1g. MinutesI
C
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin
Al -Jaff, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Assignment and Assumption of Development Contract, Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition,
Project 93 -5
b. Approve Revision to County State Aid Highway System.
c. Resolution #94 -42: Approve Selection of Official Mapping Consultant for Trunk Highway 101
Realignment, File PW -333.
e. Amendment to Chapter 10 of City Code Regarding Intoxicating Liquor, Final Reading.
f. Amendment to Chapter 16 of City Code regarding Hours of Collection for Mixed Municipal Solid Waste,
Final Reading.
g. School Site/Park Site, Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard:
1) School District Purchase Agreement
2) Joint Powers Agreement
3) Lease Agreement
4) Plans and Specifications
i. Resolution #9442A: Approve Resolution Regarding City Unity Day.
j. Approval of Bills
k. City Council Minutes dated March 28, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 16, 1994
m. Approved Revised Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
D. SET DATES FOR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS IN MAY.
Councilman Mason: Very quickly. I now, because soccer season has started and I coach soccer and my
1
1 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' daughter plays at 6:00 on Mondays, Monday nights for work sessions are going to be, it was an issue of having
games at 7:00 and missing every other game to be here for Council meetings or having games at 6:00.
' Councilman Senn: Can't they change the soccer schedule for you?
Councilman Mason: Well, we've tried that.
' Councilman Senn: I sit on the board.
Councilman Wing: Why was it when I had fire duties on Monday nights ... geez, no one listened.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's because you weren't really fighting any fires. He's fighting fires when they're
playing some soccer.
' Councilman Wing: I would really like it...
' Councilman Mason: But you know, and maybe that's for another night to discuss or whenever.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we can come up with that or something to resolve that.
Councilman Senn: Can you keep the May one's intact?
Councilman Mason: That's fine. I mean I won't be here for them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. The April ones.
Councilman Mason: Well in April we're not having it because we're having the meetings with commissions and
what not.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. So maybe you'll have to get something so we can work this out.
Councilman Senn: Can we work around May at this point and figure it out?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: In regard to Michael's problem and everybody's in agreement with it.
Don Ashworth: And Council did note that the sheet I put out was a mistake. You've already set May 2nd for
meeting with the seniors.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I noticed that.
Don Ashworth: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have an approval then with that modification for item 1(d).
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve setting the dates for the City Council
2
J
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Work Sessions in May as modified. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move along then to the next one, Visitor Presentations.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor? Can we move back to approval of agenda? I don't believe we ever
did that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you're right. I was moving too quick. No, I did call for approval of agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Didn't I? You're sure. Okay. Let's get the approval of the agenda.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the
agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Wing wanted to discuss trains,
planes and automobiles, and consider limits for PUD contracts; Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss
Council agendas, and then a personal message to Council and staff; and Councilman Senn wanted to discuss the
Hanus building, and the toll funding for Highway 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED LAND SALE TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 FOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor. Under State Statute, City Council must hold a public hearing to get citizen
comment on the sale of public land. The City has already, is looking at entering into a purchase agreement with
the school district for the price of $17,000.00 per acre for 20 acres of land on the corner of Galpin and Highway
5. Staff recommends that you solicit citizen input at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? Seeing none, I'd like a
motion to close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: We will, is there any discussion from Council at this time in regard to this particular project?
Councilman Mason: None from me.
Mayor Chmiel: If not, we don't—Do we have a specific date that we will have this for?
Todd Gerhardt: After this hearing you have ... kick in the approval of the purchase agreement so the next step is
to start grading and building the school.
Resolution #9443: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
proposed land sale to Independent School District #112 for Recreational Facilities at Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3
r
u
1
u
1
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 9,660 SO. FT. OFFICE /RETAIL BUILDING (EDINA REALTY) AND A
2,533 So. FT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT (WENDY'S) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 4 AND OUTLOT
A, MARKET SQUARE, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa The planned unit development which regulates this application was adopted in 1990. The
application before you today is requesting site plan approval for an Edina Realty as a retail building and a
separate building which is going to be used for Wendy's Restaurant. The site is located on the corner of West
' 78th Street and Market Boulevard. Edina Realty is proposed to develop a brick, glass, pitched roofs, arches.
The applicant has incorporated elements from surrounding buildings within the vicinity into the building. The
Wendy's building is also a brick and glass building. Also incorporated the pitched elements and has some
elements also from the existing Market Square building. We've been working with the applicant for the past 3
months on changing of some of the elements and design of the site plan. One of the things that the applicant
changed was the original plan shows two garbage dumpsters. One was located between the two buildings. The
second one was located on the southerly edge of the project. The applicant incorporated those two garbage
dumpsters into one. The garbage enclosure matches the facade of the building. One of the requests the
applicant is making is the location of a monument sign that matches the existing sign on the Market Square site.
However, this is going to interfere with existing traffic controller as well as NSP transformers. The applicant is
requesting that the city transfer those NSP controllers. We did so approximately a year ago. This cost the city
in the neighborhood of $6,000.00. If we are going to move them, it should be the responsibility of the applicant.
As far as the traffic controller, and Charles might be able to add to that, but this is the master controller for all
' of the downtown signals and removing it is going to be cost prohibited. Also, to monitor all the signals, this
was a strategic location for it. You are able to look at all of the signals while adjusting the transformer and I
know the engineering department had stated opposition to removing this transformer. Circulation of the site was
one of the major issues that the Planning Commission raised. They were extremely uncomfortable with the way
' traffic circulated between the two sites. Engineering department developed three alternatives and what you see
before you is the final alternative and what the engineering department recommended. The applicant
incorporated that into their site plan. We are recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in
' the staff report. With this application there is a subdivision. The subdivision is basically requesting a replat
from outlot to lot. That is the only change. We are recommending approval of the subdivision proposal as well.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant going to make a presentation with all these things I see
sitting in front here, I think something's going to be done.
' Brad Johnson: You can assured of that. Mr. Mayor, and the Council, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425
Frontier Trail and with Lotus Realty. I'd like to welcome Colleen back. I don't think the latest...
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I want everyone to know that I read the packet and was fully prepared. My son
has incredible timing.
Brad Johnson: Well thank you very much. I guess my job here is just mainly to give a little bit of history as to
where, since Mr. Bloomberg first came to Chanhassen, where the community has come from. I'm told this will
be the painting that will be on the front page of the paper in about a week or so as part of the progress edition
but this is what old Chanhassen looked like a little bit after Mr. Bloomberg came and just before they built the
' Dinner Theatre. And it's kind of interesting. That was about 10 years before I moved here and we actually
started this process but Don, that's about the time you started to think about the ring road. That was just after
Highway 5 was, before Highway 5 was completed. Now I bring this only to point out that most of the
4
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
development that you see in downtown has been generated by the team that is ... that's Bloomberg, Amcon and
'
Lotus. And we work diligently I believe with the HRA and the City Council to sort of change the whole
landscape of Chanhassen and we appreciate the chance to present this product to you which is part of our overall
plan that we've been ... I want to point out too that this business is not an easy business. Edina Realty is here, it's
'
only taken us 4 years to attract them. It's interesting to note that they're the number 5 real estate company in
the whole United States. So you should be proud that maybe they're considering being in Chanhassen but like I
say, every year or two I call Mr. Robeck, or every month or two for the last 5 years suggesting that he come
here. Wendy's is probably the number 5 or 6 fast food. 3. In the United States. And we're proud that we're
able to offer them here. One of the reasons that we were excited about having Wendy's is that we were
concerned about how the Council would treat, and the HRA, would treat design and Wendy's assured us that
they would be fairly flexible and be able to adapt to most of the concerns that you have and I think they have
'
exhibited that thus far. So we've got a number of people that will be sort of speaking to you tonight. I'm not
trying to tell you to go back to the whole Chanhassen but that's kind of an idea of how it has. I believe ... been
involved, it's been about $25 million worth of development in the downtown area and so we believe we've done
as good a job as we could given that's what we started with. And that's what we had to use to attract a lot of
people. Plus I think we had a very imaginative HRA and City Council too and...thus far. I'd like to introduce
Tim Menning who is the managing partner of Market Square. He has...
Tim Menning: Thanks Brad. As Brad said, my name is Tim Menning. One of the partners in Market Square
Associates and the partnership and I'm here tonight representing the partnership. It's always been our feeling
from the start of doing Market Square I that oudots 2, 3 and the. Excuse me, Lots 2 and 3 and Lots 4 and
Outlot A, the two you're considering tonight, were and are an integral parts of the development. We also
anticipated that the development of these lots would always be carried out in a way that would compliment the
shopping center, traffic generator type uses and so forth. We recognized from day one that these properties were
subject to both the zoning restrictions and requirements and the PUD. And that other than those two
'
requirements, that door, no additional requirements would be imposed by the city or no reason for it. The
vehicle chosen whereby the city through HRA purchased these sites. One of two parties to repurchase them or
As
in one manner or another. We're simply financing vehicles that without—development of these properties. a
partner representing the Market Square, we're fully behind this development presented to you tonight. We feel it
will compliment the center. It's certainly in line with the type of uses we anticipated from day one and see no
reason why you shouldn't move forward and give the necessary approvals tonight. Thank you for your time.
Vernelle Clayton: My name's Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle in Chanhassen. My role tonight
will be to introduce the people who will come up and speak on some of the specific items. At this time I'd like
to introduce John Noga from Wendy's International.
'
John Noga: Good evening. My name is John Noga from Wendy's International with their real estate
development. I was asked to give a few words about Wendy's and what our concept is and why we chose
Chanhassen as a place to do business in. One is the Wendy's concept is to be kind of an upscale, family
oriented, quick service restaurant. We've tried to generate that by the use of the advertising with Dave Thomas
being a fatherly, grandfatherly type of an image. Often talking to his daughter or reflecting on suggestions that '
she has made as to what types of sandwiches that he makes and things of that nature. Part of the upscale
treatment is the design of our building. The building fits in very well with office buildings. And locations such
as downtown Chanhassen. We tried to keep the signs down to a minimum so as to not have a, you know one of
those signs that some of our competitors have where they make the building actually the sign. We also use
moveable chairs and tables to once again attract a more adult ... people bringing their families but for people,
adults often times can't fit into those plastic that is often times associated with quick service restaurants. There's
5
I�
l
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
carpeting in the dining hall. Once again to try to enhance the overall ambience to be more of a downtown type
of an atmosphere. You can visit some of other restaurants and often you see people with, in suits and dressed
up apparel. We also spend about $85 million dollars in our media advertising. To try to enhance that into
family oriented and once again we feel that our reputation would attract a...depending on the location. Also
we're pretty active in the community on a local level in terms of connecting the advertising with the local events
such as Boy Scouts or different types of ball clubs. Often times we'll help doing the fund raising. Maybe
someone, they buy a combo meal and Wendy's donates so much money for each combo meal. So it's to do a
' tie in with the local sporting events and fund raisers. Once again that fits in with this location because of the
parks that you have and all the athletic facilities that you have. So from that perspective, that's a little bit of a
background...
I
7
I'
Vernelle Clayton: You've heard that we have... development team which has been developing the whole
project ... not only to the success of Market Square but for the success of the downtown area as well. And you've
heard that the development ... PUD for Market Square. Initially we brought this project to the staff one year ago
for discussion of the site plan ... The next formal application was to discuss it on an informal basis with the HRA
in September. We then used it as a case study for the landscape ordinance discussions and background
preparation in October and November. This seemed to us as a good idea at the time. In hindsight it caused us
just enough delay so that when we brought it ... brought the application to the city formally on December 6th. We
learned that nothing was going to be done on anything until after the Highway 5 group ... was completed and that
brought us then to the middle of February and the various people... explain a couple of the delays that we've
encountered since there are many ... and one of the things though that happened is that we had some last minute
changes. Some quick turn arounds and ... and help in reacting so quickly as well as Bill Brisley with the Amcon
Corporation who will later ... What we're going to do next is show you the proposed development that complies
with the use. Complies ... I guess I should say and a site plan which meets the established requirements. To a
large extent the... was a victim of our quick turn around. The Planning Commission felt it should be cleaned up.
It's been refined and what you will see reflects that change. I will set it up for you to look at it now and we'll
bring Bill Brisley up to discuss it and we have with us Steve Manhart who is prepared to answer any questions
you might have and may want to ask... The next thing will be we'll show you the landscape plan and then...
Bill Brisley: Hello. My name is Bill Brisley. I'm an architect with Amcon and I've been working as the
architect for Market Square Associates. Through several months we've been working on these site plans with
the city and through numerous revisions, this current site plan basically has been altered by staff through all of
these efforts. The site of design will be access from the parking lot circulation of Market Square. This wraps
around the site to the west and the south. There is a double loaded circular drive going around Wendy's and one
dead end double loaded lot and one dead end single loaded lot here and here. From the side of the retail
building. These allow them ample turn around aprons at the ends of each. This site has been heavily
landscaped above city standards by our landscape architect Kevin Norby which he will discuss that at a later
time. The trash is going to be used, is in one area here. It will be heavily termed, although our civil plan
doesn't reflect that—and landscape it very heavily. The office building and Wendy's will all use the same area.
The lighting is going to be the standard Market Square acorn poles that you see out there. Not the tall ones but
the pretty ones that look like old time lights. The site is pedestrian sensitive with a lot of different walkways
that have been requested by staff and different people on planning. Comes in off of a sidewalk here and then off
the sidewalk here with a ... and across the drive thru lane. This is an island. There's no other way to get out
there so it's demarked by a sidewalk going right through the bituminous and across here into the front of
Wendy's. There's a couple other items that were just handed to me before I came in here. Sharmin from
Planning has requested that we change, what we did is we moved this wider so, and cut off all these corners. I
think we did that here and down here and moved this whole curb over. She'd like to move it back out again as
2
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
cars turn in back in the direction that they used to be so that cars coming down here won't run into this curb
here. And we will do that. There's a signage problem with our project sign here. It doesn't follow... standards.
I'm going to tuck it up underneath here so it does miss those and does now comply ... And all along the city's had
a confusion about re- grading the sidewalk and carrying the sidewalk out. That's not going to happen. It's all
going to stay there. The sidewalk only goes down to about this point right now. We will leave that sidewalk
there and we will continue the new sidewalk ... so that really is not an issue.
Steve Manhart: Mayor, City Council, good evening. My name is Steve Manhart. I'm the senior traffic engineer
with the firm HNTB Corporation in the Twin Cities. About a month ago we were tasked to review the site plan
for the Wendy's restaurant and based on the comments that were raised by a memorandum from Dave Hempel,
the Assistant City Engineer. We evaluated the traffic circulation effects of the site plan options and we were
specifically looking at the two, excuse me. Three different options that were prepared. One being the option
with a single access for Wendy's over here and single access for the realty site with the drive aligning with the
roadway on the other side. The second option was allowing a second access to Wendy's and the more
perpendicular access from the retail side. The third option ... was the option that was previously submitted and
that was denied by the Planning Commission. We looked at the recommendations or looked at these options an d
we felt that the first one provided conflicts between the entering and exiting Wendy's traffic. Everything would
be coming in from one point and it would cause quite a bottleneck. Also we felt that unfamiliar patrons would
tend to go into the retail side. You know those ... of Wendy's ... retail side, park there and does cause some
problems with that. We felt that the second option provided a better exit and entering flow through the site but
provided more of a...flow through the site. And allowed the ... enter more here and as the drive thru traffic came
out, they would more naturally exit through here. We felt that that would become a better situation. Also that
we felt that the alignment between the drive that goes out to the east I believe would not create that big of a
problem since it does not align perfectly. We felt that the chances of thru traffic here would be somewhat
minimized. Therefore we felt that it would not be a significant problem. Based on that we recommended that
the City Council approve Option 2 for the access.
Vernelle Clayton: ...presentation the other evening, it was just kind of didn't have time to refine the ... We're
trying to bring it up without having to deal with having it come straight across. I think that ... Alright, then we'll
move ... Kevin talk to you a little bit about landscaping. As we're going through this we're trying to have those
changes still addressed ... and Kevin will do that next and then I'll kind of summarize a little bit.
Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm a landscape architect with Norby and Associates. I also live in
Chanhassen at 6801 Redwing Lane. I've been asked to briefly describe the landscape plans and some of the
thoughts that went into it and answer any questions you've got. In general we tried to take a look at the site and
address both the screening issues from things like utilities, trash enclosure, which is also located here. We also
tried to again in meeting the city's requirements as far as landscape plantings... we've got 37 shade trees and
evergreens, both pine and spruce proposed for the project. Five of those are located along West 78th Street.
Those will be installed as part of the city's West 78th Street improvement project. The remainder are provided
either as an interior landscape plantings providing again screening and shade in the parking lot areas. Or around
buildings to again provide the shade just to soften the architecture. We've got around the Wendy's building
here, we've got sort of a patio area with some outdoor seating. There are 3 shade trees proposed in that
particular area. I think that will be a nice area for people to take their meal outside. There's a fair amount of
screening, buffering, landscape plantings in this bermed area along Market Boulevard. Those include shade
trees. Again the ash and maple and basswood as well as spruce and pine. And dogwood, which is a lower
shrub like material that provides screening in the winter ... We've made extensive use of perennials and ground
overs in both the parking lot areas, landscape islands and around the perimeter of the building. We've got some
7
r
F I
L��
�I
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
500 or 600 day lilies proposed throughout the site in fairly large massings. To again, provide color and
landscape plantings. We've got over 1,000 fleece flower which is a knee high type perennial ground cover that's
used around the entire perimeter of this building here with the exception of the entrances where the doors are for
' the building. As well as along this entire boulevard area in here as you enter the developers. Our selection of
plant material in this area was driven by some concern on my part of the appropriate use of plant materials.
You're going to get a lot of salt spray and a fair amount of traffic from both cars driving through there and
snowplows pushing snow and that accumulating. So we tried to avoid the use of sod to minimize the amount of
' maintenance and the amount of plant material that needs to be replaced in that area. Sharmin has asked, and I
think in a couple of locations, for me to add 5 trees into this area. I guess I was somewhat unclear as to
whether we in fact still needed to do that or not. We proposed 3 trees in this area. Trying to somewhat balance
' what's already been done on the other side of this entry. There are 3 or 4 trees proposed over here. We were
concerned about ... in an area that's going to get a lot of salt spray and a lot of traffic and a lot of snow impact.
We're somewhat limited to what will grow in there. Again, up around the buildings here we've used things like
day lilies, spirea, dwarf lilacs and so forth to provide color up around the trash enclosure and you should have a
' reduction of this I think in your packet. We bermed the area around it with the proposed utilities and provided
plant material such as arborvitae, dogwood so it will be green year round. I guess that's it. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe so at this time.
Vernelle Clayton: ...provide everything that we need to...
' Kevin Norby: We've actually exceeded the landscape requirements as far as the number of trees and the
percentage of landscaped area within the parking lot.
' Vernelle Clayton: At this point we'd like to start to looking at some elevations...
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions at this time?
' Vernelle Clayton: Okay, then we'll start against this building. Or the comer building which we're calling
Market Square II...
Bill Brisley: I want to give you a fairly tight description of the building materials ... of the retail building. One
thing I might point out right away to you is you can see these two dormers right here are much closer to each
other than what is illustrated in the rendering. I'm not quite sure how our artist missed that but that's correct to
about there ... not that long and not ... The building has brick walls above 30, to the 30 inch line and colored rock
face concrete block foundations up to 24 inches which is cast with a continuous decorative 8 inch seal block at
the bottom of the window line. Square four pane horizontal and vertical ambulant windows with burgundy
' aluminum frame on all four sides of the building. These three lines of windows are punctuated by larger circle
head windows as each of the ... There is a continuous roll lock brick band above the straight window heads and
above the circle heads accenting the opening and the brick walls. There's a similar roll lock brick band at the
junction between the soffit and the top of the brick wall. There is a revealed brick edge around each brick panel
' that defines between... To give architectural interest to a basically rectilinear retail space, the corners of the
building... articulated by the placement of free standing white round columns recessed into reverse revealed
pockets. In other words, when the building comes to a corner, it goes back into a reverse corner and then the
columns in the middle of that. That's on all four comers of the building—The walls between the dormers are
stepped out 2 feet to break up the long wall. The sidewalks, these step outs create planter areas for small shrubs
and ground cover against the walls ... Kevin was talking about with those. The wood soffits and facia trim
8
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
features that edge the roof are painted white. The 7:12 roof, or that's about a 30 degree, is a typical asphalt
'
shingle found extensively throughout Chanhassen with colors the dark charcoal gray ... The most recent staff
report we received last Friday came up with a new request for cedar shake roof. However, the asphalt shingle is
a very compatible material in this area and on the strip in Chanhassen. Outside of the Dinner Theatre, most of
,
the pitched roof buildings in the city are asphalt shingle. I don't agree with the Planning Department to change
the roof to cedar shake at this time. I'll be glad to answer any questions when the time comes.
Councilman Mason: Vemelle, real quickly. Where am I looking at?
'
Vemelle Clayton: We're standing sort of, well I'm standing down by Festival. You're more like Frankie's.
Perfect.
,
Councilman Mason: Cool. Okay, now that I can relate. Thank you.
Bill Brisley: But to be truthful, that's the view from every corner. Every corner's detail is the same. We don't
t
have a back side.
Vemelle Clayton: And the north and the south elevations are the same on the east and the west...if there's
anyone's confusion on anyone's part, this is the second building we designed. There was a comment.-although
since the staff report was rewritten between a few proposed Council meetings. The first staff report contains the
recommendation that we have shake shingles.-The second one contains a reference to that but it was deleted on
the conditions.... With that, do you have any other questions of where we are on that building?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a real brief one on your artistic rendering. Does that show the trees as they
,
will be going in or 15 years from now?
Vemelle Clayton: The real answer is it probably doesn't show all our trees at all.
,
Mayor Chmiel: About a 5 or 8 year growth there.
Vemelle Clayton: That's some artistic likeness that he took. Again, that was ... We'd like to talk to you a little
,
bit about Wendy's elevations and plans. I'll invite John Noga again and Jurij Ozga.
Councilman Mason: Vemelle, is that about where the trees will be going in though? Or is that just, we don't
'
know.
Vemelle Clayton: Where's our landscape plan? Let's get that.
,
Mayor Chmiel: It's right in front.
Vemelle Clayton: Oh, okay.
,
Kevin Norby: Trees are not accurate on the rendering. They're shown actually a bit closer than the building
here. This in fact is a parking area. The projection into the parking lot. Here and it has a tree here. So there is
'
in fact a tree located... on the other side of the building, the West 78th Street side, this would be fairly accurate.
They are located in front of the building. On the West 78th Street side there's in fact 5 trees located in fairly
9
i
LJ
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
close proximity to the building. So looking at this perspective with the parking lot there, there'd be a tree here,
a tree down here and on the other side there would be trees immediately in front of the building like you see
here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what height would they be in relationship to the building when they first go
in?
Kevin Norby: They're specified as 2 1/2 inch caliper tree which would put them in the, depending on the
species, anywhere up to 12 feet.
Vemelle Clayton: We should add too that a large number of the trees on this side will impact what we see here
and how it looks are being provided by the city. And I'm not sure that the entire plan is exactly—one of the
conditions that we work with the city...
John Noga: In regards to Wendy's, Jurij Ozga is our engineer and real estate ... and when we originally presented
the Wendy's, the thought was that we should try to use materials that were compatible with the existing Market
Square, which has kind of a gray tone image with green and with burgundy. So we incorporated that. So that's
what you see. So we have a picture here where we say it's going to be like this except for the colors. Our
color scheme will be exactly the same as the building materials and colors of the office building. Jurij Ozga
passed out some copies of our standard building and during the planning session meetings, we had ... on the
planning committee say, why don't we use those types of materials for both the office building and for the
Wendy's so that when you approach the corner that all the buildings on the corner are somewhat blended
together with more of an earth tone beige. So in terms of our elevations, this would be, in the beige tone family.
The same materials that would be used in the office retail center. We were told that we had to screen the roof
top unit and this green ... shield will be done in a bronze tone. The same as the, copper. The same as the copper
that's used over here on the facia. So you see a picture of how we utilize the copper and the copper will be
utilized in the ... here. And then our turn up will be a bronze with a little bit of burgundy and beige so once again
we'll pick up on the burgundy that's used in the ... retail center as well as... We also, our lettering will be in the
standard front lettering back lit.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have, it's not directly related to the architecture but as long as Wendy's is up
here. I think in one of the conditions we're saying that they're not allowed to have like 99 cent deal signs in the
windows.
John Noga: They're window signs.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The window signs will not be allowed, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa That was something that was proposed by the Planning Commission as well as at the time we
stated that there won't be any signs that will say hamburgers 19 cents.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that's part of the recommendation?
10
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. And that was something that they ... a condition. However they denied this so there '
weren't any conditions of approval that they...
Councilman Wing: How will this plug into the new ordinance trying to restrict window signs and percentage? '
Will they just simply have to comply with that new one?
Kate Aanenson: Well actually this would probably be more restrictive than what we're looking at for the ,
proposed ordinance. We may give a small percentage for a window but that hasn't been...
Councilman Wing: So being there as a condition we're saying no window signs.
Kate Aanenson: That was what the Planning Commission recommended. Sharmin said that those conditions ,
weren't carried forth because it was denied.
Vernelle Clayton: If I might ... a little bit. That is the condition of a variance ... The Planning Commission '
discussed signs in both meetings. The first meeting, and basically this discussion was conducted by two of the
members. The first meeting the idea of...that we shouldn't have signs on the north and the east side. At the ,
next meeting they talked about temporary window signs. I have the Minutes flagged. It was two of the
members talked about it but not, it would not be fair to the rest of the Planning Commission members to say that
it was a Planning Commission recommendation. It was two members brought it up. It was not ever included in
as part of the, the motion that was proposed for approval, it was not added as a condition. Nor was it a part of '
the motion to the end.
Councilman Wing: Just for the Council's information. I think this issue was discussed at the last meeting and '
their point is to city wide, put an ordinance in that restricts window dressings. Window signs based on a certain
percentage ... and I think by putting any use restricting the use on Wendy's may not be compatible with that
ordinance. So I don't think we have to address that issue. I think it's going to be...
Vernelle Clayton: That would be our request. '
John Noga: One of the other discussions that went on at the Planning Commission. One, they never talked '
about Wendy's signs as much as they talked about the retail centers and one of the comments was to make retail
be able to be viable they'd have to do some type of signage and displays because questions arose as to if
someone had a show store and you could see shoes in the window, would that cause accidents. And then ... well '
if you want to have retail, you want to have successful retail...
Vernelle Clayton: ...a sample of the burgundy. A sample of the roofing materials... the right color, the brick.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that consistent with the Edina Realty building as well? 1
Vernelle Clayton: This is the Edina Realty brick and this one is used...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what about the concrete block?
Vernelle Clayton: This is just the break off ...this is the same block that's used in Market Square trying to give a '
little bit of compatibility here and that goes up along here.
11
I
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And that goes up 24 inches you said?
Bill Brisley: 30 inches. But the top row is a...
John Noga: Wendy's has the same...
Vernelle Clayton: Well with that I've ... I would go through the conditions just a little bit. And hopefully make it
clear where we are with this. Number one was explained. We have—changing the southerly alignment...
Number two, we have no problem working with the ... and developing the landscaping and the sidewalk along the
northerly edge. And then the rest of the ... number 3 is the development contract. I do have a question about
number 4. It says that we'll grant the city the necessary landscape and street easements. I think that needs to
be sidewalk. The street is already in.
I �
u
�J
J
1
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. So we'll change street to sidewalk. The number 5 is a typical request that we have no
problem with. We did discuss number 6 and we have talked with Kate earlier about ...not having a problem with
some of the locations of the signage and on the other hand we don't want to have it more restrictive than anyone
else in town and I think we don't have a...on that. Number 7. We have, I believe talked about that relating to
the moving of transformers. We have, since we learned that there was maybe a problem moving a traffic control
box ... we are moving it. We have... incorporate that somehow or another into either monument sign or the
landscaping. We have never found an argument with anyone and those installations are not the most beautiful of
our downtown Chanhassen and we're willing to cooperate and to remove them ... remind that they are currently
not entirely all on city property and the city utility easements. Apparently they overlap onto our property here.
But that's, be that as it may, we're anticipating that we might, we don't really feel totally comfortable that it's
the developer responsibility to move them because they weren't installed very carefully or prettily in the first
place. We're hoping maybe we can reach some kind of... Overall with the language. The language and ... out of
the signage, I think being somewhat of a...I think that what we should be saying here is, in the last sentence the
signage shall meet the criteria as identified in the sign covenants for Market Square as followed. We have
agreements. We have the sign, all of the sign requirements are currently done for us in with the PUD agreement
and there's a couple that are of record. I think we need to avoid trying to make any... It's a restatement of
everything in the sign plan. I think it would be appropriate that we're required to have it be, have monument
signs be exactly like those... The only other item then I think ... our judgment that we start with 3 and we now
have 5. We've added 2. Kevin talked about why he doesn't like to have those there because they'll die from
the salt. My observation is that when you're driving through Market Square, I'd like to have it look a little bit
the same on the right as it does on the left. There currently are 4 trees on the left. Rather spread out and I
don't know that you have to have a sort of boulevard effect ... We also don't want to obliterate the view ... so with
that, I guess the Planning Commission never really picked up on that. It was never addressed... We're required to
have 58 trees on the site ... Through a site plan ... stop signs that are already platted. I don't think there's anything
that we really need to take your time with tonight except I'm not 100% sure Sharmin that we have talked with
the Fire Marshal. At one point we said that he wasn't quite sure where it was. Obviously we don't care where
it is. We were going to say that ... to reflect the ... as requested by the Fire Marshall instead of specified in the
staff report that we didn't know for sure where he wanted it. That fell through.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Well ... previously it was on an island in the parking lot. We changed the design a little bit so
it should be.
12
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Vernelle Clayton: ...we still weren't sure if you still wanted an interior location or along the edge but whatever
Sharmin Al -Jaffa As long as you're aware that there is a hydrant required.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. Then the only other substantive suggestion that I have, that we have is under the
approval of the plat where it says that the following easements shall be required Under (a), and this is on page
15. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot (10' along Market Boulevard and
West 78th Street). Technically what you're asking for here, it meets it along Market Boulevard. The lot doesn't
front 78th Street. We discussed the fact that we don't want them on the interior. So what you're asking for is
along Market.
Charles Folch: ...10 foot easement that you have along here fronting the road, the driveway type of property.
Vernelle Clayton: Right, and our only point was, it currently says Market Boulevard and West 78th Street and
the lot that we're talking about doesn't touch 78th Street.
Charles Folch: Okay. Well Wendy's lot doesn't, right.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. And that's the only one that's being replatted.
Charles Folch: Okay. I don't have a problem with that.
Vernelle Clayton: It's really ... okay. With that, those are our comments. We will be sticking around to listen to
you talk and we'll be happy to answer any questions. I certainly hope that you'll... essentially do not have any
questions, that you'll vote for approval immediately.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to bring it back to Council. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time?
Okay. We'll bring it back to Council for discussion. Somewhere along there Kate, maybe I missed it. What is
seating capacity within.
Kate Aanenson: Seating capacity within?
Jurij Ozga: 72 seats.
Mayor Chmiel: 72?
Jurij Ozga: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've been, I got in on this real early when the very fast proposal came through and I think
kind of just felt a little bit panicky with what was happening there and who was in charge and what was going
on. I think I've been outspoken enough and expressed my opinion on it but I think I'd like to listen to the rest
of the Council and see where they're coming from.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Colleen.
13
L
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think there's any question that the architecture and landscaping and the
whole project is a quality job and that's really not the issue for me. The whole issue is that corner of our city
and as Richard has said many, many times, a pivotal corner in town and yet, which makes us be very cautious as
to what to do with it and we continually say yes, but we might want to do this with it. We might want to do
' that with it and continually put off any development on it. And yet the city really hasn't come up with an
alternative. We've got some maybe's. Some good ideas. Some what if's and yet we haven't gotten our act
together and it's been very frustrating for all parties involved. And now we sit here with an excellent proposal
in front of us and we need to make a decision on it. On one hand I don't want to pursue prematurely but on the
other hand, this isn't premature necessarily. It's very well thought out and I don't want to penalize the
developer for our indecision. So I guess I'm ready to move forward with you know a couple comments on how
to change it a little bit and those are only personal opinions on my part but just as a general statement at this
time, I'm ready to move ahead with this project.
F�
1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: This current proposal looks a whole lot nicer than the first one that came through and I
think that's to everyone's credit. I share much of Colleen's comments. We've been in this position before
where we, well what if, what if, what if? And if the what if isn't out there and everything meets the conditions,
I think we're a little hard pressed to turn something like this down. The latest renderings look very nice. I'm
concerned. I know Richard, my guess is, is concerned a little bit about some landscaping issues and I think as
we, if we go ahead with this, there's some issues I share with him on that. Mark and I were talking earlier
about the color of the building. Whether it should, all we're hearing, and this is a concern of mine and I believe
I've stated it before. I don't want everything in Chanhassen to be the same color. I don't like it. I don't want
architectural style A next to architectural style Z. But on the other hand, I don't think we need to have
everything gray in the city and I'm curious if there isn't some way we can tie the colors in. Well this is going
to be, where'd those bricks go? Okay. It is the beige. Okay. And I think, this is something as these
developments come in, that we do need to talk about and grapple with a little bit. With the brown and the gray,
if we can tie City Hall with Market Square, great. I see perhaps some issues with the bottom part of the realty
building. I think the Wendy's design obviously looks different than some of the pictures we see here. They've
spent a lot of time and I think they truly do want to be a presence in Chanhassen and I think they have, it looks
to me like everyone's working together to try and get a good product on that corner. You know, I too share the
concerns about premiere corner. But I think we as the city, we as the Council, we as a vision committee or
whatever. HRA. Then need to define that and get something down in writing. And I don't think that these
people can be held hostage to things like that. Unless we have that down.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a lot of problems really one way or another with the project. I think it's a good
project. I think as far as previous decisions by previous Councils and the HRA, I mean the stage has been set. I
don't think we can mess with the land use a lot at this point. It meets the requirements. I think the redesign
that they've worked with, staff and stuff has come out considerably better than what we were seeing in the fast
place. I'm in 100% agreement with staff on the no window signs. My personal preference on the architecture.
I should say on the coloration, is what Michael and I were talking about, that I'd really rather see, I'm going to
say a combination of grays and tans. And the reason I'd like to see that is I'd like to see it tie the hotel and
City Hall and that sort of thing together with Market Square. Which right now are pretty different and I think
those would make good transitional uses. I think putting strictly brown earth tones out in front of Market Square
is going to look, in my mind a little silly, but that's just my opinion. I'd much rather see something that ties
14
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
those two together. My only real concern as it relates to the plan is the drive thru for Wendy's. And the part ,
that concerns me is from point of order I see a stacking of 3 cars before you're in conflict with your parking.
I've never really seen that end up being a good situation. If there's any way to shift these things a little bit to
provide a, and I just spoke briefly with Charles about it and I don't know if there's any possibility on it but if '
there were any chance at all of a dedicated drive thru lane around the south end. Yeah, around the south end of
the property and then looping into the order point, I think from everybody's standpoint we'd have a lot less
problems there. That's more of a function of layout and setbacks and stuff so I'm speaking a little bit off the
wall on that because I haven't sat down and laid it out but I've seen that system work fairly well because when
you come in the entry points, if you're going through the drive thru, you make the decision and go that way and
if you're going to the restaurants, you make the decision to go into the regular parking area. And that's my only '
real concern is when it comes down to all the issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard.
for they
'
Councilman Wing: I think when this first came to us I didn't think very highly of the developer what
offered us. I thought they came in here with a Wendy's that was very standard with it's bright signage, colors.
I think the Planning Commission ridiculed the building. The office building they brought forward and said they
liked the fast food more than they did the office building and if somebody hadn't spoken up and gotten on the
band wagon and gotten a little panic stricken, I don't know where this would have gone so I think we really
have a right to be leery and we have a right to be concerned. We have a right to go slow. I think this is a
premiere corner. I think it is the focal point of our city but more important it's the very center of our city. It's
'
a city that's developing. This isn't something that's going to come and go. We're forming our downtown as
we're going to know it for my lifetime. So I think we want to be cautious and I think a couple things that
planning mentioned. I think that we have a right to demand. To expect quality and I don't think we should
'
deceive ourselves on that. I think planning has addressed this at length. I don't think the traffic issue was ever
addressed. I think Mark's point of view is well taken. I think we've got a stacking problem. I think that traffic
and the drive thru are a major concern that hasn't been addressed but if that's what engineering whats to do, if
that's what Wendy's wants to take on, I'm not going to wait in line so it's not going to bother me. I usually go
'
in anyway. On the Planning Commission's motion, they did ... the poor traffic circulation which Mark brought up.
But they also added the fact that they're concerned about whether it should be 1 or 2 buildings on the site. We
haven't addressed that. Architectural standards which we've kind of addressed tonight. How do you come up
'
with that and whether, in a retail commercial use. So I guess I had a couple questions. I don't think it's
pertinent now on why they chose Edina Realty and a Wendy's wouldn't make a two story office building with a
lot more retail and other types of retail and aren't there other uses that might really satisfy the center better?
And aren't there uses that we might put there that really would benefit Market Square much better than what
'
we're presenting. But I don't have that information. I haven't heard the developer come through with that
information. I'm not so sure they have and so I think it's premature but with all that said, I've had my say on
this and done what I could to say I think we ought to hold on and other than go to a moratorium or buy it, we
don't have a lot of options and this is certainly much, much better than we started with and a lot of effort and
time has been put into this and I'm appreciative of that. So I would just say to Council, I have a lot of heart,
very deep heart felt feelings on this and I guess I can go along with the group here but I have three conditions
that trouble me that I would request that you consider seriously. Number one, I'd like to go full brick on both
buildings. The color doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it's, I want it quality coming on this comer and
I want a permanence that both planning. In all the planning meetings, those were the main issues that we had
quality and we had permanence and a look of permanence. That this isn't just a 3 to 5 year, it's only worth
'
$13.00 a square foot. Let's throw it up and see what happens. We're talking the life of our city here so by
going full brick, I feel we're accomplishing a little bit more than rather just a few inches of brick and then this
,
15
i
u
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
cement block which I don't find to be quality building material. The Highway 5 corridor study coming in says,
brick, glass or better. It doesn't allow cement block, even with a finish on it. So I would approve it as it stands
with the additions of full brick on both buildings. Cedar shakes on the roof. I think that adds quality to it. It
gets away from the asphalt look. And then the other thing, I'd like to see the landscape plan return with better
buffering to the south. I don't disagree with the number of trees and the quality and the fact they're putting
them in. But just perhaps if we want to look at the focal point of this, from Highway 5 and the other areas, not
screen, not block, that's not my intention. But just slightly buffer a little bit better the south side which isn't up
there now but I'd like Kevin to come back with a revised landscape plan that adds just a few pine trees that are
year round buffering and a few additional overstory shade trees which aren't going to block the view. That's not
the case here. I guess we've putting in what, 5 additional on the south side. So I would leave that alone. Just
the ... but what I won't accept is just to have this open to Highway 5 as it sits. I think we can do just a slightly
better job of screening. Not blocking. Buffering, not blocking. I don't ask a lot there but maybe just a little bit
of rethinking on that south side and maybe just inclusion of a very few pine trees to give us a year round
screening process so. I guess I support all the recommendations with the exception of number 8 which would be
better screening and a revised landscape plan to the south to be brought back to Council. Cedar shakes and total
brick on the buildings. And I point out Abra. Abra and Goodyear when we I think thought brick and there's
brick and block and I don't remember that happening. It's the fact... approved but I would have preferred to see
those buildings be brick and then whatever decorative use wants to be done there, I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, were you going to say something?
Councilman Mason: Well I was just going to ask Dick. They're talking about 25 inches of that.
Mayor Chmiel: 30 inches up.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Of the concrete block.
Councilman Mason: Of the cut. That stuff. That little stuff on the left there right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: See I'm turn around here. I can't really see. The bottom?
Mayor Chmiel: The bottom portion.
Councilman Senn: The bottom 30 inches.
Mayor Chmiel: The bottom 30 inches will be the gray.
Brad Johnson: This is 30 inches. The rest is all brick.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I was a little confused on that too.
Councilman Wing: So we have then the cedar shakes and improved landscape plan to the south.
16
1
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think the concrete block does tie in Market Square to a degree.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I just would like to see the gray tone that's in your bottom there, come up a little bit
more. Not by use of that but maybe in your brick colorations. I mean there are some very attractive tan gray
brick combinations that look really nice.
Mayor Chmiel: From first, you were going to say something Vemelle.
Vemelle Clayton: Well I just...what you wanted to say fast but would you be comfortable having us work with
staff on the combination of the gray and the brick?
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I guess when it comes to it.
Vemelle Clayton: The other thing I do want to say that we don't think it's appropriate to have shake shingles
and I think we have said yes to virtually everything so far. But we have already said no to the first
recommendation and the shake shingles. There isn't anything else in town that has gone up with shake shingles
since 1968 and when there was a building... with shake shingles. The hotel across from it is asphalt. The bank
itself is metal ... but we think we're moving a long way from being...
Mayor Chmiel: In looking at this proposal the first day that I had seen it, and I'm not going to reiterate a lot of
things that have already been said. But I think at that time when it came before HRA, I probably was the most
vocal against the aspects of having a Wendy's located on that particular comer. Not that there's not a place for
Wendy's within our community. There is. Aesthetics was the thing that I wanted to see and I said I wanted two
other things with it as well. And that was aesthetics and aesthetics for that corner. And I think they have pulled
together those items to make the appeal a lot better than what has originally first come in. I like the Edina
complex building in itself. It's low enough. The profile is there. So it's not going to deter fully from the
balance of what Market Square is. And with some of the new ideas and concepts that Wendy's has come up
with, I think that it shows that they do want to be part of the community. Be it to me that's still was an
important corner for the city. We only have one opportunity when we do what we're doing right now. If we
don't put it in right the first time, we don't get a second chance. It's pretty hard to come by. But I think with
the things that we have pulled together totally and kind of looked at, it's got some of that appeal right now.
