Loading...
2l. MinutesL 17 1-1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Karen Engelhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Bob Generous APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel: For anyone who is really planning on staying for the budget. We're looking at a budget at a zero right at this particular time. We have satisfied our $600,000.00 deficit and what I'm hopeful that we will also do is to possibly wind up with a 2% reduction from the city standpoint. But we'll find that out later as we take votes later on. But it is right now at a 0 %. So with that, if I can have a motion for approval of the agenda with the changes as so moved. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following changes: Mayor Chmiel moved item 6 to item 4 and moved item 4, which is the adoption of the City budget, to item number 9. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO LARRY SCHROERS, PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND BRIAN BATZLI. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like Larry Schroers to come forward please at this time. It really gives me a lot of great pleasure Larry to provide you this Maple Leaf Award. It's something that is, it's just not an everyday occurrence... for those who have served for a number of years on the particular commissions. But just to give you a little background on Larry. Since February of 1987 Larry has faithfully served the city as a Park and Recreation Commission member. Larry was elected Chair in 1991 and served in that capacity for the past 3 years. As Commissioner, he has had a number of opportunities to commit additional time above and beyond the normal meetings, which were numerous. Larry's willingness to volunteer on these occasions is exemplary. As Chair Larry was even handed and a diplomatic allowing the process, not the Chair, to take the center ring. On Monday December 13, 1993 Larry will be presented with this Maple Leaf award, which is this evening and on behalf of the City of Chanhassen, it says here. The Maple Leaf award is presented to Larry Schroers, Park and Recreation Commission, 1987 thru 1993. In recognition of dedicated public hearing to the City of Chanhassen. The City of Chanhassen Council, which is myself, Councilperson Colleen Dockendorf, Mark Senn, Michael Mason and Richard Wing. Larry, here you go. We have one more here for Brian Batzli. Brian. He said he wasn't going to show. Brian has ably served on the Planning Commission since January of 1988. Most recently he has been it's Chairman. The Planning Commission Chair position is filled by a vote of it's members and Brian's holding of the position is indicative of high regard in which they hold him. During his 6 year tenure he has helped to shape the city and has evolved with many major initiatives. He was deeply involved with the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan, and more recently contributed to the Surface Water Management Plan. He has managed to bring an element of fairness and reason to many difficult situations. At times he has even filled the position of the "devil's advocate" for positions and directions that needed to be discussed. He has served the city well and his presence on the commission will certainly be missed. I would like to present to you Brian, the City of Chanhassen maple leaf award presented to Brian Batzli, Planning Commission 1988 thru 1993 in recognition of dedicated public service to the city of Chanhassen. Chanhassen City Council. u 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Resolution #93 -117: Authorize Revision to Sanitary Sewer and Water Hookup Charges, File No. PW -011. c. Resolution #93 -118: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 7th Addition, Project 91 -9. d. Resolution #93 -119: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition, Project 91 -16. e. Resolution #93 -120: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in Windmill Run, Project 93 -3. f. Resolution #93 -121: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in Oak Ponds, Project 93 -9. h. Consider Extension of time to complete utility improvements in Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition, Project 92- 16. i. Resolution #93.122: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in Deer Ridge, Project 92 -18. 1. Accept donation from the Chanhassen Lion's Club for a New McGruff Costume. m. Approval of Accounts. n. City Council Minutes dated November 22, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 17, 1993 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 16, 1993 p. Establish 1994 City Council Meeting Schedule r. Set Refunding Bond Sale, 6 Candidate Issues, February 7, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO TRANSFER ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, PAULY'S BAR, INC., FROM 401 WEST 78TH STREET (CURRENT LOCATION), TO 410 WEST 78TH STREET (FORMERLY KENNY'S BUILDING), RUSSELL PAULY. Public Present: Name Address Pete & Nancy Ronhoude Eden Prairie Tim Bloudek Chanhassen Dave Rome Chanhassen Judy Schmieg Chanhassen James E. Sloss Chanhassen 2 C n Chanhassen City Council December 13, 1993 �r - ' Name Address Helen Nielsen Ekstein Chanhassen ' We Ernst Chanhassen William R. ? Chanhassen Paula Rae Anderson Chanhassen Steve & Kathy Burke Chanhassen Russ Pauly 1031 Carver Beach Road Dick Mingo Carol Watson 7601 Great Plains Blvd. 7131 Utica Lane ' Jim Bohn 425 Chan View Lola & Allan Challerfor 425 Chan View George ? 1551 Lyman Blvd. ' Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle Jim & Mary Ann Gunville 7608 Kiowa Avenue Gordy Nagel 514 Del Rio Drive Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. ' Irvin ? 224 West 78th Street Mary Heiges Carver County Library Doug & Kris Koch 7609 Great Plains Blvd. ' Carlos & Kim Morroquin 7606 Great Plains Blvd. Bob Hericks 8042 Cheyenne Avenue Polly Schellack 425 Chan View Don Schmieg 200 77th Street Al Olson 406 Santa Fe Circle Bert Rogers 9836 Crestwood Terrace, Eden Prairie Christopher Kramer 8693 Stanley Terrace ' Kevin P. McShane 180 South Shore Circle Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Mary H erzog 1191 Homestead Lane , Gary Bendrick 731 West 96th Street Larry L. Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Margaret Caviness Thies & Talle Mgmt Inc, 470 West 78th Street Mary Griggs 425 Chan View, #108 Maureen Minbel 425 Chan View, #121 Carol Payne 425 Chan View, #314 Scott Harri St. Hubert's ' Bill & Vicky Goers St. Huberts, 1601 Lyman Blvd. Mary Ann Noziska 1120 Hesse Farm Road Christine Kramer 8693 Stanley Trail Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing. Don Ashworth: The staff report was prepared by Karen Engelhardt, our Office Manager. Mr. Pauly came to her ' with a request to be able to transfer his liquor license from it's current location at 401 West 78th Street across the street to former Kenny's building. In preparing Karen's report, she had submitted to Mr. Pauly a questionnaire that would compare the proposed business to the new business. I don't think I need to repeat the ' 3 ' C 1 [I 0 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 , contents of that survey. It was again to provide Council members with a little additional information as to how that building might be used. He also requested a potential site plan and again with the for how they might lay out the Kenny's building. Mr. Pauly did again submit that and City Council members have that. Again it would be based on a very initial look by himself and he has asked that he not be held to that exactly. I've prepared a report that kind of provides an overview of the background of how the city ended up purchasing that property. What that transaction was and the requirement that Mr. Pauly vacate the existing building by July of 1994. We also asked for a review by our building department. Again I won't get into the details of that but it involves the necessity to sprinkle the building and other type of code requirements. Paul may want to touch on the parking requirements associated with your report. I'll end with really the position that the issuance of a liquor license, or in this case the transfer from one location to another is solely at the discretion of the City Council. There is no requirement to do it. Again it comes back to the applicant demonstrating to the city that this would be a good location for the on -sale license. With that, Paul did you want to add anything regarding parking? Paul Krauss: Possibly very briefly. When we started talking to Russ last winter I guess it was on this, and since parking is one of the primary concerns we would have in planning, we asked Fred Hoisington who is most familiar with the downtown parking situation to take a look at it. Fred gave us a report that was based on certain assumptions about Pauly's operation. It's also based on cross utilization of parking spaces. The city in fact owns many of the parking spaces in that area. Fred concluded that, if everything works, it should fit. It does require cross parking behind Medical Arts for that to work. I would caution though that prediction of parking for this type of use with this type of cross parking arrangement is somewhat more of an art than a science. But all we have to go on right now is Fred's assumption that it should work if everything comes out as he predicted. Don Ashworth: If I may add. Should the Council act to approve the transfer, staff would like to work with the applicant in terms of insuring that maintenance does not become a problem, because had been a problem previously. And secondly, work with the applicant as it would deal with signage for that building. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Russ, is there something that you would like to say at this time? Russ Pauly: Well I guess about the only thing. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the mic and just state your name and your address please. Russ Pauly: I'm Russ Pauly. I live at 1031 Carver Beach Road in Chanhassen. I'm currently the President of Pauly's Incorporated. I guess the only thing I'd like to add is, you know we've been in business in this town as a family since 1934. We've had a pretty good track record. I think we've contributed quite a bit to this community over the years and we would like to stay here in business and I'm willing to do you know anything that the city recommends within reason to keep the business in Chanhassen. The building is feasible by the reason of economics more than anything and that's why we approached that location. I guess that's about all I have to add. Thanks. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does the Council have any questions? Not at this time. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address this proposal? And if so, if you would come to the microphone and please state your name and your address. I'll open this up for public input at this particular time. 4 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 `' , Hello I'm Gri I live at the Her Park Apartments located right behind Kenn Mary G � MmY 88 m8 's and P 8 Y we do have petitions here from the residents of that building and the building across the way. The Chan View Apartments that are across from us on Chan View. We have signatures here also. And I just have something to ' read here for you. We, the residents living in the Heritage Park Apartments do not feel that allowing a liquor establishment in the former Kenny's grocery building would be in the best interest of the area. Our concern is only about the late night use. The noise. Disturbance in the parking area and the safety of all the residents and especially the children living there who do use, who walk through that back alley behind Kenny's on their way ' to school. They ride their bikes around that area also. I have a daughter who does do that and... That's a concern. Pauly's is a bikers bar and we would just be kind of concerned about that. However, that's all I have to say. I do enjoy Pauly's though, I have to say and I hope they stay in town but maybe that location may not ' be the best idea. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. If you'd like to give us those petitions that you also had Good, thank you. ' Anyone else? Kris Koch: Good evening. My name is Kris Koch and I'm a resident of Chanhassen. My husband and I own a home at 7609 Great Plains Blvd. and we come here tonight because we do not want you to vote to have Pauly's , transfer it's license from it's current site to the site at Kenny's. There's a number of reasons why we feel this - way. The first is mentioned before me and that is the noise. At our home, which is about a block away from Pauly's at this time we can, they obviously have live bands. They've already announced that. We can hear the ' bands playing even in our home, even during the winter and I know they kind of look at me like that's not true. It is. I invite you all to come and listen to the bands. During the summer it's getting even worst and sometimes I'll lay in bed at night and I'll say gee, do I recognize that song? I don't know about you. I don't go to bed to play name that tune but I can still hear their music at night. They're a noise nuisance to us and to me that ' equals a bad neighbor. Another way in which they're a bad neighbor is all the litter that they produce. In the parking lot that they use, which the parking lot that I see Pauly's using are the parking lots behind Pauly's to the, that'd be to the south and then also the parking lot to the north which is the 400 West 78th parking lot. I have for you pictures that I'll present. The pictures show garbage that is in the parking lot. In addition, I collected garbage out of their parking lot and as you can see, this is not garbage that is produced by the dry cleaning place or the cemetery or the church. Russ Pauly: We don't sell cans at Pauly's. Kris Koch: You don't sell cans but I think you do serve alcohol in glasses like this, which I see glasses all the , time driving to work. Glasses full of alcohol that children across the way at the school, playing in the parking lot will see. Could pick up. They're kick ball goes across the street all the time. I see it happen. They kids will go across the street. I hope they don't get hurt by the glass. I hope they don't drink any of the alcohol ' that's been there. I'm also concerned about people leaving Pauly's who are intoxicated and perhaps hitting children that are playing. I think we all have seen this happen in other communities where there's children. There's intoxicated people who maybe have poor judgment or impaired judgment. I certainly wouldn't want something to happen that would mar Chanhassen's good name. I'm very concerned about the children. ' Additionally, a neighborhood bar. Pauly's is really not a neighborhood bar. I would like to see Russ Pauly have a nice establishment here in this end of town but it is not a neighborhood bar for our neighborhood I did a survey on December 4th between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. I surveyed the people going into Pauly's asking them, first ' question was. Did they come from Chanhassen or did they come from another town? And I have the results of my survey which I made copies for everyone. The results of my survey show that out of the 48 people that I spoke with, only 5 came from Chanhassen. The rest coming from surrounding areas. So Pauly's is not really a ' 1 L' i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 neighborhood bar. In addition, those people I also asked whether or not they drove to Pauly's or if they walked and out of 48 responses, they all said that they drove to Pauly's. There's not one person that walked to Pauly's that night. By not granting Mr. Pauly a liquor license you will not hinder his business. People will drive a few more blocks to the west in order to go to his bar if they truly are interested, even if they're already coming in from some distance anyway. I represent the people, and it's not just my husband and I but I represent the people on this petition saying, not in our neighborhood. We don't want Pauly's bar in our neighborhood. The noise. The trash. Keep it away from our children. Pauly's is not a neighborhood bar so please not in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Here's your pictures here and if you'd also take. Kris Koch: You'd like me to take my trash? Dick Mingo: My name is Dick Mingo. I live at 7601 Great Plains Blvd, which is just a couple doors away. I've lived there for 40 years. I do not believe, I guess I have a little loss of hearing but I do not believe that I have ever been bothered by the music from Pauly's bar. I don't even remember hearing it. You must have awful good hearing to pick up that sound through the walls and all the way up into our little neighborhood. There's certain ... have you checked Target. Have you gone to see how many of those people walk to Target. - How many of those people live in Chanhassen. The garbage that was here. Pauly's is not an off sale store. The big 24 pack. They don't sell those. They don't sell the cans. You could pick that up anywhere. And a lot of that may have been brought in. Just a little historical background. The Pauly family arrived in Chanhassen long before virtually anyone in the room.. They moved into Chanhassen in the 1850's. They contributed a great deal to the growth of this town and Mayor, I'm going to tell you that the very fast Mayor of Chanhassen was Gerhardt Schroeder who happens to be Russ Pauly's Great Grandfather on the maternal side. Lived just down the street here and just adjacent to what would now be the Riveria. The Pauly family contributed the land for the first Catholic Church in this town, I might add. They helped to build three Catholic church because the first Catholic church was nothing but a little log cabin over in that area and they contributed to the development of the old Catholic church which still remains and then of course the newest one. It is the only bar I might add in the State of Minnesota that is still in the same family that started at the end of prohibition. As Russ stated, I think they've had a pretty good track record. This is not some fly by night outfit that is coming in here out of east St. Louis or the south side of Chicago wanting to come in with a strip joint or some topless dancery. I think they've been a good family agency and again, none of you would remember this but Emil Pauly used to be more or less the town banker. Even though there was bank next door, a lot of the local people used to come in and borrow money from Emil and unfortunately a lot of it he never got back but he never complained. That was the way Emil was. He was quite a guy. He by the way was a City Council member. Member of the church here and I guess when I hear something started, like I've just heard reminds me of a couple years ago when I came to some of your Council meetings when the people were coming up here and we had a few people coming up here and I remember were actually crying about Eckankar coming to town. It was going to ruin the town. It will never be the same. It will ruin my children and I hear all these do gooders do this and that little old church out there hasn't hurt one fly I believe in this town. Probably one of the nicest looking buildings in the entire community I might add. And so when I hear a lot of this, I just say here we go again. It's the Salem, Massachusetts witch hunt starting all over. And I just want to say that I think you're making a big mistake if you do not grant this. You're only moving what, 30 yards across the street and I don't think Pauly's has bothered a soul in this town to speak of since 1934. So I hope you will see fit to help them as much as you can. This is an original, local business and I think it's about time you try to help those people out as much as possible instead of trying to drive the older businesses out of town. Thank you. 0 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 7 ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Y Y Christine Kramer: My name is Christine Kramer. I live at 8693 Stanley Trail in Eden Prairie. I'm President ' of St. Hubert's Parish Council. I come here tonight representing over 1,100 families who oppose Pauly's new liquor license application to it's new location, the former Kenny's building. We have three main reasons for our opposition. The first one is the issue of safety. No longer will Pauly's be kitty corner and across the highway. It will be directly within several yards of our young children. We are concerned of additional vehicle traffic. ' Foot traffic. Traffic congestion. Increased street parking. Overflow parking into our adjacent lot. Because of our family center place of worship, education and socialization for the community, we believe placing such an establishment like Pauly's is totally unacceptable. The usage of the building is not a 9:00 to 3:00 type day at ' school but a building that is used with much regularity. 7 days a week. Night and day. 12 months of the year. An example, we have over 600 children weekly that attend religious education 3 nights out of the week. They're waiting for rides to go home. Boy Scouts meet here as do many sports programs waiting for rides to go home late at night. The present ordinance does not reflect today's needs for better protection and supervision of our ' children. Young children. We support the city's interest over the past 15 years of reinstating some kind of zoning ordinance. The new proposed location for Pauly's is in direct conflict of the message we're sending these very children regarding responsible usage of alcohol. We spend tax dollars on valuable programs such as , DARE and other drug programs. We ask you to show your support for these very programs you're putting into their classrooms by not approving this request. Reason number 2. The historical square. This parcel of land if used as an entertainment center would not be compatible with the surrounding area Presently the area is... ' historical type square. Not conducive to an entertainment establishment. We share a vision that this historical part of Chanhassen would be better suited for civic development. Library, community center. Number 3. St. Hubert's goals. St. Hubert's is presently involved in a planning process. This process involves both short term and long term goals. The relocating of Pauly's to the former Kenny's site may not be compatible with St. , Hubert's long term facility goals. We support Pauly's as an entertainment establishment and encourage Pauly's to find a more suitable and compatible location in Chanhassen. The city should not support this particular request at the expense—greater needs of this community. In closing. Because St. Hubert's is a very vital part of ' the Chanhassen community and as a family center, place of worship, education and socialization, this request should not, cannot be approved. I thank you for your time. Good evening. Is , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. there anyone else? Jim Bohn: My name is Jim Bohn and I live at the Heritage Square Apartment. I live probably closer to Pauly's than anybody in town, including Kenny's. I live on the southeast corner of Heritage Square and the noise from ' Pauly's bar has never disturbed us. Traffic going on main street is probably as noisy as the people from Pauly's. Or from Kenny's when Kenny's was open and I see no need why we should deny them their liquor license transfer. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Mary Heiges: Good evening. I'm not a resident of Chanhassen. I am Mary Heiges. I'm Director of the ' Carver County Library System. I'm here to not really speak in favor or in opposition of the transfer of the license because I don't feel it's our right to do so since we're not a resident of the County. Of the city. However, have talked in the last couple years of relocating the Chanhassen library to the Pauly's site and so ' you the only reason I'm here tonight is in your deliberation would you consider the following things that have happened to public libraries when they are very close to a bar. I know that the law says, does not say anything about public libraries and the number of footage and yards for ... but I think there be for, to churches. But the 7 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 experience of other public libraries this close to a bar are as follows. Litter, which has already been mentioned. Litter in and around the shrubbery. There have been cases, very close in the metropolitan area where people who are intoxicated have drive their cars over the shrubbery. There have been cases where some of those intoxicated drove into the library. Avoiding arrest by the way but smashed through the plate glass windows of a library. Some people, and I don't think this happens probably out here very often, if ever, but sometimes since the library's open 6 days a week and at night, if they are asked to leave the bar because they are intoxicated, they will and do wander over to what's open and it's often the library. So then they come into the library and this can be any time of the day. Whether it's evening or during the day. Or even morning for that matter. I can't really talk about the noise because libraries are very noisy themselves. And are getting noisier because of the make -up of our own client. So I just wanted to bring those couple of case studies you might say to your attention as you decide whether to transfer the license or not. We look forward to having a new library in Chanhassen in the next few years and if it's on the Pauly's site, that's well and good. We hope that our neighbors will like us to be there and they'll have compatible...around us. Thank you. Gordy Nagel: Hi. My name's Gordy Nagel. I'm here representing Colonial Church at Heritage Square. I have nothing personally against Pauly's. As far as a liquor store, I think they run a fairly decent organization. However, some of you may recognize me. I've been on the 2002 planning commission and it appears that the city is leaning towards that center of town as being a historic area. There's two churches there. There's a school there. The possibility of a library there. I don't see Pauly's fitting into that equation very well. Again, I'm not going to rip Pauly's but I'm part of the building and maintenance at the church and I can bring many bags of garbage. That's typical of a liquor store. It's nothing personal against Pauly's. But that's the environment that you invite when you transfer Pauly's to across the street. We're not going to get rid of that environment if the liquor license is continued. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Bill Goers: Hi. My name is Bill Goers. I live at 1601 Lyman Blvd. I was last year's President of the St. Hubert's School Committee and I'm speaking on behalf of the school. The School Committee is really the governing body for the school at St. Hubert's and we try to take into account the environment and other social and learning aspects of the school. I have three children who are currently attending there. I've also been a resident of Chanhassen for 14 years and been very active in the community with the youth. I'm currently the Cub Master for all the Chanhassen area Cub Scouts. My wife has a similar responsibility with the Girl Scouts and we've been involved as participants and coaches with the CAA. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I understand that there is a proposal to offer Pauly's a new liquor license and allow them to relocate across the street and I would like to express some concern that I have about that proposal. I very much appreciate your time and the opportunity to express these concerns, both as a resident and as the President of this Student School Committee. I would also like to say that I am not opposed to having Pauly's there. I've also gone there myself sometimes. My main concern is about the location and specifically about the suitability of that location considering the surrounding area. As the President of the School Committee, I'd like to re-echo the comments earlier that the school is very active. There are over 1,200 families and it is families even outside of that group that often go there. It's very frequent we'll be picking up our own kids at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and that's weekends. Almost 7 days of the week. The evening activities involving school plays, youth choir practice, Cub Scout meetings, Boy Scout meetings, all involve our children and because of the space, we often involve the Chanhassen area Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and other non - church activities there. Also there's many adult and family type of activities. Weddings, adult social events, parish council, choir practice. Typical space usage on a 7 day a week, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. basis ... so there's almost always something going on there and again this is not just ... but others as well. For this level of activity I really don't feel the idea of moving an establishment 111 8 1] Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 I�l 9 � ' serving liquor closer is really in the best interest of all. I acknowledge actually the current ... has been fairly good. Parking has been mostly in back. The people that go there primarily come from the back, as mentioned earlier. Not a lot walk in from the street. It's really been quiet and visibility has been, visibility and interaction has been very low. We've also benefitted basically from having our front doors pointed a different direction. If ' a new license is granted and they're allowed to move across the street, there are a number of concerns that have actually been expressed by City Staff members already. There was a letter to Paul Krauss from Fred Hoisington where he talked about the parking. And the high probability that the closest overflow traffic is going to go to ' the church. Directions will be to have them go into the other parking areas but they closest one is going to be St. Hubert's parking lots. There's also the noise level from the music and the effect that it's going to have on surrounding residents and the church. Also the litter, it's a fact of life and some areas are more conducive to , that than others. Clearly a bar is going to generate the type of litter that the Colonial Church is saying and other residents are saying. Another big concern is actual President of the School Committee is the message that it sends to our students to have them confronted face to face, day to day with a bar, parking lot and patrons coming in and out. It's really not the type of environment we like to create. Our own students are going , through a DARE program where we talk to them about the concerns and abuses of alcohol and drugs. We tell them one thing and put this in front of them on an every day basis, we're basically having recess hour conflicting with happy hour and that's something that the student plays and everything else and again the , message that we have to worry about is one that the students are going to see every day. The fact that we area also spending tax dollars to educate students about drugs and drug awareness and alcohol is really conflicting with the idea of moving them even closer than they are right now to the school. One other thing, I had my daughter was hit by a bus this past year while riding to school. Fortunately it was fairly slight damage to her. , Had the wits scared out of her and I hoped she learned a lesson that she'll never forget. She was hit by a bus and no one would argue that buses and schools are going to be found in the same spot. The concern I have is if we do allow locating Pauly's closer to the school, we are going to have some increased traffic. Obviously ' patrons are coming there after work. Later. We're going to have an environment that if there is an accident which occurs, it's going to raise questions that I don't think anyone needs to answer. As a parent, as a City Council, even as an establishment owner, having a school child hit by someone who's leaving a bar is an awful ' lot different of an explanation than someone who gets hit by a school bus coming to school. Again, it's not that that can't work together but it just raises a risk and raises a lot of concern. Also as a resident I have not been involved real heavily in the planning process but I am aware that St. Huberts has been there for a long time too. We have a cemetery at that end. Some nice homes. The vision 2002 is clearly talking about a direction for that ' end of town which to me would create a nice residential area where the businesses and the residents can get along together. As a community member, -I'm a Boy Scout leader and a parent, I've also got some concerns about confronting children with this on a regular basis. When the elementary school and the fire hall get busy, , frequently we defer our activities to St. Huberts gym or even the old town hall. And again we're confronting two different situations on a very regular basis. For most of those reasons I don't feel that granting of a new license in a new location ... or the old Kenny's makes good sense for the community or as a parent. In ' conclusion, as a representative of St. Huberts and as a community member, I would ask you and request that you reject the proposal for a new liquor license and for relocation. They have been a good and considerate neighbor in the year's past but again, we have been unfortunate enough to have our doors, front doors faced in different direction. Putting them closer together increases a risk and the potential for conflict and forces a direct ' interaction during many times of the day. I don't think we need this and request that you reject this proposal. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill. Is there anyone else? I�l 9 � 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' Mary Ann Noziska: My name is Mary Ann Noziska. I live at 1120 Hesse Farm Road. I am here as a representative of the teaching staff at St. Huberts school and pretty much I would just like to echo what has been said prior to this. In particular the change in the traffic pattern. Currently most people coming into Pauly's ' coming, whether they're coming from the south, east or the west are going to be coming up from TH 5 and entering in that way. The overflow parking, over closest to the school and the church but most of the people will be coming in entering that way. With the new location I fear that people are going to have to come in down West 78th Street and then down Great Plains Blvd as it intersects right by St. Huberts church and school. And in light of the school activities and the during school activities at the school and in and around the building, we do have a major concern having to do with traffic patterns. The only other thing I had to add, that it is ' recognized that an entertainment facility such as a bar and a restaurant is an important part of the community. However, close proximity to an educational facility such as St. Huberts does not seem appropriate or logical. And as a result, we appreciate your understanding and consideration of our point of view. And I also have a letter for the Council dealing with that. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Jim Gunville: Good evening. My name is Jim Gunville. I live at 7608 Kiowa Avenue. I'm a resident and active member of the Chanhassen community. I'm a neighbor of the downtown district. We've been 1 1/2 blocks from the downtown area for the past 17 years. I'm a parishioner of the St. Huberts community and a member of the Pastoral Council. I'm asking that you deny the request for this new liquor license. I've been ' acutely aware of the transformation of the downtown area that has been going on in the plan, both commercial and historical areas. I'd like you to get a picture in your mind please, if this does go through, what will really be surrounding that area. On the south side would be potentially a historical center, which is there right now and the library. On the east side a church and a school. On the west side of professional business complex and on the north side a series of high density apartments. Is this a reasonable way to locate a liquor and entertainment complex adjacent to and in the middle of this kind of area? I don't believe so. To really have perspective in the ' planning issues for greater Chanhassen. Several years ago, I think it was about 4 years ago if my memory serves me right, the greater community outcry, and I will say outraged, for the placement of the community center near Filly's. That issue was a good idea but the wrong environment. This is the same issue. This location is the wrong one. I agree with some of the comments that Fred Hoisington had said about the ' placement of Pauly's in the Colonial Center location will detract from the potentially positive and capability of the area. This is a 2002 issue. An interesting impact on the use of the Colonial Center for us as neighbors. If this grant takes place, the community center parking lot will now becomes the primary lot for the bar patrons. ' The existing primary lot on the south side of Pauly's is entirely suited for the downtown area. This will be transferred entirely into the open area right in the middle of this complex that I've described here a moment ago. We need to prevent the encroachment of liquor establishments into both the historical areas of Chanhassen and ' the residential areas of Chanhassen. I suggest that allowing Pauly's to select and relocate to a more feasible entertainment portion of Chanhassen might be in your best interest and the best interest of Chanhassen. And as a result of that I ask that you deny the request for this new license. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Is there anyone else? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. If there's anyone else wishing to come forward. If seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing. ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 10 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 11 1 1 , Mayor Chmiel: This gives us the opportunity to come up with a conclusion, and I know it's not the easiest thing for me to sit back and say what's right and what's wrong but a decision is going to have to be made. I've known Russ for a number of years and I've even been in his establishment, as probably a lot of other people have. I'm going to take a position on this and I'm going to support Pauly's transfer of his liquor license but not , at this location. I think that businesses within a community, small business or a large businesses, are all acceptable to us. I would like to think about making some changes with his present time flame in allowing him an additional year from this coming June to stay in his present location. With that hopefully finding a location that would be suitable within a community. If we go in that particular direction, I would also like to have our attorney address findings in relationship to this as well. Along with that, in making a one year extension, I would like us to probably come up with a different lease agreement than what's existing presently. And I don't ' know exactly what that would even be. I don't have the foggiest idea. But I think that's something that can be worked out between staff and Mr. Pauly. I've seen some other things too that I'd just like to express for that particular location, and even after that period of time, if and when Russ does move and finds another location for his bar. I could see us utilizing that as a teen center. From the standpoint of the utilization it being there, there ' are a lot of things that can be done. One of the recommendations I was going to make is that the kids even bring in some bands. But I still had to say it. But it's something I think that the youth of the community is at a point of need and to have them operate it probably with, hopefully with some parents that would be willing to ' donate their time and have that an ongoing location for the kids and a place to go and have their pop and their own kind of gatherings. But well, I guess I've probably spilled my guts as far as I want to. Richard. Councilman Wing: I like your proposal. I think I probably have the longest history on this other than maybe ' the City Manager, regarding the downtown area. Chairing the Public Safety Committee back in the early 80's we looked at gambling and liquor licensing in the city of Chanhassen and although I'm not going to defend the decision or am I going to go back into the history nor am I going to try and even make any quotes here but I distinctly remember that we determined as a commission to the City Council that gambling and liquor licensing should be done very cautiously. I think the position that it should be reserved primarily for restaurants was established at that time and we, without any question, looked at distances and at that time it was 500. I think we , looked at 1,000, 1,500, even a quarter of a mile. It became, we became probably aware that if we went beyond 500 feet we'd wipe out the downtown as it existed at the present time because there was just a lot of that type of business down in that area on West 78th Street at the time. So that stayed put. So the distance is an issue, and I don't want to get into the pros and cons of the distances other than all discussion has always been to move ' them further away from schools, libraries, churches and so on and so forth. Not just in the city of Chanhassen. That's the entire metro area, perhaps the entire nation. And that wouldn't be hard to justify. So I favor the transfer but not to the Kenny's location and I think this extension for one year, being the HRA has no defined '. use or plan on the table now for that site. And I think that maybe it is fair that the city at this time to look at a change in the lease agreement. I understand it's rather liberal in favor of Pauly's at this time, and that's not even an issue. I don't care to get into that. I think we need to take these things very seriously and our licensing ' very seriously and I think to take this existing business, whether it's good or bad. I'm not going to decide that other than it is a liquor establishment. I'll leave it only in that wording and to move it closer to a neighborhood, move it closer to church, move it closer to an apartment buildings, move it into a residential area closer than it is now, even if it's only 30 feet, that's not the issue. We're moving it closer to the residential areas. I think it is ' inappropriate and would be the wrong decision for this City Council to make so I'm not interested in shooting this down in it's entirety. I guess I, after listening to the Mayor's comments will be very pleased to support that position. , Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Dick. 11 1 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I too was glad to hear your proposal and I probably have the shortest history of knowing the history of this bar and as I understand, there have been problems in the past but what I'm hearing ' tonight is that there's a lot of speculation about what the problems will be as opposed, and yet I've heard two neighboring people also say that there haven't been problems. They've been good neighbors but there's lots of speculation about what problems could be, and I'm not completely convinced that there will be. Paul, I do have a question for you. That is a municipal parking lot in front of Kenny's right? ' Krauss: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dockendort And how often, or who maintains that? The City, right? And how often is that done? Krauss: I don't really know. Don. ' Don Ashworth: Charles, do you have any idea as far as the number of times we sweep it per summer? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean how long does litter sit out, or who's responsible for cleaning that up? Charles Folch: If we get a complaint, you know we respond to it right away but I would say a typical sweeping, at most it'd probably get swept twice a year. ' Councilwoman Dockendort Oh okay, that infrequently. Don Ashworth: But we do have an employee who is assigned really the downtown area and I don't think stuff sits out more than a day, two days. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I'm not also completely convinced that the two uses near St. Hubert's and Pauly's. They're probably, they are different hours of operation. I realize that there are kids programs going on in the evening but I'm not completely convinced that they'll bump into each other. And on behalf of all the bikers in town, I probably frequent St. Hubert's and Pauly's about equal amount. I was sitting up here trying to ' figure out which on a weekly basis I go to more often but regardless, because of the Mayor's proposal I can save that discussion for later. And I think it's prudent to sit a year since the HRA has not designated any use for that site right now. Let him stay there a year and we either work with our ordinances. I think we will work with our ordinances about where we can place liquor establishments. And it will give him, Mr. Pauly some more time to look around town to see where a more appropriate site might be. So I think that's a good suggestion Mr. Mayor. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mike. Councilman Mason: Oh a lot's been said and I don't think I have a whole lot to add to it. I too support the ' transfer of the license. I'm not sure from the city's perspective, across the street is the best place. The 2002 vision is talked about what's best for that area. I think from an HRA perspective, a Council perspective, there may be better uses than a liquor establishment there. I do think we all need to keep in mind that the Pauly's have been a fine member of this community for a long time and I don't think we can lose sight of that. Like I said, I support the transfer of the license. I certainly lean with the majority of feeling tonight that across the street is not the place for it. Boy, it just went blank. Oh, okay. In terms of the year lease. While it's true ' HRA has no plan on the table for that area, than what does that do for the other tenants in that area? Will they 12 11 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 also be asking for the same kind of thing? I think there's some ramifications there that need to be looked into before we go ahead with that. But certainly to extend the lease to give him more time, I'm okay with. I'm not sure that one year is the proper amount but I'm throwing that out for discussion, for no other reason. That's it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess I can't say I would support the transfer of the license until I guess I know where it ' would be going. I'd like to see Pauly's stay in Chanhassen because I think they've been a good part of Chanhassen. I have to say though that I'm opposed to any transfer of it across the street or closer to the church or St. Hubert's. I'm really torn on your proposal Mayor because I look at this and I say geez, a one year extension doesn't sound bad but then I look at the history and say geez, there's already really been a four year ' extension since the city bought it. And it's been at a dollar a year basically on a lease with the HRA so it's a real hard time to sit here and say geez, it's kind of all our problem to solve when the applicant walks in 6 months before the end of the 4 years and lays it on the table. So in that sense it really kind of makes you ' question what happens in the year and where does the year go because absolutely nothing's happened in 3 1/2 years. If so, as far as the year goes, I'd really like to see something that would hold the feet to the fire I think a little bit more and require some quicker actions. ' Mayor Chmiel: H I could just make a correction on that. He did come in, it was either late last fall or early winter of last year to start talking about some of this so I have to give a little credit on that portion. , Councilman Senn: To talk about this location? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Councilman Senn: In an effort to look at it further, and I guess I wouldn't be opposed to some type of an extension. Again, I'm not sure a year. At the same time you know as a part of that extension I think we may ' even really want to at least look at the issue that, I don't know. Maybe where Pauly's is isn't such a bad place at all. And I don't know. Maybe one of the things we should consider is just simply selling it back to Mr. Pauly ... for expansion of parking on the other side facing away from the church. But there may be other locations that are good too and that extension you know could maybe look at all those issues one way or the other. I'm not trying to slight the library folks but after, I don't know. I'm just of the belief that I really think the library belongs more as part of the municipal complex than down there myself but that's just a personal opinion. And don't really hear a lot of people complaining about it's existing location and it seems like we could save a great deal of city expense too. As far as the issue on turning the Kenny's store into a teen center, I guess I'm not really prepared to comment on that at all. I guess I'd have a lot of questions on that. Mayor Chmiel: No. ' Councilman Senn: That that would not be part of. ' Mayor Chmiel: You misheard what I said. Is to turn Pauly's into a teen once that's vacated. Councilman Senn: Oh you mean the existing Pauly's? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 13 , Vr Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 I Councilman Senn: Oh. ' Mayor Chmiel: So with that. Councilman Wing: Could we get some further clarification? I don't want to belabor this but the HRA that bought this, were they paid a fair price? Don Ashworth: Yes they were. ' Councilman Wing: So they for many years now had a large amount of money that was paid for this property? They've been paid for the property? Don Ashworth: Right. Mr. Pauly, and it's my understanding that he has turned the business over to his son Russ to operate during this last 4 years and he's enjoying retirement. Councilman Wing: Okay. The record here showed in the packet $860,000.00 they were paid. Why did the ' HRA buy it? I mean did they determine to terminate the use of bars in that stretch of town or just wanted it? What was the reason for buying it in the first place? There was a reason for terminating. HRA spent $860,000.00 to buy this parcel. They must have wanted to make some changes I'm assuming. Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Wing: Okay. And they're now paying $1.00 a year rent? Don Ashworth: Plus they pay all costs associated with operating the facility. They pay taxes, insurance. Councilman Wing: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I guess my only additional comment then would be in regards to this lease agreement. I think that they should, if this is going to continue another year, as Mr. Senn has said, for what point and when it's going to terminate, maybe an incentive here would have them start paying their fair share and we'd start charging retail value for that property. Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, that was the other part that I had indicated at the time. The other clarification is, there are two parcels that are there. If we do the extension here, are we required to put an extension on the others? Don Ashworth: No you would not be required to do that. I would anticipate that you may end up with a request from either or both to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well that we can look at and address at that time. If they were to come in. Okay, with that I would make the motion as to what I had stated previously in my discussion. Is there any other discussion to be made? Councilman Mason: So your motion? Mayor Chmiel: My motion would be to support Pauly's transfer of his liquor license but not at this location. And to extend it. Give him a year extension on the lease. n 14 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: Not to exceed one year. Mayor Chmiel: Not to exceed one year with a review at that time. If there's something happening... that's something that we can look at. But I'd like to see us change the existing lease that we have presently as you . clarified, and to bring that back into the norm of the operation back before the city I should say. And then I would also like to have the attorney address the Findings on this as well. , Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, so if I can just summarize. The motion is directing me to prepare Findings consistent with the discussion and information you have here tonight. The final action will be at your next meeting? ' Mayor Chmiel: Correct. So I would so move. Is there a second? Councilman Wing: I'll second that. , Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Yeah, what's the, I mean the one year. I mean there's 6 months yet before the current lease is up. Mayor Chmiel: Well he find it within 6 months. He can find it in 2 months and still make his change. ' Councilman Senn: Well but we can always do another extension I mean. What I'm uncomfortable with giving ' them something like 6 months more or something like that so this thing just doesn't keep carrying out. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So a year from now? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean that's giving a year from now by giving a 6 month extension. Mayor Chmiel: It would be a year from this coming July, right? Councilman Senn: No, I said by giving this 6 month extension it would be a year from effectively the first of the year about. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah right, but my motion was to give them that additional year with the 6 months in the event he finds something to go with that. I just felt that was sort of a fair position to go on. Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm struggling with the year extension too. I don't have any trouble with an extension, ' because like I said, HRA, I mean there's nothing on the table for that land yet. But why a year as opposed to a 6 month extension? ' Mayor Chmiel: I just came up with a year because I thought that would give him that additional time and hoping he'd feel a little more comfortable with that. , Councilman Mason: What will happen if we can't come to some kind of agreement on the lease arrangement? Mayor Chmiel: Well then at the end of the 6 months, then termination would take place by July. I 15 1 i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: I have a question for Roger. With the language in there that we support the transfer of the liquor license to a location other than here. I mean to me that just seems like it has no place. I mean especially, I mean aren't we specifically reviewing a site here and aren't we in effect responding to a site just as ' we would to a future site? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Without making commitments of support prior to knowing even a site? Roger Knutson: If I'm understanding the motion, I may have misunderstood it but as I understood that means ' you generally will support a transfer. You won't say no to all locations. Of course you'll have to review it for a specific site when that comes in. As a really good example, if he wants to put it in a residential neighborhood, I'm guessing based on tonight's discussion, they don't have a chance. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's a good guess. ' Roger Knutson: The findings will state that. It's a generic, you know we want you to stay in the community so we'll carefully look at any location you bring us but we will look at it and you will review it to make sure it's in the appropriate location. Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that, I'll call the question. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the transfer of the on -sale intoxicating liquor license for Pauly's Bar, Inc., but not to the location requested; to give a one year extension on the lease and to amend the existing lease between the city and Pauly's for clarification; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact to bring back to the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor, ' except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Senn: And my reason is I think the year's too long. ' VACATION OF CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAT OF ITHILIEN AND SURROUNDING 1275 LILAC LANE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Mayor Chmiel: This also is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Would you like to Charles. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I believe this is one that's pretty straight forward. I'll keep it brief. This is to take care of erroneous drainage easements that was underlying the Ithlien subdivision. It was brought to staff's attention that it was no longer needed. Therefore we're going through the vacation with the utility plat. We have required the proper drainage and utility easements... ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Yes. Please state your name and your address. Gordon Johnson: I'm Gordon Johnson. I live at 1275 Lilac Lane which is the property mentioned. It is surrounded on the south and the west by the Ithilien plat and the mason I'm here, I don't have a problem with what's going on with the easement but the letter to Charles Folch from Dave Hempel dated December 7th is 16 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 stating, earlier this spring, I'll just read part of it here. Mr. Kerry Meagher of Carver County Abstract and Title contacted the city regarding an existing drainage easement that was conveyed by the previous property owners, the Johnsons. I never owned the property in question so the reason I'm here is to be sure that there's not a ' problem with my title and my Abstract or anything like that. We just got this on Friday and I was able to get some of my mortgage papers and Abstract and so on from the safety deposit box and I have them and if there is a question about who owns the property that the drainage easement is on, I think we should go over it. Not necessarily right here but we should straighten this out because it's in a letter and I don't want it on the record that I own that property. Mayor Chmiel: It could have been another Johnson coincidentally. ' Gordon Johnson: Well, no but. Mayor Chmiel: I think Charles may have an answer for that. , Charles Folch: I believe it should be Donovan. Gordon Johnson: It should be Donovan. That's who we purchased the single acre from. Off of that 10 acre... ' Charles Folch: ...basically shows that the cross hatched area, which is in question, was underlying the previous Donovan piece which is south of... ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. I think that will clarify your. become ' Gordon Johnson: Good. Yeah, I just got a little nervous because I don't want to have my title to a problem or anything. Okay, that's all. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public ' hearing? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Mason: Would I be too forward if I moved approval? Councilman Wing: Second. t Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Giving a vacation of drainage easement with the plat of Ithilien Project No. 92 -13. , Resolution #93 -123: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the vacation of that certain drainage easement dated December 12, 1990, recorded at Carver County on December 28, 1990 as Abstract No. 120554 and legally described on the attached resolution. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried unanimously. 17 I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' AWARD OF BIDS: FIRE ENGINE REFURBISHING. Councilman Wing: Would it be too forward to move that Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: No, I would think that in looking to what we have. There's a motion on the floor to move it but we'll have discussion. ' Councilman Wing: No, no. No, please. I wish to have that taken from the record. It was inappropriate. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You're removed. Yes, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are these the, Scott are these the bids that we had previously when we decided not to do anything about it? ' Scott Harr: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf. How did those bids look in comparison to these? Scott Harr: The new bids are slightly higher because one of the things that we agreed with working on this with the City Manager was rather than just cutting and pasting and patching, let's extend the life of the truck significantly. We could do that for another $10,000.00. That's to keep the truck going that much longer, that was a better investment. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. ' Councilman Senn: I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ' Resolution #93 -124: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the Fire Engine 210 Refurbishing bid to Toyne in the amount of $74,970.00. All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who " abstained, and the motion carried. ' Mayor Chmiel: One abstention. Only because Mr. Wing is on the Fire Department. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO A SINGLE FAMILY 1 PARCEL, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF LAKE LUCY ROAD; THE PARCEL IS A PENINSULA IN LAKE LUCY, MARK AND KATHY SANDA. ' Sharmin Al -Jaffa The site is a peninsula located north, east and west of Lake Lucy. The only access for this site is via a 33 foot wide strip. This strip is approximately 1,700 feet in length. Currently there is a a - ail ... this trail into a driveway. In order to do that they need to fill wetlands. A wetlands will be filled in this area and then in this area. This is approximately .2 of an acre. They are replacing it with additional wetlands which 18 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 exceeds the amount of fill that they are putting in. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on ' November 17th. There were two issues raised. I guess the most significant one which has caused some revisions in this plan was the concern of one of the neighbors who has trees just southwest of the site. Of the driveway and what the applicant did was located a culvert and this culvert basically takes care of any standing ' water in this area. There were other issues that were raised at the Planning Commission. We feel all of them have been addressed and we are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. indicate ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Sharmin. Is there a representative tonight wishing to anything at all regarding the Sanda's? Mark Sanda: My name is Mark Sanda. This is my wife Kathy and we've been residents of Chanhassen for ' nearly 7 years. We've the people that are going for this approval of the existing, of an existing driveway that been there for many years. First of all we appreciate you moving us up on the agenda ...A lot of discussion took place at the Planning Commission meeting on the 17th. We had a number of our neighbors get up and speak ' that they had no opposition to this. We've also got letters from many of them. There were some people that had concerns and as Sharmin mentioned, we feel we've addressed all of those in full. I don't believe there's anybody here tonight that was at that meeting and hopefully that's indicative of the fact that we've satisfied everyone's concerns. We've been working with the city since day one on this and the DNR and contacted all ' Council members that wanted to come out and look at the site. So we hope that you'll follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve our driveway permit. Thanks a lot. