roger. Mistakingly, it's in the very back portion of the packet so I can understand if it was missed but it is in the adminstrative section. It should have been put in with the appeal itself. Councilman Workman: I don't have that. I never saw that. I do not have any of those. I read everything, I don't have that. It doesn't matter, I guess I'd like some clarification as to where we have the... Councilman Johnson: Any citizen can file an aggrieved citizen and protest it. We have the same rights of any citizen in the City of Chanhassen. If we disagree with the unanimous decision of the Board, we, individually can petition and say we are aggrieved by contacting Don and then it will come back to the Counc i i. Councilman Boyt: We've handled it I think much quicker than that. We don't want to delay people and typically, very frequently I'm the person who objects. When I am, I tell the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the applicant at the time I disagree with this. I'm going to bring it up. We put it on right after the Consent Agenda. I think we're handling it and I think people who are in the room at the time realize that it's going to be brought back up. Councilman Johnson: We're kind of outside of the way we should be handling these items as far as I've always thought. The Council should not get them, or actually the Board of Adjustment and Appeals should not be held half an hour before the Council. I think it should be held the week before and then after they make their decision, we can get the written version of their decision to review at our next council meeting. I always thought that yes, it was awfully convenient for the applicant to do that. I never thought that was a good procedure. Willard Johnson: As a meaber of the Board, I disagree with all of you. I think we have the power to grant a variance on the unanimous vote and if it's denied on the unanimous vote, according to the ordinance it takes 10 days written notice by any person within 500 feet. Councilman Johnson: No. Willard Johnson: It is. I've read it. We'll ask Roger for your interpretation then. If it isn't questioned by anybody, our vote should stand. On a split vote, it automatically goes to the Council. I could stand to be corrected but I believe I'm right. Not that I want to take the power away from the Council. I have no part on it. I was overrode by the Council tonight and that don't bother me a bit because that's the way you wish to go but I'm just saying, if we grant a variance, it can not be brought up at the Council meeting and denied. Councilman Johnson: It does not specifically say you have to be within 500 feet. It says any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board including. Including. That is not saying only. It says including the applicant or any person owning property or residing within 500 feet of the property. That does not exclude anybody living 10 miles from the property. 67 _ City Council M~et]ng - Hatch 27, 1989 Willard Johnson: But the Council can not bring it up that same night. It has to be in written. CounciLman Johnson: I don't think it should be brought up that same night. Councilman Boyt: We're not helping anybody out if we hold the~ off for 1(~ days which then of course becomes at least 2 weeks because the Council isn't going to meet that often. Willard Johnson: I just feel if we grant a variance unanimously, I feel that in the past we've done it and I'm not going to argue and belabor this, but in the past we've always held it to a grant. If we deny it unanimously, I don't see no reason why the Council can override us on a unanimous one way or the other, or a split tie. Otherwise, why do we need a Board I guess. That's the way the rest of the Board feels. I'm not talking for the Mayor because he's new on it but I and Carol feel that if we're going to go through all this work and go out there and grant a variance, if it's appealed before 'the Council and you override us, I have no qualms on that. Councilman Boyt: That' s ~nat' s happening. It' s being appealed. Willard Johnson: But you can't appeal it within lg days according to your City ordinance. I'm not going to belabor this thing any longer. CounciLman Boyt: The ordinance doesn't say we have to wait lg days to appeal it? Willard Johnson: It has to be appealed within 1~ days in writing or do I read it wrong Roger? Roger Knutson: It says you have to file an appeal within 10 days. You could file it 5 minutes later. It doesn't say in writing I don't believe. Willard Johnson: That's just my point. Councilman Boyt: My problem isn't that, you guys do your homework and I usually try to get here to sit J.n because I can learn a good bit by listening to your concerns about i't. My problem with it is, you don't run for office. I do but I live with the consequences of your vote. If I live with the consequences, you know I'm going to want to have a say about it. So that's ~ny I think that the City Council has to have the ability to review that. As it is, if you pass it unanimously, it's becoming more difficult for us to override that. A 2 to 2 vote doesn't do it. In fact, a 2 to 2 vote supports it. Barb Klick: I would just like most of you to consider the April 10th meeting. I really think that this spot probably will be inadequate and I would like to consider... Mayor Chmiet: You're looking in at the school Steve? Steve Hanson: I can. 68 City Council Meeting - March 27~ 1989 Mayor Chmiel: I thought I discussed that with you and said make sure that we have it at the school rather than here. Councilman Johnson: The school acoustics is horrible. Is there any other place? The Dinner Theater doesn't hold anything on Monday nights. Mayor Chmiel: That's just going to cost us more money. Councilman Boyt: It'd probably be worth renting a PA sys~c=m. Councilman Johnson: Absolutely because the acoustics in there is horrible. Mayor Chmiel: But this is not going to be large