Although I think that cedar shakes on that particular building would probably be added to it would give that
touch of quality a little bit more than what's existing. I think that from openers to what they are now, I have to
commend you that you've done a pretty good homework on that. And with that I think I'll just bring it back to
Council. We have before us the approval of a site plan review and.
Councilman Senn: Maybe I can try a motion, if that's what you're looking for?
Mayor Chmiel: Well let me finish what I'm saying Mark.
Councilman Senn: Oh. Sorry, you paused too long.
Mayor Chmiel: We're looking at also the replatting of the Outlot A into Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd
Addition for that total amount of square footage. I think we should specifically clarify each of the points from
what we have on these site plan review with all those conditions of what you go through 1 thm 15 with that
subdivision portion. Items 1 and 2 with items a and b as well. So I would entertain, at this time, a motion.
17
1
r
u
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Senn: I'm confused. I thought we were, at least in reading the item, I thought we were only doing
the site plan tonight.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa No.
Mayor Chmiel: It indicates all that on the front page of the.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. I'm just wondering about the published action.
Mayor Chmiel: Well the published action is indicated within the packet in itself but from what staff report
' proposals are, it covers the 1 and 2 items.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright. How about if I try moving approval of the site plan review with the
conditions that staff has outlined adding the, getting the additional landscaping that Richard was requesting. The
applicant and staff working out something with the brick tones that staff feels meets more of the intent of tying
the surrounding buildings together as far as maybe tan and gray tones. Leaving the, I guess what I'd like to
include on the roof is, I really like the dark roof. I'd like to see the dark roof but why don't you use the shake
' shingles that are now on the market. I mean they're basically an asphalt shingle but they're shaped like shakes
and it really looks like shakes. But you have a lot better color selection. It's not just a wood look per se which
I think doesn't really fit there. It's a lot classier looking. And let's see. Do you have any?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Item 4.
' Councilman Senn: Well that we're leaving in, right?
Councilman Mason: Well no because it's going to be superseded by whatever.
Councilman Senn: But Kate said this made it more restrictive right? Leaving the window signage in the way it
is or, did you want 6 deleted or left in?
Councilman Wing: Window signage?
Councilman Senn: Window signage.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're going to deal with that in an ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
' Councilman Mason: I mean that's currently being dealt with with an ordinance.
' Councilman Senn: With the new ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: We are looking at a small percentage of the new ordinance.
Councilman Senn: How far away is that?
Kate Aanenson: Probably...
18
t
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: 2 years?
Councilman Senn: How about leaving 6 the way it is except it changes at the point that the new ordinance
comes in, to conform to the ordinance. How's that?
Councilman Wing: I'd delete it only because they're looking at trying to decide what percentage should be
allowed on the windows because they're going to happen anyway and it has to be an enforceable type ordinance.
Are you suggesting that 6 be deleted? I mean 99 cent hamburgers are going to happen one way or the other.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not if we decide.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it depends.
Councilman Senn: See, I don't view it that way.
Councilman Wing: I would favor no window signage.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean I would like to stick with no signage and then bring it into conformity to the
ordinance when the ordinance passes. But not knowing when this ordinance is going to pass. We've been
through that around here before.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
Councilman Senn: Is that alright Roger?
Roger Knutson: You make that decision and I'll give you my advice.
Councilman Senn: Afterwards.
Roger Knutson: If I understand what you're saying, is you're saying, you're adopting a new ordinance and until
the new ordinance is in place, you're putting a moratorium on this building and any more or less on window
signs and whatever the new ordinance says, the new ordinance..., is that what you're saying?
Mayor Chmiel: Per se, I would think that's what he's saying.
Councilman Senn: Per se except I thought we had more latitude in that it's a PUD and there is a PUD
agreement and we could just say in there that there's no signs until such time as.
Roger Knutson: The PUD is in place. You're not amending the...
Councilman Senn: But the development contract is not, is it? I mean the development contract's an extension
of the PUD agreement, is it not?
Roger Knutson: They're in for a site plan approval, if that helps.
Councilman Senn: I understand.
19
t
LJ
7"
L
I
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Until they proceed with that portion.
Councilman Senn: Can't that be directed? I'm just asking.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you saying ... I mean we are?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: But you know, out at Super America they said no outdoor storage or sales of any materials
and it was part of the conditions and that was a good move. And considering the location of this.
Councilman Senn: Oh I think it's important.
Councilman Wing: If we say no window signs, it's to our benefit.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think it is. If the rest of the Council is more comfortable with changing the
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Then leave it in.
Councilman Senn: I'm willing to change it when the ordinance comes in.
Councilman Mason: Then I think something has to go down there that, go down with this that that will be
amended as the new ordinance comes in.
Councilman Wing: No, it can't be. This will be, if this were part of this development contract, no signs.
Roger Knutson: You don't have a development contract on a site plan. You're issuing a site plan permanent.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. We're not even into that phase yet but. So eventually as we proceed with this,
that is what will.
Councilman Senn: That is going to be stuck in the development agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Right.
Councilman Mason: Well because I don't.
Councilman Senn: Because this is being issued, the site plan review as I understand the conditions here are
contingent upon a thing here that says they have to sign a development contract. I mean aren't they all...
Roger Knutson: There is no development contract for a site plan. The site plan is close to the same thing
because that's what it is.
Councilman Mason: Don't other buildings in Market Square get window signs?
Councilman Senn: I don't think any of them are that close and visible to the comer.
Fill
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well Wendy's is not going to be that close and visible.
Mayor Chmiel: There are signs in MGM. Signs in a few of the other.
Councilman Mason: Festival has them. I mean I don't know how we can tell Wendy's they can't have signs at
Market Square and everyone else can. Is my concern about that.
Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to know signs that conform to the ordinance. If that's what everybody's
comfortable with. And then we can word it the way Roger wants.
Councilman Wing: We don't have an ordinance so—put that in.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Until an ordinance is adopted.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, keep going. We also had one item on 15 that Vernelle had made some changes there
and I think that can be corrected by staff.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And also on 4 about a sidewalk and not a street easement.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yes. That one we can't give, have it there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I second the motion if you're done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion's on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Oh, there's one other thing I would like to just add to that. If at all possible, and I'd like
just staff to look at this. You know you guys and Charles get together with the applicant. If there is any way to
change that drive thru you know so it doesn't impact the overall design but allows you more stacking distance
you know by going around the perimeter there and stuff.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know how they can change that though.
Councilman Senn: Well it's, a lot of it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's pretty hard to do that.
Councilman Senn: Hard to see but if you basically come in here to the parking lot and give up some of the
generousness of the double stacked isles and stuff because what you're trying to allow for there is extra room
because of the drive thru. More or less cheat on that a little bit more and come around here. I don't know Don
whether that's practical or not. If it is practical I think it'd be a far better solution than 3 stacked cars.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's put it this way. Let staff review it to come up with a conclusion.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's all I'm saying. Let staff review it. If there's a better conclusion, let's reach it
but I didn't want to close the door on it.
21
IJ
Lil
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Richard. Discussion's still going.
Councilman Wing: One item that I missed here. Did anybody else, are they concerned about, I've got to let my
mind float or it's going to be the wrong words. The garbage pit being on Market Boulevard. Is that the
appropriate place to have it? What do we call it? The dumpster.
Mayor Chmiel: That was shown. The dumpster is.
Councilman Wing: Shouldn't the dumpster maybe be inland someplace? Not on Market Boulevard. It seems a
real inappropriate place for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's not really on Market in itself. It would be facing towards 78th.
Councilman Wing: I meant to ask Vernelle to point that out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, it's on Market.
Mayor Chmiel: Right there.
Vernelle Clayton: It's brought in from...
Sharmin Al -Jaffa It's screened by the berm as well as the landscaping.
Councilman Senn: It's got to go somewhere unless it's in the building.
Councilman Wing: Mark, I'd just like to clarify that. The landscaping one that it pertains to the south side and
I would like that, and I've asked for a little better screening and buffering and I'd like that returned to Council
for approval. What did we call it? A re- altered.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Revised?
Councilman Wing: Revised landscaping plan.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. You may as well bring the materials back too.
Councilman Wing: You want the materials brought back also?
Councilman Senn: I think staff understands where I'm coming from. I'm comfortable with them deciding that.
I'd just like to see some toning.
Kevin Norby: Richard, can I ask for clarification?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please?
Kevin Norby: Sure. I think it was the February 2nd Planning Commission meeting, Sharmin asked us to
include 5 trees. We didn't have any trees in that south.
22
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
Councilman Wing: I understand that. I'm concerned about an entirely revised.
Councilman Senn: I don't think Richard was saying more trees. I think he was asking you to change some to
year round, if I heard him correctly earlier. '
Kevin Norby: ...the way the recommendations read now, it says 5 trees but we have actually already added 3
since that recommendation. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We changed the recommendation and said, additional recommendation.
Councilman Wing: No, I want a revised landscape plan so that we wind up with a mild screening, buffering
effect and it maybe means 5 more trees, 10 more trees or 2 more trees. I don't know that.
Kevin Norby: So it's not a net change of 5...
,
Councilman Wing: No. It could be a net change of 10. 1 don't know that. That has to be worked out with
staff. There's an effect and I'll work with staff.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Clarification on this, how does number 6 read now? The window signage.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item 6. No window signage shall be permitted on Wendy's or the office/retail building.
Councilman Senn: And then hold those off and Roger's going to supply the rest.
Roger Knutson: Until such time as the new ordinance is adopted which allows a certain amount and it will be
subject to the new ordinance.
'
Councilman Mason: Okay.
in not just all on an island.
t
Mayor Chmiel: So they'd be compliance with everybody else and
Councilman Mason: Okay. And we're talking, Kate give or take, a couple of months with this sign stuff?
'
Mayor Chmiel: And it will be a lot of time before they're in the ground.
Councilman Mason: Alright, thank you.
'
Councilman Wing: The issue of signs is some wanted postage stamps and some wanted.
i
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Okay. Good
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question. I
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Site Plan for Edina Realty
and Wendy's ( #89 -2 PUD) as shown on the site plan dated March 10, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
23
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
1. The northerly access to the shopping center from Market Boulevard should be widened to 16 feet wide face -
to -face over the easterly 100 feet of the site. In addition, the northerly radius should be expanded to 30 feet
to improve turning movements into the shopping center. "No parking" signs shall be placed along the east
curb line of the parking lot at the west elevation of the retail building. In addition, "no parking" signs shall
be placed along the east curb line of the drive -up window lane to Wendy's.
2. The applicant shall work with the city in resolving final placement of the sidewalk along West 78th Street
along with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the
city's right -of -way or trail easement area. The construction plans shall be revised to show impact to the
existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Any /all damaged sidewalk as a result of construction activities
on the site shall be replaced in kind by the applicant.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
1 security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall grant the city the necessary landscape and sidewalk easements along West 78th Street.
5. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook to control site erosion. Type
I silt fence shall be installed along the southerly perimeter at the construction limits. Temporary rock
construction entrances shall be required to minimize off -site tracking. Construction access points shall be
limited to the interior parking lot and not on West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. After the storm sewer
installation and prior to paving the parking lot, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be protected
with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediment from washing into the drainage system.
6. No window signage shall be permitted on the Wendy's or the Office/Retail building until such time as the
new sign ordinance is adopted and signage will be subject to the new ordinance.
7. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. One monument identification
sign is proposed at the northeasterly corner of the site. This location is in conflict with the existing NSP
transformers and traffic control box, as well as being located with in the sight distance triangle. The
monument sign shall meet the following criteria:
a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed 12'10" (the height of the existing Market Square
sign).
b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face.
c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center.
The applicant is proposing the sign design to be identical to the existing Market Square monument
signs.
d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction, repair, maintenance and/or
replacement.
Only one wall mounted sign is shown on the western elevation of Wendy's building. Wall mounted signs
must meet the following criteria as identified in the plan:
a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted.
b. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and
shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination.
%d
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
c. The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the buildings to be constructed.
8. A revised landscaping plan shall be brought back to the City Council addressing the southern portion of
the site. A berm shall be incorporated into the plan to screen the trash location from views. The applicant
shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required
financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
9. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the replat approval from Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1, Market
Square 2nd Addition.
10. Stop signs shall be placed at the exit points of Wendy's and Edina Realty's parking lots.
11. Submit revised utility plans to reflect a fire hydrant location between the Wendy's and the retail office
building.
12. The Fire Marshal will provide information regarding placement of "No Parking Fire Lane" signage at the
time of building permit application.
13. The office /retail building must be fire sprinklered pursuant to Chapter 38 Minnesota State Building Code.
14. Submit radius turn dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for approval pursuant to 1991 UFC Sec.
10- 204(c).
15. The plans shall be revised clarifying the applicant's responsibility for relocating the NSP transformers and
installing the balance of the 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along Market Boulevard to the corner of West
78th Street. The city's traffic controller shall be left in place.
16. The applicant and staff working out something with the brick tones that staff feels meets more of the
intent of tying the surrounding buildings together as far as the tan and gray tones. Leaving the dark
roof but using the shake shingles that are on the market that are basically an asphalt shingle but are
shaped like wood shake shingles.
17. Staff review Wendy's drive thru traffic circulation.
Councilman Senn moved, and Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to also approve the replat of Outlot A,
Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition as shown on the plat with the following
conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid to the city pursuant to the city ordinances and City Council
resolutions at the rate then in force upon building permit application.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot (10' on along Market
Boulevard).
25
LI
i City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
b. Cross access easements need to be provided over the northeasterly driveway."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Brad Johnson: Thank you very much. I appreciate Colleen coming back for the vote and Dick, I think your
input was well received, even though we didn't always agree with you and I think you've got a better project.
We certainly have a better project than we started out with so.
Councihnan Wing: I don't think I was out of order.
' Brad Johnson: Huh?
Councilman Wing: I don't think I was ever out of order, just to correct those Minutes.
Brad Johnson: Thank you very much.
VARIANCE TO CITY CODE REGARDING SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS
CENTER, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITION, CHARLIE JAMES.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just give a brief update ... 3 to 1 vote and you needed a 4/5 majority vote to make this
happen. In summary, Byerly's is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance and what that does, I think we got
into a lot of different discussions 2 weeks ago. Because they're asking for a variance you can put conditions on
that ... give larger square footage in one area, you can require or limit the area in other areas. So there's quite a
bit of variation. But a lot of discussion ... I think the directive was to the applicant to come back concerning the
height of the pylon sign on West 78th Street ... The applicant is here tonight and we have included in the packet
the representation that ... In addition, the applicant has made modifications to the recommendations of the staff
report including the last ... and staff would support their modifications. With that I'll turn it over...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great. You're on.
Charlie James: I guess just briefly to summarize where we were at last week. I guess we began by talking
about the ordinance and there being some ambiguity in the ordinance. Also the fact that regardless of what your
interpretation was, that everyone would agree that the ordinance was drawn up or written before the ... and so we
were asking for a variance. There was a lot of discussion as to the signs on the building. I guess we agreed to
amend our-.request to one ... on the northwest comer of the building and to eliminate the words, Open 24 Hours,
from the east wall. And I hired a surveyor. I guess one of our arguments is that actually granting this variance
would bring us into conformity with our neighbors and with the other uses in our district out there and when the
staff report was done and all the square footages, when W. Generous calculated all the square footages at the
last meeting, he confirmed that he had neglected to include the calculation for the word Pharmacy on Byerly's
and also the word ... Open 24 Hours on Festival Foods and those calculations... were provided to you last time. I
hired our surveyors and I don't know if some of the material that I sent to Mr. Generous was distributed to you
or not but that color photograph we got somebody, we took pictures. I'll just start with this one. This is the
Country Suites sign. It's 19 foot 6 tall and 12 feet wide and this is a surveyor from James R Hill Inc. and he's
holding a surveyor stick on there. And then I have all the telephoto photographs of that that define the
elevations that he was getting on there. So for instance on the Country Suites sign ... what our proposed 18 foot
by 8 foot wide sign would look like. I've tried to highlight that in yellow. The yellow area would be brick and
the—and the blue letters would be the PMS 286 blue. So you can see in the case of the County Suites, we're
26
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
almost 2 feet lower than that sign and we're about 4 foot than the ordinance. Town Square, their sign is 19 foot
2 tall and 12 foot 3 inches wide. What we're proposing again is 18 feet tall, 8 feet wide. Our sign would pretty
much fit inside of just the pillars on their sign as you can see. We also, Mr. Meyers is here tonight and he hired
someone to do a streetscape that would show what this would look like down on West 78th Street. We also '
measured Market Square's sign on West 78th Street and for your information, that was 13 foot 6 inches tall and
13 feet wide. John, would you like to show your.
John Meyers: The gentleman that did the rendering ... we hired him to go back out. Do you remember the
rendering of the store? The same gentleman I had go back out. I gave him the topos. The different grades for
the site. Topo of the roadway. The elevation of the sign. The elevation of the buildings... big issue obviously
was the pylon sign. We kept the 18 foot pylon sign for this purpose. If you were pulling out, if you were down
'
at Target where the stop light is today. The existing stop light. If you were parked at that stop light and you
wanted to turn east on West 78th, you'd effectively be looking up the hill, this would be the view that you'd see.
If you were parked right here and these would be the size and dimension of the street lights that are existing that
you see out there. This would be the dimension of the street light across. These are the trees that are on the
'
landscape plan and the majority of which are already planted. So the majority of the center's already going to
be buffered. From that vantage point, a good portion of the center will be buffered by the trees that exist
regardless of the elevation of the buildings. This is an 18 foot pylon. Now keeping in mind that the first one is
'
12 feet. Or the pylon...
Charlie James: You've got 9 foot...
John Meyers: Because of the arch, which is the same architectural design that the shopping center had on the
building, the arch remains in there so we're basically looking at 5 or 10 feet of it still being open. So it's not
going to be a brick wall that you're looking at. But that gives you some proportion which I think was your main
question. What this would look like from a distance. Now if you went up on top of the hill, from the top of the
hill and if you were at City Hall looking down, you're only going to see the top portion of the sign. You're not
going to see the bottom. So from that standpoint it's got some advantages to be the 18 foot sign because you'll
start to see the name of Byerly's and the shopping center which is above Byerly's. From a perspective
standpoint, I mean I think it points out pretty clearly that it's not an onerous sign. It doesn't jump out and say,
I'm 62 feet tall and I'm white and you can see it from a long distance. It serves the purpose which the canopy
of the trees. It serves the purpose that it designates that this is a major entrance for the Byerly's store. That's
the purpose of the sign quite frankly. It's below what the majority of the signs are in town. I think the
interesting thing, as I came into town today I went up to the Brooke's, where Brook's market is and if you'll
look at all the signage along that strip center, there's more signs on, my building is probably substantially larger
'
than Brooke's. I can't believe that they're about 25,000 square feet total. There's got to be more signage on
that building plus a higher pylon than what we're asking for so, and it's a nice design. It's brick. It's not going
to be onerous ... with dark blue letters. You know they're not red, yellow and they don't shine...ldnd of subtle
'
color. Hopefully that answers your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
John Meyers: Would you like to see the larger drawing of it?
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you?
John Meyers: We have, I asked, the guy that did this, his name was Bob Lewis ... and I asked him to draw this
27
i
n
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
same rendering at 12 feet and his basic comment ...that it just doesn't make sense. There's no sense in doing it
at 12 feet. It's not going to serve any purpose... monument sign is 8 feet and saying Market's monument sign is
15.8.
Charlie James: 13 foot 6. Yeah, our's is drawn to the code. Our monument's drawn precisely to the letter of
the law here and this is actually drawn 2 foot less than the letter of the law.
John Meyers: But to give, what they've got up at, if you think of the Market Square sign. Just from a
proportion standpoint. That's a monument sign that's 13 feet versus one that's 8 so.
Charlie James: 13 foot 6.
John Meyers: 13 foot 6. 13 and a half. So proportionally...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just a point of order. I think we need to have a motion to bring, even bring this
back for consideration, is that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: To eliminate any confusion over it, what I'd recommend is that, if that's your desire, to move
to waive the rules and put this back on the table for action.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to waive the rules to bring this item back
up for discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Richard. I think what we had a lot of discussion was the 12 foot to the 18 feet.
Councilman Wing: Well I went back to Planning and read all those Minutes and discussed it with them and
their rationale, when I got all done with it, made a lot of sense and they were real adamant against the 24 Hours
and I think we went from 10 to 12 on that pylon. I guess I just happened to, based on Planning Commission
and what they put into it, staff recommended. Kate, you appear to be pretty comfortable with your 11
recommendations. Is that true?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah. And 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were the ones that were modified
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I guess I had been happy with 12 feet and then I kind of took a view of, I guess 24
hours, I guess I agree with the Planning. The monument sign, it seems that our interest to keep those down and
W.
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
if we allow 20 feet here, someone's going to come in and do all the sight lines and say well there's is 20 feet
and we won't, we'll just never sell it. And so I guess I really long term favor these recommendations I guess as
stated. I guess the point, it just isn't necessary for the success of this project. I mean this is a good project.
This project is going to be ... and I don't think it centers on whether that pylon sign is...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, since I was the one that held up the decision last week, I think it.
Councilman Mason: I don't think you need to take the blame for that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Hey, it probably took me longer to read the Minutes from that meeting than it did
to attend the meeting. Anyway, I had attended the Planning Commission meeting on this item and I did read last
meeting's minutes and you know, I hate to nit pick this to death but, I don't care about how tall this pylon sign
is. I really don't. The words Open 24 Hours, I thought there was a good compromise where we allowed it on
one part of the building and not the other so one sign of Open 24 Hours. You know to keep parity with Festival
Foods, I think that's fine. The rest of the recommendations, I have no problem with. Whatever the rest of the
Council decides on...I don't care. I guess I agree that Open 24 Hours should be on the building. Somewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, the pylon, I think it is, in defense of Byerly's and James. The ordinance reads 20
feet and they came in at 18 so I mean I guess I think that should be clarified. I have, and I've said this before.
And I said it earlier with the site plan review for the other. I have a little trouble telling one business they can
have an 18 foot high pylon and another business they can have an 18 foot high pylon but now we're telling this
business they can only have a 10 foot high pylon. And I read those Minutes too and I don't dispute what
they're saying. I don't, I'm not quite sure, I don't understand why I guess, and Dick maybe you can help me
out on this. I don't understand why Ahn Le or Country Suites gets 20 feet and Byerly's gets 10. That's.
Mayor Chmiel: Shorter building. No.
Kate Aanenson: ...again this isn't a PUD so they're asking for a variance. So the way these conditions came
about is the fact that you're giving them a larger wall sign area so therefore in giving that the Planning
Commission felt, we're giving you that so we're going to impose some restrictions on the other signs. So it's
kind of a give and take. That's how it got to be.
Councilman Mason: Was that give and take or was it tit for tat?
Kate Aanenson: Well.
Councilman Mason: Well there's a difference. And I think that's an important distinction.
Kate Aanenson: I think there's an overall square footage of the sign and because they asked for more wall
signage ... in order to allow that ... so they felt that maybe the pylon sign didn't need to be as high because the wall
sign can be seen. That was my understanding.
Councilman Mason: Well, okay. Yeah, I don't. I understand that. I guess I don't necessarily agree with it.
WE
i City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
I Kate Aanenson: Well I'm just saying... it's a variance and we tend to...
Councilman Mason: Okay. I guess that's really, I don't know. The 24 Hours, I'm going to leave up to, I don't
' have a real strong feeling one way or the other. Although Festival does have it. Festival does have it right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: And I know because it's a variance but why, it seems to me if Festival has open 24 hours
on it, Byerly's should too. The monument sign on the corner there, I suspect there's going to be some
discussion about and I guess I'm kind of on the fence on that one. I want to hear how other people feel about
that one. Those are the only two things I'm concerned about right now. Is the height of the pylon I guess and,
well those three things.
' Councilman Senn: I have no problems with the expanded building face signage for Byerly's on the building.
The 24 hour thing, you know I don't want to see it plastered all over the place so I kind of liked somebody's
idea that it be limited. The pylon sign.
I Councilman Mason: Mark I'm sorry. Limited or eliminated?
Councilman Senn: Limited.
1 Councilman Mason: Okay, to like the one side or whatever?
Councilman Senn: Yeah ... or whatever. I view the pylon sign I guess a little differently. I don't have a problem
with the pylon being 18 feet. I view it as a pylon sign which identifies the shopping center which is West
Village Center. And that's normal for a strip center and I also view it as having the anchor tenant's name on it,
which is Byerly's, which is normal for a strip center. Those are your identifying characteristics. Those are your
' traffic generators. That's pretty common across the industry regardless of what shopping strip center you go
look at. But in basically granting the variance to allow the other expanded signage I just, I'm just really opposed
to or against any additional monument signs out on the boulevard. Especially identifying other tenants in the
' property because that is something that does not exist in any strip center almost anywhere, at least that I can
identify in the western suburbs. I know we can talk about Market Square but I'm sorry, I wasn't here for any
decision on Market Square and I never would have made it but to me that establishes a whole new level of
' signing for a strip center. If you go look at any strip center, the tenants other than the anchor tenants fall back
and rely upon the signage over above their store and ... see all that. We haven't seen any of that in here one way
or the other. And to now basically account for or establish a monument out on the parkway to handle all those
tenants, I mean to me there we've opened Pandora's box and it's something we're going to be identifying every
tenant in town on out on the boulevard. And I just really disagree with that because it's not a standard that's
even been well accepted in the industry. And the, I almost wanted to go out and just take some pictures of all
the strip centers but I think most of us go by them most of the time thinking if you can name one that gives sub-
tenants the, or I'm going to say sub -anchor tenants signage you out on the boulevard, I'd like you to name it. I
think we need to draw the line there and I think that becomes the compromise as it relates to the expanded
signage on the wall which is what we're giving the variance for. And that's why I voted no against the last
time.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. One thing that we've got to bring back into focus. We're looking at some of the
things the Planning Commission has gone through and some of the things that we discussed last time, is this is a
30
i
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
PUD. You can call the shots for what you want with it. '
Councilman Wing: This isn't a PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this not a PUD? '
Councilman Senn: No. I
Mayor Chmiel: Oh! Okay. I thought it was. No, you're right. Okay. I stand corrected. So with that.
Councilman Senn: It's a variance though and we can do the same thing. '
Mayor Chmiel: The variance is the thing that is what we can judge that from and that's almost the same kind of
rules as we're looking. But the variances are the things that we can come up with. Now ordinance requirements '
say 20 foot Kate, is that right? For the pylon.
Kate Aanenson: Right. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that's the maximum height. I still have some, a little bit of concerns in regard to
that 18, even that 18 foot height. Directly along street level. And I guess that I really shouldn't because we're
still looking at the same things we see at the hotel and over at the other center in itself. It's just a catcher to
catch the eye. Say this is where we're at and come on in. I don't know, I guess I can ride with that 18 but I'm
not too comfortable with it. I would have liked to have seen some of those other signs come down. I wasn't
too happy with the one that we did put at the hotel. As large as that is but that's something in itself. The 24
hours, I think they should have one wall, just like Michael has mentioned. As far as Byerly's is concerned
having at, I think it was brought up on the east wall.
John Meyers: That was the one we took out, the east wall. '
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon?
John Meyers: The east wall is the one that will come down.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, okay. Okay. The monument sign, all it's going to do is say Byerly's basically and have '
the other tenants contained within the balance of the building or is it just strictly Byerly's?
John Meyers: Byerly's won't be on the monument sign.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So that's going to be just as the other people within that particular building in itself.
Councilman Senn: But Don, I think that's part of the confusion because in the recommendations that came
through from the Planning Commission on 9, it keeps saying it's a monument sign for Byerly's and I think.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the thing that does, yeah. '
Councilman Senn: ...part of the confusion I think has come from all along.
i
31
i
5
a
r
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I was trying to get clarification as to what that is. I guess I leave this back to
Council. I guess I've just expressed some of the thoughts that I have seen. We're still going to have that color
blue and the PMS 286 so that's not going to change.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well let me take a stab at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would entertain a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval for the variance with the recommendations modified as follows.
On number 7, pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet. On 8, the words Open 24 Hours shall be
eliminated from the east wall. Number 9, replacement of the east, replace the east elevation with a monument
sign containing the sub - tenants blah, blah, blah and I guess that's it. Nobody wants to second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Can I try another one?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm still waiting.
Councilman Mason: Well I think, is now an appropriate time for discussion because there isn't a second?
Mayor Chmiel: Well no but you can ride on the recommendation with some of the suggestions that you have
and that the motionee has had but you would have to second that position.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm sensing that the issue here is probably the monument.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Oh really.
Councilman Wing: Is that the big one?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought it was the pylon.
Mayor Chmiel: No, pylon's the big one. Monument's the other.
Councilman Senn: Not to me. The monument's number one. I didn't have a problem with the pylon.
Councilman Wing: Kate, can you just review, they're entitled to the monument sign. There's no question about
that.
Councilman Senn: No, not true. That's not true.
Councilman Mason: Wait, Roger wants to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't want him to say it yet. No, go ahead Roger.
32
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Roger Knutson: If they weren't applying for a variance, they just came in and said we want a sign package. As
I understand it, and Kate can correct me. They could put in a 20 foot pylon. They could put in a monument
sign and they could put in a little wall small sign. Much less than they've requested. So for example if you
said no monument sign as a condition of the variance, they could say well then we don't take the variance. I'm
not suggesting you would but you could walk away from that and put it in, everything just in accordance to the
ordinance and not apply the variance. And they could have their monuments.
Councilman Mason: So the, I'm close.
Mayor Chmiel: An example. The Americana Bank. The pylon that's there, or excuse me. Don't say pylon.
The monument sign. That lists tenants that are contained in that particular building.
Councilman Mason: And that's in our ordinance that says that that's okay.
Councilman Senn: But they required no variance or.
Councilman Mason: Well I understand that. I understand that.
Councilman Senn: And they don't have a pylon.
Councilman Mason: No, I understand that Mark.
Councilman Senn: That was their pylon if I remember the discussion. I mean that sign was in effect
constituting the pylon for the building. And the trade off was the monument for the pylon, the lower. I
remember we had a long discussion about that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So for this variance, what the city is gaining is less square foot on the building in
exchange for a pylon and a monument?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Senn: No, more square footage on the building.
Councilman Wing: Maybe Nancy could clarify where they went with this. I'd like to hear from her if possible.
At some point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me get the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission to come forward and make some
clarifications.
Nancy Mancino: A couple of clarifications.
Mayor Chmiel: Nancy Mancino.
Nancy Mancino: Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd and I am also a member of the Planning Commission.
What we, when we got this—variance was the wall signage of the big Byerly's in front of the entrance. It was
predicated or the logic of it had to do with the surrounding, what else within the area, that's Target and that was
Festival Foods, because they had bigger signage. So we looked at that and said, yeah. That makes sense for a
33
s
s
k
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
bigger Byerly's and how big the entrance was and etc, proportionate to the height but we were concerned about
the pylon sign. And because there aren't any other pylon signs on West 78th Street west of Market Square. So
we said, if we're going to lose the logic and rationale that we are going to allow a bigger Byerly's sign at the
entrance—pylon coming down West 78th since there aren't any on that side of Market Square and let's keep it
the same height as Target and as the Market Square monument. And the other part of it was, we were thinking
that on West 78th Street, you know we're in the downtown. We're in our downtown. We're not on Highway 5.
We're going 35 mph. Is there any reason to have such a high pylon sign there...
Councilman Senn: Nancy, a question. I understand your premise but what is going to allow us to stop pylon
signs on any of the outlots west of Market Square because if they conform.
Nancy Mancino: The new sign ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Well, unless they come in before that.
Nancy Mancino: Or they're a PUD.
Councilman Senn: Are they?
Nancy Mancino: No but this zone.
Councilman Senn: See I mean if they meet ordinance requirements, there's no way we can stop them from
having a pylon there.
Nancy Mancino: But they also aren't asking for, I don't know if they will but that this, they may not be asking
for a bigger signage on their building or there may be a little give and take there.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't know but if they don't ask for anything, they can have it.
Nancy Mancino: And hopefully they'll do what Target did. You know Target has their pylon sign on the
highway and not on West 78th Street. So maybe there can be some good... aesthetics.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's a good idea as to what you're saying. The speed along West 78th will be at 30 mph
all the way up and down.
Nancy Mancino: You will see the big Byerly's from their entrance I'm sure, signage from Highway 5... The
other thing is that we have a downtown. We have a more concentrated downtown. You're going to know where
Byerly's is. I always thought Byerly's was kind of the subtle, if you build it, they will come.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Alright, any other? Michael. You were in the chair of questioning the
motion that has been brought to the floor.
Councilman Mason: I'll second it. For reasons that I've.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I guess I said I'd go 12 feet on the pylon and I'll go along with that. One Open 24
34
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Hours on the front. But my position was I supported the recommendations from staff and planning. Going to
12 feet. We gave them a little bit from last time in going to one 24 hours gives a bit and I won't question the
monument.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I stand by my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well it looks, it sounds to me like it's going to get voted down but the trouble is going to
be here, that there's obviously a monument issue here and there's a pylon issue so somebody somewhere is
going to have to do something somehow and I, it would seem to me that Byerly's, while as it's certainly, the
question is perhaps how nice some sort of 12 foot pylon would be but I would, I can live with that too.
Mayor Chmiel: With the 12 foot?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As could I.
Mayor Chmiel: Question for point of clarification. Would the motionee and the second accept the 12 foot pylon
sign?
Councilman Wing: Is that a friendly amendment?
Mayor Chmiel: That would be a friendly amendment.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would accept that amendment. So we've got a 12 foot pylon. We've got Open
24 Hours limited to the east wall. And we have the monument sign for the sub - tenants.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: Is there a second on that?
Councilman Mason: Ali yeah, there is a second on that. I do, well I'll wait for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Discussion.
Councilman Mason: There, now.
Councilman Senn: I didn't even get discussion on the fast one.
Councilman Mason: Well that's true. But you know Mark does, I think just so everyone knows where I'm
coming from. Where I'm getting hung up on on this is (a) that it is a variance. And (b) there's a difference
between Byerly's and their pylon and the tenants getting the monument. And I think for the most part
everything has been pretty well delineated here on this whole project but it's real hard to separate that stuff out
35
L
7
J
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
and I don't guess I don't feel like penalizing the sub - tenants. Well by telling them they can't have a monument
sign there.
Councilman Senn: But Michael, nowhere in the Planning Commission recommendation is there one. They said
put one out there to replace Byerly's signage with a Byerly's on it. Not the sub - tenants. Byerly's is foregoing
on the signage and now it's sub -tenant signage. All of a sudden that's not what's in number 9 here. Number 9
is Byerly's. Replacement for the east end for a monument.
Councilman Mason: But okay, so then.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael maybe let me, before we get into a heated discussion.
Councilman Mason: Please do.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just throw a feeler out to Byerly's and then Council can also get a little bit of input.
How about if we put an 18 foot pylon sign and then eliminate the monument sign.
John Meyers: That's something Charlie has to.
Councilman Mason: But see the monument sign doesn't have anything to do with Byerly's.
Charlie James: At the Planning Commission.
Councilman Mason: Right? They don't care about that.
Mayor Chmiel: But that goes back to Charlie for the balance of his tenants.
Charlie James: The monument sign was not an issue at the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission
there was this separate suggestion as it pertains to the east wall of Byerly's only. That they said, take that sign
off the wall and put a monument out on Kerber so they'd give us two monuments and one pylon. So the
monuments were never an issue at the Planning Commission.
Councilman Wing: On West 78th Street. On West 78th Street they weren't an issue.
John Meyers: What their recommendation was take this off and put a 10 foot monument sign at the entrance.
Charlie James: Or 12.
John Meyers: 10 to 12, at the entrance of Kerber.
Councilman Wing: And we're saying leave it and forget that monument. That's a done deal.
John Meyers: Right. But the question on the other monument sign was not brought up by the Planning
Commission. They had no objection to the monument sign that you're referring to as somewhat of a...
Councilman Mason: Oh yeah, see. So this isn't even addressing the sub -tenant monument sign.
36
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 '
Mayor Chmiel: No. '
Councilman Mason: Well I was not aware of that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm lost.
Councilman Mason: So am I. 1
Councilman Senn: Well it is. It's just not addressed here. What there is is, if you take the staff
recommendations and the Planning Commission's recommendations, okay. They've limited the size of the '
pylon. They've eliminated 24 Hours. They've replaced the east wall elevation of Byerly's with a Byerly's
monument, okay. Beyond that, what they've done is they've passed the sign package. The sign package
included okay, a monument sign down at the corner for the tenants. Okay, that's not called out in these
recommendations because it was already inherent in what they passed. Okay. And Byerly's is now saying that I
they don't care about having that monument.
Councilman Wing: On the east. I
Councilman Senn: On the east, well no. What I'm saying is, they don't care about the monument trade off for
the east side signage. So they're saying, just eliminate it.
Councilman Wing: Yeah. 1
Councilman Senn: Okay? That's right. So I mean that's where that issue sits. '
Councilman Wing: Right, the east side.
Councilman Senn: Right. The east side. '
Councilman Wing: Your whole discussion is on West 78th Street. Always has been.
Councilman Senn: Yes. On West 78th Street on the west side with any additional signs basically on West 78th '
Street other than the pylon which is normal for the shopping center. Again, I mean every small tenant in this
place is going to say we're by Byerly's. I mean that's the identifying characteristic in any strip center. It's not '
going to be, come down to the point that you see our sign on the corner of blab blah and blab blah. And stuff.
That's just clutter. It's unnecessary signage and again I just, here's the new standard that's going to set for
signage in town. Because everybody else is going to want the same thing.
Councilman Wing: Okay so you, first of all, where are you at on the pylon height?
Councilman Senn: Dick, 12 or 18, I don't care. I mean if it takes 12 and I can get rid of the monument, I'm '
happy. I don't care whether it's 12 or 18.
Councilman Wing: And you would like to delete the monument across from Target?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
37
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: The monument that has the sub - tenants on it.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
' Councilman Wing: Kate, where do you stand on that? Where do we stand on that?
Kate Aanenson: Again, I would ask you what they're allowed. With each they're allowed a monument sign for
the center. A full sign. A pylon sign and wall signs for each individual tenant. Byerly's was one of the
tenants. Okay ... Planning Commission meeting they added an additional monument sign by saying take the wall
sign and the 24 Hours...
' Councilman Wing: So what right do we have to remove the monument? I guess I can't.
' Kate Aanenson: It's a variance.
Councilman Wing: It's a variance.
' Councilman Senn: Yeah, so we can put any conditions to the variance we want. I'd rather have a classy pylon
out on West 78th that identifies the center and draw the line there and say you rely on the building signage
which is normal for the center beyond that.
t Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I take another stab at it then?
Councilman Wing: Go Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, 7. 18 feet.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. This is a corrected motion to the first. First of all you're willing to drop it. Michael is
also willing to drop that as a second? With a new motion coming up.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, alright.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, 7. 18 feet. Number 8. Open 24 Hours eliminated from the east wall.
Number 9.
Councilman Wing: And limit to one.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Limit to one. Number 9 stands as it is and we're adding a number 12 to take
' out the monument which lists the sub - tenants.
Councilman Mason: No. Because they don't care about that monument. Byerly's doesn't, you don't want that
monument, right?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
John Meyers: We removed the signage on the side of the building.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all we need to do.
Councilman Wing: Number 9 is deleted.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, delete 9.
Councilman Wing: And add 12 saying delete 9.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'll second that. I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Add 12 saying what?
Councilman Wing: 12 says delete the monument.
Mayor Chmiel: 12 says delete the monument sign.
Councilman Mason: Which monument sign?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The sub - tenant.
Mayor Chmiel: Well wait a minute. You made that as your motion and it's just not as a, okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Should I try it again?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We've got it down.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Do you want to restate it Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet. The words, Open 24 Hours shall be
eliminated from the east wall. And limiting one 24 Hour sign. Eliminate item number 9. 10 remains. 11
remains and item 12 says delete monument sign on 78th Street.
Kate Aanenson: Can we get a clarification on, well yeah. 7 and 9 and actually 8. Open 24 Hours is going to
be eliminated from the east side. It's my understanding there's still a Byerly's wall sign on the east side.
John Meyers: It says Byerly's Fine Foods.
Kate Aanenson: Just the 24 hours is being taken out.
John Meyers: From the east side.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
39
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's one addition Open 24 Hours on the front.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Just one. Understood. Charlie.
' Charlie James: Yeah I guess you know when I think maybe some of you thought I was wasting your time last
time when I came up with this spread sheet on my computer about all the Planning Commission members and
how some of them liked this sign and didn't like this sign and I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: The buck stops here though.
' Charlie James: I appreciate that. Thank God it stops somewhere. I guess just to kind of revisit the gestalt of
this thing. We're coming in here and saying, as to the Byerly's portion of the project we want a variance on the
wall sign area. Not percentage of coverage. But the size of any individual sign. You can either say that's an
' error in your ordinance or the ordinance simply didn't contemplate big boxes and I tried to show some math last
time that showed that if you worked the math backwards, you'd figure out that the ordinance contemplated the
shop with an average width of 30 some feet and an average height of 36 feet. We came in, the ordinance clearly
allows a monument and a pylon. There's no argument about that. That's allowed. We came in and we drew
those things initially to the letter of the law. As a matter of fact at one time there was some confusion because I
was caught between what the new ordinance was and it was 8 x 10 at one point. Then they told us, no you've
got to redraw it back to 10 x 8. So then we've come back. We've tried to remove some signage from the
' building and reduce the height of the pylon. I guess what my concern is, I guess again I'm unfortunately in the
position of having to take issue with Councilman Senn. I can think of a lot of shopping centers around town
where we have this type of condition and I guess I'm concerned with that intersection, we're at elevation 954
' and the finish floor elevation of the retail space, Byerly's is at 982 and let's see...979 so that's 25 feet and I
guess my concern was that as the people are there, they wouldn't even know who's up on the hill. The trees are
going to be up 20 to 30 feet high along the boulevard blocking their view.