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there any questions of the Council? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I just have one. If their driveway is flooded, washed out in any way, can the city become responsible for approving this? Mayor Chmiel: Roger? I Roger Knutson: No. You're not legally responsible. They can complain. Mayor Chmiel: One other question that I had too Roger. In regard to construction on that particular piece of property. We've had some suits initiated against us because of poor soils. A basement was put in, caving in. The city was brought into it because of the inspections. Is there any way that the soils contained here could cause a problem and have us brought back into a suit? Or would it be better for us to have a condition put ' within, as an additional condition. Roger Knutson: A disclaimer? ' Mayor Chmieh Right. Roger Knutson: A disclaimer would be appropriate but when you issue a permit, even though people can sue you about it, there's a great body of case law in Minnesota that's 100% supported so far. That says that giving a building permit or a conditional use permit or what have you is not an insurance policy. You're inspecting for the public good and you do not create any private rights. That's the case law now. So just because people have problems with their construction does not make the city responsible but I think a disclaimer would be appropriate. 19 Vn ' i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 I 1 ['I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Could you give us a disclaimer? Roger Knutson: ...referred to soils, you can just say we have, I think we have on other permits occasionally just saying that the City makes no representation about subsurface conditions or the stability of the site for a driveway. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I would so move that language. Being incorporated as part of the wetland alteration permit. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #93-4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. The mitigation area is intended to be similar to the existing basins and, therefore, should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth 6 -12 inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6 -12 inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than 5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on -site soils demonstrate significant permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation areas with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. 2. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide Section 404 permit. 3. A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can proceed 4. The applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using sheald minimim the amewit salts and de -icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland areas. 5. The applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering department for approval. 6. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring properties where the driveway encroaches. 7. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a building permit. 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be permitted on the peninsula. 9. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval unless substantial construction on the driveway has taken place. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and recording this application. At 20 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 11. The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants ' into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall _be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.. ' 12. In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according to DNR standards. ' 13. The applicant shall raise the driveway grade between the two wetlands adjacent to Lot 3, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands approximately one foot to an elevation of 981.0 and revise the invert elevations of the proposed 12 -inch CMP culvert to 978.1 at the east end and 978.0 at the west end. 14. The applicant shall install the proposed 21 -inch CMP culvert in a manner to facilitate stormwater runoff from the Kimble's property. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 64,132 SO. FT. B YERLY'S ' SUPERMARKET, A 26,100 RETAIL BUILDING, AND A 7,000 SO. FT. COMMERCI BUILDING, LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, T. J AMES COMPANY. Public Present: ' Name Address Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Arnie Privie Gateway Foods Inc. Tim Menning Burnsville Lyle King Festival Foods Kent Dixon Delano Bob King Festival Foods Dan Beckman 6895 Chaparral Lane John Meyers Byerly's Tim McCoy McCoy Architects Charlie James T.F. James Company ' Mayor Chmiel: Why has this not been put under public hearing then if it's a conditional use permit? Don? Roger Knutson: The Planning Commission holds the public hearing on the conditional use permit. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. That's right. , Councilman Wing: I didn't know that. Don't apologize to me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Site plan review and conditional use permit for a 64,132 square foot Byerly's I 21 1 Cl I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' supermarket. A 26,100 retail building and a 7,000 square foot commercial building located on Lot 4, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition, T.F. James Company. And you're on. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Maya, members of the Council. I have just a few items that I received in the mail. This project is right across from City Hall here ... on the northwest corner of Kerber and West 78th Street. The total development is for a 106,000 square feet of commercial office... approximately 60% of the project is the ' Byerly's supermarket. The reason that this is a conditional use is because our Code said that if you have more than one principle building on a lot, than it has to be approved for a conditional use. It's not for the specific uses that are included. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Bob could you repeat that? I didn't understand that. Bob Generous: Our code says that on a zoning lot, you can only have one principle building. If you have more ' than one, then you have to get a conditional use. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, thanks. 0 0 i Bob Generous: It's not for any specific use. The comp plan designates this property for commercial and the zoning is general business district. The development of this site is consistent with ...and the zoning. The general site coverage is approximately 53% of the site is impervious surface. 30% of it is landscaping and approximately 16% of it is ... Access to the property is provided from a collector roadway, West 78th Street. There are 5 curb cuts serving this property. One of them is a shared use driveway with Lot 3. There are two entrance ... two access points off of Kerber Boulevard. The most northerly one will be primarily for trick entrances. The landscaping, we've discovered the designation for the plants on this site does not meet the code intent. It will meet the code requirement as far as quantity. We will need to revise the ornamental trees in the parking area to some, a permitted overstory type tree. And if they increase planting and spacing on the entrance boulevards, they will have met the requirements as far as quantity. ...approved the interim use permit for the grading. They will be required to use the Best Management Practices for erosion control. For lighting they will comply with city standards and for signage they're actually going to come back through the city with a complete package for the entire site. Staff is recommending approval of this development with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I would imagine that we'll have a presentation from Byerly's and if you'd like to set up your tripod in front of the podium. A little more towards the center would be great. Yep, that's good. Councilman Senn: Don, while they're setting up could I ask Paul a quick question? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: Paul, is there a reason why we're not, I mean given the scope of the size of this project and a lot of the issues with the property lines, is there a reason why we aren't putting together a PUD or using a PUD here in relationship to present and future controls as well as dealing with those issues? I mean typically that's what we've done. I guess I'm surprised because this is kind of the first one we've seen we haven't. Paul Krauss: Typically yes. We have been doing PUD's and ... doing that way and it would have avoided the CUP in this instance. Basically we made it comply with all the design criteria that would have been in there 22 1 L� Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' anyway. In all honesty I guess we would have had a preference with going to the PUD. There was a time , constraint in ... concept stage would have added more time. Except that is optional. But it's interesting to point out, and Charlie James hasn't gotten here tonight. I think he's probably having problems getting here but this is a commercially zoned site and Charlie has had commercial designation on it for quite some time. It is a permitted use. Developers are able to come in under the current zoning. I would have had a preference for the PUD. In the scheme of things, we've accomplished everything we would have done in a PUD in any case. Councilman Senn: Except you have no controls over the balance of the development. Paul Krauss: That's true and that was outside the scope of this request. ' Councilman Senn: Paul, it normally wouldn't be is what I'm saying. Paul Krauss: If it came into a PUD in it's entirety yes. We'd have... ' Councilman Wing: I want to follow up on Mark's question on the PUD and you referred to time restraints and having to go through a longer, more elevated process. I've got a feeling there's nobody here's in a big rush. If ' it's better to do it that way, we don't have, we're not in a rush to develop and bring 10,000 cars in a day unless it's done right and if the PUD is the correct way to go, it's not our problem it's going to take a longer process. That's in the city's best interest. Paul Krauss: Well, as Mark points out ...some definition to the corner. There are some uses shown out there but they're conceptual and they're predicated. Basically Charlie James illustrated a couple uses on the comer to show the city ... There are no uses being proposed for that. I suppose you could place some limitations on... ' Mayor Chmiel: Paul, before you go much further. I guess I have a concern and I just mentioned it to Roger and I'd him to make a comment on the PUD. Roger Knutson: If an applicant comes before you to do something on a piece of property, that that does not comply the quality of the zoning ordinance requirements. For example the setbacks, impervious surface coverage, densities, landscaping, what have you. They can't do what they want to do under the conventional ' zoning. Then they have two choices. Several choices but essentially they have a choice of either changing the ... your zoning ordinance, or requesting a planned unit development. Because in a planned unit development you have the flexibility to vary the standards. You get something and you lose something if you will. But if an applicant comes in, and I'm not suggesting. That's your decision as to whether this is actually correct, but if an applicant comes in and meets all the standards of your ordinance, as it currently exists, then you can't require the applicant to do a planned unit development because he complies. When someone complies, they're entitled to a , permit. Councilman Senn: How can you say... , Roger Knutson: A conditional use permit is not a rezoning. A conditional use permit, certain uses are, the reason this is a conditional use permit, is required, is because they want to put two buildings on one piece of property. Again, just like a permitted use, if you read the requirements. The standards for a conditional use, if , they meet those standards, and it's your judgment whether they do or don't, then they're entitled to the permit. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. You're on. ' 23 , I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' John Meyers: As Paul mentioned, Charlie James is not here yet. I'm sure he'll be here shortly. Charlie has two things going on tonight. One; I was with him today. He's suffering from the flu and number two, I think the weather may have slowed him down a bit. But my name is John Meyers. I'm with Byerly's. I'm the Vice ' President of Real Estate for Byerly's. In Charlie's absence what I'll do, real briefly is I'll give you a few short points on the site plan. How we got to the point where we're at now. And Tim McCoy who's the project architect and who has laid out much of the center as well as designed the architecture for the center. Tim will ' go through and answer any questions you've got as well. During my presentation if you want to ask me any questions about Byerly's. About why we're there ... any ideas that you've got that you want some answers for, if I can answer them for you, I'll certainly try. We came to the city, actually let me step back. We came to Charlie and Charlie came to us, it's been probably 12 months. About 6 months ago we got to the point where ' between Charlie James, the T.F. James Company and Byerly's have been working to strike ... deal. We got that going about 2 weeks ago. 3 weeks ago. We came into the city roughly the beginning of October. We sat down with Paul and the rest of the staff and went over basically what our ideas were for the project. We looked at a ' couple of options. One of the options we looked at was going through the PUD process. One of the options was sticking with the straight zoning that the site has and proceeding through. The route that we chose was to go through in the straight zoning but our intent through that process, as we sat down with the staff, was to say okay. Explain to us what you need as a city as far as the design standards for this center. We worked out a lot ' of different issues with the staff over the last couple of months but I think mainly the point that I want to get across is, we really sat down and said, what's the best project we can do with what we've got to work with, - being Byerly's and the small shop tenants that Charlie wants to put inside. A lot of the design of the center and ' the layout quite frankly was driven by us. From the standpoint of the general layout and the needs that we have with parking. The standards that we have for the design of the center. An all brick structure. Quite frankly when you take the materials that we're going to use on the center, the design standards that we placed on Charlie ' along with what Tim has been able to do, we'll show you the elevations in the second. I'll think you'll find that this is the best looking center that is here in Chanhassen. This will really be a nice ... for the city. Our intent was to make it a first class project and I think we've been able to do that. When we met with, going back to staff and we sat down with them in October. Realistically we have some guidelines or some deadlines I should say from our standpoint when we wanted to see this store open due to some other development plans that the company currently has. And quite frankly we have a window of opportunity for next fall and this was the location that we wanted to try and fill that window of opportunity with for us. So as we sat down and we looked at the schedule, the reality of it was that the only way. Not the only way but the best way to get through the process was to go through on straight zoning which the site has and meet all the requirements of the city. We didn't come in saying that the city had a landscape ordinance of x, y, z. Well we didn't want to quite do that. We wanted less. We actually sat down and we said, give us your landscape ordinance and we tried to ' meet or exceed absolutely everything in that. We tried to meet or exceed the parking standards. We tried to meet or exceed all the interior landscape parking. The actual design of the building far exceeds what the... screening and so forth. All the loading dock has screenings on them. We tried to leave nothing to chance ' basically through the process. When we came into the Planning Commission, I guess it was last week. Week before last. They had some comments and we said fine. We're going to address those issues and they were legitimate concerns and I think they make a lot of sense for the center. The points that they had and we're not opposed to those. We said—to make those things work so it's the right kind of project for the city. So we're here before you tonight trying to get this last step in this part of the process. And then hopefully we continue to move down the path and get under construction sometime in January and open the store sometime around October 1st of next year. We'd like to be an addition to the city. We think we bring some good things to the table. As far as the company, we definitely expand the trade area that exists today. We do a lot of research on who our customer is and we do a lot of research on our existing stores and where those customers come from. So when we sat down and we looked at Chanhassen, we took the data that we have. In the 8 stores we have in 24 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 25 1 ' Twin ' where do those customers come from? How far do the drive? What are the demographics of i the Cues, y Sz'aP those customers? What are the income levels? What's the average value of their home? I mean we look at a lot of information. As we sat down, we did two different market studies and we sat down and we looked at that ' information as well as a lot of different sites in the western suburbs. This is the location that we think, for a lot of reasons, makes sense for us to be at so that's really why we're trying to push and get it going. We'd like to be here. That, I'll answer any questions that I can for you and I don't know if I've left out anything that Charlie should have said ... I said Charlie's here, we just left him outside. He's locked in his car. In a lot of ' ways it's really straight forward. When we looked at the zoning, we really sat down and said what is it that we have to do to meet the codes to keep the project moving and I really sincerely mean it when I say we tried to exceed everything that was in that package that the city originally sent out. If you want, what I'll do next is ' bring up Tim McCoy. He's the project architect. He'll walk you through specifically the plan. The renderings. The elevations and any questions that you have, if I can answer them, please ask and we'll be happy to address them. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. We'll get back to you on that. Thanks. Tim McCoy: Good evening. My name is Tim McCoy. I represent McCoy Architects and we've done work for ' the T.F. James Company for about 10 years now and although we've done supermarkets before in the Twin Cities area, this is the first opportunity that we've had to work with Byerly's. What I'd like to do is give you an overview of our site development and building development process and how we proceeded to this particular ' point in the stage of the design. When Byerly's first became interested in this particular site what we did was we worked with them and the T.F. James Company to develop a number of alternative site approaches, basically looking at different placements of the building within the site area. Different orientations of the building. How those related to site access, internal circulation, parking potential and how it might relate to the retail component ' of the site area. I think quite early on we all agreed or came to a consensus that the current location of the building was probably it's best location and orientation on the site. Up in the broadest part of the site. Set back off of West 78th Street with the south orientation. And this particular scheme was one that happened to ' generate a lot of different options and from that location related to how we were going to handle the drive thru grocery pick -up area. With the project we looked at options that would happen on the west side of the building. Options that would happen on the east side of the building and finally decided on this front drive thru grocery pick -up area is seemingly the solution that worked best for a lot of Byerly's needs and their traffic and circulation and so forth. Now the building is set up so that the center line of the entry of the store is aligned with the center line of the driveway coming off of West 78th Street at the existing curb cut area. So we wanted to try to make some feature architectural element out of the center or the, or the entry to the Byerly's store. And ' by setting the building up like this, it allowed us to develop an employees parking area over on the east side adjacent to Kerber and the City Hall and the public buildings over to the cast beyond Kerber. What we've done is we've developed a service driveway in loading, trash enclosure areas and so forth in the back of the entire ' center along the north boundary and this is, as you all know, is quite a steep embankment up to the townhouses and multiple family project up to the north of the project. It averages about a 15 foot rise in grade from what's ... up to the plural vision of the townhouse project to the north. Now by locating the building in this particular way, having the front drive thru it allowed us to attach the retail component of the project directly to the Byerly's store and there were a lot of potential tenants that saw that as something that would be desirable for them to have that direct connection with Byerly's and being one large incorporated center. In plan we've stepped the retail portion of the project out from the base of Byerly's because it's set back rather deeply because ' of the rise in grocery area. It's pinched out in the middle so that we can develop more or less of a recessed loading, trash enclosure area at the rear of the service drive. And we've developed kind of a mini pedestrian type of plaza in the front side of the retail out at, facing the parking area. The entire site slopes pretty much ' 25 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 i continuously down to the southwest area. Now the Byerly's of course has got one floor elevation. There are actually three breaks in the floor of the retail center where it steps down. The sidewalk's going down continuously but the floor elevation is stepped down in each of these three major elements of the retail center. And what that allows us to do, since we were approximately 8 feet below the elevation of the Byerly's down at this western most portion of the retail center, it allows us to put a second floor on that yet still match the height of the Byerly's floor. So there's more or less a continuous development of the heights and parapets all the way across the project. Also I should point out by pinching this retail space down, it allows us to get some smaller shop opportunities and there were a lot of people that were interested in shop areas ... So the third component of the project is the fee standing commercial building down at the southwest corner of the site. It was something that we did as really a conscious effort rather than connect it directly to the retail center up here, and develop an even larger expanse of parking across the font of the site adjacent to West 78th Street. What we wanted to do is provide a little bit of a closer connection with the street by developing that building down there and breaking up, as I say the parking area and developing a little green space off of the north side of the retail center. Throughout the process, as John mentioned, we worked closely with the staff on this and we made a number of modifications to the initial plans that were submitted to the city. One of those was to put parking off of this major entry drive from the Byerly's over to ... sidewalk down to West 78th Street. Out to Kerber Boulevard and also we've eliminated the parking that was originally ... plan to develop that parking area to the west side of the retail. Eliminate any kind of potential traffic problems that we quite haven't met or. Most of the modifications that we've made from the initial submission... landscaping on the project. All of these things really respond to discussions with staff. The staff report. The Highway 5 corridor overlay provisions. The landscape ... and also some of the conditions and concerns that the Planning Commission addressed. And what we've done, initially we did have the spacing the city's boulevard trees along Kerber and West 78th so we've got those located and we took our overstory trees that were required 1 per 30 feet of the perimeter right -of -way of the project and we tried to cluster those between the city's boulevard trees in here so we could get something that would have a little greater landscape impact to it in terms of placing those trees rather than ... The way the development .. an of the public entries of the site off of West 78th and Kerber. These would be lower scale, mixed deciduous and evergreen shrubs with ground cover and perennial type of flowering plants and those are essentially north. We've moved our landscape buffer to these multiple family housing up to the top of the hill where it would be a more effective screening than what was initially proposed in the plan and that's pretty much a continuous screen of spruce trees with white oak trees interspersed with that to provide some continuity with the landscaping up to the Oak Ponds development to the north. In the parking areas, at the perimeters you've got the perimeter traffic islands. You've got the perimeter traffic islands and in this particular site plan we show smaller ornamental trees that are ... height of about 15 feet. These are paired in different types of crab trees which flower in the summer. Interior parking areas, we've got the interior islands with honey locust trees planted. Those are over story trees as well as over story trees related to the driveway entrances off of West 78th Street so we can get kind of a formal ... type of thing into the Byerly's and into the retail center. In terms of the actual design of the building, that was pretty much dictated or influenced by our work with Byerly's in terms of establishing a design and an image for their store of which we applied to the rest of the center. And we worked and had done a number of, probably about 8 different potential options in terms of what the architectural treatment of the Byerly's store should be before we arrived at the elevations that you'll see here tonight. And I think if most people have an image of Byerly's stores, it's very kind of restrained almost background, brown brick buildings that are kind of very rectilinear and not a lot of conscience effort or whatever has been put into trying to really do a lot of architectural ... and so forth. With Byerly's I think would really have a design philosophy related to their buildings I think would be in terms of making a building that will wear well over time. So that it will look good 20 years from now. They'd rather not be on the cutting edge of building or design fashion but to have a building that will still look as good in the year 2010 as it does today. VII 26 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 27 , 1 ' John Meyers: Our store in Southdale, on France Avenue opened u< 71, or 73. So i t 's 20 years old. But if y ou ' look at that building, if you go around and look at other grocery stores that are 20 years old, I don't think you're going to find one that's maintained nearly, nearly, not even close... ' Tim McCoy: So what we've come up with, working with John and with Charlie is essentially I think a scheme that represents something that's consistent with what Byerly's thoughts have been over the years related to the ' store design and also at the same time somewhat of a departure of what we typically associate with Byerly's. The primary feature I guess distinguishing this is the arched openings and barrel vaults that we're utilizing at the store entries. We're got a large brick arched wall which aligns directly with, once again the center line of the driveway coming off of West 78th Street. A similar smaller type of arched opening at the Wines and Spirits. ' Arched openings at the screen wall. This is in front of the drive thru area. You actually go in under here kind of diagonal and that's where the drive thm pick -up is behind the screen wall. We've got some other elevations related to the project of the east side over on our boards but this will be the first Byerly's restaurant in the area ' that has any windows in it's restaurant and what we've done is picked up on that arched opening at the window areas also. And what we're proposing to do is quite a bit of variation in terms of the brick patterns in here and also some subtle variations in the plane of the brick to give a little bit more variety and interest and detail to the front of the store and development. And I think this will also be your first store that you incorporate any kind of additional material in besides the brick with the exception of the canopy area that you've got on your stores. We are proposing to use the Kasota stone as kind of a detail accent element within the Byerly's store. It's shown as a very minimal use that you have to actually look at a little more closely in terms of the bands between the brick ' patterns and so forth. And quite frankly at the present time we're still studying the detailed use of that stone element and we'd rather show you a more minimal use right now and perhaps expand on that a little bit than come in here with a whole bunch of stone on it right now and then for whatever reason in the future say well, gee we've decided we really didn't want to use as much as we've shown you. One other feature I should point out is at the top of all of the buildings we're corbeling or stepping the brick out so it forms kind of a cap or a crown on the building. And what we've done is carry this treatment all the way through to the retail portion of the project also and alternating essentially the arched openings at some of these store openings along with the ' rectilinear openings to give it some variation in the pattern and so forth in pulling the store front unit out ... and what we're doing with some of these brick banding details and so forth is actually carrying those all the way through the center so they're continuous bands carrying the cornice through and essentially matching the parapet ' heights of the Byerly's store with the various components of the retail center. And at the retail center perhaps the most noticeable feature is this tower element that is down in the west. What that is is the elevation portion of the second floor, that I pointed out earlier on the retail center. We've actually pulled that out from the volume of the building so we could take what's really a very utilitarian functional aspect of the building and try ' to make something special out of that in terms of relating your clock tower down in the city entry. Also the arched forms related to the some of the arched forms that your city entryway features and so forth. And what that tower is, it's essentially the elevator lobby with the elevator behind it so as you drive in to that west retail ' entry, which aligns with the Target driveway, you can see this all the way from the front of the Target store. It'd be something ... and lighted at night and also, once you get off the elevator you'd be looking out those glass windows to the south. And although we do not have the specific user right now for the free standing ' commercial building on the project, it's our intention to carry the same type of arched motif and brick detailing down to that building. We do have an elevation of that but I think—and that's not really fully developed to this type of level at the present time. But there are a number of potential tenants that could go in that building and essentially it's kind of a one shot, look at an elevation where we went through several alternatives for both the ' Byerly's and the retail store but that's an idea that's not is manipulated in terms of arcades and so forth which we have along the entire south side of the retail. But I think. , 27 , 1 7 L Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 John Meyers: Part of your approval, or the approval of the Planning Commission was to in fact make some features on this that would be similar in nature to the different roof elevations... Tim McCoy: I think that probably gives a fair overview of the project. I'm sure you've got a lot of questions that would be typical.... John Meyers: How about the, do you want to show the other elevations? Tim McCoy: I guess we've got a number of types, supporting boards and so forth that I could go through at the present time or else we could address them ... This might be an interesting one to show actually. These are all four of the Byerly's elevations which I believe you've got copies of but the entire store will be wrapped in brick. The front and back including the loading areas. These happen to be a few sections through the site area. This is one at the center driveway off of West 78th Street starting down here and showing the profile of the site up to the Byerly's store ... this central element as you saw over the entry of the Byerly's to make a special feature out of that In this portion back here at the townhouse property, this is actually blown up down here to look at what some of the relative elevations are between the Byerly's and the townhouse project. We have a floor elevation of the townhouses of 996 and the top of the parapet at the Byerly's of 102.5 so the top of our parapet at the back of the Byerly's store is actually 6 1/2 feet above the ground level from the floor level of the townhouse development directly to the north. We've got a little bit more of a severe condition to work with at the retail center because in here the top of our parapet at the center of the retail portion gets smaller—is actually about 8 1/2 feet below what the floor elevation is on the multiple family dwellings that are being constructed up on the west end of the site. These dwelling units are actually 9 feet higher in elevation than what the current townhouses are on the east side of the property. So then combined with the fact that we're stepping down the retail floor elevation in there makes a little bit more severe condition to work with but we do have a greater flexibility to put our roof top heating and cooling units towards the back of the parapet because we've got much shorter runs to make within that portion of the project and we have a much greater flexibility in terms of where we can locate those and cluster those that we need in the supermarket area. But that probably ... and like I say, some of these we can utilize I guess when you have some questions related to some of the other... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Wing: As part of your presentation, that out building. Theoretical use. Tim McCoy: Theoretical use? Well probably the party that was most interested happened to be a service type of business. An office type of use in there. I think there have been some retailers that have expressed some interest in there. John Meyers: There is restrictions... Councilman Wing: Nobody selling hamburgers or fried chickens? Councilman Mason: What are the restrictions we placed on it? John Meyers: Things like convenience stores, gas stations. Certain types of restaurants. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Fast food is excluded? 28 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 1 John Meyers: Depending on who would be ... specifically restrict all fast food, no. No. Councilman Senn: But there's accommodation for a drive thru on this. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Before I bring it back to Council for any. Charlie, don't breath on us. I understand you're not feeling well. Charlie James: Unfortunately I'm not feeling too spiffy so ... be subjected to my usual. Mayor Chmiel: Sense of humor. ' Charlie James: As I was thinking about this meeting tonight, I couldn't help but reflect that it's been, this coming Wednesday, the 15th of December, will be exactly 7 years since the time that this City Council approved the development contract for the platting of my 40 acre parcel. At that time our guiding light was the ' Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated high density residential at the north half of our property and high density commercial on the south half. The West Village Heights subdivision was 100% compliance with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and our concept in 1986 was first for the development of a convenience center at the west end and then a few years later a community shopping center at the east end. Since December of 1986 I've , met a lot of staff planners and city engineers and I've seen a multitude of planning studies, code amendments,' traffic studies by Benshoof, BRW, Strgar, focus groups such as were involved with Target and most recently the Vision 2002 and special use studies such as the Highway 5 corridor. Tonight I'm pleased that everything has ' sort of led to where we are and I'm able to present a site plan that has roots in that City Council meeting in 1986, and it has been influenced in varying degrees by all that has occurred prior to this evening. For the past 11 months I've been working at a feverish pace with Byerly's. Two market studies have been completed by Byerly's and we have drawn and redrawn several dozen site plans in conjunction with the input of the Byerly's team. We have completed numerous elevation and massing studies and we have tried to incorporate the concerns identified with the Highway 5 corridor and Vision 2000. Since summer we have been working with staff to design a project that would meet or exceed the codes. Building a permitted commercial use on a zoned ' commercial parcel. However, and just a bit ironic, it was our attempt to anticipate the Highway 5 corridor study that led us in the direction of what turned out to be a surprise for us. The need for a conditional use. This need was occasioned by trying to split a project into two segments. Our purpose there was to add a pedestrian ' element along West 78th Street and to vary the massing of the buildings. Throughout this project my mission has been to design a project that would be the best thing that's ever been done in certainly the west suburban Twin Cities suburbs and something that would look as good 10, 20, 30 years from now as it hopefully does tonight. So we've put a lot of work into this and I hope that you support it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone wanting to address Council this evening before we go back into asking questions from presentations that have been made? Lyle King: Good evening. I'm Lyle King. I'm with Festival Foods and once again, at the Planning meeting I complimented you on your presentation and I really think they have a beautiful plan. I think it's a project that Chanhassen needs. I think it's 3 years down the road. I think my reasons and my worries right now, you put in a beautiful little center right across the way. And the view of your City Hall here looks right down on it. You have great plans ... but I don't think that you've taken a retail sales survey of the dollars ... in the city. I know there's been a lot of talk that people think that we don't draw off the same customer. We do. They probably , have a 61% image roughly. We have a 55. We probably have 75% of the items they have. We try to run a price store but on the same products. They get meat off the same truck that we would. ...beef. Produce from Mallek Foods. Number one product. So when the customer comes into our store, we have to shoot prices to get 29 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 J i them there. To give you a good example we take a, put a coupon in to bring people in. That coupon will be like on 24 pack of pop. Coke. We'll probably run at a loss at $3.99. I think some of you people have probably bought it. My competitor would be getting about 6 something for that. And ... more power to them. I believe that the best thing about business is what will the public bear. Giving them high quality food. I eat at Byerly's a lot myself. Still do. But that, we run that coupon. Give you an idea now on money. We'll run that coupon and they shop half their groceries...at Byerly's and come over and pick up that loss—from me. We'll going to split the dollars and the thing that I would like to ask you folks tonight, have you taken or have you seen what a retail survey on the market, how many dollars you have. I know they would take about oh 40 %. 3040% of our business. As each one of you knows today, that store's operating at a loss. We're on projection. Probably just a little bit above projection but we are losing money and I don't think we'll be black for another year, if then. But if this store opens up, I'll guarantee you the fast year he opens up we're going to drop 500 and some thousand dollars. And as a little independent, there's no way that I would be able to take that and I know this isn't really a concern of yours but that center across the street should be. And if our business would go down, I'm sure some affects ... so I would just appreciate you taking that into consideration tonight. What is it going to do for your community and I think I would like to see a Byerly's out here but I would like to see them out here in about 2 to 3 years. And I think they put a good presentation and also a good plan. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Lyle. Arnie Privie: Good evening Mr. Mayor, City Manager, and Council members. My name is Arnie Privie. I'm with Gateway Foods and we're the wholesaler that supplies the Festival store and Lyle King. I think Lyle made a lot of good points and I just want to add some food for thought. I certainly, first of all, want to congratulate actually the architect and the plans of this Byerly's store. It's very nice. And I know Charlie has been frustrated in wanting to develop this property but about 2 1/2 years ago, and we're going to reminisce just a little bit. About 2 1/2 years ago Brad Johnson came to our company, Gateway Foods after a major wholesaler had turned down a store going into this location for this city. We took a look at it and finally decided, and I know the City of Chanhassen wanted a store very badly. And the more we got to look at it, we had Lyle King and he was interested to go in even though the store was probably not going to make any money for 3 years or longer. He said fine. He says, I've got 3 other stores. They'll help me out in the meantime. Now, we've only been here about a year and Lyle is, in what he's saying is very true. He has not made any money in this location and he's says into next year he's probably going to make some. I'd have to kind of disagree with that. I think that he's probably looking closer to another 2 years before he's really going to make any money in that location. But that's neither here nor there. We're certainly not against competition. Competition is good. It certainly would be good competition and would be an asset to the community. But I think the timing is somewhat a little bit off. - I think that it's probably premature. They're certainly, they took surveys and so did we. In fact I just took a survey here a few weeks ago to just make sure that we were, that the numbers we had were a fact. What you're going to end up with is you're going to end up with two stores and two stores losing... As Lyle said, he can't afford it. So I think then it gets down to the point, does one of them leave. Then you've got one that's left or whatever. Or had this project been delayed for a year or two, you would have two stores and both of them healthy. I want to commend the City of Chanhassen. I think you've certainly done a lot of things right. I think I can remember back to about '86 or '87 when I first came out here with some people that were trying to develop the area and it's a world of difference since then. So you've got to be commended on what you've done. I guess the food for thought I would like to leave with you this evening is that probably you should take a harder look at how you're going to proceed as far as the supermarkets that you want to serve you in this community. Also, I would have to echo what Lyle King has made the statement. Have you taken a survey as far as the city is concerned to find out what your needs really are? Can you support two supermarkets? I really don't think so from the figures I've seen but that's for you to decide and I want to thank you for the time that 30 s Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 you've given us. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. ' Tim Menning: Good evening. My name is Tim Menning. I live in Burnsville. However I'm a partner in Market Square Associates partnership. And as a partner in that I have a number of concerns with this proposed development. Our partners, as you well know, have made a major investment in Market Square along with the City. We owe the City some $800,000.00 today on our development. Not counting a possible, roughly another $200,000.00 for two of the outlots which were, have an obligation to be purchased at some point here coming up fairly shortly. So we kind of look on the city as being our partners to a large degree in this project, although you're not actually on the line with us on our overall debt but you have a major investment there. We have a ' big concern about the King's ability to withstand serious losses through the next few years until the marketplace grows enough to support two grocery stores. We have to go back a couple of years here and realize that we virtually had to beg. We meaning you and us to get Festival out here in the first place. And now we're being ' told, I think, that this marketplace for virtually double that ignoring the fact that there's been some other stores entering the marketplace in the surrounding area. I can't perceive that the market has developed that rapidly for groceries in this downtown area. I also have concerns for some of our other tenants. For the liquor store. On ' an earlier item on this agenda you had a liquor store, or on sale at least, liquor issue. Now I wanted to stand up and suggest that ... site but didn't feel that was quite appropriate. Does Chanhassen need another liquor store downtown? Can the liquor store in our center withstand that competition right now? Again, a question of marketplace. Is there marketplace there? I'm not saying we can't put up with competition. When the market's ' there, yes but we don't think the market's there yet. How about all of our other little tenants. Our small tenants. Can they withstand a loss of traffic if Festival sees a, I think they said a 30% to 40% decline in sales. Now that isn't going to be a decline necessarily in 30% to 40% of sales to our small tenants but it's certainly , going to bring some decline. Whether that's 10, 20. I can't predict. It's going to vary for each of them but those types of businesses basically scrape by. They can't see much decline at all and still keep their lights on. We're concerned about keeping a viable center in the near term. The next 2, 3, maybe even 4 years until the marketplace is developed out here. We know given that time line but right now you and we have a big ' investment there that is in some degree of jeopardy and it's hard to predict exactly but it's certainly is in jeopardy if this proposed project should proceed. I've got to commend the architect and designers, whoever came up with this. It follows some of the other Byerly's patterns. It's a very nice looking center. On the other ' hand I do have to question why the concept is radically different than what has been going on in town recently with the pitched roofs and pitched or sloping roofs and so forth. It's like all of a sudden the rules have changed because what was brought in was sufficiently nice, and it is. Very nice. And I'm not suggesting go back. I'm ' only kind of questioning why did the rules change. It is a major change for the city. I question also from a design aspect, as pointed out a little bit the section going up the hill, if that will seriously hide all the roof top units up there. I'm not saying it won't but I don't think the evidence says it will ... and I question whether it will given those elevations. However those are, in my mind, relatively minor issues. The big thing's the economic ' issue and the problems it could bring, not only to our center but it's my understanding that Byerly's itself will experience losses for a fair number of years too ... Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dean Johnson: Hello. My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the developer and builder of the Oak Ponds townhome ' project right to the north of this particular site. First I'd like to say that as a developer going through... quite a few people, one of the things that you wanted my establishment to tell my perspective clients is that this building, this area was going to be a commercial area of this nature and this type of use, which we have been , 31 t lI n Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 doing. We feel that the plan that is before you is within that and we have no problem with that plan. I did come to the Planning Commission meeting to determine a few of the things as it related to us. My main concern was where the air conditioning units were going to be for noise and those types of things and we found that they had enclosed them and they're using cooling towers and these types of things to cut down on the noise pollution and we appreciate that also. I like the project. I have no problem with it. I guess a couple of the things that may be, if staff would look at in developing this project is where the screening is going to be around the units on the roof if the parapets do cover. Things that are common to these types of projects, commercial projects. Gas lines, air conditioning lines or other types of lines up on top of the roof. Maybe they could be put in a bar joist. Those types of areas. Clean up the roof so that the views from the townhouses don't have to look on. We'd appreciate that. And the other thing that I guess I would like to talk about is, being that I did work in the grocery industry for 7 1/2 years is that possibly from time to time trucks and truck trailers would be parked there. I guess I would probably be opposed to those types of things. If they come and they go in normal use of business, I have no problem with that but if they ... I think that would be a problem. But again I'd like to say this is a nice project and other than those two items which may be more staff orientated, I do not see any problems for my project. Thank you. Bob King: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, my name is Bob King. I've never been here before and addressed you. First of all I want to thank you and the City, the people of Chanhassen for the support they've given us at Festival Foods. It's one year now. We really must ...never heard that of any other location we've been at. Thank you for locating out here. I don't live in the area but I do enjoy working with the members of the community. Employing them and supporting their, your functions. The City functions and I promise to continue to do so in the future. It's been a lot of fun. Just by what I've seen tonight on civic involvement here, it's really been an education for me. We came for the fast issue and it's been fun sitting through this. I too am going to ask you to consider putting this off. This project off for some time. You know what our bottom line is. We've presented that to you. The loss that we're going to have ... our store is on target and we are sustaining losses that we expected to. I just ask that, I know what the projections are for growth and we built this store on the understanding of those projections. Population growth and knowing what your projections are, I would say that Byerly's and Festival Foods could operate profitably a year or two from now. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bob. Is there anyone else? Dan Beckman: Good evening. My name is Dan Beckman. I live at 6895 Chaparral Lane. I want to thank W. Wing here for his comment about not being rushed because I think a project of this size needs to be carefully thought through. I have a few things I'd like to bring up for people to consider. City functions at the park up there. Through the Rotary Club I've been involved in many of those functions and there are a lot of people in town and, you may feel different. I'm not going to try and tell you what you guys put on but many of those functions, and it packs a lot of people and that's wonderful but we have a safety problem here with the access off of Kerber Boulevard. From what I understand there's going to be two accesses off Kerber. We have parks, ballfields, this sort of thing ... right now. There's young children. My children are there playing sports. We go to the Chaska School District. There are also a lot of young children riding their bikes to school down these walkways and stuff that we put in and I think there's a real safety issue there and I guess I'd like to maybe hear what the safety director has to say about that. Kerber Boulevard right now, maybe the traffic level has gone down. I live right off of Kerber Boulevard on Chaparral Lane. Since they closed the one, or Powers Boulevard down there, the traffic on Kerber has been tremendous. To add another stop light on West 78th Street, in my opinion would create that same effect. Anybody wanting to go to downtown Chanhassen no longer would go down to that comer and take the main street in. They're going to take Kerber because if you put another light in there, to get to their destination they're going to have 3 stop lights to go before they even get to the point where 32 s Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 they would be to Kerber Boulevard. And I don't see that happening. Is this the place to talk about TIF money? Or is that to be brought up to the HRA? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. We discuss it as well. Dan Beckman: I've never been a supporter of T1F money. It comes out of the Minnesota taxpayers pockets. I ' don't care what anybody says. In some cases it brings some development that the city doesn't have to enhance the city. I think that's great. I think those dollars are well spent. But for duplication or to expand a business that already is flourishing, and if I could just maybe, I won't even side track. I'll talk about that at the other ' issue. But to do this, I think that's wrong. I think it's wasting taxpayers money and I'm a taxpayer of both the State and the city. And I guess I'd like to maybe, maybe somebody has some profound words—logic in it myself. And I know you don't want to get involved in playing God and deciding who's going to have a business in town and who isn't. My answer to this is that this town really and truly, if they say can support two grocery stores, we don't have to pay them to come into town. They're going to come. Either them or Lunds or somebody will be out here knocking at our door. That's the way it works. This money should be spent to help, and I know that's why the city has an investment with the King family was to help offset some of the losses that they would incur over the fast 3 or 4 years they're here. Apparently they presented, I heard them make a statement that they were in the red and they apparently presented documents to support that. I would recommend that the Council really take a long hard look at that. During their talk they mentioned about a truck ' route on the northerly access. Would that be the one that would be closest to the townhomes? Again, young children and people walking on the sidewalks and stuff and bringing in a truck route right across, I don't think that is good thinking. When is the grade school supposed to be done? In what year? Don Ashworth: In '95. Dan Beckman: Fall of '95? I had mentioned, I called up some of the city staff and mentioned concern about ' the parking for the parks and they told me at that time that during, or at the school they were going to put in additional parking so it will help offset some of the parking problems we have on Kerber Boulevard presently. And that's great but I don't think the city ever will, I hope they don't, spend a lot of money to get the parks in good shape and everything and somehow or another we need to be concerned about that. And the City Hall, ' where they access the City Hall and stuff. Do you want to be where the Senior Center is right here. We have old people coming in there. How will this affect also the Public Safety as far as patrolling? I think that's a thing to look at. A store of this magnitude with shoplifting and what have you and a liquor store there. I'm ' assuming they're having a liquor store. That's been brought up tonight. Restaurant which will probably have late hours. There's a lot of extra traffic. Maybe we should look at the cost of what that would cost to patrol these areas. I guess that's about all I had. I just would hope that the City takes some of this into consideration. ' Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Dan. Is there anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Council to come up with some questions. But before we do, I'd just like to ask the City Attorney. Can we as the City ' withhold zoning on this site plan an approval to provide I guess the economic advantages back with Festival and Market Square. Roger, maybe you can just sort of give me a comment on that. I just want to make sure that I'm going to be in the right ballpark here. Roger Knutson: The short answer is no. Mayor Chmiel: Can you elaborate a. little bit? ' 33 1 1 i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' Roger Knutson: Yes. People always complain that lawyers talk for an hour to give you an answer. I'll give you an answer then I'll talk for an hour. The Supreme Court, in a decision that goes back I don't even remember. 70's...said the purpose of zoning is not to regulate competition. In an early case that I've been involved actually Edina where there were four corners. Three gas stations on three corners. The fourth one came in and wanted a gas station and Edina said no. We're afraid if a fourth one comes in someone's going to fail. The intersection can't support four gas stations. Therefore we'll have an empty gas station building and everyone knows they aren't very attractive anyway. The Court said no. You can't use zoning to regulate competition. The marketplace does that. The purpose of zoning is multi faceted but it's to separate incompatible uses and make sure uses, from a land use perspective, get along. Secondly, what you have before ' you tonight you should remember is two things. You have a site plan review. The purpose of the site plan review is to make sure all the ordinance requirements are complied with and your site plan requirements are very detailed. So you've got to say is there anything in that site plan requirements that they haven't satisfied. If the ' answer is yes. Then you can make them change their site plan. The second thing is the conditional use permit. Does it have two buildings on one piece of property. There you have the standards in your zoning ordinance for issuance of a conditional use permit. And they're stringent and there are a lot of them. Those standards have been met and that issue is answered. Those are the two things you have before you. The site plan review and the conditional use permit. Not regulating competition. Not TIF is something else and that's ultimately for the HRA to decide. And they have much more discretion to consider all sorts of things. Mayor Chmiel: From the HRA aspect, if this were to go, there is x number of dollars if I remember reading it. 900 and some thousand dollars that would be available to assist with TIF dollars. I know we're looking at 3 different things on this. We're looking at Byerly's with a 35.7 square foot retail center. Separate 7,000 square foot center and 64,132 square foot. Providing those TIF dollars, those TIF dollars would they go to each ' segment of this? Would it be divided accordingly from the $900,000.00? Don Ashworth: Typically on this type of a project the dollars are really falling to the developer, as I understand ' this. Mr. James will own the entire facility and typically to be able to bring in a grocery store he has to drop the lease cost in the supermarket area. And so those dollars would be used to reduce special assessments. That's a fast priority by city standards and then secondarily, he could use those dollars to attract tenants. He may want ' to expand on that further. Mayor Chmiel: Anything Charlie? Charlie James: I concur essentially with what Don has said. I guess I'd remind the Council that, to the extent that my property taxes have increased over the 7 years, I've been paying into TIF too so some of my money is already going to Market Square and I was hoping that tonight wasn't going to be the venue to discuss these matters. But I'm certainly prepared to do that if it's the wish of the Council. I don't think that's an appropriate use of this forum. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don Ashworth: If I could add. It's not unusual for Todd or I to receive an inquiry as to what the existing policies of the HRA are and typically we'll get a call or individual stopping and he'll state that he is representing a business and that they're looking at various locations for that. They'll give us typically a size associated with it. They'll ask that any information, that they're not at a position to really disclose who it is that they're maybe working with. Again, they're looking to see what the city policies, what HRA policies are regarding TIF dollars. ' We repeat to them that it's been our policy to provide upwards of 3 years of TIF. That's it pay as you go plan ' 34 1 1, Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 so in other words they up front the dollars and then they can basically receive those as they make their property tax payments during the 3 years following their actual development. That's the way it was with Rosemount. ' We really didn't know who it was until literally we had made the proposal over to them. The proposal will be put into writing and will generally be sent to that developer probably at least one year, if not 2 to 3 years before the thing really becomes a reality. A letter was sent to Mr. James. I would say that that was well over a year ago outlining what the HRA policies were and at that point in time Mr. James had stated that he was working ' with a client. That it would be generally, if I recall correctly Charlie, 75,000 square feet. That you were not in a position to divulge who that was. You asked what those policies were. We prepared a letter and sent it to you as to what the existing policies were. We had no knowledge that it was potentially a Byerly's until I would say, probably 6 to 8 weeks ago. Charlie James: As a matter of fact as part of my ongoing negotiations with Byerly's I wasn't permitted to use their name until after October 31st. And one of the things that we're, another point I guess I'd like to make is, ' there's been some forbearance on my part for 7 years and what's happening is this district is expiring and there's talk here tonight about delaying and it seems to me every time there's been some major issue in town Charlie James is the one that's been delayed And what's happening, if I get delayed any longer, the district is ' going to expire. And I'm at the last point where this district is here. One of the things about the Byerly's, I think it's an important factor is, and I was dumbfounded when this came up at your meeting with your public safety people and fire people about occupancies and they asked how many employees we'd have in the store. And I was very surprised Byerly's has a payroll of over 300 people in that store and that would easily place them, and Todd told me that that would place us in the top group of employers within the city of Chanhassen so there's going to be an increased payroll here. All those 300 employees will be spending money at their lunch hour or after work or shopping elsewhere in Chanhassen so I think that's a real benefit to the city. Again as I , said, money from my project has gone to Market Square. I don't know why this wasn't an issue in the past when you had the Prairie House Motel and you had Country Suites. Competition. TIF projects. You had the pizza. You had Brooks go in. When I was trying to get my PDQ was approved here but my street never got built so Brooks got in ahead of us, and then with TIF money. And then Market Square went in competition with ' Brooks. There was a pizza place next to Brooks. A pizza place went in in Market Square with TIF money. Competition. So I guess I'm surprised that this issue has reared it's rather nasty underbelly. But on the other ". hand, as Brad told me after the fast Planning Commission meeting, his mission "was to kill the project So I ' think that I'm not sure that TIF is the issue here. I think that there is, this is sort of a means of combating something and I think it's unfortunate. free from Attorney ' Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. My reasoning for making that, I was getting some advice our because I sit on the HRA as well and he normally doesn't come to our particular meetings so I'm getting a bang for the buck. ' Charlie James: Well the other thing. Just one more point that you know, I don't know Mr. Beckman but I know that there's some concern. They're saying these are tax dollars and again, in order for us to get the TIF money, we have to write the check first so if we weren't here to write the check, the money wouldn't be coming ' into us. It's not like the City's taking the money out of their operating funds. And the other thing that the Council might want to keep in mind, and also the HRA, is that it's been the city's policy to use State Aid monies on the residential streets. You've used them on Minnewashta Parkway and a lot of, I forget some of the other ones but you've used State Aid money on your residential streets. To that extent State Aid money has not ' been used downtown. And so in trying to balance out who's paying property taxes in Chanhassen, that was another reason for setting up the TIP district. Was because they felt that the businesses, when I first came out to Chanhassen 7 years ago, you couldn't have built half the stuff you've got here now because you didn't have ' 35 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 enough water pressure. You didn't have sewer. You didn't have all these things and when I came to those fast meetings, if you'll check the record. I'm on record because I made a point of this at every meeting. I was facing a million dollars in assessments on my property and after 7 years, God knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assessments and taxes I've paid on that property out there but at every meeting when they were going to put in storm sewer, or sanitary sewer or new streets, I was at that meeting and saying, but for TIF I couldn't live with these assessments but I know that someday you're going to be there when I need you to help me with these assessments and I'm on record for a 7 year period, for as long as you've, any time that you've had anything that put assessments on my project. Or on my land out there. So I think that's another valid use of TIF and if there's people that are feeling that this isn't flowing to the residential parts of town, I think they should go back and look at the original notes and Minutes from when the TIF district and that conscience decision was made to allocate State dollars that otherwise could be used downtown building all these streets. They said no. We're going to put them out on the residential streets and thoroughfares that benefit the neighborhoods and the people. And to counter balance that then we'll create this TIF. That wasn't the only reason for creating TIF but that was one of the arguments for creating this district. Now we've been part of this, and I've been going along with this and I'm paying taxes to this thing and while I've been waiting here for various reasons, for 7 years I've also, my money's gone into that fund so in that sense my money has gone to Market Square. It's gone to Kenny's. It's gone to the motel. And now I'm here tonight so. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Do you have a response? Don Ashworth: I totally agree that Mr. James is on record. Every time we did go through one of those major trunk, whether it be water, sewer, storm sewer. They were major, major assessments and I would say that a good share of the proposed incentive dollars are literally going to ourself. I mean they're flowing to him but then he's using those to pay off the assessments that put in the trunk lines, the trunk sewer, the trunk water, the streets, you know on and on. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Richard. Do you have any questions? Councilman Wing: Phone calls I've had limited but the phone calls I've had have said we really want this Byerly's. We want the restaurant. We want the store and I guess I do too. I think the project's a good one. As I talked to staff about it, I tried to check with Charlie today and there's some minor issues on landscaping that I'm pretty inflexible on but that's sort of...my thinking. I would ask the people from Festival if this retail ' survey is so significant, has it been done. Has anybody done it? There's all these assumptions being made and Byerly's thinks they can make it or run the other people out of business and the other guys think we can't make it if Byerly's come in. And so they're saying, have we done a survey. Well, we're not the businessmen. What have the businessmen done and maybe they have some information to save us some bother but on the other hand, I think we want to be businessmen and we don't want to see our city abandoned and Market Square fall apart. I think that, I was on the Council or I got on just as the Market Square was coming together and there was a lot of trauma in trying to get a store to come in. We were out begging frankly and I don't want to forget the history of this. We were out searching for a store to come in and take a risk with us and nobody wanted to touch it. And now that they're here and they're just starting to get their feet wet and their feet on the ground and the center's barely got the paint scraped off the windows, we're putting in some pretty stiff competition so I ' really support Charlie James. I think he's got some very valid points and I'd like to see a Byerly's here. But I'm also deeply concerned about our, is the cart dragging the horse or are we going to be up in the drivers seat here and who's in charge. I don't intend to be protectionist here and I don't, I'm not an market analyst. My wife and myself kind of felt they offset each other but that's a stupid opinion. I'm certainly not qualified to make that statement for either store. So I guess I wish we had some real information. I guess I'm going to play 1 36 a Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 potatoes a Mark Senn here and say where's the and the meat and where's the information and what do we know here and what are the facts. I'm dying to hear what Mark has to say because he has much more background in this. I'd like to see Byerly's go in. I would support this. I need about 4 more trees and it's a done deal. But I'm real concerned about the comments from Lyle King. I took his comments, sincere although biased, so that's what I'm looking for to make this shorten my process here. I apologize. I'd like to see a non - biased opinion on what we're doing with the businesses downtown. Are we killing one by bringing in another? And if we are, then I guess Charlie James would have to come in without TIF. If it's a real money maker, maybe Byerly's wants to come in without TIF and then let the TIF support go to our original store. But I'm very naive on this. I'm going to wait and hear what the rest of the Council has to say. A little more business version. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I would agree that I'd like to see an unbiased report and it's not the city's ' responsibility to produce that. That market survey but what I'm not more interested in, not insofar can we support a Byerly's store in addition to a Festival but where will your customers be coming from. If you look at the demographics of Chanhassen, I don't know if that's what you did your market survey research based on but I ' see a lot of the, your customers coming from the north. From Minnetonka and Shorewood and Excelsior and that's fine, and it doesn't get to the competition or whether we can support the store. The issue for me is whether our city streets can handle it. Powers is not completely done yet. We've already got a lot of traffic on Kerber. We continually get complaints about traffic on West 78th, even with the installation, or I should say ' because of the installation of the stop lights. So I know that, staffs report says that we can handle that traffic but I'm not convinced of it and that's why I'm not terribly excited about moving on this tomorrow. As far as I'm concerned it can wait unless it can be proven to me that our infrastructure can handle it at this point. As far as competition goes, that's not our purview. That's not what we have to decide. With the exception of we do have some money invested in Festival so I guess I sit with you Richard. I'm looking to the rest of the Council. I would like to see a Byerly's in town too and I do see the market as different although I realize Festival will be probably losing more money than they had anticipated. But I'm not sure that's for us to decide whether that's , right or wrong. That's free market society. I have several issues on the specifications of the project, and I guess I'd like to ask those now. Mr. McCoy. The elevation for the detached building. There was some issue that I read at the Planning Commission that they discussed what that elevation would be. It appears to be drastically ' different than the rest of the. Tim McCoy: Okay. As I had indicated, the site does slope down to the southwest and I know you were at the Planning Commission that the city wanted that raised in elevation, is that correct? Councilwoman Dockendort Other way around. Tim McCoy: Lowered in elevation by 5 feet. I can't tell you off the top of my head what that elevation is. ' John Meyers: Lowering it 5 feet. I Tim .McCoy: We did lower it 5 feet, okay. John Meyers: Yes. They said lower. ' Tim McCoy: Okay, the civil engineer so the engineer lowered the elevation. 37 i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 t Councilwoman Dockendorf. So it's not drastically different then the rest of the building? Tim McCoy: No. Apparently some visibility problems related to the rest of the center. John Meyers: It might be a design issue. Paul Krauss: Yeah, are we talking elevations in height or elevations in facade? John Meyers: I think you're talking about the building. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm talking height. Paul Krauss: The Planning Commission's comments had mostly to do with what the building looked like and that it needed additional detailings so it picked up on more of the design theme of the main building. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, then I misunderstood. I thought they were talking about height of the building. Okay. Screening for Oak Ponds. What I saw from what the drawings, they looked like deciduous trees. Is that going to be sufficient in the winter time for screening? Bob Generous: There are evergreens here too. They're making the spacing to 10 foot on center instead of the 15 so that, which is consistent with what Michael Schroeder has suggested that they do. What he said ...to make sure that those lines with the proposed... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. And just a final comment. On a project of this type I think we discussed it. I think Richard you brought it up with the expansion of the hotel. It would have been nice to have seen a schematic of, like an artistic impression of what the site views would look like as opposed to architectural drawings like that. Just a general comment for future. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Michael. Councilman Mason: I have not had a whole lot of calls on this. The calls that I have had have said, boy it will be great to have a Byerly's in town. I think the site plan looks really nice. I do think it has the potential to be one of the nicest looking things in the city. I'm very concerned hearing from the King's, and they're hearing from Gateway, and I have to ask myself what is and what isn't competition. As many of you know we're embroiled in somewhat of a brouhaha over the organized waste collection situation and we've been told over and over again by the haulers, by the community, competition has got to be there. Now who decides when competition should take place and when it shouldn't. I have, I think Mr. James brings up an interesting point. What was said when Brooks came in. Who cares that Kenny's is gone. Who cares that Chalet Pizza is gone. Now I obviously that's a fairly smaller scale than Festival Foods and I don't mean to put those two in the same league. However, I would be very hard pressed to say we can't allow a Byerly's in town right now because we're afraid of what's going to happen to something else. I think that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for all of us. I have some feelings about market driven economies and I think as a city we do have a right to say, well. Well, maybe this should happen. Maybe it shouldn't. We also legally have some obligations because of the way things are zoned. I know we had a tough time getting a grocery store in here. I also know the volume of business that is coming to Chanhassen because of Festival Foods. Does anyone, Don. Do you know what was the population of Chanhassen in '86? Give or take. Anybody. , 38 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Paul Krauss: It must have been around 8,000. Councilman Mason: Okay, around 8,000. What are we at now? , Mayor Chmiel: 14. Councilman Mason: Close to 15 and what have we projected in the year 2010? 35,000. We're projected 35,000 in the year 2010. In the last, since I've been on Council. Richard, you've been here with me in our somewhat brief but at times very lengthy tenure. How many homes have we approved in the last 3 years? Councilman Wing: 27,000. A lot. ' Councilman Mason: I am not belittling the King's in any way on this because that's a really major concern. ' But I have a real tough time sitting up here and I believe Mr. Beckman made the comment, playing God. I don't know how I can tell Charlie James, who I know has had a tough time on that corner for 7 years, saying ha ha. Sorry Charlie. Got to wait another year or two. Somebody else might be hurting. You're just going to ' have to hurt for another couple of years. I'll get off my soapbox but I wonder what would happening if the tables were turned here and Gateway wanted to come in and Byerly's was already here and Byerly's was saying, geez. You know. If they could just wait another year. Then we'd be okay. That one just sticks with me. I think we need to talk about this some more certainly but it sure looks like a nice project to me. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Mike. Mark. Councilman Senn: Well I guess personally I'd love to see a Byerly's come to Chanhassen. I'd probably ' frequent it. It'd be a good asset to the community and basically what I've seen of the plan shows that architecturally and everything else it's a good plan. The sense that I have overall though is that we're basically moving a little too fast on the proposal because really the Council's only recently been made aware of the plans and tenancy's really not that important but I think the plans are important. This is a real complex project and it's real difficult to separate the different elements of it. They're all entwined and I mean it's real easy to talk specifically about why you should or shouldn't talk about TIF or why you should or shouldn't talk about traffic ' but I think that's just, those are reality checks that we have to go through. You know reading through the staff reports and all the information we've gotten here, I think it raises a lot of questions and out of I guess in effect some respect of staff, it shows that they're hurrying this because I don't think we usually get reports that raise so many questions as this one's raised and stuff. You know the traffic, you know I think it was Colleen referenced, ' you know was really a crucial point here. I mean I read the staff reports very definitively looking at every word as it relates to traffic and I keep hearing very positive accolades as it relates to Highway 5 and as it relates to the upgraded portion of 78th. I see no references in there at all in relationship to Kerber and to Powers, to TH 101, ' to the east portion of 78th which isn't upgraded. And I guess I have some real questions as to hey, Byerly's is a regional tenant. I mean they're not going to be drawing just from the community. I mean there's going to be tens of thousands of people entering Chanhassen, which is a good thing but at the same time they're going to be entering from all those directions. And I'm not sure we have the answers as to whether the infrastructure we do have in place is adequate to handle it or not. I don't right now think we have enough information to say that's a reason to say yea, nay or whatever. I think that's something we need to look at. If that information's there, I guess I'd love to see it but I haven't seen a traffic study with these assumptions in it. You know that tells us ' that the infrastructure meets it. Everything I've seen previously down there never assumed you know regional tenant. Or another regional tenant I should say getting down there. I don't mean to be confusing there but I mean to me in a commercial sense there's kind of like three grades of tenants. You have neighborhood tenants 39 , i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 that draw from the v immediate area of community. Commercial which basically provides for the community arY h' Y Pro itself and you have regional that survives off a very broad area, way beyond the community boundaries and I ' don't think anybody would debate that Byerly's isn't such a regional tenant. And we already have one in place with Target and I think that just makes it even more important to really sit back and look at that question. The TIF issue, TIF's always a wonderful argument and I'm not going to get into it tonight but it's, you know Mike's ' comment on you know, what's fair for this side. Is it fair for the other side? You know if they've got TIF questions... and our policy sets that and stuff but at the same time we also have to live with existing decisions that have been made and the existing decision's been made. The existing decision was made to pump a very ' significant portion or amount of money into Market Square. I think over a million dollars in direct subsidy to the tenants that are there. That's an upfront subsidy. That's not one we took over a 15 or 20 year period. That's a subsidy that's been cranked in in the fast 3 years. We run, if we don't consider it in relationship to our decision, we run the risk of jeopardizing that and you know quite frankly I wouldn't want to be in a position to go back to the taxpayers and say hey, sorry. We lost it. But again, I don't think we have the answers to that. The comments earlier about a market study. I think we really do need a broader market study at this point and I think it needs to be in effect ordered by the city because if we're going to protect our investment, I think we need to look at it. That's not to say it's ultimately going to come down to deciding the decision but again I think we need the information to make the decision. There's other things on the project I think that have been raised. The curb cuts on Kerber. Do we have adequate protections in place to make sure the semi's aren't going to go north on Kerber? I mean I don't know. Those are all planning questions I don't think we've even ' gotten into or at least they're not referenced in the reports at all. Let's face it. Byerly's is here because Byerly's got turned down in it's number one site. I don't think that means we have to react instantaneously to the project. We go back to what I said. I mean this is real complex. It's basically a set of negotiations and you can throw anything you want to into the negotiation. I kind of raised the question earlier on PUD's. I'd really like to see a PUD here for a lot of reasons. Again, still...I mean we created a PUD for a reason and I've never seen a project similar to this go through Chanhassen without a PUD. But I know the applicant doesn't have to do a PUD. I also know the applicant could take the one out building out at this point or attach it to the shopping center and not have to be here on a CUP. But I also know we don't have to give him any subsidy through TIF, you know. And I also know that we can require more and better planning and complete planning and I think that's really the stage we're at. I think ultimately I'd really like to see Byerly's approved. But that's just ' nothing more than a gut, and I mean that's based more on an individual desire than on good knowledge. And I'm not saying let's deny it and I'm saying what we really need is more answers. I'd really like to see the planning phase completed before we complete the negotiation phase and we almost seem to be getting forced into completing the negotiation phase before all the planning questions have been answered. That's what I'd really like to see us revert to at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'd just like to address to the issues that you brought up. One about the ' market study. I know for a fact that Byerly's would have gone through the process of doing a market study for the store. I've talked to them about it and that's not a privy thing back to us. They keep that as a very traded secret from their words. But I don't believe it's up to the city to provide that market study either. Unless we get it back so we can really look at it and it's a personal and confidential kind of thing but I think if we were to review that and regard it as such, it probably wouldn't be a problem as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure as to what position Byerly's would take on it. The second thing is. ' Councilman Senn: Don, in terms of the market study. I don't mean to misinterpreted there. I mean I think the city needs to be, in effect the party that receives the market study. I didn't say that the city should pay for the market study. I can show you countless communities around here that require the developers to pay for the market studies and city commissions... W Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good. I'm glad then you clarified it. ' existing market stud I'm sure o deals with the market from B yerly's Councilman Senn: But Byerly's g y y perspective. I'm sure it doesn't deal with Festival's perspective or a combination of the two or their market study may very well show geez, we can drive Festival out of business in 3 years. Well, that's no concern to , Byerly's but I think it is a concern to us because of decisions we've already made in relationship to investments we've made. Now again, ultimately where that goes, I think we're a long way from knowing that yet. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ' Councilman Wing: Don, just before we get off that subject. ' Mayor Chmiel: Pardon? Councilman Wing: Just before you leave that subject. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Come in. Councilman Wing: It seems that if the policy is to allow TIF dollars, which is the policy. I mean I don't have any problem with that. That HRA ought to know what they're doing. That when we start bringing in major, regional players like Target and whoever else is coming in and now Byerly's, HRA and staff ought to have a real clear mind in what they're doing and what our market is and who we can and can't support. I think that's basic information we ought to know. I don't like want to see Market Square empty over there. You're right. How would you like to be sitting here with that thing a loss and having to account for it because we bring in something else that destroys something we just got done creating. On the other hand, I listen to Mike. I agree with you. It's not up to us to control competition. They've got the right to come in and build their store. Maybe we're missing some information. For myself, and now I'm going to digress. I'll just tack onto that next time. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No, and I know that we have got investment within it and I too wouldn't want to see any empty store fronts. That would entail from some problem that could be there. I'm not saying that they'd probably lease it for x number of years. They're still going to pay on that. Whether it be Festival or Gateway. Those dollars are still going to be there to pay for the lease portion but it's still an empty store front as , something to look at. And the other thing I was going to address regarding the associated traffic impacts of what Strgar- Roscoe had put out. Under the item 1, they indicated that the proposed retail development consisting of about 98,000 square feet of space is consistent with the land use assumed for this area in our most ' recent traffic forecast. So from what they had said, there is sufficient traffic that can be supported by West 78th Street. They're ' Councilman Senn: West 78th, I agree with you. saying that. Mayor Chmiel: Right, but in addition we still have some of the concerns I have too is whether or not, and I don't see the semi's going back up Kerber as you mentioned. , Councilman Senn: I don't know that. I mean I don't see any controls in place. 41 1 i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Their accessibility is coming right back onto 78th and going back out to TH 5 for a faster accessibility. I don't know if there's any kind of restriction that we can even put on that because that's a 1 County State Aid Road if I remember. You can't eliminate them from using it per se. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And if I could interrupt. Unless we have a market study that shows where the customers will be coming from, how can Strgar say that there is adequate infrastructure to deal with it? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's part of that as well, you're right. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean the 98,000 square feet in their assumption could be community commercial. Community commercial would be totally different traffic patterns than regional commercial would be. And just that information isn't there. Councilman Wing: This article in our packet, from the Missoula having to do with the Wal -Mart store that was denied to be built for two reasons. Number one, increased air pollution based on 10,000 trips per day to the store, 24 hours. Traffic increase of 12% and pollution levels exceeding federal standards. These are the questions I ask. Every time one of these come in I say, well what are we going to do with the traffic and where are they getting the water. Maybe they're moot. I don't live down here so I'll yield to you guys on these traffic issues. They certainly need to be addressed. What are we doing with all these businesses and how are we going to get to and from? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One of the other things too is the restaurant and I don't know what they're going to use for odors and how that's going to be taken care of only because of the fact that we've had problems existing with one of the restaurants in town where it's just a constant pain in the residents' side because of the odors and it's just not being taken care of or being addressed as it should. I guess I can't add any more than what we've already said here other than those few things that I did mention. Is there any question that Council still has that they'd like to ask the applicant? Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I'm not sure where we're going here. Whether we're going to table this. If we do, ' I'm not sure why and what questions, and if we do a study, who's going to do it and who's going to pay for it and what questions do we want answered But when this comes back, I talked to staff today about this and I want to really clarify this. Target, everything was supposed to meet Target standards and we wrote a new landscape ordinance based on that and Paul, do you know what the acreage, or maybe Bob. Bob, do you know what the acreage, parking acreage was at Target? Do you know Paul, just off hand? Even roughly. Paul Krauss: No, it was a 10 acre site. It would have been 6 acres of parking. Councilman Wing: How much parking have we got here? How many acres, any idea? Paul Krauss: On Byerly's? Councilman Wing: Just the parking lot. Bob Generous: 207,000 square feet. Councilman Wing: Divided by 3.1517. I mean that wouldn't help me. Don't worry about it. It's not ' important. 42 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 43 Ll If it's n passed tonight and comes back. Well I wouldn't vote for it tonight Okay, whatever happens here. t s of pas g ht 8 the way it is because Target was a knee jerk reaction and we talked about heat islands and we talked about parking lot design. We talked about winterization, etc, etc. And Paul, if you don't fall off your chair, you know we can be friends. But I looked at this and Target's got big open parking lots and at the very end Peter Olin said, nice job guys. I said, what have we done and I took out all the flowering dwarf prune trees fran► Africa and had them put in overstory shade trees. We added, at the very last second, 50 trees to the parking lot at Target. 50 trees and I don't see a lot of trees over there, and a bunch of dispersed islands that should have ' never been there in the first place. So knee jerk reaction. 50 trees. Islands that don't make sense. Here we've got a great big giant parking lot and I count 9 shade trees in the parking lot. Target was our standard. 50 over there. Here there's 3. All the border trees are flowering crab and dwarf this and dwarf that so my first comment is, anything on the south side that says I'm dwarf, should be an overstory shade tree. Then in the parking lot I would add a minimum of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 more islands with at least the 3 trees if the parking will take it, so that we get some break up of this parking lot and some heat relief and that we don't design any ' of these poor people up the hill, we're worried about the odor but yet we're going to put in a heat seeking missile here that's going to radiate heat all summer and Peter Olin has addressed this issue at length. I don't think, this parking lot is not designed to Target's standards. I don't think it even meets our ordinance. If you want to look at the intent of having shade trees in the parking lot proper, so I'm real dissatisfied with that and I would really hold the line on that. Very minor changes. Insignificant changes but not a lot of cost changes here but I think aesthetically it's going to work. And if there's an argument it's going to block the view, I don't agree with that. We're clustering. There's a lot of room here. The signs are still going to be visible but 20 years from now I want to go by this and be able to have some semblance of shading on that parking lot. Don, not just a 1950's open heat island. I think that's my. Senn: And lights. Councilman red Councilman Wing: Oh, and also we don't want light standards going up 15 stories that are painted red like Target either. I think Wal -Mart has very low, very attractive light standards in their parking lot. I don't know why we're going higher than that so. Mike, I think your quote was band wagon or whatever, I'll get off mine. Councilman Mason: Soapbox. , Councilman Wing: Soapbox, okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, we have several comments that have been done. One indicating a tabling. , Is there anything else that. Councilman Senn: Let me try an idea on you. It goes, I mean really kind of the next step. What if we went ahead and tabled it but set a work session that deals specifically with this and brought to that work session our traffic consultant so we could better understand the assumptions that they've included in their study. I mean it may very well be that the existing study answers the questions. I haven't seen enough information to tell me that, and I don't think it's in writing, at least from what I've seen. That doesn't mean that all their work papers don't have the information so I think it might be useful to ask the questions of the consultant and see what they can give us for feedback and if not, it would be pretty easy to at least outline some sort of a work plan to achieve the information. Secondly, Don didn't you tell me that we already did a market study as it relates to Festival? Don Ashworth: In 1983. ' 43 Ll Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay. But I mean couldn't a logical extension of that at this point be to bring in that consultant that we already had do the market study and again get into a discussion with them in that work session of again the assumptions that went into that market study and you know potentially what types of things could affect those assumptions that weren't considered and more specifically what would the next step be to really looking at something more from a market study standpoint. You know again neither are commitments to proceed but I mean at least I think we start getting to a point where we understand it better and can get to that decision point. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I asked that question of Don regarding that market study, which was as we said done in '83. My question was, how much would it probably cost us to complete this. If I remember correctly you said probably about $10,000.00. ' Don Ashworth: The original one was $25,000.00 and I don't think you'd have to go to that extent. Potentially simply seeing if we could bring the individual in. If you'd like to ask questions. I don't know if they'd be able to respond. I mean the data's 10 years old. I mean he may not even be alive. �I L F L_ Councilman Senn: Well I think we could pose questions at the assumptions they used and then determine a work course from there as to what we'd need to plug the holes I think in the assumptions between the old data and the new. I mean if nothing else it would help us develop a work program to go out and ask them or other consultants to at least give us a plan. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. That may be good. I've suggested a special meeting date that we're going to talk about later in the agenda. I think December, I can't remember. Councilman Mason: ...and why did I know this was going to come up. Don Ashworth: Anyway, what I would do is I would invite in the County Engineer to talk about the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study because that deals with a lot of the issues as it deals with County 17 and Kerber Boulevard and a lot of those. And it doesn't look like we're going to get to this master joint powers agreement with Chaska - Carver County. That would be excellent if he were present to kind of talk about how that thing fit in as well. I mean if you did that work session, or I mean that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I put a note on mine to do this in January for a work session. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm with the Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Charlie. Charlie James: I'm deeply concerned about the tune of this meeting this evening Mr. Mayor. First of all, there's all this talk about a market study and I really think that, I don't know what the right word is. Is it moot or extraneous. I mean that's not what we're talking about here tonight. We're talking about a permitted use on a zoned piece of land. Byerly's has done two market studies. We didn't want to get into this tonight. We've got maps and exhibits that show where all trade's coming from. This sort of thing. We thought that the appropriate venue to discuss that was at the HRA meeting. Staff did send our plans to Carver County. I'm sorry. Bob Generous: Strgar- Roscoe. -L-n UK Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Charlie James: And also to Carver County. Carver County has jurisdiction over CR 17 and whatever other ' streets around here. They didn't have any comments. I've been waiting for 7 years out there for West 78th Street to get built. Now I get all the way up to the trough here and you're telling me now we've got to expand ' the universe. We've got to wait until the interstate freeway's complete out to the borders of Minnesota or something. I mean where do you draw the line? You know issues like truck traffic on Kerber, that's a simple matter. Byerly's would be perfectly willing to agree. No trucks will drive up Kerber if that's a concern. But I ' don't think it's fair to hold me to a higher standard. Now Councilman Senn said that in many communities they'd have market studies. Correct me if I'm wrong Councilman but in every community that I've worked in where there's been a market study requirement, it's been in the process for zoning. You have to, if they're going to change the use or zoning of the land, it's at that point that they want a market study. As a matter of fact, when the Ward property was considering rezoning, they were going to hire Hoisington and have them come in here and try to show that there was a need for more retail land. That was at the time that Target was going on. As far as Mr. Wing's comments about the landscaping. Staff consulted with, and I can't think of the man's ' name but he works with Mr. Hoisington. He was at the 2002 thing and Mr. Hoisington, who's done a lot of work for the city, stood up at that meeting and said, I think we have the best architect in the whole world, landscape architect. That man was brought in to review this plan and we agreed to every one of his recommendations, even the ones that were redundant. We've already got boulevard trees thanks to the ' assessments from West 78th and Kerber. Now we're going to go in and duplicate those essentially. Mr. Wing I take issue with your comments that we don't meet the code. We do meet the code. Councilman Wing: I didn't make that statement. , Charlie James: You said you weren't sure if we met the ordinance. , Councilman Wing: The ordinance at the Target standards that we're trying to uphold, I don't see in this parking lot. I've got the vote. I've got the responsibility and I have the right to discuss this, question it and ask for an improvement if that's the case. I don't have to vote for. Tell you what. I'll agree with you but I'm going to vote against the CUP because I don't approve this so I'm not asking you to change this Charlie. I just think it's worth looking at, that's all. I've got a couple comments. Charlie James: First of all, we have Strgar. I mean to show you where we've been coming from on this. Or ' not Strgar. This Schroeder fellow. We had him look at this whole thing. Then for instance, these trees here. The staff came back and said, even before these were added. We have over 8 1/2% of our parking lot ' landscaped. Councilman Wing: I hear you Charlie. I hear you. Charlie James: And then staff came back and said, put some more islands in and change these to overstory trees. That sort of thing. So I did that. We've been responsive to everything that's been asked of us. Councilman Wing: What's it got to me. This is the first time I've seen it. What's it got to do with me? I , understand what staff's done. What's it got to do with my comments? Charlie James: Well what your comments were is that you were, seemed to be suggesting that there were some inadequacies in the landscaping. Councilman Wing: And I feel that way. I 45 1 i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Of course he's entitled to that opinion. Councilman Wing: I'll be happy to discuss it with staff and the architect and yourself and see if we can't make just a couple subtle changes. I'm not saying. ' Charlie James: Well I'm happy to work with you but I guess what my concern is, and I think if anything that this process has shown here, is that I have been happy to work with the city and if my record out here shows anything, it shows that. ' Councilman Wing: And I told you I supported it. I'd like to see it go through and I'm hung up on a couple other minor issues with Council. I think it's a great project. I think you've done a great job. I'm talking 5 ' more trees, I mean it's a minor point. I don't think we have to get hung up on that. It won't change the project one way or the other. I don't think that's the issue tonight. Charlie James: Well I guess what I sensed was the issue here was tabling of the project and I don't know if this is an apt analogy but there's been a lot more going on here than readily apparent at the surface. It's kind of like a duck going across the pond and he's kind of gliding effortlessly but his feet are going like crazy underneath and that's the way I feel. Now I feel that I'm basically going to be ground swatted here. We tried to addressed things. I mean there's sublties in here that I don't think were even gone into. We tried to address, the architect was given the 2002 things. The Highway 5 thing. This element here of these recessed panels in the brick came directly out of the comments about Target and not having the big blank expanses of wall. That's not a cheap ' detail. I mean we have really stretched and tried and it's just, I guess in a way I'm kind of flabbergasted that, I guess that's it. i� 1 Councilman Mason: I sure hope this doesn't get tabled tonight, and I don't know that what, well let's see what happens here. I think the Eastern Carver County traffic study was done some time ago. I've seen that. SRF, as we've just been told, has taken a look at this. Carver County didn't have a comment. SRF didn't have a comment. Why, if we bring in SRF or Carver County again are they going to have any comments that say we should or shouldn't do it? I have kind of the sinking feeling here that this Council is getting known for, well let's table it until we can get all the facts. Well, then we'll table it again until we can get all the facts. I heard earlier that this plan perhaps wasn't very well thought out. I see more detail in this plan than I have, I think this may be one of the best plans I've seen come before me in my 3 years here. And I've heard the complaint, this happened too fast. It happened quickly but I also think one of the reasons we got it the way we got it and in the time we got it is because of the behind the scenes time that staff has put into this along with the applicant. If our only concern here is, I want to know specifically why people think this should be tabled tonight and what we hope to accomplish by tabling it. I will bet you dollars to dollars right now if it's traffic, we're going to get Eastern County in here and we're going to get SRF in here and they're going to say, well look at the studies that have already been done. It can be handled. And I don't know quite honestly, I mean Richard is saying there's just some minor issues here that he wants cleared up. That's not worth tabling over. That can be done in 5 minutes or in half a day with staff. So I'm not going to make a motion yet because I think we need a little more discussion but what exactly do we hope to accomplish by tabling this? And I don't want this, I want to know exactly what we hope to accomplish by tabling this tonight. I mean it looks like a good plan to me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: I think that's a fair question. Okay? If you look at page 7. There's some basically issues .e 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 raised as we go onto page 7 there: And it says basically that number 6 says, will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services. Will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding. The development of the site as a commercial use has been anticipated and planned by the ' city in designing construction of public improvements. During remodeling of West 78th Street traffic, it was estimated, West Village Heights. Okay, it would be 125,000 square feet of commercial uses. The development is well below this estimate. Okay. It doesn't say to me Mike whether that was regional commercial or , community commercial. I'm sorry but to me that's a big issue because it determines where your traffic comes from and how it comes to you. Okay. And you go further into the staff, it references here down on number 8 and stuff. And all it says, I disagree. It appears the consultant has given us comments back but his only ' comments back are that Highway 5 and West 78th, where it's been upgraded, are adequate to take care of this project. I haven't seen one single statement out of the consultant saying that any of the other streets, Kerber, Powers, TH 101, any of the other streets, or the east portion of 78th, are adequate to cover it. It's kind of like, how do you ask the question depends on how you get the answer. Okay. I think those are legitimate questions ' and I think they can maybe be resolved real easy in a work session. Maybe they can't but then we have to ask for them. I think that at least brings back the information to help us resolve that question. And when you talk about the economic welfare of the community, I think we have to look at the investment we've made and I think ' we have to consider what's happening overall in the community. You know, that may not have anything to do with what we decide on this CUP but it may have something to do with what we do on TIF for example. Councilman Wing: Traffic was an issue in Shorewood and the next question says, is this going to be detrimental ' to the general welfare as ... production of traffic noise, smoke, fumes. Well 10,000 cars a day kept Wal -Mart out of Missoula. Now I don't see that as an excuse to table this tonight but that just to me. Councilman Senn: I don't understand the urgency quite frankly because I guess I'd love to get into a ' comparison with Mr. James and I'd like Mr. James to tell me what other projects of 100,000 square feet have been approved the first time by a City Council in the metro area, the first time the Council saw them and I'll give you a much longer list that haven't been and stuff. In fact I'd really defy you to find one or two that have. I don't think there's any delay tactic here going on. I think we're doing our jobs and we're trying to get adequate information to make a good public policy decision. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, those findings that are being mentioned on pages 7 and 8 are to be used solely for the conditional use permit. The conditional use permit solely has to do with should there be another building footprint on the site. Not what it is but should there be another building sitting on the site. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Which is exactly the issue. , Paul Krauss: ...the fact that there's another building there really has no bearing on those findings. Councilman Senn: Well, then the information's even more lacking because there's nowhere in your staff report that any of that's clarified. Paul Krauss: We clarified it to the extent we could right there. I mean all we are talking about, all that...is the second building. Not even what's in the second building. Just the fact that there is a second building. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess what I'm saying is as one of the Council people I'd like to see the traffic I 47 1 I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 information and I'd like to see the traffic information on Kerber and TH 101. On the east part of 78th. On Powers. Again, I haven't seen anybody here talking that that's in place. That the systems are there and can maybe handle it. Paul, it's the same argument... Paul Krauss: Well...because this Council sat through 5 or 6 meetings with SRF over the past 2 years where each one of these questions was examined in detail. Mark is raising a valid point. I mean that has to do with trip ' distribution and SRF made some assumptions but their assumptions were based on Target. They came in concurrently with the Target and you know when you're talking about a regional user, they were basing some of their assumptions, tallying the final design of 78th Street with what Target was going to demand. I couldn't tell ' you with certainty that the trip distribution would account for a Byerly's... We did make some assumptions based on having a non -local commercial on 78th Street. ' Councilman Senn: On 78th Street. You just said it again. How about on all the others? Paul Krauss: All the others have turning movements. There's a long term plan for the completion of 78th Street improvements. They gave the Council some options as I recall as to how much of the project do you want to ' bite off now. They gave some scheduling or an assumption on when you needed to do those improvements. That was all laid out. Councilman Senn: That was before there was two, I mean that was before Target. That was before. Councilman Mason: No, it was concurrent. Councilman Senn: I know but it was before Target was in place and now, I mean it did not assume a Byerly's or a Wal -Mart or whatever across the street. Charlie James: Yes it did. Councilman Senn if I could clarify. I met personally with Denny Eyler. I mean Denny. ' Councilman Mason: Yeah, he's Denny Eyler. Charlie James: Denny Eyler and Jim Dvorak and the city had some meeting at the fine hall at one time when Target was going in and they were looking, well what are the best sites for everybody to go on in town here. Unfortunately I was out of town on business during that meeting but afterwards I was at Strgar - Roscoe's offices over in Plymouth and they asked me this. They said what are you going to do with your plan? What do you anticipate doing with that? And at that time I had three I think of the four calls I've had from Wal -Mart on this ' property and from day one, from the first time I ever walked into City Hall here we've planned to have a shopping center out there. So Strgar had that information based on what I told them was my anticipated uses were so. And again, as far as the conditional use permit, I think one of the things. I'm taking a risk in saying ' this but I think part of the problem is tonight, maybe too is that maybe you're used to having more issues to deal with and maybe I'm getting a back handed compliment tonight. I'd like to think so. And that is that we've tried to anticipate everything. That conditional use permit came as a surprise. We have worked so closely with staff and identified every issue and said how can I improve this project? What can we do? What are the concerns? ' Talk to everybody. How can we make this better? How can we make this better? Better materials. Better whatever and so what we have before you tonight is a project that you're just, I mean we're talking about traffic out here on county highways and state highways because we can't find anything to sink our teeth into here. I mean so, I don't know. You know, I don't know whether that's good or bad. Maybe we should add some red 1 48 Chanhassen Ci ty Council - December 13, 1993 49 I NM 1 herring so you could have gotten ... and said, oh my god. We cant do that Charlie. And I'd go, oh okay. I guess I won't. But I mean the point is, we've tried to work diligently on this thing and have a great project right out of the shoot and we wouldn't even have that conditional use permit if I would have known about it ' because the intent was to come in here and to meet or exceed everything in the ordinance. And when we started this project you were at 5% on the parking lot and we worked with staff and they said, well Charlie we know that the law says technically 5% but we want the Target standard. We exceeded the Target standard Dick. ' Councilman Wing: Can I address that when you're done? I don't want to break your thought. Before you sit down I want to talk to it. ' Charlie James: Well go ahead. Councilman Wing: The Target standard is a nebulous figure if you will and as I suggested, there were mistakes. ' It's been, well fast of all give us a break a little bit. This is a major project and this is in the 90's. It isn't the 50's where we just say, put in a shopping center and pave the baby over and let's open the doors and go. Charlie James: And conversely Dick, this isn't my first project. I've done almost 100 projects. , Councilman Wing: But I'm learning more and more. Charlie James: I'm learning and trying to get better too, okay. Councilman Wing: I've taken a real interest in landscaping and in particular parking lots. And every year the University of Minnesota has a seminar specifically on winter parking lots in Minnesota and what they do and ' what they don't do. And their impact on the environment, etc, etc, etc. You've come in here and you've exceeded the limits of maybe the ordinance but as I saw the Target standards, and what I want to accomplish here is to put in over story shade trees. That's all and there's a million little flowering crab trees here and that's wonderful and that exceeds the greenery but I think we decided today that if we want to interpret the ordinance the way it was intended, those don't count in the tree count and the percentage. Those are little flowering something or anothers. We're looking for trees Charlie so if the project is so critical to you, that my suggestion ' that these things have to be left shrubs. We can't put in the shade trees and that this parking lot, and remember now we've got this enormous heat island and if Peter Olin and his staff were here, they could talk very intellectually on what this means to the city. I'm only suggesting that with almost no thought, without any change to your project, I'd talk out 5% but then change 5% someplace else. Cut some trees out front but move them into the parking lot. I'm just saying in the parking lot there needs to be some shading to that asphalt for the summer. Not 50 %. 80 %. I just think some improvement there and if you're worried about the 8 %, well then you take 4% from here and move it into the parking lot. I'm just saying I know enough and it's my ' interest and I'm concerned enough about this that I don't think the architect's done the job that I think he should do as a Councilmember. I don't care what staff did. I don't care what the consultant said and I don't care if he's the best in the world. I think he missed the point and if Peter Olin was here, he'd stand up and justify my ' position. So I'm not challenging your project nor am I looking at changing it dramatically. Just minor fine tuning and if that means tabling it for a week to get that back on the table, I think that's to the city's best interest. Charlie James: Well Dick, now we had the fellow from Hoisington review this and there's a design plate in the packet I believe that shows how they'd want the thing with lava rock and the pipes and we've agreed to all that and we agreed to the overstory trees there. And we've got overstory trees defining the entrances and overstory, ' 49 I NM 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 these are all overstory trees. Here, these are all maple trees coming in here. Councilman Wing: What's out front? Charlie James: These are a mixture of maple. Councilman Wing: Can you just talk about the parking lot? Just the parking lot. I understand. Charlie I'm telling you, it's a beautiful job. I have on complaints. Just tell me about the parking lot. Is there any shading in the parking lot itself? Is there anything to block the heat and to cut down on the heat island effect to the city of Chanhassen like we forced on Target? 50 shade trees went into the central parking lot of Target. Not perimeter. Not flowering crab trees. Every single flowering crab tree in the parking lot was changed to an ash. 50 ash went in in place of. Charlie James: Dick, we have over 50 trees per acre. Councilman Wing: Talk about just the parking lot. Charlie James: Alright but. Alright. Councilman Wing: There's 9 trees in the parking lot. Charlie James: Well, we've got overstory maples here. Along this edge and we've got overstory maples defining all the edges. We've got overstory trees in the middle here. So we've got a row here, row here, row here, row here, row here, row here, row here, rows here, row here. Some over here. Councilman Wing: Charlie, just the parking lot. Just the blacktop surface of the parking lot. You've got it outlined beautifully. As the sun comes down and the temperature goes to 120 degrees and the people up in the hill have to turn up their air conditioning, the heat in the city can go up 10 degrees in the summer in a city that doesn't start to treat it's parking lots as heat islands and environmental threats. That's where I'm driving this from. That's why I'm trying to force the issue that we have to start shading the parking lots. You don't just pave them over for your convenience and then put parking spaces in. They have to be designed environmentally. I'm just, it's beautifully architectural but you're missing my point on the shading in here and frankly, cut me off if this is. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll cut you off because you are off on a red herring both of you. I think it's a simple issue that both of you will be satisfied with the answer. Just change around a couple trees. I don't think it's a huge financial aspect. If I could put my two cents in about what the two big issues are. Is the market study. Whether we do that or not and the traffic study and I guess if you're telling me that, I mean Mr. James and Paul, if you're telling me that Strgar took what W. James was going to be putting up. Not necessarily a Byerly's but a large commercial center and Target into consideration when it did it's traffic studies and that they were adequate, then I'll be satisfied with that issue. When we talk about the market survey or study, I'm not certain where I sit on that issue. I don't see it as the city's responsibility and yet I do have a concern. I mean I'm really up in the air about it because I don't see our responsibility as being deciding what types of businesses can compete in the city. So I guess I'm with you Mike in terms of I'd like to dispose of this issue tonight. Not because I just want to get rid of it but because I don't think that we can discover a lot more information if we go to a work session or if it gets tabled. Would you like to address the first issue on the parking? Or excuse me, on the traffic. 50 E Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: I'd like to hear Paul address it. He still hasn't told us that that's been done. Paul Krauss: My recollection of it was, we asked Strgar to give us the worst case analysis. Strgar fast came through and as I recall presented some office commercial up there and was told no, that's not good enough. We had Fred Hoisington working with them to define land uses downtown and Charlie did meet with them several times and they gave us the worst shot. We called Strgar up when this came in and we said, alright. It's not hypothetical anymore. This is what it is. Does this meet the guidelines that you assumed. Your assumptions with your plan and we got a letter back from them that said yes. In fact it's less intense than we had assumed. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. Councilman Senn: And on all streets? Paul Krauss: Mark, I'm relating to you exactly what was ... We didn't ask specifically is this going to increase the ratio of trips on TH 101. They made some assumptions boldly about who's going to be drawn to downtown. They did make some assumptions that the trip ratio-1 think some of you remember the discussion better than I but they said here's what the, here's the direction of travel in 1992. Here's what we think it's going to be as the downtown develops. There was some assumptions built into that. Whether they were sufficient or not or whether they're identical to a Byerly's, I don't know. But in gross square footage, they said we're fine. They said this is less than they had projected. Councilman Senn: Apparently square footage. Paul Krauss: And use. I mean we told them what the uses would be. Councilman Mason: I remember that, as a matter of fact. I was there for all of those rather laborious meetings so I concur with, I mean I remember. Well we got SRF in because we weren't pleased with the work that had been done prior and SRF has seemed to have done a fairly adequate job so far. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we're going at a stalemate here and I. Councilman Wing: Can I ask one... Mayor Chmiel: One more question and then we're going to. Councilman Wing: Paul, in the landscape plan as is, in the parking lot. There's a total of, if each line, parking line. There's the fast line has the tree island, then it skips and then it, if each one of those had a tree island, then there would be a middle band of trees going across that lot. Is that a reasonable request? Does that cut out the parking lot? Does that destroy anything or does that accomplish a little more what we're after? We'd have to add. Paul Krauss: This is where I move it to Bob. Bob's been working on that. Councilman Wing: It'd bring 12 more trees into the parking lot. Bob Generous: That could be worked out I think. I'm sure. I brought that forward to Michael Schroeder at the time and said wouldn't it be better if we provided a larger island instead of having these smaller ones and he 51 I � 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 concurred with having the larger ones. And so that's how come we went with that direction. Our initial review was this. Let's make and put an island in each row. Councilman Wing: Well I would request that if we go any further and also, all the southern trees that say RC and SC, those should be overstory shade trees also. Then I would have no further comments on this. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Dan I'll, could you come up here and I'll give you a minute. Getting ready to. Dan Beckman: Thank you for letting me speak again. At the Planning Commission meeting I brought up some concerns. Some of the similar concerns I brought up this evening about the safety of our children in the parks. At that time Diane Harberts said that they were going to recommend, she made a motion to recommend this as approval to City Council with some exceptions. One of them was to figure out how this would impact our park systems and I was hoping that after we closed the public hearing that we would hear some conversation on that and I have not heard that. I haven't heard anything. I guess that's the main reason I don't want to see this proceed tonight, unless somebody's got some answers for me. I would be appalled to think that we're going to throw the safety of our children and parks out the window because of the hour. I don't think that's right. Councilman Mason: I guess I've got to call you on that one Dan. I've got two kids of my own that play at that park, and to think that we're going to make a decision tonight is totally disregarding the safety of anyone I think is a disservice. Now I understand your concerns. Well, I hope I do. Dan Beckman: I'm talking about Kerber. Councilman Mason: I drive down Kerber every day. I live in the same neck of the woods you do. So regardless of what happens, I mean something. You know something is going to go there. Chanhassen is getting busier and busier and whereas I'm concerned of the safety of our children, it is also parents responsibility to make sure that those children stay safe too. So I hear what you're saying but don't say because of the lateness of the hour we're throwing the safety of children out the window because that's not. Dan Beckman: It wasn't brought up. It wasn't discussed. Mayor Chmiel: Paul. Paul Krauss: After the Planning Commission raised this, Bob sat down with the Public Safety Director and there is a letter in your packet from Scott Harr. If you want to summarize that. Bob Generous: We requested them to look at that very point and he said, while there would be increases in traffic, the traffic will be going north on Powers, Kerber will find themselves going through a school speed zone which is posted at 20 mph when children are present, which we aggressively enforce. So the whole tone of his response was they didn't foresee that being a problem. Dan Beckman: I heard the figure of 10,000 trips per day. Councilwoman Dockendorf. They aren't going down Kerber. Councilman Senn: I haven't seen any traffic numbers. 52 `1 L ] Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 John Meyers: ...20,000 to 25,000. Dan Beckman: 25,000 in a week, for 7 days. Almost 4 a day at least on heavier days. , John Meyers: Of which probably 60 %, 40% to 60% is already existing traffic on the roadways. You have to remember you get a lot of customers that stop on the way home from work that are heading out to Chaska or ' Jonathan and a lot of people coming through Chanhassen... Dan Beckman: I believe that peak times though are exactly in correspondence with... (There were several conversations going on at one time at this point.) , Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I would, the time is fast fleeting and I'm going to ask for a motion. ' Councilman Wing: On which one here? I've got, on the site plan review. Are they synonymous or separate? Mayor Chmiel: Synonymous as far as I'm concerned. ' Roger Knutson: You should vote on them together. Councilman Wing: I'm not going to apologize for our vacillating or our hesitation here. I think it's our job. I think it's our responsibility and if they think we're, if we're assumed we kind of screwed up, that's a compliment because we're going slow and democracy goes slow. I'm going to move approval of this site plan, ' conditional use permit for the Byerly's supermarket with one change to the conditions, and I don't know what number that would put in. Councilwoman Dockendorf: 13. ' Councilman Wing: Number 13? That each, additional tree islands be added to the lines that do not have them currently. That all the southern facing shrubs, or anything labeled RC, SC be changed to overstory and that also gives Bob authority to talk to the Tree Board to make adjustments out on the boulevard to cluster or reduce those numbers of trees to improve sight lines as you see fit. The net effect would be an increase in the parking lot. Possible decrease on the boulevard portion where you have the heavy clustering. And I think you had some good suggestions and I'll leave that adjustment up to you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be item 27. Councilman Wing: Okay, at this hour I don't care. Tell me where it goes. You've got the plan here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 1(c). Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but I would like one more. Is keeping the semi's off of Kerber Boulevard. Councilman Mason: From going north on Kerber Boulevard. 53 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. Councilman Wing: I'll accept that as a friendly motion. Councilman Mason: I will second that also then. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan #93 -7 dated December 7, 1993, and the Conditional Use Permit #93 -1 to permit the grouping of buildings on one building lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a revised landscape plan for City approval. The plan shall include the following: a. The applicant shall provide interior landscape islands in the parking lot areas. In particular, landscape islands measuring approximately 4415 feet by 44 38 feet (two parking stalls wide by two deep) shall be provided for every other aisle of face- to-face parking (minimum of three interior planting islands). These islands shall contain a minimum of three overstory trees and they shall be alternated with the tree groupings to be provided at the perimeter of the site. An aeration/irrigation system consisting of perforated PVC pipe or other flexible tubing in a looped system with at least two risers extending above the planting surface shall be designed and installed as part of these planting islands (see attached Figure 11 -3). b. The Hackberry trees proposed for the northern perimeter of the site shall be replaced with oak trees (either White Oak, scientific name Quercus albs, or Bur Oak, scientific name Quercus macrocarpa) in order to continue the tree planting theme begun in the Oak Ponds townhouse development located north of this development. In order to more effectively screen the development from residences to the north, the trees should be placed closer to the top of the slope, as opposed to near the bottom of the slope where they have virtually no effect on screening. Spacing of conifers should be ten (10) feet to allow them to grow together in a more solid mass at a younger age. As at other areas of the site, these trees should be placed strategically in groupings to increase their effectiveness as a buffer and to lend a more natural feel to the planting. The use of more beg smaller planting materials may be wan -anted to achieve better long -term screening for the development. c. Perimeter and parking lot boulevard medians shall be provided with low level shrubs and other plant materials to help soften the appearance of the parking area. Evergreen shrubs are great for winter and also add to summer landscape, but use of more flowering shrubs in combination with the evergreen shrubs would be appropriate. The plan should consider the use of more shrubs and perennials (such as daylilies) in important areas of the site. These plants could be used as accents at site entries or pedestrian areas. d. Alternate ground cover such as sumac shall be used along the steep grade to the north. The steepness of the grade precludes the mowing of this sodded area. e. Ornamental trees should be interspersed within the landscaping boxes located in front of the building to provide architectural highlighting and to enhance the facade of the structure. Adding ornamental trees (crabapple, hawthorns or japanese tree lilacs) in planting areas near the building would add interest and color to the expanse of wall, especially at the front of the building. Care should be exercised in 54 ::n Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 r selectin g plants that do not set fruit (which can be very messy in the case of some crabapples) for areas ' close to pedestrian ways. Areas near the building would benefit from the introduction of more colorful planting materials in the form of flowering shrubs and perennials. , C A landscape box with shrubs shall be provided to the north of the trash enclosure located adjacent to the detached commercial building to screen this enclosure from view. , g. All landscaping areas shall have the proper soil preparation to ensure the viability of the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper soil preparation. h. Consideration should be given to placing plant materials together to create a bolder, more interesting landscape, without excessive alternation. Plantings shall be massed, creating a more diverse and dynamic landscape. Within massings, similar species should be used to ensure the greatest effect from ' the individual specimens. Consideration shall be given to maintaining views to the building when placing tree groupings in the perimeter areas. i. The plan does not recognize the street tree plantings at West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard where the City has installed, or has planned, for trees at 50 feet on center (West 78th Street) and 35 feet on center (Kerber Boulevard). The City's plans for West 78th Street show a permanent landscape easement (eight foot typical) at several locations along West 78th Street. The landscape plan for the project ' should start with the pattern of street tree plantings at the streets, allowing these trees to provide continuity between this site and other developments. Trees for this project can then be placed in groupings within the setbacks or berm areas of the site. ' j. The more formal placement of trees along the entry drives works to continue the feeling established by the City's tree plantings at the street. Tighter spacing of trees along the entry drives is desirable. Shrubs along the entry drives would reinforce views of the building and obscure bumpers and hoods of , cars. k. Entries could be marked at the streets with more colorful plantings, creating a break in the rhythm of , street tree plantings and providing emphasis for site entry points. 1. Care should be exercised in spacing shrubs to ensure that complete cover of the planting bed is achieved at maturity. ' m. At the perimeter of the parking areas, the large expanses of sod from the back of the curb to the property line should be planted with trees and shrubs in significant groupings. This should also occur ' between the westerly entry drive and the east side of the detached commercial building and at the area west of the retail building. Conifers in these areas would be useful for the winter landscape. n. Financial guarantees shall be provided to insure installation and maintenance of landscaping. ' o. All planting areas must have an irrigation system installed. I p. Benches and picnic tables shall be provided in the landscaped area west of the retail center. q. Additional tree islands be added to the lines that do not have them currently in the parking lot. 55 ' I I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 All the southern facing shrubs, or anything labeled RC, SC be changed to overstory and that also gives Bob authority to talk to the Tree Board to make adjustments out oa the boulevard to cluster ' or reduce those numbers of trees to improve sight lines. 2. The screen wall located at the eastern rear of the building shall be extended to the beginning of the radius of the curb. 3. A sidewalk shall be provided from West 78th Street to the retail center along the western entry drive, east of the commercial/office building, into the development. ' 4. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of ' approval. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for applying and obtaining the necessary permits for the City's Building department for the installation of the site improvements. ' 6. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for berming and landscaping over the City's drainage and utility easement along the west side of Kerber Boulevard. The applicant will also be ' responsible for adjusting the existing sanitary manholes to the new grades. 7. The applicant shall remove the fourteen parking stalls in front of the retail site directly west of the supermarket. In order to make up for lost parking stalls as a result of changes to the site plan, compact ' parking spaces may be used. 8. The applicant will be responsible for furnishing and installing the appropriate traffic control signs and ' pavement markings throughout the site. 9. The turning radii at the driveway access points along Kerber Boulevard should be expanded to 20 feet. The turning radius for the service drive located in the northwest corner of the site should be expanded to accommodate large semi - trailer accommodations with a wheelbase of 50 feet. 10. The applicant's engineer shall supply City staff with detailed storm drainage calculations for the entire site. Storm sewers shall be designed to handle a 10 -year storm event. Additional catch basins may be needed after review of the storm water calculations. ' 11. The retail building site located in the southwest corner of the site plan should be lowered by a minimum of five feet. 12. The applicant shall provide the City with a $10,000.00 financial security to guarantee installation of the curb ' cuts and boulevard restoration. The security may be included with the security requirements for the site landscaping. 13. An erosion control plan shall be developed and incorporated into the site plan and resubmitted for City staff review and approval. Staff recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for the plan design as well as site restorations. The northerly back slope behind the building should be restored with an erosion control blanket. Plans should also employ erosion control measures around proposed catch 56 i 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' Councilman Wing: And just a quick comment. For the first time I would compliment your no vote. It had some validity. There were some issues raised. 57 ' 1 ' or silt fence or other approved measures in accordance with the City's basins with hay bales ppr t3's Best ' Management Practice Handbook. ' 14. The final site grades shall be compatible with the final grade of the Oak Pond development directly north of this development. 15. The entry drive from West 78th Street in front of Byerly's shall be revised to a boulevard type ' separating the major traffic aisle from the parking area. (Note: The developer has already agreed to this and revised the plans, however, since they are different from the ones initially submitted and provided to the Commission, I thought that I should add this as a condition.) , 16. The applicant shall work with SW Metro Transit to locate a lm* transit stop area on -site. is completed. ' 17. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods or materials after construction 18. There shall be no trash pick -up between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. ' 19. No overnight parking of refrigeration unit trucks and/or trailers. 20. No use of trash compaction equipment between 10:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. ' 21. A sidewalk is to be provided from West 78th Street to the detached building. Th a location of this sidewalk is to be worked out with staff. ' 22. The applicant shall be required to match detailing work for the detached commercial bu ilding with that of the main building Prior to development of the outbuilding, the applicant shall c ome back to the Planning Commission for architectural review of the building's design. ' 23. Applicant shall work with staff on the site lighting Parking lot lighting may be no highe t han the main building. ' 24. The signage package for the development shall come back to the Planning Commission for app roval. 25. The Public Safety Director is to provide specific comments to the City Council on the curb cuts a , truck traffic on Kerber Boulevard Particular mention should be made of the truck impacts o park use between the hours of 4:00 and 9:00 P.M. 26. The applicant is requesting to revisit the handicapped parking with staff. Specifically, the appli is to look into the opportunity of providing sixteen (16) foot handicapped parking stalls. , 27. No semi truck traffic be allowed to travel north on Kerber Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' Councilman Wing: And just a quick comment. For the first time I would compliment your no vote. It had some validity. There were some issues raised. 57 ' 1 .� Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Charlie James: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to also pledge my cooperation to support...staff identifies. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't end here. It doesn't end until we have a project that everybody's happy with so we'll continue to work with staff to get... PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES AND PRELINUNARY PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE ' PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, AND WEST OF LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD; DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROTHERS. ' Public Present: ' Name Address Del Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Leslie Tidstrom 340 Deerfoot Trail ' Alan Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. R.H. & Cherie Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Jim Dolejsi 9260 Kiowa Trail Bob Generous: The applicant is requesting a PUD so that he can use the flexibility in our zoning ordinance to shift around the common lot sizes while maintaining an average lot consistent with the city's goals and minimum ' requirements. This development is in the southwest corner of Highway 101 and Lyman Blvd. Or southeast of Lake Riley, TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. It consists of 134 lots. It will be developed over six stages. It's currently an existing farm site. Farm land. The Comp Plan has designated for low density residential which would permit ' 1.2 ... per acre. The subdivision, the grading plans for ... similar to other residential subdivisions. Providing NURP ponds—storm water treatment. They're requesting right -of -way widths for internal roads for 50 foot right -of- ways and 60 foot is required. He's providing additional right -of -way for Lake Riley Blvd. and for Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. The project is within the MUSA line, however they are not currently sufficient capacity for the entire project. There's a project feasibility study on that issue to put water service in. They're proposing dedications of approximately 5.3 acres of parkland to the city. Staff is recommending approval of... Recommend denial of the variance request for side setbacks. Mayor Chmiel: Great. Who's going to. Paul Krauss: Maybe we ought to explain what the Planning Commission action was. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yeah. I was going to ask a question. Why was denial given the first time on this? Bob Generous: The Planning Commission recommended denial on both the preliminary PUD and the preliminary subdivision because they weren't sure that it justified being a planned unit development, nor were they all that excited about the large number of smaller lot sizes. Even though those lot sizes were consistent ' with what the PUD requirements were. Councilman Senn: Clarification. PUD requirements or our ordinance requirements? I thought it was consistent ' with our ordinance requirements regardless of PUD. 58 3, 1993 Chanhassen City Council - December 1 Bob Generous: Right. Councilman Senn: Alright. ' Bob Generous: But the PUD says you can go down to 11,000. Paul Krauss: The PUD says you can go down to 11,000 square feet as long as your average is 15. The ' Planning Commission felt uncomfortable. I think they came up with a number that 46% of the lots were below the 15,000 square foot standard. Therefore they were not comfortable with the plat. However, that's not in , ordinance. The ordinance just says whatever you have, as long as it averages 15, you can go down to 11 and you're okay. Councilman Senn: That's the PUD ordinance? ' Paul Krauss: That's the PUD ordinance. Councilman Senn: How about if you don't go PUD? Paul Krauss: Then everything's got to be 15,000 or larger. ' Councilman Senn: Right across the board. So all these large lots that they have all around the perimeter go away and just be 15,000. , Councilman Wing: Maybe not. Maybe they stay but the inner lots go to 15. Paul Krauss: I think in fact the developer, you often times have the developer telling you something... you don't , let me do it, I'm going to ... What we said in the staff report though is we think that there's much ... kernel of truth to that. There is a fairly simple way of laying out this on a fairly grid like basis that is fully in compliance with the subdivision that's not particularly attractive and economics being what it is, sooner or later somebody's going ' to propose something that you can't refuse because it meets your ordinance. Councilman Mason: I think we'll get into a little discussion about that later. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Lundgren Bros going to make a presentation? And hopefully address some of those ' concerns already by the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: Don, can I ask one more question before we jump into that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: What happened on the issue of that street cut through? I heard from a number of neighbors down there that were opposed to the cut through. Paul Krauss: There were two streets cut through. Councilman Senn: The one was agreed, not putting in through until 212 went through. The other one there was still an issue with I thought. 59 7 7 I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Paul Krauss: Yeah. Originally we had proposed, in fact the developer has shown, the connection to Kiowa Trail, which Kiowa was supposed to be connected. We think long term it should probably be connected but the residents in the fast meeting raised a concern that much of the traffic in southern Chanhassen, to Highway 212 ' actually trail and that Kiowa is kind of a short cut to get down to Pioneer and we went back and forth about it and said they're probably right. In the short term that may in fact occur. So we said we agree and at least the Planning Commission find it so that the issue should come back up when 212 ... The matter of access to Lake ' Riley Boulevard is one that we've always referred to. That came out of a concern from the Fire Marshal who pointed out that there's been 3 fires in recent years on Lake Riley Boulevard. That because of the street width. Because of it's narrowness, because of the closeness of the houses, it's very difficult to fight fires in there and ' they would, they asked us to come up with another access that would short circuit the very long dead end street. To provide another means in and out to the northern half. We, as staff said fine. If that makes some sense and we went and put that as a condition to the first and second meeting. Now Bob, I don't recall that the Planning Commission actually took action on that...denial of the plat. ' Bob Generous: The only motion to approve has the cul -de -sac going down Kiowa instead of being automatically reverted to opening up after 212 ... but they have the Lake Riley Boulevard connection in and I believe that's one of the reasons that Brian didn't vote for it. But the rest of them were mostly concerned about the lots. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd in Wayzata. A little bit of background. As you know Lundgren Bros has a couple of future proposed neighborhood communities north of Highway 5. Those are planned unit developments that are in an area that either have steep terrain, are heavily wooded, have a significant amount of wetlands and as a result of that are very expensive subdivisions to develop. They average close to 1 unit per acre in those subdivisions and some of you may remember those as the Johnson/DolejQTurner and Song properties. Because of those types of physical ' characteristics, those neighborhood communities are very expensive to develop. Lundgren Bros, in it's pursuit of trying to find some more moderate housing to be able to develop in Chanhassen was looking for a site that didn't have those types of characteristics. In other words, in today's environment, if you find a flat piece of ground with no trees and no wetlands it will be easier to produce more moderately or more affordable type of ' housing. Due primarily to the ordinances that all cities today have that ... This piece of property was purchased or optioned by Lundgren Bros in a competitive situation. I think it's fair to say that both property owners, and this is an assembly of two separate properties. We'll get into that in more detail in a bit but a competitive situation with I would guess at least 4 and possibly 6 other buyers. And the sellers fortunately selected us. One of them is going to be living there and they hoped... something that they would be comfortable with. And secondly, our ability to perform. But the primary reason for us being there was we were able to provide more moderate priced ' housing in Chanhassen due to the physical characteristics of the land. It's been a lengthy process because we immediately, as we always do, start meeting with staff right away and we also knew that Bandimere Park, which is immediately to the south, had plans for future development and we even explored the opportunity with staff that maybe we should be doing some land swapping. Maybe the site that we have would be better as a Bandimere Park versus the site they had. And there was some interest from staff's side and some interest on our side and we found out, due to the physical constraints of the land, due to TH 101, and the pipeline that runs through this property, that it actually would have been more detrimental to do that land swap from our ' perspective than if we just proceeded as we had already planned. That took a little bit of time but we were able to at least get ... with staff. As we always do, we had neighborhood meetings with the surrounding property owners. I think that it's fair to say that the majority of the property owners in the area support our plan. At ' least that's what it has appeared to me at the neighborhood meetings and the phone calls that I have received and 60 ' w� 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 61 1 1 , the letters that I've received and from comments from the Planning Commission. I think there's a number of burning issues that we will try to address for you this evening. We were really quite surprised at the ruling of the Planning Commission. There were some questions about lot size. However we do conform to what the , city's ordinance is. I'd like to focus maybe a little bit of time on density because density I think is something that one needs to look at when they're ... with any residential PUD. Because that really tells you how many units are going to be on this specific piece of property and we will address that this evening. We easily could have gotten more lots in this proposal if we would have submitted this as a standard subdivision. I think Paul ' addressed that a little bit and it isn't out of the realm of possibility that somebody could come forth with a proposal like that for you. I will show you a rendering of a standard subdivision on these two parcels, and this conforms to the city's ordinance. Now I know each of you well enough that you would probably tell me that if you had your druthers, you'd probably prefer a different type of proposal than this. The reason I show this to you, I believe it represents 146 lots. All these lots meet the city ordinance as far as size, lot width at the setback, all those types of things that often times I hear raised. For sure I've heard them raised a lot during the ' Planning Commission. Now this is an extremely efficient way to develop property. Not just efficient in getting the number of lots but it's very inexpensive to lay streets out like this. It's very, very efficient to lay out the streets like this. It's very efficient for survey work. My cost of developing per lot would be less on this proposal than on the proposal that we submitted. Also we would get more lots and we would certainly, from ' purely an economic standpoint, be much smarter people. And people would buy these home sites. There was a common gate out in front here earlier that nobody would ever live by one of these lots. Well I can point to buy subdivisions all over the metropolitan area that look just like that and there's homes on them so people will ' them. Our proposal looks more typical for the type of thing you normally see from us. It's intended to have a variety of lot sizes. We ... no attempt going into this to make them all the same. We don't want them all the same size. We don't want them all the same shape. And we certainly don't want any of the streets to be straight. And the reason for that, if you ever drive down a straight street and all the homes are set back exactly ' the same, you will not see any architectural detail of those homes unless you stop right in front of each one and pause for a moment and look at it. When you drive through a subdivision like this and they're constantly moving or you're walking, you're going to see architectural elevations from different angles because each home , is positioned a little different on each lot. Now what this enables us to do, not only does it create a street shape that's more interesting. It also provides variety for the home buyer. Not every home buyer wants to have these types of choices where everything is the same. The profile of the home buyer that typically buys a Lundgren , home is looking for these types of varieties. Sometimes people want a little larger lot and we have a larger lot for them. Sometimes people are two working professionals. They want to spend time with their kids at the soccer game on the weekend, at the library or whatever. They don't want to spend a lot of time mowing the lawn at all. In fact now we're getting people saying they want their yard entirely landscaped with just flower ' beds and very little lawn at all. Those certainly aren't, isn't everybody but we've had those requests. So this provides us a variety of lots. This does conform to the intent of the PUD ordinance and also meets all the requirements as it relates to lot sizes. Mr. John Uban, our planner, is going to go into greater detail, some of the issues surrounding the ... and I will be following up with some other comments here later. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Being that the night is getting very late, if you can condense what you have to say but ' yet get your point across. John Uban: I will do that to my best ability. What I'd like to go through with you is why a PUD and what are the merits of this specific planned unit development. The grid plan showed before is really, it's hypothetical in the sense, this shows how the existing ordinance really... develop lots. We are describing rectangular lots with rectangular type dimensions. To do a curvalinear subdivision takes the flexibility that is provided in the planned unit development ordinance that you have, and this flexibility allows us to create a variety of lots within the , 61 1 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 curvalinear design. So this was very important to us as we looked at the design. Also, what we did and these were the attributes that we think make this PUD very good for the city of Chanhassen. They add additional right -of -way around the perimeter of the property. We have dedicated and propose to dedicate over 3 acres of ' land to the city for Highway 101. This is not necessarily required. Providing over 4 acres for Lyman Blvd, which includes askewing the boulevard to the south to miss a wetlands on the north. So this wetlands is not on our property but we're bearing the burden of additional right -of -way to miss it. These road systems and the ' interior road system adds up to 22% of this subdivision. This is much greater than any of the other subdivisions we've done in this city or other cities. The Song, Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner, 11% of the project was for right -of- way. Other projects we've done in Plymouth, Heather Run. 12%. And there we also, it's on TH 101. County roads intersecting and we only had 12% of that subdivision as right -of -way. So this 10 to 12 to 13% is typical for most subdivisions. To counter, and to keep it from going to 25 %, we had proposed the interior roads to be 50 feet wide. This is common with many of the adjacent communities. It's a normal street width and can occur with this limited amount of traffic that keeps feeding back to the main street in the loop system. This works out ' very well. The same width of street goes into it and handles the parking and handle the traffic with no problem. Many of the roads have already been built in the city of Chanhassen to this standard. And this is what we propose, or the amount of right -of -way, which goes to 25 %. We have two access points to the north. And as ' we had met with staff when we put this together originally, we're showing a connection to Kiowa but we will accommodate any of the wishes of the neighbors on whether or not that's connected. The rest of the subdivision design accommodates a very extensive ponding system that really completes the storm management system in ' the city. We have extensive landscaping all around the perimeter of the subdivision. There's a large woods, or a node of woods here that we're basically retaining. Placing berms also in the areas that we feel will be the noisiest next to Highway 101. There's a pipeline that goes through the area and we've chosen, although we know we could do extensive grading and development on both sides of that pipeline, we felt it much better for ' safety and for the image of the development and the way Lundgren Bros wants it designed, to pull that back so all of that pipeline is towards TH 101. We've also dedicated, proposed to dedicate, 5.3 acres of parkland. This could only happen if the two parcels are assembled so the two parcels are being brought together and the developer wouldn't necessarily be assembling both parcels. If only one of them was developed at one time by a separate developer you could not get the full development. You would, the city would then have to buy the additional property that would not be dedicated from this development and then collect the fees from the other side. And it may not balance or come together at the right time. So we think there's a benefit that these two 1 properties are coming together, being developed cohesively as the master plan and the PUD process to afford the maximum amount of dedication to the city. It also takes this all off green acres so that you can assess it and it can pay it's fair share right away so that the utilities that are proposed on Lyman can be assessed and paid for. ' The access that we're proposing is interior to the site. The city has proposed, city staff that a connection come off of Lake Riley Boulevard. We do not think that's necessary. It really eliminates one of our lots which formed the better lots that look out over the lake. All the large lots are around the perimeter adjusting to the neighborhood. The smaller lots, and it's very hard for you to look at this possibly and to know which ones are really under 15,000 square feet but they're basically on the interior. Many of them are like 14,000. Just below our average lot size is 18,000. The overall density is 1.7 units per acre. This is not dense. This is giving you a variety of lot sizes. They're all at least 90 feet in width. They go up to much wider lots. They have extreme amounts of depth to the normal 130 foot depth. So the variety is here that you don't get with a normal subdivision. Additionally we haven't placed any lots along Lake Riley Blvd so there's no homes facing out onto this area. We've tried to accommodate all the needs of the adjacent neighbors, doing it in a very creative way. ' Putting it through the PUD process that really brings forth the design that's much better than a grid type approach that just maximizes lots. This is not the sort of thing that we think is creating good design and this is why you have the PUD. To encourage the kind of design that we think would fit very well on this piece of ' property. We have looked through the conditions and we could go through those now. There are just a few of 62 t Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 them that staff has put together that were passed forward from the Planning Commission and those are number 5. I just want to make sure that for the trail, the trail is proposed on Lake Riley Blvd, that we get trail credit. If we're asked to put one in. Number 17. We do not want to connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. We do not feel , that it enhances the fire and safety issues significantly on Lake Riley Boulevard. In fact, to really meet that demand you have this pass thru finger of property that goes to the south that directly connects the very end of Lake Riley Blvd. If you really want to complete that cul-de -sac and get rid of it, let's put a pass duu trail or small road on this parcel and get rid of the cuf- de-sac altogether. But bringing it through over here would be more expensive. It takes out a lot and would not improve the safety ... Number 18. We just cannot continue to have more and more of this land eaten up by right -of -way. Number 18 requests that we build all the roads to 60 foot right -of -ways. Once again, if we do that, it goes to 25% of the subdivision would be right -of -way and if you add the park, over 31% of the subdivision would be for public purposes. We think there's a great benefit to us giving you, extending the right -of -way for TH 101 because you can use it in your dealings with the State for other highway improvements, especially those that affect this intersection. And so that will not be given to the ' State, but be given to the city instead. Number 26. Merely that the Watershed grading cut off would be changed to November 15th, and we requested that previously. And number 32. The request for additional trails. We do not believe that additional trails, although there will be trails on Highway 101, Lyman, to Bandimere Park, lead to this trail through. here. That having us build other trails, especially that along West 92nd Street, ' which is right here off the property, doesn't make sense and it just is asking for more and more trails all around the perimeter, through it and next to it on other property. So we would like that particular requirement be stricken. But we'd be glad to answer any questions. I think Terry has a few comments to summarize our ' design. Thank you. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, at this time why don't Mr. Uban and I just try to address any questions that the ' City Council may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And before we do that, it appears as though there's quite a few people sitting here this evening. Let's see if there's any comments that may want to be provided this evening. Bob Peterson: Good evening, or good morning. I'm Bob Peterson. I live at 9101 Lake Riley Blvd which would be over in this vicinity right here. First of all I want to compliment Lundgren Bros because I think they ' did a very nice job of presenting it to the neighborhood before we had any Planning Commission meetings. They did an excellent job of telling us what it's all about. We appeared at the Planning Commission meeting and we appeared primarily in opposition to the access to Lake Riley Boulevard. What we were kind of blind , sided by was the fact that there was opposition to the plan. We didn't realize that at the time and I'm here to tell you that, people I've talked to in the neighborhood are very much in favor of it. We think that Lundgren would be a very good neighbor. We think that they will do a very fine job of developing this property and we'd like to see this plan go ahead because I am concerned about substituting that with this kind of a concept. I think , that'd be very detrimental and not at all appropriate. This would be much more cohesive. It'd be a much better development of the property and would certainly protect and preserve the property in a way we want to see it developed. So I would strongly encourage the approval of this plan. Thank you very much. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Alan Dirks: Hello. My name is Alan Dirks. I live approximately right here. 9203 Lake Riley Blvd and I've ' been in the area for about 10 years and my primary concern, and I've talked to staff about this. About the access to Lake Riley Boulevard but a couple of things I guess as ... pointed out is that, if you take this area from Lyman Blvd intersection to where they want to bring this access in, there's 11, or excuse me. There's 14. No, ' 63 1 I� LF 1 1 I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 there's 11. There's 11 homes between this point and here along Lake Riley Boulevard that the feel they've got to get this ... safety for. But beyond that there's 14 homes along Lake Riley and 3 buildable homesites plus 12 additional homes that are off site that this access is going to do nothing for except for increase traffic along the roadway. One of the other things, and I appreciated Mike's statement about the safety of the children. Just in this neighborhood, from just this point here along the dead end street where this neighborhood is that we like so much, there's 54 children in those homes. My real concern is that they're saying they're doing this for public safety issue. We have 54 kids here along this dead, along this boulevard and they haven't addressed anything about what are we going to do when the road comes out onto Lake Riley Boulevard. Nothing about stop signs. Nothing about walkway along Lake Riley Boulevard. The traffic, for all these homes along here, the part that's being developed on the other side of Lake Riley will be ... parks systems over there. We feel that these homes, and rightfully so, I mean they'll come up here and cerise down Lake Riley Blvd. Just go around the lake in their cars as they head out there because that's also where the boat launch is. So our real concern is that they, in their report, and they stated it correctly. It is a substandard road. It's an older neighborhood and that's the way it's developed. I'm very much in favor of the way Lundgren has put it together. Again reiterating of course the obvious that this plan is better than the others. I guess I'd just like to have you take into consideration the detriment to the neighborhood for that access, and what I believe is the limited safety that they feel they're giving us. So thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Peter Pemrick: My name is Peter Pemrick. 9251 Kiowa Trail. I'm the only one from that end of the development. One of the problems that was brought out at the last, at the planning meeting was the fact that, at that time they were planning on extending down through Kiowa Trail. Kiowa Trail is, by someone remarked was only 24 feet. I think it's narrower than that and there was a..Along with the extension to Lake Riley Blvd that people from the new development on the east side of the lake and also Lakeview Apartments would be cruising down through this development and going down Kiowa Trail. Personally I think that from my experience of the three fires that were on Riley Blvd, if there had been anybody in the house, by the time the Fire Department go there, they would have been dead. Therefore I really don't see any value in having these roads open so a fire truck can get in there. A rescue truck can get in there and they've got as good a chance to get somebody out in that short a period of time as having a whole fire truck down that. And I think there's a much greater risk involved in cars, heavy traffic getting killed along those roads because there's no sidewalk and they're very narrow and many times people park on both sides of the road and you only have about a 10... Sol again want to place the opinion of myself in. Everyone on Kiowa Trail that we are very against going through that in that development. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Jim Dolejsi: My name is Jim Dolejsi. I live at 9260 Kiowa Trail and I'm the Dolejsi in this project. I can tell you a little bit about the selection process that we went through in choosing Lundgren Bros as the buyer. At the time we were in negotiations with this project we had 5 purchase orders on the table for the parcel and then we had two other buyers looking to buy the property and we went around and looked at the different buyers that were proposing to buy the property. We talked to staff about some of the different developers and what ,their education was and how they worked with the city. We looked at some of the developments that the other developers had put in and we basically settled on Lundgren for a number of reasons. One of them was that they were going to develop both parcels together, and we saw that as a real benefit to not only the city but to the success of our, the sale of our property. We saw Lundgren developments as being high quality developments and the staff members had said that Lundgren seemed to be reputable developer and of the ones that we were 64 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 � considering, they certainly couldn't choose one over the other but they said Lundgren seemed reasonable. And we saw Lundgren as having a high probability of success in this project and we thought that was important, not only for ourselves but to the city and to the community around because to have a half developed development ' and the developer runs out and the landowner has problems. The city has problems. It's a no win. The developer has problems. Nobody wins in that situation. Right now the property is being used for farming. It's the Carver County Soil Commission basically has designated it as highly ... soils and for the last about 4 or 5 years I've been working off and on with them. They've been giving you a recommendations for how to change my agricultural practices. I stopped the practice of...I shopped the practice of even chisel plowing in the last couple years. I've put in some berming on some waterways to try to minimize erosion but they still have erosion and I know every time there's a big rain, the city gets calls. I never get called unfortunately but, or ' fortunately. But I think this, and I know the neighboring property has the same problem. And this development will help alleviate some of those problems. I can further state that some of the other developers that were planning on developing my property, singularly, they were talking about coming to the city with a PUD and ' proposing 150 units on the 50 acre site and they were talking about along Highway 101, very high density. Perhaps townhomes or quads or something and I'm not saying that would have gotten by the city. That that would have flown but I'm saying there's very different perspectives on what PUD would get in front of the city depending on what developer would have brought it in. And I think Lundgren is doing a, I've not heard at any,. ' I've been to the neighborhood meetings. I've been to the Planning Commission meetings and I've not heard people say that they think it's a bad plan or the neighboring people. I've not heard any opposition to the plan. The only opposition I've heard is to the thru streets and various minor things but in general people are ' supportive of the development and that's what we hear as neighbors, because we're planning on staying. We're planning on living on this property and it's very important, I'd like to maintain the community image with the neighbors and that so, thank you for having me. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? If not I'll, are you going to say something there Terry or just let it go back to the people to see if they had any comments. Were you going to say something prior to that? ' Terry Forbord: I think one of the things, I'm not sure if John embellished very much on but the city, for those of you who followed this. Lake Riley has been one of the more polluted lakes in your chain of lakes in Chanhassen and a lot of that has to do of the lack of any storm water management in this area Now a long ' time ago the city hired their consultant to develop a plan for storm water management in this area. And this area historically has some problems with that in the previously developed neighborhoods, etc. One of the components of our development is integral with the city's storm water management plan for this area. And the development and the catching of the storm water ...and then pre- treating that and discharging that into the wetland. Ultimately ' eventually into Lake Riley. Some of the matters as it relates to that.-and I don't know if staff got into that very much in the report. I'm sure we touched on it but I remember it came out in our preliminary staff meeting with them so that's another attribute that ... and that is accomplishing the goals and objectives of the city... We tried to ' focus on the issues that were of concern to the Planning Commission. There are other things we could get into. I'd rather not do that at this tune. Maybe it's just easier for us to respond to your questions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: I don't know. When I went and walked the area, one of the big reasons was I heard from a ' number of people along the Lake Riley Blvd about the access issue and the plan, you know the plan itself, you know I'd have to say given the ordinance, I think from my perspective I like it. I mean I like bigger lots towards the perimeter. Towards the outside. I like the setbacks. I like the way they treated the abutting neighborhoods or at least the abutting existing neighborhoods with no houses fronting over that way. The big 65 a Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' back yards. I think if I remember right, I voted against the 11,000 thing in the first place but given that's what we've got to work with, and the way this in effect approaches the ordinance, it seems to me like a pretty decent plan. I guess the only thing I'd like to see is a little more landscaping along the Lake Riley Blvd back there. I think the residents also back there had a good point on the access because I went out and drove it a few times and I fail to see how a cut through there is going to really increase public safety because it seems to me that you'd come down TH 101 to Lyman anyway and it wouldn't cut through there to get to Lake Riley because ' you'd have to slow down so much through the neighborhood. I would think it would just go down Lyman and up Lake Riley and come down the other way but I don't know. Paul, maybe there's more info on that that I didn't... ' Paul Krauss: ...but in the 5 years I've been here I've never seen a memo from the Fire Marshal that says we've had 3 fires and we've had difficulty fighting them. The difficulty is not so much getting down the street and getting someplace quicker but the fact that, I'd leave it up to Councilman Wing to refine the terminology but that when you've got one pumper sitting there and you've got, and there's limitations with water flow, you've got to stage trucks in and out of the area, there's no way to maneuver them. And that Mark Littfin...sat down with the chiefs and went over that and the recommendation we got was that this would help them fighting fires in that area I guess I'm not in a position to refine it or second guess it. We carried forward the recommendation and proposed in front of the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: If you should water polo, couldn't that be resolved with that simply extending a water line ' through there and placing, basically a hydrant there and just have an easement down a property line to maintain that or something. Paul Krauss: I'm sure you could possibly do that. Surely you can get a hydrant close by but you've got, what is it 1,800 feet beyond that point which wouldn't have any water. Councilman Senn: But that wouldn't be there by having the access I mean would it? Paul Krauss: No, but it does allow you to stage vehicles. That's what Mark was explaining to me. Especially in the wintertime. This tends to drift in. It's so narrow anyway and there's garages you know 14 feet back from ' the curb, if there was a curb. Which there isn't. That it's just very difficult to maneuver and stage things from a fire stand. And it wasn't the perfect answer. I mean the perfect answer really to find another further down but that's not possible. ' Councilman Senn: Could that be resolved by basically some face treatment along there that would allow in the case of an emergency you know vehicles to make the back -up or turn movement or something like that? j Paul Krauss: Councilman Senn, I honestly don't know the answer to that but to the extent that anybody's looked at it, which isn't a whole lot, the idea of upgrading Lake Riley Blvd in any way, shape or form is... Councilman Senn: No, I didn't mean that. I meant by just kind of going off into the corner there. Paul Krauss: Oh I understand that but as you get down to the bottom the grades get real steep on the side and ... I don't know that there's a lot of flexibility with that. Councilman Senn: Okay. That's all I have. 66 J Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: Couple of things. I know, I'm sure as things move down further that way the discussion of lot size will get larger and larger. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: As will the lots. Councilman Mason: Well, I've lived in, there was a time in my life where I was very happy that I had about ' 200, well 30 square feet to mow. Unfortunately I have more to mow now and I'm not happy with that but that's my fault. So you know, in education a buzz word we have right now is diversity and while as I think I'll probably continue to go toe to toe with Terry on some issues, there certainly are diverse lot sizes here and I think that's okay because I do agree with Terry that clearly there are some people that don't want to live in a 15,000 square foot lot. I mean you drive through some of Lundgren developments and there are smaller lots and there are people living in those homes. So you know, move onward and upward or whatever and I know Don and I are going to toe to toe on that one forever, so I don't care about that. Terry, what's affordable? About what are we looking at for price ranges on these homes? Terry Forbord: I'm guessing in today's dollars, due to the cost of land and the cost of developing. ' Councilman Mason: Understood. Terry Forbord: That you're probably looking in the range, on the least expensive lot, somewhere in the base , price of about $165 to $170 upwards to about $250 in today's dollars. And that, unfortunately, is affordable in Chanhassen. That would be on this site. Councilman Mason: Well I don't call that affordable. I understand your developments, and I don't think 12:17 , or 18 is the time to get into that discussion but I beg to differ that those are affordable and I, you know, speaking of work sessions, maybe we need a work session on that. ' Terry Forbord: Just a clarification. I'm not trying to tell anybody that that's affordable but that's reality in Chanhassen. And that's not because Lundgren Bros decided that. That's because of Met Council's land policies, number one. Number two is because of zoning ordinances. And number three, it's the basic cost of , building materials... Councilman Mason: Well okay, then I can throw that back to you and say how much money has Lundgren Bros made in the city of Chanhassen in the last 10 years too. You know so. ' Terry Forbord: ...not make any more money on a percentage than across the industry. ' Councilman Mason: Terry, I'm not saying you do but I don't think it's, I think it's real easy to say I have no control over it. land Terry Forbord: The single most driving ... of price of homes is the Metropolitan Council's use policies and the sewer allocation. I meant here is no other component that drives the cost as well... Councilman Mason: Well, I guess that's fine but I also know you can buy homes cheaper than that, and maybe they're not as nice. I'm not going to get into that argument with you but 1, that's not the only issue here as far as I'm concerned on affordable housing. The Kiowa Trail thing, since I've been on Council, if people haven't wanted a road to go through there, I think we've figured out a way not to put that road through or to put up a 67 t] I i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 barricade as I look to the left of Timberwood. But it's not just Timberwood so I don't care about that. But that road going through on Lake Riley, it sounds to me like everyone on Lake Riley doesn't want it through there and I guess if they're willing to accept the fact that a fire truck can't get in there as easily, so be it. We always have this fight as opposed to 50 foot right -of -ways as opposed to 60 foot right -of -ways. Councilman Wing: Not anymore. Councilman Mason: We don't anymore? ' Councilman Wing: Pleasant Acres we have 60. Councilman Mason: Alright, well. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but there has been some discussion... Councilman Mason: I thought we just approved one not too long ago that was. Paul Krauss: ...matter of routine. However you've only done it where there are trees that are being preserved. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Right, like in Chan Estates. Councilman Mason: Well you know, well that's a point of discussion for me but I'm not going to, 50 or 60 foot isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to me. Paul or Bob, what's the difference for site grading of October 31st as opposed to November 15th? Paul Krauss: I think that came out of the standard conditions in the development contract. Charles Folch: Right, and that basically follows what the Watershed District has in their requirements. Councilman Mason: Which, going to November 15th? You don't care? Charles Folch: That's fine. That's consistent with Watershed District. Councilman Wing: Which number was that Mike? Councilman Mason: That was 26. Yeah, and we've got to get affordable housing on the agenda. Councilman Senn: ...get into subsidized housing. Councilman Mason: Well you know, I disagree with that. I disagree with that. How come, well. Now's not the time for that. Councilman Wing: If we give Terry a 3,000 square foot lot. Councilman Mason: I'm sorry, what Don? 68 t Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: I said well talk about that. I think we may have a partner but I'll let you know in 2 weeks. On affordable housing. ' Councilman Mason: That's fine. That's fine. Now once again Lundgren Bros I think, I mean I drive through their neighborhoods and they do good work. Mayor Chmiel: Is that it? Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'm done. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I read the whole staff report and I ended up asking myself one big question. Why is this a PUD. Beyond the variation in lot sizes I can't see what the city is gaining from it and I had a question also on the price ranges because I thought well maybe, you know we got smaller lots. Maybe that will satisfy some of my personal needs for affordable housing but I can see that that's not the case here. So I'm not real happy with the, what was it 46% we estimated were under 15,000. I have a real problem with that. Although I do like the basic schematics of having the larger lots on the exterior and the smaller ones on the interior. I'm just not sure about the number of the smaller lots. I have concern with. I agree that there should ' be no Kiowa access. I can see people tearing up TH 101 and cutting through. As far as Lake Riley, I guess I don't understand the residents' concern because I don't see increased traffic as a result. Why would anyone drive that that doesn't live on Lake Riley? I can see the developer's concern they don't want to take out a lot but I fail to see the residents' concern there and if it's, and I guess we do need further, I need further clarification from Mark as to, Mark Littfin as to what the issue is with the fire department and maybe Richard can answer that question. So not being happy with the 11,000, I'm not sure that, well it is a PUD so we do have the right to deny it. But I think that's something that we're going to have to talk about as a general. ordinance at one point because I don't like it. I don't know. I'd like to see some redesign of this. I don't like all those small lots, particularly if they're selling for $170,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Before I go to you Richard, I've got to just ditto what Colleen has said because that was most of my comments that she said. Your turn. less ' Councilman Wing: Well this kind of subdivision, this schematic was 146 and this is 134 so the density was than it could have been perhaps. And if we force the 15,000, maybe Lundgren will walk and someone else would come in and do just what they're suggesting. They may or may not or maybe Lundgren will say we want this bad enough that we'll just give up a few lots. I guess we don't know the answer to that. Number 4 and 5. What were the questions from John on the, he questioned 4 and 5 on the parkland. Mayor Chmiel: 5 was the trail easement, which would be dedicated. He says that they shouldn't have to pay , the full trail fees or one should compensate the other. Councilman Wing: Okay, whatever. On all the park and rec issues on number and also number 32, having to ' do with sidewalks, I'd like to see those stay. I don't want to debate those. Number 17. I would delete extending the cul -de -sac to connect Lake Riley Boulevard. Out of the three house fires, two of them have been south of that location anyway and this wouldn't have made a bit of difference. And the fire department, fire marshal, under fine code and NFP 15 standards would like to have double access to all neighborhoods, and we ' haven't done that yet. Every time we come in we just, so no sense, there's nothing to be gained or lost here. We haven't done it elsewhere so 17 I'd be happy deleting. Number 18 I would keep. I'd go with the 60 feet 69 n I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 based on Paul's recommendation. If there was an adjustment there, I would only change that on your recommendation. i Paul Krauss: Well, that's kind of the City Engineer's position. The 60 foot right -of -way? That was ... We did it on the Song property on those streets. 1 Councilman Wing: For trees and here there isn't so I don't see any reason to yield on that ore. Number 26 would be okay to change and the date. Number 30, back to back cul-de -sacs. I don't, this back to back thing with these barriers, I think that's an eyesore and atrocious. Either connect it or don't. If we're not gonna, I'd just leave the cul -de -sac as is and put a cul-de -sac in accordingly. And then number 32 stays with the sidewalks. Other than that I don't have any problem with this. I do have a solution and I support Colleen and I support the Mayor. My solution would be, I'm just going to throw this on the record again. I support minimum lot sizes of 22,000. A PUD can go down to any lot size they want as long as the net density remains at 18,000. I don't care if they go down to 4,000 as long as the net, the lot size doesn't, the average lot size doesn't get lower than 18. So 22 on a standard subdivision. That's a penalty. If you want to go PUD, any lot size you want but we go to 18,000 for our minimums. That's just my own personal opinion and I felt that way. Councilman Senn: You mean for an average. You said two different things there. Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me, average. 22 is a standard subdivision. If you want to get lower than that, design anything you want. I don't care what lots. I wouldn't even put a lot size in there as long as the net average was 18,000 and we get it all done. Councilman Senn: And this is over that. Or this is that, isn't it? Bob Generous: Yes, it would be... Councilman Wing: But this would stop the standard subdivision problem of 15,000 square foot lots. At any rate, that's a side line. I have no problem with this. Oh, I might also address the cul-de -sac. Mark Littfin, I ' said if you really want to fight for this you should be here and he said, it's sort of the rules. That's the way we have to design this and that's the way we should go and I told him I probably wouldn't support it. I didn't think it was worth the argument and worth the effort. And the net gain was a balance. If anything, connecting Kiowa would make sense but that's, I think that's got future ramifications. ' Councilman Senn: Dick, the only reason I was raising issue with the 60 foot and going back to our previous thing basically relating to trees and I kind of view the exterior lots here in the same perspective as we view existing trees. I mean most the time those existing trees are being kept to shelter existing neighborhoods or to provide breaks or whatever to the existing neighborhoods and that's one of the things again that really struck me very positively about this plan is the amount of area that they've left between the development and the existing neighborhoods and the amount of land that was tied up in that. And granted there's no trees on it but I mean it's still land. It's still spans. It still, you know to me it goes together and builds a better neighborhood because if I lived in that neighborhood, I'd rather have those further setbacks away from the busy road. Be a little more tightly contained in the neighborhood so in that context that's why I didn't raise a big issue over the 60 feet even though generally yeah. That's what we'd like to see. Councilman Wing: That's not an issue to me either. If Charles can buy it, I can buy it. 70 L7 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Charles Folch: If I could comment on that a little bit. Condition number 32, the trail or some sort of walk system to connect Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd and Bandimere Park. So you're going to put this trail in the boulevard of these streets through the subdivision here. If you go with a 50 foot right -of -way, you only have a 9 foot boulevard. You have an 8 foot trail, if you're going to have any type of utilities, cable TV, electric, gas, phones, what have you. One side or underneath the street, or underneath the trail I should say, it's not a good situation in terms of future repair and future maintenance. That's just not enough, we just don't have ' enough right -of -way there to have a trail through there. Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. ' Councilman Wing: As a matter of fact, the Tree Board brought up that the 60, that's right. The Tree Board in their upcoming ordinance is requiring the 60 because it's the only way they can get boulevard trees in and still have utilities. They needed that space. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'm going to give you about 2 minutes please. Councilman Senn: Could I ask one question? Can that be done selectively though? Charles Folch: Can what be done selectively? Councilman Senn: The wider right -of -way to meet the trail requirements. I mean we aren't running trails through every street. Charles Folch: The standard that we use is 60 and in this particular case we are putting in a trail, or requiring , that trail system be put in here. In that situation the 50 foot really becomes a problem. I believe 3 years ago we upped our ordinance to require 60 feet. Before that we had 50 but again as Dick pointed out, we ran into ' problems with boulevard trees. If we were putting in sidewalks or trails, there wasn't enough room. Councilman Senn: But I'm just saying, within this neighborhood could it be done selectively? In relationship to the, yeah. ' Charles Folch: Well, it certainly could be done but one thing that I'm cautious about is making sure there's good justification for doing that because otherwise I don't want to set precedence for being arbitrary and , capricious. Councilman Senn: No, I understand. Charles Folch: I know we did on the Song addition on a couple of cul -de -sacs but it was real critical to save trees and not impact wetlands and in those situations I see it's valid but it's certainly up to your discretion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we're. Terry Forbord: Can I respond to maybe issues that were raised? Councilwoman Dockendorf: You were going to give him 2 minutes. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 71 G n n ,---I 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Mason: We already used the 2 minutes. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I spend a lot of time here and I would hope that there's some trust gained in the comments and the things that I bring to the city. There's a direct correlation between the number of lots in any subdivision in any city in any state and the affordability factor. They are linked more so than probably any other component, other than the cost of land. I have a market study with today's date on it. We do this about every 6 months in every community that we work in and the price that I just quoted you that would be in this subdivision are at or below every other subdivision that's on the books or coming forward in Chanhassen. So this subdivision is affordable to everything else that's in the pipeline in Chanhassen. And that's reality. That's not something that's made up. It lists the name of the developers. How many lots they have. What their lot prices are and what the home prices will be. And what we have here, I understand some of the druthers of Council. Some Council members want lots to be big. If you want lots to be big, then for sure let's not talk about affordability because they're directly related. You can't have one without affecting the other. Mayor Chmiel: Any time you go over $70,000.00 it's not in the league that we're looking at for affordable kinds of housing. The footprints that go on these lots that are 11,000 square feet, to me seem like they get bunched up. I don't like the looks of that. It gives me some concern but go ahead. Terry Forbord: On the trail, there was a trail allegedly or supposedly to connect some of these matters here. On the Comp Plan there is a trail plan right now for along Lyman Blvd. In the City's comp plan there is a trail to go along TH 101. That will collect future neighborhoods, pedestrian traffic and allow those people to come to Bandimere Park. None of the other neighborhoods that are right in this area right now have sidewalks. And not very many neighborhoods in Chanhassen have sidewalks. We think that it would be an unfair burden to impose that on here and to bring that additional pedestrian traffic through here. Plus it will also hurt the ability of affordability because sidewalks are expensive and so every time we add something like that, that threshold goes up a little bit.,, The right -of -way issue, the only reason we bring it up, and I understand engineer's perspective but I also know that you can travel around the metropolitan area and Plymouth has 50 foot right -of -way and they're putting in all the things that the citizens in their communities need. So is Eden Prairie and so do many of the other communities. They're all doing the same things that we're asking you here but they're doing it in 50 foot rights -of -way so it must work or those communities wouldn't be doing it. The PUD thing, we tried to address those. I think we listed about a dozen items of why this qualifies-as a PUD as it's written in the ordinance. I will not try to embellish upon those any further but there certainly is benefit to the city and we're giving them a significant amount of land right in here that we wouldn't need to. They can use that as a bargaining chip with MnDot which I know would be to the city's advantage when it comes to negotiating details of that interchange at the future 212. We tried to address the park dedication issue by this assembly. The City's getting 5A acres so there's a lot of things that go along. If there are any other questions, I'll do the best that I can to address them. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other questions that you may or may not have? Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Senn: I'll try one. I don't know if it will get a consensus on it. But I would move approval to adopt to staff's recommendations with the following changes. On 5, I think they should be given credit. Delete 17. 18, I'd like to see why you'd, whatever extent would be required, at least in the trail area to put that in. I don't know if that's 60 feet or if it's 55 or whatever Charles. I don't know. It's more up to you. I don't see a problem with November 15th on 26. But I'd like to also see 32 stay in requiring the trail. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? VA 72 1 t Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. With the clarification Mark on 18. That you want on the road that will have the trail we'll require the 60 foot. Otherwise. Councilman Senn: Or 55, whatever you can get by with. You know, I don't want to get into a whole redesign !( but it seems to me that if there's some distance we could take off there and still get the trail in, in that area without maybe having to go the full 60. Well, I'd rather leave that up to Charles. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Otherwise it'd be 50 on all the rest? Councilman Mason: So you want it to be 50 feet then, not 60? Councilman Senn: 50 except where it's necessary. Be 60 where it's necessary. Because I haven't seen the justification really in here for the 60. Mayor Chmiel: Does that give you a lot of problems, from a 50 to a 60? And I think there can be some problems that would be there. Charles Folch: Well I mean, you certainly can make that decision but again, maybe it would be helpful for me to understand the rationale why we'd go to 50. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't understand that either. ' Councilman Senn: I would base it on basically the premise that we're maintaining the large lots around the perimeter. The much more than required setback from the roads in the existing neighborhoods and in effect the buffering that that's going to accomplish as a result of that condition. And I view that basically, lice I said earlier, in the same way as I would view trees or other types of things that we require in there. The only other thing I would like to add is I would like to still add what I said earlier and I'd like to see some landscaping along that portion of Lyman Blvd. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of property to create 135 single family lots, preliminary plat approval, and rezoning of the property from A -2, Agricultural Estate to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - Residential, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage floor elevation before final plat approval. 3. Tree preservation/landscaping: I a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to 73 1 I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development. ' b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected from the official tree list. c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure installation and survival. d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the development. e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to City approval of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees. 5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting property. Partial trail fees will be required as part of the development. 6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat. 7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat. ' 8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. 9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake Riley Boulevard. 1 10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a PUD agreement and ' development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 12. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer strip and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast corner of the site, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5. 13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent grades. 14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10 -year storm event. The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of Phase I. 15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff for the future 1 74 t Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 I upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards the cost o f any pond oversizin g as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction. ' 16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. 17. Deleted. 18. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right -of -way along Lake Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The street right -of -way throughout the subdivision shall be 50 feet wide if the City Engineer approves as adequate. 19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be extended in the future ". 20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Oudot F if one currently does not exist or , eliminate the issue by relocatinp, the driveway off of the yroyerty. 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations. 23. The applicant shall provide a 6 -inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided. 24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the well and septic system fails. 25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC. 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November 15th each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and sediment control. 27. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and final platting. 75 1 i I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 r 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 29. Oudot F shall be platted as a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be built upon. Relocate the driveway for this lot so that it connects perpendicularly to the proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable to the Engineering Department. 30. Back -to -back cul-de -sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The pavement for the northern cul -de -sac shall be installed to the proiect property line. A breakaway barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The cul-de -sac shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed. 31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision. 32. Sidewalks or pedestrian trails shall be provided connecting Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard to ' Bandimere Park. This trail system shall include a trail segment built within the 92nd Street right -of -way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Park, All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Lot size? Mayor Chmiel: Lot sizes are my concern. SELECT PREFERRED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR GALPIN BOULEVARD SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 5; AMEND FEASIBILITY SCOPE, PROJECT NO. 93-26. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval Mr. Mayor. 1 Councilman Wing: Which one? Councilman Mason: Alternative 1. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, Alternative 1. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see that as any given problem. Jim Leirdahl: You're already voting on that? Councilman Mason: Which? Councilman Senn: No, no, no. This is relating to Galpin Boulevard. Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes we move quickly. Are you here for this? Jim Leirdahl: Yes I am. 76 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles, do you want to touch on this just real quickly? ' Charles Folch: Basically, the short term version. We've got, as part of the improvement of Galpin...and things like that. ...and how we can basically load, if you will, the most impact of the land to the east side. We basically made a cursory review of what the impacts might be. What the costs might be in terms of right -of -way acquisition, the grading, construction, etc. And at this point in time it's our recommendation ... that the most cost effective—option, based on our current information, is to go with Alternative 1. Jim Leirdahl: The only comment I had, I'm Jim Leirdahl and I live in Timberwood and the only comment I had was that, looking through these. We just got these in the mail so it's not real fair to get those. I think we got them Friday ... I don't know who did it. Whoever this fellow, Roger Gustafson. Who did this one? Charles Folch: It was Barton - Aschman I believe. ' Jim Leirdahl: It's not nice to call other people's trees marginal and it's no big deal if we get rid of two 24 inch trees on my land, you know what I mean? They are marginal, there's no cost to that. That doesn't seem fair to me. But obviously you've got to go with number 1. The one without getting rid of the trees. It's pretty obvious. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's basically what we've looked at on this. Jim Leirdahl: But my point is, you're going to eliminate... Councilman Senn: Charles, wouldn't we normally replace that in terms of, I mean we can't plant 24 inchers but we can plant a number of smaller caliper trees to replace it don't we? Charles Folch: Right. That's typically what we would have to do. In looking at—trees. There are significant trees, no doubt about it. Jim Leirdahl: They're also blocking what you're doing on the other corner by putting all these townhouses up. Charles Folch: Looking at the whole magnitude of trees that could be impacted out there, two out of the bunch is a small amount. Now if it's ... but as far as what the impact could have been if we located the roadway alignment, it could have been worst... Jim Leirdahl: That's fine. The concern we're having, the information we get as homeowners, we don't know what's going on. I got a letter from the City Attorney that says we want to take some of your right -of -way over here and then we get ...and I think that somehow the information has to be given to those being affected a little more effectively. We still don't know what's going on...I'm sure they just couldn't stay up this late. They were wondering the same thing. No one knows what's going on... , Charles Folch: Actually the easement acquisitions were negotiated through the utility project but it makes sense if you're acquiring the utility, you might as well acquire all the right -of -way at the same time so ... utility easement now and later on when you do the road widening, you come back and have to pay for it again in road right -of -way. So it's just a combination of trying to acquire both at this point. The definition of what it is... Those letters, the easement you're referring to, those went out I believe last week or the week before last... The utility project... I i I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Is this critical timing tonight? Charles Folch: Concerning the alternative, selecting an alternative alignment it is because in order to, the next step would be once we have direction on which alignment to go with, we need to go out and do some more investigations, soil borings. They need to do some more detailed surveying to be able to complete the final plans _ and maintain the project schedule. But in terms of yes, Barton- Aschman, we lose another month if we didn't have direction tonight...which alignment to go. Councilman Wing: But this is the second time tonight that somebody's complained about getting a letter in the mail today that had something major to do with them, why is he getting? Mayor Chmiel: The time frame. Councilman Wing: The time frame's really a line here. It's inappropriate to get a letter on Friday or Monday for a meeting tonight and it's happened twice tonight. Charles Folch: They were basically copied the same staff report you were and the staff report wasn't ready until the Council packet went out. ' Mayor Chmiel: In situations like that I think next time we'd better make sure that there's enough lead time and if the memo's not pulled together, then that shouldn't be on the agenda. Charles Folch: Certainly, you know I did have the other homeowner call me and we discussed it. I was able to fill in on the information. Certainly if there's any time you get a letter and you have questions, give us a call at City Hall and we'll be glad to explain things. Councilman Senn: Well you know, I guess we're late and I mean. Jim Leirdahl: I've been here 5 hours. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you've been sitting here for 5 hours. r Jim Leirdahl: I talked to you too. ■ Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you got a letter a couple of days ago or yesterday, whatever. I mean basically what Charles is suggesting here is that we adopt Alternative 1 which, I heard you I think say looks like the only option. If we. Jim Leirdahl: I wanted for 5 hours because I felt strong enough that it's not right to get a letter on Friday. Councilman Senn: I think everyone up here agrees with you on that issue but we want at the same time to make sure that you're going away with what you'd like to have. I mean if we replace your trees on a caliper inch basis, or something. Or maybe some pines or something that would give you more, is that something that you I would be happy with? And that is something we would normally do anyway, correct? Charles Folch: Correct. I Councilman Senn: And we apologize for the letter. 78 t Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 79 1 t ' Mayor Chmiel: Thanks for coming in and staying. e have a motion. Councilman Senn: I move approval with that stipulation on his trees. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to select Alternative No. 1 as the preferred r roadway alignment for Galpin Boulevard from Trunk Highway 5 south to Timberwood Drive as a part of the overall south frontage road Project No. 93 -26, with the clarification that Mr. Leirdahl's trees be replaced on a per caliper inch basis. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: What do we have to do tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Well we've got to get the city budget. Councilman Senn: Does that have to be done tonight? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Wing: Oh yeah. That's a priority tonight. , Mayor Chmiel: We have to have the adoption of the city budget. And then we also have J and Q on the agenda yet. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah, we can pass Q. The only reason I wanted it brought up is so that the paper would print something that we made a decision so people know what we did. I don't have a problem with it. So I move approval of it and it won't go in the paper. RESOLUTION TO PROCEED WITH PHASE H OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION AND DUAL TRACK OF WORKING WITH HAULERS. Councilman Senn: I talked to Paul about this before the meeting, or earlier today and Paul just came up and said he had to leave for his long trek home I guess because the driving conditions are pretty bad. But when we do, can we stipulate that we're passing approval of Phase II and basically authorizing the resolution but on the ' basis that the resolution will be rewritten to conform to the staff report and Council's comments at the last meeting because the current resolution in here is the resolution that was adopted a month ago and does not at all conform to our comments at our last meeting and is very misleading. And we asked Roger if that was okay and Roger said that's okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely. So now that we're completely out of order. Mayor Chmiel: We'll move this around but we'll get it done. Councilman Senn: Were you moving that or did you want me to move that? ' Mayor Chmiel: She already moved it. 79 1 t i Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll second it. Resolution #93 -125: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve a Resolution to proceed with Phase H of the Organized Collection and Dual Track of Working with the Haulers as modified by the City Attorney to conform to the comments made by the City Council at their previous meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF 1994 CITY BUDGET. Councilman Senn: Could I ask to start with a ... point of confusion? I thought when we left our last work session that we were dealing with numbers that I had in my notes that said, you know basically with the cuts that Don was going back to look at, that we were looking at a 5% cut and if we reinstituted a couple of those projects, we'd still be looking at about a 2 12% cut plus we could stick that money either in a contingency or come back into funding a couple of those things. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Am I correct? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's exactly what was the discussion. Councilman Senn: But that's not what's here. Mayor Chmiel: No. And it comes back a little differently. He's indicating that, to try to discourage the City Council from making a property tax decrease solely for the reason of having a tax decrease. I don't think that's the reason but I'm suggesting that we have a 2% to 3% tax cut. I have some strong justifications as far as I feel. Is that we're part of government and I think we should consider as to how we're spending our dollars and I think our citizens within the community are going to benefit from this as well and I think we have to approach it from that aspect. Councilman Senn: This will scare you but I agree with you 100% except these numbers still don't tell us that. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but I think the first one. Councilman Senn: More or less, these numbers don't allow us to achieve under any conditions a 5% decrease nor a 2 1/2% with those programs still in there. Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to? Don Ashworth: Well I, the numbers I presented at the last meeting were, your $626,000.00 out of balance. ' Here are the detailed reductions that can achieve that problem. The budget that was presented that evening had a property tax increase over 1992, an additional $36,000.00 which we then modified to $43,000.00 needed to be cut if you wanted to have a 0% increase. That actually will produce a decrease because the true number is $36,000.00 needed to be cut. We cut 43. Then the Council said well, we'd like to consider some additional, one or more of these major programs, can you find $50,000.00 which translated itself to 48. $50,000.00 that we can either use to do property tax reductions or to fund this police officer park thing, or the investigator or ' contingency fund. And that's exactly what we've done. Now I don't recall me ever saying that the $50,000.00 80 1 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 n If you felt that that's what it was would translate into 5% reduction. you know, I don't recall anyone ever y Y saying that the $50,000.00 would translate itself into a certain percent reduction over last year. Councilman Senn: Well we were throwing a lot of numbers around but I had $80,000.00 written down. Not 50. $80,000.00 which translated into 5 %. Don Ashworth: Included the other 36. Right, -and I don't disagree with that. I said we'll pick up the 626. We'll pick up another $36,000.00 because that was the number I was using at that point in time. What we actually did was stuck $43,000.00 and I'll find another $48,000.00 to give you the alternative to potentially add something back in or to create the property tax decrease. Councilman Senn: So we were under a misunderstanding when we were kind of agreeing in concept at the end of the thing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That was my understanding of it. Could I put my two cents in there? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to keep the increase/decrease at 0. Whichever. And set up the contingency fund that cannot be touched without Council approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, if you want it to be, sure. Mayor Chmiel: No I don't but. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I didn't think you did. I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say before I make that a motion: Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I support the 0 increase. This is a growing city and my favorite dollars are the ones I , spend in the city. They all come back to me personally. So I think the citizens are entitled to a zero increase but a cut, when we're letting land go that should be bought for parks, etc, etc, I don't buy that. Colleen, your second comment. Oh, the contingency fund. I don't think that's our responsibility. When we're looking at multi millions of dollars here and we're going to say oh, let's have a contingency fund of $23.83 or $43,000.00. I see that as just hot air on our part is my opinion. I think that's a city manager's problem and I think the city manager builds in a contingency fund and knows about stormy days and rocky roads and over expenditures and I don't think that it's necessary for us to worry about that. All we have to do is set the budget and let the city ' manager take care of the money. So I would oppose a contingency fund. I don't think we have the money for the contingency fund. But more important, I think the city manager takes that into his thinking and it's just more money that's being put aside that we might as well give back to the taxpayers, if that's the case. Councilman Senn: So are you saying you don't support the zero then? Councilman Wing: Oh no, no. I support the zero. I don't support a decrease and I would, I've made my stand I 81 1 r] Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 very clear that even tonight we're talking traffic issues on Kerber Boulevard. Half the stuff we talked about downtown is traffic. And nobody was at the Public Safety Commission meeting when we sat down with professional police officers. One of them a police chief from Edina, and discussed traffic in the city and the problems and the issues and the only way to resolve it is with a task force. That means a dedicated, separate traffic car. I've only asked for $10,000.00. 1 think we can do it, from my experience in talking to the Sheriff, $10,000.00 will provide us with a lot of very visible traffic. So that's one item that I'd like to see kicked back in. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that was my second choice so I can support that. I appreciate your comments about contingency funds already being built into the budget and I guess I would ask Don, is that true? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Your secret drawer. Don Ashworth: You maintain a fund balance forward of approximately $1,200,000.00 and part of the reason that's there is to ensure that if we have a problem, we have something to go back on. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Do you want to make a comment? Councilman Mason: I guess I'll put myself fairly four square and talk about it. A little political aside here. The Mugwump party was a political party I believe in Teddy Roosevelt's days. A political cartoon because their mug was on one side of fence and their wump was on the other. That's where that came from and you got that from me ladies and gentlemen and it is almost 1:00. It is. Trying to get somewhat serious at this time of the night/morning. I appreciate what the Mayor is saying. I think however, I concur with Richard. I think a decrease for the sake of a decrease when we are talking about, we don't have money for park funds. We don't have money for the investigator. We're holding the line and we've been holding the line ever since I've been on Council. I know the Mayor's been holding the line since before I was on Council and he and we are to be commended for that. But 0% 1 think is holding the line and I'll go along with 0 %. I think then the point comes to where we do with this wish list, what we do with it. I go along with Richard. However I do know that we're park deficient in some areas and land ain't getting any cheaper around Councilman Wing's neck of the woods. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And also what would be put aside for that would not come anywhere close to what the needs would be so, what comes first. Okay, with that I would entertain a motion. Councilman Wing: Well I'll be happy to move approval of a 0% deficient with the traffic added but don't we have more money than that. At 0 can't we. Mayor Chmiel: No I think that there's always, I always seem to find that there's dollars that can also be found throughout the year and have seen that over the last 4 years. When dollars are needed, they're there. Councilman Wing: If we go the 0 with the traffic, you in effect then are going to have a decrease. Don Ashworth: $33,000.00 would go then towards the decrease. Councilman Senn: Which means we're not going 0 at that point. We're going minus about, what? 82 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf. .000 %. ' Mayor Chmiel: It wouldn't be very much. Don Ashworth: Each percent is $110,000.00. So you'd be roughly a third of a percent. 3/10 of a percent so it would move from 25.5 this past year to 25.2. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because that is so nominal, why don't we just start building this park fund bit by bit? Councilman Wing: Isn't that good business? I mean we pay the piper someplace and if it's there this year, we don't have to raise taxes, is that good business to fund that? I mean I don't know. It's a little over my head. Councilman Senn: Dick in a way I agree. It's good business to fund it but I think that's kind of where we need to decide what it is and that's the only reason I suggested a contingency back in the first place. Because we keep getting in these meetings where we're running up against deadlines and we never really have a chance to say well, geez if we got another extra $40,000.00 how would we really like to spend it when the occasion arises during the year. We may have five totally different opinions here, I don't know but I mean to me that's something you know rather than just kind of dowling it out now and like Scott sat here and said tonight, he really wasn't sure he needed that and again, that's a consideration but I think we should throw it all kind of in , the bag and shake it up and see what it comes out. Councilman Wing: So you say put the $33,000.00 in the contingency? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I could support that. Councilman Wing: I'd like to alter my motion to approve the budget with the traffic task force and the $33,000.00 additional then going into a contingency fund. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Councilman Mason: Quick discussion. What is this traffic force thing supposed to do for us? ' Mayor Chmiel: Pick up speeders. Slow down people. Make everybody happy in the city. Councilman Mason: Well. Councilman Wing: It has nothing to do with ... Ifs a special shift that is bid as traffic that does nothing but. It's a stationary radar. Councilman Mason: You know it amazes me how fast they're still going down West 78th so what the heck. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. A motions on the floor. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. 83 , I Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 ' Resolution #93 -126: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the 1994 city budget with a 0% increase, to include the traffic task force and the $33,000.00 additional going into a contingency fund. All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Don Ashworth: Park Commission will be happy. Remember they had asked for $100,000.00 and we were going to try to do the thing as $33,000.00 this year and then make it 66 in '99. They still have a fighting chance to come back and say, designate that 33 for us. ADMIMSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's see. We still have consent agenda item J. Don Ashworth: Why don't we put that on for. On January 10th, I'll set the date. I'll put on this work session we're proposing to do and then during the work session hopefully we can deal with that. Councilman Senn: What day now? Don Ashworth: January 10th is your regular meeting in January and at that point in time you would pick out the date for the work session for this item to be handled. Councilman Wing: Couldn't we have a work session on the 3rd. Mayor Chmiel: But I want to move ahead and I'd like to, and we've already addressed 9A, right? 9A is setting that special meeting date. Don Ashworth: I'd put it on January 10th. You can set the date on January 10th. ACCEPT $1,000. GRANT FROM THE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL FOR CREATIVE KIDS WORKSHOP, SUMMER OF 1994, PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR, VERBAL (APPROVAL REQUIRED BY DECEMBER 15, 1993). Mayor Chmiel: Let's go to 9C and I think we can just let 9B sit. Councilman Senn: And J is going to the 10th, to be set on the 10th? Don Ashworth: Yeah.... Mayor Chmiel:' C is accepting that $1,000.00 grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council for Creative Kids Workshops and I think, I would move that we approve that. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn: One quick question. Does this in any way obligate us to fund it next year? Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. -e to 84 l Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Well, is there a way we can make that kind of clear? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well I think what we have to do is look at it. If they're giving a grant this year, I'm sure that they would probably be going through that same process next year. If not, then we review what's being done. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept the $1,000.00 grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council for Creative Kids Workshop. All voted in favor and the motion carried ' unanimously. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1 :08 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim i I � 85 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer, and Bob Generous, Planner H CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Batzli: Number 1, which was to have a public hearing tonight will not be heard, and that's the application by Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies. Is that right Kate? ' Aanenson: Correct. ' Batzli: So if you're here for the first item, that will not be heard tonight. That's been pulled from our agenda. So we're going to move onto the second item. We're going to wait for just a few minutes because there may be some people who thought that it would be starting a ' little bit later than it will but so what we're probably going to do is ask for the Director's Report from our Planning Director first and then we'll hold the public hearing for the conceptual PUD development where the applicants are Boyers. So having said that, I'll give you a brief intro. We are the Chanhassen. Planning Commission. We're a group of Chanhassen residents appointed by the City Council and Mayor to hear land use and other zoning issues. We do not make the final decisions. Rather those decisions are made by the City Council. We make recommendations to the City Council so we encourage everyone to follow their issue, regardless of which way we go here tonight. Follow that issue up to the City Council. Having said that, as I indicated, we'll be delaying the public hearing ' momentarily on the second item and Paul, if you want to give us the Planning Director's report first, why don't you do that. Krauss: Sure. At the November 22nd Council meeting the following actions were taken. The idea of imposing a moratorium on the Highway 5 corridor was discussed for I believe the third time. Staff continues to indicate that the Planning Commission's lack of getting the ' Highway 5 plan was not for lack of desire but just for lack of time and that ...in order to get to it. I also pointed out to the City Council that a moratorium on Highway 5 wouldn't stop most of the development proposals we're getting from coming in because most of them aren't coming in from Highway 5. At your last meeting and.tonight's being a good case in point. E •, Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 ' Krauss: That's at s my understanding. Well by capper inch. So the developer does has some ' flexibility but it comes at a price—We'll have to see how that moves along. On a non - Council item, we are trying to get together and create what we're calling the Bluff Creek initiative which is a multi- agency approach, locally based and will involve... involve residents ' to plan for the fact, and hopefully recreationally utilize the Bluff Creek corridor. This is a new initiative. It's a new concept that's been developed by the DNR. What's unique about it is it brings a lot of different agencies on line at the same time so you're working from the ' same book. And we're going to be putting together a grant applicant for LCMR funding, which is the lottery money. We're going to be getting that together and submitting to them at the end of January. It's a competitive process. It's a political process but we think having a lot of agencies on board—and hopefully we'll be successful with that. And long term too, I think it opens the door to substantial implementation funding. I mean planning- funding is often times easy to get but it really doesn't accomplish a whole lot except...but this will allow ' us to get in line ... dollars to acquire land to reforest, to protect areas, to build trails, to build water quality basins, and really take an overall. Batzli: What lines would we be getting into? Krauss: What? Batzli: What lines are we getting into? Implementation. You said that would allow us to get into line. Do you have something in mind? Someone's going to help us buy it? ' Krauss: Well actually yeah. There are clean water action grants. There is fundin g available for the Watershed District that's assessed on a whole district basis. One of the more ' interesting funding concepts came about from the Metro Council. I won't go into detail but it involves the settlement of what would have been a lawsuit between the Metro Waste Control Commission... National Environmental Protection Agency where because it's the Metro Council, because it's the State of Minnesota is making progress ... clean-up the Minnesota River, and because the metro region doesn't want to pay $400 or $500 million to upgrade the sewer plants on the Minnesota River for—water quality, they're saying fine. But they want the region to pay $10 million into a fund to do water quality improvement projects in the lower Minnesota River basin. Well, we are in the lower Minnesota River Basin and we're one of the best... community's taking an activist position in protecting our environmental features and we think we stand a good chance of being at the head of that line for some of that funding. So we're very hopeful with that. The last thing I wanted to mention is, thus far ' we've had 4 or 5 applicants for the open positions on the Planning Commission. We had a staff meeting today and we think what we're going to do is schedule the interviews, if it works out for people, towards the end of our Highway 5 meeting on the 15th so that we get a good meeting in place and get them scheduled... well, or 8:30 in that kind of a timeframe so Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 we can get the productive part of the meeting out of the way and then when we get tired of talking about Highway .5, then we ... so that's possibly the way it will end up. ' Mancino: And each interview is 15 minutes? Krauss: Typically... ' Batzli: Okay. We didn't have any Minutes this time around? , Krauss: Well the Minutes, you know because our meetings are going so late and Nann is ' doing so many Minutes for so many of our commissions, and it was a short week, there was just no way to get them out. We have the Minutes in the office. I could have given them to you tonight but I didn't think that would be... ' Scott: Well I think it's important to, since the development was denied on TH 101 and Lyman, I think it's important that the members of the City Council get those Minutes so they can see some of that reasoning because my guess, yeah my guess is they're going to see that on their agenda. Krauss: Yeah. We have them in hand. The Council packet does not go out until next week. ' Week after that. So they'll certainly have them. Mancino: I would also like to get a copy because I wasn't here for that meeting and I'd like ' to hear the rationale. Aanenson: They'll be in the next packet. ' Krauss: Unless you'd like it in advance of the Council meeting. Mancino: Yeah, that'd be great. Krauss: Well why don't we mail it out... ' Batzli: Okay. Was that the end of your report Paul? I Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Moving right along. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE, SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Hubbard Bob Boyer Dave Truax Tom & Ann Merz Joe Boyer John Boyer John Blumentritt Kelly Sheehan Janis Bremer Alan Tollefson Don Sueker Steve Hall Jim & Jo Ginther Sue Fiedler 2841 Washta Bay 5020 Suburban Drive 4879 Drake Street 3201 Dartmouth 3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven 16601 Meadowbrook Lane, Wayzata 22720 Galpin Lane, Shorewood 2951 Washta Bay Road 2961 Washta Bay Road 2931 Washta Bay Road 3111 Dartmouth Drive 6221 Arbor Lane 3131 Dartmouth Drive 3121 Dartmouth Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: This is a conceptual PUD so we're not necessarily looking at this exact configuration. ' But in this case, is it required that we vote to rezone or have some sort of findings that this would be a good PUD site? And this isn't currently zoned PUD, correct? ' Aanenson: Correct. You have to, the way the PUD ordinance says, in order to do a zero or cluster you have to have medium density. So what we're recommending is as a part of this if you felt comfortable with that, to recommend change to the PUD ordinance to allow cluster or zero lot line in the single family zone. I Mancino: And reduce the lot size and the minimum to 5,000. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Aanenson: Well, yeah in a cluster situation. Krauss: But this is a concept. You're not being asked to take any formal action on that ' tonight at the concept. Your concept steps are optional but they're the point in the process that you can give a lot of guidance to the developer of telling them that there's no way that ' you're going to proceed or telling them to proceed with modifications or telling them it's perfect the way it is. It's really a fact finding level in the plan approval program. So that's, you're giving guidance on that tonight. You're not being asked to take formal action. ' Batzli: Normally it troubles me when we change our ordinance like this when one project comes in. I assume that, have you looked at other instances in the city where something like , this would be done and does it make sense? I mean you've guided us through -one other one that occured, maybe or maybe not under this current PUD ordinance. ' Aanenson: Well the obvious implication is once you do that, you're going to have requests from a lot of people to do that. I mean that's the first thing that has to ... come in for 5,000 ' square foot lots. But I think what you're going to have to look at is, what we're trying to say with this one too is what's exactly, are you getting more units? What you're getting is clustering of units and more open space. I don't think we're increasing the total number of units that can be built in this project. What we're doing is we're clustering them at the ... open ' space and again, after you approve it, you can still deny any specific project just like you've done with the other project. You just said you felt it didn't meet the merits of the PUD. So ' we go through that same process. Batzli: Well what troubles me, and I'm just talking out loud here, so I hope I don't foam at ' the mouth. Is that if you're going to build an upscale development like this, you're not going to situate the units right on Highway 7. You can't build in the wetlands and there's ordinances on how close you can build to the lake. So have we really clustered the units here ' given this style of development? Krauss: Well, you can play devil's advocate here and I don't like being cast in the role of ' the devil, and so many developers would want to do, they show you the worst case situation. But you could get, it's very conceivable that you would get a developer doing standard single family subdivision, straight 15,000 square foot lots. Jam some of them up against the ' highway. You can do that You don't have any regulation against it. The lot just has to be a little deeper. They probably wouldn't be very nice lots. They probably wouldn't be very expensive homes but drive down the highway. You see people that have done just that. And ' then you would plop in your home where you could live. As Kate points out, the net density in this thing is no different than if you went with the standard single family subdivision. If you distribute the buildable area here. Not the wetlands. Not the lakes. If you distribute the , ,Oft 6 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 buildable area here amongst the units that they have, they're in excess of 15,000 square feet units. Clearly these are not 15,000 square foot lots. They're much smaller lots. Everything else in held in common. There are large green spaces. A lot of the site's untouched and we think that yes... clustering. And it's substantial clustering. Farmakes: If they're considering the channel to be shoreland, is the lake setback then applying to that channel? ' Krauss: Yes it would. They're not considering, they would prefer not to I suppose. We got a read from the DNR that the DNR considers it shoreland. ' Farmakes: Okay. But what I'm saying is then, there's a setback then that goes all the way around that channel, correct? Mancino: According to the DNR Farmakes: So if there's a setback on the lot line to the, let's see that would be to the east. How would you build on that property anyway? Traditional or PUD or otherwise. What would it be 50 feet? 100 feet? ' Krauss: On this site? Farmakes: Yeah. You need an access road to get there. Krauss: Yeah, it's on the floor there and I think they'll show it to you. Now when we ' reviewed that early draft we pointed that out to them. That the units that they had shown on the east side of the channel were probably not legitimate units and when they went back in ' they refined their proposal to accommodate all the lake setbacks, all the wetland setbacks and everything else. Farmakes: So I'm looking at that with the setback and an access road and a setback from the lot line, and they can still get a house in there. Or are you saying that they could not? I Krauss: On the east side of the channel? Farmakes: Well on this side of the drawing. I'm looking at. Krauss: My side over here? 1 Farmakes: It would be the east, yes. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 t I Krauss: No, we don't think. The,..if there are any building sites on the east side, they're minimal. ' Farmakes: So PUD, traditional or otherwise, would preclude any building on that area? Mancino: We could build there is what you're saying? , Aanenson: Or you go through, I mean it's wetland. If you alter it and that is ag urban I wetland which we ... city process to go through the wetland alteration. Scott: How would you access that via a street? , Krauss: That was one of the problems they had with the street connection to the east. It became impractical to do it. However, it wouldn't be the first time and if you really wanted I to push it, yeah. You build a private drive through the ag urban wetland and you mitigate . what you can take out of the wetland to get there. It's been done. In fact you just reviewed at your last meeting I think. ' Batzli: Sanda's. Krauss: To access the island. , Farmakes: Is there a road currently there? I'm assuming not Okay, so it would have to ' access someone else's property then to cross over to get there? Krauss: It would be easier to access across somebody's property. Otherwise they have to ' build something through that ag urban wetland. Farmakes: Well, and the upper part is wetland. I'm looking for some open area behind the ' ordinary high water mark and I'm somewhat hearing what he's saying. The only really open area of the lot is filled with development and can you point out to me what, by using a PUD ' here you feel that we're opening up. Krauss: Well I'd like the developer to do their presentation. I mean I can stand here. I Farmakes: I'm assuming this was part of your discussion when you had this. Krauss: Yeah, there were substantial common space located along Highway 7 and in the , northwest comer, down along the lakeshore itself and then there's some common areas behind some of the units. ' 8 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation for the Planning Commission? If you ' could come up and give us your name and address and who you're representing for the record. John Blumentritt: Members of the Planning Commission of Chanhassen, my name is John Blumentritt with Boyer Building Corporation and I am the individual that prepared this area site plan that we're about to review. First of all I wish to thank Kate Aanenson and the ' planning staff because we did go through a tremendous amount of different...but it seems like as we look at right now we have a well constructed report in that we really only have several concerns that seem to ... and yet to be resolved. But we appreciate the Planning Commission and it's recommendation for approval. Now as we look at the site plan, and I'll just step around for a moment to show you this. One more refresher again. Highway 7 is on the north side. The shores of Minnewashta are on the south side. Arbor Lane is at this point. ' It's labeled Arbor Drive. It's Arbor Lane. Onto Dartmouth and that's forming the access and then Washta Bay Road is on the easterly side. Not including the channel of course, as mentioned, this site is 13.47 acres of property. For a moment please let me give the Planning Commission a brief history on how Boyer Building Corporation arrived at the proposal you're about to review. As Mr. Krauss had mentioned, during the past summer we prepared a sketch of the site plan containing 37 units. Let me just put that up for a moment too if I can. Once ' this sketch was developed, we requested a meeting with Mr. Krauss and asked him to perform a conceptual review. At that meeting Mr. Krauss and other members of the planning staff ' had very guarded concerns indicating that the wetlands and the shoreland ordinances and the boating and other issues may pop up and of course they didn't want to discourage us from pursuing this thing but they reminded us that there definitely were some things that we ' needed to have resolved that obviously there's a series of other regulatory agencies that would have some say in this thing. And that was fine. We wanted to just test the waters and get a feel of what that might be. During the Parade of Homes we have another subdivision that ' you can see the photographs down on the floor, that's called Gideon Cove over in Shorewood. What we wanted to do was use this one, if you would, as a test balloon because the units over at Shorewood, the empty nester homes that we have there, sold out. So what we decided to do was to put this site plan up and inquire with some of the people that came through of it's viability and we wanted to test the market. We did want to see if there was . some appeal to this as a potential home site. We had indicated on a no pressure basis that if ' people were to be interested, if this was something that may appeal to them, would they please sign our guest register. Again, it would be something that we'd keep them casually informed as this went through the planning process and indeed it became a reality, that we would be in touch with them. We have over 100 different names sign our register. I guess that concluded our market study. We refined this 37 unit proposal. Went back to the planning commission and fortunately then we found out all the difficulities we were about to incur. We had a choice. It was either refine the design and resolve all the regulatory agency ..; 11 E Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 � issues or limit the number of units and don't infringe on the sensitive areas. So then we went back to the drawing board one more time and that's this that you're about to look at. With ' several more attempts we finally arrived at a conceptual plan. That plan that you see of Spinnaker Wharf. And now as we move to the present we have several issues. When designing Spinnaker Wharf several extremely important characteristics and criteria needed to be resolved. Because the design is exclusively designed for empty nester lifestyle, the urgency of clustering and the demand for security and low maintenance were of paramount importance. Issue B. The current comprehensive plan does not allow for clustering of ' residences in a low density residential area. Even though our development is well within the 1.2 to 4 units per acre criteria. The negative presence, or Issue C. The negative presence of Highway 7 and the noisy effect generated from 17,000 to 19,000 cars per day definitely is a big concern. Issue D. The existing of the wetlands on the site. We were instructed by Mr. Krauss to use the Chanhassen wetlands inventory delineation for planning purposes, or to hire a wetlands consultant. We selected for expediency the Chanhassen map. The wetlands to the ' southwest side of the property, that's here, is 4.2. I'm sorry, is .42 acres designated as a natural wetland and presently appears as a cattail mat. The channel wetland is something else, and that we need to very seriously evaluate, and I mean very seriously. The channel ' wetland is created from surface drainage storm water culverts that protrude at the northwest and the northeast side of the site. And again I'll show you where those are. Up at this point and then there's one underneath this area that comes through there. These culverts were , installed during the construction of Highway 7. From the north side of Highway 7 through the drainage ditches, through the culverts, now comes fertilizers, chemicals, salts, topsoil runoff and other untreated sediment. These effects rocket down the drainage ditches and into ' the channel and ultimately into Lake Minnewashta. To call this even an ag wetland is unbelievable because in reality it's a lot worse than that. Other issues existed but let us now turn to our solutions that this present.. 'Solution #1. With the existence of 26 units on an ' approximately 13.5 acre site, the density is less than 2 units per acre gross. Well within the lower range of the low density residential limits. We are confident that this solves the density and the traffic issues. Solution #2. By allowing the clustering of homes, we can now , create the benefits of empty nester living. Architectural integrity, common association, privately maintained streets, consisting of ground maintenance and neighborhood security. Solution #3. The clustering allows us not to distrub the shoreline area or the existing ' wetlands. This proposal does not invade the wetlands and leaves ample land for buffering to the wetlands. Solution #4. With strategically placed NURP ponds and an internal storm sewer, this development will enhance the current adverse ground water effects. The site plan ' is an effort to encourage environmental sensitivity by using NURP ponds, by using internal storm sewers, by using curbs, gutters and topography. Treating the runoff water enhances the , water quality before it enters into Lake Minnewashta. There is one negative. To call on Boyer Building Corporation to pay for the internal runoff generated from this development is fair. To call for us to pay, or to plan, install and pay for runoff generated from neighboring I 10 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993.' properties, Highway 7 and the neighborhood of Shorewood is not fair. This is an issue that ' will need further review and it is our intent to continue this with the planning staff, with MnDot and with the city of Shorewood. Lastly I'd like us to turn to page 11 of the staff report and go through the list of recommended items on this report. Item number 1. As mentioned, we will work with the staff regarding the drainage system but understand serious financial issues still exist. Item number 2, the development agreement is fine. We have no problem with that at all. Item 3, it is also understood. Grading, drainage and utility plans and specifications will be provided during this planning process. Item number 4. The 24 foot wide instead of 20 foot wide street may be acceptable. This appears initially to be excessive blacktopping especially if item 10, the fire marshal's letter which calls for no street ' parking prevails. We will continue to investigate this matter with the staff. Item 5. The turn around at the end of Dartmouth is not desirable, nor do we see that as being acceptable. We will continue this issue with the staff and present a reasonable solution at the preliminary ' level of the PUD hearing. Item 6. Rather than engaging a wetland specialist to look at the channel, our preference is to acknowledge the channel runoff is a serious concern. Until a water system is constructed, this matter will worsen. Our preference is to move along ' expeditiously and get this matter resolved. So let us together engage our engineers and assemble the construction documents and get this water system done. Item 7. With the current site plan, we doubt if we infringe on several of these areas and agencies but it is our ' concern and we will resolve the necessary permitting. Item 8. The soil and engineering, that's obvious. That does need to be done and we agree that that is a critical issue to resolve. Item number 9. The building official compliance. Again, that is very acceptable. Item 10. The fire marshal's compliance needs interpretation but we plan on wanting to resolve this ... Item 11. I want to divert this issue to Robert Boyer in a moment, but please allow me to finish just these last final items. Item 12, removal of the house. That's fine. We have no ' problem with that either. Item number 13. Amendment of the PUD ordinance, that's great. We love that one a lot. We hope that happens. Item number 14. The quality of the existing trees will be inventoried and incorporated at the lowest cost. We don't feelt he wetland ' revegetation plan is called for because we will not be disturbing that that already exists. We will provide a final landscaping plan for approval to the staff, to the Planning Commission and to the City Council during this PUD process. Item 15. During our investigations we found, or we now find a problem with what is designated as trail fees. While no clear plan seems to exist, we feel perhaps a better solution would be to inform the future homeowners ' that a future assessment of $200.00 will be charged once the trail plan is put into effect. This we feel would be far more equitable. As we summarize our site plan design, it's our belief the plan functions extremely well and presents many benefits and advantages but we have to leave this decision to your's. We hope that the planning staff will agree with all of the members who have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this project. That it is a good project. Thank you very much and at this point I'm going to turn this one item over to Bob Boyer. 