enough to accommodate everybody. I agree. In fact, I felt that way at the first one. Made that suggestion that we look at the school. Councilman Johnson: If worse comes to worse, we can put TV monitors out there. TV monitors upstairs. If we can't. Mayor Chmiel: There's one thing that just came to mind. Don and I had a discussion just the other day about those appraisals. Don, do you want to bring that up? On the appraisals on the adjacent properties. Don Ashworth: Yes, we have moved ahead with the appraisal for the abutting properties. Citizens had asked us about that. We brought it back with Roger and myself and Roger is moving ahead as contract to have that work completed. This would be the affects of Eckankar potentially back on the residential properties in the vicinity of the church. Councilman Boyt: Did we determine then that that was actually a defense? We were going to bring that up in such a fashion, raise those questions in such a fashion that if they found out there was an economic impact, that we could in fact turn it down for that reason? Otherwise, why do it? Roger Knutson: I explained in a confidential msmo to you my thoughts on it and I think it would be best if you read it in that fashion. Councilman Boyt: But we haven't received it. Roger Knutson: I mailed it to Don. Councilman Johnson: I think it was in his pile he's going through today. DOn Ashworth: The secondary issue is really one of where we had ended up with the Derrick land purchase. There's a lot of questions by citizens as to the reasonableness. In fact I believe that was even of Roger's recommendation on that issue. At that point in time we did look to a second legal opinion as to what options the City may have open to th~. Again, where the issue has been quite controversial, the Council has looked to again a second opinion in that area. Again, I would use the Derrick land where we went into Lotus Lake Homeowners Association where we were into again the basis for that was just so that Council m~nbers could basically say, when asked by citizens, we have asked two different firms for opinions as to what it is that you can legally can do as 69 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 far as approving or denying. Then in one case we receiv~fl this or in both cases we received this or whatever the case may be_. Again, I do not know if you would want to look to something similar. If you were, I would probably go back to the LeFever firm and maybe pose some of the same questions that have already been asked. Mr. Kurvers: I'd like to say a little bit about over the weekend our property has been flooded by Colonial Grove by not having a storm sewer. You people, I don't know if some of you people here didn't have anything to do with approving. There's two houses recently been built and the elevation is 3 1/2 to 4 feet higher than the street and at the present time we're collecting about 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 acres of storm drainage through our development. Where there was supposed to be drainage, there's now a house built so we did call the City and no one c&me except Ursula came down and looked and I think Jay, you came down. Councilman Johnson: I spent time there Sunday and I've been discussing it with Gary today. Gary believes he may have a solution. Mr. Kurvers: Gary does? Well, whatever is going to be done, I'd like to be part of it because there's definitely a probla~ there. Councilman Johnson: There's several problems there including some from your property. Mr. Kurvers: There is problems but it has to be solved somehow because ~fnatever you approve and keep approving it's getting worse. Right now it's just like a waterfall trying 'to find a place to go over the street. It gets up high enough and it ccrnes over the street and it comes down through our property. Like I say, we're taking at least 5 acres of drainage, which there's a culvert in there 10 inches or 12 inches but the water is coming solid so tha't's a lot of water. That's a lot of water and if you look at the contours of the development, that water is supposed to drain the other way into a wetland that's been filled and refilled and filling and continuously filling. What they're doing is filling in a wetland which is a Class A wetland and draining it into our development in another Class A wetland. What they're doing is building on it and running the water in ours. Now I don't think that's quite fair. CounciLman Johnson: Actually there was no water flow from their wetlands towards your property. Mr. Kurvers: It can't get out. Councilman Johnson: Their wetland drains the opposite direction. This area was platted in 1959. They made some errors. There was no culvert put underneath Cheyenne Trail to take t~he water from your property that is going to the north. It then turns, comes around down Cheyenne Trail street and then circles in front of the first house there and comes back to your house. All the property on the north side of Cheyenne Trail, all the way up to the top of the hill, which used to drain down Cheyenne Trail and then go into that wetlands, appears to have switched and now is cutting across the way to your wetlands. Gary and I are going over several different ideas on how to get that back to the wetland now. 70 City Council Meeting - March 27, 1989 Mr. Kurvers: That's why I wanted to be part of it because there's been many changes that have taken place which made it worse. Councilman Johnson: Including your development. Mr.. Kurvers: No. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mr. Kurvers: What did we do that changed it? If you can tell me what we did that changed it? Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest that Mr. Kurvers and Gary Warren get together. M~yor Chmiel: Right, that you be included in those negotiations. Mr. Kurvers: That's all I'm asking for. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 71