' Councilman Senn: Charlie, we didn't pick the site though you know, so I mean.
John Meyers: This is a real condition. I'm going to help Charlie... that's a real condition. These are real
' elevations. When you're parked at that intersection and the point is you see these 24 and 36 inch letters on these
signs, they're going to be 450 to 500 feet away and they're going to be 20 feet above you ... part of the center is
past trees now so. I don't know if that helps you out.
' Charlie James: It helps them but it hurts the little guy and so I always thing the little guys need all the help they
can get. I don't know what the answer is.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well a motion is on the floor.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's been first and it's been seconded.
I Councilman Mason: Who seconded it? You seconded it?
Councilman Senn: I seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's open for discussion right now.
�,
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: Fellow members. Council men and women. Mr. Mayor. I've been active in Chanhassen
for 14 years and we've dealt with some really major, crucial issues. Tonight I think we approved fast food into
the middle of our city without any work sessions. Without any thought. Without any planning.
Councilman Mason: Oh, that's not true Richard.
Councilman Wing: ..for 4 years I have brought up, I think we ought to decide where we're going with this and
we ought to deal with some of these architectural standards and we ought be doing some ... so I think we
approved a project that's okay but I had a lot of concerns. Major, major issues and we kind breezed through it
tonight I thought. I'm not unsatisfied. I'm not saying we made the wrong decision but it's not as good a quality
of a project as we could have had. And I think it was a little premature. But I'm only leading up to the fact
that I think Charlie James is going to come in and do a pretty first class job. The pylons and monuments, I think
he's going to do a first class job and if I'm going to sit here for 2 nights in a row and tie up this Council and
the city over 4 feet of sign on a monument, I'd rather be home with my family. Frankly I don't care. I just
want to get out of here. Either we go along with these recommendations or I think we've got to trust Charlie to
put in a quality project here and maybe that, we keep going back and forth. Mike, you're vacillating. You're
vacillating. We're all going should it be 20 feet or 12? Well, and should that monument be there. Well, then
they bring up the fact of the elevations and you really can't see what's up there and it's partly true and we are
asking for a lot of landscaping and if this is landscaped properly and a quality Charlie James monument, I don't
think I'm going to be bothered by it. I don't think the one at the bank is bad. I would have rather had a
monument at the bank than stuff plastered all over the building.
Councilman Senn: It was a pylon that was proposed.
Councilman Wing: So this is getting to be a little embarrassing.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't think it's getting embarrassing because I think we're giving Byerly's a whole
lot with this. Right or wrong, and we're telling all the other sub - tenants tough rocks. You know Mark raises a
good point. Every time one of those tenants gets called, they're going to say we're next to Byerly's and oh
yeah. Sure. Fine. But I don't know why we can be, some of us can be so glib and say we haven't given this
thought and we're okay with what Byerly's wants to do but by God, we're not going to give those tenants an
inch by a foot sign.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I want to withdraw my second. And then if that fails, I will move on a motion here.
Councilman Senn: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Wing: To withdraw?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. No.
Councilman Mason: No, you withdrew your second.
41
J
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel: You withdrew your second and he replaced your second with that.
Councilman Wing: You made the motion right?
' Mayor Chmiel: Colleen did. And you're sitting on right now with the pylon 18 feet. Strike item 9. Leave 10
in. And we have the verbiage contained within 8 with what we've mentioned previously. You have item 10 and
' 11 and 12 was to delete the monument sign. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Well we'll wind up nowhere.
t Mayor Chmiel: Basically the monument sign in height and location to where that's going to be and I don't
disagree with some of the things that Mark has said. But how many times are people going to indicate to
whoever has called, where are you located. We're on 78th Street. Will they say, we're located within the
' Byerly's complex? I drive by and I look for things, I look for a monument sign. If I don't see a monument
sign I go in the building and look to see where they're located.
' Councilman Wing: Do you support the monument? I'll go along with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, there's a motion on the floor.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, then let me question myself. I think Charlie brings up a good point in
helping the little retailer.
Ll
t
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it is. It's the small retailers that, or whoever's within that complex that you're taking
it away from. Or at least let them know that they're there.
Councilman Senn: But it's not, I mean.
Mayor Chmiel: But there may be people who aren't even interested in that particular time. But as they're
driving by they may be interested and they see this on this monument sign. They may just ring that bell and say
this is where I want to go.
Councilman Senn: I will be more than happy if you want to table this to go take pictures of every shopping
center in Plymouth, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and I will bring every one of those shots of a strip center back
into you and I will guarantee you that none of them will have the sub - tenant signed out on a monument or pylon
sign on the boulevard. I will bring every one of them in and you can make your own decision. I don't take this
issue lightly. This is a whole new level of signage in the industry. And I just, it's just not there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Not in Chan.
Councilman Senn: Not in Chanhassen, yeah. Not in Chanhassen, that's right. So does that mean we keep
talking about this new sign ordinance that's only been here a couple of months.
Mayor Chmiel: The monument sign won't be on the boulevard in itself. It will be on their own private property.
Councilman Senn: Well yeah. Semantics. I mean boulevard meaning out on the street. Street identifiers.
Street identification.
42
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: You know if Richard, you know I don't want to back off on Richard's issue. I mean if
Richard feels strongly about the 18 feet, then I think that's something we should also be addressing. I mean
there's a lot of world between 12 and 18 or whatever. I heard the rest of the Council say they didn't care that
much about the 18 one way or another. If that's a real concern, I think we should address that. Again, Byerly's
has no pylon sign at it's Minnetonka location or at it's, what is it Edina location or whatever. I mean this, none
whatsoever. Again, it's a nice thing to have but none of these things are essential. I don't think it's killed their
business in Minnetonka for example. The fact that they don't have a pylon sign.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd suggest we're sitting on a fence and I was.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to call a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, call a question. For the ones I have indicated previously.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the variance to the sign
ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south
elevation of Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the
east elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 2% square feet), approval of the signage on the west elevation of
the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval
is subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,
size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from the east elevation.
9. Deleted.
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal
of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
43
I
I�
11
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' 12. Delete the monument located on West 78th Street.
Councilman Senn voted in favor and the rest of the City Council voted against. The motion failed with a
' vote of 1 to 4.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can vote against my own motion can't I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. You certainly can. Okay, I would entertain another motion.
Councilman Wing: Okay I'll do it.
' Councilman Mason: How about if we split the difference between 18 and 10?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought we took care of that.
Councilman Mason: Or did we? Okay. Alright. Alright, let's leave it.
' Councilman Wing: At what? At what Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well I've stated before that I'm okay with 18 but I'm not.
Councilman Wing: Okay, the 18 stays. 24 hours is eliminated from the east and limited to one. 9 is deleted.
10 remains. 11 remains. 12 is deleted.
Mayor Chmiel: But you're still going to have to have the monument sign as to what they're still looking for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're eliminating number 9 altogether.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, in the entirety.
Councilman Mason: We don't even have to say anything about that other monument sign, right Kate? Isn't that
correct?
Councilman Wing: This was the east one.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah. Right.
' Councilman Mason: I second it.
Mayor Chmiel: We're playing too much here.
Councilman Mason: Yep. I second Richard's motion.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded Any other discussion?
.i
J
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the variance to the sign ordinance for
the West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of
Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west elevation of the
retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,
size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 18 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from the east elevation.
9. Deleted.
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal
of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO BRING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT, FIRST READING.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody has read it.
Councilman Mason: Second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, one second. Bringing into conformity from the 150 to 75 raises an interesting issue
with a project that we've already got turned down but if you all want to approve it, go right ahead but it
45
I
L
F�
rJ
i City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' basically allows placement of a septic system almost at water level on Lake Minnewashta. And I'm sorry, I
can't vote for that or support it. If we would like to conform to the State guidelines, I would be happy to do
that so long as we would stick in an elevation requirement that would require something like a 20 foot or a 30
' foot separation more or less up a hill. Considerably up a hill from the lake or whatever. Being within that 75 to
150 range, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But anything down close to the lake I would. But again, you can
do whatever you want. And since you've already moved approval and seconded, that's what you've got.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion was open. You made discussion. Kate. In regard to that specific question, is
that going to have any clarification as to the height? Well that would add it ... All septic tanks adjacent to the
lakes around the city ... There is a setback, I mean there is a septic ... if you were to say, such as 20 or 25 feet
' above the ordinary high water mark or wetland...
Roger Knutson: 20 to 25 feet I think would be staggering.
Councilman Senn: Well I agree but what I'm saying is we haven't studied the issue. We haven't looked at the
issue. We haven't determined if we'll have a real problem with 3 feet, which is what the ordinance says. Or I
' mean what the State guidelines say. I thought it say like 2 to 3 feet above or something.
Kate Aanenson: That's an old...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's the same if I remember. We went through a long hearing on that in the Board
of Adjustments and that came up and that was my understanding is that all it had to be was 2 or 3 feet above the
water mark and I have a real problem with that.
Councilman Wing: I think part of the reason for the rush on this is that it sort of was the required deal. We
sort of didn't have much choice but to go.
Councilman Senn: Well no, we keep the 150 we've always had. That's not.
Roger Knutson: The rest of it there is, it's in effect whether, we have it in a state of confusion right now. The
' Wetland Conservation Act permanent rules went into effect January 1 and we're trying to come into
conformance. The septic system issue is.
Councilman Senn: We can come in conformity on all points other than our existing 150 and stay with what we
have at the 150 if we want, correct?
Roger Knutson: You can do that without being inconsistent with the Wetland Conservation Act. But...
' Mayor Chmiel: But as Roger has pointed out that the recommendation is to approve the ordinance amendment
so that we don't give a judge a chance to decide it isn't, as he's indicated.
' Councilman Senn: So give him the chance. I mean what's wrong with 150? We've been functioning with it
for years. Nobody's tested it yet.
' Councilman Wing: We've had years to make a decision on that lot. To do something about that lot. Correct
that lot. Take that lot. To park that lot. And we did nothing.
46
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
Councilman Senn: Neither is the Arboretum. ,
Councilman Mason: That's right.
Councilman Wing: ...comes in it's been big bucks.
Councilman Senn: But Dick that doesn't change my mind on putting a septic system right down on a lake. '
Councilman Wing: I don't disagree with that. However, it's got to meet today's standards and they are fairly
rigid. ,
Councilman Senn: No they aren't. You can put 2 feet of dirt on top of that lot and you can put a septic system
on top of that 2 feet of dirt.
Councilman Wing: One of the only areas we've got on Lake Minnewashta, I look at St. Louis Park where '
they're having to come in and route out their sewer, each home are having to come through and route their
sewers every single year because of busted down pipes with roots coming through them and I'm wondering '
where is all that stuff going. So this one almost doesn't bother me in the big picture of what's happening.
Councilman Senn: Look at the grades on our lakes already. I mean I don't know how you can say it's going to
better the grade of the lakes by... '
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call a question and rely on Council's divine
guidance to give us the best move on this and if we find that sometime it's not the best, we have that ability to '
at least change it again.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the
Amendment to City Code to bring the Wetland Ordinance into compliance with the Wetland Conservation '
Act. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FEES. ,
Kate Aanenson: This is pretty straight forward. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I think it is.
Kate Aanenson: Right now the city if requiring for a wetland alteration permit for single family home ... $75.00. ,
All others would be $200.00. Now with the Wetland Conservation Act, there's a lot more administrative ... and
that Conservation Act allows for an additional $75.00 fee...
Mayor Chmiel: But that's now existing lots or not dealt with at this time. This is any new lots that will be.
Kate Aanenson: Well no. If someone were to come in that would need to do a wetland alteration permit ...we '
would still...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but I was reading the first sentence and it says, Chanhassen city code requires that all lots
47
I
u
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
created after December 14, 1992.
Kate Aanenson: That's buffer monumentations. Number 7.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're on 6.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: And then this pertains, in relationship to those people who have in effect wetlands on their
property or on the official map and all that stuff?
Kate Aanenson: If you want to put up a dock or if you want to expand your home and you encroach from the
wetland setback area and you've got to get a wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Senn: So it won't be a surprise to anybody?
Kate Aanenson: No. It's really what's been in existence. We have a lot more administrative procedures now so
the $75.00 helps with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #94 -44: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Resolution to
increase Wetland Alteration Permit fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEE FOR WETLAND BUFFER MONUMENTATION.
Kate Aanenson: When we discussed the new wetland regs, what we said is that ... because we have to go out and
inspect them anyway to make sure they're ... so what we're proposing is that we collect the fee at the time when
we do all the development fees. That we figure out how many ... monumentation markers are required and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, your one sentence in here. The City will then install signage.
Kate Aanenson: It's a little sign that says, there's a little small sign that will say, buffer wetland edge.
Councilman Senn: I understand but that little sign is then on one of those nice ungodly green posts that the
sewers are marked with and stuff like that. I mean I have a real problem requiring that in people's backyards
just because there's a buffer strip. I mean that just.
Mayor Chmiel: It just blends into the grass.
a
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Kate Aanenson: I wish I had a perspective. I should have given you that.
Councilman Senn: I mean, aren't we talking the same thing?
Kate Aanenson: ...what we're trying to do is there shouldn't be any, a lot of these are going to have
vegetation... and I should have attached a copy of the specs so you could see how high...
Councilman Mason: How high is the sign?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I can't remember now. Diane put this together but if you want to table this, we can
provide....
Councilman Senn: I mean the ones I've seen marking other things they're like 4 to 5 feet in height and they are
just ugly.
Councilman Mason: I think tabling it's a good idea because I agree with Mark. We've got so many doggone
signs up all over, you little green post signs all over.
Kate Aanenson: ...so people can't take it out and mow but yet people can see it and I agree...
Councilman Mason: I'd move that we table this until we can see those specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the Wetland Buffer
Monumentation fees for further documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONING 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK
ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson: ...it's currently zoned A2. It is bordered ... The applicants are proposing a 56 single family
housing site. There are two existing wetlands on the property. One included the Bluff Creek. As you're aware
the City is working to get this segment of the road as it goes over to the school. Highway 5 is up here. This is
Timberwood. And the subdivision will tie into Stone Creek. Right now here's the extension. I would just like
to address the issue as far as how we feel it merits the PUD. There's a significant amount of varied topography
in the area as well as a creek corridor... This is concept at this point and staff certainly feels it merits the PUD
as far as preservation of the natural features. We feel at this point this proposal that you're looking at tonight
falls short of mark. If you look at the conditions, we do have a lengthy conditions... The Planning Commission
had recommended... conceptual approval be given at this time for the reasons outlined in the report. Given the
number of lots that are under 15,000 square feet. The treatment of Bluff Creek. The grades... preserve the
topography. Provide a transition for Timberwood to Heritage to the south. There is a utility line, a power line
that runs along the back of these lots and you can see that some of, these are quite a bit smaller lots, especially
when you look against adjacent to Timberwood. There's a significant change in the lots and the number of
49
I
r
J
n
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
homes that... Minimizing the tree loss. And then the tying of the extension road. The east/west tying into that.
Right now it appears that this road needs to be carried all the way over to McGlynn's. Otherwise we need to get
the extension down from this street. Otherwise they're dependent upon the extension of the Fourth Phase of
Stone Creek in order to get access to this. One of the big issues that the staff brought out. As you're aware, the
city is pursuing the LCMR grant with Bluff Creek study and we do have an ad hoc committee with that.
Unfortunately even if we do get funding for that, it's a year away. What we had recommended throughout this
report is that we put together a design chareue with Bill Morrish. I had contacted him and he said he was too
busy to do that but recommended Lance Neckar from the Landscape School. Lance did send me back a proposal
for doing a design charette and looking at the issues of Bluff Creek. We not only have this project going
forward but we also have the project...which is north of Highway 5 which the creek also goes through. That
property we talked about as far as where the frontage road should be crossing the creek or whether it should stay
to the south. We do have a lot of issues and we feel like this is kind of getting ahead of what we're doing
which is kind of the same situation when Opus came forward on the Highway 5 corridor. We don't have the
standards in place and that was the whole intent of securing the LCMR grant is to come up with some designs.
We know we want to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and we want some elevations but we're not sure as far as
where we should provide the recreational opportunities and the revegetation and basically enhance... itself. So
what we have recommended in this report is that we ... come back, if conceptual approval is given for this, to
come back with final approval, that we allow a design charette to happen. Lance Neckar did tell me that Bill
Morrish has freed up some time and feels really committed to this project and they're looking at the end of May
for doing the design charette. It will be coming back ... to approve funding for that charette but I think that's ... and
what we recommended in this report is before it would come back again, that they incorporate some of those
issues. And what we're talking about as far as the corridor, is just flushing out some major issues... starting at
TH 41. Going all the way down at least to Lyman Boulevard because that's where all the pending development
is happening. And what we don't want to do is allow subdivisions to go in and then find out we haven't
provided the proper setbacks and... But we do feel this merits a PUD. As outlined, as I read through the
Planning Commission and there are some concerns as far as the amount of grading. The lot sizes. And the
applicants are aware that there may be a lot of change between this plan and the preliminary plan. The Planning
Commission, when they recommended denial. We have this problem every time we do the concept PUD. It's
not ready for concept. If you go back and look at the ordinance, what is required for conceptual. It really is just
a general statement and we've always felt like it's really just their marching orders before they come back and
we did the same thing with Opus. We asked them not to come back until we got the Highway 5 in place...So
what the applicant is looking for is some direction. Just to point out the salient issues and this is what we need
to go back and address. Now obviously we did go ... recommended denial but what we've given in the conditions
of approval is substantial direction and as I said, marching orders that they need to ... So staff is comfortable
although the Planning Commission recommended denial, we had conceptual approval with the conditions in the
staff report, and there's quite a few of them.
John Dietrich: I'm John Dietrich from RLK Associates... John Dobbs from Heritage Development regrettably had
a conflict tonight...I appreciate the comments that we received from staff with regard to the conditions of
approval. We realize this is a concept plan and there is additional work that needs to be done on this site ... We
have also tried to work closely with the engineering department... that's also one reason that we also went
forward with the concept plan is that we can start to look at that alignment and be able to start ... that sight
accordingly. We realize there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and we'll start working on
them. We are currently getting surveys. Wetlands delineated and those items being picked up so that we'll be
able to have a much better handle on the overall development of the site. We do realize there will be a
combination of lots, both over the 15,000 and under the 15,000. The plan as it sits today has an average lot size
of approximately 20,000 square feet, not counting the wetlands that are on the site. So it's, in order to preserve
50
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
some of the topography. The trees along the southern part of the second wetland. The two wetlands that are
identified on the site. It's going to take a challenging plan and it's going to take some flexibility from the city
and that's why we were requesting the PUD. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the Bluff Creek issue stands alone. The only comment I had, I think which came
first, the chicken or the egg and was Timberwood there first or second and although I don't have any great needs
to defend Timberwood, we have tended to protect them and they've kind of been a group that came in and
established a neighborhood that they wanted and we did separate them from Stone Creek. We didn't tie those
together for a reason and I wouldn't even entertain the thought of them taking the Timberwood residents and
tying them to 5 homes in their backyards so I think this western border or the eastern border of Timberwood
with 16 homes is totally incompatible with the existing land use and I wouldn't even want to address that. I'm
not even interested in looking at it. I don't think that's fair to them. I don't think it ties the areas together and
that would have to be the large lots there and small lots someplace else if there's going to be any. I'm not
interested in seeing this area because that's. These lot sizes Kate, they're not just the buildable numbers right
now? These large lots still include wetlands and may not be buildable, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: You mean some of these lots?
Councilman Wing: No, the average lot size is 20. Did you mention that still includes non buildable areas
possibly?
John Dietrich: That has deducted out the wetland areas.
Councilman Wing: Deducted out, okay.
Councilman Senn: All the lots were meeting the ordinance requirements.
Kate Aanenson: Well the PUD, the smallest lot size you can go up to is 11,000.
John Dietrich: And the smallest lot size I think was 12,500 and then 13,500.
Councilman Wing: My only comment was the 16 lots bordering Timberwood and putting 5 homes in someone's
backyard. They kind of didn't move there for that reason. Or moved there to avoid that. Is that what I wanted
to say?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes. That's what I want to say. Since it's two homes away from mine.
Councilman Senn: So what's somebody supposed to do?
Mayor Chmiel: He's just making general comments.
Councilman Wing: I don't think we need that density abating those houses.
Mayor Chmiel: In and adjacent. Even though it's a PUD. I didn't like the size of those lots that bother there
either but Colleen.
51
J
I
t
t
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are two things I like about this proposal. One is that it's coming in as
PUD. I think that's certainly appropriate. And the other thing is the builder. I think they, I mean the developer.
You've shown great willingness to work with the city. I just think this is premature at this time. There are too
' many outstanding items and I think staff has really outlined what needs to be worked on. So I'm not prepared to
give concept approval tonight. Go back. Work on some of the issues and then come back and we'll take a look
at it. You know going in residential, I think that's the appropriate use for this piece of land. But it just, there
' are too many things left out right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
t Councilman Mason: Well, I'll admit when I fast read through this I thought huh, you've got to be kidding.
Well just because I think clearly and I think everyone's admitting that there are some things that need to be
worked out. The reason I would vote approval tonight is just because of the, what Kate had just said about a
' concept plan and the underlying portion here where it says, approval of the concept statement shall not obligate
the city to approve the final plat or any part thereof or to rezone the property to planned unit development
district. And I think with this rather lengthy list of recommendations and I would concur with what Richard said
about the homes abutting, regardless of what property they're abutting, I don't, that size I don't think is
' compatible to the size of the Timberwood homes. I'm sure the developer understands. There's quite a bit of
work that needs to get done before they would come back to us again. So I can go along with it with those
conditions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
C
Councilman Senn: I mean as far as preliminary concept goes, once you superimpose and inject staff's points and
comments, I think it's an early stage and there's a lot to be done ... but I think if you incorporate and work out the
things that staff wants to work out, I think it brings it pretty much in par with what we're looking for normally.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too feel that it's a little premature to even give the conceptual because I want to see a
little bit more and I'd like to see staff work back with the developer to come back with something other than
what's basically shown. And I think it's a good proposal, having residential in and adjacent to what's there and
would serve the area rather well. But the sizes, I still have some real concern with, even though it's PUD. So
with that, would someone like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the concept approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say.
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Did you want to say something?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it seems to me that if you think it needs more work past the concept approval,
why don't we table it and let them go through the work. I mean I don't know why we're denying it. It seems
to be inconsistent with what we would normally do. Usually we table it and let them go to work on it some
more.
52
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That would be up to the motionee and with the second to make that change to either table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That does make more sense because we're not saying we don't like the concept in
general. Yeah, I would withdraw my motion and make a new one to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also?
Councilman Wing: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll entertain the motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I already made it to table, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table concept approval for a Planned
Unit Development for Heritage Development for further work. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED
GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
Kate Aanenson: I did hand out a couple additional letters that staff had received...concern about this item. This
directive came from the Planning Commission who was concerned about being able to really get a grasp of the
scale and scope of the projects. And the City Council's discussed that also. It also came out of the fact that we
saw the photo imaging for the bridge for the ISTEA project. It helped to visualize the scope and the scale of
that project. So the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. So what we've
done is prepared an amendment that would, our subdivision requirements for application and site plan review to
add language that would say, computer image enhancements. If you look at the definition that we put in there,
there was a discussion about whether or not the...would be sufficient or enhanced photos like you say tonight
with Byerly's. And I think that's probably sufficient for a lot of projects. But there are projects when computer
imaging is more appropriate so there is, under subdivision and site plan application there is a requirement that
says other information as deemed necessary by the staff. Well lot's of times, that's where we do ask for just
renderings and that may be sufficient but we did want language specifically that talked about the generated photo
composite imaging and ... So we amended the code in two places. The subdivision regulations where we're
looking at large subdivisions and again this may be a multi - family project along Highway 5 where we're trying
to capture the visual and what the impacts would be of the roof lines, the ... of the buildings ... So it does make
sense in subdivisions. And it may not in all subdivisions. I think when we put it in there saying they may be. I
think that's a concern a lot of people have ... and then also when a site plan, it may be a simple site plan and it be
required but ... it may be a small one that has significant impact...The other issue that came up is the cost. People
had a concern about that. In looking at the Planning Commission Minutes, Bob did discuss that and he called
and found out, he felt the standard right now was about $3,000.00 ... it was our understanding that that would be
the high end and that the cost, depending on once you put the original information in, then duplications are
alterations from that...Of course this is a new technology that's rapidly catching on and it's our understanding
that the cost of this, there's more people doing it...So with that, we'd recommend approval of the two ordinance
53
iJ
1
[I
� I
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
amendments. And again, the perspective that we're taking is that it would be something that we wouldn't
necessarily be ask every project but it's there if we feel like it's the scope or the scale of project...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. If anyone would like to come up and provide their comments. I would like
to limit those to about 3 minutes if we could. The hours are getting late but we can still at least address some of
these issues that are brought up this evening. If you would just state your name and your address, I would
appreciate it.
Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Herbst at 7640 Crimson Bay in
Chanhassen. Basically I'm here as an advocate for lowering the cost of housing and it is going to do nothing
but I think drive up costs. I think it's just one more additional item that's adding to the cost of subdivisions.
Adding to the cost of housing that I think we're going to regret in the future. I believe the burden, if they have
to convince the neighborhood or if they have to convince the staff or the Council, should be up to the applicant
and not at the discretion of the city to put this additional burden on the subdivision. We did a very extensive
video presentation of a condominium project on the Minnesota Valley Golf Course. It showed the sun rising and
the sun setting and the trees growing and we impressed the staff but we really confused all the neighbors and
new technology like this basically ends up just being costly and I think very ineffective. And it's not a
requirement of any city that I'm aware of right now that I'm subdividing in and again, I think it's good, it's
going to put Chanhassen just out of the competition long term I think if cities around us are not requiring this.
It will be one expensive thing so I urge you to not adopt this ordinance and let that be an option of the
developer. Put the burden on him. If he feels he has to convince the neighborhood. The burden is the
responsibility is on us. If we want to rezone this land, to convince the neighbors to diminish the political
pressure that can be put on you. I think that should be our obligation and not forced on a future consumer or
anyone trying to buying a house here in Chanhassen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Kate, didn't you say this isn't intended to impact residential and housing developments?
Primarily look at the commercial...
Kate Aanenson: Right, but we did put it in the subdivision regs. There may be specific instances like I
mentioned on Highway 5 or.
Councilman Wing: It could be required but if it's not in...
Audience: We can't hear Kate at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, maybe if you'd bring the mic a little closer to you.
Kate Aanenson: What I'm saying is that we did put the subdivision regulations because we feel like there may
be some places where it's appropriate. As I mentioned, Highway 5. We've got some multi - family projects
going up and to visualize the brace of the buildings and there was concern that we had rows and rows of
buildings with no breaks. And there may be areas where in residential, in a subdivision that's appropriate. It
might have been helpful on the...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
54
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mark Anderson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Mark Anderson. I'm at 420 Merrimac Lane
in Plymouth. I'm here representing Lundgren Bros Construction which has a number of projects in Chanhassen
and hopes to continue to do so. I have a letter here I would like to also ... and the letter basically, they're in
opposition to code change. One of the big reasons is cost associated with that. Although Lundgren is primarily
a residential home builder, when you give staff discretion, they might... Secondly, this is going to add some
additional time to the submittal process. Right now the subdivision process is pretty lengthy. When you start
putting in buildings in the process, most of the buildings, and I do come from a commercial/industrial
background as well, are theoretical at this point when you come in with a subdivision. You don't know exactly
how a building's going to be. They're all customized specifically for the customer. We've talked to our
engineers about it in terms of how you would do this kind of work...topography information of adjacent
properties as well as your own and that you have to buy this topographic information. It's expensive. But also
we've been told that topographic information available over at the city is not real accurate so quality that you're
going to get may not be real good. Basically we'd ask that the item be tabled. I personally think that's bit of
an overkill and in my 20 years of developing experience, I think if I was to drive down through subdivisions,
one that has been designed with the existing guideline and one that would be designed by the computer aided
graphics, I don't think I could tell the difference between the two subdivisions. So I'd like to leave this letter
with you so you have it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, okay. Anyone else?
Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson with James Development, 7808 ... Circle, Bloomington and I'm also
been involved in one project in Chanhassen... and it is my understanding from the staff memo, and the proposed
amendment to the ordinance, it really is very unfair that this is required. That it's not up to staff's discretion at
all. In the recommendations that the staff recommends, in reading it be approved ... for subdivisions and site
plans. In talking with members of the Planning Commission, they were very clear that it was only staff
discretion. That it was not going to be required for each project. So we certainly want that answered but
beyond that, we really feel that again it's, we've been able for years to provide sketches and renderings and
different elevations of homes that are going to built and townhouse projects that are going to be built that have
served us well and this seems to me to be much more of a commercial application than it does a residential
application. As it was said, so many of the houses are customized so you don't know whether it's going to be a
rambler or a two story or...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
Molly Bomgard: M. My name is Molly Bomgard, a representative of the Builders Association of Minnesota.
We are a non-profit ... with 3,000 members. We are strongly against this ordinance. As stated earlier, it does not
say ... for any ordinance anywhere that this is not going to be for small, can be applied to small residential
developments and that really concerns us, especially with affordable housing costs. I did meet with the people
that provide this service. They said in an average ... cost anywhere between $2,000.00 and $6,000.00 to put on
something like this. We find that cost extremely high. We would request that it, some clarification...with staff.
We do work with cities in adopting new ordinances...
Kate Aanenson: Could I just make a clarification. If you look on the subdivision regulations it says that unless
waived by the city because of limited size and ... so we've always used that. There's some things that we don't
ask for that aren't appropriate... As far as the cost goes, $2,000.00 to $6,000.00 for a whole subdivisions, spread
over those lots, we felt that that's pretty small as far as the impact...
55
I
l�
n
I City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
I Councilman Senn: Who are you suggesting makes the determination?
' Kate Aanenson: Well basically we've gotten that direction from the Planning Commission and from the City
Council. If they think there isn't enough information. Same with the landscaping plan. If you tell us there isn't
enough information on that. Or like Mr. James' sign ordinance. If you tell us he doesn't have enough. Basically
' we've relied on your information... not there. I think this is going to be kind of a process where as projects come
in, we'll know which ones ... but we're relying on the Planning Commission and the City Council to tell us which
ones they want to see.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor, Council people. We are more concerned
' about this ordinance in that we have attempted periodically to provide this type of service. After I read the
ordinance I went to BRW, I went to Amcon, I went to Kevin and a few other people and said, do you have this
service available and they said no. So a major concern is, who does this? We have in the past tried to load the
' topographical information, like over here at the Oaks, into the computer and those costs were, because
topographical information is not available except you've got to stand someplace, we're in the neighborhood of
about $15,000.00 for the Oaks. One of the recommendations is that the city spend the money to electronically
prepare the topographic information that's necessary and then we could use it. It could be very easy to use it if
' the topographical information was available, according to Amcon. We've talked to them about that. The
problem is not just our site, it's the whole city or wherever you want to look from, you've got to be in and I'm
not pro or against this because we've tried to use this stuff. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes it doesn't...
' I don't think, as far as I know, there's only one, maybe two vendors in the whole community at the present time.
Kate, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: There's yeah, a select few.
Brad Johnson: And I just don't, I mean we've used it and I think sometimes it is a concern. It's certainly a lot
less expensive than a model. Okay. Because models really cost a lot of money in our history, but I don't know
who and what and where this is going to come from and I'd just be interested in knowing from, we talked to the
Minnesota Association of Architects and they just couldn't believe you guys were thinking about that. Mary
Jones, who you know is the past President and he just shook his head because they're just not ready. So that's
my concern. I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea. I just don't know where the vendors would be. I
know we'd have to change our whole staff of people that we use for the work that we do. I mean that's the idea
but the point being is I don't think it's ready. That's an added cost along with these guys. I didn't even think
' you were thinking about subdivisions but that's another question. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council. I had a lot of questions on this and
I had some discussions with Richard on it and asked him if he would check around to see what it is and who
were available and what these costs might be and I'll turn this over to you Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I'm tired of making mistakes and it started back 4 years ago with the Rapid Oil
' Change. Best landscape ... we all heard this and I can go on down the line with projects that we're dissatisfied
with and we've approved everything, in my four years, basically off a $200.00 blueprint, or a set of $200.00
blueprints. And I think we've made enough mistakes so I guess my feelings are, and these are quotes from
today and of all the dumb things. I had pages of quotes from these films I called and it's one thing I left at
56
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
home and I've tried to paraphrase what I could remember here so I'm not going to quote directly other than this
is as accurate as I remember. They sort of said, they had a lot of praise, one firm had praise for Chanhassen. It
really is trying to improve it's image and it's quality and elevate it's city and their comment was, this ordinance
says to people coming in, be prepared. If you're coming into Chanhassen, this is the cost of doing business and
this ordinance was presented, one party commented they thought it was on the cutting edge. They did comment
that the software is not in it's, not in a high level of tech right not but that it's rapidly getting to the point where
most of the firms that are going to have the software available are going to be incorporating it. The larger firms
are looking at it. That the costs are falling like a rock. Right now if you're looking between $1,500.00 and
$3,000.00 to put these slides in or computer imaging or build models, whatever. That this stuff's really going to
be falling rapidly. So over the next 2 years, two of the companies said the cost of this is going to fall
dramatically because it's going to be a very common process. They brought up comments about design fees. If
you have a million dollar project with a 5% design fee, $2,000.00 - $3,000.00 can be a hill of beans. I mean you
should anticipate that anyway. Maybe you don't want to spend it but that's kind of a cost of doing business.
They didn't think the dollars that we're going to impose here on a random basis, as needed, and that was my
intent certainly. To be a real issue. $200.00 for blueprint, $1,500.00 for color renderings, $800.00 for slides
with artist renditions on it. Costs going down. One person said $800.00 a slides times 4 slides, 4 elevations.
You've got $3,200.00. For a million dollar project, that's not that much. Look at what happened with Market
Square tonight. We started out with one blueprint. One picture. 8 x 11 picture and we said what the devil is
this? What is this a joke? And they came back with signs and pictures and I don't think we should have had
to beg that. I think it should have happened. It should have been part of the proposal to begin with. Now I
want to clarify that this doesn't happen in the beginning. The conceptual stage or even the preliminary. It
happens when we finally come down to brass tacks with what's going out to bid. What is actually going to
happen. At that point, when we make the final decision, we should be making it off of some information that
shows us elevations and directional views and how it fits on and it may be a model. It may be computer
imaging. It may be video imaging. It may just be artist renderings. All these work but artist renderings are
every bit as expensive as anything else we're doing here. When you start getting into multi colored detailed
artist renderings, they're not cheap either. And I don't think this is aimed at residential or necessarily the
housing group. It's primarily I was thinking our downtown. Large multi, large million dollar projects. The
Byerly's. The apartment buildings ... I agree with Kate, it could happen on a subdivision. Without a doubt. I
think there could be landforms we want to protect. I could tell you one right now that I think we should have
protected our landforms and I think this would have helped us so, I feel we have not had the information to
make these decisions. We are not experts reading blueprints. I don't think staff has even done well with it so.
One company complimented our attempt to upgrade our city. They felt this was a reasonable request. They said
they expect a request. They expect this type of quality if they're coming in with a million dollar project. They
would do it otherwise. So contrary to what these other people have said, I heard nobody state that we were out
of line. We were on the cutting edge. We're maybe a little bit ahead of the technology but we're... either.
We're not going to impose hardships. But I think this ordinance says, come into Chanhassen, be prepared If
you're coming to Chanhassen, there might be a cost of doing business here but the day of the $200.00 blueprint
for me is out. I'm not going to address any more issues on an 8 x 11 page or ... the housing group. I don't think
this was intended to be directed at you. I think there's some things we want to look at so I think that approving
this tonight, there will be some conditions for the next reading that should definitely be addressed. Or maybe
perhaps tabling this tonight and brought back with some of these things reviewed and I think we can be specific.
And those that are here, I think the subdivision is an issue Kate. For residential versus commercial. Small
businessman versus the major projects such as Byerly's. I don't see that this is needed for a small businessman
coming in necessarily. As long as Rapid Oil Change isn't considered a small businessman. I'm sure Council
and the Mayor may have maybe some other issues that need to be addressed here but boy, I strongly support.
This is a drastic need in the city if we're going to do anything to elevate our city and it's future. Thank you.
57
0
u
1 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' Don Ashworth: If I could add a little bit. I did some research there as well. I think there's really like three
different types that are out there. I mean you can do computer modeling where they just take a picture of the
' site and then superimpose again and digitize whatever it is you're going to put in there. And superimpose the
two. You can actually get that for $500.00 to $1,000.00. The problem with that is, things aren't necessarily
scaled correctly. So I mean if you really want to do it, you have to move up to the computer modeling type.
Okay. In that instance then they literally insure that they've got a third dimension in there and that's where you
' get into the $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. But you have to realize that with those type of, what that tool is very good
for is like the pedestrian bridge because the contours pretty well stayed the way they were. They could take a
picture of what you saw up there. Digitize that. Digitize the bridge itself and then superimpose it on that... So
this type of technology works very well with a bridge and entry monument. It would have worked well for the
Wendy's. The commercial here. In fact you would have seen then behind those buildings, what you would have
seen with Festival, which I didn't see in the renderings. In fact on the artistic rendering for Byerly's, I didn't
' see the bluff line up above Byerly's and I thought it would have been nice if you could seen what the houses up
there might look like. Again, you could do that for $2,000.00 - $3,000.00. What you really can't do. Well you
can do it but now we're starting to talk about Hollywood type of stuff. Is you take the Opus site or even the
recently approved school site. I mean you can load in all of the contours for the existing elevations and you can
' load in the contours for the new roads and whatever but I mean you're talking about very, very expensive. I
mean really kind of out of the question. So I would agree with Councilman Wing's point that probably this is
not going to work for subdivisions. Because when you have to start horsing around with these, you don't have a
' picture of what this site is going to look like in an after condition and therefore start putting houses or something
on it. Okay. So this application in my own mind is only going to work for certain buildings and you want to
see what this building is going to look like.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My year and several months on the Council, tonight was the first time I've ever
seen an artistic rendering of what a building will look like and that's been a frustration of mine for the last year.
I think Richard pretty much outlined all my feelings on it. It was never, in my opinion we never intended it to
be a requirement, particularly for subdivisions. We just need something to fall back on to request it. I guess
I'm happy with the way the ordinance reads right now. Maybe we can tighten up the language somehow to say,
for extenuating circumstances for subdivisions but. If the decision comes to the Council as to whether these, it
will be required. I mean I trust this Council to make fair decisions as to whether it would be required. You
know future Council's I don't know. I guess my point is, I don't think any Council would be very lax in saying
yeah, go ahead and do it because we'd like to see it. I think we'll have some good reasons why we would want
to see it for a subdivision. So we need an out there. For commercial developments, I think it's, I would be
happy to say it's a requirement but I'm satisfied to leave it as an as needed request as well.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I pretty much concur with what's being said. I would go along with tabling because I do
think some language needs to be tighten on it. I don't, my intent for something like this was never for small
subdivisions. I don't, I agree with that. I mean I do think of, you know seeing what that pedestrian bridge was
going to look like across Highway 5 was very helpful. It gave us a really good idea and I liked what Richard
said about no, we're not saying bring this with a conceptual approval. But if push does come to shove on an
important project and Council feels they need another tool, yeah. Yeah.
M
i�
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
Kate Aanenson: What if it's the Planning Commission that wants it? I mean they're the ones that requested
this.
Councilman Mason: Well but I think this started here. We've been talking about this for a long time. I
Kate Aanenson: What I'm saying is, what if the Planning Commission wants the renderings before it gets to
you. Before they make a decision.
,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's a Council issue.
Kate Aanenson: What if the staff wants it to make a decision and a recommendation to you?
'
Councilman Wing: I think it's coming past the preliminary stages...
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's the provision is provided in there too that the Planning Commission looks at this,
'
they at least that way can give us a better understanding of what we want to even look at too with their
recommendations.
,
Kate Aanenson: Otherwise, I guess what I'm saying, if you want the Council ... put language in that says the
Council has discretion to ask for this. Otherwise.
One the things that could
'
Roger Knutson: Just to point out one thing maybe that will be a problem. of generate
this information is the site plan review. You only get one pass at site plan review. I'm just thinking out loud.
You could have a situation where someone comes in with a site plan review. You know it's unusual but
sometimes developers are in a hurry. And they come in here for a site plan review and they're going to break
'
ground in the morning and you say we'd like to see a rendering. I don't know how long these things to make
but if it sets someone back... developer do one at the onset. How long does it take to put one of these things
together?
Mayor Chmiel: Couple weeks.
Councilman Senn: It depends on which one you're talking about. I mean there's a universe of projects here.
'
Brad Johnson: I guess what we're saying a little bit is all these guys are saying, geez it's not good for them.
I'm just saying ... all that came out with this was a brochure by one vendor and I went and talked to our vendors
Dick and they didn't do it and these are big guys in town.
Councilman Wing: Then you have to present models. You might have to put detailed.
'
Brad Johnson: If you said models and not electronic imaging...
Councilman Wing: We're saying it all.
'
Kate Aanenson: No, we're saying both composite images or artistic renderings...
'
Councilman Wing: Okay, and I wanted models in there because I felt that was a need and I guess I just am
aware of a project that simply built a model right off the bat before they went to the School Board. But that was
59
Irl
0
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
their option because the rendering was not possible for them but it's not uncommon for a major project to come
in or a major firm. Well HGA. They were ready to give us whatever we wanted including models. Tear apart
models.
Kate Aanenson: And I think most the subdivisions that you get, Lundgren included, gave us a lot of artistic
renderings.
Councilman Mason: And that was fine.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And that's, the language is written that way.
Councilman Wing: That was never questioned.
Kate Aanenson: But what I'm saying is lots of times, even on the concept, I mean we bring it up tonight on the
concept for Heritage. I mean there's some significant topography and creek. What are the views from the
creek? This is an instance where staff would like to see some of that information.
Councilman Wing: Why is models deleted? Why isn't models in there?