1 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Bob Boyer: Once again my name is Bob Boyer. I reside at 5020 Suburban Drive in Shorewood. I think the reason John requested that I address the docking issue is simply from the standpoint that I'm a former resident out there. I used to live on the property. In fact the ' property directly west of this development was developed by my father, Joe Boyer and this area over here was where we resided for many years. So intimately aware of the lake and I think some of the concerns of the individuals here too that probably will speak to this ' particular issue. So rather than get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, what I'd prefer to do is, I think this is a public hearing isn't it? Batzli: Yes it is. , Bob Boyer: Defer to those people who have come to discuss the issue and let them discuss ' what's been said up to this time. Then as the dockage issue becomes an issue of concern, we can talk about that in more detail. Batzli: I would actually efer that, if you have an argument as to why you don't agree with , YP the staff report, that you provide it now because otherwise we're going to get into a back and forth thing where residents want to say something and then they haven't heard what you have , to say in support of more docks. So if you could at least briefly provide us the sketchy details of, if you do have an argument or you are requesting more dock spaces, that you tell us that now before I open it up for the public. ' Bob Boyer: Alright. I guess suffice to say we do have some concern about what I feel is a ' fairly arbitrary method for establishing the 12 units, or 12 docks on the lakeshore. Certainly as the staff has mentioned in the report, the property has in excess of 1,900 linear feet of Lakeshore. The DNR required, at a certain amount of distress for us, we had to live within , the constraints of that 1,900 lineal feet of lakeshore in the process of planning the development. We would like as well the benefit of that, to be able to use that for the recreational advantage of the people that are going to be living there. In certain respects I ' guess I see myself not only as a developer, I'm concerned about our investment here. But also an advocate for those people, those 26 homeowners that are going to be living on the property, when I say that we just wanted to be treated fairly. Because we're the last guys on ' the block so to speak and everybody else has got their docks and got their lakeshore, I guess our concern is that we use the framework that's in place and the ordinances that are in place to allow us to have the dockage that I believe we deserve to have. We requested 26 docks ' and I believe that was, that's a fair amount and a fair figure. We went through a number of different methods with which to calculate the dockage that we requested. One which is the simplest, which I understand probably does not apply but it gives a sense of density at least, I 12 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 is this one dock per 75 feet of lakeshore. If you use that particular calculations, which I ' believe is the calculations proposed by the Department of Natural Resources and used on single family residences, that would arrive at 26 boats. Precisely what we recommended using. The staff has used in their report a recommendation of providing dockage for 6 boats along that lakeshore. That would, with 3 boats per dock, would allow dockage for 18 boats. We feel it's fair that if we're considering lakeshore dockage, of 6 boats along the lakeshore, that we also allow if this was in fact a single family development, there would also be half acre, 75 foot frontage lots, along the penninsula as well. And since that is considered lakeshore, that there would also be an additional 7 homesites in that location. So with 6 homesites and 7 homesites, we're talking approximately 13 single family, contiguous lakeshore homesites. That would provide in the upper range of 39, ultimately we could have 39 boats. And we're just not asking for that We're just asking that you give every resident in the development, 26 individuals, or homes, an opportunity to use the lake and to enjoy the ' lake. I guess that's our viewpoint. Farmakes: I have a question. Is the property currently taxed at 1,900 feet of lakeshore? _Bob Boyer: I believe it is, yes. It's designated lakeshore. 1 Farmakes: Is the property value figured at 1,900 running feet of shoreline? Bob Boyer: I'm not sure from a property, I guess dad you'd have to address that. I presume ' that the valuation of the property is based upon the lakeshore that's there. Joe Boyer: We pay our taxes according to the city assessments, and that's... Bob Boyer: I'm not sure when the assessor m Y comes out and assesses the property, that he ' necessarily says that this is lakeshore or isn't lakeshore. I'm not sure he's actually gone to the effort of finding that out. Certainly if this were platted out as single, or half acre lots, people fronting the existing channel would be considered lakeshore owners. I don't have any doubt of that. Farmakes: The County tax assessor has a formula for calculating lakeshore and assessing the ' value to the property based on running feet for each lake in this city. And that's why I brought it up as a question, and I'm sure that that is calculated based on occasion to access a wetland area and not necessarily usable shoreline. And the reason I ask is what, was the county assessing that property, were they using the 1,900 feet as a rule for valuating the property currently. I understand the DNR and I read the staff report in that regard and I just, it seems like, I'd like to know if other government agencies here are also towing in line with ' the 1,900 feet... 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Bob Boyer: I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you on that. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. ' Mancino: I have a couple questions. The existing channel is deep enough to get in docks and boats? In that channel. Bob Boyer: Yeah. In fact people do often times take their boats down through there. It's a ' spot where people who fish, so you can traverse it with a boat. Mancino: And if you live at number 21, to get to your dock, your dock out in the channel, ' don't you have to go. Bob Boyer: Right here? ' Mancino: Yeah. To the west of the channel. You have to go through wetlands to get to the dock, correct? Muck and peat. ' Bob There would be wetlands right in this area, that's correct. And the area that's light green is the wetlands area which quite frankly is not untypical around Lake Minnetonka, or Minnewashta has significant wetland areas between people's property and the actual water line which, and people do, just run their docks right through the wetlands. We're not ' proposing to do that.' What we're proposing is to cluster the dockage at the end here. We really do not want to disturb the shoreline at all. Short of providing a 4 foot dock out to the boats. ' Batzli: - Okay, thank you. Kate and/or Paul. Why are we talking about the number of boats since what they're trying to do is get one dock space for every home and we're not really , approving the number of homesites on the property right now? Aanenson: Well, the PUD ordinance says, I mean the beachlot ordinance says, based on ' square footage and frontage you can have x number of docks and what that says is 30,000 square feet for the first dock with 100 feet of frontage, plus additional 20,000 square feet for additional docks. So really in order to get, you only need 2 acres to get the three docks. They could have more than, it's a matter if they had 12 units they could, or excuse me, if they even had 20 units, they could probably still have more docks. First they do a PUD ... you may want to leave that open ended at this point but I think that's a concern of the neighbors. ' The total number of docks. Batzli: Well, but this doesn't seem very conceptual if we're limiting it to a number of dock I 14 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 spaces when we, it seems apparent to me that this plan, if it's conceptual, may or may not end up with 26. Aanenson: I agree with you but. ' Batzli: They want the number of boat spaces that they've got units on the property. ' Aanenson: I guess the staff's position is we don't feel there should be direct correlation to the number of units and the number of dock spaces. I guess that's our position. Batzli: Okay, but why are we talking about it now? That's my question. Krauss: Well it is, we've been working around the lake long enough to know that this is a ' major issue for all those that live on the lake. It happens every time anything is being developed here. It is a concern for us. It is something that the PUD gives you ability to exercise control over that you wouldn't normally have if this came in as a straight subdivision. And what we're recommending is that under the PUD you exercise it. _ Aanenson: And they would like an answer to know that That'd be part of whether or not they want to proceed based on the number of dock slips so they want some direction from you. Whether you tie it down to a specific number or give them a range. I think that's a concern. Batzli: Okay. Did you have something to add? Bob Boyer: Yeah, if I could. I don't want the misconception that we're, that we necessarily ' have a direct correlation from homesites to dockage. The reason we selected the 26 obviously is we do have 26 homes but I think it's obvious to see that because of the Lakeshore we have, we have the potential for more boats. We're just simply saying, all we want is 26 because that's all the homeowners there's going to be. We're not requesting any additional. We're not requesting pull up slips or any of that stuff that I think under the shoreland regulation would be allowed. All we want is an opportunity for the homeowners to be on the lake if they want to. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there are residents or other people who ' would like to address the commission, please step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. I Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz. I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Would you be kind 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 probably, oh let's see. There's probably about 3,000 feet if you go to the east and you ' 16 n h e oug to put that first map back up where you showed the ... I live in Joe Boyer's first addition. It's been part of the Boyer family my whole life so as I speak, if this sounds negative, it's more of a protection of my home. These are good people. If somebody's going ' to develop it, Boyer's are the finest people. When I look at this project as it was introduced, you know whether they talk about cluster homes or non - cluster homes, and they talked about the zoning and they talked about the—and they talk about 2.3 units per acre. I'm not smart ' enough to sit back here and try to tell you whether it's good or bad. As a person, I live in the adjoining neighborhood and as you look at the impact that this project is going to have, and especially if you just take, let's just talk about Joe Boyer's Sterling Estates on the west ' side of it and the Minnewashta Heights on the east side and if you look at all those homes on each side of it, you're looking at one acre lots plus or minus. You're looking at residential small impact neighborhoods. And now you want to take this unit and they'll take Arbor Drive and they'll take, the center portion, they'll take all of these 26 units that will generate probably 180 plus or minus car traffic per day and they'll all come out of Arbor Lane and my objection is that this unit, or this development doesn't stand on it's own. It's impacting the - ' adjoining neighborhoods and if there was some way that they could find to concentrate whatever they're doing so they had their own means of access or egress, maybe this is ' something that's more palatable. But you talk about making all of that impact and putting it onto our neighborhood, to me that is not in keeping with something that we have, or our lifestyle. We bought homes in areas that are low density, low impact and you're making all of a sudden this development will make our's into a very high impact and high density. I think that also if we talk about planning, when you look at the ultimate goal and we listened to the—about the senior citizens and how they want to get access in and out—To me it would seem logical that they will take Dartmouth Drive and somehow connect it through Washta Bay Road so in essence what we are doing is allowing that entire neighborhood to flow down to some type of a semaphore where all can get access on or.off or across Highway 7. By ' putting this neighborhood in there without any connection access, we are completing eliminating any further, whatever we want to do. Send our kids down to the shopping center. Whatever happens, to me that just seems like good planning. If you allow this development ' road to go through, you are completing impacting what I think makes better planning. To try to speak about to cluster the homes, I don't know that I have a lot to offer about that. I think the next issue that we get onto the lake issue, and for all you know that this end of the bay is, of Lake Minnewashta is very ecologically sensitive. It's about a 10 to 12 foot lake. It's got a lot of silt in the bottom of it. And a lot of boat traffic makes it, the turbity which increases the weed growth which increases all the many things that happen in the lake. When you look , at this project and you go from Boyer's, this addition has got probably 800 feet. As you go to the west, all the way up to Nagele's point, there's probably a series of 7 docks and there's probably only 7 boats. As you take from Boyer's addition and we go back into that bay to, , I'm sorry. Nagele's would be to the west. The other one would be to the east. There's probably, oh let's see. There's probably about 3,000 feet if you go to the east and you ' 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December, 1, 1993. probably don't see 6 or 7 boats to the east. 6 or 7 docks and 6 or 7 boats. Somebody made a statement that each boat, or each dock is allowed to have 3 boats. Well I think that may be true if they are, if it were my dock I could put 3 boats on it but I couldn't build a dock, put my boat and have 2 of my friends come up and put a dock. This isn't in kee ping in with the ordinance. Is that a true statement? ' Aanenson• Yes. Tom Merz: Okay. So when he made a statement about 3 boats along the shore, you don't see any boats, or you don't see a typical neighborhood dock with more than 1 boat. What that means is that you go around the rest of the bay and you look at the regional park that's got ' over 15,000 feet of shore and they'd probably have 35 boats in there. You talk about Minnewashta Parkway that's got 120 homes in there, plus or minus, and there aren't 12 boats in that neighborhood. If you look at the Minnewashta Heights has got 75 homes and probably there's 11 boats, plus or minus, and that's would allow for an outlot. Boyer's has got 10% of this bay and they're asking for between 14 and 28 boats. Well, there's only 7, there's 14 boats, plus 'or minus, on this whole mile and a half of lakeshore and they're asking to double it up in 800 feet, which to me isn't a good thing. Let's see. I guess that those are the two issues. How do we properly protect our interest on the site if we're maintaining the quality of our lots and the quality of that lake... We expect that this 10%, or this 800 feet of lakeshore probably could be judged in the same way that we are. Because it is a channel, it goes through there that some years ago somebody man made and it's not navigable to go back in with some big boats and if they think they're going to line with docks, that isn't in keeping with that either. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Brevity would be encouraged. Bruce Hubbard: My name is Bruce Hubbard. I live on 2841 Washta Bay Road. Just on the east side of there. I would certainly have to agree with what he said about the boats and the dockage that are on the lake presently. I also have a similar concern that we seem to be ' raising about the number of homes that we should be comparing this to. It seems that if you look at the way things are plotted up there, and you. talk about the wetlands and the amount of homes that you could put in there with the setbacks, coming out of 26 or any number close to that, doesn't seem to be at all feasible. And if you used a number that you would be able to do a single family and then cluster those, then you would have some usable open space but the open space that we're seeing on this, most of it's wetland that we can't use depending ' on... So it just doesn't seem to make sense to use that kind of density that we're starting out �I 17 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1. with to arrive at the total amount that should be clustered. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else? ' Jim Ginther: My name is Jim Ginther. I live at 3131 Dartmouth Drive and I sent a fax today to the commission. I don't know if any of you have had a chance to get that Aanenson: Yeah, they do... , Jim Ginther: So I don't want to belabor the point if you've already had a chance to read it ' but I did want to make a couple of points here and highlight that for you. Again like Tom Merz stated, we aren't really in fundamental opposition to the project that the Boyers have presented here. Secondly, as I also feel very strongly and. if we're going to have a developer , there, that we would be hard pressed to find someone better than the Boyers to do this because like the Merz', the Boyers were neighbors of our's for the years that we initially moved into Lake Minnewashta and I think they truly do have a concern about that area. ' Specifically we're concerned about two areas and that is the singular access via Dartmouth Drive to the project and the proposed 26 docks for boat slips. The congestion that we see that will occur from this project concerns us since there is only one outlet through Dartmouth 1 Drive`and through Arbor Drive.` By adding 52 cars, potentially for this 2 car garage complex, then we're going to have ... our neighborhood of over 150 trips daily out that one singular access road: Now already there is a significant delay in the morning getting out onto Highway 7 from Arbor Drive. It's not uncommon to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes to get out onto that drive and that's just if 1 or 2 cars are sitting there. Now if you have 6 or 8 or 10 cars sitting there, which I think you're going to have, with one outlet for this whole complex, t 26 homes, 50 some cars, this wait is not going to be 2 or 3 minutes. It's going to be 10 minutes. It's going to become more dangerous or to have people making an effort in a rush to get out and I'm concerned about the safety as we think about people accessing onto ' Highway 7, with 17,000 to 19,000 cars and as we all know, Highway 7's becoming a more rapidly traveled road all the time. Secondly, beyond the delay part, is that we also have in terms of accessing Arbor off of Highway 7, we currently have a very dangerous situation. I think it's been recorded to the Department of Transportation where they mislined that road just this past summer so literally you come up a hill, approaching on from the highway, have to make a left turn and it's not a safe left turn right now. Now if we're going to bring 52 ' more cars trying to make a left turn onto something that's already unsafe, we're really looking for significantly impacting a dangerous situation there. Within Sterling Estates, which is the subdivision adjoining this property to the west, there are no sidewalks. , Consequently there's constant, continual pedestrian foot traffic in the streets, specifically Arbor Drive and Dartmouth and that's where people walk. Children play out there. People ' 18 I Ve J 1 [I 11 7 L Planning Commission Meeting - December, 1, 1993,__ walk out there. Guests that come into the neighborhood or taking a walk through the neighborhood there, and you could not possibly come into this neighborhood on a weekend and not find people walking up and down Arbor Drive and Dartmouth Drive and now this is the only singular access that we're talking about for another 50 plus cars traveling that road 150 times a day. So I'm very concerned about the safety within Sterling Estates. I'm concerned about the safety that it's going to be for both Sterling Estates and the proposed Spinnaker Wharf people all trying to access the same area off of one outlet. I think a very reasonable solution is to add a second access at the east border of the property onto Washta Bay Road, which was the original earlier option as you saw those presented in the original plan. And we heard here just this evening that it has been done and can be done. That a private road can be put across wetlands to access another road. I think that's not going to be a convenience factor only but it's certainly going to be a safety factor that I think should be strongly considered by this commission. The second concern that we have is the excessive amount of boats contemplated with 26 boat slips. I'm not going to belabor that point but ,- right across this bay, to the south of this proposed subdivision is a 400 acre, lake regional park with two public accesses and a good amount of time, attention and planning was developed years ago when that park was planned to permit only 35 boats. 35 boats from that 400 acre park. Two accesses. Park to accommodate hundreds of people. To put 35 boats on this lake. And now we're asking for 26 boats from a 13 acre parcel to be put onto this lake. It just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, as I think there's a little bit of mirrors being played in the sense of the channel that is on this property. It is a unique channel in the sense that what it does by the DNR's definition of all of that being lakeshore; is 1,900 feet of lakeshore, for that 13 acres is pretty unrealistic when you consider that all you can do is possibly turn a rowboat around in that 3 feet of water that is in that channel. And when you're considering the fact that the whole east side of the channel is now designated as wetland that can't be disturbed, how that becomes lakeshore that now is calculated in determining the number of homes that can be considered as Lakeshore. Literally speaking, if that channel were removed, we would be looking at something that would be about 6 or 7 houses that could possibly at the most front this lake. And now we're talking 26 houses. So in other developments in the past, on Lake Minnewashta and I would imagine other lakes, they just didn't happen to have a channel going back into a small piece of property that all of a sudden gives it 1,900 feet of lakeshore. So I just think it's an illusion as far as considering that amount of lakeshore for that small parcel of land. Finally, to give you a thought about a workable solution there is that, what we would like to suggest is that the number of boat slips be limited to the same number of cluster homes that actually front the lake. I believe the ... plan here shows 8 homes fronting the lake and consequently we think that a reasonable solution would be 8 boat slips on one dock and then in addition to that, I would concur with what we saw in the staff's report and that is a couple of racks back in the channel area for small sailboats and canoes could be kept because that would then allow the people who are in reality really off the lake, those cluster homes behind the Lakeshore homes, they would have 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1, 20 , J access to the lake through the sailboats, the canoes and the type of things that other people use in similar situations around Lake Minnewashta who in reality have homes off the lake. And' in reality those cluster homes that don't front Lake Minnewashta are truly not Lakeshore ' homes and we don't think they ought to be treated as lakeshore homes. Finally, in conclusion, we've been residents of this area for over 20 years. We have developed a nice ' home in that area, as have many other neighbors here. I just sat down the other evening and figured out that we paid well over $100,000.00 in real estate taxes for the property that we have here on this lake. And we're not opposed to progress. We're not opposed to development that meets community needs and enhances a very special natural resource that exists here in Chanhassen. I think we need to remember that that lake is special. It's not Lake Minnetonka. It's not a zoo out there. It's a special natural resource. Very special by the lake region park that's been developed on the east side. As we add development, as we add congestion, I think you need to give strong consideration to the amount of boats that you put on this lake. Consequently I think that it's very important that this body, as well as , Carver County and the State be very consciously concerned of those Minnewashta residents. who live our daily lives on that lake. We raise our families on that lake and who are going to be most impacted by what is done with this property. So I thank you for your consideration. Batzli: tThank you. You said we several times. Are you referring to yourself and your wife? ' Jim Ginther: Yes. I'm speaking for my wife and myself. ' Batzli: Okay. Okay. I didn't know if you were speaking for other residents. Thank you. Is Y Y Y P g Y there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Janis Bremer: My name is Janis Bremer and I reside at 2961 Washta Bay Road, and if I could use a pointer I'll show you where that property is. I think I can show you where the property is. It is these two lots, which you can see has about, let's see if I get this right. 400 , feet of the boundary of Joe Boyer's property. In general I'd like to say that we simply disagree with changing the zone. That if it's low density zoning, it needs to remain low density zoning. In terms of some of the points that have been made, we've been living on ' that property for almost 8 years. The boats that go into the channel are rowboats. They can barely turn around. Go up there some day. You can walk in and out. There is a lot of designated wetlands. We have constantly checked with the city about what is supposed to be ' occurring on that property. Joe Boyer may be an excellent developer. I don't know. I don't know much about property development in this area. What I do know is he's been very ' disrespectful of our property, and what that speaks to in the future I simply want you to know that. He's brought heavy equipment in there. He has plowed down trees. He has turned the equipment around on our property and said, oh. I didn't know where the property bordered. 20 , J Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 The wetland expert that came in p was ... from the city of Chanhassen, also disrespectful of our property. This does not speak well in terms of future development. We do not have a dock on our 100 feet of lakeshore because of the cattails and the natural lakeshore there. The little square that's emptying, I wanted to mention the fact that that's owned by Pete Boyer, who's ' Joe's son. So if you're looking at wanting a road to the north side of our property, the only way to get onto Washta Bay Road is to use I think it's 50 feet that Pete still owns, that's our access road that has had no maintenance done to it in 7 1/2 years. Try driving on it. Okay? ' He may be a good developer. It doesn't look like it where we're sitting. And do we have to get involved in that kind of project? The respected wetlands which is the empty property to_ the west of us, oh I guess they've had heavy equipment in on it at least 3 to 4 times in the past 7 years. Joe has allowed his son to plant trees there, one suspects in order to build up the wetland. I don't know that okay but there are planted trees on that land. A long row of them. It hasn't been left in it's natural state. Now maybe that's ... for development. I don't ' know. I know we were told by the city that there is no variance and there hasn't ever been unless we sell some of our property for building houses on the east side of that channel. Putting a road into Washta Bay, no disrespect to Arbor Lane. I think that's an enormous problem but it's going to create an identical problem at Washta Bay Road. Coming out on Washta Bay Road you've got to, have you guys driven on it recently? Whoomp. And then you turn right and there's this great little swoopy hill. I suppose you could rebuild that and fix things like that but I think you're going to have the same traffic density problem even if you access both ways. And again, there's 50 feet to get from our east edge of our property to Washta Bay Road. The only non - private property there has got 50 feet that's owned by Pete 1 Boyer. Arid you may want to know that. Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan and I live at 2951 Washta Bay Road which would be right on the apex of the right angle there on Washta Bay Road takes a ' jog going east. And everything that's been said tonight I guess I can't elaborate a lot. I'm generally agree with most of it. The only thing I'd like to add is that I do own a Boyer home and of course they are good builders, however the road that you're discussing as far as i connecting the east and west sides of that property on that channel, there's a little dirt road that Janis was elaborating on. I would not like to see a lot of excess traffic on that road ' obviously because I live in front of it. So the problem you have with the traffic getting on and off of, I believe it's Dartmouth Drive. I can see just an increase in traffic flow with this project and I think this...second the motion to keep it the way it is. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Don Sueker: My name is Don Sueker and I live right next to where the proposed division is 21 _ 1-1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 t to go, 3111 Dartmouth Drive. Batzli: Are you on the north or south side of Dartmouth? Don Sueker: The north side. South side, excuse me. ' Batzli: South side. Towards the lake. Don Sueker: Right. I guess I want to agree with everything that Tom and Jim have said as ' far as the accessibility and I think when I, and I've only been there 2 years. When I bought the property I originally thought I liked the wilderness part of it and all the aspects of being the quiet, nice, quite bay. Now I think with, you know you're talking about putting 26 boats , in. I'm going to be looking at a marina down there. Not really a residential area that is, I think he built a wonderful area there but I think this is changing the whole concept. And I think I would like to reiterate also that I think they do build nice homes. I've been in a lot _of . , the homes that he's built in the area but I guess I'm opposed to all the traffic that would be coming through there. And I did talk to your fire marshal and your fire chief, although they would not admit it probably now. They are in favor of a double access road in any addition, being what it may be. I guess that's all I've got to say. Batzli:' Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall. I live at 6221 Arbor Lane, which is the property just ' adjacent to Highway 7 and south of TH 7. I only wish to address the traffic studies which give a particular projection on the number of trips. Now I know that that's an exact science. My problem is that they then average that through the day saying you'll have x number of trips per hour. What they're not looking at is those will be clustered like the homes. They'll be clustered in the morning hours and the evening hours, even if they're empty nesters, unless they've retired from life, they carry out their duties during the day like the rest of us. They'll , leave in the morning. They'll be back in the evening. Visitors will be a similar situation. Those traffic patterns, you can't take the number of trips per hour and say you're only going to add 4 trips an hour or 8 trips an hour. They'll be clustered in the same fashion that the residents are presently using. And if you do an average, and I'll just ...little story. A man with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a bucket of ice water. On average he's comfortable but it's not appropriate. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. ' Joe Boyer: I am Joe Boyer and I live in Deephaven now. I lived in Chanhassen for quite a few years and at one time I did apply for the Planning Commission for the City of ' 22 rl 7' [I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 . Chanhassen but as it turns out, because I was an advocate of the shoreline walk system, and had control on boat motors on the Lake Minnewashta, but anyhow. That's... control but when I moved in here, the people were ... their sewage pump ... on the weekends. Dumping their sewage over on my property which would eventually flow into the lake. The Lakeshore... sewage system and I think my project forefronted the sewage system through that area. But anyhow, we've planted trees and we've been very concerned about the environment. The development of that area and we have good people living in our areas. Very good people. We've got an excellent clientele and a lot of these people that will live in this area, this new area, are going to be neighbors to the people that have tried to keep them out or cut them down you know. Now if I build 7 houses along the shoreline, as in Sterling Estates, 21 boats right? Plus canoes and rowboats and swimming docks and all that sort of thing. You know. Now this whole area, 26 homes, it's almost, it's not quite 2 homes to the acre. That lot... proportionally is greater than the Heights or Minnetonka Lows or whatever and Sterling Estates there we have lot sizes with 3/4 of an acre plus. 3/4 of an acre ...They're mostly all half and in some cases a third of an acre. And these homes will do nothing but enhance the area. It's good for the area. There is no more land. All the land we had you see you know. God doesn't build any more you know. So you have to make use of what you have. Good use you know and it should be functional as well pleasing to the eye. I think with the way they designed this area, it will work well and probably half the people in there won't even own a boat. And I think the city of Chanhassen is remiss in not having a trail system around the entire lake. For the runners, the walkers, and that sort of thing you know. That's my only concern. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Joe Boyer: Along the lakeshore I meant. A trail system around on the lakeshore. Batzli: Right on the lakeshore. Joe Boyer: On the lakeshore, you bet. Scott moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Nancy, we'll start with you. Diane successfully avoided eye contact. Mancino: ...the Boyer Corporation's development in Shorewood, Gideon Cove and it's very top quality development. Wooded lots. Lakeshore views. Nature trail. Appealing exterior with the cedar shingles, siding ... quiet neighborhood. Kind of off the beaten track and I think 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1. there's no question that they would do a quality job here in Chanhassen and I would support their development here. I'd love to see it. I'm an empty nester. A young empty nester. However, I am uncomfortable, I think the core issue for me is changing the zoning of land , and modifying the PUD ordinance. Right now it's zoned RSF, single family residential, low density which means that the minimum size, lot size is 15,000 square feet. Now if we were to, if they come in and asked for a PUD single family low density, the minimum lot size could be 11,000 square feet with the average lot size for the entire PUD, maintaining the a 15,000 foot minimum. But that won't work because they're asking for a minimum of 5,000 square foot. That's what the cluster homes have shown the lot sizes to be. So they're asking ' for 5,000 minim square foot lot size so it would be down from our 11,000. They're asking for 5,000. I don't know what the implications for the average lot size for that would be. Does that make sense Kate? I'm kind of asking her I guess. Aanenson: As I eluded to earlier, it'd be the same scenario now with some of the ones that have requested PUD. You have to go through the analysis. Mancino: But if we said, yes. Okay, to a 5,000 minimum lot size because this is a cluster home. Minimum lot line. What would be the average? Would you still have the average, 15,000. Aanenson: And you can't exceed the density requirements. You still have that range as I pointed out. What you're doing is you're just creating more open space. You're not putting in more units. Mancino: But these are pretty big changes because couldn't anyone where, through the whole rest of the city, let's say on Highway 41 which is fairly traveled. Someone could come in RSF zone and say I want to put a PUD in there and I want to do cluster, etc? Aanenson: Correct. ' Mancino: So we have. Aanenson: You'd o through the same process you do now when you look at a PUD. As , g g P Y Y looking at the ... same criteria. Whether you build... , Krauss: I'm not sure if I see the issue as globally as you're implying. First of all I wrote that section of the PUD ordinance and to be honest I wrote it in another community and I , wrote it for a specific project that's on Minnetonka Boulevard and we adopted our PUD ordinance. We felt we neede some way to regulate that. So I mean that was the, I mean it wasn't done to structure any particular situation in Chanhassen. So there's no real derivation 24 ti!A �A 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 that you can associate with it. The Red Cedar Cove townhomes were done under an earlier PUD ordinance that have no bearing on this. I think the critical point though here Nancy is you keep reflecting on 15,000 square foot lot area and the fact that under standard single family PUD's you can get it down to 11,000 but you have to average it up to 15,000. I think ' we would argue here that you're doing the same thing. When you eliminate all the wetland areas on this site. You're only looking at dry ground and you distribute that dry ground amongst the units that are being proposed, divide it amongst the 26 units, you're getting .more than 13,000 square feet of dry ground per unit. It's just in a different place. It's not in somebody's individual back yard or front yard. It's in a common space. This is not the wetlands we're talking about. This is dry ground and I think if that's a key factor. If you ' continue to look at the requirement that when you take a net distribution, that you still maintain that 15,000 square feet, I don't think we've done anything... Mancino: But that's also minimum. I mean if a traditional subdivision in there, we would have I think more open space. ' 4 Krauss: Well, that's a philosophical argument or discussion we've had a number of tines. I personally have argued that when you chop space up into yards, which is typically the case, you do a fairly crummy job of preserving natural features. You don't have any kind of ' common amenities. You don't have the ability to isolate homes from the highway. You don't have the ability to isolate homes further back from the lake. ' Mancino: Well sure they do because they've already got that on Highway 7. If you go down Highway 7, if you go west on TH 7 to TH 41, a lot of those homes, a lot of those subdivisions were put in there are back away from Highway 7. I mean they're not right up to the highway and they were done as good developments and they were done as single family traditional and obviously the developer looked and said, none of the single familiy people want to live here want to live on Highway 7. I mean that's just a given whether you're going to do single family or you're going to do PUD. Krauss: But for every example that I can show you instances where homes are 50 feet away from the highway. I don't know what would actually occur here but anything's possible. ' Mancino: Do you think we should change the PUD just for this one parcel? I mean shouldn't we go back into the parcel and say well let's do this medium density then? Let's rezone it? ...don't we have enough, when we did the comprehensive plan. When the ' comprehensive plan was done, you know there was all this information gathered about what we needed for land use and I assume, because I wasn't here, that the Planning Commission and the City Council went through and said this is how much we need for medium density housing. Otherwise we want the rest of it to be single family. And have the numbers 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 t changed so we need more medium density housing in Chanhassen? Krauss: I think what the comprehensive plan says is that you want that much land dedicate to low density uses, and this is consistent with that It never says that all winds up being single family uses. One of the other problems you have with writing ordinances is that products change. Needs change. It's hard to anticipate everything that's coming down the ' pike with an ordinance. The idea of detached cluster single family housing is a relatively new one that's been around Minnesota for the last 5 or 6 or 7 years and a lot of ordinances don't deal with it very well. I think our ordinance in hind sight might not deal with it very well. Mancino: Well I'd like to hear some opinions from the other planning commissioners. Dave, I have a question for you about the traffic on Arbor Drive. Are Dartmouth Drive and Arbor Drive substandard streets or are they pretty good? Are they 32 foot width? Can they take this amount of traffic? Hempel: They are an older neighborhood. The streets are not quite as wide as we build ' them today. I'm actually not sure of the width of the street but I would imagine it's probably 44 feet wide without curb and gutter. MnDot, there's another development proposed west of this which will be coming in this winter on the northeast corner of Highway 41. Or actually ' southeast corner of Highway 41 and: Not 41, Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. Excuse me, which is kind of the same scenario of accessing onto the highway and providing secondary access to the adjacent established neighborhood. There's no doubt that the traffic 1 on Highway 7, it is very difficult to make turning movements into the residential neighborhoods. MnDot is currently proposing to do some additional turn lanes—in '94 along this segment of Highway 7. There's also proposed traffic signals at the intersection of ' Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 at some future date which would also help gapping the traffic to assist in turning movements into these neighborhoods. MnDot's also looking at eliminating an access point or two onto Highway 7. Some of these neighborhoods that are S capable of looping interior or whether it's a frontage road type scenario. Batzli: Are you suggesting that these people would exit via Dogwood eventually? Hempel: Well, it's possible of maybe accessing another street west of Arbor Drive. If that's Dogwood, that's very well possible. I guess at this point that's conceptual... certainly be in ' contact with them if this proceeded... along the preliminary plat stage... improvements that were proposed along Highway 7 as well as access points eliminating along Highway 7. As far as a secondary access out of this site, the engineering staff as well as public safety have always ' gone for a secondary access site out of a parcel whenever it's feasible. However this circumstance, due to the impact on the wetlands with the channel area there, we did propose... 26 _ i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Mancino: What about, and I think you already said no to me but the north/south private drive. Why can't that go straight up into Highway 7 and have an access off Highway 7 straight up? Hempel: MnDot does regulate access points along the highway. Typically they're like a quarter mile apart, or they are nowadays. They limit access so we don't have all these turning movements every couple hundred feet down which would really make it hazardous. So I would seriously doubt they would even allow it. And then the other constraint is the grade. There's a severe grade difference there so that's the opposition to that. Farmakes: Is the wetland there natural? Aanenson: Along the channel is ag urban. But adjacent to the lake it's natural. Krauss: You mean is it natural as in... Farmakes: Yeah. In other words, by altering all the land, surrounding land around it. Krauss: It's hard to tell. It's pretty ... that much of the land that's coming through that ag urban wetland is discharged from developments in Shorewood. Discharge from Highway 7 and it's focused through a pipe. Now there's probably a natural drainage pattern there of some sort before it...but it's keeping it a wet a lot more than probably it used to be ... You know this is a concept and I think we should encourage people to throw ideas on the table. Kate and I were talking about something that may be a possibility. We know MnDot will probably kick if there's any additional access points onto the highway but there may be a possibility of constructing a better access through this development and actually closing Arbor. Aanenson: As you mentioned Brian, there is a significant grade change but it may be coming down. Making this a public street and then closing Arbor off. That would keep that, that's something that maybe we could investigate. Mancino: I guess that's about. Batzli: What do you think about the boats? Mancino: What do I think about the boats? Well, my core issue is whether I even feel we should be putting in any...with cluster homes with 5,000. I'm not sold on changing the ordinance to justify this development yet. 27 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 t Harberts: Changing the zoning or the ordinance? g g g Mancino: Changing the PUD ordinance to allow cluster homes, zero lot size to be in a low density versus a medium density design. Batzli: Okay. Mancino: So the boats follow what comes after that. My other concern about that is, I mean ' I like to have a lot of tools and diversity to plan and as things come in but you know if I lived in an area, in a neighborhood and beside me was undeveloped land and it was zoned RSF and I went to City Hall and I said, hey tell me a little bit about what can happen ... and I , come down here and do my due diligence and they say, well it's single family residential. You can have lot sizes 15,000. Besides you can have do it with the PUD ordinance... there could be some 11,000. Okay, fine. Good, I understand that Then all of a sudden in the middle of things we're saying, you actually could have now. You've been here a few years. i You could have cluster home, which I have nothing against cluster homes but 5,000 square foot lots, I don't know. I think I'd want. I know things change but I think that that would I make a lot of people mad. Batzli:. Well, just to play devil's advocate. They're getting further separation by doing this because if they did it RSF, they'd probably have a 30 foot backyard perhaps. That's about all that's required. Maybe 40. Right now they're spaced at least 100 feet from the existing home, at least according to the conceptual map and. ' Mancino: You mean on the east, on the west side? Batzli: On the west side. On the east side, I mean there's obviously an incredible space inbetween the houses as a buffer. And it does work out to be nearly, you know if you'll just take the net property, regardless of how you squeeze it in there. Pie shapes or weird jigsaw ' puzzle shapes to get the right footage, it does work out to be nearly a half acre per unit. The net. Based on the net acreage of the development so. _ Mancino: Taking away wetlands and what you do. Batzli: Well based on our report. The way it says the net. You know whatever that is. So zero lot lines was what I had initially, as we were doing the PUD. The clustering. The squishing in. Allow those people to live next to each other. They're buying into it. They , know what they're getting into. They're leaving open space. You're doing unique things around the perimeter. I like that in a PUD. I'd want to see that and so I don't, you know the 15,000 square foot thing wasn't a big deal to me provided you were doing something unique 28 .i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 that justified it being a PUD. Maybe that's my focus here but I don't have the hug e problem about the 15,000 square feet because this is kind of what I envisioned a PUD to be for. As opposed to making 11,000 square foot lots and then making one big one so somebody can keep all the trees in their backyard, which is what we've been seeing. So this excites me. So, I don't know. ' Mancino: In traditional or non - traditional developments? ' Batzli: I don't know that, I mean these are going to be you know I think, they're not going to be inexpensive homes. I think they're going to be nice homes and Boyers build nice homes so I don't have a problem with that, and I don't know that the neighbors had a problem with that so much as, you know if it came back in here with a regular development and they were able to fit 26 homes on there, we might not like it and the neighbors are stuck with the exact same amount of impact concerning number of daily trips. Because I really i don't see us, although I'm open for suggestions, putting a road through the wetland and across that other person's house that isn't part of the lot and then this 50 foot access. I kind ' of liked Paul's idea but this is going to impact it no matter how they develop it. And I'd like to see us obviously minimize the impact on the neighbors but I don't know that the fact that they're on small lots impacts them that much. So I think there is nice buffering around that side. We can argue. We can have them pull it a little bit or something but that's just my conceptual feel here. Jeff. Farmakes: I first of all have to give my sympathy to whoever was decided on this lot. It's almost like something out of a college exam. What a strange development problem I, first of all would like to clarify what it is we're doing here tonight by approving or disapproving this. Can we do that again Mr. Chairman? Batzli: We're merely saying whether we think this would be a good PUD development. ' Something along the lines we're looking at but we're not necessarily approving what we're looking at. Farmakes: Okay. I think that's now abundantly not clear. I want to compliment the builder. I also went and looked at I believe the same development. Nice homes and I hope you build a lot of them in this city. And I like clustering also. And this piece of property would not be ' a bad idea for clustering. From a design point I think that you probably utilize this property to it's maximum potential by doing this. I'm not so sure given that with the surrounding property to the east and west that that fits in that well. I did not hear extensive comments by adjacent property owners to the density issue or PUD. I know sometimes when you're discussing PUD's they say get a little strange. They're not as easy to put your finger on as some of the single family traditional quotas that developers have to meet. And I am 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 wondering also, and calculating this property we look at these densities again. I have the same problem I had last week, or two weeks ago. Four weeks ago when we look at these issues and we talk about densities in our formula. I think there's something inherently wrong with our density formula. Particularly on these types of properties. When we get properties like this that have a high ratio of undevelopable property within the development. It's your ' wetlands, trees, in this case a channel dug years ago. You're getting density ratios that are skewed. They're really not telling us the same thing that they would be telling us if it was a piece of farmland. And we don't make allowances for that, that I-know of. We're using ' tables to fall back on things to give us statistical, that it's okay here. We're going to do this and going back to the first one that I got onto when I was here up on the Lake Lucy Road. The Willows property. I was looking at these huge property alotments and these huge ' density. We were getting a low density but I was looking at these houses and they were all peppered very close to one another. And all these setbacks played into mind and the lot lines went into the wetlands and went out. They were calculated as square footage. I kind of came to the conclusion that these tables weren't telling me the story that I wanted to know. Anyway, also I'd like to address the comment of the 1,900 square feet used for calculating some of the concern that was talked about here tonight with the boats and so on. 1 Batzli: I'm sorry, you're referring to the shoreline? 1,900 feet of shoreline? Farmakes: Correct. What do we have? 17 issues that we went through here with the minimum lot size, or we had. Aanenson: The beachlots. ' Farmakes: The beachlots. Non - conforming beachlots. And so we spent the entire year going over lake access issues to this lake and so we do have some experience with dealing and hearing with many neighbors on Lake Minnewashta property owners. I know how sometimes there's cross jurisdiction between this in evaluating what is shoreline and what is boat ' averages or the formulas that we use for putting dockage and how many houses and there's so many formulas they're not to be believed but somehow they come to the conclusion that the most restrictive formulas apply. In looking at this, I wonder whether or not the County is evaluating this property as 1,900 square feet of shoreline in taxation. I can't imagine that the existing channel is not making up the majority of that shoreline that's being figured into the boating ratio. And I too would agree that it's a mirror situation. I think it's also giving a , distorted view of shoreline. I have a problem with this as a cluster area in this location. Not in general terms or design terms. The fact that it's market application, whether it's a need or not is really an issue of marketing and not really something that we should be deciding here. Whether or not the market will dictate what these homes are, as they often have throughout the decades of real estate and Chanhassen will be developed between the 60's and the year 30 r !I I - 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 2000. And those demands for housing have changed along with the population. And the skew between these needs now and the needs on either end of it, I'm having trouble digesting this fitting in there. That's it. I guess I would go with the staff recommendation if they had a dock but I still have the problem with addressing that issue if I'm really having a hard time supporting the issue of clustering in general in this location. Batzli: Okay. Joe. Scott: I think from, to talk about clustering. I think an example of where that really works, and I can't remember the name of the development but it was part of the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. That made tons of sense. I mean it was zoned for that particular type of housing. I'll borrow a page from Ladd's hymn book. One of the things that is -not entirely evident when you look at something like this is what's on either side and a lot of times what we rely upon is not only getting out to the site. Driving around. Walking around. Looking and going, oh my gosh. This is what RSF means here. That's what RSF means here. So trying to look at it in a total concept, I always have a problem when something needs to be rezoned, especially when you've got folks that have made investments on either side. And especially when you have the same developer who's actually developed the residential single family. So I would not be in favor of rezoning this particular property. I'm not going to dwell on other points that have been made that I also agree with. Just one question. Aren't we creating a heck of a cul -de -sac here with one entrance or shouldn't we just avoid that because we don't have as much flexibility with access to Highway 7? Is that something we just blow off? Because much has been made about cul-de -sac lengths and so forth. Hempel: The looped street system could be employed here by eliminating one of the lots or Lot 5 to loop back out. Scott: So that's doable. Okay. I don't really have anything else to add. Everything's been talked about. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think Joe said what my biggest concern is, and that's the continuity of between the neighbors and this property. In general the cluster housing, and I don't have a real problem with. I think I would, if I were to design this to protect the neighbors to the west, I would take off probably Lots 5 and 11 and have an access up to TH 7 out of this development and not run this development through the neighboring area. I really do have a problem running it all through the neighboring area right now. I think that's a major impact. That's not what we try to do here in Chanhassen. We kind of protect the people that are here and I think if there is a way to run this development out to Highway 7, I think that would, in closing off 31 comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane. 1 Harberts: I guess I like the higher density use of land. Discuss regional issues with regards to sewer and all that but I'll just leave it at that tonight. You put in the 7 or 8 15,000 square ' feet lots with...you've got 48 trips compared to what, 52? So in terms of traffic that's going to be generated, I think it's to some extent 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other one when you look at something like that. Is it more a matter of system management. I do have a concern 32 1 ' Planning ommission Meeting - December 1 1993 g g Arbor Drive, boy that makes a whole lot of sense to me. If that's possible. If it's not possible, then I have some real problems with the PUD. So there's some contingencies here. , If I can get you out to Highway 7 without impacting the neighborhood, then I feel that maybe we can protect the neighbors and the quality of life that they have. Or the style that they bought into. If we can't, then I have a real tough time with this. In terms of density, this is a ' case where clustering I like. Again, and the planning department keeps coming to us saying this works. This is great. On paper it doesn't look like we've really clustered to preserve something because on paper it looks like a lot of this stuff has to be there then or preserved ' anyway. So if the developer came in and said well, we're going to buffer the development to the west with 125 foot open space, ah. I get it. I actually understand why we clustered the houses. I don't see that here. What we've done is run all these units out through the ' neighborhood to the west. I guess I'm not in favor of that yet until I know I can't get out onto Highway 7 out of this development. It is one big long cul-de -sac is what it is and we fight those every 2 weeks here. I don't like that. Staff keeps beating us up because we, I don't know. It's just one big long cul -de -sac. In terms of dockage. I think our ordinance ' should guide us. I don't count, in my mind and maybe the courts have to figure this one out but the channel is not lakeshore. The reason we have a lakeshore ordinance and all the things ' that we do is to kind of protect the lake and the channel doesn't count so for the first 200 feet you get 3 boats. For the next 300 feet you get another 3. So whatever the land is on the lake, that's how many boats you get. I think in my mind it's real clear. We don't have to be arbitrary about that and maybe our ordinance never considered channels that were dredged into what we were doing but the channel in my mind doesn't count. So we're someplace ' between 9 and 12 boats. Someplace like that and I think staff laid that out. Number 2, or my final point is, I really don't like to have a development dictate something. Changing the PUD ordinance. I wouldn't mind revisting the PUD ordinance to see if it should happen. If we should have zero lot lines in the residential. I think what that would force us to do is say if we do, then we're looking for this so there would be some give and take in that ordinance that we develop. But again, I wouldn't mind revisiting that myself. I see some nice things ' about this. I don't see it in sync with the neighborhoods surrounding it. I think however if it can have it's own separate entrance, I think then some of my concerns vanish. And if I saw Parcel 5 and 11 vanish, maybe we have buffered the neighbors to the west. That's my , comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane. 1 Harberts: I guess I like the higher density use of land. Discuss regional issues with regards to sewer and all that but I'll just leave it at that tonight. You put in the 7 or 8 15,000 square ' feet lots with...you've got 48 trips compared to what, 52? So in terms of traffic that's going to be generated, I think it's to some extent 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other one when you look at something like that. Is it more a matter of system management. I do have a concern 32 1 a 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 though with the streets are, I guess as I will describe it as maybe substandard because they're 24 inches, or 24 feet but again you're putting in your 8 lots. You've got the same traffic going out on the streets. I think Ladd's point through about access to TH 7, staff's perspective of closing off Arbor I think has a lot of merit to look at. That would make me a little bit more comfortable with that. I'm a little, I'm uncomfortable with changing this to a PUD simply because again if you talk about affordable housing, I think that's one of the strong merits of PUD that should be looked at and it's being compromised. I know markets, land prices dictate. You know people have to get a buck out of this. I understand that. I guess from a city perspective, as we talk about our planning goals and objectives, I'd like to see a little bit more emphasize in terms of affordable housing. I think it's appropriate for a community to have more diversity in housing but getting off of that, going back to this particular project. I'll support it. I'll support the concept. Interesting with clustering. I'm guessing there's going to be an association dealing with the snow and things like that. I'm going to leave it to the expertise of staff as well as public safety or the fire department or whatever to address traffic. Taking into consideration I think those comments made by everyone has a lot of merit on this. With regards to the boats. I also agree that, I don't count the existing channel. I think staff used at this point a good methodology as I understand what's available in terms of calculating that. So I'm just going to, I guess I'll support this in concept. I will be interested to see what comes back in as a preliminary site plan. Bob Boyer: Mr. Chairman? B atzli: Yes. Bob Boyer: As a developer, will we have an opportunity to just address the commission just one more time? Address just some of the issues that I think we can maybe clarify a few things. I guess my presumption is we're going to take a vote here at some point in time. Batzli: Yes. I have to ramble here for a few minutes but why don't, go ahead. Why don't you, I'll give you about 3 minutes if you want to address specific points. Bob Boyer: I know there's, as I listened to each person present their concerns, probably the biggest concern I hear among the Council members is missing this housing type in sandwiching between existing single family homes, residences. I think if you look around the lake area you'll see examples of this. Gideon Cove certainly is an example of a development of this sort. It was put right smack in the middle of a single family development and yeah, we had some opposition but I think what we're hearing people saying as demographics change and people you know, our society's aging and they're housing needs are changing as well. What all these people are saying is, don't stick us by the highway. I don't want to be t1h 33 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 1 Li along 494. I don't want to be along the corridors and major freeways which is typically where a lot of cities are positioning their higher density type of housing. And I hear a lot of these people saying, we don't want it either. That's why there's such a tremendous demand ' for this type of housing. People want to continue to be in the neighborhoods they raised their kids in. The neighborhoods that they enjoyed through the years. They don't want to be stuck , out by the freeway so we've found that there's a tremendous acceptance of this type of housing amoung the people that we've worked with in the past. Single family homeowners that are now living adjacent to developments that we've put in, as well as other developments other builders have done such as Amsbury. Certainly Gideon Cove is one that we've done ' and Red Cedar Cove is one that's done on the south side of the lake. We've seen tremendous success in the acceptance level of those in the neighboring communities. Not only that but ' the neighboring communities have actually benefitted from those type of housing developments because they are a planned development. They know the archtectural style. They know in the beginning that those homes, those areas are going to be planned and they're ' going to be maintained perpetually by professional people. We know that there are going to be enhanced and attractive for many, many years to come. You don't have that kind of assurance when you plunk a house on a half acre lot and each person is responsible for determining how they will have maintained that property. That's just kind of defense of using mixed housing types. I don't think we need to just, you'folks staying on one type of housing but we can, I think it's appropriate to mix housing types in a neighborhood. As far ' as out traffic, I'd like to just kind of reiterate what Diane said. I think originally when Dartmouth Drive was put in, this little leg of Dartmouth Drive was intended to service this property someday in the future. It was originally intended to do that. We're doing that and ' obviously there's going to be some opposition but if you wanted, if you say okay. Now we're dumping 26 homes on this property, that's not fair. I think what you've got to do is say what is the alternative. The alternative was to have single family development with much , higher traffic levels and have them... Obviously we've got to exit somewhere and this doesn't seem to be appropriate, at least from our standpoint, an appropriate alternative. This was originally intended and designed for that purpose. I think it's a natural thing to do. ' Batzli: Would you be willing to look at trying to develop an access out through this development and closing Arbor Drive? ' Bob Boyer: Well there is an access right here right now. There's a drive that comes out right through here which we're going to be required to close down at some point in time. Dave here, is it Dave. Is certainly probably more knowledgable on that than we are. One thing I am concerned about however is there is a considerably thick buffer of trees along TH , 7 here which we want to retain. I mean that is critical to the success of this property. If that is destroyed, not only that but there is a significant grade difference as he mentioned from Highway 7 here to this property here. You've probably got at least a 25 -30 foot grade I 34 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 ' difference. I would think that...I don't see how you're going to accomplish that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I guess I've heard several people talk about not wanting to change the zoning. What I would like to see is something on the order of what Ladd proposed and that is, what we really need, if we're going to do it, we need to take a look at it in more ' detail to see whether it's something we want to do. It may look good on this one parcel but we really haven't considered what it will do for other parcels and whether it's good, bad or indifferent. So I have a hard time kind of changing the ordinance based on this suddenly ' coming in and maybe it's because the light bulb hasn't gone on in my head as to exactly why we want to do it or not do it yet. And maybe we just need more education on that as a commission. And have it be a separate issue. Harberts: But aren't we doing that by the proposal of supporting this in concept? Have it come back in detail so we can in a sense understand that? ' .