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission felt that that wasn't a perspective tool.
Councilman Wing: But it may be the only one.
Mayor Chmiel: It probably should be put in there. Images, models or renderings.
Jim Ostenson: Did I just hear that this.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here so we can get it on the microphone?
Jim Ostenson: Sure. Jim Ostenson here with James Development. Did I understand that it would have been
appropriate tonight on Heritage's 56 lot subdivision?
Kate Aanenson: Appropriate for?
Jim Ostenson: Appropriate for the photo imaging.
Kate Aanenson: To have a perspective. No, to have an artistic rendering or some views from the creek. Yeah,
I think it would.
Councilman Mason: I think we're getting a little hung up here. I mean number one, I think the way it's
worded, on the agenda, it's not a requirement to submit computer aided graphics. It may be a requirement.
Jim Ostenson: That's not what it says in the staff report. In the staff report it says, shall be required
Councilman Mason: Well and that's why we're talking right now. About this whole thing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But the ordinance doesn't read that way.
.1
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilman Wing: Such images and renderings shall be submitted. What I had written in there, shall be
submitted upon request of the City Council.
Jim Ostenson: And add that language.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me in a universe of A to Z, we're jumping from A to Z and forgetting everything
in the middle. You know looking back at the bridge issue, the bridge issue was very nice and basically you
know what I learned from talking to people that I talked to the last few days is yeah. If you have existing
topography and you're trying to superimpose something on it, there's nothing real complicated in that. I mean
you basically take a picture and you superimpose another picture over it and you know yeah. That can be done
in a $1,000.00 to $3,000.00 range very easily. But you know the problem is very few projects get done on that
basis. Very few projects simply leave the land as the land now exists. The level that you're talking about in
computer aided graphics, I mean I don't know who told you what but the technology doesn't exist.
Councilman Wing: I stated that up front.
Councilman Senn: Okay, it doesn't and to create the technology requires a person to sit down and input every
topographic line into the computer and even then, once it's all entered, the software still doesn't exist to turn
around and kick it out on the basis that you could even understand it on any type of a schematic basis. That's
not to say that can't happen and I'm sure firms would rush to do it. The bigger firms will but I mean at that
point you've cut out every architectural firm that doesn't have a CAD system, which are quite a number of them.
Especially small ones. And even the ones with CAD systems, it comes down to a matter of overhead and how
much they can invest up front to put this together. The conservative estimates, in fact the most conservative
estimate I got was that right now to basically even take a shot at doing this, you're talking about adding 15%
was the most conservative. I got estimates from 15% to almost 50% in terms of design cost added to a project
so I mean if you're talking about a million dollar project and a 5% fee of $50,000.00, I mean you're talking
about adding you know another 15% to 50 %, depending on what point that firm's starting from in terns of
getting there. Now, I want to go back to A again because I agree. A where we've been working from has been
totally inadequate. I mean I don't care if you want to talk about Rapid Oil or what but A has been inadequate
because what we've been dealing with in effect is a site plan with some topographical lines drawn on it and
building elevations. And I want to underline that word, building elevations okay. There's a real next logical
step in this thing that we've never required that I think will satisfy a lot of our requirements and that is to
require elevations. Not building elevations but elevations. Elevations which conform the site to the building.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What does that look like from here?
Councilman Senn: That basically takes the topography that you find on a flat sheet and brings it up this way
and puts the building on it so you can in effect.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you'd see a berm and.
Councilman Senn: It's a blue line version of a color rendering you saw tonight, except it's blue lined. If you
want to add color to it, yeah. Whoopee. Add another few hundred dollars in cost if you want it to be colored.
Right now you can produce artist renderings for $300.00 to $600.00. I mean but artist renderings are not very
accurate. I mean I've used them a lot. They are not very accurate. It requires basically someone who's kind of
61
I
n
L
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
half architect, half artist to basically take what their visualizing. Going out and looking at a site and transposing
it to paper. There is no technical basis. I mean there's no finite technical basis to what they're doing and again,
you're going to run into I think a lot of misimpression over what's being shown there. I think if we basically
take the next step and require in effect elevations, we'll be taking a giant step towards the next step and I think
eventually technology will, like Dick said, I think eventually technology will catch up and it will be there in an
affordable cost but I don't think it's there in an affordable cost right now. The artist renderings in some cases,
we may not apply them but to me the real trick goes back to in this in a lot of cases, we simply can't do it. I
mean I'm going to take any business park. Any business park, we're going to almost settle on the elevations
through construction of the public improvements and roadway systems before we even know who the building
occupants or the types of buildings that go in that business park are. They're all going to be very different sizes,
shapes, you know everything. I mean that we're not going to be able to decide up front and make that kind of a
decision or, and it's not something we're going to be able to do as we go down the road because once we set
those public improvements and roadway heights and everything else and sewers, that's going to turn around and
affect the drainage one way or the other so you can't just go take this section and say okay, this is going to be
this way and that's going to be that way. That's going to be pre- determined. Same thing with housing
subdivisions. I mean you can't determine what elevation every one of those houses is going to be at and
whether it's going to be a walkout or not a walkout and all kinds of different things. I think this lends some
good opportunities as you saw tonight I think with the color rendering and I've seen color renderings a great
deal, but the color rendering again. I don't know if you noticed when we looked at Charlie's color rendering or
not but I'll tell you, from the point that he said we were standing, could you visualize that drawing? I mean it to
me looked like everything was 100 miles away. If I'm standing where he said, that tree next to me is going to
be 20 feet tall. Not in that drawing where you're saying, you know.
Councilman Wing: That was a slide. I wanted a slide taken looking westbound with that monument drawn into
scale.
Councilman Senn: And if you're standing on that point where he was standing, that was not to scale Dick. It
wasn't even close to scale.
Councilman Wing: I agree 100 %.
Councilman Senn: So there was no perception of what was there. That monument sign, that pylon sign will
stick up many times the size that you saw them in that drawing tonight and many times more obvious. And
again, if you turn around and require to scale, in effect I'll call it a site, or call it a site elevation, then you're
going to basically now mesh the landscape or the land contours with the building and I think that's going to take
us to the next step we want.
Councilman Wing: Then I would add that to this ordinance as the initial step but I still want access to Charlie
James to say, I want video imaging of that sign and that monument on that and I want east and west bound
looks. I think we should have had it for Market Square. I think we should have had an east/west version of
' how that fit and how it looked. I think we should have seen a picture from City Hall. The University didn't
double, come in with a 50% increase when they gave us a video imaging of our downtown. They showed our
downtown. Drew in the buildings. Drew in the trees and we all sat there with our mouths open saying this is
wonderful. It is there. It is available. It's being developed rapidly. We are ahead of it. We are going from A
' to Z and I don't care if the other cities don't have this. They will real soon and if we have it, boy they're going
to say, well Chanhassen did this and it's going to go like fire because we're all in the same boat and we're all
making the mistakes. This isn't hurting anybody. It's on request as needed. It's not being demanded and it's
62
' r-
I
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
toward the end of the process. And yes, it may cost $2,000.00, $3,000.00, $4,000.00, $5,000.00. And I have no
qualms that a million, 2, 3 million dollar project is requesting that type of paperwork. Maybe. We're not even
demanding it. Your elevation I think is an excellent idea and I'd like to see it added as a first step.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, are you writing all these things down that have been discussed? Good. Because I can see
that where we're at with what we have and what we want to really see is not here and there's been some
suggestions that we table this rather than have the first reading, until we get all the things in front of us. That
we do table it.
Councilman Wing: I move tabling.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the amendments to City Code regarding a
requirement to submit computer -aided graphics or models for site plan reviews and subdivisions for
further clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: When do you think you can have some of this back to us with the corrections for those who are
here listening tonight?
Kate Aanenson: Well I just need one point of clarification. My concern is, I can write it a couple of ways. It
sounds like you want to have the authorization of whether or not to call it and then we have to put it in say upon
Council. Or again, it goes back to if the Planning Commission wanted it or the staff...
Councilman Senn: I think it has to be the Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do too.
Councilman Senn: Because you need to have a public, open. I mean that's a significant...
Mayor Chmiel: If they're going to ... Council requests that that be done, Planning Commission's going to get it
automatically will it not?
Kate Aanenson: Well, it's like Roger said. You see a site plan once. It goes to Planning Commission and then
it goes to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but if the ordinance becomes effective.
Kate Aanenson: Well I can write. What I think we need to do at this point is write some of the address and
take it at that point. There's some outstanding issues and.
Mayor Chmiel: Give us two different things and see what you come up with.
Councilman Mason: That makes sense.
Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing? I think what I heard you say is, you want to be able to see elevations. If
you look down at the beginning of the ordinance, the purpose. We've had that asked and we just tried to do this
63
u
n
11
1
fl
I
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
with the hotel when we gave you. Dick, we did do it with Market Square because we have electronic. One of
the things that the problem is, we bring the CAD system in just wonderful because you can sit here and move
the whole deal. But then we put it on a piece of paper and we lost it. See electronically you can bring it in
here. You guys have seen the CAD system. That works great because we can try to do it here without all the
stuff that you need to do it so, I think we've always had to do it. Okay. And we've done it on all our projects
in some fashion. So if you just said the general purpose is and you can use any of the following but what are
we trying to do.
Councilman Wing: Brad, if you were to come back again with this ordinance, I would have had your staff go to
City Hall. Take a picture looking south so we have the whole Market Square. The bank. The whole thing in
there and then I would have had them put your proposed building, it's design, right where it's supposed to be at
the elevation and we could have said, or we could have said ooh, that isn't going to fly.
Brad Johnson: I guess what I'm saying is, it's different with the technology is what we're afraid of. I mean
that's from my end of it because of what, just what he just said and my experience in not finding a source
quickly.
Councilman Wing: I agree.
Brad Johnson: ...probably a little heard of the technology. I'm thinking like you were thinking. I've got to lay
all this stuff in and it does cost a lot of money. So if you just say the objective is, because we've got to go
through it in most cases, in our projects. Now we may not have done it perfectly but I'm just saying, we're not
afraid of it. And Amcon is trying to get the stuff for example. But just tell us what you want in general at the
beginning of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT/TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND PROGRAM ON THE PRESS AND
DATASERV PROPERTY.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. Included in your packet is a request to consider establishing a
new tax increment district, economic development district on the DataSery and Press property. There's a map
attached to my report on the back which I've highlighted in red. It's that area that you would collect the
increment from which is highlighted in the dashed little square dashes in back. However that would allow you
to spend money outside of the district which follows up along TH 101. And the City Council's struggled over
the last year and a half in trying to find a way to assist in looking at alternatives and rebuilding TH 101 and
trails and this is another mechanism that you could have available to assist in planning the reconstruction of TH
101. And also ... on Dell Road south of Highway 5. But again this report is not that you are approving the tax
increment plan. What you're doing is calling for a public hearing and asking for input. Citizen comments.
County to comment and the School District to comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to see some of those things be entered into it when it comes to that particular
time. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess with so little information provided in this item, I guess I'll call for the
public hearing just so I can find out what it's all about.
M
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Get all the information that you're looking for. Okay.
Councilman Wing: Are these businesses that are in it and going to supply it, how long do they run? How long
will this district run?
Todd Gerhardt: This is creating a new economic development district. They last for 10 years.
Mayor Chmiel: Or less.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And we'll be capturing DataServ, Press and basically those and then whatever else
might come in and be developed?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: The existing Press would have a base value as it does today so you're not collecting any
increment with the exception of any increase in value on the Press and the DataSery buildings. Where you
would capture increment would be if any new developments came in those areas. For example, the Press is
considering or has made application right now for a 40,000 square foot addition to their building so that will
increase their value. With that increase you will be capturing close to about $80,000.00 a year.
Mayor Chmiel: But it's only on the new addition that's going in. Not the existing facility that's there.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And like on DataServ's, it would just be all the vacant land to the east of where they are
now right? And out front.
Todd Gerhardt: On both sides... They've got roughly about I think about 70 acres is my guess. And staff's
been working with them. They're going to be coming in with probably some office warehouse along, between
Lake Drive East and Highway 5 in the front half and then they're lease runs out in 2 years and they're building
in Eden Prairie and they're considering building 100,000 square foot office building on their land south of Lake
Drive.
Don Ashworth: And although the district was 10 years, you can only collect increment for 8 of those 10. You
pick out which 8 you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would like to see us show what a cost estimate would be for some of the proposals that
we're thinking about with TH 101. With the trail. And then take that and see how many years it takes for us to
become solvent on that whole matter and look at that district for that number of years.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff would also, we think that in doing this we would extend our 3 year tax increment policy
over to any builders that would come into that area that would qualify under State Statute for those dollars too.
So it'd be the 3 year program for them ... how we've treated all the other businesses.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, did you make that as a motion to go through the public
hearing?
65
I_J
I I
I
1
L
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Certainly.
Mayor Chmiel: And is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #94 -45: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to call the public
hearing to discuss the creation of an Economic Development District/Tax Increment Financing District and
Program on the Press and DataSery Property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: Trains, planes and automobiles. Todd came up with something that just blew my mind and
then Mrs. whats her name from Southwest Metro blew my mind because when I brought it up to her. Colleen,
are you still on Southwest Metro?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Certainly am.
Councilman Wing: I'd appreciate if you'd take this back on behalf of Todd and myself and, Diane Harberts.
We have a railroad track running through the city. It's used twice a day. What a god send if we could get one
of those engines turned around morning and evening and run a train from Chanhassen, Chaska to downtown and
back and use that as mass transit.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that where it runs?
Councilman Wing: It goes downtown. It may have incredible pitfalls and be impossible but I'd sure like, that's
the greatest thing I've ever seen you come up with. I just, what a boom to this community. Boy if we could be
on the cutting edge of the future. So I think it needs to be pursued and I just want to get the momentum going.
and I'll pitch in. I'll even attend a Southwest Metro meeting. The other thing, I would just like on a future
agenda to discuss the issues of PUD's and limitations like we have on our other. I don't want to take another
PUD that dated back to the 1987, before my time and have to live with it with today by today's standards on
yesterday's thinking. So I think PUD's ought to have a one year limit on them also. They expire after one year
if nothing's been done, or whatever time frame. But an expiration on PUD's.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good.
Councilman Wing: Is that ridiculous?
Roger Knutson: Do you want me to comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Roger Knutson: To ask for a zoning designation to automatically expire is like asking for ... to expire. You
can rezone it. It doesn't expire.
Councilman Wing: So there will be no limitations on the zoning?
.•
t
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Roger Knutson: If you don't like it, an example. If something was zoned 20 years ago, whatever... planning
your development, you can come in today and rezone it to, if appropriate, to R1A or whatever's appropriate. '
Councilman Wing: Well how come I couldn't do that tonight then?
Roger Knutson: It wasn't on the table. '
Councilman Wing: Okay, I didn't know we could do it. So then Market Square we could have said we're
rezoning it to PUD because it doesn't meet today's standards and we're going to rezone it with a proposal on the '
table? You get my point. We can discuss it later.
Roger Knutson: I would have to read that for planning a development. Typically planning a development will ,
save but you're exempt from any change or official controls for x years. After that you can change it...
Mayor Chmiel: Or would you be required to put it as some kind of a city use? '
Roger Knutson: Well yeah, you could also acquire it. Acquire the property.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. '
Councilman Wing: For fruitition, I'll just see that it maybe gets on a future discussion point when it's a better
time. Just the last thing real quick. No one in this city, and the Planning Commission is the worst, is willing to '
discuss architectural standards, design, etc, etc, etc. The Highway 5 Task Force has said glass, brick or better
but nobody wants to tackle pitched roof or it goes on and on. I would just like to present at a future Council
meeting the Wayzata ordinance for their design review board and I would recommend that we just review this as
an issue where an outside group of architect and design people, whoever. Not related to Council or anybody else
looks at Market Square and says, this is good or bad, fits or doesn't. But someone to address this because no
one else has come to a consensus. I just would like to put this ordinance up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've heard a lot of controversy on that. '
Councilman Wing: Absolutely. I don't deny that. '
Kate Aanenson: That issue was brought up on the Highway 5 corridor study. There are architectural standards
in place ... but that came up and there was a lot of concern about control. If the architectural approves it and then
it gets to this body and we don't. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. It gets to be a real hassle and that's part of the problem. Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In reading the last meeting's minutes I didn't see anyone specifically address the ,
unreasonable agenda we had at our last meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh we did. '
Councilman Wing: No, thank you. And I think his minutes in the paper had real merit.
1
67
r
1 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Absolutely. Absolutely. Very well taken. You know, it was ridiculous that we
had that many issues, number one. And that many big issues that would draw the audience that we did and I'm
just requesting staff to be a little more conscious about what's on the agenda and what's reasonable. And I think
' it was handled appropriately Mr. Mayor that we said from the onset this is how the meeting's going to go and if
we get to the issue we get to it. And when the meeting would end, etc, etc. Second item is just a.
Councilman Wing: Before you go off that. How did you feel about the editor's comments about maybe
changing our agenda and putting those items first?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely. I mean if we know what items we need public input on or are going to
' have public input, let's put them at the beginning.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes they put them accordingly as they come in.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Switch them around.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it can be done. We can do it too at Council if we so choose.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're absolutely right.
' Councilman Wing: Rather than change the agenda, just identify the problem that night.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Unfortunately some people look at the agenda and take that into consideration and
' don't show up until 9:00. Then suddenly we moved it to the top of the agenda and they're out of luck so.
Anyway, let's just be a little more conscious of it. Second item, I just want to thank Council and staff and
everyone else for all the kindness and support and well wishes and flowers and gifts and everything else. Thank
you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: You're entirely welcome. Very fine performance.
' Councilman Wing: I've never seen it on television before.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh we came awfully close.
' Councilman Senn: You obviously never took birthing classes.
Mayor Chmiel: You had the Admin Packet and the toll funding for TH 212.
' Councilman Senn: Let's see here. Yeah. In our administrative packet this week there's a letter from Robert
Lindahl, as President of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. Which I believe we're a member of
' and.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: All of a sudden now there's a deal going forward to the Governor and the Transportation
Commissioners saying we want to really proceed with a study of TH 212 as a toll road. I mean that's contrary
to what I thought the action was this Council took and now ... we're part of it and that really bothers me because I
68
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
don't agree with it.
Councilman Wing: Me either.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard and I have had many discussions regarding this and I do sit on that board for the
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition and the information that has been contained in the packets, all the
letters that I get, have been put in the Admin sections and there's been some of those things that have been
leading up to this particular letter that has been sent in regard to that proposal. Funding is a problem with TH
212. In order for them to feel they can proceed any further than what they've done, they're looking at that as an
alternative to seeing whether that could move that forward to getting TH 212 in.
Councilman Senn: But see I don't understand that because, to spend $75,000.00 to do that is ludicrous to me.
If the issue is funding TH 212, it seems to me we'd be far better off spending $75,000.00 to lobby to get the
funds necessary to do TH 212. Not go study some goofy thing to make it a toll road, which will never survive.
Toll road's don't survive anywhere if you haven't got a lot heavier traffic base than you've got there, especially
tourism because most locals avoid them anyway. I mean most successful toll roads are either in.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been on toll roads here just recently and I'm not very fond of them myself. But I think if
that's the position that Council feels, then Don should be writing a letter indicating some of the concerns that are
being voiced by Council back to the corridor.
Councilman Senn: I thought we did that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, Richard brought that up several weeks ago.
Mayor Chmiel: But we, I don't think any letter has been sent.
Councilman Wing: Will a ditto suffice for my input?
Councilman Senn: I guess I object to this letter because this says we're behind it.
Councilman Wing: I think toll roads, to me indicate a total breakdown of local and state and federal
government. It's the lowest form of government on Earth, in my opinion. You find toll roads in...
Councilman Mason: It's a user fee.
Councilman Wing: ..New York, South Chicago.
Councilman Mason: What's the matter with the user fee?
Councilman Wing: And it is a user fee. Now, in one of the discussions with the Mayor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're...
Councilman Mason: Oh I disagree. Don't use the road.
Councilman Wing: But you know in Chicago you can't buy gas any more or you're stuck...
w
I
i City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anyway, I agree with Mark. I don't feel comfortable that...
Mayor Chmiel: Well we should voice our opinion on this. And indicate that, of that concern and the concerns
' that we see with it. And I guess maybe Bob moved ahead on it because we did not send anything nor voice our
basic opinion on it. Hopefully they're looking to acquire some additional dollars and maybe with this new
additional gas tax that they're talking about. Another 4.5 cents, who knows what they're going to do with it and
if they grab onto the dollars that they have available within the State now and put some of those dollar
allocations back towards highways, which you probably won't see for a while yet. But everybody is cutting
back and the only way to get some of these things accomplished is some of the supposedly new innovative ways
of getting it done but toll roads aren't new and innovative. They're there.
Councilman Wing: What do you think of the user fee Mike?
' Councilman Mason: What do I think of the user fee?
Councilman Wing: ...road going to go from Chan to Chaska
' Mayor Chmiel: It might be a very quiet road.
Councilman Mason: I'm not saying I'm for it.
' Councilman Wing: The user fee is a somewhat valid argument. You don't have to take that road but if you
want to go from A to Z right now, it's going to cost you 60 cents. Maybe it's worth the 60 cents.
Councilman Mason: Well how much does it cost you to get in the car and drive now? I mean.
Councilman Senn: The scary part is, ideas like this all of a sudden pick up momentum and go and everybody
' says you were a part of them and I'm going to use a wonderful example which are the sane lanes on 394, which
by the way cost I mean, each car that takes a trip on that sane lane cost the taxpayers $5,000.00. Each car. I
mean come on.
t Councilman Mason: If we're going to get serious about that, we should be paying what? You cars are not
paying their fair share of what it costs to maintain the roads so if we're really going to get serious about it, gas
' should be $10.00 a gallon or $20.00 a gallon. So.
Councilman Wing: How about $2.25?
' Councilman Mason: Well, I mean we don't, you know. What mass transits pays per mile and what automobile
pays per mile.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: We'll just do that train Richard talked about.
Mayor Chmiel: There you go. That will eliminate it. Okay anything else that you had?
' Councilman Senn: Let's see, last week the Administrative. Or not last week. I can't keep track anymore. Two
weeks ago in an Administrative Packet we had a follow -up memo on the Hanus building situation and I just
didn't want to take and Council's receipt of that memo was an endorsement of all the money we're spending
70
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994
there doing that. That's something I'd really like to save and talk to the HRA about when we meet with them
but geez, when you go back and add up all the costs that we're spending on that building and stuff, why didn't
we just buy the damn thing and rip it down in the first place and accomplish really want we wanted to
accomplish, which now we're throwing many times the money we should be at and accomplishing very little. It
just really bugs me and that doesn't take a lot of foresight to see that. That should have been kind of...
Mayor Chmiel: Well we're still saving money so far.
Councilman Senn: Well, I don't know about that. Whatever. Could I bring one last issue. Willard and Carol
have very heavily lobbied me and talked to me about keeping a Council person on the Board of Adjustments. I
don't know. They just, they've been at it a lot of years. I guess in that sense you have to kind of look at a little
bit of their wisdom and their comments and stuff but I don't know. I guess at this point I guess, if it's not too
late to do so, I will bow to their pressures and stay on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to just point out in closing that I think this is a historic record where our
newspaper's editor, the longest night I think he's ever put in.
Councilman Senn: Well after he wrote that editorial.
Councilman Mason: And he's enjoyed every minute of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Dean, nice to see that you woke up now. It's time to go home.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
71
'J
I
J
L
r
F
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 6, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Ron Nutting, Ladd
Conrad and Diane Harberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Andrew
Mack, Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE
2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR 54,720 SQUARE FEET WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE
PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions?
Mancino: Yeah, I just have one more. I didn't see any in the packet of elevations for the
proposed warehouse addition and the proposed Press proofing room. Press room addition. I
haven't seen what it's going to look like. How it matches up to the existing building or
anything. Oh, did I miss them?
Al -Jaff: I apologize. I thought I gave them to everyone.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. That was quick.
Scott: Are there any questions on the new elevations? Take a few minutes and go through
them.
Mancino: Excuse me. Is this correct from what you drew Sharmin? This east elevation.
This is going to be on the outside of that wall, not on the inside?
Al -Jaff: These are the existing elevations. It's the second page that shows that.
1
r
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Thank you. So that will be covered up and then the north. Okay, thanks.
Scott: Any other questions for staff?
Harberts: What are they doing with the open space?
1 Al -Jaff: We don't know at this point.
' Harberts: Any indications at all? What can they do with it? Is it big enough to build on?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the
applicant or their representatives. Please step to the microphone and identify yourselves... We
can take a few moments to set up the tripod so we can get it on the camera.
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the real estate
architect and civil engineers working with the Marcus Corporation and the Press ... to develop
this site for the application that is in front of you. The application that is there, we are
excited about and we are willing to work with commission members and staff and City
Council in order to see this Kindercare and Press development proceed. With me tonight,
representing Kindercare is John Pinmore so if there are specific questions in regard to
Kindercare, Mr. Pinmore will be able to address those. And I will be able to address the
questions in regards to the site plan and engineering plans. A couple of the comments that
were raised I would like to respond to. In terms of the issue of the Press expansion. The
intent of the expansion is primarily for warehouse purposes and storage and secondly to
organize and consolidate some of the loading facilities that are out there today. Currently
from Highway 5, as Sharmin indicated, are able to see the loading docks. It is proposed,
' with the facility that would move forward, that they would be fully enclosed. That the
loading docks would be fully enclosed and face each other so that the views from Highway 5
and from Dell Road, you would not be able to see the loading dock facility. Currently there
' are semi's that sit out here. That is how some of the facility and storage capacity is taken up
to date. With this new expansion it will all be fully enclosed as well as the service of the
docks both on the east and west wings of that addition. The facade of the Press will be
' comparable to what is out there today in terms of this square concrete panels so that it will
match the existing facade that is along that eastern side today. The proposal is to have a joint
access drive from West 77th Street. That would be built into the developer's agreement so
' that it would be a joint driveway would be, the proposal is 24 feet. We will expand that to
26 feet to meet city code and that would service with the Kindercare, the Press and the outlot
that is remaining to date. This 1.5 acre outlot is proposed to remain under the ownership of
2
t
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
John Dietrich: With the Press next to this facility they are going to be completely '
independent in terms of ownership. We would anticipate that there would be an opportunity
for an employee to park and drop off their children and then walk over to the Press facility so
there's going to have to be a ... agreement between the two landowners. We would also
anticipate that the Press would be able to control the employee usage for potential cut through
of that lot through to Dell Road being that management would have the say over how the
employees would exit the site and it would be stipulated that—would have to be either to the
3
'
the Press at this time. There are no ro oaals pending thought of for this site. It is the
P P P g or g
Press Incorporated's intention to hold onto that site for future considerations. You know if
they continue to expand or need more parking. They are in the process of holding it. For the
,
time being it is totally proposed to stay in basically a natural state of grass condition as it is
today. With the Kindercare facility, we would have a right - in/right -out off of Dell Road and
circulation that would allow the parents to park and drop off. Drop and take their children
'
into the facility. Typically we would anticipate the drop off period would be over a 2 hour
time frame and there would be approximately 100 children during that time frame. We
would anticipate the Press being the major client of this Kindercare facility and there would
,
be opportunities for some of the parking that is on the Kindercare lot to be contracted to the
Press employees. Because if they run multiple shifts, we would anticipate a fair amount of
usage from the Press for the Kindercare. We would, the parking stalls that are out there
,
would accommodate up to approximately 245 children. We anticipate a maximum amount of
children in the Kindercare facility would be approximately 200 so there are multiple parking
,
spaces that are available for contract use or for developing into drop off areas or sidewalk.
The licensing of the daycare facility is done by a State review process and that would be a
process that all daycare facilities need to go through. The signage plan has not been
'
submitted. We would be fully intended to comply with the ordinance of the square footage of
the maximum of 80 square feet and also of the height of an 8 foot high sign ... that's within
the ordinance requirements. Kindercare is a national chain so they have a logo and basically
,
the total sign plan that they would put. We fully intend to work with the landscaping and
berming so that the berm that is currently out there along Highway 5 would be extended and
pulled into this area so that the entire parking area should be screened from view while you
'
were getting into your car at an elevation on Highway 5. So that we would continue that and
then also by adding parking lot islands and irrigation, anticipate that this area will have quite
a bit more green than is currently out there in a much more maintainable condition. I believe
'
those are the issues that I heard. We'd be happy to respond to any additional questions with
regard to the site plan.
'
Harberts: I have a uestion. You chatted about the parking with regard to contract.
q P
Contracting. I don't understand that. Could you just kind of elaborate what you meant by
contracting out parking?
'
John Dietrich: With the Press next to this facility they are going to be completely '
independent in terms of ownership. We would anticipate that there would be an opportunity
for an employee to park and drop off their children and then walk over to the Press facility so
there's going to have to be a ... agreement between the two landowners. We would also
anticipate that the Press would be able to control the employee usage for potential cut through
of that lot through to Dell Road being that management would have the say over how the
employees would exit the site and it would be stipulated that—would have to be either to the
3
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
west or to the north to West 77th Street.
Harberts: Is there a fence that will go around the playground area? Around the daycare area.
John Dietrich: Yes, I believe there is.
Ledvina: I had a question regarding the parking. Staff has indicated that your proposal
identifies 314 stalls and the requirement based on the staff's calculations as far as the needs
' are concerned indicates 245 parking slots. Why the extra stalls?
John Dietrich: We took the amount of stalls that are out there today and looked at the
warehouse expansion and calculated that in terms of the new square footage and we added
that square footage to the existing number of stalls that are out there today. So in terms of
parking requirements, it may be over built today if we wanted to be consistent with the
ordinance for the expansion of the 55,000 square feet for the Press. So we added that
expansion to the existing parking total.
' Ledvina: The expansion that's being proposed?
John Dietrich: Yes.
' Ledvina: Okay.
Y
' Mancino: But didn't staff take that into account? So that's already taken into account for
what's required, which is the 277.
John Dietrich: Yes. Yes.
' Mancino: So you went over and beyond what was required even for the expansion?
John Dietrich: Yes.
Harberts: So are you asking, is the ordinance minimum or maximum?
Mancino: It still doesn't make sense, yeah.
Harberts: Is the ordinance minimum or maximum?
Al -Jaff: Minimum. They want to exceed that number if they can. If they meet hard surface
coverage, which has not been provided.
4
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Mancino: That was m next question. What is the hard surface coverage for now for that
Y q g ,
for the Press and for Kindercare?
John Dietrich: For the Press and Kindercare. The hard surface coverage for the Kindercare
is approximate 57 %. And the hard surface coverage for the Press at this time is
approximately 77 %.
Mancino: So it's over what they can do? '
Al -Jaff: 70% is the maximum hard surface coverage.
Mancino: And they're at 77? '
Al -Jaff: So they need to reduce it. I
Mancino: And they could reduce it by 7% by eliminating some extra parking spaces? I
mean that's one way. That's one option. I
John Dietrich: Yes, if we are over the code, we could do that, yes.
Al -Jaff: Another option is by enlarging the site. Moving the property line and currently Lot
3 is open so if they want to take a few square feet and just move the line, they would make
up that 7 %.
Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions for the elevations. On the south elevation that
I'm looking at here, where does it show me what the new additions look like? This one
doesn't have a south?
John Dietrich: We did not show the south or the west elevation on the proposed because the '
additions are going on the west. Excuse me. Are going on the east and on the north. If I
was to draw in where it would be on the existing, it would be approximately in this range.
But it would be set.
Mancino: Is it going to have the same sort of detailing that this front has or is it just going
to be the vertical?
John Dietrich: It's going to be the vertical square concrete, similar to the existing east I
elevation.
Mancino: Will there be any windows or any sort of anything facing south? I
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
John Dietrich: There is warehouse, storage...
Mancino: What's the wall, what's the length of the wall of the Press room addition facing
south? Is that a 20 foot length of wall or is that?
John Dietrich: The length of wall.
Mancino: No, east of it for the addition. Yeah.
John Dietrich: This piece here?
Mancino: How big is that?
John Dietrich: I would say approximately 60 feet.
Mancino: 60 feet?
John Dietrich: In length. In terms of height, it would match the existing.
Mancino: And there is no windows? There's no nothing? There's no landscaping for that
60 feet?
John Dietrich: ...for the landscaping.
Mancino: Okay. And if that's 60 feet, then how big is the warehouse that faces south?
John Dietrich: Let me grab ... It's approximately 65 feet, not 60. It's approximately 130 feet.
Mancino: We have in our Highway 5 guidelines something about you know big expanses of
flat wall. Or I shouldn't say flat wall but a wall and doing something with those expanses.
Making them...
John Dietrich: ...landscaping to those facades. They are to help break up those individual...
Mancino: Okay. So you would come back to us with a new landscaping plan that would
show what you would do?
John Dietrich: Yes.
0
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Okay.
John Dietrich: Or if you would wish, we could put in a condition that they would have to
have staff approval or staff to concur with the landscape plans prior to...
Mancino: Are there other requirements on the, in the Highway 5 about, just not landscaping
but doing something architecturally to those big expanses? Do you know?
Al -Jaff: ...architecturally elements or landscaping is what it will be.
Mancino: It's or? It's not and /or? We'll have to, we'll look that up? Okay.
Scott: Any other questions for the applicant?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. On my proposed conditions, on the north elevation there's a, I
think I see a loading dock area and I don't know, is this correct or how is this, why is this set
up this way?
John Dietrich: Okay. North elevation on the right hand side.
Ledvina: Right. What am I looking at there?
John Dietrich: This one over on this side of the building.
Ledvina: Alright.
Harberts: Mr. Chairman. On that same side, according to the site plan that I see here, we
have parking, 24, 11 and 8. Are those anticipated for employees or who's anticipated to be
parking on that side?
John Dietrich: Parking over on the west side of the building?
Harberts: Yeah, right.
John Dietrich: Typically it's all employee.
Harberts: And their access is from what point? Is it off of 77th?
John Dietrich: It will probably where it comes in on the southwest corner.
VA
u
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant?
Harberts: I'd like to chat with the gentleman from Kindercare.
John Pinmore: I'd like to expand a bit on the drop off and pick up. My name is John
Pinmore with Kindercare as a Division Construction Manager and ... I wanted to expand.
You've got to keep in mind with a child care center, we're taking children from 6 weeks in
age to 12 years and in this particular center a majority, the greater majority of those children
will be between 6 weeks and probably 3 or 4 years. Because of the age of the children, we
can't allow parents to drive up and drop off their child. They have to park. Bring the kid
into the center. Sign him in. There has to be an exchange of being in charge of that child
for the day. It's not like a grade school where the parents drive up and you know wave
good -bye to their son or daughter and they go into the school. So the kid is not allowed to
just go into a drop off lane type of function. Really it doesn't work in a child care center
because the parent has to go in. You can't just drive it you know. Leave them off. You
know the first person in the front, if they stand in longer than the person behind, then you've
got a traffic jam in the drop off lane so we find that just a regular parking lot works best for
the way we handle our drop off's and pretty much that's how all child cares have to handle
their drop offs because of the age of the children. And the fact that the Kindercare has to
take charge of those children at some point in the signing in and signing out...
Harberts: What about with regard to the access? In terms of if the majority, if the major
clients or client that you are anticipating is from the Press, the printing or whatever.
John Pinmore: I don't think it will be the major. I mean we are anticipating ... but I do not
believe that will be the greater part of the center. We have a division in Kindercare called
Kindercare Work and we actually build centers for a particular client and they guarantee
spaces or do something and we didn't have any type of relationship here with the Press. Of
course we would take their children, but we'd take them like anybody else's child.
Harberts: Do you own or operate any Kindercare's within Eden Prairie, Chaska or
Chanhassen currently?
John Pinmore: We have two in Eden Prairie. One is on TH 5 right now. There will be ... few
years and then it will be going away.
Audience: What is that Valley View?
Harberts: Valley View and Prairie Center Drive ?...
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
John Pinmore: We have one in Minnetonka on TH 101 and Excelsior. I
Harberts: When you have field trips, when you have field trips outside your location, do you '
provide your own form of transportation?
John Pinmore: Yes, we have vans, correct. We also use those vans to pick up the after ,
school children from their schools and then we have designated parking spots in the front row
of the building that will be striped van. They're the front spot... ,
Harberts: I'm done.
Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Thank you sir. '
Harberts: Is there anyone from the operations? I
John Pinmore: No, not here tonight but I can answer numerous of your questions but not all
of them. Did you have a specific one? 1
Harberts: Well I'm just wondering, with regards to the employees. Are there residents
within like a 5 mile radius of the employment side? Is it more of a metro draw in terms of I
residents?
John Pinmore: It is but they are more localized. Our employees. My office is in the '
Chicago area where we have about 75 centers and you'll find the employees typically live
around their center. They don't come from too far of distances. They typically work in the
area. ,
Harberts: Okay, thanks.
John Pinmore: But I mean we haven't really patrolled that other than the fact that they need '
to be there at a certain time and so if they live an hour away, that may become difficult for
them.
Harberts: Thank you.
Scott: Anything else? This is a public hearing and can I have a motion. Pardon me? Find
Y g P g
out if anybody else from the applicants or their representatives would like to speak?
John Dietrich: In terms of the facade of the building facing south with the 65 foot step and '
o g g � P
also approximately 100 foot step. The building was designed so that step would be in there '
9
t
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
so we do not have one massive block. We wanted to step that a little bit and tuck the
parking in. There will also be a berm coming up from the parking lot approximately 4 foot
' up against the facade in this area so that we have an opportunity to have some green going up
from the parking lot itself up to the building. So the building will be off the main, similar to
a retaining wall to help bring the scale of that building height down. And finally in terms of
' visual, we will have the berm along Highway 5 screening the parking lot with the overstory
trees to help break up the facade along the proposed expansion.
Mancino: The berm being, is a 3 or 4 foot berm and it is also what's on the berm? I mean
you won't get much opacity really because it's going to be overstory trees that are deciduous
trees so during the winter you're still going to have that direct line sight view into that corner
' of the building and you're going to see 120 feet of you know just a wall and that's my
concern. And it has been addressed in the Highway 5 study on page, I think it's page 58
where we're asking for those buildings on Highway 5 not to and actually there's a line
drawing of it not to be this plain and straight wall. That we have some variations. We don't
get into monotony along Highway 5 because it's a very important area for us.
John Dietrich: Absolutely...
' Mancino: And the Press is a wonderful, as far as I'm concerned, wonderfully landscaped in
the front. Wonderful architectural in the front. I enjoy it very much going by it. It's very
pleasing aesthetically. I don't even, I never realized that there were docks on the east side
' because I'm drawn to the focal point which is the front of that building because it's so well
done. So I want it to stay that way and not to have just this addition which is a block wall to
warehousing on Highway 5 because I think what it has right now is great. And I would not
like to see the addition didn't live up to what the original building is.
John Dietrich: The building itself is complimentary to the existing building in terms of the
' score of the concrete panels and stepping with it. It does not have the office space with the
windows that are currently there from the south side.
I Mancino: Which I think some architectural addition does need to be put on those bigger
spaces to keep them in the same quality as it's being the original building.
' John Dietrich: In terms of the distance, the 65 feet, and 130 feet and the scale of the building
is compatible with, you know in terms of the stepping of that side. Not one long facade of
200 feet.
Scott: Would anybody else from the applicant like to speak? Okay. Can we have a motion
Y Y PP P Y
' to open the public hearing please.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor. and
the public hearing was opened.
Scott: First of all, is there anyone here from the general public who would like to speak
about this issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
'
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the public hearing was closed.
'
Ledvina: I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about relates to the number of parking
spaces and the hard surface coverage. Many times we'll have applicants that will come in
'
without parking and this is kind of a flip of that but I think in this instance we want to try to
avoid the look of large parking areas. I think that if there were going to be, if the applicant
chooses to eliminate some of the parking, which I feel that that should be done, I think it
'
should be done along the south part of the site. And I don't know exactly what the existing
conditions there are now. Do they plan on expanding the parking in that direction, or no?
'
Al -Jaff: They're expanding it to the east only.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that we need to be aware of oversized parking lots and
'
certainly the hard surface issue needs to be addressed. And I would be strongly in favor of
reducing that to the 245 stalls that were identified in the staff report. That's the extent of my
'
comments.
Scott: Good. Ladd. I
Conrad: 70% impervious surface is absolute. What they do with it doesn't matter to me. I
think there should be some concern aesthetically for the addition but I'm comfortable that it '
can be done with plantings, landscaping. I would like to see that condition up to the City
Council. That's all.
Scott: Okay, Ron. ,
Nutting: I came in late so I didn't hear all the, I knew you were going to talk about the ,
traffic here. I also, the 70% issue I agree with. I guess I don't fully understand the
expansion of the lot. I understand the expanded, they can leave the parking as is by reducing
the ratio that way. But that would still leave the look of the wide open parking space out '
front so maybe if there's a way to cut it back without expanding that, that's an option. And I
guess I would agree with Ladd's comments or Nancy's comment in terms of looking at the
11
I 1
L
I F —
L
� �II
J
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
south facing wall to make sure that we do get something that enhances the appearance. I'm
not, I don't believe in putting windows on warehouse space and we don't need windows or
anything to break it up but if there is a way we can landscape, that makes sense. So that's all
I have.
Scott: Okay. Nancy.
Mancino: I have three comments and that is impervious surface. I also agree with everyone
about 70 %. I would like to see it back because I'd like to see some enhancement of the
proposed classroom expansion and proposed warehouse expansion. Whether that be
architecturally or whether that be landscaping, I've got to see it. You know there was no
elevations or very detailed to show us what it's really going to look like and I'd like to see
what it will really look like. It does, it is on Highway 5 and it is important to us. We've
done a whole corridor study for Highway 5 for a year and a half. We care about whether
those will look like. The original and their added on space so I would like to see it in detail.
What it will look like. Certainly I'm concerned about parking. I'm concerned about the cut
through for the people from the Press who park in that back parking lot being able to cut
through the Kindercare lots. I just think of small kids when they get out of their car when
they're 4 or 5. I mean they race to the front door before their parents can even stop them.
And so I see it as a big public safety issue. That there can be cars coming through that
parking lot when they're being dropped off or picked up and that's a concern for me. So I do
not, I would not like to see the parking lots being used together. I think that there should be
a fence or whatever. Plantings between the two parking lots. And I also think that part of
the recommendation should include no rooftop equipment. That it cannot be viewed from
77th Street, Dell Road or Highway 5. And lastly, getting to the Kindercare building,
...constructed of face brick on the bottom part of the building and then it has EIFS. What is?
John Dietrich: It's stucco. It's insulated stucco. EIFS stands for Exterior Insulation Finished
System. Basically it's stucco on top of insulation. Where stucco, just straight stucco there's
no R value to it. So it's like an, our color will be off white stucco.
Mancino: Well we have requested I think on any new building that's coming in, samples so I
would like to see samples and colors. You know colors and samples of the facing brick and
the stucco and the shingles, etc because we have been asking for that on all of our site plans.
Not only samples but what also helps us, if you have another building in Minnetonka or in
another suburb that is existing, for us to see a picture. An 8 x 10 glossy, whatever. That's
very helpful and we can, you know visuals work a thousand words. So I would like to see
samples and also a photograph of it. Those are my comments.
Scott: Just a question of the Goodyear /Abra building that's being built across the street.
12
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
That's almost completely brick isn't it?
Al -Jaff: Correct. There is some concrete block. I
Scott: Okay. And this particular structure is roughly 25% or. Was something other than
brick originally proposed for those buildings across the street? I didn't follow that particular. '
Al -Jaff: You mean for the Abra?
Scott: Yeah.
Al -Jaff: To begin with they were in brick but one of the conditions of approval was that
brick be used on them...
Scott: And the conditions were placed because, is that IOP across the street or were those? '
Al -Jaff: No, it was Highway Business and under the conditional use permit...
Scott: Okay. Because I'm thinking we're kind of inconsistent where we've got an auto
related use across the street that's completely brick and we have, whatever you call this and ,
it's not. So I'm thinking from a standard standpoint, I guess my condition would be that we
would have the exterior of this structure be consistent with the Abra across the street and I
can't site you chapter and verse in what they have but I've been watching it being built for
the last couple of weeks and so forth. Can I have a motion please?
Harberts: I'd like to make a comment Joe. I wanted to just re- emphasize my comments with ,
regard to public safety. From my perspective, from my professional experience I think this is
wonderful in terms of having a Kindercare. In relationship to this type of industry, I think
it's excellent. My only concern is that we're missing a small element and that's to make this
element really work. And what I mean from that is from my earlier comments with regard to
public safety. With regard to pedestrian access. Why treat an element in which you pull in,
drop your kid off, go around and pull into another parking lot. Why not create that type of '
element, since we have that opportunity where maybe it enhances or makes it an advantage.
You know perhaps what I would suggest is that lane of parking that's adjacent to the
Kindercare, perhaps that could be designated in terms of a perk for people that do work here '
and do use daycare, that only daycare users, employees get to park there. It's kind of a perk.
And why not put in then like a more pedestrian element such as a sidewalk or something to
keep that public safety issue down. I'll just make a comment with regard to public transit in '
the area. With reverse commute, I've been working with Sharmin and Chanhassen does pull
in employees on a metro wide area. Reverse commute we started a year ago with a 25
13
D
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
passenger bus. We're up to an articulated bus at 65 passengers in terms of reverse commute.
It's only going to get larger. I guess I'm looking for that type of opportunity where we can
help the employers have that type of advantage because it does help them with regard to
employees. I would just go on record with my comments to the City Council and to the
applicant that perhaps, and I will extend the services of Southwest Metro Transit, to sit down
and perhaps help you identify where those type of advantages may be able to come into this
site element. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope we see more of this but I just think
we're missing some of the fine tuning in terms of the elements and I would certainly
encourage that perhaps staff, from the city, staff from Southwest Metro Transit, can sit down.
If it requires a little bit of redesigning, why not take that opportunity now because based on
my experience, based on where the public policy is going on a regional level from the metro
area, it's only going to pay off as a positive investment now later on in the future.
Scott: Do you want to see this reworked?
Mancino: That's what I was going to ask. Wouldn't you want to see it reworked and see it
again?
Harberts: Well from my professional experience I would say yes. But I would want the, I
would really encourage that the applicant want to take that initiative to do it. I don't want
government, public policy to be a hinderance but I want it to be viewed as a very positive
and like I said, from what my experience is, as well as with where the region is going in
terms of public policy and transit, I think if you take that little extra time to maybe take
another look at how transit and how this type of pedestrian element can be blended to make it
more advantageous, it's going to pay off long term for the business.
Mancino: So we have some issues that we want to see.
' Scott: Yeah, reading from my notes here we see traffic circulation. We see impervious
surface. We see two major things relating to the Highway 5 and related ordinances which
appearance of the warehouse addition. We have setback concerns on the Kindercare facility.
' Are those major to the point where we want to see it reworked again? Yes? Okay. Can I
have a motion please?
I
Mancino: Okay. I will move that the Planning Commission not approve the site plan review
#94 -1 as shown on site plan received.
Conrad: Do you want to table it?
Mancino: Oh, okay. I move that we table it and see it again. With all the recommendations
14
L
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
that we made. And does staff have all those recommendations ? Thank you. I
Scott: Is there a second to the motion? I
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to table the Site Plan Review #94 -1 for expansion to '
the Press and a Kindercare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Scott: When do Y ou think we'll be able to get this back on our schedule so we can see it? I
don't know how we're looking for the next meeting but. ,
Al -Jaff: If they submit everything by Friday.
Scott: I just want to make sure that when we table something, that we at least give them the '
opportunity to come back as quickly as they're able to. But if it looks like we can, well I
guess it's up to them. We'll make a spot on our meeting in 2 weeks if they have the pieces
in place. Okay.
Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Before we move onto the ordinance, the next item, I just
want to introduce Andrew Mack. He's our new city planner. He joined us 10 days ago.
Scott: ...maybe give him a name tag so we know who he is. '
Harberts: Can we take like 2 minutes and ask him about his background. I
Scott: Did you interview by videotape?
Mack: No I didn't. I would like to indicate though that I appreciate the welcome ... and I'm
pleased to be a new member of staff here in the city of Chanhassen.
Scott: Good. I'm sure we'll have comments and questions afterwards. ,
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN '
REVIEW SECTIONS REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION.
15
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
' Conrad: ...significant tree definition. Significant tree means any healthy tree.
Generous: 12 inches or larger.
' Conrad: So that's a significant tree? Okay.
1 Generous: And that's just for the surveying part.
Conrad: But that, so that's in the survey. So that goes back into our formula? A significant.
' Generous: No, not at all. It helps us when they're developing their plan. The start with
P Y P g P Y
basically a survey of the site. The next layer on that might be the significant tree to give us
an idea of where these stand on. The third layer would then be the canopy coverage which
would include all the smaller trees and the large trees.
' Conrad: Okay so.
Generous: So it's just to help us in determining, you know trying to do the massaging of
roadway alignments or lot lines using some larger reference.
' Conrad: So what happens to an insignificant tree? Meaning that it's less than 12 inches.
Then what can we do there?
' Generous: Then we can look at it's canopy coverage. What if that tree contributes to the
canopy coverage of the site.
Scott: So when we get a preliminary plat let's say of a development, what we're going to be
getting will be kind of an outline that will show us what the total canopy coverage is and
then there will be dots representing 12 inches or bigger.
Generous: The significant tree.
n
7
L
Scott: So we can kind of then get a view of whether the canopy coverage is of significant
trees or not that they're insignificant but less significant.
Conrad: But there's nothing in here that tells me the formula for what significant trees can.
It just says they are represented on a plan. They're representing on a survey. We can cut
them down if we want but they're there.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: Well depending. You can cut some out, yes. If you go below your threshold,
you have to replace it on a larger basis. There's two ways ... The first one is if that tree,, let's
say you're right at the limit you need. You need 10% tree coverage and you have that.
When you start going in and cutting down the existing trees, you have to replace those on a
larger basis.
Mancino: But what we didn't do was, let's say you have—tree coverage over 90% and 80%
is little stuff and 10% is in this one area, they are significant. I mean they're big trees. We
haven't put a difference between those.
Generous: Priorities.
Mancino: We haven't put a priority about saving those big significant trees. Let's say
there's a stand within this entire canopy coverage, which I think we may want to think about.
That's a good question.
Generous: Yeah, we did make a distinction between the type of trees. As long as it had
leaves on it, some type of canopy coverage...
Harberts: Let me just comment on that though. It seems though that our discussion though
at our meeting, with regard to variances or whatever, kind of centers around if it's a
significant trees or tree stands. We've asked people to come back showing us where the pads
are, things like that. So if we're looking to be consistent with what we felt was important, I
think Nancy's comment needs to be addressed.
Mancino: Well and we still want to maintain canopy coverage, even the younger ones
because obviously as we said before, that's our next generation of trees. So it's not that we
want to lose those but if, maybe there should be a priority here.
Harberts: But we can put value on that though in some of the Lake Susan Hills. The Jasper
Homes and things like that.
Mancino: And being more educated and learning more about it and say let's just not save the
significant but let's save some of the younger ones too. But maybe we need to prioritize it.
Scott: Let me throw something out.
Harberts: I didn't mean to jump in Ladd.
Conrad: No, that was good. Again, I'm real naive on this. I have not participated and I
17
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
want to understand and I guess if I read it through, I don't. I don't know what this tells you.
Maybe developers are smarter than I am. But just real quick. I don't want to belabor this
point. Joe, you thought you were going to go through this one real fast. But real quickly, a
significant tree to me, you know I'll die for an oak that's 15 inches big but some other trees,
I guess if I know that they're fast growing, they're not as significant to me. So I guess I'm
' really picking on the definition here. I just don't, personally I don't buy it but again I
haven't gone to the committee meetings with you. I think there are significant trees below 12
inches and this doesn't.
t Mancino: Those are called special trees but we do have a category for those trees that are
below and that are rare trees.
' Conrad: Well you've got 30 inches there.
Mancino: No, it's rare or unusual tree species or trees of exceptional quality and it doesn't
matter what size those are under the definition of special trees.
' Generous: Ladd, also as part, with their requirements they're suppose to develop a
philosophy of what they're trying to do with that woodland plan. So—these fast growing
trees, we don't want to keep this. We want to make this an oak and maple forest, for example
because of the soil conditions, the existing tree pattern. So that's, we're trying to give the
developer.
' Conrad: I think everybody here is telling me something I probably believe and I don't see it
here. I guess I'm not quite sure that the words are saying what you're saying to me right
' now. I don't have any more questions.
Scott: Here's something that I'm going to play this against a development that we saw a
while back that I think was 40 or so acres—and no trees basically. So that would be 19% or
less. As part of our ordinance we're requiring people to stick 2 trees on the lot just anyway.
If someone is going to develop a treeless lot, because of this ordinance, are they going to be
required to exceed the other ordinance that we have? I'm not saying whether it's good or
bad. I'd love if they had to put 3 or 4 so I mean are we basically saying, yeah. If you want
to develop this treeless site, you're going to end up putting 4 or 5 or 6 trees per lot?
Generous: Well not per lot. We would encourage they put the requirement per lot but they
would have to create some wooded areas. Massed areas.
Scott: Mass, okay. So it's conceivable based upon this is that, and then let me just ask the
question. How many developments have you had.
18
L
i
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Mancino: Can I take that one step further, what you're asking? '
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: Because what you're saying is, then we may have some lots that don't have any
trees on it because we're doing this woodland management and it's all in one area maybe. '
And our thinking was, and Tim please join in, is that most people, when they buy a new
home want to go out and landscape it anyway and will put trees on it. And secondly, and I
just lost my train of thought. We still would like to, as a Tree Board, go back and do an t
ordinance for boulevard plantings. So that would be in addition to this. We would do
boulevard plantings in different areas too, so. '
Scott: Okay.
Harberts: I have an enforcement question too. So how do we enforce this? Especially I '
guess with regard to, you know with the dead trees. Removing of this. Who's going to go
out and make sure that the survey they give us is correct? You know in terms of the
different caliper inches. Tree caliper means diameter of tree measured at 6 inches above the
ground. Who's going to go out and enforce that.
Generous: ...to hire a professional landscape consultant. And partially on staff. We're '
looking at.
Harberts: Which staff? City's?
Generous: City staff. It's like anything. We have to verify what. I
Harberts: And this is why I'm asking. I'm not opposed to this but let's look at it from an
administrative, from a city cost. Look at the developments that we have coming in. One, is
there staff available? Is there money to support staff? Can basically we enforce this
ordinance? These are questions, I don't know the answers and I'll just throw this up to the
City Council to look at. I mean they're the ones that set the city budget. Everyone loves to
see the tax dollars go down rather than going up. Keeping the budget status quo. Where
anywhere from a 1% to 5% increase, if even that much. So I guess I question that. You
know it's great to involve the professional landscaping people to put the surveys together but
again, is the city able to enforce it and do we need to understand what that enforcement
process is or is that basically a City Council decision? And I guess my biggest point here is, ,
are we creating a stick in terms of development or is this a positive government policy to
help create more of a positive partnership?
J
19
J
I
F,I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: Well from what I've been reading in the planning literature, the greening of the
suburbs is all the rage now. People are moving out to the suburbs to ... because of the green
space. So this will be taking a positive step. As far as enforcement, if this is adopted, staff
will one way or another do it. As a part of the discussion items for your joint meeting with
City Council, that is one of the items.
Mancino: Furthermore, the Tree Board is supporting and has asked for a city forester and
maybe that's 100% Chanhassen. Maybe it's a shared forester with another city. I can tell
you that all the city ordinances that we did see across the country, any city that was seriously
getting into tree preservation, which most of them are now, have city foresters. They're on
staff.
Harberts: Well and I don't know if the city needs to hire per se a staff person or maybe they
need to hire the services of a professional firm that can accomplish the same thing but again,
I just wanted to make sure that it's an ordinance that can be enforced. But what's the cost
and I just want to raise those issues.
Generous: There's always the other alternative. We require developers to provide funding
for the city to get like an engineering for a consultant.
Scott: There you go.
Harberts: I like that.
Scott: Yeah, I had a long discussion with our forestry intern and it was kind of nice to see,
to hear some of these comments but the bottom line of kind of my thoughts and was
seconded by him, somebody who's going to be in that position is if you're going to have
somebody to do the enforcement then basically what you do is you have the people who are
going to have this ordinance, or have to deal with this ordinance, you need to have them pay
for their own cops. So personally, we have this nice formula. I think what we need to do is
to add another fee of some sort when someone files for development. They pay x based upon
y and z and then based upon the development that we have here, I mean we need to fund
that. I think it would be unfair for the city staff to do it, because you all have full time jobs
anyway. So anyway, enough of that Just a quick question.
Harberts: Just one other thing on that Joe. In terms of the enforcement and the monitoring
though. As I understood from some of the conversations that we've had in subdivision
discussions, that some of these trees may not, you know some of those may become stressed
and they don't due until a year later or something. Has that been taken into account with
regards to enforcement monitoring because yes, they put the fences up and it appears that
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
they're saving trees but in all likelihood they still got too close. They stressed out the tree
and the tree's going to die. Do we need to take that into consideration? Again, I don't have
the answers. I'm just raising the questions. City Council can deal with it then.
Scott: Well that was the next comment I was going to make is on page 5, item number 10.
It says if the protected significant trees are removed or killed, well.
Harberts: So what?
Scott: Yeah. The question there is, if it dies after a period of years, we don't ... too strange
but I know that city staff has received, and I've received numerous phone calls from people
who spent a serious amount of money on a treed lot only to 3 or 4 years later the trees start
dying on them. And then also too, number 9. I've got a question on the removal of diseased
and damaged trees is permissible only if it cannot be saved. Says who?
Mancino: Yeah, that was one of mine too. It must be approved by the city.
Scott: You back into it with your heavy equipment, well let's get it out of here. So anyway,
we've got.
Harberts: Well and you know again, I mean from my perspective, I think the City Council,
perhaps the Planning Commission needs to understand though what is the role of the city here
versus that of the homeowner. Certainly we want to develop that frame work to provide a
comfort level to protect the interests of the homeowner or whatever but again, it's just
understanding what the role should be here of city government. Do it in such a way that it
isn't really a stick approach to the developer but more of a positive partnership. You know
where's the balance and I guess that's the challenge. Where's the balance here?
Scott: Any other comments?
Nutting: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat new to this issue but if I could raise a point on page
6 of the ordinance... this deals specifically I believe with the issue pertaining to enforcement
but there are conditions for financial guarantees and surety and those are certainly types of
things that will trigger an analysis of the existing conditions after improvements have
been ... to ensure that the tree saving plan has worked before the funds can be released.
Scott: Okay.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, Ron brought up a good...go ahead.
21
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Nutting: That's okay. Well, yeah. I was just, if you've got a barren piece of land.
Someone comes in and wants to do high density residential, this ... 15% canopy coverage is
required which leaves the landscape barren...
Mancino: 15% of the total.
Nutting: Yeah but, I guess my question is, is that going to hinder the development of that
land.
Conrad: It also is a contradiction. We require one tree. We've got some property that we're
seeing that we've got out in farm fields and we require one tree. Now I assume, and ... look at
' low density residential and we're saying because it's in the 19% or less category, we require
one tree and we're assuming it's going to cover 25% of the area.
Generous: It won't. No. It covers about, one tree will equal about 2 1/2% of the canopy.
Conrad: Okay, so I don't understand it.
' Generous: We based it on the formula. To get a canopy coverage credit, you plant 40 trees
per acre. If you have an acre of barren land that you need to cover, you have to put 40 trees
in there.
Scott: That would be really good to put into the ordinance. Here's all this and then so what
this really means is da, da, da, da.
' Generous: ...didn't like it that way. One tree counts as 1,089 square feet of canopy
coverage.
Conrad: So what that does ... in a farmland right now, this ... to plant 5 trees per 15,000 square
foot. Okay, so that just took up your own cost by how many dollars?
Scott: So this particular ordinance will supersede any other.
' Conrad: And the City Council ... 2 trees per parcel.
' Scott: Well and then, affordable housing in Chanhassen is $175,000.00.
Tim Erhart: As Nancy points out, I'm Tim Erhart. I'm on the Tree Committee here and
' worked on this I guess for a year so far and we're looking forward alot to making, to creating
a boulevard tree planting ordinance which I think will do as much if not more than what
we're doing here but I think, you know one thing you've got to keep in mind in this whole
22
i
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Tim Erhart: But I think what ... this is really not a simple issue. It's really complicated. '
There's just a lot of factors involved in terms of people and environmental factors and it's
very tough to come up with something that balances ... for this project. So I think it's
recommending changes at this point, we could end up stopping just a lot of work to go back '
and redo the whole thing again and...
23
thing is that we tried to come up with an ordinance that creates a positive relationship with
the developer. Keeping in mind that the city doesn't, when you're talking about existing
trees, the city doesn't own those trees. And you know so when we want to start, when we
start talking about penalties and stick some things, you know it may be self defeating because
it's, we're trying to work with these people to make sense. The developer wants to save
trees. The days are over where it makes sense to go clear cut. We've had an ordinance for
many, many years now that you can't clear cut. You can argue that we have no legal right to
do that but the developers don't want to clear cut. And they want to work with the city. I
think the whole ordinance is designed to create an environment, to create a street pattern and
development where it's thought ... to save these big trees. And it's identified in the remarks.
We found, or at least what I understood through this whole discussion is they ... because
someone goes out there with a bulldozer after we've laid out a nice plan and the developer
and the staff agrees what's going to be saved and they disregard and just throw the fences off
to the side and push down the trees anyway. That's for the big important ones. And we've
tried to write that kind of enforcement into the code penalties and stuff ...from the way I
understand it, talking to Paul Krauss at one time, tried the idea of going out and getting really
critical one big tree at a time. And what they found was that was unmanageable. You have
somebody bought a lot and he designed, that couple designed a house to fit that lot and in
,
order to put that house on that lot without taking that tree and it turned into a big emotional
thing that was really beyond what the staff had at the time ... so at that time we actually had
one ordinance and we adjusted it more to deal with the concept of the canopy. Try to deal
with that lot...so I think that was the outcome. Then we added another thing too which I
think is really kind of new and that is say if you got raw land, in order to make it fair for
those ... you've got to add a significant tree. And then the question is, well yeah you can
probably do that and then the question is, you're adding costs to every house when you do
that ... maple grove and everything so we had a lot of discussion about well gee whiz. At what
rate do you want to add trees and one time we had 60 acres, 60 trees per acre and I believe
'
we cut it down. Tried to find something that seemed reasonable.
Mancino: Well we did it with the existing subdivisions that had come in. We said you
know, how many did we, we took a Lundgren one and we saw the landscaping plan and we
found that our ordinance was about the same as what they were going to be putting into
landscaping of that development anyway. So we did some comparative studies on it too.
Tim Erhart: But I think what ... this is really not a simple issue. It's really complicated. '
There's just a lot of factors involved in terms of people and environmental factors and it's
very tough to come up with something that balances ... for this project. So I think it's
recommending changes at this point, we could end up stopping just a lot of work to go back '
and redo the whole thing again and...
23
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Basically I'd say the world that we're probably going to be dealing with is most of the
developments that we see are 19% or less or I think Lake Susan Hills 9th was probably, a
1 major, a very rare situation. Some property but yeah, I'm certainly not against reforestation.
I just wanted to make sure that we understood how this ordinance would play against some
other ones that deal with reforestation. Let's see. Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: I had one thing. I think overall I support the amendment. I think it's an excellent
step in saving the remaining tree coverage. But we've talked about, or I've talked about the
1 issue as it relates to monumentation in item 7 on page 5. Essentially we're requiring a sign
on every lot in a single family development which likely will amount to encountering a sign
every 90 feet as you walk along the edge of a tree preserve and for me, I don't think that's
' appropriate. I would like to see that requirement removed. I understand that you want to
educate but at the same time I think that would be more negative than positive.
Mancino: What would be your solution? Would you then go in to say, in all situations a
monument is required for every 300 linear feet of tree conservation area and just have that
and not every lot?
Ledvina: Well I think maybe that's a little more palatable because you have a lot of people
in their backyard you know enjoying their backyard on their deck or whatever and they see a
sign there and I mean they don't see their sign. They don't just see their sign, they see the
neighbor's sign. The other sign there and then 2 more signs that way. So I can at least in
terms of the scenario that I'm envisioning, I wouldn't like it. So maybe a compromise is 300
linear feet.
' Mancino: And the other is...what these signs look like.
Ledvina: Well I don't know either. Maybe they're little signs on a wood post or something
' but we have so many signs in our lives and we have a nature preserve that we have to put
signs around and I don't like the idea. So I guess Nancy, I would agree that maybe as a
compromise there, maybe dust one every 300 feet. If we ,lust eliminate the sentence, in single
' family residential subdivisions a monument is required for each lot.
Mancino: Okay, and then I'd say try that and if we're having a problem with you know in a
certain subdivision people going in and cutting or getting into that conservation and we do
something.
1 Ledvina: Right. I think the preservation or the major part of the preservation occurs when
the site is developed and certainly starts with the planning and then when it's developed, I
think after that point people are aware of what they have bordering their property or on their
24
LJI
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Mancino: Yeah, profile. That's a good idea. I
Ledvina: Maybe if you added those words in there. It's just a scenario, bumping into a sign
as you're walking in the woods. That's unpalatable to me but if we can. I can understand if '
someone starts cutting the underbrush and they see the sign, then okay. Hey if something's
happening here and maybe this means something. Maybe I should check it out if they're
uneducated so from that perspective that may make some sense.
Mancino: Let's come back with a sign design and just make sure it's what we want.
Ledvina: Well maybe, we don't need to say it here or have a picture of a sign in the '
ordinance but maybe when developers come up and say, what are you talking about here for a
monument, have like kind of a standard plate or whatever that can be used.
Generous: Maybe we should do exactly like the wetland ordinance...
Ledvina: Okay, well if we could add the word low profile to monument. I guess that would
be more acceptable.
25
U
property. Maybe that isn't the case but they don't have real strong reasons to go in and start
mucking things up as opposed to the problems that could occur at the development stage.
Conrad: Matt, why can't we put a, you're thinking of a sign that comes out of the ground. I
guess I don't know that you need to do that. I think you can put flat. You can put, like of
golf courses where you've got markers.
Ledvina: A tee marking?
Conrad: Yeah. So we're not obtrusive. I'm real concerned like wetlands that people will
destroy them. I'm concerned that after time, after a year or the next family goes in, it's gone.
'
The sign's gone or whatever but if we get the monument or a marker that's metal in the
grass, I don't think that's obtrusive at all and I think that might, that was what I was
envisioning. I don't know if that solves your problem.
Ledvina: Well I don't know. I guess if that's possible.
Mancino: An unobtrusive monument sign.
Ledvina: Low profile.
'
Mancino: Yeah, profile. That's a good idea. I
Ledvina: Maybe if you added those words in there. It's just a scenario, bumping into a sign
as you're walking in the woods. That's unpalatable to me but if we can. I can understand if '
someone starts cutting the underbrush and they see the sign, then okay. Hey if something's
happening here and maybe this means something. Maybe I should check it out if they're
uneducated so from that perspective that may make some sense.
Mancino: Let's come back with a sign design and just make sure it's what we want.
Ledvina: Well maybe, we don't need to say it here or have a picture of a sign in the '
ordinance but maybe when developers come up and say, what are you talking about here for a
monument, have like kind of a standard plate or whatever that can be used.
Generous: Maybe we should do exactly like the wetland ordinance...
Ledvina: Okay, well if we could add the word low profile to monument. I guess that would
be more acceptable.
25
U
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Are there any other comments?
Mancino: Yeah, I just have a few. On that same page, 5. Up in the first paragraph, fifth
line down. It says any understory trees and natural vegetation should be preserved. I'd like
to put all instead of any. All understory trees and natural vegetation. Also on page 1,
paragraph 2. Bob, when I read that it doesn't tell me that this, or does it. You tell me. That
this survey, where does it tell me that it has to be done by a professional? I guess I'd like to
make sure that the survey that the city gets from the developer is done by a professional
arborist.
Generous: Page 3.
Mancino: But that's the woodland management plan. It's not the survey.
Scott: We can just add, prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape. Or you fill in the blank. I don't know what the
blank should be but.
Generous: Use the same language on number 3.
Mancino: Exactly. A licensed forester or other professional approved by the city or
landscape architect. So I'd like that also included then in 2. On page 2, (a). Based on this
survey and either site observation or measurement or aerial photograph interpretation. I
would like to make sure it is a current, and when I say current, within the last year or two,
aerial photograph. Because there are a lot of aerial photographs that are around here that are
5 or 10 years old.
' Scott: That can work against you too.
Mancino: I mean yeah. I can either work for or against you but I think it should be
' current... developer prior to bringing in a site plan because you have on page 2, the baseline
canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development application is
filed with the city. So somebody could go in and take down quite a few before the, yeah.
Ledvina: Well I think something like that would be noticed as staff visited sites and then...
photos would come into play.
Mancino: Yeah but remember Minnewashta.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Ledvina: Right.
Mancino: I mean nobody knew exactly what had come down and what hadn't except for a
neighbor came.
Ledvina: Well and there were, there was an evaluation of what was done there and I mean
we looked at stumps and all that kind of thing. I think you can do that after the fact if you
have to.
Mancino: I agree. I just think it would be good if the city did have photographs. If we
could use those too.
Ledvina: Sure.
Mancino: In addition to.
Scott: Also too, I'd like to see where each, when a preliminary plat is brought to us, I
personally don't even want to see it unless this is taken care of before hand. I don't want to
be wasting our time and the applicant's time just to table it. So personally I don't want to
see anything unless all the ducks are in a row.
Richard Wing: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one thing?
Scott: Yes.
Richard Wing: A recent site plan review included pictures and a description of the trees that
were a part of the site plan and I'd like to see staff have each one of the trees that's on our
tree list, I think should be on record and I think we should get a picture of that tree and a
description of that tree and everytime the site plan is presented, those trees and that
description and that picture follows the site plan so we can see what kind of tree they're
talking about. How it looks and how it's going to fit in. They just, the last site plan review
at the City Council we had that included and it was interesting to be able to see the type of
tree, the height of the tree, the crown that the tree had and the...
Scott: So that was something like there was a list of species kind of like we have in here and
then with a picture along side of it?
Richard Wing: I would request staff to continue including pictures and description of the
trees when these site plans come forth with the landscaping plan so ... or a honey locust, it
27
t
. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
means nothing to me unless I can see a picture of it and a description of it. At the same time
you approved the site plan for Byerly's monument sign of roughly 8 x 11 ... and no other
' information whatsoever that makes sense. Just a suggestion that that be included.
Scott: Sounds good to me.
' Mancino: I have another question. Tim, I can't remember this and I'm asking you. On page
3, if a developer goes in and takes out more than the 45% canopy coverage and decides to go
' and take 60% out, we have that replacement being a 1.2 times replacement?
Tim Erhart: Yeah. I think it's a ratio on that.
Mancino: Yeah. But on the other one, when they go in after it's already protected and
everything is 1.5, why did we have a difference there? Why don't we stick with 1.5 for both
applications?
Tim Erhart: If somebody's agreed to save the trees—in a position to go back and ... because
' he didn't do what he said he was going to do. Versus the other one is more or less a trade
off and it's discussed and negotiated up front.
' Mancino: So there is a 20% penalty for going in and taking additional canopy coverage and
let's say there are significant trees in this canopy coverage. There are some huge, old growth
' trees and I can take out, I've decided to take out a little bit more because I can fit a certain
house on there and all I have to do is put 20% back in of these young, new little trees.
' Tim Erhart: Yeah. We went through what the cost per acre and what it costs to do that...
Mancino: Okay. Because I know we were playing around with 1.2, 1.3, 1.4.
' Tim Erhart: And I don't think there was any clear agreement.
' Mancino: On what that percentage was.
Tim Erhart: ...magic ratio that anybody felt was just right. We sort of agreed on some point
in the middle. But clearly I think we all agreed that if somebody takes a tree down, that we
thought was going to be saved, clearly ought to be penalized substantially.
Mancino: I just wonder if there shouldn't be again a priority. If it's a significant tree, it's a
little bit more. That's reworking the whole ordinance. Okay.
RM
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Harberts: I have a question for staff. Was it about a few months ago we had looked at like a
landscaping ordinance. Is this like a subset of this then? Is that how that fits into it?
Scott: On parking lot?
Harberts: Yeah. Is that how that fits into it? This is kind of like a subset or is this like a.
Generous: This is a different section. It deals with you, well as far as the site plan, we have
the two will be meshed but as far as this is separately under the subdivision ordinance.
Harberts: Oh okay. What kind of action are we looking for tonight? Consideration to move
it up to the City Council?
Mancino: Yes.
Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Code Amendment to the Landscaping Tree Preservation Sections in the City Code as shown
in the March 30, 1994 amendment from the Planning Staff.
Scott: Is there a second?
Harberts: I'll second it.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff's recommendation. Is there
any discussion?
Harberts: I would just encourage the City Council to, I know I read somewhere here about,
oh here it was. In the Planning Director's report about considering funding for an urban
forester for the city and I would just encourage the City Council to consider, before they look
at adding on a permanent staff to the city rolls, that they look at perhaps purchasing that
service from a company rather than putting that on as permanent staff. There might be a cost
advantage to that but we certainly want to make sure that the work is done. So I would just
encourage city staff to, or the City Council to look at purchasing the service from an existing
agency rather than putting on a staff report if there's value to doing that.
Scott: Is there any other discussion?
Ledvina: I would like to also add to my motion that the discussion undertaken this evening
29
n
J
1
n
J
L
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
as it relates to suggested language changes be made prior to forwarding this ordinance to the
City Council.
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of City Code Amendment to the landscaping and tree preservation sections as shown in
the staff report of March 30, 1994 and amended to reflect the changes discussed. All
voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
Scott: And your reason for abstaining?
Conrad: I'm really not comfortable with the minimum canopy requirements chart. And I've
tried to rationalize it because I think those on the Tree Board have done a terrific job here. I
don't buy some of the percentages. I think I would have done it differently but I didn't want
to ... well enough. I think there should be a standard per district that you aim for and that may
be 50% coverage in a residential area but what we're doing is we're saying, based on how we
started it, we're going to let one district have a different standard and within the same zoning,
if the farmer cut down all the trees, they really only have to reforest it to a certain percentage.
Whereas if you started with a lot of trees, we're going to keep them up at that high level and
I would have cut it at a standard per zoning district that we're achieving. But I understand
the logic here. I don't know...
Scott: Thanks for your comment.
SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I think we were talking about allowing pylon signs on property with Highway 5
frontage.
Mancino: But just in the general business district. I mean no in multi family, no in single
family, no in IOP.
1 Scott: BG.
Mancino: Yeah.
Generous: BH is the only two that would be affected. Highway Business district which is
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
right along TH 5 and BG, the general business which ties in with Market Square basically
and...
Harberts: So when you say they're affected Bob, are you saying that perhaps, depending on
what the outcome of the ordinance is, that those signs would have to come down? Or would
they be grandfathered in?
Generous: No. Any existing pylon sign would be...
Harberts: And could you just kind of tell me who they would include?
Generous: Well depending on the district, Town Square possibly.
Scott: What's Town Square?
Generous: On the other side of the bank.
Scott: Oh you mean that little.
Generous: With the two columns. That's what, 19 feet or something like that. Possibly the
Country Suites. Depending on what ... That's all I can think of right now. I'd have to...
Anything that's not within whatever distance...
Scott: Sounds like somebody's beachlots.
Mancino: Makes sense to me.
Generous: We also are looking at, we didn't come up with any criteria but for discussion
was rewarding good design. Those criteria that we have... generalized down there. Saying
stuff might be started at a lower percentage and then if they used, include those features, that
they could have monument signs up to whatever the limit was.
Scott: And then also too, if it's kind of the cut outs instead of taking a rectangular square
footage for signage.
Harberts: What about bus signs? Are they informational signs?
Scott: Those would be non - conforming uses I think.
Generous: You mean like bus pick up or bus no parking signs?
31
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I Harberts: Bus stop signs.
Generous: Those are directional signs.
Harberts: So they would be directional informational signs?
Generous: Right.
' Harberts: We're undertaking a major signage project here folks.
Mancino: So nothing has been changed that we talked about inside the ordinance?
' Generous: Not that I'm aware of, no. We would still need to come up with what numbers
you would prefer. Or if you would like to simplify it and say 10% and maybe give notices
for these requirements and drop the percentages that you allow.
Mancino: One of the things that would help me would be drawings. To actually see what is
15% of 600 square feet. I mean you know, I probably should have done that on my own but
on some of these, I don't know what that relates to. I don't understand the proportion.
Scott: Kind of like on Highway 5 where, here's a picture. This not this. Something like
that. And also you can visually see, get a concept of scale that's involved. But we won't use
' Blockbuster Video as an example.
Mancino: But I would like to see line drawings before I decide percentages even.
Scott: Because it's basically what we want is we want to have a quantitative reflection of
taste call. We want enforceable taste is basically what we're looking for here. So I think
' you need for folks like me, pictures are very valuable so.
Generous: We did extend our survey to...We received the information for the inflatable
sign... It's part of the memo, page 4. Number 6. I mean basically... discussion to provide
staff with any additional direction you want and we'll try to do it.
Ledvina: Well, maybe I'll just jump in here. I had a long conversation with Randy Herman
regarding the new sign ordinance and as you may remember, Randy attended some of our
work sessions and he's in the signage business. I mean he lives and breathes this stuff in
' terms of having to make it work and we talked about a number of these things and some, I'm
going to just starting going through it and these are some of his concerns and based on our
conversations, some of my concerns as well.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Mancino: Matt, I'm sorry. Is he a manufacturer of signs? He is a designer of signs?
Ledvina: Designs both, yes.
Mancino: And manufacturer. Okay.
Ledvina: So I'm not, we discussed a lot of different things and certainly some points I didn't
agree with him on but I think just in a general way, I think that we have Chanhassen. It's a
developing community. We're concerned about the retail presence and we want to foster a
healthy retail environment and the ability to advertise is crucial in developing and maintaining
an environment. And I think that if we're going to have an ordinance, we should make
certain that, or try to make as certain as we can that the provisions of the ordinance are
enforceable. That they're reasonable and that they're fair to the business community as well.
So with that premise I have some comments you know of the ordinance that we've developed
and I think, there's been some changes. I went back and I looked at a couple of different
things and I was wondering why things weren't changed, and maybe you can go back into
that a little bit. But let's see, where do I want to start. Let's look on page 7. This talks
about, it's actually item 10(a)(2) and it talks about sign display for temporary real estate
signs. And we have two criteria there as it relates to the size of the sign based on the size of
the parcel and I don't know if that really gets to the issue of what we're trying to do there. I
don't know if the size of the parcel has, should really influence the size of the sign.
Essentially we're saying that in, when we have small lots, we want small signs. When we
have large lots, we can have larger signs. But what we're concerned about really and what,
like what real estate people are concerned about is the visibility of the sign. They're not, and
for let's say for example on Highway 5. If they've got a piece of property there. They might
have a 5 acre parcel on Highway 5 and you're requiring them to have essentially a 3 x 4 sign,
that's going to be absolutely useless. So the thing is the visibility and maybe what we're,
maybe the sign, the area of the sign should be tied to the setback distance from the right -of-
way because obviously we don't want big signs in our downtown area on a vacant parcel of
land. So if we say something like, 12 square foot sign. Minimum setback of 20 feet from
the right -of -way. 32 foot square sign minimum 100 feet from the setback. Or setback from
the right -of -way. I think that would be more appropriate. In terms of the size of the parcel.
Mancino: Do you think it's going to be hard to control though? I mean somebody will do a
bigger sign and put it up closer.
Ledvina: Then you won't see it. I mean it will have the perspective that a 3 x 4 sign would
have closer. So it's obviously cheaper to put up a 3 x 4 sign if you can see it.
Mancino: No but I'm saying, I would do the bigger signage allowable. What you're thinking
33
n
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
of seeing it at a distance so it doesn't read as big, correct?
Ledvina: Right.
Mancino: I would take that bigger sign and I would just more it forward.
Ledvina: Well maybe not the right -of -way. Maybe it should be the center like of the road or
something like that. Because in the business district the center line, you know you have the
' roadway, the curb and then whatever. The parcel. But in an environment like a 4 lane
situation you have just a huge chunk of land that's eaten up by the right -of -way so to, you
won't be able to see the sign.
' Scott: Does this point out a need to look at either the class of roadway that abuts the
roadway or the zoning of the property?
' Ledvina: Well that's the other thing. Maybe it can be done by zoning.
' Mack: Mr. Chairman, that is a very common practice on real estate development signs. That
you tie the size of the sign to the roadway classification as well as the speed limit.
Scott: And I'd like to piggy back on top of kind of no brainer stuff because if I have a
parcel I'm trying to sell and I've got a realtor, I'd like the realtor to be able to go ... 4 lane
highway so I can put it this big and something that you can kind of sit down and figure it out
pretty fast. But they should be calling Bob.
' Ledvina: I think this is a new section and I think we need to look at how we refine that. I
think there could be a different criteria there as it relates to that treatment for different sized
signs.
Scott: So is class of road and speed limit, do you think that's?
Ledvina: Yes. That would be, that seems reasonable, sure. I was just thinking of some
alternative. I'm not in the sign business but I'm trying to look at some of these things and
try to see what seems to make sense.
Harberts: Do you have any specifics on your comments with regard to enforcement?
Ledvina: With regard to, I'll get to that.
Harberts: Okay.
34
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
L
'
Ledvina: Let's see. Turning to page 8 for example. Item number 1 under temporary signs.
I think we need to break banners and portable signs into two size categories. For example,
Randy informed me that I believe the city has 6 signs that they use and they rotate the signs.
The banner signs. And each of these signs are 60 feet. 60 square feet so throw away all our
signs right now and start over. So banners are typically 60 square feet and I think that's
reasonable so I would suggest we use that. And for portable signs, a 32 square foot
maximum I think represents, it's a small sign but that's reasonable. So I would suggest a 60
foot maximum for banners.
,
Conrad: What width does the material come in?
Ledvina: Pardon?
t
Conrad: Do you know what width the banners would be?
,
Scott: Or 3 or 4 feet.
Conrad: I'm going to start jumping in I guess. That's about 30 feet expanse right there and
there are very few, if you say Welcome to Chanhassen, you can't fit it in basically. It's
tough. You could go to two levels of letters and then you get your letters down to about 8 or
10 inches and then when you start doing that, then they become tough to read. It's hardly
,
worth while. So Matt, when you say 60 feet. 60 feet I think there's some smaller widths that
they do but that's even, that's barely enough to do anything. And so the question is, are we,
what do we want to do? 30 feet is a pretty, you know if he says 20, I really don't buy that.
'
Maybe that's Chanhassen but in terms of what you typically see, a 30 foot banner is real
common. Then I think the issue is really how do you want it. How high do you want it?
Do you want to restrict it to one width of material, which is probably about 24 inches. Is that
'
what we're trying to do? Or do we want to? You know to me this is the factor. This way,
not necessarily the width so I guess as we come up with our arbitrary numbers, I think we
should think of some practical things. St. Hubert's wouldn't fly and that's sort of a
'
traditional banner that we typically has that goes across the street. And you know it's bigger
than this and it's not obtrusive. It's only up for a week or so.
Ledvina: That's the important thing. A temporary and.
Conrad: I think you're right on the mark.
Ledvina: Well should we use a larger?
Conrad: I don't know what the number is. I seriously, I get real frustrated by numbers
35
L
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
because we're just sort of wheeling and dealing. Hey, how about 18? I need somebody that
really says, a typical banner is 30 feet and a typical width is this and that way we can make a
' decision.
Scott: Yeah, it's a taste call and if you, you know call St. Hubert's up. Just say how's big
' your banner and then that way, because obviously, at least in my case, I think it's great. I
mean I look for them and I think that's another think we're talking about here is that what is,
these are community events that are being sponsored.