- Batzli: Well one of the conditions would be that we would amend the PUD ordinance to allow these types of homes in RSF. Is that right? Aanenson: Yeah. Well, zero lot lines. Harberts: Well, I mean it's like. Mancino: Yeah but we want to deal with it as two separate issues is what we're saying. Batzli: I would like to deal with it as a separate issue. I don't want to deal with it as part of this project personally. So if there was a condition it would be that, our approval of this is ' contingent on us looking at it separately and deciding that it was a good thing. 1 don't like the way that this is kind of being done. ' Harberts: Well basically Brian what we're doing is we've got an ordinance and this is, and I've only been on here a short time. Isn't this like a test application of the ordinance? I mean isn't that what's happening right now and what we're saying is we don't know if we ' like what we have. And with your experience and your experience Ladd on here, have you had experience with this kind of proposal? Looking at that ordinance where it's tested? Where it's applied like this? Batzli: Yes. ' Harberts: So isn't that what we're doing? Are we consistent or is the logic consistent with what your experience has been? 35 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 Batzli: Well I think normally we've done exactly what, at least I'm trying to suggest and that is, we normally put the brakes on and say, we need to look at this in the bigger picture rather than saying knee jerk, well yeah looks good here. Let's do it. ' Scott: I don't think that, at least personally, I'm not willing to say this is the new ordinance and then come what may because I don't think that I'm in a position to deal with another, ' because you know that people who are really sharp in the development area, and you have options on property in a particular municipality, you're going to go oh, well here's a change in the ordinance. And you know, we're going to get more of these things and I think about ' the Lundgren proposal that we had a major objection to which was a PUD which had all the right things but didn't pass the sniff test. I kind of see this as being somewhat similar in that we were uncomfortable with it. Could quantify it somewhat but I think we need to do, as ' you said, is put the brakes on this particular project and then address the ordinance and then work with that and say what are we going to be getting if we make this kind of change. ' Batzli: I think that again it would be nice to somehow be educated as to, you know I like the concept of clustering. I think that on a lot like this that's going to hard. to develop, it makes ' some sense. I don't know that the issue with the neighbors is necessarily that these people are on small lots so much as perhaps the more intense use of the access roads. And like I said up front, I don't know that it would be any less if it was developed in another manner ' with larger lots. So I'm not sure about that. I know that this is an incredibly dangerous stretch of Highway 7. The turning on and off the road is dangerous and it concerns me and anything we can do to make that safer or convince MnDot to put in some stop lights or ' whatever we've got to do, I think eventually we've got to get that done. To basically put 26 people entering and exiting off of Arbor, I know that's not really Arbor Drive. Whatever the real name of it is I think, that really concerns me right now. I think that needs to be looked ' at, even at a conceptual stage. Boats, I think staff is being consistent actually with what we've been doing. So if this showed some sort of NURP pond or something with the drainage coming off from the northeast side, if we had a little bit more buffering to the west, if we talked about the access issue, I can support this in concept very easily. I did have one question for Dave and that is, why would we go with private drives here rather than public streets? , Hempel: That's a good question. I guess just based on the amount of right -of -way required, certain number of homes designates for net density as well as a wider pavement section. Typically when you have a cluster type home, condominium type homes... private drive is... homeowners association. ' Batzli: I assume we need the turn around at the end of Dartmouth Drive so since we're not going to plow the streets we need some place for people to turn around before they get 36 , +: A +�A I L! 1 I � L! i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 dumped into a private system? Hempel: That's correct: Batzli: Okay. I don't have any other comments. Is there more discussion or a motion? Conrad: I'm not sure what our motion would be. I think the developer, this is a sketch plan review. The developer wants to take it to City Council and see what they think. There's no reason for us to table it. It's their chance to get feedback. Yet on the other hand, I don't think I want to be talking about conceptual approval right now because so much of this is dependent on whether we want to change the PUD ordinance. So to make a motion in favor or opposed to the, I'm lost. I can't do that. I think, you know what I'd like to.do is note what we've said and send it up to the City Council with a note saying that would they like us to review the PUD ordinance for review of the issue that this brings up. Batzli: Well let's assume that the Council wants us to look at the issue and that somehow this is contingent on us passing favorably on that issue. Would then people like this or, now assume for a minute that the Council is going to say yes, we want to do this to the PUD. Makes sense to us. Quite putzing around Planning Commission. Say yes or no. Do you like it or not. Assume for a minute that they want us to do that in a PUD. Do we like this as a concept or no? Without taking a formal vote. I mean everybody seems hung up on the' PUD issue but, amending it but let's assume that the PUD is going to be changed and the Council wants us to do that. Do we like it? Do we not like it? From a concept standpoint. Not that you like this exact plan but does this make sense in this spot. Farmakes: Are you asking me? Batzli: Sure. Farmakes: I don't think so, no. Mancino: Because of the east/west neighborhoods? On each side of it. Farmakes: Yeah. I think it's just stuck in the wrong spot here. I'm not talking about the cluster or the PUD. I also think that there are other issues. The reason that I didn't address the traffic, would it have to be altered from what I can see would be traffic areas outside of this development and I'm not sure, MnDot would be a major player in that decision and whether it's traditional or PUD. Because of the way that the development is effectively cut off on the east side. So I don't know how you're going to get around that short of putting a bridge over that channel. You're going to have to redo, it would seem to me some of the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1. ' handle a no matter what highways to the west. I don't know how you're going to an that, goes in g there. 'r ' Batzli: Well if they come in with a standard subdivision, they're going g to g et out on Arbor. Farmakes: Well, no matter whether it's PUD or a standard, if Arbor's already a problem, a , safety issue, no matter if it's intent, we're contributing to the problem and it would seem to me that outside of this development issue, public safety and highway and engineering need to ' address that issue no matter what goes in there. Batzli: I think what we need to do is basically make, I would like to at least see us make ' two motions. One is basically to somehow or another ask the Council whether they want us to take a look at the PUD. And then make a motion on our gut feel on this and with the understanding that we think it really depends on what we end up doing with the PUD. ' n Farmakes: I agree to a certain extent. Also, it's not just the PUD. Our shoreland ordinance I think needs a little look at. As I recall, ditch digging was not, we didn't cover that on it. ' Conrad: That's probably true. I think they can take advantage of whatever it is right now so we probably should look at what it means. , Scott: I think it's the spirit of the ordinance versus the intent. Or the zoning. Batzli: The spirit versus the intent? , Harberts: ...higher level here of intent. Scott: I just wanted to see if anybody was listening. Harberts: Sounds kind of ghostly huh. , Scott: It is. I'm thinking that we should table the development and use that, and say the , reason why we've tabled this is because of this issue with regard to the PUD. Use this as the test case and then, you know they're experienced in this because obviously they're the body that makes the decision. And I just use this as an example. Say this is the reason why we r think we need to look at the PUD ordinance because we're probably going to get more of these. What do you want us to do? ' Conrad: Well does tabling allow us to pass it up to City Council? I don't think it does. I think we have to do something. 38 1 i C S I 7 1 it Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Our comments here are on record. This is a conceptual review. It's not, we're not approving anything here right? Aanenson: ...clustering, zero lot line. Batzli: Well let's assume for a minute Paul that we tabled it and said, we want to look at the PUD. We want to be educated more on what those changes mean. How quickly .could you come back to us with those kind of changes and that kind of report given the fact that we've just cleared all of our agendas into February. Krauss: ...sometime in February. Batzli: And what that do to the applicants if we sit on this for a while? Bob Boyer: Well, it delays our project... we're concerned about getting this project moving. Anytime it's held up, you said you're waiting until February? ...obviously we're concerned about moving along with this project. Batzli: Okay. The risk, I think you run a greater risk right now. Just to give you my sense of what the motion's going to be is that if we move it on tonight, we will recommend denial. I haven't counted any noses here but that's what I'm hearing. So be that as it may, is there a motion? Conrad: Yeah, I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case #93 -7 with all the conditions of the staff report Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: I'll second it. Batzli: Discussion? Mancino: Discussion would be only adding to it the highway problem The traffic that we're putting in. Seeing if Dave can check out with MnDot putting in that road. Conrad: Yeah, in fact I'm glad you brought that up Nancy. I would like to make that point number 16 in the staff report. To re- examine access to Highway 7. Scott: And also too do we want to re -visit the applicability of including channels and like. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Definition of shoreline. Scott: Definition of shoreline maybe excluding channels or whatever. Batzli: I'm sorry, Ladd. Was your motion that you recommend that the Council instruct us to look at the PUD? Conrad: Right. The PUD ordinance. Batzli: Okay. And in the meantime are we tabling this? What are we doing with this? Conrad: Until, I would have to read my motion back. I only remember a 30 second retention span. Batzli: It was just such a clever motion. t 1 7 1 Aanenson: What I wrote down is that you recommended the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before you make any recommendation. They can remand it back to you and they can go ahead... Conrad: Right. Right. Batzli: Okay, so our recommendation on this. So this goes up with that as the recommendation? Conrad: I think the developer should hear what they think. - I don't think we should mess around with the ordinance if the City Council doesn't want us to. Batzli: Yeah, that makes sense. Conrad: We have so many other things to do that if this is a priority, we'll do it Batzli: Okay. Now you wanted to amend your motion to include the access onto TH 7. And our second accepted that? Conrad: Yeah. Batzli: And we had another proposed amendment here to shoreland something or other. Conrad: I don't know that I want that as a motion on this. I'd like staff to look into that and M I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 make a. Harberts: A clever way of pushing it up. Conrad: Well, to review what a channel does in terms of our ordinance. In terms of lakeshore footage. Batzli: Okay. Just so that the applicant knows what we're about to do here. We're going to vote on, we're going to recommend to the City Council that they instruct us, whether they want us to look at the PUD or not We're really not making a recommendation on your ' conceptual plan but it will go along with that as our recommendation up to the City Council. Correct. Bob Boyer: So the next meeting would be with the City Council? Batzli: Yes it would and we basically would not have made a yea or nay recommendation other than our comments on record. Tom Merz: Can you explain what does the City Council then ... what will be happening with this? Batzli: The City Council can then choose to approve the concept, disprove the concept, or table it pending us looking at the PUD ordinance. Tom Merz: Will they do that with or without you looking at the ordinance? Would they just approve or? Batzli: Yes, they could. They could approve it. Disprove it or as a third alternative, table it while we looked at something. Farmakes: But what they would be approving though would be the concept. It would still come back... Batzli: One at a time. Conrad: It's still in the concept stage. Harberts: Quick, take the vote. Batzli: Sorry. Okay, is there any other discussion? 41 E Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 t 1 Resident: I had one question. You're stating that as it sits then the City Council makes the decision either way. Are you not advocating your responsibility to provide them with your ' expertise? You have just said that you believe that the nay's would have it but instead of letting the City Council know that, you're simply going to pass it up saying if you want us to look at an ordinance, we will. Otherwise here it is, you decide. Batzli: No, I don't think so. I think the record will very plainly speak for itself. I'm having a tough time counting noses because the initial hurdle that we have to get over is in facrthis ' PUD issue. And if we can't get to that, we really can't recommend yes or no. And so by sending it up to the Council in that manner, we are going to see this again as a site plan. Assuming that the City Council approves it as a conceptual plan. We will see this again and , make a recommendation yes or no in it's final form. But I don't think we're able to say that it's a good concept or not given the piece of property that it sits on. And that's really what we're saying. ' Resident: You're definitely not through with the issue then? Batzli: We are not through with the issue. We are going to see this again in all it's gory, in ' fact in more gory detail the second time as an actual site plan rather than as a conceptual review, which is what we're doing tonight. Although you wouldn't know it by the discussion. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. ' Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD .ordinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case #93 -7, with the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall work with the City in designing the interior storm drainage system in ' accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be compensated for oversizing costs on the 30 -inch trunk storm sewer line through the site. All internal storm sewer pipes shall be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm ' event. 2. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat I approval process. 3. Detailed grading and drainage and utility construction plans and specifications will be , required as a part of the preliminary and final plat approval process. The construction plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's construction standards. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 r 4. The private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. ' S. The applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable turnaround at the end of Dartmouth Drive. ' 6. The applicant shall have the wetland delineated by a qualified wetland specialist and the wetland boundary accurately denoted on the grading plan. 7. The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of ' Engineers, Health Department, City of Chanhassen, MnDOT, MPCA and MWCC. 8. Soil engineering on lots shown with peat or muck will be a requirement with any future review. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official letter dated November 10, 1993. ' 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's letter dated November 9, 1993. r 11. Only 12 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at a common dock and two storage racks allowing up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be permitted. 12. The existing home on the development site be removed prior to any new construction: 13 Amendment of the PUD Ordinance allowing for cluster of zero lot line homes low- density designation of the 2000 Land Use Plan. 14. A tree preservation plan and wetland re- vegetation plan shall be submitted for approval. 15. Park and trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate currently in force. ' 16. Staff shall re- examine access onto Highway 7. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with ' a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons for voting nay? i 43 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 r Harberts: J support the concept. All we're doing is supporting the concept. I think the discussion points that were brought up were valid. I think they can be incorporated into more ' of a conditions report. I got over the hurdle. I'm over the hurdle folks so, that's it. Batzli: I'm over the hurdle as well. I like it in concept. If we have to look at the PUD we I will and the Council will tell us to and I think we should take a vote. Harberts: I've been in the minority all day so what's one more. I Batzli: So this goes to the Council when? Aanenson: January 10th. ' Batzli: January 10th this will be in front of the Council. We encourage you to follow the issue up and let them know your concerns as well. Thank you all for coming in tonight. 1 PUBLIC HEARING. . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE PARCEL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 64,132 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, ' A 26,100 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 13.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, ' GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4. BLOCK 1. WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Public Present: ' Name Address Charlie James T.F. James Company John Meyers Byerly's ' Dan Beckman 6895 Chaparral Lane Craig Hallett Future Resident of Chanhassen Vemelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Lyle King 7629 Oakland Bill King 4801 Minneapolis Ave, Orono , Tim Menning 980 ... Circle, Burnsville Bob King 6122 Arctic Way, Edina Arnie Privie Gateway Foods, Minneapolis ' 44 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 r Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: So do the plans that we're looking at have any rational equivalence to what's actually going to go in there? Generous: Yes. Except for the sidewalk and the reduced elevation. All the building locations. Batzli: And all of the landscaping? Generous: Well, we'll have improved landscaping. Batzli: Okay. Can you go back to the Rhorshak one you had up there. Can you explain what that was supposed to tell us? Generous: This is just that southwest commercial building. What they've done is reduce this ' elevation by 5 feet. The ground floor elevation. Batzli: So this is just showing the new grade? Generous: Yeah. What they've done is created a steeper grade from here to this parking Y �P gr P g area and then this is just, it's 5 feet lower.. The ground floor elevation. Batzli: Oka thank y ou. Thanks. Okay, y D oes the applicant have a presentation for the Planning ' Commission? Yes. Harberts: I'd like to ask one question. Is there any involvement by the HRA in this project? With Byerly's or this first segment of the project. Generous: I believe they've had discussion. ' Krauss: Yeah, I don't believe they've come, and Charlie you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think they've come before the HRA yet. It's been discussed at a staff level. I think they're scheduled for Saturday? Harberts: So there's an opportunity? Krauss: Yeah, I think there really s, to be honest, there's almost nothing that I know of Y g that's being done in the downtown area in the last 10 years that didn't had some sort of TIF package attached to it. 45 �n Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 . Harberts: Does that proposal that will come before them include the whole plan or is it just for the Byerly's, or that...? Krauss: I assume it's the entire. It's based on how much taxes are going to be generated by building a development in there so, and the HRA does have, it's kind of...they do look at the quality of the project and would basically defer to you, the Planning Commission and the City Council on the site plan issues. Harberts: With regard to the proposed senior housing, is that just concept or is that perhaps ' g P oP g J P more than a concept in what happens? When we were at the Vision 2002 meetings, ' Krauss: Well let me give a...of that. Wh g , there were comments pro and con about senior housing showing up on the corner and a post office site. I even heard some accusations cast towards Charlie James for, somebody accused staff of being in the hip pocket of the developer. That we had a deal on the side and really nothing. could be further from the truth. What's happened is we designated several sites for potential senior housing and we've referred a number of developers who have come to talk to us about i senior housing, to go talk to Charlie James. Mr. James is aware that we're seeking a site for senior housing. He's also aware that we may need to seek a site to relocate the post office. In the interest of meeting the city needs and offering a proposal to the city in terms of settling, we had—land acquisition for the realignment of 78th Street. Mr. James presented this as something for our discussions and if it's, that's simply all it is. There's no deal. There's ' no guarantees that that's to be decided. It was for illustrative purposes only. Harberts: For discussion purposes only, with senior housing, who would be the owner or is , that part of the, does it generate taxes I guess? Or is this something that the city will own or the HRA will lease out or what's the potential relationship there? Krauss: I uess the answer is yes. We've discussed all those options... g Harberts: Just a question for Brian, or the commission here. When we look at this, are we ' just looking at this tonight or are we in a sense looking at this? Krauss: No, you are just looking at the Byerly's and the commercial strip component. ' Scott: Can I ask a question? When was this, I see we have a site plan. When was this a conceptual? , Krauss: It's not. It's not a PUD. I know you haven't seen it for a long time but this is actually straight zoning. This is under the CBD district. ' 46 . I i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Scott: I see site lan approval and then for 1 f I'v p pp o 00,000 square feet and a got an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of paper that I'm supposed to use to do this. I mean that seems to me to be, when we have a lot of. ' Krauss: Didn't you get the full sized copy? Scott: No. No. This is it and we have a guy who wants to subdivide something into 3 lots ' and we have 3 or 4 pages. Krauss: There was some error on our part because we had full sized copies and. ' Scott: I'm not that good to be able to render an opinion on this based upon what I have in my packet. I don't know about the other folks but I sure can't. ' Farmakes: The elevation plan is illogical. Krauss: That's real unfortunate because it's not the developers fault. We have those in our office and we assumed they got distributed last week. ' Scott: Maybe we should have called. Mancino: We haven't seen architecture designs, nothing. Scott: No. Harberts: That's the end of my questions Brian. Batzli: Thank you. Threw a monkey wrench into that one didn't you? Does the developer ' have a presentation for the Planning Commission? Before we get started Charlie I should admit that the last time I think you were in front of us you told the story about a chicken and a pig walking down the road and I've used that I've kind of stolen it from you and I just wanted to get that upfront. ' Charlie James: Have you kept track of how many times because I have a royalty. A nickel. Batzh: Well yeah, I just used it once but I was planning on using it again shortly so that's why I was thinking about it. I was hoping that you would maybe have something like that again. ' Harberts: Well enlighten the new ones here. Come on. Don't keep us in the dark. ' 47 Ll Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1. Charlie James: I think I've exhausted the Council's tolerance for stories. Harberts: I think this is going to be a condition of approval. That we hear this story. Batzli: I'll tell it to you afterwards. It's a good one. ' Charlie James: Well, for those of you that I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, my name is Charlie James. I'm with the T.F. James Company. We're a privately held firm headquartered in Eden Prairie. We're essentially a family business. We were incorporated in , 1946 and we've been doing these types of projects throughout the Midwest since the early 60's. And I'm pleased to be here tonight. I think we've got really a first class project here ' that would be an asset to any community. If I could put these together. I apologize too that you didn't have the large drawings. We submitted 27 copies of those folded to the city at the `time of submission. Why don't we start with this. ' Batzli: You need to actually move stage right or left. I never did quite have that down. For the camera if you could for just one second... ' Scott: Stage left. ' Batzli: Okay. I don't know, are you facing the audience or the camera? Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. ' Charlie James: And m able assistant is, his name is John Meyers. John Meyers is a Vice Y Y President of Byerly's and what we have here basically. I guess we can start with a building and I'll go into some of the site issues. We have a brick building that we brought you a , sample of the material that we're talking about. It's probably good if I hold it back this far from you. And we'd be using this material in conjunction with some native Kasota stone. Some Mankato or Kasota stone. That'd be rough cut stone accents in these areas here. And , we started with the design of the Byerly's. We tried to articulate the front of that and then have varying heights for more visual interest. And once we established the motif here, then we tried to repeat some of these same patterns with the balance of the center to give an overall cohesive feel to the project. We varied roof heights and this building's moving in and out of the plane here as well as up and down. We have an 8 foot grade drop from here to here and we wanted to avoid just a one long monotonous looking building here and want to ' link this and the clock tower, this is actually a functional item and what would be in here is stairs and elevator. And what you're seeing right here is an enclosed walkway that would take you into the second level of this building here. So this is functional as well as I think sort of aesthetic and we try to incorporate some design references that already exist in town. One of the things that we did here in working and getting some preliminary feedback from ' 48 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 staff was when the Target was done there was a concern about the wall. There being just a flat wall so what you're seeing here are little shadow lines and what we're proposing there is we'd pull the brick out from the face and create little shadow boxes in here. And then there'd be base planting of that so these are like little rectangular elements and then we've basically repeated that on the other side of the building here where the restaurant is and we've put windows, arched windows within those same elements. So we've tried to break up just the monotony of the big flat expanse of wall here. Let's see. This is a drive thru here and the way that this functions is that the automobiles are entering through here and corning out on this other side and then this building is stepping out and playing this. This shot is a little more shadow here and it's back in. Recessed probably 30 feet and then this one pulls out a little bit more and then this element pulls out again so this is stepping out in 3 steps and then the entry again is accentuated by being pulled out. So that kind of creates this area where cars can come through. We have a double lane in there so that we have ample stacking for the parcel pick -up. And then we've provided some planter boxes. Batzli: I had a question. Is there internal access from Byerly's. Is there a covered walkway, ' internal walkway down through the retail or is it entrance only through outside sidewalk and then in through these entrances? H u Charlie James: Well both actually but where we want to direct people. John Meyers: Well there's no internal access. Batzli: There's no internal walkway? Charlie James: No. I mean people could go that way. There's nothing to prevent them from walking along underneath here. John Meyers: Not inside the store. There's a walkway, but it's a sidewalk from our door underneath a canopy for the drive thru right down to there. Charlie James: Okay, but yeah. And then all of us, from here all the way down is enclosed. I mean the sidewalk in front of the shops. You have a. Mancino: So at what point does the walkway, internal walkway start? Batzli: Okay. So there's no internal access between the grocery store and the retail? John Meyers: It starts at the retail. At the other end of the retail. 49 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 John Meyers: No. Harberts: Mr. Chair. How tall is the canopy? John Meyers: Which part? This? Harberts: Where you drive thru or drive under or whatever? John Meyers: Probably about 25 feet. Charlie James: It's 25 on there now. Harberts: From road surface to the... John Meyers: Oh, on the inside? Harberts: Yeah. John Meyers: It's a minimum of about 18 feet I think on all our stores. Charlie James: This, I'll just have to hold this one up. Batzli: Has our Fire Marshal looked at that? Charlie James: Yes. There was a meeting with all mechanical and building inspection people. Batzli: Did we have a report from the Fire Marshal in the packet? Has he looked at this stuff? Generous: He said they have no comment at this time. Batzli: Really? Okay. John Meyers: I mean if it's an issue that we ... we wouldn't get a permit obviously to build it. I mean that's something we deal with. Batzli: Okay. Charlie James: This may help explain what's happening across the front of the building here. 50 t u Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 This represents the edge of the Byerly's store here. So here you see the drive through coming out and these are the covered walkways here. So there's a, when you're coming into this store, you're walking through a planting bed and then you're in a covered walkway situation and the grade drops occur at the building wall so there's a grade drop here and then this is held at pretty much the same elevation for the sidewalk and this area is going down. So at this point you're going down on the sidewalk into the covered area. The planting beds in front and by the time you get down to this other end, you would be going up because we're holding this, the elevation from here to here constant and the site is going down a- little bit. And then we have a covered walkway here and unfortunately this wasn't big enough to fit on, all on one sheet but there's a projection out this way. Now the parking that staff was concerned about is right here. That sounds like that was confusing to you folks earlier this evening. Staff had a concern that there'd be some traffic conflicts between people backing out here and entering the center from the driveway so what has been suggested ' is that we take this parking out of here and put a planting bed in front of this plaza area out here and then take that parking, put it down here. There was also 11 parking stalls that functioned off of this driveway and it was—to be combined. John Meyers: It's shown on the plans. Charlie James: What we're talking about is taking these out. Extending this planting bed all the way across. Removing this parking here and then orient the parking through here. . John Meyers: That was a request of the staff... confusion here. That was also a request asked if we could drop this 5 feet. So the sketch drawing that you saw is just a result of meeting with staff on Monday. They asked, can you drop this 5 feet? We said we'll see what we can do and dropped it 5 feet. Charlie James: There was a concern here about, there was a reference made to Rapid Oil Change and I'm not familiar with that but I'm not sure that we have the same situation because we have over 200 feet from the center of the road back so I think we have maybe a longer slope than we do out there. I don't know. But in any event, we can drop this and there would be, the slopes would occur here and here within the green area. About the only thing that happens is that this gets, this driveway becomes a little bit steeper in here so this would be down. Held down a little bit from the rest of the project here. One of the things that we're talking about is trying to create an amenity area down here with some picnic tables and I just want, this looks like, maybe this looks like this is rather random but there's been enumerable drawings to get to this point. You start first I guess along with the topography and we have a situation here where we have a hill going up anywhere from 12 to 21 feet above what our grade would be here. So it gives us the opportunity to take some of those areas of the loading areas and by having them at the toe of the slope, the people up here 51 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 wouldn't really see them, I mean they'd be down like this at the toe of the slope. So then there were'many refinements that we went through about experimenting the drive thru on this side. Drive duo on this side and there was just many permeatations before when you combine with the need for parking and need for open space and you're trying to meet all of these ... to the code with no variance, which is what we have attempted to do. All those things ' work to kind of push the site into a certain configuration. Batzli: What is the impervious coverage on that? Charlie James: Impervious would be 70%. Batzli: What's our maximum? Generous: 70. ' 4:Batzli: So they're right at the maximum? Generous: Yes. Charlie James: I think we're half a percent. John Meyers: There was a little margin. Mancino: There was interior landscaping... John Meyers: Actually more interior landscaping than it looks... ' Charlie James: I think there's 8 1/2. Well that was before the, then I guess staff was requesting that we have some islands in here in addition so I haven't looked at those ' calculations as to how that will increase the green but we started out in excess of the ordinance and then in the process here of designing this, the ordinance was changed from 5 to 8 I believe. Is that right Paul? At 8 and I think we came in at about 8 1/2% before these ' subsequent changes that are being suggested or recommended by the staff now. One of the things that came up at one point was the view from City Hall. I asked the engineers to come out and get some elevations near your City Hall. Here's a cross section. We have your City ' Hall building here and this is a YMCA and Kerber, there's going to be a berm along Kerber. What Kerber is doing. What this drawing shows is, it shows the size of the trees at a certain level of maturity in relationship to the building. The green would be the top. of the berm and the orange represents the center line elevation of Kerber and so the combination of Kerber coming down would be the berm on top. And then rather than just indicate that the trees 52 ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 would be placed directly on top of the berm, if they were off to one side or the other, that's ' why I mean if they were on top of the berm there'd even be more height here but I guess what this shows is that the combination of the trees and the natural topography in the area will serve to further screen this side of the building. This shows the trees that are, the ornamental trees that are proposed at the ends of these planting islands. This is overstory trees that they had requested along the central access to the site. Again, here's reference to the arched windows and those are set within a rectangular pattern. That's a repetition of this ' pattern here up front. This is a design reference to your fire hall. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Is the back brick also? Finished in brick... Charlie James: We're proposing, let me get back to the site plan. ' Mancino: And I love the mature trees that you're going to plant. Those are wonderful. Charlie James: One of the reasons for this plan here is that you have an ordinance that says the trees have to be planted every 30 feet so all we were trying to do here is show massing and 30 feet but I mean obviously we'd like to do some groupings and do some other things but all this plan was intended as is to show the quantity as required by code and that code says every 30 feet and staff had a good idea back here. There will be a retaining wall element in here someplace to keep the slopes down. We've got, we won't be able to make the final determination on the length and the height of that but what we intend to do is, rather ' than go up in just one wall, we'd take it up in segments and we want to use the same materials that Dean Johnson is using. The ...block or. ' John Meyers: The Keystone brick. Charlie James: Yeah. 'So all of this would look tied in up here. And then staff suggested that a lot of this plant material go up the slope rather than being on the base of the slope because you've got a condition like this where it really doesn't serve to screen much being at ' the toe of the slope. It'd be more effective and you could almost see some of it behind the building too as it goes up. ' Batzli: Where are your loading docks on that? Charlie James: Here. And so what we've done. John Meyers: Well here, here, here, and here. 1 Charlie James: There's a loading dock here, here, and here. Down here. And what we've 1 53 E Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 done. What we've shown on the plans. It's hard to pick out here but we have kind of provided a brick screen wall that runs all the way down to the end of the building here and I it's hard to pick it out against. Batzli: Which elevation is that? That's east? ' Charlie James: Yeah, facing City Hall. And see there's a truck dock in here. So we've run the, there's a line in here. That's the top of it. It starts at this point here and it runs all -the ' way over as far as it can to here. So it's like a 8 foot high wall here out of brick that screens this loading dock here and we're showing how the topography would. John Meyers: The site plan shows it. , Charlie James: It's not as red as it could be but that's a masonry brick wall. In response to ' your question about materials. One thing that we would like to look at is we're trying to make a determination whether this will be brick on masonry or brick on steel frame and that's going to be a function of the weather and one thing that we're looking at is we'd like to have ' the opportunity to consider some alternates in this area right here. Stucco that would be kind of the same color as the brick and be virtually indistinguishable from it. ' Mancino: On the front side? John Meyers: No, just in back. Just the north side. ' Charlie James: And this is a hill coming down here. There's quite a slope in the topography so we're talking brick wrapping around the building here and Byerly's completely in brick , here. That's just a segment back in here. One of the reasons for that is, is that this is a small tenants space and you don't really know some of these people in the future may have a need for additional space. For instance it's nice to be able to have what they call a knock out ' wall or something. This gives you more flexibility in the future but the tenant stucco would be the same. If we went that route, it would be the same brown. It would only be putting this segment and it would be visible from any direction. It'd be totally hidden from view ' from all sides here. I guess one of the things that, if there was one area that we're trying to come in under straight zoning and meet all the codes and ordinances. The one thing that seemed kind of problematic was the, was your sign ordinance. You have a sign ordinance ' that says that no signs can exceed 15% of the wall area of the building and each individual sign can't be more than 80 square feet in size. Well, for instance on a retail center here, what we're proposing. This would be like maximum but this would be worst case scenario. Batzli: Is that what we're going to get? 1 VA 54 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: Well what I mean b that is we have a tenant that wants this whole Y � space here now but it has the potential to become individual spaces so I'm going to show those ' signs here but more than likely this is, from here to here is going to be one tenant. But in any event, what we've shown here are eight 80 foot sign areas and two 48 square foot sign areas which is the maximum that's permitted in your code. That 80 square foot. With 15% of the wall area here, we would be allowed 1,188 square feet of total signage. We're proposing 736 which is 400 square feet below what your ordinance allows. ' John Meyers: 60 %. Charlie James: It's 9% instead of 15%. And similarly on the west end of this building here, the code would allow 528 square feet and we're proposing 320. Or 9% instead .of 15%. And all the signage on this project will be cut out letters. Individual cut out letters and so what ' I've done here. I don't want you to take this wrong here but the only way I could figure out how to calculate that would was just to kind of draw like an imaginary rectangle around an area that cut out letters might go in. So there isn't going to be any pan signs you know ' where they paint plexiglass. They're going to be individual cut out letters but I'm just trying s to give you an idea what an 80 square foot area might look like at the max. Where this gets problematic for us, is with the Byerly's. Okay, now. On the Byerly's here, the total wall ' area on the south elevation is 7,500 square feet. We would be permitted under your ordinance 15 %, or 1,125 square feet in signage. We have shown 431 square feet, which is only 5 3/4% of the wall area. We're allowed 15% so we're about a third of what we're allowed. The problem is that the ordinance says that no one sign can be any bigger than 80 square feet and we have 72 square feet total between these two here and 75 square feet here but in order to get the signage here that would be visible from the street, we're at 304 square ' feet for this element here. Now when you add all those up, as I say, you're at 431 feet total which is a third of what would be allowed. But it's one of those areas where we could put, I guess what I'm saying is, we could put. ' Mancino: You want to do a total aggregate. e ate. What's that 80 square feet look like for Byerly's? Did you do a rendering of it at the smaller size? The size that's allowable by ' ordinance. I just wanted to see it proportionally. Proportionate to the whole wall. Charlie James: Here's 72 square feet. ' Scott: What hat about the one on the bottom. ' John Meyers: It'd be about the size of this. Scott: What about that Byerly's down there? 55 I. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 John Meyers: That's 304 also. Because that's the same size height. Y Scott: Okay. John Meyers: Basically the same logic applies. We just don't want to get into an interpretation problem. You know technically does it say each letter of the sign? I don't know. Each one is 80 square feet and we still wouldn't exceed the 15% maximum. We're just trying to give you, we're telling you this is what we'll do without trying to ... If you've , seen our stores I think you'll, I don't know if you will, I think you'll agree that they're not overly signed. ' Farmakes: I didn't see any monument... Harberts: You didn't see any what Jeff? Farmakes: Monumenture. Is there monument signs involved? Charlie James: Yeah. There'd be a pylon here and what that would look like, if you take one of these arched elements and it would be out of brick that matches the building and. Scott: How tall are the dimensions? Charlie James: Well I guess whatever the ordinance allows. ' Farmakes: Are we talking a pylon here or are we talking a monument? ' Charlie James: Well we're talking about the brick going to the ground. Krauss: The architectural monuments signs... Charlie James: What we're talking about is not having to sign something, come out and stick a pole in the ground and put a sign. What we're talking about is the architectural design and ' arch element that repeats this motif and we will have signage within that that meets the ordinance. ' Batzli: Okay. Any other issues? Charlie James: Well, I'm sure I probably forgot something here but maybe I should just field ' some questions. 56 , i� U it Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Alright. I think we're going to have a lot of questions. What I'd like to do is hear from the other people that showed up here tonight to make sure that they didn't show up in vain, or that we start losing them due to the lateness of the hour. So unless you are taking issue with other conditions in the staff report, we should know that but otherwise I think you'll probably field some questions as we all talk about the project. Charlie James: Okay. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Are there other people here that would like to address the commission? If there is, please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm here to speak probably on three different categories. As you know I've been involved for a long time in the downtown planning and have gone through a number of planning processes with all of you in developing those sites. We're also a developer, or co- developer in the project above the site call Oak Hills that looks down on this particular site. I didn't see too much discussion about that so I'll pretend like I'm a resident up there. And then also we represent Market Square, which is an investment that the city has. First of all I'd like to deal with just the presentation that we've just seen and I'm going to ask questions. I'm not going to expect answers but probably questions that you should ask. And the first thing is that, from what I've seen so far, this does not conform at all to any of the requirements that we've been asked to meet relative to a downtown plan. I see no peaked roofs. I see nothing that I'm being real constantly... as far as the architectural style. This is a complete change in style from what we're being requested to do and currently the three projects that we're going through the city with, all of which we'd love to have it be only a flat roofs and types of things but I know that were not going to be accepted. So I think we were listening but I think that's a really major deviation. The second thing is that there was a number of hearings that were held at the time the Target store evolved and I think for many of the Planning Commission people participated in that and the number of different type of site plans that were prescribed for that particular site and as they were with the Target site and as Target was developed, you adhere pretty much to that particular site plan that was requested as a part of those hearings. There was a site plan proposed for this side of the street. One of the major objections that you all had was the parking that would be out in front of the store. Currently I think this violates all of the issues that were addressed by the public at that time and I think you should at least revisit that in question. As far as the view from the north. I would think that you'd require the developer, just as you did. I guess there's somebody living in City Hall so somebody did ask what it would look like from City Hall. It'd be interesting to see what it would look like to look down from above onto this roof. What type of parapets. Target was required and I think we did a good job on Target. ,: n 57 !1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 You can drive just about any place and because of the height of the parapets and the siding of that, you cannot see any roof units. And I'm sorry to say with Market Square we weren't required quite to do that and you can see some roof units over there. It does cause some problems so I think those are three of the issues that I perceive as far as the plan is concerned and the primary one is I don't think it fits any of the architectural requirements that you're ' currently requiring ourselves as a major development in downtown to meet. The rest of probably our discussion, I'm going to ask the folks from Gateway Foods who are here and also the owners of the store, Festival Foods to comment. These are probably not so much issues that have to do with planning as much as we have to get it as part of the record as we go through this process. They have requested additional TIF assistance from the city and we might as well start now addressing the issues that we're going to have to address as we go ' through this process. So I'm going to introduce two people. One is Arnie Privie. He's been in the food business for some time and he has some concerns about this particular project. Arnie is the Vice President in sales and marketing for... , Arnie Privie: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Arnie Privie. I'm with Gateway Foods. I've been up in front of you before. I'm not too sure if it was the Planning Commission or probably the City Council about 2 years ago and 2 years ago we had been requested to look at the project here as far as putting a Festival Foods store in town. A major supplier, and when I say major supplier... probably one of the largest ' wholesalers had turned the project down and then they came to us and we looked at the project and I can truthfully tell you that we had an awful hard time of getting the project approved by the company I work for from the standpoint of us being able to lease and ' guarantee a lease on this project. Because when we did do a survey of the community, the numbers just didn't come out to where if we put an independent retailer into here, would it be feasible that he'd get a return on his investment. Fortunately Brad Johnson worked out some things with the City of Chanhassen that made it a little bit more palatable to go ahead with the project and I guess the only thing I want to express this evening, and I'm kind of ' mystified right now as to how the city of Chanhassen is going to support- another supermarket. I certainly have nothing against competition. Competition is very healthy but at the time of getting our project off the ground, and in looking where our retailer is today. We , supply the King family that owns the Festival Food, we supply them with their grocery products. So I have a couple concerns. Number one I have the King family who owns the store. There are primarily our concern for their well being. Also I have the concern that we ' are on this lease. I guess I just want it to be known at this particular time, and as Brad Johnson said, there's certainly going to be more meetings in the future. I can guarantee I'll attend every one of them but I just want it to be known up front our feelings from Gateway ' Foods distributor with people who have guaranteed the lease on this project, Festival Foods. And I thank you for your time. 58 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: We do have the person then that co- signed the lease I guess, Lyle King. Lyle, do you want to come up and say a few words? Lyle King: Good evening. I'm Lyle King. I'm not a public speaker. I'm a butcher by trade. First of all I wanted to say that the plans that were introduced here tonight I think are beautiful. And I think would be a real asset to your city. But I'm going back to 3 years now and Super Valu was the one that was asked for a store in here for Cooper's and I know Gary very well. A friend of our's. I was with Super Value for 20 years. And Super Valu wouldn't go on it because there was no way that they could get any projection to come out and he was told at the time it'd be at least 5 years, even to 10 years before this city could support a store that he wanted to put up. And so they dropped Super Valu and they came to, Brad came to Gateway. It was Gary McCullough at the time. One of the developers. And I worked with Gary McCullough at Super Valu so I knew him quite well. When they put this plan together they told us it would be about a 3 year break before we would break the store in black so we knew that the help that you had given the developer on their store, or the development that he put up, .which helped us a little bit. But the store's still in the red and I do have a couple of other little businesses that are supporting it. And this store is not going to be in the black within the next year when that help is stopped. And so I just want you to know that it's not I'm against competition because I think they're the best competition there is for their price store and my price store, I think they go along and compliment each other very well. So I'm not here to knock their business because I think they're good people. I'm just saying right at this time that there's no way that if another store comes in here within the next year, that I can be there 2 years from now. And I thank you for your time. Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: Which brings me to my point. This is a conditional use? Krauss: No it's not. Brad Johnson: Why does it say in here it is? Krauss: The store itself is not a conditional use. It's a site plan. What the conditional use. Brad Johnson: What they're approving this evening is a conditional use. Krauss: Yeah but you're insinuating that the store itself is a conditional use. The store itself is a permitted use. What makes it conditional is the fact that they're asking for a free 59 Brad Johnson: For the site? , Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: Two buildings. Batzli: Correct. 1 Brad Johnson: Okay. This is just technical from here on in. Number one is then, if you're going to approve a conditional use, item 1 would be, will be not detrimental to the public ' health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. Our issue with this is, the city currently has one million dollars invested in Market Square. We have a very good chance that if this project is approved, we'll lose that tenant. That's just a , real. We don't think therefore that that's for the good, welfare, health of the city. Second thing is, under the conditional use permit, item number 3, will be designed and constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended ' character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. And as I stated in the beginning, this is a complete change in the overall plan of the downtown based upon every meeting I have ever gone to. Finally, item number 11. Will not depreciate ' 60 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 standing bank building. ' Brad Johnson: But that's the request this evening. Site plan approval for a bank plus a store. Was there a public hearing called? ' Krauss: Yes. Brad Johnson: Did you send out notices? ' Krauss: Yes. . I Brad Johnson: Do you have a record of that? Krauss: We should. , Brad Johnson: Okay. I'd like to have it. We don't remember receiving one. If it's a conditional use, is that what we're approving? I see that in the Minutes. Batzli: We're looking at tonight a site plan and a conditional use for a free standing building. ' We're looking at both. Brad Johnson: For the site? , Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: Two buildings. Batzli: Correct. 