' Mancino: It's fun to see them.
r
1
Conrad: They're nice, yeah.
Scott: I don't think I've seen, I mean the stuff that the Parks department does and St.
Hubert's and all the other stuff that goes on, call around and find out how big they are
because I haven't seen any of those things that I consider to be too big and that's really what
I think we're doing here is quantifying taste so we have, so it's enforceable. So let's just see
what's happening around the community right now, which I think we can use that as a
planning unit.
Ledvina: Okay. Moving to page 11. Looking at the general location restrictions. Item (a).
We say that no sign shall be placed within drainage or utility easement. And Randy and I
talked about this and he indicated that roughly 70% of the existing signs would violate this
requirement. And that says to me that this is going to create a very large hardship for the
standard operating procedure as it relates to this. I can understand that we need to keep signs
out of the way of snow plows and other type of maintenance equipment and previously the
ordinance said, no sign shall be placed within the public right -of -way. But the problem is
that many times drainage easements, drainage and utility easements go far into properties.
They cut across properties... we're going to want, or someone's going to want to put a sign in
an area that is not necessarily a problem from a maintenance perspective but would not meet
the requirements of the ordinance. The one thing that I considered related to building things
within utility easements. That means there's things underground. Well these people, any
time you do anything near a roadway or even for that matter, on any parcel. Any time you
dig, put a footing in or whatever, or even pound a sign in, you're required to go through ... to
clear the utilities and they're very conscientious about that. And so in that event, the danger
of public safety, the danger that could be envisioned with that scenario is rather remote so I
guess I would prefer to see this language changed to public right -of -way.
Mancino: I just have a question Matt. I thought the whole reason was to keep the easement
open and not obstructed so that a vehicle or anything that needed to get in could have access.
M
Cl
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
So if you put a sign in the middle of this easement, no longer do you have an unobstructed '
way for a vehicle to get in and service it.
Scott: Well utility easements usually are not for, but it might say a maintenance easement. I
mean that's a different story. Because those are usually, when I think of a maintenance
easement, I think of like a road that goes to a NURP pond or something like that. So those '
are probably a lot fewer and farther between and we all have at least one or two utilities
easements on our property. So I can see, you know I can see, I don't think somebody
sticking a sign on a utility easement to advertise a house for sale or something like that, that's
not going to be deep enough but yeah. I could see where the utility side of it would be a
question but as far as maintenance, I don't know.
Ledvina: I don't have the, I don't claim to have a definitive answer on this but this seems to '
be reaching a little too far in terms of restrictions. And I would recommend that staff
research that and see what the status quo is in terms of the situation and I don't know. Do ,
you have any comments on that Bob?
Generous: Well that is, it's in the current ordinance. If Dave was here I bet he would be
jumping up and down.
Scott: Who? ,
Generous: Hempel. Because they put the, they really would like to have them open just in
case they need to use them.
Mancino: Yeah, that's what I thought. I
Ledvina: Well I understand you know some utility easements but when you have telephone
and power that don't require servicing or very rarely require servicing on individual lines. I '
don't know. I guess I wouldn't want to see, I want to be cautious in terms of developing an
ordinance that would have routine non - compliance. I guess that's my strong concern here.
Mancino: I'd like to get Dave's input.
Scott: If you took out the thing that said no sign shall be placed within any drainage or
maintenance easement. Then if you go down to number (e) it says, ...should not interfere
with any electric light, power, telephone, telegraph wires or supports thereof. I think that
kind of gets at that thing. You know we don't want people punching holes in utilities but '
there, I could see where there are certain instances and I can think of an instance on my
particular expanse of property where I put signs in the utility easement but then I also know
37
1
u
1�
LF,
LJ
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
that utilities are like 12 inches below the ground and sticking a little sign in there isn't going
to interfere with them but I can see where you're coming from because if somebody's putting
up a big sign, they're going to call. But then I think this item number (e) kind of takes into
consideration protecting the utility thing without restricting people from putting signs in.
Ledvina: Right. Well, just to voice my concern that that specific requirement be carefully
considered.
Generous: ...clarification. Are you talking about all signage or only as temporary?
Ledvina: Well this is general location restrictions.
Scott: That's everything.
Generous: Even the large pylon signs or little signs?
Scott: Yes.
Conrad: I guess I'm interested in what's the impact of that requirement. I don't have a clue.
I don't know if, are 90% of our current signs in this area?
Scott: Probably.
Mancino: I keep pulling them out in front of our house. I mean people put 10 signs in the
front drainage and I just keep pulling them out. It bugs the heck out of me.
Conrad: I'm not concerned as much about the temporary.
Mancino: But permanent.
Scott: This is general location restrictions so that applies to everything.
Ledvina: Okay, and just to finish up here. My last item relates to the prohibition on window
signs. I don't know why this is, well we talked about it certainly at length the last time and
I'm looking at your survey which is great. I think if this is a way to do it, to see what other
communities are doing, that's great. But what I'm seeing is that mostly window signage is
permitted to a certain degree. And here we have it not permitted and I think that this is a
huge issue as it relates to the retail people. I think as it relates to permanent window signage,
I would agree with some type of restriction. Whether it be 5% or 50 %. I don't know the
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
number and maybe it's a dart board kind of thing but I don't know. But I think that some ,
window signage should be allowed.
Scott: But are you thinking that definitely less than 50 %? More than 25, less than 50?
Mancino: I'd like to see again some drawings to see different percentages. I
Scott: I think of public safety. I mean aside from the clutter, there's a public safety issue and
it's got to be less than 50% but then you know, Ladd brought up a point where it's ,
advertising really you don't have to pay for. You buy the sign and you get the exposure but
then it's also is that Ladd, most window signs are mostly people who have already decided to
go into a retail establishment and this is an attractant from 10 feet away. I mean it's not. I'm
just trying to figure out what we're going to be dealing with here. You're the sign guy this
evening. Less than 50, more than 25.
Conrad: Yeah. I don't know. What ou've of to do is o through Market Square and see
Y g g g q
what it looks like. You've got to go past your grocery stores in the cities and your drug '
stores and they all use them and I don't think anybody here is going to say they're pretty but
they're using them and so the question is, how much do we think is acceptable. Now I'll
throw some other factors in. I think you can go around town and certain people will have 2 '
or 3 signs in one window block. I don't think you want that. That's clutter. That's really
compounding things so it's beyond just square footage. It's how many tunes in a one
window frame might be a better way. And then how many of those windows that a store '
would have, how many do you want to fill up. And what percent. So you get into some of
that stuff. I think you've got to be looking at a third of the window space in that area. I
think you do. You know and if we're taking a compromise here as I look at it, someplace ,
around that area. That's where I'm starting from. I don't have a magic key.
Harberts: Well yeah and I think that's a good point Ladd. When I shop at Festival, you go '
up to the front door and they'll have today's hot special on the front door. I mean does that
constitute a window?
Mancino: Yeah. '
Ledvina: Well that's a temporary sign. I think there's categories here. I
Harberts: Well again but, yeah but do they change it every day and second, again what
constitutes a window? Maybe I'm far fetching here but I noticed when I pulled up to the '
Americana Bank, where I do my banking, that one of the drive thru windows, teller windows
had a nice Christmas display in it. That's a window. You know it seems to me that was
39
r]
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
' 50 %. Again.
' Mancino: But a sign is different than a display. I mean all you've got to do is go down to
Excelsior and it has the older type of buildings with displays in them and they are
welcoming. They bring you into, we know what they sell there, etc.
Harberts: But when something, for instance like Market Square is, the windows are kind on
' the interior. They're small. You know more for that pedestrian walk, do we care? Do we
want to care? This is what I'm trying to understand. So you know, what's the intent here?
What are we trying to do? I think Matt's comment though, I think we need to be very
careful of is it reasonable. Can it be enforceable? The question that I have with regard to,
on page 7, number 4. (a)(4). All temporary real estate signs shall be moved within 7 days
following the sale. What's the sale? Is it when the purchase agreement is accepted or when
it's finally closed and who's going to be driving around town, oh okay. So okay, we'll be
back in 7 days. Again, is it enforceable. Is it reasonable but bottom line here is, is it
creating a positive partnership, especially with the business community. The business
community is one of those elements that makes a community. And so again, is this a positive
intent?
Conrad: What do you think?
' Harberts: I don't. I don't.
Conrad: So you'd rather take it out? No restrictions?
' Harberts: Oh I didn't say no restrictions but I think you said it well Ladd when you said,
we're just kind of 7, 8, 10, 12. I don't know. I don't know but when I apply some of that
rationale, you know the Festival Food store. The Americana drive up. You know those are
all windows with temporary signs. What are we creating? Are we creating more of a
monster?
Conrad: It's a terribly difficult issue. You know to the point where it gets confusing. There
are some things that if you take a look at Market Square. We'll use them because they're the
' closest one and more retail than anyplace else but there are things that wouldn't be considered
signage in some of those windows that are real offensive. So what we're going to do, and
you'll figure out what I'm talking about but what we're going to do is we're going to restrict
some folks because they literally have a paper sign that we have words to describe yet there
are some examples of clutter that we won't, we can't control there. And so it's a real tough
issue.
.o
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 '
Mancino: Well you know and I would like to go further than that, in talking about signs. I '
would like to, and all you have to do is go and visit the MGM on TH 101 and TH 7, the new
MGM, and they have windows. Why they ever put glass windows in I don't know because '
what you see in those windows is the back of displays. It's white board. So I don't know
why they put windows in the building to begin with, so that's a whole other area.
Harberts: Well are we missing the intent here of what we're trying to achieve? I guess that's
the bottom question.
Scott: And also too we're, personally we're making a recommendation to the City Council
too so I mean, obviously most of the things that we send there get beat up and chewed up '
anyway, which is fine. On this window thing, I don't think prohibiting window signs makes
sense. I don't think anybody wants to see anything more than a third so why don't we, let's
throw the dart up in the air and go for a third and if the City Council feels that that's higher ,
or lower, they can go from there. I don't think we really need to beat it up but at least from
what I'm hearing here is that, you know a full window doesn't make any sense but we want
to allow these folks a chance to advertise. '
Mancino: Now is that total window coverage? I mean first of all I'm not for 33. I'd go for
25 but anyway.
Scott: Okay. Sounds good tome. I
Mancino: But is that aggregate glass or is that each window itself can have 25 %?
Scott: We're talking about sign canopy. I
Conrad: I'd like to reinforce somebody who does one nice sign versus two mediocre like that '
or brings it all together. I think aggregate or total. So if we've got 1,000 square feet of
windows, they can put 333 square feet of...
Scott: Okay, so this is 25% of total aggregate window area.
Mancino: That would be the average one out of all those. And that includes doors. I mean I
doors are glass. And they're windows.
Scott: What about skylights now? Forget it. I
Ledvina: The other thing is, on window signs there's, I think there's a distinction between
41
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
permanent and temporary. I think temporary signs should be allowed a higher percentage. I
see that's what they've done in New Brighton and that seems to make sense to me. And I
' don't know, maybe 50% for temporary signs.
Generous: What's a temporary sign?
I Ledvina: Well a temporary sign is defined in the ordinance I think.
Mack: ...point upon the window signages is very typically one thing that's very difficult to
regulate from the city's standpoint and most communities that I've dealt with do not normally
permit those signs. Those are allowed by right and they can just do them. So it's real tough.
But if you have a standard it's more from an enforcement standpoint. And just to comment
too on the percentage. Typically anything over 33% is going to look pretty cluttered. One
thing I've given a lot of thought to this ... when I was in Burnsville working on this particular
' issue. One of the things I closely considered suggesting, and would probably do so tonight is
that you consider a sliding scale. For example you have concerns. Where you occupy a
large area, with a higher percentage or even a low percentage. If you have a large window
' area, say about 33 %, that would be an awful lot of signage if it's a big area. Versus a small
area in one business location. Having that and that's not necessarily a lot so you might want
to consider a sliding scale based upon square footage amount that you have, one applies to a
' larger area and perhaps a smaller percentage to a large area and perhaps a slightly larger area
to the smaller total area.
' Ledvina: Kind of like the wall sign.
Scott: Yeah. Have that be consistent.
Harberts: Bob, tell me how, if I drive down Kerber Boulevard when I go down and there's a
' particular home that has a big daycare sign on the back of their house. They must be a
registered or licensed daycare. Where does that fit in?
Generous: They can't do that. They get 2 square feet I believe for home occupations and the
big sign...
Harberts: Well and from my perspective, if it was any smaller, I wouldn't see it. Again, that
is a person's livelihood.
Mancino: Yeah but that's not their only vehicle to advertise. I mean they've got radio, TV,
newspaper.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Generous: ...32 square foot sign sitting off the kitchen window...
Harberts: Their privilege in terms of-exactly.
Scott: Let's attack the window signage in a similar fashion. Also too, personally I don't
think that we should make any distinction between permanent and temporary window signage
because that's ridiculous from an enforcement standpoint. So we should just go after total
window coverage, permanent or temporary doesn't matter. And this is a guideline and
obviously it's one thing to have an ordinance but I think when you're looking at people's
ability to advertise their business by hanging stuff on their windows, something like this
really needs, or at least a summary of this, really needs to be mailed to all of the businesses
in town so they know what the heck is going on. And at least the business people will know
that there's so if we decide we're going to be something different with their signage, they can
go to their friendly sign person and say, by the way here's the ordinance. But yeah, this is
something that needs to be sent out to everybody.
Conrad: When?
Scott: When it's passed.
Ledvina: Not when it's passed.
Harberts: I think it should be beforehand.
Mancino: They'll have a public hearings?
Ledvina: They'll have the opportunity...
Harberts: But I think this is a notice though that needs to go out as if it was a site plan
review in terms of this is what's on the agenda. Not just counting on the newspaper.
Generous: It says 500 feet of, every commercial building? Every...
Scott: At our board meeting at the Chamber of Commerce we passed this around. All the
board members have got copies of it so.
Conrad: I guess just a footnote. My preference is to keep this window deal simple. So
although... that maybe makes sense, I'd certainly like to see it simple. We're not smart
enough to figure out all these different... and scales.
43
F7
�I
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: No, and we don't want to.
' Conrad: I guess I'd like staff to say it makes sense to have a scale but on the other, I really
like one number Joe that covers both temporary and permanent. I really do feel strongly
about how much clutter is in a particular deal. You know I think sometimes it's not square
' feet but it's stuff. You can have neon here and then a paper here and then an insignia here
and boy, that is visual pollution. So again, if there's a way to get our hands around that and
if there's not, I really don't want complexity in this thing. Nobody's going to enforce it. It
should be simple and it should be a simple one for merchants to figure out.
Mancino: And I think we should pull in public safety in there. I mean to say why we're
' doing it so that he can police whatever can look inside. They want unobstructed views.
Scott: Yeah, and they can't always keep up with the ordinances that come through but I'd
like to do something so when Officer Bob is going around he can say, because he knows it's
up there and those people can kind of, yeah. But yeah, that's a good comment Ladd.
Ledvina: A very minor point on page 20. On the drawing of the building. Please eliminate
the reference to Pizza Hut.
' Generous: I mentioned that to Kate...
Ledvina: Make it Taco Shack or whatever but don't make it Pizza Hut.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Although this is not a public hearing we have,
Randy's here. Councilman Wing. Questions. Comments. Since you're kind enough to sit
here for now coming up on 3 hours.
Randy Schultz: Thanks Joe for allowing me to say a few words. Let me introduce myself.
I'm Randy Schultz, President of the Americana Community Bank and I just want to mention
a few concerns that I had when I looked at this proposed ordinance. I'm really gratified to
hear some of the comments made already regarding my window sign. Our particular building
isn't one that a lot of our tenants have asked about window signs but we have had some
comments made about that already. We do though in every case, and I'm not sure if all of
you are familiar with our building but we do have enough significant amount of tenant space
in the building and we are still looking for tenants for quite a bit of that space over there still
and I do want to tell you that in every case, in every tenant that comes to or perspective
tenant that comes to our building have all talked about signage. It's very important to them.
It's very important where they're going to have signage. And even in our particular building
where we tend to have firms more like law firms and accounting firms and insurance firms,
..
t
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
that's still a very important item to them so I would submit to you that in our buildings in
your community where you're dealing more with more retail ... Signage is going to be even
that much more for them. So it's an important element and I think it needs to be thought
about. In that regard, if you're all familiar with our building, one of the, our main sign that
we have for our tenants is a large monument sign right near the corner of our building. I do
see that the proposed ordinance change for a building our size has that monument maximum
square footage being 36 square feet. Going down from the present ordinance of 80. Am I
right about that Bob? When I looked at the page 15—you're taking that all the way from an
ordinance, a present ordinance of 80 square feet down to 36 square feet.
Generous: What's...
Mancino: 13,000.
Randy Schultz: 11,000.
Generous: That would be 64 square feet.
Conrad: For a pylon or a monument?
Generous: Both.
Randy Schultz: Am I looking at that right? So if you look at our sign you will notice that
the client, the tenants that we do have now, their particular signage isn't that large and in our
particular building, the way the tenant space works out, ideally we'd like to have about 6
tenants. So if you think about a building without a major tenant like an owner tenant like
ourselves, we might have 6 to 8 tenants and you start dividing that up into 36 square feet,
you're going to have a pretty small space for that tenant. It's going to be very hard for most
people to even notice or see. I think you're looking at a square footage there that's very,
very small. The other thing I was going to mention is ... window signs and prohibiting them
entirely I think would be very, very difficult with businesses and I'm glad to see you're
thinking about allowing some appropriate percentage. The last thing I wanted to mention is
that we don't have an immediate request that we're going to, wanting to make to the city but
that part on page 10, and I know this was part of the previous ordinance also but to prohibit
motion signs and flashing signs except time and temperature. I'd like to see, I wonder if
there isn't a way to make that a little less restrictive from the standpoint of obviously I don't
think anybody wants a big gawdy flashing Hollywood type of sign but for a bank like
ourselves, we could see ourselves sometime in the future wanting to put some kind of a sign
up on the building there because we don't think our signage is adequate. We'd like to change
it someday but we're not looking to do that ... but we'd like to have signage and since we have
45
L
I
7
J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I such a good spot down there, we'd like to have si na a that not only could we put our name
g g Y P
up on it but we'd like to have some kind of signage we could talk about community events.
We could congratulate people. We could give the markets at noon. What the stock market
did. Things like that we think people would like to see when they'd be coming down TH 5
would be able to see it and if we could do that in a tasteful way and people would, and the
Planning Commission and the City Council would agree with. I think that would be a plus
to the community and not a negative. And so I think to say that unless we're dust flashing
time and temperature... prohibit that kind of sign and I think we could do some very nice
things in the community. Not just necessarily the bank but many somebody else. And I
wouldn't want you to see to just prohibit that entirely.
' Scott: I've got a question. You know the city rents that sign with the arrow thing on it and
you put movable letters, you put letters on it and it's on a trailer.
' Harberts: I think they're called portable.
Scott: A portable. So the city would be prohibited from using that ... I'm just trying to think
of things that are kind of in tune. Anyway, just a thought.
Randy Schultz: Just one other thing I did mention. I do think the other thing that I see that's
changed in this ordinance is I believe before a property in the general business district could
have a pylon sign or a ground low profile sign. Or even could have two ground low profile
' signs but could not have, could have some combination of those two. Could have two low
profile signs with no pylon. You could have a pylon and a low profile and I think the way
this is worded now, you can only have one of each and I'm not sure that you might want to
make it more flexible than that. I'm not sure that two low profile signs we're going to get a
nicer look than to require somebody to have profile and pylon. Given the flexibility. Thanks.
Harberts: Bob, on page 10, number 2. Why was barber poles in there as not being
prohibited?
Generous: ...I don't know why that was.
' Harberts: I would suggest we take that out.
Mancmo: I think they're great.
Ledvina: I like barber poles.
Mancino: I do too.
J
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Obviously I wouldn't know.
Harberts: Yeah, is there a definition for barber pole?
Scott: Can I have a motion?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, give me two seconds. I really have quite a few. Maybe it isn't
covered but I think we have to have it back. We've got sign ordinances are generally
difficult and I'm not ready to pass this on.
Scott: It goes to public hearing.
Conrad: On page 3, we didn't permit requirements. We didn't ask for design or materials in
that ... We're missing the words that I would read. Now maybe in ... how it's designed. And if
we have a bonus in there, I think you've got to require that up front.
Mancino: Can I add to that? Is there a way that we can see signs when we see a site plan
for a building? I mean it just seems like the appropriate time that when they come in with a
site plan and the architectural specs, that we also kind of integrate the sign in with it. Then
we can see the perspective of the sign to the building.
Generous: Because, for example, Byerly's gave you a picture of the sign and that doesn't
seem to be what you wanted. You want it as part of a drawing?
Mancino: I would have liked to have seen the visual at the time when they brought in the
whole building concept. And you know at that time he said they designed the whole front
entrance so that it would take this big Byerly's sign. Well, at the time when we saw it, I
think it would have been, when it fast came in to see where the signage would go and how
they had allowed for it because hopefully an architect will do, will think about signage at the
time when they're designing the building. So it seems to me it would be an appropriate time
to see the signage with.
Generous: The architects usually consider the building only and then it's the tenants that
want the signage later. Yeah, I think that is a requirement for, that they put in the signage. I
thought on Byerly's they had the building sign with the monument.
Mancino: They didn't have any signage.
Harberts: That was a condition.
47
1 7
E
I �
L�
�J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Well on that rendering when we had that meeting on that Saturday meeting, they did
have the Byerly's sign on there but.
Harberts: There was no signage packet, no. That was a condition.
Conrad: Okay, page 5, point number 3. The word event should be worked in to the
comment there. That's what most signages in the city are about. They're events and we
really didn't, I guess you've got to challenge what I'm thinking. Sometimes the logic, maybe
it's covered some other place but I think the word event is real important. If we want that 40
days to apply to an event. I've seen all sorts of numbers and I get down to 6 and all of a
sudden I see 50 square feet and I haven't seen 50 square feet in any grid anyplace. All of a
sudden it's someplace and I don't know. I won't pick on that one. It's just like geez, it's
another number. Page number 6. I don't know why we give garage sales 2 days to take the
sign down once the garage sale's over. I don't know. Point on page 6 again. Under 9(d). It
says no signs shall be located closer than 200 feet from an existing residential dwelling unit.
Well basically that means you probably can't put a sign very close to any residential area,
and I'm thinking of the Near Mountain area. Trappers Pass area. I can go through, a lot of
these fly in the face of what we've been doing and I look at the real world examples and
they're not offensive to me. That one, yeah. So I guess folks, you've got to challenge some
of this stuff. The Near Mountain stuff is closer than 200 feet from a residential area. It is not
offensive. It's quite nicely done and I don't know where they put the sign. I honestly don't.
It's across the street from a residential area and it's ... a problem.
Ledvina: This refers to temporary development projects and...
Conrad: New development saying, yeah the classic would be going out with phase 4 and
such and such and they try to get good access, visibility. But I'd just challenge that one.
Seriously. I don't think we're smart enough, I'm not smart enough to go do it but I need
somebody from staff to say this makes sense or it doesn't or it's, there's good reason for why
that was there but on the other hand, I guess I need somebody to challenge those things. I
agree with Matt's point on page 7. On the 12 square feet versus, the 12 square feet. That's 3
x 4 on a 10 acre deal. If it's on a 55, you can't, when you're going 55 mph, you can't read
things that are smaller than 14 inch letters. You can't. Okay. So if you're going 55 mph on
Highway 5.
Mancino: You should be driving, not trying to read.
Conrad: That's right. Okay.
.•
J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Scott: Cellular phone too. I
Conrad: Point number 4 on page 7. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within
7 days following the sale. Diane you brought this one up. For sale, lease, rental of the
property. That means all the real estate signs that say sold, they've got 7 days for the sold to
be there and somebody's going to take it up. I don't know that there's a problem. If ,
somebody thinks there's a problem there, then let's leave it in. I don't know there's a
problem. On page 8. We already talked about the banners. I think banners, Matt you said it.
I won't say any more. Banner's different than a portable sign. Going to page 9, letter (c) at '
the top of the page. Banners must be affixed to a principle structure which is owned and
leased by the business which the sign is advertising. Well that means St. Hubert's can have
their banner. Okay. They can't. They don't own across the street on the, I think they're on ,
the telephone pole. Okay. So they can't do it and if they attach it to the church, the church
will fall over. On page 10. Motion signs, flashing signs. Boy.
Scott: Conditional use. r
Conrad: It might be. I've got to look at that one again. I don't know that anybody's '
complained about the Chanhassen Bank moving sign. I find it interesting. I guess if there
are complaints to that I will listen. A message board, greeter boards, and it's got to be
controlled. There's just no doubt. It's got to be controlled but I don't, you know.
Nutting: Banning it is kind of heavy duty. ,
Scott: Yeah, I think conditional use. I think there's a scale issue there. Yeah.
Conrad: Point number 3 on that same page. Projecting signs are not allowed. One of the few t
historic things we have in this town is the Pony Express sign so when you get rid of that
sign, it's in but I just found that interesting. I think it's a good point but the Pony Express '
sign has character. It's one of the few signs in Chan that really has character and we're
saying don't do it anymore. Okay. There has to be a bonus way in this whole deal. There
has to be a way to motivate good signage. Absolutely. Got to be in there. Somehow figure '
out how to do it but it will be arbitrary as can be but let's say we care. If nothing else ... we
care about good signage and we're going to, even if it's only for 5% increase in something,
let's say we care. Okay, you talked about most of these. Page 13. Bottom of the page, point
number 2. Area identification. Entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be erected on
a lot.
Scott: Yeah this is though RSF. You're thinking about entrance monumentation?
49
I�
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I Generous: Yeah, that's what...
Scott: Oh wow. Aren't those usually on an outlot? Or an island.
Conrad: That word is wrong. Get the right terminology in there.
I Ledvina: That's, just while we're talking about that, that's a small area. The sign, the
Winfield entrance.
Scott: That's like a huge sign.
Ledvina: It's done very nicely.
Conrad: Right. I'd like to reinforce a developer who wants to do this. Now I don't know if
I the city staff does but sense of place. Entry into an area is so critical. Get rid of all the
other signs and turn away, let them have a nice, reward then for a nice sign that says you
have now entered... or whatever it might be. 24 feet is not very big. I wish somebody would
look and see if we've got nicer signs that are bigger than that but boy, that's real important.
That's people oriented and I think we may be restricting that. Page 14. Under point (c), and
maybe it's not the right place but we didn't talk about the 24 Hour issue there. Now 24
hours sounds like we, the City Council just allowed it on Byerly's so I guess we've got to
deal with that. That is not identification, logo, center name ... so what is it? That's an issue
' that we have to resolve. I don't know that city staff solves it but we have to deal with it and
I guess we have to take a lead from the City Council's approval of Byerly's that they don't
mind it.
Mancino: But they didn't approve it. They didn't have 4/5 approval.
I Richard Wing: It was not approved but I would support the commission on that one. I think
we have an ordinance and...
Conrad: I'm not saying pro or con. I didn't think it was right but I think let's just figure it
out and get it in the ordinance.
Mancino: So what do you think of the percentages? All these percentages.
Conrad: On page 15?
Mancino: 14, 15, 16.
50
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Conrad: They're probably okay. They're probably okay. I
Mancino: Did you do any drawings? I
Conrad: No I didn't. That's just so much work. I spent a lot of time going through this
ordinance because I tell you, if we don't do a good job, we're going to hurt people. We're
going to hurt their livelihood. Signage works for business and for government and we've
really got to be careful on this thing. So I spent some time going through it but yeah, I really
should have spent more. I know something about it and that's why I felt more compelled to '
go through it. But I think Randy's right. I'm not sure that some of these numbers on
monument signs are the right numbers. If he's got 6 tenants down there, all we're doing. He
doesn't even have the tenant names on the side of the building...
Mancino: I was just going to ask about that. What if you have 15 tenants? How do you
ever have a big enough sign to cover all those tenants? '
Conrad: Well that's the point. If somebody doesn't put it up on the wall Nancy, why don't
we give them a sign, a monument sign that let's them have it outside? It's very, if you run a '
business, it's a real personal thing. You want your name there.
Mancino: I'm downtown so we don't have monument signs. ,
Conrad: So I'm not sure that this, I don't. It seems like a small number. I think for '
somebody that didn't put the names up on the building. I think there's some trade offs here.
I think if you do, you know and that's why it gets complicated. If you don't put the signs up,
or the names on the side of the building, I think somebody should get rewarded and that '
reward might be for a monument sign that's a little bit bigger. But I'm not smart enough to
figure it out ... So and then I got back to the bottom of the page 15. Do we get one pylon,
they're going to get one pylon and one low ground profile sign? Is that what we're saying?
Do you get those automatically? Do you get both? Or just one. It doesn't say.
Generous: No it doesn't, you're right. I
Conrad: I think those are my comments. You Bob and staff, if you can go through some of
those things for me. Seriously I'm not smart enough to figure some of that out but I think... ,
and not penalize a business to make this a well maintained sign area but not to really be a
heavy burden on it.
Scott: Can I have a motion?
51
n
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Harberts: I'll move that we table the sign ordinance.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the ordinance. Any discussion?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the sign ordinance for further review. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: We'd like to see that as soon as possible and then also too, since this will probably be
in it's final form, I think it's appropriate that it's a public hearing.
Generous: You want it to come back as a public hearing?
Scott: I would think so.
Generous: ...wanted to see the proportions on the sign.
Mancino: Maybe I can do that individually.
Scott: When it gets into it's final form. Of course then it will go onto the City Council.
Ledvina: Hold it. There's two public hearings at our level, is that what I read in here? Or
no? One public hearing. Okay.
Mancino: So do we need to see it before a public hearing?
Scott: Yeah. Because we'll probably have ... Thank you for your tons of work on this.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ledvina: Just a question. Last time we were going through the Minutes and there was a vote
as it related to my motion and I don't know, did you read this in the Minutes at all?
Conrad: I can't stand to read them over.
Ledvina: Okay. But I just wanted to try to get it straight for the record. I made a motion
52
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 f
regarding the Wendy's /office building site plan and it showed up in the Minutes that you
voted for my motion and I didn't think you did. That's a month ago already, or whatever.
More than a month. Do you recall how that all went or do you care? 1
Harberts: Well the motion was defeated because then I made the motion to deny the project
and that's what passed.
Ledvina: Right. Yeah and I know you voted for the motion to deny but I don't know if you '
voted. Or you voted against the motion to deny.
Conrad: I think I voted for your motion. The few times... I
Ledvina: I know it doesn't happen very often and that's why I wanted to know because I,
I'm going to write that down in my diary. I
Conrad: Thanks for bringing that up. I think I did.
Ledvina: Okay. I don't mean to make a big point of it but I want to make sure that in my '
mind anyway that I understand how people are voting so. Because that was fairly important.
Harberts: Are you counting your friends?
Ledvina: No, no. 1
Harberts: Just wondering.
Scott: Would it be too much to ask to get a motion to approve the Minutes of our last
meeting on March 16th? May I have a motion please?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission '
meeting dated March 16, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts
abstained, and the motion carried. '
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: '
Generous: Church Road 2nd Addition was given approval. The Byerly's variance request '
was tabled. A motion to approved failed by 3 to 1 positive motion and it takes a 4/5
majority. As part of the Highway 5 study, the southerly access road alternative was approved
for the environmental assessment documentation.
53
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
I Mancino: That was a preference.
I Conrad: The southerly one as.
Ledvina: As recommended.
I Scott: As not recommended by.
1 Mancino: Nobody recommended it.
Scott: I was sitting among, I think there was a handful of Highway 5 Task Force people
I when I was at that meeting. And the comment was, why the hell did I waste 6 months of my
life.
I
t
Mancino: No, it was a year and a half.
Scott: Year and a half, I'm sorry. Well so yeah, anyway.
Richard Wing: ...I don't know what the protocols are here but ... I just want to address that
one particular issue. We knew, well as a matter of fact I tried to insult you one night because
you started asking questions.
Scott: Right, right.
Richard Wing: ...it's the same situation. We have to re- invent the wheel. Why do we try to
make a decision when we have no information whatsoever. So they approved that southern
route based on the fact that, I can't remember. The vote was a strong majority for the
northern route. The only question was the cross over points. Very few people, other than
maybe Mike Mason, voted for the southern route. So with zero information, zero
background, zero input, they voted for the south and I said this has got to stop. So I called
Bill Morrish and his staff and Don Ashworth and said stop it now. We have to come in and
re- invent the wheel. All the engineers. All the people and you've got to be there and speak
up and say excuse me but this is what reality is and we have looked at land use. We have
looked at the environment, etc, etc, etc. I knew it was worthless to have it at the Planning
Commission because it might as well get right to the Council and then re- invent the wheel
there than have all of this go through this process again. So it's critical and staff now
recognizes it and I recognize it and I called Mike Mason and I reminded him that we didn't
vote for the south route. There was a strong favor for the north route so here we go again.
The process is extremely difficult and it's really frustrating. And if there's time tonight I'd
just like to make a couple more comments.
54
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
Mancino: When is that work session? I
Richard Wing: Pardon? I
Mancino: When is the work session on Highway 5 with the City Council, do you know?
Richard Wing: ...because I don't know. It's soon. But we're losing momentum and we've
got to get Bill Morrish and Jerry and everybody back in ... we need to get back out on another
tour. We need to re- invent it. One of the ... that Bill Morrish pointed out was really critical...
the land forms he wanted to support was the hill behind Byerly's with those old oak trees up
on top. Where are they? They're just been cut down. Wiped out. Destroyed when we built
apartment buildings there. I honestly thought that those apartment buildings were on top of
that hill and that we preserved that landform. I let myself say okay to a $3.00 blueprint.
Why we keep approving these million dollar projects off $3.00 blueprints. The Byerly's sign ,
on an 8 x 11 piece of paper. That's all there was to make a decision on a 20 foot pylon sign.
I don't know where we're going with this ... and I'm really getting discouraged. I'd like to '
make more comments...
Scott: Go ahead. I
Richard Wing: I'm feeling, well I guess it's appropriate to say anything. I'm really feeling
frustrated at the Council level. You're a stop gap. I mean if you can't handle it ... gets to us.
We have less time than you do ... to handle these issues and I'm really fighting to elevate our
city to step up, to crank it up a notch with these signs. We have to have a sign ordinance.
We've got to protect ourselves... Randy and your comments, they're really well taken. We
have a responsibility to the ... whether it's signs or what is coming here in Chanhassen is
quality. Rapid Oil went through. The newspaper's quoted that it'd be the most beautifully
landscaped Rapid Oil change in the country. Well we honestly thought we had something
going. So did you guys. The ones that were here for that. Where's all the trees—they're not
there. So there was one. Then the corridor study. Well geez now we're losing ground on
that because we've got to re- invent the wheel and we're all kind of tired of it now and the
money's been spent. This group put a year and a half of their time in it. I mean they have a
right to a product here and I want to support it but we've got to get it up. Abra, I voted for
brick. We said brick. Well I see an awful lot of block down there. I didn't vote for any
block. I voted for brick. Now it frustrates me that the one gentleman that voted for brick
and is adamant in this Highway 5 corridor and feels we're cheating the east end of town has
just come in tonight with a building that I thought looked like a ... that's going across the street ,
that Jeff commented about. We want brick. Where's our standard?
55
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Scott: Well it didn't go very far.
Richard Wing: Insulated stucco. A pitched roof that's bigger than the building itself. Why
are we fighting to get ahead? Why are we fighting quality? Because our ordinances aren't
up to par. They ought to come to you and just be pretty simple. Bill Morrish said if we
make the rules, they will come as long as we enforce them. We can have strict, rigid rules...
valuable and they're still going to come. Right now I'm hanging onto the back of this cart
with some of these developers whipping horses and dust is getting my face and it's starting to
hurt a little bit. For some reason staff has fought this imaging and this model building. I've
never seen my wife's company ever turn in a project without a complete model and
elevations and everything else. Why would we look at this Market Square thing across the
street without the views from West 78th Street and Market Boulevard and why would we
look at a pylon sign for Byerly's without the sketch and video imaging that's available... this
ordinance past Council but all that came in tonight was a $3.00 blueprints again. I want to
know what that, I think we're putting another fast food restaurant down on Dell Road and
Highway 5 based on the drawing I saw. I can't tell what it looks like and I hope you aren't
going to pass it that way so. Jeff has stated and many of you that we're looking for
permanence and we're looking for quality and somehow when it gets up here to this Highway
5 corridor study is that brick, glass or better. So why does staff keep bringing in projects that
aren't up to those standards that we're trying to impose. Are we reaching the point where we
have to have a moratorium? Do we have to stoop to that level to stop it until we get caught
up? Find out where we're going so I'm losing sleep over this because ... and we seem to be
falling short and I fall back on you people. I'm just awed by what you do and how you
come through with these things but then it gets to the Council. I almost have to ask you to
be there and fight hard a little bit. It's not your responsibility, it's ours but I'm in a state of
utter confusion and discouragement right now. I'm not sure where to go so I want to thank
you for your effort but I want this corridor thing to go through and I want these quality
standards and I think you have to fight for the little guy because it is easy to make mistakes
and do what is right ... but I do know that if we don't have this ordinance, we'll look like
Bemidji because the retail areas and business will come in and try to be bigger and brighter
and bolder and it's just... My mind is suddenly not clear but I'm going to fight for quality.
We have an issue coming up next Monday night that has me troubled deeply. I don't want to
put Army barracks on that corner but I don't own the land. I don't know we want fast food
there but no one's talked about it. I don't think we should put it there unless we do talk
about it. They want to know why it wasn't passed in the 20 days like Byerly's. Well
Byerly's took 6, 7, 8 months but they also came in with brick and quality and a project that
we wanted... project across the street, something's wrong. We're not comfortable with the
building that's been called a barracks. We're uncomfortable with a fast food restaurant.
We're not sure we want it. We're not sure that the traffic's going to work. None of the
issues have been addressed and now it's going to hit the Council head on and unless you're
56
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 f
really pleased to see it done. I think it's a start. You've got some legitimate concerns ... it's
57
'
there and fighting for our beliefs, I'm going down the tubes and we're going to wind up
g g Y g g g
with a Byerly's, or a fast food restaurant and a mediocre office building in an area that's the
focal point of the community. Anywhere you look at it, it's our central city and I don't think
'
it ought to be based on Jeff Farmakes' $13.00 a square foot and that's ... Maybe it's going to
be $50.00 a square foot and HRA has to get involved there, I don't know but that one really
scares me. I just ... let your piece be known on Monday night, I'd sure appreciate the help
because I don't know if I'm alone or not. I know where I stand but I would rather own that
land and take it for public use than have it ... let it develop prematurely and do something
that's wrong. And I'm not sure that the pitched roof of that building fits into our downtown
scheme right now. I don't think it's architectural standards should follow this glitzy little
1970 shopping center. If you look across the street and it's all brick. It's all glass. It's all
quality. I'd sort of like to start that ... but those are our standards so. Thank you for listening.
It's been a real hard week for me. You guys really are the liaisons to help us get to the top
of the ladder and I hope we can get things together.
,
Mancino: Dick, did you have any time to read the tree preservation ordinance that we went
over tonight? Any thoughts on that?
Richard Wing: I was really ... and I really liked your comments about what we're doing.
They're sort of separate issues here. You've got your standard subdivision and here's this
'
other one here. If we're going to talk, it is going to cost more money for some of these
developers coming in. But then don't develop in Chan but if we're going to tie it to
affordable housing, let's stop talking about these issues. Let's talk subsidized, cheap
affordable housing. I'm willing to redo our Comprehensive Plan. I'll go down to 4,000
square foot lots. I don't care what we do. If we want affordable housing, I'm all for it. I'll
support it. But let's stop talking about it and using all these things as excuses that we
,
shouldn't do because they're going to cost more. This doesn't have to apply to low income
subsidized. What's the proper word here? Affordable housing. We can do a lot for
affordable housing. I'm willing to get off dead center and start talking about it. Do
something. Rezone and do what has to be done but for the general city at large, the more
trees, the more landscaping, the more we do ... we just redid the parking lot ordinance. When
Byerly's came in, Mr. James just about came across the counter because I asked for 12 more
'
trees. He was truly upset ... When the church came in down here they had 5 or 6 trees and I
said, you know put in about 13 more trees and look what happened in the future and look
at and they said hey, that's a idea. They came back with 16 trees on that little church
'
... good
down there. Talk about community spirit and that's not a wooded setting. That's just a few
trees for shade and so when a multi- million dollar Byerly's complains of 12 trees, and this
little tiny church says gee, that's a good suggestion and puts in 16, I wonder if our ordinances
'
aren't pretty lax. We're not asking for a lot. I thought the ordinance was really good. I was
really pleased to see it done. I think it's a start. You've got some legitimate concerns ... it's
57
t
J
J
1
1
u
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
very, very difficult. Tim and Nancy put a tremendous amount of work in trying to figure it
out.
Conrad: I appreciate. When you see the process, it's a tough process to work ... put in a lot of
time and then to pass it up and then we try to. You know we almost have to spend—to really
try to figure out these issues and that goes up. Then you go back to the quality and the
composition of the committee and you hope they were thorough. But otherwise, we're
spending a lot of time here. You know there's only so much time and we've got to figure
out what issues we really want to get on and if it's, you know we spend a lot of time
architecture. I don't like that. To be very honest. The standards should be there and we
shouldn't be playing around with architectural standards. They should be on the books.
That's it. And we should not be making a decision whether glass goes here or this goes
there. That's wrong and I'll guarantee every Planning Commission, I think our staff will tell
you that that's just, we're not doing it the right way. We're doing it because maybe the
standards aren't there right now that we'd like to see. So instead of piece mealing, picking
these things to death, we should be figuring out how to get those standards in place.
Mancino: Well either standards or having some sort of architectural review board.
Conrad: That's possible.
Richard Wing: ...ordinance from Wayzata... and I think what's going on on the corner, I'm
not opposed to but I think that's a building that's got—that's the entry point of our
community and I don't think we put fast food or daycare in there. That's got to be quality.
Scott: And it's particularly distressing when you have a member of the City Council on the
development team and that was pretty offensive so.
Richard Wing: He's a developer. That's his right. I'm sure he'll stay out of that ... but if he
wants brick across the street, he certainly ... I hope.
Scott: Well, enough said. Thank you for your comments Richard ... for a City Council update
eh?
Generous: Well the last item was the Minnewashta Landings... Council approved preliminary
plat and added a condition that a 45 degree view be provided for the Hoelke's.
I Scott: Okay.
Generous: And I think Kate put on here just as... from the city's ordinance on conceptual
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 1
PUD plans...
Mancino: I don't particularly like what's in the ordinance. It doesn't make a lot of sense to '
me. I think there are other things that need to be in the conceptual for me to pass it. So the
definition of a conceptual plan that I'm reading, I think is worthless. Something that we want
to look at. I'm kind of being bottom lined here. I've got to go. i
Harberts: Bob, would you have Kate call me on the ongoing issues on number 15. I'm not '
aware of any plans and development from Southwest Metro's perspective.
Mancino: And I would like to politely say that I would love to enter some new writing, some
words, verbiage for conceptual plan. I'll put something together that we can talk about. Be
part of the solutions.
Generous: Just a final item. You have a joint meeting scheduled for the 20th with City
Council. We'd like to sort of provide an agenda for that so if you have any additional issues,
concerns that you want to bring out. If you could get them to us and we can put them in... so
we have some order.
Harberts: I'd like to talk with you outside this meeting too with regard to another possible I
item. For that meeting.
Conrad: What's the point of the meeting?
Generous: To communicate.
Harberts: Goals and expectations, how's that?
Conrad: Did you say goals? Do we have those listed? Do we have.
Generous: Do we have a program?
Conrad: Yeah. If we don't have anything listed, I can't attend. We just have to have those '
out in advance—Planning Commission. We've got to do them. If we go into that meeting it
will just be chaos. It will be 7 people here and 5 there.
Scott: Yeah, what I don't want to see is, I remember the first work session that I was at with
the folks from HGA and the City Council and the Park and Rec and all this kind of stuff and '
it was just.
59
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
Ledvina: Talking about the community center.
t Scott: Yeah, what we need to do is like the agenda is and this evening we will make the
decision as to whether this happens or that happens. Let me ask a question. Process of
review of developments that is i.e. Wendy's. What does that mean? Was that a post
mortem on the decision of the City Council a couple weeks prior to that or anyway, Ladd
made a very good comment.
Harberts: Is this where the Chairman sits down with staff and the.
Scott: The Chairman of what?
I Harberts: The Chairman of the Planning Commission and help identify the goals.
I Conrad: Yes.
Harberts: Okay. Just asking for clarification.
' Scott: Okay. So give us an agenda on this thing quickly and then a little preface... would be
nice a little intent. The intent of this meeting is to finalize decisions on ... issues. Issue, issue,
issues. Yes, no, yes, no. Just so people can kind of get the frame of mind that they're going
to be making some decisions.
'j Conrad: I think it's not necessarily staff looking for stuff. I think those inquiries have got to
■ go out to City Council. What is it that you care about? Talking about. So I think Council
owes staff some input before and as do we and it can be through the Chairman or it could be
' through us or individuals... Maybe there are issues that—by figuring it out before we get
together.
Mancino: And seeing it before we get there.
Conrad: Otherwise it won't go anyplace. We've been there before. There will be another
day that we'll all walk away saying, why did we do that.
' Scott: I think one issue is basically, we know what our roles are but I think, at least my
opinion is, I think we take the opinions of the task forces and committees that make
recommendations to us more seriously I think than some members of the City Council take
' our recommendations, which in most cases, it's never been a rubber stamp but we'll take, we
make an assumption as Ladd was saying. These people know what they're doing. They
spent a lot of time. We tweak it a little bit. At least, I've only been here a year and a half
60
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994
but I've not seen us take something that was significant and flip it the other way and it's not
just what we're recommending. I think it's that there's momentum coming through us. So I
think that can be, and I don't know how you word that but we need to be a lot more efficient ,
in our commissions and so forth and that's just one of the reasons why Richard is so
frustrated. We get some good momentum and then things kind of die. But anyway... ongoing
items. Is there anything in here that we need to discuss? Ladd says no. We'll skip over
discussion and go right to adjournment.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
J
I
61
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 1994
Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Ron Roeser, Jim Manders, Jan Lash, Jane Meger,
and Fred Berg
' MEMBERS ABSENT: None
' STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Dawn Lemme, Program
Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of
February 22, 1994 as amended by Jan Lash on page 14 to the word raffle to rappala. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
LEROY BITELER, CHANHASSEN SNOWMOBILERS, FUTURE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN RAILROAD CORRIDOR.
LeRoy Biteler: Thank you. My name is LeRoy Biteler. I am a member of the Southwest
' Trail System and a member of the Chanhassen Snowmobilers and basically my objective, do I
have to stand in front of this? ...My objective is to discuss with you the abandoned railroad
tracks that run between Chanhassen and Chaska to be allowed as a snowmobile trail and I
believe most of you received what Todd sent you in the mail. Have you had opportunity to
read that? Okay. Just a little bit about the trail system and myself I guess. I have been in
Chanhassen for 10 years and been a member of the Snowmobile Club for the past 10 years
and have been either President or Vice President about 5 out of those 10 years so I do have
some pretty good knowledge and background as to what's been going on in Chanhassen
through those years. And the gentleman sitting here is Mike Farkas and he's done a lot of
the trail work along with myself. Our objective, our main objective is to eliminate, as I
mentioned in the letter, some of the trail running south on Highway 17. Get out of the
residentially type area and onto an area such as the railroad bed that is a better thoroughfare
and outlet to the Chaska trail system and to the State trail system in the river bottom area
which gets us further out into the residential communities. And I guess I would just like to
answer any questions that you guys might have. You certainly understand where our trail
would go and start and stop.
1
1
Park and 1-.ec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 .
Andrews: You're looking for our support for this concept to take it to Hennepin County or
who would be the responsible authority here?
LeRoy Biteler: We have talked to the Hennepin Parks and the Railroad Authority and asked
them of their opinion, if they would allow us to use this trail system during the winter months
and they saki, first of all our procedure is that you must go to the individui i cities and get
permission � -om them and then come to us and then, if the City approves it, chances are
down the ,., i of the road, the Park Authority and the Railroad Authority would approve it.
Mike Farkas has had personal communication with those people by telephone.
Lash: LeRoy, can you get into the access and...
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah. I don't see Lake Riley on here. That's kind of...oh okay.
' Hoffman: This is a trail, comprehensive trail map. Not snowmobile trail maps...
Mike Farkas: ...here we are right here. Okay, this railroad bed comes right along the edge
of Lake Riley where you would access it. It's probably right about in this area right here,
which is just over the border.
' Roeser: You can go right up from the lake onto the track can't you?
Mike Farkas: Right. It's basically a little embankment but we can go right up from the ice
to the track and then down the track which is really nice. And then we can access it, we
have a property owner over here that we're trying to connect up with right now to access
from there and then come down like this off of this, what road is that? Lyman Boulevard,
yeah. And that's where we would access onto the lake and then up onto the railroad bed and
that would take us, that would veer around the city as much as possible.
LeRoy Biteler: And this takes up, when it connects up to Chaska. Is this railroad bed right
there ... Okay, this connects to Chaska's trail system right down in here someplace.
Roeser: Okay, then you can pick up on the trail by the Courthouse and go east towards
Shakopee?
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah. And that gets us into the river bottom. It gets us off of CR 17, which
Chaska has got to reroute next year because it's just building up along CR 17 tremendously
and the same thing's going to happen in Chanhassen.
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Mike Farkas: And that connects up with the state trail down there so it still gives them
access and then they're going to have an access I think out of Chaska. Which they're going
out around Chaska too. I think that's what their plans are. '
Andrews: I have a couple questions and that is, do we have a separate area for the
"pedestrian" or cross country skier or hiker? Traffic that would be separate from the
snowmobiles? Would they be sharing the same path in this situation?
Hoffman: The width up there varies but essentially that would be a shared use situation. I
Andrews: One of my concerns would be that being that's a flat, relatively flat. It was graded
that way for the railroad, I would think there would be difficulty with speed. I think because ,
it's almost an ideal track for high speed that it's flat and probably level, I would think that a
lot of people would find it real interesting to see how fast their snowmobiles would go. I
guess I'm concerned if there is pedestrian traffic, those people would be in danger.
Mike Farkas: That's a possibility but what I talked to Del Miller about, about this type of
railroad bed. Is most of your cross country skiers won't go on it because they're rather go on
'
a looping type of cross country trail. We had discussed that with him where there is a
possibility there would be some cross country skiers on it but most of them do like a looping
trail because this trail will basically take them, it's a one way shot out. Straight out and back
where they more than likely would like the looping type trails because we did discuss that.
That was Del Miller with the Hennepin Parks.
'
LeRoy Biteler: You also have frequent intersections crossing TH 101 inbetween each area
there and this trail, as in other areas, we have a railroad bed that takes us from Highway 7
into Shorewood. From Highway 7 into Victoria. That's also an abandoned railroad bed that
we've used as a snowmobile trail for many years. We see probably more walkers on there
than I have been cross country skiers. But not to say that there's any difference between
those two but the skiers don't seem to be using that trail. I don't recall seeing a skier on
'
there. It's not saying that they're not going to be.
Mike Farkas: I've seen one or two.
LeRoy Biteler: I've seen people out walking their dogs and a few joggers on the trail. Not I
an abundance like we would expect of course during the spring fever times...
Lash: On the top of the map that we have on our literature that we received it's got, and I'm
assuming that you're going to want to go through Minnetonka and the Luce Line, is that what
it's called?
3
r
�J
F-�
L
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Roeser: No. Luce Line's way over by Wayzata.
Lash: Okay, what this anyway, it's got an 11:00 p.m. curfew, 20 mph maximum speeds.
LeRoy Biteler: That's through Shorewood. I was going to bring that up.
Lash: Are you proposing something like that?
LeRoy Biteler: Not at this time. Shorewood has proposed that due to all the, it really goes
through a large residential housing area there and that's why they had proposed that and done
that. And we have patrolled that and issued citations and done ticketing and things like that
and that's something that could certainly be done out here.
Meger: One of the reasons that you listed for wanting to use this trail is it's safer than road
ditch line. If you're trying to access the same area now, how much of the trail that you
would be using would you have to go on a road ditch currently? So on Highway 17, how
long of that is.
LeRoy Biteler: Oh I don't know. How far is it from Lyman Boulevard, boy let's see.
Mike Farkas: Down to Chaska.
LeRoy Biteler: Down to Chaska you know.
Hoffman: 2 1/2 miles.
LeRoy Biteler: 2 1/2 - 3 miles.
Roeser: And then you have to cross TH 212 right, down there?
LeRoy Biteler: Right. Right at the edge of town.
Lash: And how would people access this? Do they have to trailer to Lake Lucy? Or to
Lake Riley?
LeRoy Biteler: We would be trying to get access down, we go up to, we go south on CR 17
to Lyman Blvd and go, take a left which is what, back east again? I have a hard time
reading a map. Go east, go straight east until you hit the lake. Klingelhutz, John Klingelhutz
owns some property there. We have talked to Brian Klingelhutz. We have not been able to
reach John Klingelhutz yet. But that would be our access from his property onto the lake.
►,i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Running the ditch line down Lyman Blvd.
Hoffman: The route they currently follow goes down TH 101 to Lyman and goes ... and then
heads on down to Highway 212. What they'd like to do is come down TH 101 and then
head east and then across the lake, to the railroad bed and on down.
Manders: There's also a trail along CR 17 isn't there?
Mike Farkas: We'd be eliminating that.
Roeser: That's the ditch they ride now.
Manders: Yeah, that ditch out to TH 5. From Lyman to TH 5.
Mike Farkas: From Lyman we'd still need to use that part.
Manders: That's what I'm talking about...
Lash: So you're starting at Lake Ann or whatever?
Mike Farkas: Yeah, Lake Ann. We use that as a drop site for the people that commute in
from Eden Prairie or Bloomington. If we get people from there dropping trailers...
Berg: Which part on CR 17 would you be eliminating?
Mike Farkas: A part from Lyman Boulevard down to TH 212.
Lash: So mostly in Chaska?
Mike Farkas: Yeah, mainly in Chaska—and I don't know if it makes sense to try and
eliminate as much of.
Roeser: It seems a lot safer to me.
Berg: Dangerous stretch at night when you're driving on the road with snowmobilers.
LeRoy Biteler: It's even dangerous for the automobile driver.
Berg: That's what I mean.
5
u
E
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah, with their lights shining through.
Berg: Very disconcerting to have lights coming at you from three different directions at the
same time on a narrow road that's dark.
LeRoy Biteler: Yeah. This is a better option for us to reroute and get to an area that you
don't have automobile traffic. We don't have...
Lash: How about the residential, how many residences is this going to impact?
LeRoy Biteler: On the railroad bed it impacts what I can see, one or two.
Andrews: Is there anybody here in the audience, other than you two gentlemen that wishes to
speak about this? Okay.
Hoffman: I can provide that since the time of writing the memorandum I have spoken with
representatives from Eden Prairie and Chaska in this regard. Again, to update the
commission. From the point at the city of Chanhassen border with Eden Prairie down to
Bluff Creek Drive, we would be working with Hennepin Parks as the governing authority.
Their Board of Directors. From that point, at Bluff Creek where their agreement with the
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority ceases to the Chaska border down in here. The
Chaska border is actually right here north of Highway 212. You would have to work with
the Hennepin County Rail Authority. Tom Redman, Director of Park and Recreation in
Chaska called this morning and they're going through some discussions on snowmobiling in
their city and they would like to see a trail continuation at this point but he cannot guarantee
that at this point. They'll be discussing that in June or July of this year. Eden Prairie we
thought perhaps that they would allow trail ... up in Eden Prairie. They have done that in the
past so some people can get on this trail system but it doesn't look like they're going to allow
snowmobiling from Eden Prairie east. So then we would have to make some type of an
agreement for the short segment of trail from Lake Riley, which is in Eden Prairie, down to
the Chanhassen border. They said they'd certainly work with us in that regard if the
Commission chose to do that.
Andrews: Is anybody prepared to make a motion to take some action here?
Lash: I make a motion that we place this issue on a future agenda so that it can be open for
public discussion.
Andrews: Is there a second to that motion?
Cl
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Manders: I'll second that.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
Lash moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission place the
issue of snowmobile trails on the Southern Chanhassen Railroad Corridor on a future
agenda for public discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Andrews: We will bring it up on a short agenda to get going on this. You need to hear from
us by, what sort of time frame to get back to the County?
LeRoy Biteler: Well it's the, from what I understand it's the Hennepin Authority and Parks
that need to make some decisions sometime this summer and I don't know really what their
deadline is. That's why we got the ball rolling now.
Andrews: We appreciate that.
LeRoy Biteler: ...talking about next year's winter but that's why we hope to get ahead of the
ballgame and not behind it.
Mike Farkas: I stumbled upon it when I was in City Hall talking to Todd ... and one thing led
to another and I'm going well geez, now I'm already starting on next year. Then I contacted
Del Miller and then they said that in June they're talking about what they are going to allow.
What they're not going to allow because they have horseback riding people that want to use
it. They have several different, full spectrum of people that want to use it and just
snowmobiling wasn't even brought to their attention at this point. So what we did is brought
it to their attention. We have an interest in possibly using it. Use of this railroad bed.
Andrews: Well we'll put it on an agenda. You'll be notified by staff and we'll try to get this
moving forward. Thank you for coming.
7
r
I
I I
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' NEIG_HBORHOOD MEETING; RICE MARSH LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION TO EDEN
PRAIRIE.
1 Public Present:
' Name Address
Connie Dufenbaugh 8115 Erie Circle
Tim Herberg 8113 Erie Circle
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
' Andrews: Is the encroachment that the property owners have improved city land or is it the
city would be encroaching on private land?
Hoffman: Private property owners would be encroaching on ... city property.
' Andrews: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak about this issue?
Please come to the podium and state your name and address.
Connie Dufenbaugh: Hi. I'm Connie Dufenbaugh and I live at 8115 Erie Circle in
Chanhassen and I'm right on the line where the existing trail extension is supposedly going to
be going in. It's a gravel road behind our home right now where the utility trucks go behind
' and check the water station. And I do have a petition here with several of the people that are
rejecting the trail system and they do not want it to be completed. Simply because I guess
it's supposed to be connecting with Eden Prairie and Bloomington and that entails quite a few
people going through our back yards. Exactly through our back yards. And I realize this is
sometimes a minor issue to the big business people but we are very concerned and we're very
frightened. For our children because of the things we read in the paper and we're just ... and
' we were wondering if it really needs to be completed like that. If it can just stay the way it
is and people can just walk on the gravel like they have been and if we could just leave it as
is. And some other questions that were asked of me that you know if I could ask you. Were
there going to be signs for limiting non - motorized vehicles on the system? And also last
winter many snowmobiles were going down that trail and they were not supposed to do that.
And another question that was asked was now that the Lake Susan trail, it's hooked up with
the Rice Marsh Park, people have been coming down and letting their dogs loose and it
causes very unsanitary conditions along our backyards because the children play in the woods.
And that has caused a lot of problems also. Another question was, in Bloomington they have
policing along the bike road, the bike paths and ... if you're going to offer anything like that.
Roeser: Any what? I can't hear you.
8
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Connie Dufenbaugh: There were, I guess in Bloomington they have some kind of a security
that rides along the pathways just to check and make sure things are okay. And we were
wondering if that was going to be offered to us. Any kind of a policing system for security.
Thank you.
Andrews: Anyone else that wishes to speak? If so, please come forward and state your name
and address.
Tim Herberg: I have a few questions as far as access. I'm Tim Herberg. I'm just adjacent
to Connie's property. Is there going to be curfews you know for night ... or can people go at
midnight through our back yards? Kind of security issues I guess. Also I usually drive down
my dirt road and pick up my trailers and so forth and am I going to have access like I had
before? That type of questions is what I'm looking for. I'm not really pro or con but I just
want to know what's involved and what's going to change.
Andrews: Okay. Can you state your address for the record please?
Tim Herberg: I'm at 8113 Erie Circle.
Andrews: Thank you.
Tim Herberg: I don't know, can you answer that?
Hoffman: We'll go ahead and answer them all at once.
Andrews: Sure. Any other comments or questions? Todd, why don't you answer the
questions that we've had so far and help us answer those questions.
Hoffman: The issues, can we leave it as is? That would certainly be up to the commission.
Signs for motorized vehicles and signs for dogs are placed at all entrance points for current
trail systems, as you see it anyplace on the map. From Lake Susan to Rice Marsh. Policing
on the bike paths, Carver County has initiated a bike patrol during the summer months so
there will be a Carver County Deputy on bike patrol this summer. In the event that problems
are ... patrol, they will be riding the trail system throughout Chanhassen. In regard to curfews,
the park system has hours maintained at 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. throughout the entire park
system. And driving, as far as driving along that road, that currently takes place to gain
access to the backs of some of those properties. You would have to make a determination if
you would want to continue to take place...
Andrews: So the gravel road that was mentioned then is owned by who?
9
r
L
F1
F�
II
J
y
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Hoffman: City of Chanhassen.
Andrews: Thank you. Any comments?
Connie Dufenbaugh: Todd, would the policing just be going on during the summer months?
Hoffman: Policing, they have snowmobiles trails about so they can do that. Our Carver
County Deputies are here full time...bike patrol would be during the summer. They have
snowmobile patrolling in the winter...
Tim Herberg: Are there any signs going to be posted as far as, you know I don't see on the
Lake Susan trail now ... posted anything.
Hoffman: Yeah, the hours are not posted on the signs which are currently in place and we
have not had a problem with it to date...
Andrews: Why don't we start with Jan about questions, comments, concerns about this issue.
Lash: Okay. I just have a quick question for Connie and I'm sorry, I forgot your name.
Tim Herberg: Tim.
Lash: Tim. How much usage do you see back there now?
Connie Dufenbaugh: Hardly any at all.
Tim Herberg: We used to have none but it's picked up quite a bit since they opened up Eden
Prairie's...
Lash: Do you see, wait a minute. You live there and you see it. I don't so I have to go by
your feelings about this but do you think that by paving it it will increase the usage that much
more?
Connie Dufenbaugh: Oh absolutely. By leaps and bounds. I've seen it happen over at Lake
Susan ... and Rice Marsh Park. And our's is right down where the linkage is going to be.
There are going to be so many people that come through the park that there's no way we can
just let our kids just go or they're going to play to have fun. I realize people are athletic.
They like to get out and everything but there are a lot of strange people in this world and
that's our main concern. There's just going to be a lot of different people walking in our
area that we're just not used to. And I don't see why that has to be paved except for, I mean
10
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
the bike riders, they can just you know ride down a gravel road for a small amount of time.
What is it, 600, how much did you say, about a mile? They can get along without it being
paved.
Lash: Okay. I guess I'm interested in hearing other questions and comments too.
Andrews: Jane.
Meger: I guess the big question that I have right now is I'm a little bit confused because
Connie had stated that there's snowmobilers going down in there now and then when she
asked about security, you said there was some snowmobile security. Is that...
(There was a tape change at this point.)
Hoffman: Go down the trail alignments, if there's snowmobilers...
Meger: Okay. I know that I had ridden my bike up to that point and actually gotten off
because my bike doesn't go on gravel and walked the 650 feet to make the connection. From
personal standpoint I would prefer as a biker, not to have to do that but I can certainly
understand the concerns because I would agree that it will increase the traffic going through
there.
Connie Dufenbaugh: And there are a lot of motorcycles that come down that area to the
park. Just to ... and have lunch or whatever and I'm just concerned that they'll start using that
area as a motorized path.
Lash: Is there signage now Todd that says no motorized vehicles?
Hoffman: Yes there is. On segments.
Andrews: Any other comments? Ron.
Roeser: Well I got a call this afternoon from somebody that said that they were most
shocked and appalled by this petition and said that they definitely favor this thing and there
are quite a few people in their neighborhood that do favor this. Finishing of the bike trail.
They think that it should be done. And my personal feeling is, it's going to be a bike trail
connecting to Eden Prairie. We should let 600 feet of gravel. No, it should be a bike trail all
the way down. I don't know. I bicycle all over this state from one end to the other. I do
not run into all these weird people that ride bicycles. I do not run into all these pets. This
garbage laying on, you know that you hear about. Most bikers pedal along fast. They glance
11
r
Li
F
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
up maybe into your back yard if you're watering your lawn and keep right on going. I think
that this danger thing is so overplayed and so overdone that it's just, I can't believe it I
mean I spend an awful lot of time biking and biking on trails and highways and I just don't
see that.
Andrews: Jim.
Manders: I'm not familiar with the park area there. I guess I've not been down there
personally and my interest is the access to that park area. Is it through that trail or how does
one get to that park?
Hoffman: It's through Erie Circle.
Manders: Okay. So you come up and then the access is.
Hoffman: Erie Circle at this point.
Manders: So that's really at the end of the trail there?
Hoffman: Yeah. And then there's a small parking lot at the edge of...
Manders: And the property where the trail would go is just right along the edge of the park.
Hoffman: Correct.
Manders: Okay.
Connie Dufenbaugh: And through our back yards.
Manders: That's not your property though.
Roeser: Well that statement too is not true. It does not go through anyone's back yard. It
goes on city property.
Connie Dufenbaugh: Okay fine. It's city property but.
Roeser: Not through your back yard.
Connie Dufenbaugh: It's down at the end of our yard.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Manders: Okay. Well that's what I wanted to make sure I understood. It was right along
the edge of the property. Okay, that's all I had.
Andrews: Fred.
Berg: Yeah I have a couple things. You've obviously done your homework on it. What
kind of evidence do you have that you say you're sure that the usage will increase
dramatically if we complete this 650 feet? Is that more of a gut feeling or have you done
some research in other areas to find out what kind of usage we can expect if that is paved?
Connie Dufenbaugh: There was a trail system that was recently finished I believe two years
ago from Lake Susan in back of people's yards down to Rice Marsh Park and there have
been a lot of people down to the park whereas before there were hardly any. And there have
been quite a few people coming down to where the trail ends and then there's the gravel and
then you know they go down the gravel and then out behind the new homes in Eden Prairie
up there. So there has been quite a few more people.
Berg: Is that due do you think to the new trail or to the increased numbers of people that are
just moving into that area?
Connie Dufenbaugh: I think it's really from the trail.
Berg: Because the population has increased dramatically around Lake Susan too in the last
year or so. Year to two years.
Connie Dufenbaugh: I used to go over to Lake Susan before.
Manders: How do you get over there now or do you go over there?
Connie Dufenbaugh: I go through Rice Marsh Park and then back behind those homes and
then across TH 101 to Lake Susan.
Manders: So you follow the trail over to it?
Connie Dufenbaugh: Yeah. Only during the daytime...
Berg: My thinking is that, if there's a lot of people using the trails and there's a lot of
people coming from Eden Prairie and there's a lot of people coming from Lake Susan, I don't
know that they're going to get to that spot that's separated by 650 feet and turn around and
go back. I think they're going to continue to use it anyway. It might be an inconvenience but
13
t
i�
.
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
I don't know, I guess I don't see in my outline of how being paved or unpaved is going to
change the amount of traffic on that trail. Because I think they're coming there anyway and I
' think they're going from point A to point B but because they see it's not paved, I guess I'm
not sure that they're going to stop and say, oh I can't go here anymore and turn around and
go back. I think you're going to see as much traffic whether it's paved or not. That'd be my
' sense. I'd like to see us talk a little bit, if we could about, and I don't even know if this is
proper. Some sort of accommodation for the people who have got property along this trail
that are using it for trailers or the other things that were mentioned and see if we can't, if
there can't be some accommodation worked out for that if possible. At least talk about it. I
don't know if I'm in line with that or not.
' Tim Herberg: Well right now it's for a service road and I'm assuming the Metropolitan
Sewer program will have to use it as a road ... some kind of a barrier...
Berg: So you'd actually be driving on the paved road then? The proposed trail that we're
talking about putting in?
' Tim Herberg: As opposed to that new gravel road. You're going to just pave on top of
what's already gravel?
Hoffman: A new trail bed would be installed there in some alignment. Either along side of
the road or as part of the road and they would use the trails to access back to the lift station
for public works. The parks maintenance crews would plow that in the winter with all the
' rest of the trail system.
Berg: I guess then I get concerned about how long the trail would last if we were getting a
' lot of extra traffic.
Tim Herberg: Those who live there and the city and the Metropolitan Sewer ... if we put up a
' gate there to block off you know basically a lot of kids that go back there and drink and put
up a gate back there to block that off.
' Berg: How many homes are we talking about?
' Tim Herberg: Pardon?
Berg: How many homes are we talking about?
Tim Herberg: Well there's only two that really ... and the rest are basically up on a hill with a
lot of brush and so they'd be blocked off from this. That's the way you look at it. You
14
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
know basically—you'll. see 2 or 3 homes along this stretch. The rest are up high.
Andrews: I think the paving issue and the access issue to me are separate. I guess I would
suggest that if access is to be desired in the future, that there should be some sort of a permit
or something obtained from the City Council because I think unless there's a formal
arrangement, what you're in danger of is an arbitrary change of what is allowed coming in
the future. Also it may enhance or detract from a possible sale or transfer of ownership of
your property so I would say that regardless of what we do, that something should be pursued
in a more formal nature as to what the access should be for the property owners with the
road. I wanted to add my comments. I agree with what Fred said. That I don't see the
gravel being much of a deterrent. The fact, if anything I would think that slowing down
traffic that's not native to the area and have them walk by your yard, if anything would
present more of a danger to children and to property than somebody that's speeding by
without the desire to look at your yard and look at who might be there. I also think that as a
Park Board and as a City, we have a plan and a trail plan which has a consistent nature to it.
As far as the quality of the trail. The use of the trail and I think we should stick with that. I,
myself live in a neighborhood that wants a trail access very desperately and we can't get one
and so to me, I wish I had your opportunity to be honest. I wish I could get on a trail.
Connie Dufenbaugh: In the back of your home?
Andrews: We have property owners that are directly adjacent to this trail. I personally am
not but I have neighbors that are, and we would love to have it. We would love to be able to
get onto a trail and get somewhere. We're landlocked but it's a separate issue. So I think
that we should pave this and make this connection to Eden Prairie. Is anyone here willing to
propose or make a motion? Todd?
Hoffman: In addition to the Minutes, Virginia Hampton who is a resident in the Chanhassen
Estates called and wanted to relay to the commission that she thinks it's a great idea. And
Commissioner Huffman sent his notes. On item number 3, which this is, to use '94
contingency to finish the trail.
Andrews: Okay.
Lash: Ron can you, are you at liberty to be specific with names or numbers of people who
contacted you who were in favor of that?
Roeser: Well no but this was, it was Joe Betz and his wife and they said they were sure that
their neighborhood was basically in favor of this thing. And you can call Joe back if you like
but he did call. They said that they couldn't be here today.
15
r
G
�'1
L1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Connie Dufenbaugh: There were a lot of people that I talked to that didn't even know it was
going in. And this letter was the first letter that they had ever received about the trail. As
far as correspondence, I think that's been a little lax.
Lash: I think without the connection, you know with the Lake Susan connection that just got
put in and there was no reason to communicate anything up until that point because there
was.
' Connie Dufenbaugh: There weren't any homes.
Lash: Well there was nothing to communicate because nothing was happening with the new
' connection. The chunk coming from Lake Susan. This has been the next natural linkage
point and that's when the communication started and that's.
r
Hoffman: An article in this regard was put in...newsletter as well.
Andrews: And it's typical of whenever an area develops that's, or when there's a change to
be made, that's when communications are made to existing property owners. Other than that,
the access is through the Comp Plan which is available at City Hall or attending meetings and
finding out what's coming but that is the way these things are communicated traditionally.
Lash: If we were to be able to come up with some kind of a, well we have signage already.
There's already a lash law. I mean people aren't supposed to be coming down there with
their dogs running loose. I mean a lot of the things that you said that are problems, I think
that people are doing that they're not supposed to do. And all we can do is continue to try to
enforce the ordinance. We have signs. We have things in the paper but if you're concerned
with motorized vehicles or other types of things, usage that shouldn't be there, we certainly
can investigate some type of a gate system to try and stop that. And I think that will
alleviate that worry for you. I mean I don't even know if this is a possibility but say it was
paved and you two are the only two property owners that you said your yards are at a more
even plane with that. If we were to come up with some type of fence system or something
along there. Would that help you in your fears or is there nothing that can be done that will
help you in your fears?
Connie Dufenbaugh: Well if there were a fence put up, then that would ruin the serenity and
the natural environment back there. It's all marsh back there and the wildlife.
Lash: But if security.
16
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Connie Dufenbaugh: If security was a problem then we would probably consider that or '
move.
Tim Herberg: I guess I'd be more interested, you know make sure the hours are enforced as
far as ... nobody back there after dark. If they're leaving at 10:00...
Lash: I also think Connie that you said you and your kids take the trail and walk over to
Lake Susan. I'd like to think that by far the majority of the people who use the trail are just
like you. ,
Connie Dufenbaugh: I really dislike going behind people's homes though. I think that's their
private area and it just ruins your privacy. I moved out here 11 years ago to get away from '
the city to have privacy and not have people coming through our yard and everything and
now it's just totally just...It's all happened with progress.
Andrews: Can we have a motion?
Roeser: Yeah I move we complete the trail. '
Andrews: Do you want to specify the time table? '
Roeser: Well I'm not sure. Whenever it's feasible for the Park and Rec Department I
suppose.
Lash: Can I ask one quick question first before we go forward? Just for clarification. Did
the other link just get completed so would this be the first summer that it's a thru shot? Even '
though if it stayed gravel, is it the first year that it would be a thru shot?
Hoffman: To Eden Prairie?
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: Yeah. It was just completed last fall... '
Andrews: Ron, do you want to restate that please? I
Roeser: Well I just move that we complete the trail using the contingency fund this summer
or as soon as possible. Or we recommend it. We certainly can't decide. '
Andrews: Is there a second to that?
17
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Berg: I'll second.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
Berg: Do we need to discuss whether or not we're looking at using the contingency fund or
allocating it for 1995?
Andrews: Ron's motion was to do it as soon as possible with contingency money. That to
me implies this summer. Is that acceptable?
Lash. Do we have enough money in the contingency fund?
Hoffman: There's $10,000.00 and it's at your discretion to spend it as you like.
Andrews: Hearing no further discussion I'll call the question.
Roeser moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission allocate
$6,500.00 out of the 1994 contingency dollars to facilitate the completion of an 8 foot
wide asphalt trail for the Rice Marsh Lake trail extension to Eden Prairie. All voted in
favor, except Jan Lash who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Andrews: This will come up again at the City Council so this is not a binding decision. And
Todd, they will again, the neighbors will be notified prior to that meeting as well?
Hoffman: Again, this is not, the allocation of those funds has been made as a contingency...
Andrews: So this will not come to the City Council then? Okay. If this were an issue that
you wish to pursue, you should approach the City Council then at the next available agenda.
They also have a Visitor Presentation. That might give you another opportunity to seek
action, okay.
Lash: Todd, should Connie take the petition or will that be provided if the Council...
Hoffman: They will be provided the record of this discussion...
Andrews: We thank you for coming and we do understand what your concerns were.
W.
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPT PLA UNIT DEVELOPMENT I
TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF
TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present: I
Name Address
'
Jeannene Krone RLK Associates
Steve Schwanke RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet
Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane
David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
,
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
,
I had two requests from John Dobbs who is of a Development and Heritage
Jeannene Krone: q g
the first is that the trail easement that you are looking at would be a 30 foot easement.
Hoffman: Would you please introduce yourself.
Jeannene Krone: My name's Jeannene Krone from RLK. I'm landscape architect. So
Heritage requests that they be granted a 20 foot easement along the wetland instead of the 30
foot to provide the trail. And there were some changes. We discussed them with the '
Planning Commission that where we originally wanted the pond is a wetland and they will
need to be doing some ponding outside this wetland to the east. So this would be a storm
water pond around here and I drew a quick section that shows right through here that the
back of the lots would come down. There'd be a narrow pond then I had a 20 foot trail
bench and then the wetlands start and eventually go to the creek. And now they're doing a
20 foot easement instead of a 30 foot. John Dobbs wanted to say that he would be willing to I
put in the trail as requested as long as he was fairly compensated...
Andrews: Do you know what the average lot size is you're proposing here? I
Jeannene Krone: The average lot size is 20,000 square feet. That includes property, this part
of the wetland.
Andrews: The outlots?
19
u
r
G
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Jeannene Krone: The outlots. And other than that, there's still a 15,000 square foot
minimum beyond the wetland.
Manders: The trail you're talking would be on the bottom side of the water retention?
Jeannene Krone: It would be, no. It would be between this pond and the wetland.
Manders: Right.
Jeannene Krone: So it would, it's proposed to come up this part of the creek but it can't go
up here because of the wetland. So it'd be between the pond and wetland here and stay just
outside the wetland until it gets back to the creek. And the main reason for the 20 foot
easement is there were some lots that wouldn't work if it had to be a 30 foot trail.
Andrews: Todd, usually we are looking at 20 foot easements. Why were we looking at the
extra 10 feet?
Hoffman: In conversation with Diane Desotelle and other members of the planning and
engineering staff, there's a requirement for a 20 foot buffer inbetween that wetland the
developed property and that buffer is to allow the natural vegetation to collect sedimentation...
etc, etc before they drain into the wetland. So if we...
Manders: What constitutes the definition of that wetland? Is it just elevation or is it just.
Hoffman: It's a mapped wetland. The elevation and the aerial underneath that is also it's an
elevation.
Jeannene Krone: And we will be having the wetland staked as soon as the ground thaws, and
delineated—were taken from maps from aerial photos where the wetlands are.
Lash: When you're saying some of the lots won't work with the 30 foot easement, are you
saying they're too small?
Jeannene Krone: Yeah, they'll be too small.
Berg: What's too small?
Jeannene Krone: Less than 11,000 square feet in a PUD.
Lash: Yeah, that's too small.
FA
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Jeannene Krone: And then it's too narrow. Too narrow for the house and stuff. I
Manders: That's assuming that the current road structure is approved or is that finalized? I
Jeannene Krone: That's assuming the road structure is approved.
Lash: This is all still under the conceptual plan. So if we stick with the 30 feet, the plan can
be redone so it would be workable. Could it not?
Jeannene Krone: Sure... '
Andrews: Is there anyone else here from the audience that has any questions or comments '
about this proposal? If so, please state your name and address please?
Richard Frasch: Okay. Do I have to stand up or can I sit down here? ,
Andrews: If you could approach the podium.
Hoffman: You're 'r on record here. '
Richard Frasch: Big audience here. My name is Richard Frasch. I'm at 8000 Acorn Lane in '
Timberwood. From my perspective, just so I understand where we're talking about here. Is
this Timberwood right here? '
Jeannene Krone: Right. At the bottom.
Richard Frasch: Okay, and then this road here, is that. '
Jeannene Krone: That's the proposed frontage road. I
Richard Frasch: Okay, so that would be connecting toTimberwood?
Jeannene Krone: No. It would go along with the school opening. It would be just north of
Timberwood.
Richard Frasch: Right at the north of Timberwood. '
Hoffman: This is north. This is Acorn. This is north. This would be the new frontage road. '
The new school, park site and then Highway 5 runs vertically here.
21
n
LJ
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Richard Frasch: And these houses here, what type of price range will they be?
Jeannene Krone: ...$230,000.00?
Roeser: How much?
Jeannene Krone: $230,000.00 is what they're going for.
Lash: On 11,000 square foot lot?
Hoffman: I had the opportunity to hold a phone conversation with John Dobbs this morning.
We talked about the 30 foot easement. We also talked about the city's desire to maintain, to
develop a very comprehensive and attractive park system along that corridor... understand at a
staff level the difficulty of double fronting that piece of property so we do not want to hinder
that process any further so we will allow that easement to go through... buffer setback. In
doing so if there's some configuration...
Andrews: I guess I just need you to clarify what you just said Todd. Are you saying that we
as a park board cannot accept this drawing because it doesn't meet current city ordinance?
Hoffman: It's not an...
Andrews: We're not accepting it anyway as a body.
Hoffman: Correct.
Andrews: But it's not acceptable as presently drawn.
Hoffman: Correct. As proposed.
Andrews: And so what the applicant is looking for is the Park Board to state that we would
not be opposed to a variance to that ordinance by allowing a 20 foot instead of a 30 foot
easement. Is that what you're saying that we would have to do here?
Hoffman: The Park and Recreation Commission would be at liberty to offer that opinion but
again, the ordinance...
Roeser: So we really can't change that easement anyway.
22
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Andrews: I'll have to say personally as a Park Board member here that I cannot support
reducing that easement. I think that this particular corridor is absolutely critical to the city
and it's future beauty and I just feel that we can't give an inch here. I just don't think we
should. I feel that the houses in these price ranges, you know a few lots may be sacrificed
but I just don't think that we should be asking for anything less than top quality. Here we
have one of our most valuable pieces of property and it's a PUD coming in asking for lot
sizes that are actually below standard if they were not under PUD and I just don't think we
should support anything but the type of quality that our city should demand. That's where I
stand. '
Roeser: I agree.
Lash: I agree.
Berg: Absolutely.
Manders: The ordinance was put in place for a reason. To keep the fertilizers out and all of
those things so I agree. '
Andrews: Yeah. Do you need a motion here Todd or, I mean I think you're getting some '
feedback right there where we're standing, which is that we're not supportive of any change
in that setback.
Hoffman: If you're prepared to make a motion, the motion outlined in the... '
Andrews: Well I move that we would, that the Park Board resolutely is in favor of '
maintaining the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and the proper amount of distance for
protecting the creek. And therefore would ask that the applicant resubmit a plan that would
meet that requirement. '
Lash: Second.
Andrews: Any discussion? '
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend '
that the applicant maintain the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and to resubmit
a plan that would meet that requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Hoffman: ...you need to compensate the applicant or the developer for the cost-in
23
I
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
developing that trail and that's always been the city's policy...
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; INCLUDING 19.3 ACRES FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI - FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES FOR
PONDING AREA, AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY, LOCATED SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, AND ABUTTING THE NEW
CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE /RECREATION CENTER AND PARK
SITE; CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5 PARTNERSHIP, RYAN
COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR CORPORATION AND
RLK ASSOCIATES.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Steve Schwanke: Members of the commission, thank you Todd. My name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates and I've been working on this particular project here for
probably the last 6 to 7 months. Jeannene Krone who was here just a few minutes ago was
assisting with some specific design of some of those particular areas. As Mr. Hoffman has
mentioned, we view this very much as a concept stage. A lot of the designs that we have
submitted, we have 5 plan sheets as part of this. A lot of the design work that we've put
together for that really is, in terms of a concept, we want to really make sure that we begin to
identify some specific land uses and some specific densities that will be allowed for the
access points. And actually when we begun with all of this, probably 5 or 6 months ago, it's
been in a very fundamental point. We began working with the city and the city's consultants
actually 5 or 6 months ago working with design and some of the major infrastructures in this
area here. Barton - Aschman has been very cooperative as well as the engineering department
and the planning departments and of course the parks and recreation department in assisting
us in designing a lot of the infrastructure for this particular area here so when the feasibility
study for example for the east/west collector road came out, it was principally based on the
design that we had created for that in a way that we were able to maximize the land uses
both to the north and to the south as well as being able to...corridor here that Todd was
talking about. The east/west corridor as it snakes up from the north here and goes west a
little bit and then goes up to the north again. So a lot of that work we actually have been
doing in September and October. We've also been working in this particular area here in
conjunction with the School District and their consultants HGA. As well as the city's
consultant Bonestroo who's been doing some of the storm water planning for this particular
area here ... in conversations with the school and the city for the design of this pond area here
as well as just the size of it and you know what areas should be brought into it and things of
that nature. We've actually been involved in this project for some time working with the city
24
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
in designing the infrastructure and some of the more critical issues such as the ponding area
here. We also have been working, as I mentioned with Todd and his people particularly
related to the Bluff Creek corridor because as the city, we actually view this as a very
important amenity. We totally agree with the comments of the commission here just a few
minutes ago that they're a critical corridor. It's a corridor that we're committed to protecting
and actually it's an amenity that we want to highlight in this particular development. To that
end we then participated with the city in their efforts to obtain an LMCR grant for this
corridor that Todd eluded to for a minutes ago and we were at the meeting related to that
about a week ago and we made commitments to assist in obtaining that grant. As well as just
working here to make the, establish the corridor for this particular part of the creek yard. Let
me just walk through then, with that as some introductory comments, let me just walk
through the development very quickly. This initially started out as a much different
1
development. You saw this about a year ago. You might be wondering gosh, this looks a
little familiar but it isn't quite the same that I saw about a year ago. This at one time
included the entire school area here and included the Heritage Development area that was just
here a few minutes ago that was shown as single family. As you can see of course the school
area here had been sold to the school district. No longer is part of this development
As to the this is the of that the Boisclair
specifically. we move east, piece property
Corporation is currently working on. It is shown as a multi - family land use. As you go
further to the east, this is the property held by Ryan Construction Company shown as an
office warehouse land use. In conversations with the city planning department and
engineering department, it was felt that this was an appropriate transition moving away from
the school area here and moving towards this as we get a little bit closer to the McGlynn
property over here and of course their plan uses more the office warehouse type of use. So
we've shown, we've planned in your multi - family moving to a smaller office warehouse
piece. As you recall, this proposal about a year, year and a half ago, this whole area here
'
was commercial industrial. So this part of the land use has changed substantially. Of course
we have an east/west collector road through here. We've shown ponding areas in this area
here. Of course again we're in conversations with the city's engineering department to
exactly design and the NURP standards and exactly the size of those areas and we just show
'
that conceptually at the moment. And then as we move further to the south and to the east,
this area in here is shown as multi- family. Again, as an appropriate transition moving leaving
from the Timberwood area to the single family area here and multi family area here. Then of
course we move towards the commercial - industrial area of the McGlynn property. I think
with that in mind, I'm available for questions obviously. You may have Jeannene come up
'
here a couple of times again if there are any specific design related issues.
Lash: I have a real basic question. I'm not real good at interpreting these plans. On the site
'
that's abutting the school property.
25
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Steve Schwanke: The multi family here?
Lash: Yeah. There's, I'm looking at the drawing that has all the little.
Steve Schwanke: You're on the specific site?
Lash: Yeah.
' Steve Schwanke: � -'ould you bring that one up Jeannene so we can put it.
Lash: There's just some kind of funny shaped things and I'm not sure what they are.
' They're the bigger kind of funny shaped things in the middle and then the really funny
shaped things. Are those apartment buildings ?...
Steve Schwanke: We'll bring that sheet up and find out what the funny shaped things are.
There's two types of—there are two types of multi family uses that are, there is a townhouse
type of unit that will be owner occupied. I don't recall the, boy that didn't turn out too well
did it—These funny shaped things? Okay. That's the townhouse type of units. Those are
going to be owner occupied. I don't recall the approximate value of them but those are more
of a townhouse owner occupied type of unit and then over in this area here you see an
apartment building and this is a 3 story apartment building that would be of course rented.
Lash: So are these like six- plexes, most of them?
Jeannene Krone: 6 or 8.
Steve Schwanke: 6 to 8.
' Lash: Okay. And then almost in the middle of it there are these, with all the six- plexes
around, there are those kind of two funny shaped things.
Steve Schwanke: Yeah, why don't you show me which ones you're looking at—that funny
shaped area is...again we want to emphasize this is concept and what we're attempting to
show there is, there is going to be some open space. Admittedly there's not going to be a lot
and given this design-that there's going to be some open areas.
Andrews: I just want to make a comment. I was on that Highway 5 group, that these land
uses are very consistent with what we wanted to see there. Yeah, it's not a shock to see this.
We all would like to see rolling plains and animals running free but we also realize we have
to provide residences and places for people to work too so.
26
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Roeser: Is it pretty dense though? I mean it seems to me there's an awful lot of people
living in that whole area.
Steve Schwanke: Well in this, if you go back again to the Boisclair area here. The overall
density, this is approximately 26 acres, plus or minus. And we're showing the density in
there of 11.3 units per acre so again for a multi - family area, we feel it's an appropriate
density. It's an appropriate land use given what we have to the north. And again I want to
emphasize and of course if I'm misrepresenting Trunk Highway 5 corridor study group,
please help me out. Again, we need to, in Audubon what we're planning for up here is in
essence a major roadway. And we have, it will end up being a four lane divided roadway
and we're designing this area in a way that it will last and actually protects and buffers this
area here from the corridor area here. But again for us to serve as an appropriate buffer to
the south, and of course for the property owners to maximize then the value of the property
without commercial uses. Again, this would be a very appropriate commercial piece and
actually sold as a commercial piece and to be consistent with the Trunk Highway 5 corridor
group, the development team sought out of the multi - family user as a way to maximize the
value of the property and those types of densities that would be required. Again we need to
realize, this is probably a piece that, at least from the planning department's point of view,
would probably be a little more appropriate for commercial industrial warehouse and to be
consistent with the Trunk Highway 5 corridor study, we've attempted to show it as multi-
family.
Andrews: We had hoped for a transition from the school going east from a dense to a, dense
residential to a commercial use so it's consistent.
Steve Schwanke: Yeah, very good. Again, a proposal that we had brought up that we
frankly we started with the Planning Commission, or excuse me. The planning department
about was this area as an office commercial use.
Roeser: That's what I always pictured it as.
Steve Schwanke: And we were informed by the planning department that it was really the
strong belief of the Trunk Highway 5 corridor study group that this should serve as a
transition area moving away from the school area. As a way to protect the school area from
this commercial, industrial, office uses and by doing that they were proposing a high density
multi family. And so to accommodate that, the development team sought...
Andrews: One of my concerns is that from the creek itself, you know from a person walking
the trails and down in the creek and trying to enjoy that. That's a tremendous asset that we
all have here in the city. I guess I'd appreciate if the developer would do what they could to
27
r
7
u
11
k
F�
C
C
r]
�I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
place buildings that aren't the typical gray, tip up concrete monoliths for somebody to view
as they're walking through this nature area. I would hope that you could be creative and
perhaps have some balconies or decking or something that would be a little more appropriate
I think on that site. I realize that we don't have a lot of control over that but I think it would
be, first of all it'd make your property, those buildings more desirable but I think it'd also be
appreciated by those people using the creek. I also have some concerns about, and I'm sure
you're dealing with this through other bodies about the ponding you mentioned was right near
where the creek is currently running. I guess I'm curious as to how you're going to pond
water where the creek is running free. That's just a concern of mine that we don't impact
what is the natural flowage of the creek and alter the creek. The route of the creek and what
wildlife may currently be there. So again I'm sure there are other bodies that are watching
that. The Planning Commission I'm sure is one of them and some others so. My main
concern is where transitions of views and that this be treated really as one of the, our
diamonds of Chanhassen in that the developer be sensitive to what views that a person
walking in the corridor may experience as they come through there. That's it for me.
Manders: I have a couple questions. One is I think an obvious one but I'll ask it anyway.
The multi family is delineated on both sides by the creek. Is that correct?
Steve Schwanke: You mean these two areas here?
Manders: No. From the west and the east. Those two curved lines are the east branch and
the west branch of that creek?
Steve Schwanke: Oh the creek.
Manders: Yeah.
Steve Schwanke: Yes. Approximately.
Manders: So the idea is to have that multi family inbetween that creek area?
Steve Schwanke: In fact that's the results.
Manders: Okay, right. And then elaborating on the creek. Is there anything in place thus far
in terms of that trail? As far as specifics about it? That has yet to be defined?
Hoffman: Construction standards?
Manders: Yeah. There really isn't anything talked about - as far as where the trail itself, as
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
you pointed out, is going to be on the west side of the creek and then go up the east branch '
up to the road and then follow the road over to the west branch and up? None of the rest of
that creek would be developed for trail purposes then? Would that be correct? '
Hoffman: Correct. The opposite side, on the east side. The reason that they wanted these to
follow the west side. Down in this area there's a large wetland protruding which comes out.
It's difficult to bump around. To get all the way back west to the under pass. How the trails
will line up in this location and what side they will be on or on both sides, will determine if
there's a natural crossing point in which there may be there with some of the activity through '
the culverts and the fields... crossing and those type of things. I know there's one up in this
location. But obviously we want people that would propose to be residing in this location to
be able to access the corridor and then come down onto the street plan and then continue
down. The same thing with these different folks. We would want them to be able to access
inward. Not going out on a street plan necessarily. To access inward onto the creek corridor
and then to head up on down.
Andrews: That brings up a point too.
r : Which gets to other or last question. Going '
Mande s g y q g to the, which way. This would be
south of the road. You're going to be crossing the creek? Is there some type of bridge?
ill need to be le of locations. At least laced in a couple Hoffman: I think bridges which w e p p
potentially right here and we either have to come out on the street plan and then go back
down but more likely it will be a bridge at this location and then you will come underneath
here and it will come up probably on the same side that we come underneath but we will not
have to have a bridge here. This location would need a bridge and potentially a culvert and
the same over there or down in this location where we hit the southern, or the other branch
which comes off into here...
Andrews: I just thought of one point when Jim was talking and that would be, in particular r
on the dense townhome and apartment part of the project. That the developer consider having
trail, private trail easements feed into the trail that's proposed to run with the access '
boulevard so that it's not strictly walk the street to get to the trail system. There would be
potential paths through the complex itself to link some of those homes because you're going
to have tons of people on there and it's probably going to, they're probably going to take the ,
path of least resistance, which is through the property anyway. Why don't we provide a few
paths that would then link up to the access boulevard trail system.
Lash: Does anybody have any feeling about, I'm almost speechless over the large amounts of
grass. I just can't get over that but with the school site there, yeah we have ball fields and
29
n
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
we're going to have playground but I look at the multi family thing on the south side of the
frontage road and not as easily, the school site will not be as easy to access from that area
and do we want to look at at least having them provide some spots within each of these
places where they can have at least a totlot type...
Andrews: Especially in that dense part of the development. Again you're going to have
hundreds of.
Lash: When you've got 300 homes in one and 172 in the second, that's.
Manders: I think that's something that's stated in the suggestion that that would be
' encouraged. I don't know if we can recommend or require it. I guess we can recommend it
but.
' Andrews: Well this is a PUD isn't it? Or will be a PUD.
Steve Schwanke: This is being submitted to the city as a planned unit development, that's
' correct.
Andrews: Well we could request that that be added as a condition of approval.
Lash: Well I'm throwing that out as an idea. I'm looking at it as something that I think
would be beneficial.
' Andrews: Well you know it's going to be needed.
' Steve Schwanke: Let me, if I could say. I think it's an item that this property area here
is ... will be developed by Heritage Development Company and in my conversations with them,
they recognize as well it's a large piece of property and it's being planned as multi - family
density and again, because of the transition... this industrial area here and they recognize that
some type of park facilities would have to be provided in that area. So I think in conjunction
with Mr. Hoffman... taking a look at what might be...
' Andrews: Are we looking or motions here or just feedback?
g J
Hoffman: At your discretion. Again.
Andrews: I guess I feel that we're at more of a feedback level here than really a formal
acceptance or denial of the project. I think it's going to be back at least one more time
before it goes to digging. Is there any other comments that anybody else would like to add?
' 30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Does the applicant require any more information from us?
Steve Schwanke: No. Actually I just want to say thank you. This is very helpful for us to
get a sense of how the Park Commission views this. We're going to be, as you can imagine,
any number of iterations on this entire project so we appreciate that and look forward to
being before you again. I did just want to mention very quickly. This was submitted in time
to be before the Planning Commission on April 6th. But that agenda's pretty full so we're
going to be there probably on the 20th. So we look forward to working with you on this and
appreciate your time.
Andrews: Thank you. Oh pardon me. Is there anybody from the audience that wishes to
make any comments about this? Okay, please. We forgot to ask about that. I apologize for
that.
Mark Foster: I'm Mark Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane in Timberwood. I'm just kind of
wondering what the, my lot, if I can just point it out, is here. I was noticing the markings on
it ... and one of my concerns was the, with the ponding and the drainage ... the back of my lot
there...
Jeannene Krone: ...what they plan to do is have separate ponds that will feed into the
channel...
Andrews: I believe if there were to be any placement of ponding water on anybody's
property, it'd have to purchased or compensated so that could not occur.
Steve Schwanke: Actually that pond, as Jeannene mentioned is currently being designed in
conjunction with planning and natural resources in the engineering department here. The
intent or the thought at the moment is, and again this is just in the design stage. We're still
in conversations with ... the size and the depth and all that. The intent thought is to design it
in a manner that the pond actually is appearing as a natural wetland. So depending upon how
one feels about wetlands. Some people like them. Some people don't. This at least has to
be designed, or at least that's the intent right now to be using natural vegetation. The slopes
being in a way that the natural vegetation is able to grow and be sustained in that area rather
than steep walls, very deep ponds, and things of that nature. That's the intent at the moment.
Andrews: You're going to be required to remove sediment anyway before that water can be
discharged into the creek anyway, I would assume.
Steve Schwanke: Yes. That is one of the functions obviously of the pond there. Before it
discharges into...
31
�I�
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' Mark Foster: ...one thing I don't want to see is any rental units, either apartment or
townhouse or whatever... thanks.
' Andrews: Thank you.
' Tahir Khan: My name is Tahir Khan and I live on Renaissance Court. Just a couple
comments about the proposed development. I've got a little concern when I see 4 or 5 homes
abutting up against one house and it seems in general with the ... and it seems that there is ... of
the homes along here seems to be very high. Even though the average may come out to be
acceptable so hopefully the developers will give some attention to those little details. Also
for drainage purposes, there's several homes along this line that are presently draining into
' the cornfield which has not shown up on these aerial photographs. And I'm also hoping that
those issues can be looked at in some detail because not all the water is going towards the
main creek. One that runs through here and some of it is going right across, there's a
depression right about here. And some of the water from these two properties is sort of
linked to the creek down here. It goes right across what was going to become the future
backyards of some homes ... is I'm hoping that it's not going to ... but otherwise the
1 development does show some merit in terms of trying to get, make a transition between the
larger lots and the high density but I think there does need to be some work done yet.
Especially in this area and all the straight line of homes butting up against here which seems
to be awfully dense. Thanks.
Andrews: I would encourage you to attend the Planning Commission and Council meetings
' because that's where those issues will be specifically addressed. Any other comments?
Lash: Given that, I know that you people were here for the item before where we're trying to
' extend the trail. I hope that when these lots are coming in and people are coming to look,
that it's communicated clearly to people who are potential home site owners along here that
there will be some type of trail going behind their home so they won't have a.
' Roeser: Yes, P lease tell them.
r Audience: Most people like them.
Lash: Well you know, some people do and some people don't. We get to hear from those
who don't.
Andrews: I think what people don't like is change. If it wasn't there when they bought it,
they don't necessarily want it. If they come in as a new property owner and they hear about
it, they usually are in favor of seeing it right away so. I guess I would encourage you to
32
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
have it built before the first structure ever went in. Any other comments on this project?
Lash: I have a question for the gentleman who lives on Acorn. I see Outlot C in
Timberwood and I've forgotten what ... there.
Hoffman: It's a depression. Woods. '
Lash: Is it our's?
Hoffman: No. '
Lash: It's not city owned? Is it heavily wooded or is. 1
Hoffman: Partially wooded ravine along there. As far as I recall, it's in the Timberwood
Association.
Lash: Okay. I was just curious. Thank you. ,
Andrews: Alright, thank you. I hope you've received from us what you need to move ahead.
Steve Schwanke: Very good, thank you.
Andrews: Jan, if you could take item 6. '
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO
REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO '
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
54,720 SO. FT. WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQ. FT.
KINDERCARE FACILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE
HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION AND RLK ASSOCIATES.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report and stated that the applicant was not present per his
conversation with the applicant that this item was straight forward.
Andrews: Any discussion? If not a motion would be appreciated. Nobody wants to talk
about it? '
Roeser: I move.
33
n
F
1
0
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Andrews: Ron has moved that we accept the staff recommendation. Is there a second to
that?
Meger: I'll second.
Roeser moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
the City Council accept full park and trail dedication fees for the expansion of Lot 1 and
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Park One Third Addition in lieu of parkland dedication and /or
trail construction. One third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid
contemporaneously with the city's approval of the subdivision. The balance, calculated
as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. The rate in effect for
commercial /industrial property when a building permit is issued minus the amount
previously paid. Current commercial /industrial park and trail fee rates are $4,500.00
per acre and $1,500.00 per acre, respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
PROGRAM REPORTS:
- WINTER PROGRAM REVIEW
- FEBRUARY FESTIVAL FUN SKI EVALUATION
- TEEN NIGHT OUT EVALUATION
- MIDDLE SCHOOL SKI TRIP EVALUATION
Lemme: ...evaluation of the winter programs and the attendance on programs ... so unless you
have any questions, this is informational.
Andrews: I have two comments. One is, I was at the Chan Chamber luncheon today.
Comments there were very, very, very positive about the February Festival. They're very
anxious to participate again. In fact they're expecting that to happen so I mean line them up
now. And then also I spoke with Principal Duane Udsten of Minnetonka Middle School West
about trying to coordinate more with that school. With Chan activities being that that is a
school that many Chanhassen students do attend and he's very much looking forward to that
so we can work on that. Any other comments on item 7? Let's move on.
Lemme: Item 7(b) is also ... if you have any additional comments... that can be directed
towards the fun ski. Appreciate any of those.
Roeser: I was thinking perhaps we should discourage less than 10 years old because they get
tired about halfway through and they want to go home and you can't go home. Those kids
really don't need exercise.
34
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Andrews: It's a pretty long drive too so. I
Lemme: And one of the suggestions was to offer a trip to Spirit Mountain and that would be
to take a Coach bus and would go all day. There's been quite a few people who have '
suggested we make a long trek, but if we do that, we have to get an extra bus probably and.
Andrews: Leave early and get home late. I
Lemme: Make it an early morning start and get back later at night.
35
'
Lemme: That was one of the items. I forgot to put that on there—group that got together on
this meeting.
Roeser: Or even what we talked about. Even maybe having a little area where they could
ski where their parents are doing it or something like that. That's maybe making things
complicated but.
'
Lemme: That's still a possibility but we are going to put an age on that or discourage those
who are below a certain age.
'
Andrews: Item 7(c).
'
Lemme: ....evaluation of the final teen night out numbers and fees that were brought in. If
you have any questions, I can try to answer those... suggestions, we'll add those to the list.
Hoffman: Commissioner Lash ... address your concerns in this regard?
Lash: I believe you addressed my concerns. Well in the letter.
,
Lemme: Any questions on that?
'
Andrews: No.
Berg: Point (d), I was wondering why you were eliminating the trip to Welch Village. Just
'
curious.
Lemme: Jerry encountered several problems with getting the kids in and out as far as rental
'
equipment. Apparently they had to stand in line for over an hour and ... new computer system
did not seem to be very organized and it was quite frustrating for a lot of the children in the
group. They didn't get as much time to ski as they thought and...
'
Andrews: It's a pretty long drive too so. I
Lemme: And one of the suggestions was to offer a trip to Spirit Mountain and that would be
to take a Coach bus and would go all day. There's been quite a few people who have '
suggested we make a long trek, but if we do that, we have to get an extra bus probably and.
Andrews: Leave early and get home late. I
Lemme: Make it an early morning start and get back later at night.
35
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' Andrews: I guess that might be another one to look at making sure we have an appropriate
minimum age for that one.
Manders: These trips are pretty much self supporting? Am I understanding that?
' Lemme: Yes they are normally. This year they went a little bit into the negative because of
the first two trips. We just did not have the kids because of the snow conditions. The last
trip just went, we had a very full bus and normally every busload of all these trips is really
' full. I think it's really good attendance. And one of them I think had to cancel due to the
weather and then re- schedule and we lost part of the group.
F
Lash: That was during the cold weather?
Lemme: Yeah.
Hoffman: A couple of them...
Lemme: Any other questions on those?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. REVIEW CARVER BEACH PARK PLAY STRUCTURE "BALLOTS ".
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Andrews, members of the Commission. This item is
approximately 6 months old now. We began to review it last September. We tabled action at
that time pending kind of an informal study ... out to the neighborhood. That was mailed in
November of last year. Those ballots were received, a majority of them just before or after
Christmas and now is the time to review those... appropriate equipment for the installation
season. Last year the park and the neighborhood ... but the old equipment was removed and
new equipment was not installed. We need to consider... Some clarifications. What was
distributed to the neighborhood is not exactly how the commission discussed after the meeting
and the reason for that was because of the constraints at the site. But I believe it was...bigger
to the play structure regarding the proposed. It simply cannot take place under the new...
guidelines... play structure areas, the pea gravel ... in order to have it comply. So what we came
up with is that we could have one of the other, some sort of small play structure as reviewed
or a swing only. Even trying to fit a swing and digger animals does not work on the site that
we have. It's too constraining. So the survey was amended to read, either install a platform
structure and then choose one ... or install a two place swingset and one would be the belt and
the other would be the bucket. So you have the total tally as it was sent back to the city.
Pretty good response rate really. 58 out 172. A lot of additional comments on there. Thanks
36
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
for the opportunity to discuss this or cast our vote in this regard, etc, etc. With that, the
commission needs to take some action with regards so we can get on with the installation.
Andrews: Alrighty. It looks as though there's a fairly clear majority preference for Structure '
B. Could you give us a better description what exactly the difference is between these two?
It looks to me, was the picture as shown, the one that was used for item A? '
Hoffman: Correct. The picture, our item A was the picture which shows ... under review
again tonight. That picture was more difficult to read than the other one from Earl F. '
Anderson. In fact I marked A and...
Andrews: So B is Anderson then?
'
Hoffman: Correct.
,
Andrews: Fred, why don't we start at your end and see if we can get this resolved here.
Take any comments, questions.
Berg: I don't see an awful lot to discuss. The balloting is clear. If we can't go with the
swing, I guess things have changed since I was a kid.
Andrews: Alright. Jim.
Manders: Yeah. I guess my main question would be the pricing difference between the two.
If there is any.
Hoffman: They were very similar. Both within the amount that is budgeted.
'
Manders: Okay. I
Roeser: Well you're going to make the least people, number of people angry so take the 28
votes and go with it. I
Andrews: I agree. I also think that Anderson has proven to be the best vendor for us as far
as dependability so that would be my feeling. Jan? Jane? Okay. Let's have a motion. '
Berg: Move we accept Structure B.
Andrews: Is there a second?
37
V
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
I Manders: Second.
' Berg moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission select
Platform Structure B for the Carver Beach Park play structure. All voted in favor and
the motion curried unanimously.
' APPROVAL OF 4TH OF JULY BAND CONTRACT, THE HI TOPS.
Lemme: Thank you Chairman and commissioners. Attached you see the contract for this
' year's Hi Tops performance at the 4th of July weekend. The contract, if you notice is for
$1,400.00. We did change the date from what we had initially thought we would have for the
4th of July weekend so this year it will be on Saturday night, July 2nd from 7:30 to 11:30
p.m with the rain out date being Sunday, July 3rd. The same time, from 7:30 to 11:30 p.m.
And staff's recommendations is that you approve this contract for the Hi Tops...
i'I
L I
I
I I
I
Andrews: Is there any discussion?
Manders: I just had two questions. One was, what was last year's contract amount? Was it
the same amount?
Lemme: I believe it was the same.
Manders: Was it? And then two, is the timeframe, is the 7:30 to 11:30 similar to what we
had last year because I was there last year and it seemed like it dwindled towards the end.
A lot of people left so is this earlier?
Lemme: It's a half hour earlier.
Manders: Okay, that's what I was thinking. That it was an 8:00 start.
Lemme: Last year it went 8:00 to midnight.
Berg: Do they get an hour break? A total hour break inbetween for all of this? Because
that's 4 hours of time and they're contracted for 3.
Hoffman: Yep, they take breaks.
Roeser: They take like 20 minutes every so often.
Berg: Every hour?
38
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
Roeser: Something like that. They're artists. I
Berg: That's better than teaching. I'll have to look into this gig too. It could be a good I
summer job.
Lemme: This is really, I believe this is the fee that they've been charging us for a number of '
years.
Lash: I'm really surprised that they were willing to book Saturday night because we tried '
that before and they never wanted to commit to Saturday night with the chance that they'd be
rained out and then they're sitting on a Saturday night without a gig.
Hoffman: They're pretty committed to Chanhassen. ,
Andrews: They're popular. Can we get a motion to approve the contract? t
Lash: I move that we approve the contract. ,
Berg: Second.
Lash moved, Berg seconded to approve the contract with the Hi -Tops to perform at the ,
4th of July celebration in the amount of $1,400.00. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
C. EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT.
Lemme: Thank you again Chairman and commissioners. Attached you will find the Easter
Egg Candy Hunt flyer and coloring contest ... this year. The Easter Egg Candy Hunt and
celebration will take place on Saturday, April 2nd at 9:00 a.m. at the Elementary School. The '
flyers have been distributed. Since the time of this memo I have, today we received, we're
starting to receive the coloring contest entries and a lot of calls on the Easter Egg hunt.
We'll be receiving help from the Honor Society again and confirmation... and Boy Scouts I '
believe.
Hoffman: And as Jerry has indicated, if any Park commissioners wish to volunteer, that I can I
take their names down...
Lash: I went last year and there really wasn't very much for me to do. I
Hoffman: No, it's more of a PR ... and judging.
39
1
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
I Lemme: Judging of the coloring contest.
Lash: I was very excited to see the little note on here. Pictures may not be turned into any
of the area schools. I want you to know to date I've only gotten one. If you need a judge,
call and I'll got but if you don't, I mean if you've got the people who want to do it, that's
fine with me too.
Lemme: I don't believe we need judges ... would anyone else be interested?
Lash: That's my son's birthday too so.
Andrews: I have one question. How and where were the flyers distributed?
Lemme: They were distributed into the schools and there was a note that we would have
' them at City Hall available and notice made in the newsletter also. People can get those if
they'd like.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
D. APPOINTMENT TO BLUFF CREEK (LYMAN BOULEVARD TO HIGHWAY 41)
DESIGN TEAM.
Hoffman: This is going to be a fun little task force I believe. If you have any spare time...
This one actually will. The design charette effort that we talked about earlier and it has to do
with the two developments which we reviewed and then the remainder of the properties so
again, Kate Aanenson is our city's newest department head as Planning Director. Paul
Krauss' last day was today. Kate will be heading up this effort. In addition to other staff
members and I will include a member of this commission. Planning Commission, City
Council and then the folks... landscaping.
Andrews: Is there anybody that's interested?
Lash: I'm judging the coloring contest.
Andrews: Todd, can you check Dave Huffman's ... ?
Hoffman: Item 8(d) on June 6th.
Andrews: When do they have to have an answer on this? Tonight?
40
u
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Hoffman: Tonight would be preferable. You could defer it to your work session...
Andrews: I guess I would hate to deprive Dave a chance to serve if he would be interested.
Berg: He deserves to be asked.
Andrews: I think we should defer this and give him a chance but at the next work session
we have to find a volunteer so check your calendars and see if you could find a possible
second alternative here.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
A HIGHWAY 5 PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS, COMMISSIONER ANDREWS.
Andrews: I think it was at the last work session we talked about this a little bit. I had a
concern about the placement of the proposed pedestrian overpass over Highway 5. That it
would link, although it links two trail segments, that it would not link the area of most likely
the greatest need which is going to be further the west in our town where the commercial
development's going. And I had asked that we look at this again this meeting and not so
much approve or disapprove but just state, do we still support where it is. And if so, we
should state it. If we don't support where it is, we should state that. I think it's already a
done deal but I think we should at least state what we feel. I have a concern that it is going
to end up being located at the wrong spot. That it would be better down by Market, which I
know is going to create some great problems but I think it would be a better connection for
actually usage by people in the city.
Hoffman: Is the commission aware that this item was presented to you on 3 -6 months ago.
Something like that. To review it as an alignment change in the comprehensive trail plan
so ... at least the change in the trail plan which then went to abut this overpass—approved by
the commission.
Andrews: I know Todd.
Lash: Did we approve that?
Andrews: Yeah, but I have to also say that we were under a crisis pressure here to make
decisions. This whole thing came about basically as a way to get a hold of money that we
heard about and this was thrown together extremely fast and that's also obvious in the fact
that the bridge cost has increased by about $200,000.00. I guess I don't think that we have to
apologize that we think we might want to change our minds when they just approved a
41
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
$200,000.00 increase in expenditure to build it.
Lash: So when it came to us, was it in the form of. I don't even remember this, to tell you
the truth. Did it come in the form of that we were going to qualify for a grant and this was
the way it was and did we support that or did we pick a site and apply for a grant?
Hoffman: No.
i I
1
Lash: We didn't? Okay.
Andrews: This came from planning.
Lash: So it was sort of a package deal to us and.
Hoffman: It started in planning. At that point it was either, even at that point 6 months ago,
it was a formality that we had to change the trail system, the comprehensive trail plan to
align up with this particular project.
Lash: And at that point in time was it to be funded primarily through grant money?
Hoffman: At that time it was about an equal split. Since that time it's about 1/3 grant and
2/3 trail, or city money I believe.
Lash: Is that HRA money?
Hoffman: Correct.
Roeser: So where's it crossing right now?
Hoffman: If you take out a map. Just west of McDonald's and the Sinclair.
Andrews: There's that high point there.
Hoffman: So as you come in on Highway 5, hit the intersection of McDonald's right in here
and continue on down Highway 5 and right there is the crossing. Right at that island where
the church is. The church on one side and the old concrete plant on the other side which the
building, the wood structure was burned off. That will be demolished. That will be the touch
down point where that old concrete plant was.
Andrews: The current north/south linkage would be at Market, wouldn't it? I mean going
42
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
north and south into the other parts of the trail system.
Hoffman: I didn't understand your question.
Andrews: The trail going south into the main part of, the southern part of Chanhassen would
be at the Market intersection wouldn't it?
Hoffman: Yeah. It'd be TH 101 and Market.
Andrews: Okay. So this would be an easterly diversion from anybody intending to travel
north/south?
Hoffman: Correct ... right now is that again.
Andrews: Yeah, I know you had concerns.
Hoffman: The HRA took this upon themselves... with the Planning Department at some point.
The topography does allow for the connection to be very nicely without ramping either the...
or the steps, which we no longer do. And I'm not sure that would work at Market. There's
merits to both locations just on a couple of different levels. One is a better location I believe
for the future of Chanhassen and one is a good location for the present day and a good
location because of topography. But the future population base down TH 101 south corridor,
they'll be a major bulk. A bikeway lane allowing for commuter bikeways on TH 101 south.
And a trail system so as that develops, the main population will come up TH 101 and then
they will have to make a choice if they want to cross over at that point. Either cross at grade
at Market or to the east and then cross over—based on who you're traveling with. If you've
got children, that type of thing and you want to get across, you're probably forced to go
down to the overpass.
Andrews: There's just also no doubt that the commercial center of the city is moving
towards the west.
Lash: I would look at either TH 101 or Market or Powers. Any of those to me would be
better than Dakota.
Roeser: There will probably be another one some day.
Lash: They're pretty expensive.
Andrews: That'd be awful close together to have two but.
43
r
i
L
J
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Lash: Well I don't know. I agree. I think it's probably a done deal but I certainly wouldn't
have a problem with voicing an opinion that I think there would be a better location...
Manders: I would concur that it would be too bad just to put it in just for the sake of having
it in there. If it isn't functional as it could be. And being functional in the other areas maybe
is a bit of a stretch because of the topography wouldn't allow for it to be quite as functional
but I don't know. That's a tough one.
Andrews: My concern here is that the motivation for this is the money. The federal money.
Manders: It's a freebie.
Lash: I agree.
F�
Andrews: I just think that I would rather pass up the $100,000.00 of federal money and put
it in the right spot. Than to grab it and say well geez, we've got that money. We'd better
not let it go. I know there are a lot of other people who would disagree with that opinion.
That we should take whatever we can get when we can get it and just go for it.
Berg: But a walkway that's not going to be used isn't worth $100,000.00 or anything else.
Lash: Right. And that's $100,000.00 that we're getting from them but it's $200,000.00 that
we have to pay.
Andrews: No, it's about $300,000.00 now.
Lash: And when you look at the big picture, I think it's all tax.
Berg: There is no free lunch.
Lash: Right. It's coming from somewhere and it's coming from us. So whether it's federal
or city, in the end it's coming from us. I can think back many, many years across 494 I
believe. There was a road before Carlson towers went in and there was that road, a bridge
that went across 494 for many, many, many, many years and there was no road on either side
of the bridge. It was just a bridge that went across 494 and I, ultimately it did end up getting
used but the number of times people would drive over there I'm sure think the same thing as
me. Boy, how much money was spent to put that bridge there and there's no road. And this
is the same kind of thing. If that kind of money goes in and people are driving under it, if
we ever do want to put in another one someday, people aren't going to be excited about that
idea because they were going to think the first one was stupid to start with. You lose
CL!
t
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 1
credibility when you screw up the first time.
Andrews: I'm working on a resolution here.
Hoffman: In Commissioner Huffman's notes, he wanted to make the following remarks for
the record. I'm strongly in favor of the current location for the Highway 5 pedestrian
'
overpass. An attempt to move the overpass would create unnecessary delays. The overpass
is a physical link for the southern neighbors to safety traverse Highway 5.
I
Andrews: So we'll consider that he would be a no vote if there's any consideration. What
have is resolve that the Park Board recommends that the City Council reconsider the merits of
approved pedestrian overpass and examine benefits of relocating the pedestrian overpass west
'
to the Market Boulevard intersection.
Lash: Do you want to specifically say Market?
'
Manders: Or just west?
'
Lash: I don't know that I'm willing to get that specific.
Andrews: Okay, let's leave that as one of the possible westerly locations but.
'
Lash: Does it actually have to be at an intersection?
Andrews: From a land, well there is some land over there you could run it through.
Hoffman: Yes, it would have to be, for trail systems, for public ownership of right -of -way,
etc, etc.
Andrews: I'll try to repeat for you. Resolve that the Park Board recommends that City
r
Council reconsider merits of approved pedestrian overpass and examine benefits of relocating
the pedestrian overpass west to another, more favorable location. How many here would
,
support that resolution? Okay, we have 6 in favor and 1 opposed. Thank you.
Hoffman: One absentee vote... '
Andrews: I think Dave would vote against that by his notes. Any comments about the
Administrative Packet? Or any other commissioner presentations? '
Berg: What's the latest with Chan Estates and the trees?
45
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Hoffman: The roadway project?
Berg: Yeah.
Hoffman: I saw that was scheduled for approval of plans and specifications at the City
Council... concessions made, minor concessions made to narrow the roadway I think by 2 feet
to save some of the trees ... 120 to 80 or something. That would be my...
Meger: Todd, any more specifics ... and her concern? From Chanhassen Estates. She had
some concerns but.
Roeser: That you handled really well Todd.
' Meger: And she's not elated.
Hoffman: That was in regard to the same project for the proposed... called Rice Marsh Lake
Park. They would have to dig out an existing and storm water pipe, which was right on the
property line and the remainder of the row of trees. So what was decided, instead of doing
that they would leave that pipe and install an additional...
Lash: I have just a couple of other questions regarding... the senior men who made the wood
duck houses. Remember when we went through all the mosquito thing and we need bat
houses and some other kind of bird house, right?
Andrews: Martins.
' Lash: What is it?
'
Andrews: Martins?
Roeser: Blue birds.
'
Lash: What is it?
Lemme: They did a blue bird project last year.
'
Lash: But it's not blue bird.
Hoffman: We talked about bats specifically.
46
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Lash: Wasn't there another kind of bird?
Andrews: Mosquito eating birds.
Hoffman: Martins.
Lash: Well I just figure if they're interested in making a project.
Berg: Put some martin houses out at Lake Ann Park.
Roeser: They live in apartment houses don't they?
Hoffman: Martins?
Roeser: Yeah.
Andrews: Do we have money in our budget to give a little help towards materials and that?
Hoffman: Yes. We can pay for materials.
Andrews: Okay, very good.
Lash: And then the other thing that I have a question on, and I know Jerry's not here but
Todd, I'm sure you know the answer to this. In the baseball leagues, the softball leagues.
With the eligibility. I know it's such a bed of worms but, with the people grandfathered and
the residents and then people who work in the city. The people who work in the city, are
they eligible then for all of the leagues or is it just the industrial leagues? If they're on a
company team or can they play on any team or what? ...on any team, okay.
Andrews: Any other comments on administrative packet? Todd, have you had any contact
from Tonka United Soccer about more field practice space yet?
Hoffman: No, not after...
Lash: Is it coming?
Andrews: It's coming.
Roeser: We're opening up a can of worms aren't we?
47
i Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Andrews: I don't think it's anything different than what's happened in past years. I just
have, because I'm getting more involved with Tonka United, I've asked them to more
formalize what the arrangements are so that it's clear. Because when you don't have formal
' arrangements, then you have some people that abuse the parks.
' Manders: I have kind of a different type of question relating to the trail around Lake Ann.
Where it finishes and I never remember that little park. Is there anything in the works that
would resolve that muck down there?
Hoffman: We're going to continue that trail as part of a contract with ... construction. They're
under contract. It was left open over the winter. They'll extend it for, I don't know we said
1 50 to 80 feet to get it down to.
Roeser: Will they go up the hill with it do you think?
Hoffman: If you wanted we could add that.
' Manders: Just get out of the muck is all I want.
Hoffman: ...identify where we would turn up and where we get in because it's gated. The
trail can not go up and around the gate because you have berms and rocks. If there was a
nice extended alignment, we would have ran it right up to the street. But it isn't optimal.
L
r
Manders: But that's in the works though?
Hoffman: You bet. See it in the spring.
Andrews: That reminds me of two more. Irrigation project. Is that guy motivated, is that
done?
Hoffman: It's not done, no. The project was again left open over the winter season. It will
be completed in the spring and he has a punch list which he completed last fall and they'll
come in. He wanted to get out of the project. In fact—and he wanted to get out of it. Test it
out quick last fall ... and have the city sign off on it We did not think that was appropriate.
We wanted to have it fully operational this spring—so he will be back out there...
Andrews: This is the third year? Third season now we're into?
Hoffman: Construction on that?
M .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
Andrews: Yeah.
Lash: No, it was supposed to be done...
Hoffman: We started in the late fall of the year before...
Andrews: And the last thing would be, is there anything left to be corrected, the new park
pavilion?
Hoffman: Funny you ask. I drafted a 3 page memorandum to their attorneys today. We're
still in dispute over the final payments. Essentially the project is closed out. We continue to
experience, as owners of the building, some frost heave problems which we need to evaluate
and the ... heating the building minimally during the summer so we don't continue to have
these frost problems. First solve the ... issue and the city stands firm on our position of what
we have offered—both the Park Commission and the City Council were acting in that regard
and they had additional... clause where they ran past their completion date. It was August of
that year. A year ago last August. They ran past that by 9 months. So they accumulated
considerable liquidated damages because just my time and the building officials time and the
city attorney's office time and Van Doren - Hazard - Stallings time for professional services and
inspections, etc. The city elected only to asses them and charge them for the professional
services from the architect. That amounted to just over $11,000.00 — alleges that those charges
are excessive. We tell them that we are going easy on them in that regard. If they wish to
continue that allegation, we will take back that offer and send them the full bill. The other
issue is in regard to the final change order list, which they submitted that at $19,000.00 and
some odd dollars. All of those items but one were approved. It was the biggest one on there
for about an $8,500.00 for replacement of the front slab around the building and the day they
poured that it was a late fall day and I just happened to be on site. Conducting a random site
visit. I couldn't believe the conditions under which they were pouring that concrete. They
had the substrate there which was a wet saturated sand with water and mud. It was very hard
to tell the difference in terms of what was concrete and what was substrate. So again, the
conditions there were not conducive and did not meet the specifications for the city. I
questioned Mr .... the representative of ALM that day on the site. I said these are not
acceptable working conditions for pouring this concrete. He said he understood that and he
accepted responsibility for the slab if it failed. So it did fail. That following spring it
failed ... on site and said, we talked last fall when you poured this. The slab has failed. It's
cracked, it's heaved ... and it needs to be replaced and he said yes, it will be replaced.
However, he then billed us for it so that was his second mistake. So you'll be able to read
that memorandum ... and again, I hate to see the city spend money and spend my time and the
attorney's time...
49
f
1
L�
i Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994
' Lash: I have one that just popped into my head. This is sort of work related but the Lake
Ann related. The Early Childhood Center has their end of the year picnic yearly at Lake Ann.
' They have for quite a few years. And I don't know, because I haven't talked to the person
who's trying to organize it. It's always the head of our PTO that books the site and they're
having a problem because everyone who's coming in will need to have a parking pass to get
' in and in years past they're telling us that that was never the case and the only thing that I
can figure, I called Jerry and talked to him and the only thing we could figure was the night
that they had it, it was when there was no gate attendant on duty so people were able to just
t get in. They paid, the PTO paid the reservation fee but said they never had to pay any
parking fee. And so somebody came and talked to me and asked if there was anything that I
could do. I called Jerry and he said, oh I can't waive the fee for you guys. And I said I
' realize that and then I got to thinking of our new rate structure and if they were to decide to
book it anyway, would they be charged the non - resident business fee? Because it's not in
Chanhassen but it's a part of the school district and services. The kindergartners from
Chanhassen.
Hoffman: ...in order to make that determination but I can't answer that. I want to read that
1 specifically. It certainly shows some merit that they would be a resident type group but that's
exactly why we discussed that...
' Berg moved, Meger seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
50
7