1 Brad Johnson: Okay. This is just technical from here on in. Number one is then, if you're going to approve a conditional use, item 1 would be, will be not detrimental to the public ' health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. Our issue with this is, the city currently has one million dollars invested in Market Square. We have a very good chance that if this project is approved, we'll lose that tenant. That's just a , real. We don't think therefore that that's for the good, welfare, health of the city. Second thing is, under the conditional use permit, item number 3, will be designed and constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended ' character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. And as I stated in the beginning, this is a complete change in the overall plan of the downtown based upon every meeting I have ever gone to. Finally, item number 11. Will not depreciate ' 60 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 the surrounding property values. I submit to you that if we lose our major tenant in that store or if it goes black, we will have a significant decrease in property values in this particular ' area. Now what you have before you, and again this is for the record. I realize a lot of this stuff doesn't pertain to what you're doing, is basically a development that makes no economic sense to all the people that we have talked to, and we've gone out and talked to a number of other managers. People are coming up to me and saying, what on earth are you doing? Wasn't there a feasibility study done. You know all that kind of stuff and I said, I really. ' don't know how it's going to go forward. The city has tremendous liability related to this in money, and that's the money they've got invested over in Market Square. We would recommend, and I realize this is not your area but as you go through this process, and if you ' want to consider a conditional use permit, that an economic study be done by the James Company as to the financial liability of this particular product either at the stage of the Planning Commission. It may or may not be your particular thing. But for sure by the time it reaches it the City Council and by the time it gets to the HRA because I think we all should be made aware of the financial impact of this particular proposed project will probably have on downtown Chanhassen. What you have before you is the classic over development of real estate and if you can look at, we've got an office tower over here somewhere that's about half full, and that's Market Square. It looks full but we have about 400 of our tenants are just getting up to the break even point. They require high traffic due to ... as you just ' heard, which we'll be happy to give you the records of. The Festival store is losing money, as projected. Nothing new. And now we're going to build another office tower. And that's exactly what's happened in most real estate. You get too much real estate and too much of ' the wrong type of real estate in an area. Now that is the case we'll carry forward as we go along. I have I wish, Byerly's sounds like a good idea. We have to protect our investment in whatever way we have. We feel the city has a responsibility to our particular thing in some ' fashion. And I know Mr. James has a job, he wants to develop his property and that's, I'm not against development as you understand... We're just majorly concerned and I guess if somebody came to us with a legitimate study that said these two stores will survive. Don't worry Brad, we could care less, and I think the city should be in the same position because they stand to lose a considerable amount of money. Potentially. Thank you. ' Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Craig Hallett: Hi. My name's Craig Hallett. I currently reside in Richfield but hope to be a member of Chanhassen soon. We purchased one of the townhomes that you discussed earlier north of the property. I basically came here to see where Byerly's, where this proposed ' development was going to lay in relation to that and I was wondering if I was going to be cooking my hotdogs in the summer and watching people unload fruit. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Could you throw up the slide for the proposed development? I just want to ' point out a couple things. 1 61 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Generous: The site plan? Craig Hallett: Yeah. I just had a couple questions and then I'll sit down. It's getting, it's , the first time I've been to one of these. It's amazing how long they go. My father used to be on a planning and zoning board ... and I remember him getting home. ' Batzli: Did he get home before midnight? Craig Hallett: No, I remember Monday nights usually went pretty late for him. We're ' actually purchasing one of the first townhomes, if they ever start building them, right about here. So I'm less concerned about the Byerly's from the selfish standpoint and more curious ' going forward on the proposed senior development and things like that. So I'm curious how I can keep in contact as those plans move along, if there's any projections for that,. Batzli: Give these guys'your name and address. , Craig Hallett: Okay. The other issue I have, and question I have for the people developing ' too, would be for the residents of that community I'm moving into that are not here to speak and my main concern would be the people have the southwest facing units, or the southeast facing units, there's some patios that are going to be abutting up against that land and I'm , curious about elevations: Are those people going to be looking at part of the top of a building now or are their properties actually going to be ... the roof so they will be looking down. And you talked about trees and I read the plans. Spacing them every 10 feet and , things like that. How will that provide that buffer for those people, and when we moved in we, or when we signed the purchase agreement we knew that, I called anyway and ... zoned below us so we knew potentially what ...30 or 40 foot building versus a 20 foot building. ' How that... Batzli: I'd rather have Dave answer. What's the difference in elevation there? ' Hempel: In that particular area I guess ... I do believe there's a pretty uniform significant ' difference in topography. I don't, we do have a site plan with grades ... but I would say it's at least...At the rear elevation of the Byerly's building... elevation is on the average of 983. And the top of the slope, this would be at the easterly, southeasterly corner of the Oak Ponds ' development. The top of the hill there is approximately 997. So that point there is approximately 14 ... elevation difference. As we continue down towards the west... Mancino: How far away are they from the back of the building? ... back of the building, , you've got the slope and then where does this development start? Is it 20 feet away? Is it? 62 ' 1 k fl Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Hempel: Well that scale... Generous: About 110 to 120 feet from the building... Mancino: Thank you. Batzli: 110 feet. Okay. Hempel: Pretty close. Okay, as you extend westerly, at the very westerly edge of this development, we have the parking lot elevation of 968 with an elevation at the top of Oak Ponds there of approximately 978. More than 10 foot difference there. Craig Hallett: That's a 10 foot difference from the base, is that right? Their building is going to be 30 to 40 feet... Hempel: Right but... Batzli: Let's have, is there anyone else that would like to address the commission, while these guys huddle. Dan Beckman: Good evening. My name is Dan Beckman. I live at 6895 Chaparral Lane. I too would like to be kept informed as this proceeds forward ... I guess, when does this go up to the HRA for seeing if this TIF money is being given or not? Does anybody know that? - Batzli: I don't know that it will necessarily. Charlie James: The next meeting is the 16th I believe. Dan Beckman: Of December? Charlie James: Yes. The third Thursday. Dan Beckman: I guess I'm a little offended by Paul's comment earlier. I'm a little baffled why a city would have to buy every business into the community over the last 10 years. If the city is truly ready for these businesses, they should want to come in. They shouldn't have to be purchased and I guess as a taxpayer and as a resident here, I'm really offended by that. There was talk earlier about a traffic light. An additional. Is this in addition to what we have up? Hempel: The previous traffic studies for the downtown area, there's a series of traffic signals 63 ion Meeting December 1 Planning Comnuss g , 1993 r were designed in the upgrade of 78th Street with this intersection in front of the Byerly's was proposed for a signal when this site developed and conditions warranted based on traffic ' volumes ... 78th Street. The wiring, the conduits with the posts was cut. They were all installed so it would not be torn up and rebuilt. So it was always our intent to signalize the intersection when traffic volumes warranted. So yes, there will be another traffic signal at the ' Target entrance. Dan Beckman: I really am in opposition to this. Do you people drive down main street? Just a question. It's worst than driving into Minneapolis. I just don't see why we need another stop light. Stop lights, in my estimation, will stop the traffic. Four way stops can ' then be used efficiently I would think, and I'm not an engineer. I don't know. But I think we're a little bit over kill on that. And secondly, who's paying for the stop light? Is the city footing the bill on that? , Hempel: That is all a part of the downtown upgrade with West 78th Street which is a combination. Krauss: Maybe we can touch on the TIF for a moment and I feel no obligation and need to defend TIF. I mean the city has been doing that for the last 14 years and Brad Johnson has ' been the primary benefitter of the use of TIF. Brad Johnson: The city has. I Krauss: I don't deny that Brad but the fact is, it's been used extensively and the policies that have addressed TIF are set through the HRA and are not under the purview of the Planning , Commission, and I wouldn't ask you to get involved in the financial deliberations. I stay out of them. It's really a whole separate field of endeavor. As to the need to induce development to occur downtown. You know there's been a, I think the HRA's talked about it ' extensively. Market Square was very heavily subsidized. Target was less so. There's different levels of subsidy that fed back into it. But what's important to note is that the money that's circulated in TIF is money that is paid by these projects. It's not money that's ' being paid by any resident elsewhere in the city. It's the dollars being paid by Festival. By Target. By the bank. By Town Square. They're recycled back to pay for the improvements and pay for basically the inducement to get them in there. All the improvements to the 78th ' Street roadway, all the signals, all the storm sewer, everything that you see. All the landscaping has been paid through TIF, which is essentially recycling those tax dollars. ' money works but let me just inte ' ' Dan Beckman: Maybe I don't understand how this TIF y I n ect something here. If I ... them right in my background that I've learned on this, is TIF money ' not a speculation on developed property that you're going to have increased taxes that will be 64 1 r� Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 r paid on this property. Is that not how these things...? ' Krauss: I think the word speculation is wrong. I mean basically it's a contractual arrangement. If we have a Target signed up to go to a property. If Target is going to general x number of dollars during the life of the district, the deals that the city with the HRA has usually been made is that 3 years of the increased taxes goes back to offset the cost of the special assessments and improvements that the city has put in. But that's basically, that project is paying it's own way essentially, if you understand that concept. It's not general tax revenues of any sort. From any outside source coming into it. Dan Beckman: But there are other problems that arise from having them there? Police protection, this kind of stuff and for the years that we don't reap any benefits. Krauss: Well there's all kinds of things that accrue but what also accrues is tremendous increased tax base to pay for those things. ' Dan Beckman: Down the road. Krauss: Even during while it's happening. I mean right now TIF is paying, when you see somebody mowing the lawn down medians of downtown, that's being paid through TIF. . When you see the signals going up, that's being paid through TIF. When the trees are being planted, that's through TIE So it's not an easy issue to digest but it's being used solely to ' benefit Chanhassen. It's keeping dollars in Chanhassen that would otherwise be distributed outside the city. Dan Beckman: Okay. And just for the record, I don't have any ties with Brad Johnson. Okay. We're in Rotary together. That's how I know Brad. We don't have any business ties. ' Batzli: Anything else? Dan Beckman: I guess that's about all I have. I did have one other issue though. They ' talked about the slope. The grade of this massive 500 and some car parking lot. Did I hear that right, like 24 foot drop from the building to the street? ' John Meyers: It's 2 1/2 %. It's less than what Target's lot is. ' Dan Beckman: Okay. I'm just wondering what a parking lot of that size, at that angle, will do ... it might be something to check into. Thank you. I Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 Charlie James: Yeah, there were some other things but I'll. I 66 '+n Tim Menning: Good evening. My name is Tim Menning. I'm one of the partners in Market Square Associates. I've always consider the city a partner with us in that project. Both due to their large investment in it. Of which we owe the city upwards of $800,000.00 and , depending on what happens with Lots 2 and 3, it's going to be closer to a million dollars. I also consider them a partner from the standpoint that they participate in any profits that that center turns as long as there's debt outstanding on it. We pay not only a 10% interest on that debt for the city or the HRA, whatever the case may be. But we also pay 25% of the cashflow of that project. They are a partner with us. I.realize that in the request for developments such as this, particularly is TIF monies are looked for, and other—it does put ' the city in a precarious position. It would be as if Brad decided tomorrow to build another store and not bring us other partners along for example. Kind of equivalent to that. It is an awkward position for the city but I think that before the city can move forward on this project at all, it's got to request an economic study and if that study would not show that the Marketplace would support, not only the existing businesses. Not just Festival Foods. The ' =liquor store. The center. The other commercial businesses in town. Not just in our center. That if it can't support the existing businesses, plus what's proposed here, the city has definitely got to rethink this issue. Maybe it may be in a position where if it meets all these ' requirements, and no TIF money or assistance is asked for in some manner, they may not be able to turn it down. We may have to accept that ourselves. But if an economic study shows that it's going to be detrimental to the existing businesses in town, that the market can't support both, the old and the new, the city's going to have to be very careful in moving. forward in this project at any point. Even on simply the Planning Commission approvals. I don't think it's possible for that to be done before this economic study is done. Thank you.. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Let's see if anyone else would like to first. Anyone else? Okay, go ahead ' Charlie James: I didn't know if now was the time, that it'd be appropriate for me maybe to respond to some of these concerns. Or would you like? , Batzli: No. Why don't you hold off a little bit. ' Harberts: I think Brian, excuse me, that we need to ensure that we are keeping in mind what our scope here is tonight, given the lateness in the hour. Batzli: Okay. Yeah. I think most of your response is going to be to economic issues, which is something that is with, it's not in our jurisdiction. It really isn't and I think that's what's going to be what you're going to respond to, I would imagine. ' Charlie James: Yeah, there were some other things but I'll. I 66 '+n Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Oka yeah. Let's wait for us to have questions on that. On those things. The TIF Y• Y q g ' money and things like that, that will be handled by Council and the HRA. We can espouse personal views but as a Planning Commission, you know we really can't do anything on that. If there's no one else that would like to address the commission, is there a motion to close ' the public hearing? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, it is late. Batzli: Yes it is. ' Conrad: And I think I have, I think there are going to be a lot of questions. We have a choice, and I have another problem and that problem was that we really didn't get the material for reviewing. It's just like I've only done part of the job and I really don't know ' that I want to discuss this until we get the plans in front of us. And maybe all the information was in the planning packet but for some reason when you have the real blueprints in front of you, it triggers a lot of stuff. And I guess my preference Mr. Chairman is to table this issue so that we can really look at the plans. And the other thing is that we probably have an hour, hour's worth of discussion if I were to guess, and I'm, I'd prefer not to stay here until 12:30. ' Batzli: Okay. Took the words right out of m mouth. Y g Y ' Mancino: I'd like to second that Batzli: You wanted to be focused Diane. Did you want to talk about certain issues? Did ' you want to raise. Harberts: I just wanted to raise one comment, and that is with regard to, you know I'm ' excited about developments in Chanhassen but given the participation that I had in that 2002 thing. Planning scope or whatever that was. When we talk about a downtown area that's more pedestrian oriented, and this particular piece is right across from this concept of a central park, community park that everyone was talking about that it should be more pedestrian oriented. Is there an opportunity, was there some opportunity to look at this project where this would be more pedestrian friendly? Less traffic friendly and it's just a question I want to throw out. I don't know if I'm looking for an answer right now but I'm just looking that when we're looking at this global picture and the amount of time that was spent and the amount of input that was provided by a diverse group of people from residents 67 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 - II LJ from Chanhassen, I need to understand. So I guess I don't know if I'm looking for the answer but maybe it's something if this is going to be tabled that staff can address at the next , meeting. Or next review, if that's what happens. Krauss: If that's what it takes. I guess again we have to apologize for the materials not ' going out. We had a short week and my secretary was swamped but nobody told us that you didn't get it either so. We don't know where they are. They're not upstairs. They're missing. Batzli: The Sheriff's got them in his trunk. ' Krauss: That might be. Along with whatever else they picked up. In terms of your question ' Diane. We heard through Fred Hoisington, some of you were concerned why wasn't this brought up to the street frontage and that was something that we looked at very early on. We didn't think it worked then and we played around with the design and we still don't think it works very good. And we could show you why. Basically you've got a site that should be buried on one or two sides and when you stick it out on a corner, there's no way to bury any of it except for false walls and having a berm there and a lot of landscaping. So instead of ' looking at a landscape parking'lot from City Center Park, you'd be looking at a landscaped blank wall from City Center Park. So there are pros and cons to it and we've got some illustrations of how that might work. There really aren't that many options. ' Harberts: Well and I just wanted to have at least the comfort that it was looked at, because I certainly look to staff for that type of review so, it's just maybe I'm the one that voiced the t question. But that was kind of my underlying concern with this project. And the fact that we look at Kerber, and I drive down there and on Monday thru Thursday night there's all these cars in the community, for the community park there and then if we have semi's coming in ' and out, how does this work? But I can certainly defer those questions if this project is going to be tabled tonight. ' Batzli: Okay. I know we have a couple other quick comments here before we talk about the motion. I want to ask Paul about that. ' Farmakes: A couple of things. One is on the site plan. I would like to see a more detailed signage, at least a comparison to what we're seeing rather than these blocked squares and so on. And I don't think it's the correct forum for us to be deciding whether or not we're going to take half an ordinance and discard the other half when we're talking on these square footage issues. We have a signage ordinance in place. We have another one that's fairly , inclusive that we're talking about the corridor. This is in the corridor and some of these issues pertain to what we're discussing here. I do think however, I was a bit surprised by the quality of the building that I saw. Very nice. Now if we're talking anything about style, ' 68 ' i'l 1 7 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 talking about the elements that you had in the building. It's not something that you normally see in a retail development and my compliments to that. Utilizing limestone in a building for retail level is I think terrific. Very nice. Anyway, I agree that this issue of competition that seems to, trying to rear itself here is to me a bit disturbing and that seems in the realm of politics and not in the area of planning and what we're doing here. Planning and development I guess we should say. Although it maybe sounds like a contradiction in terms. It seems that the issue, if we're going to get into, we already have one liquor store. Therefore we can't have another liquor store. Business is inherently a risk and the question is, who risks? Three years ago Super Valu decided not to risk when they came in here. Gateway decided through whatever incentives the city put forward, to take a risk. The city had a risk. And the question with this stuff always becomes egg and chicken. Who's going to take the first risk to build something that people are going to come to and the issue is draw. And no matter what market or business you're in, if you're looking at a retail area, you've got a draw situation from either the existing area or the surrounding community. Some people take a risk that they're going to draw from the surrounding communities. r Target did and the question is, with these stop lights and so on. They may seem like a lot of stop lights now but when there's 30,000 people here, it may not seem so many. And the question again becomes, as you look into your crystal ball, where these businesses are going to draw from and I believe that, particularly with Target here now, that we're going to have people drawing here from miles and miles away, outside of Chanhassen. When. you look to the west and where some of these opportunities to buy are, it really is a changing picture and it's not even the place it was 3 years ago so I'll leave it at that Batzli: Did you want to say something? 4 Mancino: Yeah, I just wanted to add. I'd also like to have included in the packet a perspective of the homes on the north, what they're going to see. Exactly what it will be. Whether it's going to be the equipment on top, etc. And I'd also like to hear a little bit more of what ...Diane's question about the 2002, that we all participated in for the city because when we were all asked what are the center's most significant weaknesses, it's major problems. The first one was access, traffic, parking problems, traffic lights and number two was lack of pedestrian routes accessibility. So I'd really like to hear a little bit more on, because that's what we all as a group decided. Or felt... business district. Farmakes: There's an inherent problem though with grocery shopping. You don't grocery shop by foot, particularly in the suburbs. Chanhassen, we've had that discussion for pedestrians here for a long time and it seems like the city's committed to the car. Mancino: Well we have individual shopping centers now all in the city. 69 a Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: - But I mean versus the old, say Excelsior where you can walk down. Batzli: There's really two issues, it's kind of interesting because, not to pick on Market Square but the biggest complaint I hear from people as I'm wandering around in those stores and areas, is the parking lot and the access between, even the stores. You almost have to get ' in your car to go from the hardware store over to the grocery store. That's their thought and so we didn't make it, it seems to me very user friendly if people are getting in their cars to go from the liquor store over to the grocery store. They're not walking. And they don't like ' the way it's laid out and so it doesn't seem to me, something wasn't quite right there. Paul, we cleared our December 15th meeting and we're going to interview people for at least an hour or so. We have to look at this next time. I mean we can't sit on it. The only reason ' we're not going to talk about it tonight is because we don't have the D sized plans here. I think we need to talk about it. And what does that do to our schedule of looking at the Highway 5 corridor that you've been ordered to clear everything out of the way. , Krauss: Well, more importantly what does it do to your schedule. I mean you were ordered to get it to the Council by February 1st. We've only got three dates to do it on. , Harberts: Brian doesn't care. Krauss: I know that Target has.._ Batzli: I do too. , Krauss: I know that Byerly's has some very stringent time deadlines that they are working I with. Scott: What are those deadlines? 1 Batzli: They want their store to be open by August of next fall, or something. Krauss: I'll let them deal with that but the first open meeting you have is January 5th. Now ' I suppose it's possible if you say you wanted to meet, I mean if we started at 6:00. Batzli: He leaves. He leaves. We're talking about trying to cram it into our schedule and he leaves. Unbelievable. Krauss: If we wanted to get it on the 15th and devote the first 2 -2 1/2 hours of the meeting ' to Highway 5 and the second you know, an hour to interview and then you had this on. I think most of the questions you're raising in terms of the site plan, can easily be addressed. ' 70 ' 1 a I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 ' They already have been addressed to a large extent, or can be provided in that time. We're willing to stay. Otherwise this slips a month. Actually more than a month. It goes to the 5th. Mancino: What time are we starting on the 15th? Krauss: Nancy, don't remember but I think it's 6:00. It's 6:00 and you et our bite to eat Y• Y 8 Y and then we want to put in a good 2 hours on the Highway 5 plan. And so that makes it like 8:30 and you have until 9:30 for the interviews. So you're looking at tackling it at 9:30, which I suppose is possibly better than doing it tonight... Batzli: Yeah but that always, the interviews always seem to slip a little and then we have to talk about it while it's still fresh. December's just a terrible month for a special meeting. I was thinking more for the Highway 5 thing rather than this. Harberts: What's the magic date with that February, first or 15th? Is there some priority ' from the Council in terms of why that's such a magic date? Krauss: Because I swore on a stack of Bibles that you'd do it. ' Mancino: They're hot to trot for it. Batzli: What do you guys want to do? Do you guys want to have, try and put a special meeting somewhere in on, an additional special meeting or a special meeting on the Highway 5 corridor? Mancino: We're doing a special meeting on Saturday. L Batzli: Yeah I know. Well I'm a lame duck so I don't want to speak for the group. If you guys don't want to put in a special meeting after the 15th or the 1st or whenever, whenever I'm gone, I mean just say so. Harberts: I would prefer to put in special Wednesday when you're gone. Batzli: I think we're going to have to anyway. Mancino: I do too. Harberts: But we didn't swear on that stack of Bibles either. 71 I 72 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: Well, the Council basically said, either you're done with it or they get it anyway. So you've got to convene a public hearing ... their guidance and whether you're done with it or ' not, they're going to get it at their meeting in February. Farmakes: See, that's what I find unfortunate about that is that we've spent an inherent amount of time with 12 acre developments in the interim and these type of things, these are really, there's a couple of crucial issues here in front of us and those are the ones that we should be dealing with and if you've got the authority to put whatever you need to on your ' schedule, go ahead and do it. If you need, I'll come in if you have a special meeting. But I'm not, it seems to me we're not doing our job if we let these things go by whether, are we supposed to rubber stamp it? In particular the Highway 5 things. That's going to be a long, ' long deal. With a lot of information. Batzli: Is everyone willing to tackle this at a special meeting? Okay, we'll do it then? Charlie James: Mr. Chairman ... I guess with all due respect, I have to express a bit of frustration here. Ladd, I've been working behind the scenes on this since last January. ' There's been two market surveys that have been done. One by Retail Systems Inc. and one by Super Valu's own admission. We have been frantically trying to pull this thing together over the past couple months. What you see tonight is a...of many, many, many attempts to ' arrive at what we think is probably going to be one of the best projects in the city of Chanhassen And I guess I'm frustrated because we have just been working so hard and given a time schedule that we're on and we've been turning all the stuff into the city. We've been meeting with staff. I've been going to the 2000 meetings. There was some suggestion that I thought was highly ironic. It almost made me laugh. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. That I was in the pocket or the city was in my pocket on the senior housing. I don't want senior housing on my property. That wasn't my idea. I mean I was asked by the city, would you do this as something. I don't do senior housing. I don't know, I have commercial land and I had to roll over and play dead on the Target thing out there and let them run a , street. I waited out there for 4 years and the city defaulted on a contract they had with me to put a strip center and build a street so I could finish a strip center that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Legally I could not sell a lot out there because I did , not have frontage on a public street and then to have the city come in and run me, the street through my property out there because essentially Target didn't want any buildings out in , front of them. Or didn't want their view obstructed. And at every step of the way here I think I have cooperated with the city. There wouldn't be a Market Square if I hadn't cooperated. I originally had a letter of intent with Festival Foods. They came to me when Brad was trying to put Cooper in there and I knew that Super Valu wouldn't sign a corporate lease and give a corporate guarantee and I just finished building a store with Ed Heiser. I know Arnie Privie well. Arnie Privie and my family have had a relationship going back 72 1 J Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 many years, and at the time they were trying to do Market Square with- Super Valu, Arnie ' Privie's predecessor, Ed Heiser came to me. I just finished doing a store for them and they wanted me to build a store out here where we're proposing a Byerly's for them and I said, hey wait a minute. I'm going to start at the west end of my property with my little strip ' center with a little PDQ, with Edina Realty. All these little offices. I said because I can't afford to be in competition with downtown. I've got the city's been trying for so long to pull this thing together downtown that I don't want to do anything to screw up their deal. They're finally getting the downtown as you know and Ed said fine. We'll wait. John Kranke came to see me with Jay Cooper. We met over at the Prairie Restaurant. They said we don't want to be part of that project Charlie. We want to go on your land. Your land surveyed out better. We've got a higher thing. What are you going to do? I said I'm not doing anything for 3 years John. I said I'm not going to get in competition with the city on this project. So I was, there was forbearance on my part on that. It was because of a phone call I got from Brad. I mean Brad called me at one point and wanted to move the project onto my land. That's when I told Brad that Festival was already interested in my property and that's all it took for Brad to put Festival into his project. And I guess I'm frustrated tonight because I've cooperated with the senior housing thing. I have been working diligently. Having almost, I won't say daily but I think Paul's getting sick of seeing me out here at City Hall. We've tried to pull together a project here that has been anticipated for this piece of property. This ' property is zoned. It's a permitted use. We're not requesting any variances. It's a first class building. It's something that everybody can be proud of. The staff had Hoisington come in. Look at our landscaping and said, Hoisington said, if you read your report, we'd do this, this, this and of course as I said earlier this evening, our landscaping plan was merely intended to be schematic. Ordinarily what you do is just hire a landscape firm and they kind of buff up the final plan. But we were showing quantities and what was required. But when staff hired Hoisington to look at the landscaping. Hoisington made the recommendation. I looked at staff and I called, I said I'll do whatever Hoisington wants. Whatever the city, they came to ' that Vision 2000 and said that that fellow there, Schroeder or whatever his name was, was the best landscape architect. I don't know if you were there when Mr. Hoisington said that. And he looked at this and he said, this is what I recommend. We said, we'll do it. Now I'm ' standing here tonight. It's taken us, from my perspective, I've been, it's taken me 9 years to get here. I was also the person who brought Target to town. I worked for 2 years. I was the one that contacted Target. Ed Bierman who is Dick Brooks' boss. He used to work at Wal- Mart. I've done 22 Wal -Marts and knew Ed Bierman from there. I was the one who went down to Target's offices. Sat down with Ed Bierman and said you should look at Chanhassen. Here's my site and then they got out here and decided, well we think we'd ' rather be closer to Highway 5 and all the time they were stroking me, because they knew I was ... and they could go there but they wanted to be next to Highway 5. The City did a PUD. Brad was part of that. They claimed in their PUD that they had the consent of all the 1 property owners, written consent. They did not. They did not have my consent but I 73 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 acquiesce. Allowed that to happen. Allowed r r 1 h m s n ' q ppe . a road to get relocated throng y strip center. Allowed the city to come in and say Charlie. We need senior housing. - I don't do senior housing. We need a place for it. We like your site. So I draw it on there. I mean it seems ' like the more I cooperate, the more obstacles I run into. I am frustrated ladies and gentlemen. Now we have got a beautiful project here and you're telling me the hour's late and we've got an hour's worth of questions. I mean I've been working on this from my ' perspective for 9 years. Is it too much to ask of you to spend another hour with me? Batzli: No. I think you're missing the point. We found out tonight that we don't have, we , didn't have the materials for our review prior to the meeting and that's why we're going to delay it. It's not that we don't like the project. It's not that we're going to vote it up or ' down. It's not any of that. It's the fact that we get in here and suddenly in the middle of your presentation we're looking around and saying, well where's all this stuff coming from. We didn't have the materials to review it prior to the meeting. And I don't think it would be prudent for us to, you know without a little bit of study and, you know that may be fine for a working session to be going over the plans and seeing this stuff for the first time but that's not how we're going to operate. And I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, from our , standpoint we've seen it for 3 days. I understand that it's taken you a long time and if I would have had the material and had an opportunity to look at it, we'd stay. We do 1:00. I mean we've been here before but I don't even know where to start because everything you've shown me is new. I don't even know how to react. I don't know how to tie it together. You know. I don't know what we, as a commission can do tonight. We could stay here until 6:00 in the morning going over your plan by the time we thought it all out, and I don't think that will get us where we want to be. So I think the only thing we can do, and what everybody has committed to doing is staying as late as it will take next time and go through it. Krauss: May I make a suggestion. We have not notified the planning commission candidates yet of when they might be on. In fact I told one or two of them it'd probably be the first ' meeting in January before that occurred. If we did delay the interviews, you'd have to serve another couple meetings. But if we did that, we'd spend the early part of the meeting on Highway 5, from like 6:00 to 9:00 and then convene, the regular Planning Commission , meeting but that would at least give us a 3 week jump on bumping this to January which is. Batzli: No, we can't bump this to January. Charlie James: The reason that I'm, I mean I'm sorry that I'm getting out of joint here I tonight and kind of foaming at the mouth but I mean, it's been a long road. Mancino: Paul, what you just came up with sounds fine to me. ' 74 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: But I want you all to be aware of, we're working on a construction schedule I here. Here's the issue is that you either open a grocery story before Thanksgiving and in the fall. I mean there are certain times of the year you don't open it and if you can't get a certain amount of business and you don't stock the special items for Christmas and the ' holidays, then you don't open it until I've got a situation here where Byerly's has another, they're building... their program to build a store in '95 in Chicago. We've got a window of opportunity here for them to, what we're working against here and what we've ' been struggling against all year is a very real construction schedule and outside date and that's why I guess I'm babbling. ' Batzli: By doing this at our next meeting, this will go to City Council their first meeting in January? ' Krauss: Yeah, on the 10th. ' Batzli: Would it have gone any quicker if we acted on it tonight? Krauss: Yeah conceivably. We talked to Charlie about trying to get—we talked about trying ' to roll it over to the 13th. Now there is grading activity that's already been approved out there. I don't know, I'm going to leave it up to... ' Batzli: I can't see us approving it tonight. I can't approve it tonight. Okay. Harberts: So the option that we discussed about the 15th, is that the likelihood? Scott: Yeah. I think what we're going to do is have the working session from 6:00 until 9:00. Blow off the interviews until January and get on this item at 9:00 on the 15th. Farmakes: I'd make a couple of comments if we're going to see this again to make them useful in the presentation if it comes back. I would like to see the north elevation where that grading is done, that we see a side cut. How that's being proposed. I'm having trouble translating that from verbal into visual. And the sign issue. I'd like to see some more, I'd like to see a worst case scenario as to what we're looking at and how that's going to be coordinated with the building. Batzli: From my standpoint, discussion on the architectural styles. Screening stuff on the ' roof and/or in back. If they have trash enclosures. Wherever they're going to put it The issue of parking, crosswalks, cars, sidewalks. I don't think Byerly's does the parking lot but the view from the north. We normally ask, and I don't think Byerly's does it but we normally put conditions regarding outdoor storage for these types of things. Those are some 75 71 L I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 of the things that I found missing. Scott: Interaction with semi traffic with the P ark traffic. Little League, etc, etc. People that are parking up and down the street. I suppose that's a signage problem more than anything else. Harberts: I'd like to also see an element of how maybe a presence of a bus shelter and public transit facility in this area Krauss: ...something in the order of what we have at Target? Harberts: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. ' Farmakes: And speaking of Target, their signage package also presented a monument design. t Krauss: I'm sure ... Can we get a sketch of the monument... Batzli: Is there a motion? , Mancino: I move that we table site plan approval for a commercial development consisting , of a 64,132 square foot Byerly's, a 35,700 square foot retail center, and a separate 7,000 square foot commercial office building and conditional use permit approval pursuant to Section 20 -902 to permit the grouping of buildings on a single building lot until our next , meeting which is December 15th. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. ' Batzli: Discussion. Charlie James: Would the Planning Commission consider, if they're going to have ... to have a special meeting like next week or something that would allow us to. Mancino: We can't turn it around. John Meyers: If I could just clarify something. My name is John Meyers. I'm the Vice President ...Byerly's. The schedule, so you know, we came into the hall and the City Manager and everybody back in, on November roughly, and here's the schedule that we have. We need to try to meet this schedule ... I'm just going to be real frank ... if we delay it past me 76 ' I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 going to the City Council on the 13th we'll have to sit down and...If ou want to schedule edule rt for the meeting that you have the 15th, I understand that but I'm not sure ... to the project. We're trying to go to the Council on the 13th. The BRA on the 16th. That could possibly be delayed to the first of January. That maybe we can deal with but we'll -be done at that point and we can start construction. We want to do this with Paul and the City Manager. ' Unfortunately it's a reality. I'm not trying to get you to come in on an extra day. We'll do it anytime you want. We'll try to deal with all the issues that you've got inbetween now and then. Maybe get with Paul to make sure we do address the issues correctly... Batzli: I won't be able to do it next week. If everyone else wants to come in next week. If ' they want to try and do it. Krauss: Unfortunately I think the reality of it is, even if you did it next Wednesday, the City Council packet will have gone out 3 hours before you would have met. John Meyers: Meet Monday. Or Tuesday. I mean we'll crank it out in a day. Batzli: Why don't you have someone from the city call people tomorrow when they have their calendars in front of them. See if it's even a possibility to do it next week. Krauss: I suspect the legality of it is that. ' Batzli: We'd have to notice everybody several? Krauss: Well, I'm not sure that that's the case. I mean City Council can technically call a special meetings but they have to call ... while the floor is open. Harberts: Well, point of order here. If we are to look at a meeting before the 15th. Rather than table it, if we were just to, help me with this. Postpone or continue the meeting at a later time, don't we get away from the notices? Krauss: Yeah but. Batzli: We closed the public hearing. Harberts• But w • t e haven't closed our discussion. That's what I m saying. Couldn't we dust continue the meeting rather than adjourn the meeting tonight? Krauss: You can do that but again, I'm not an expert on Robert's Rules of Order ... but the ' way the Council has to work is, the Council has to designate a special meeting date during 77 Planning ommission Meeting - ember 1 1 g ee g Dec 993 the Council meeting. They can't just say... , Farmakes: Well, I'm open to meeting whenever on this issue. I think it's a major issue downtown. Perhaps the Council can also consider a special session or the HRA. But I'm perfectly open to whatever's being suggested. We probably, you know we probably do have ' an obligation not only this but the fact that we, there was a slip up here within the scheduling and I'm not, being that it's the holidays, probably going to be quite difficult but I'm open to suggestions. Mancino: I'd rather do 2 hours on Saturday. Farmakes: Suggestions. 2 hours on Saturday or something... Scott: How many of us are going on Saturday? Farmakes: Do we have a quorum going on Saturday? Krauss: We're not sure about Matt but otherwise. Scott: So we have four. That's a quorum so. Harberts: I- can do it Saturday. Monday or Tuesday night. Farmakes: I would prefer actually, if we can do it Saturday, I mean it's already a dead spot because of the other issue. I don't know if that works into the legality of notice. 1 Harberts: Well there's the options. If we can make it legal or otherwise show up here on the 15th. t Scott: Well how is this meeting, this meeting on Saturday is a work session. There's going to be a quorum of the Planning Commission in one place and from what I understand, an ' open meeting rules and so forth, that cantles some legal responsibility. Krauss: Well you have a work session designated... Scott: Well bearing the fact that we don't have legal counsel, I think we need to, because of the nature of the issue, I think we need to continue it and deal with it on Saturday. Krauss: But keep in mind, I mean hopefully we can find our plans but you're still only going to have a day to look at those. And we're really not going to have the opportunity to write �n 78 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 anything new. Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that. I mean a day with plans is fine... Harberts: Is the consensus here Saturday? I need to do a little rescheduling on Saturday. Scott: Drive fast. Tell your bus driver to be lead footed for this thing. Krauss: So we're looking at? Harberts: Saturday at 11:00. Krauss: That's when we're supposed to be back here right? Batzli: I'm sorry, Saturday what day? This 4th? Scott: Yeah. This coming weekend. Batzli: Okay well, I don't know. I don't know the legality of continuing versus tabling. Harberts: I believe we can do it. I just don't know if we can do it as a Planning Commission. I know from a Robert's Rules of Order, I'm pretty confident that as long as you continue the meeting you're alright Batzli: Well we have a motion on the floor right now to table. Are you withdrawing your motion? Who made it? Mancino: I made it. I'll move that we continue discussion. Harberts: So are you withdrawing? Mancino: I'm withdrawing my motion. Batzli: Who seconded the motion? Scott: No one did. Batzli: Yeah we did. We were discussing it. Harberts: I think this one did. 79 I. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1 1 Batzli: I think so. Farmakes: Are we going to get a review whether or not this is legal? Krauss: Well yeah. I mean we'll... I Farmakes: Just so the time that we do spend on Saturday goes. Batzli: Okay, since we're not sure who seconded the motion, we're going to call the question , on the motion to table. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #93 -1 and Site Plan #93 -7 until December 15, 1993. All voted to deny and the motion failed. Batzli: Motion fails. Is there another motion? Harberts: I'll move that we continue discussions for Saturday the 4th. Let's begin the ' meeting at 11:15. Batzli: How about pending clarification that that is proper. ' Harberts: Works for me. Batzh: Is there a second. Mancino: Second. , Harberts: Oh, and the only item would be this issue right here. , Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission continue discussion on Conditional Use Permit #93 -1 and Site Plan #93 -7 until Saturday, December 4, 1993 at 11:15 a.m. pending clarification by legal counsel. All voted in favor and the motion I carried. Batzli: Motion carries. This item will be continued on Saturday pending Roger Knutson's , review. Thank you all for coming in. We have new business but we'll put off our goals again because we have no goals. We actually do have goals but let me put that off. Open discussion? ' 80 1 Planning ommission Meeting - g g December 1, 1993 Harberts moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 am. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim to 81 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1993 1 1 7 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order, and then turned it over to Vice -Chair Joe Scott at 11:15 am MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe. Scott, Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli, and Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, and Bob Generous, Planner H PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob King Bruce Mattson Dan Beckman John Meyers Tony Olgh Tim McCoy Brian Burdick 6122 Arctic Way, Edina 2020 Crestview Drive 6895 Chaparral Lane 7171 France Ave. 5437 Grand Ave., Mpls. Byerly's Architect Charlie James: ... Architecture and then went on to get a masters degree in architecture from Harvard University. And I'd be happy to ... your concerns and answe any questions. We prepared the cross section that you had asked for. I guess one thing that we've thought about at this time is that we are going to, not going to see, we're going to show you how we would ' propose to handle a pylon or monument sign but at this time we're not going to, we're going to ask you to assume, and we're going to assume that we're going to meet the sign ordinance and what we'd like to do is come back in with a contractural agreement. Set of covenants ' and show you everything in infinite detail of what we would propose to vary from that ordinance. At that point the decision is entirely your's whether you wish to do that at that point in time or not. So we thought that might remove one more cloud of uncertainty plus it gives you something in the future over which you have absolute control on that particular issue. But we can show you the pylons and that sort of thing but at this point I guess I'd like .r 1 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4. BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE 2ND ADDITION. T.F. JAMES COMPANY. I Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 A ' Associates and also show some of the relative floor and roof elevations .as we've got them designed in the "retail' .portion and the Byerly's relative to what the elevations are at the floor slabs of the townhouses. This particular section is through the center of the retail space. We have a more severe situation to deal with here in terms of variation in grade. Our top of the ' floor slab in here is at 977 in the retail. Up at the multiple family housing, we're up at, that's 1005 in there so we're up about 30 feet from the floor slab in here. We're proposing to carry the parapet wall at the back of the retail area up to the level of about 996, which is ' still about 9 feet below what the floor elevations of the multiple family housing is up on top of the hill. Now one of the potential advantages that we have in the retail space relative to the Byerly's where we have less flexibility in terms of where we can locate those rooftop ' mechanical type units, is that if we want to try to locate these, which we do, back towards this parapet wall, it will be a more effective screening in here partially because we'll have shorter rungs and more flexibility to locate those where we want. We don't have to service ' freezers and coolers and all the various functions that they've got in the supermarket. So that's one thing that minimizes this greater height differentiation between the retail space and the townhouse area. And in the Byerly's store, once again we do have a less severe condition ' in terms of grade variation to deal with. We're up at 996 at the first floor elevation of the townhouses. We estimated in here that we would be up at about 1005 at the second floor. Bob Generous gave us these floor elevations of the townhouse project. We're at 982.5 down at the floor elevation of Byerly's but the most important thing here of course is the top of the parapet elevation as we're proposing presently. That's at 1002.5, without getting you all confused with all of the numbers here. The top of the parapet, at the back of the Byerly's is ' about 6 1/2 feet higher than what the floor elevation is at the townhouses directly behind it.' A couple other things that we've tried to do to give us more flexibility in terms of where we might locate rooftop mechanical equipment is that we're going to be developing a compressor ' mezzanine enclosed, entirely enclosed over the loading projection at the back of the Byerly's store. I mean that will have louvers which we're certainly going to try to put into the south side of that for air circulation and so forth. The other feature that you probably saw the other night in terms of the raised entry to the Byerly's ... is something that we would like to develop some mechanical... house also that would probably have louvers on the back or whatever but ' nevertheless...a condition where you could enclose some of this rooftop mechanical equipment and what would not be screened, and I don't know what that is right now. I mean it may just be by necessity that we may have to locate some things towards the center of the roof that we would certainly screen with a trellis and type of thing or whatever. And oftentimes the ' conditions that we run into is that we'll propose certain equipment that we know is going to have to be screened, will be visible from various surrounding site locations. But after that, ' typically what we do is we go around with the building official and he says, oh. You'd better take care of that one. You can see that one or there might be some condition on the job site where we might relocate it slightly or make some modification relative to what was originally proposed. But if you've got any more questions, which I'm sure you do, relative to this, I'll 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 try to answer those. This, once again, is the top of that mechanical mezzanine that we're proposing to develop on top of the rear loading area for the project. Scott: So that's a 50 foot wide section that's right inbetween the two rear most loading areas? Tim McCoy: This? Scott: That piece right there. Tun McCoy: This piece? Scott: Yeah. Tim McCoy. That's 26 feet wide and I think it's. Scott: Oh, 26 feet deep and 50 feet wide, okay. Tim McCoy: Another thing that we've done and proposed on the site plan, after getting feedback from the staff, is to move the trees that were previously shown at the lower portion of the slope up to the upper portion of the slope so that they could be more effective in terms of screening elements. And those are predominantly spruce trees and we do have some deciduous mixed in there also. Farmakes: Is the staged area on the cut away, the side cut away, that's notched as it comes down, is this the retaining wall that they were discussing? Tim McCoy: Right in this location? Farmakes: Correct. So there'd be two walls then, is that what you're saying? Tim McCoy: There will be probably two walls because you do not want to carry the walls up themselves very high because then we start getting into reinforcing the retaining walls and so forth and we try to limit those to about a 4 foot height each with a maximum of 3:1 slope so it would require two walls. Farmakes: So the raising of the ... would be moved up then to the second tier or what's the, what were you referring to when you're talking about pulling it up? Tim McCoy: When I was talking about pulling up the screening? 4 i �1 n Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Mancino:. Yeah, according to this where are, in your original landscape plans, where would the trees be on your... Tim McCoy: Oh, the trees were right down at the bottom in here. In both of these locations. Farmakes: I see. So the drawing is showing them already pulled up then? Tim McCoy: Right. Farmakes: I see. Is the indication that's shown on the right of the plans, is that the building plan or the property line? To the adjacent property. Scott: With the vertical line behind the last tree? Farmakes: It's showing a person there that's shown out. Yes. Tim McCoy: That's the base of the townhouse. Farmakes: That's the face. So is that the actual extent that they can ... if they have a deck or is that the edge of the building? Generous: They have a 30 foot setback and I believe they're at that. Farmakes: So is that the line that we're seeing there? That's the setback that they cannot build on? Is that correct? Krauss: They also have landscaping up on top that doesn't show on this that's supplemented too and in that 30 foot area. Farmakes: In the 30 foot area between the tree and the little person there or to the right of the individual that's sitting there in the drawing? Krauss: Yeah. Well, it's in this area right in here. This area. Mancino: Paul, is that the back of the townhouse? I mean I don't know how the townhouses face. Krauss: That's the back of some of them. It's the side of some of them. I don't have, some of them are turned so that they face an internal courtyard so there's a side wall somewhere. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 1' I I Charlie James: It's in the back of the staff report. There's a map on the second to last page of the staff report Townhouse Developer: The building that you see, these are what you would call back to back townhouses. So each side of the townhouse is a front face and the driveways go in on , that This building here or that line that you're seeing there would be like the end of the building. Krauss: Yeah, they were designed for the most part to face on internal courtyards. Farmakes: So we wouldn't have decks going out to the south? Krauss: No, ou're looking at the side wall...but the patio is facia east or west. , Y g P g Farmakes: Not north or south? Okay. , Harberts: It seems dense. ' Farmakes: Alright I think I understand from this position. Scott: Maybe you can go through. We have the addendum to the staff report. - I think that ' was very neatly, this issue number one. Second issue I think Nancy was one of your areas of concern. About the Vision 2002. ' Mancino: Yes, and I'm just..I haven't read this yet Scott: Is there any other discussion of the Planning Commission about the view from the ' north? Has that been answered? Farmakes: The landscaping plan for this. I know that the property changes somewhat, or it , raises as it goes to the west I believe. The height This type of effect or this notched effect would be continued then behind the property that's currently shows some drawings for , potential development? Krauss: Oh you mean as far as ... Powers? ' Farmakes: Correct They did a blank area that's to the left up there. The present drawing that's there. ' Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, I mean we honestly don't know what's going to go there but to the extent that this is in effect a ... yeah, certainly. We'll try to do something similar. I 6 � 1 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 think you can look up the hill right now and see how close the first model home is to the... Farmakes: Yeah, but it's substantially higher too I believe. Krauss: And the slope is steeper but it drops down. Farmakes: I have a couple other questions. I don't know if they can answer that in their presentation or not but can you go over a little bit for me the detailing. You're talking about limestone. You very briefly described some of the limestone with the brick and if you can clarify that on some of your drawings. I had a little bit harder time seeing some of the detailing. I noticed that there seems to be more extensive detailing on the cap areas of the building where say the clock tower is as compared to some of the detailing where the liquor, or the drive thru is. It comes out at a greater angle and so on. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Charlie James: I'll talk a little bit and I'll let Tim carry on here. I guess one of the mission statements that I gave the architect was, is that having observed the Target process here, I knew there was a sensitivity towards big blank walls and having read the proposed draft of the Highway 5 corridor, there was talk in that about trying not to have this big monolithic walls and to have different materials mixed in. So although that hasn't been adopted yet, we've tried to anticipate some of those issues and my mission statement to the architect was try to give us a building that has some variation not only in depth, but also in height and it's volume so we have nice shadow lines and we create a very varigated front appearance to the shopping center. So it's just not some long flat typical retail strip building. And I talked about the sight from the hill and I talked about, and I guess the metaphore I used was like a Tuscan, Italian hill town you know where you see, in Italy you see the tall church tower or the clock tower or whatever and I said we want to have some references to some of the things that had happened in town. And so as you go and look at your fire safety and health building, they have the same pattern here and they're using what I believe is the specterglaze block. It's a block that has an epoxy coating on it and what we're proposing is, this is limestone and what we're proposing is that all the accents on the building would be, this is a native Minnesota stone. It's kind of a little, Tim learned in architecture school about trying to use ... so this is a native Minnesota stone that we're trying to incorporate here into the project and Tim, maybe you can address how this stone relates in the arches and entrances here. Tim McCoy: It's a kasota stone which it would probably be a polished type of finish and we just happen to have a rough type of finish to this. This is the same stone that's used on the Norwest Bank building in downtown Minneapolis. Identical kind of buff coated stone. At the present time, and of course with Byerly's is that typically people associate something -n 7 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 1 that's more or less the monolithic brick building with them so they have not incorporated other materials into their buildings locally to date. So we've taken kind of a. conservative ' approach in terms of using stone with the development at the present time. Where we're got it shown right now is in all of the brick's pure and column areas we've got these little space groups between brick coarses and so forth so you have something like a foot of brick in there and then you have something like a 4 band of the stone. We've also proposed using it in some upper areas just to give a little accent to some of those areas. And quite frankly, I mean we're doing some additional studies related to how else we might be able to treat those ' and like I say, quite frankly at the present time we would rather come in and show a more limited or conservative use of this. Or I should say limited use and add some, for instance, we may find out that we want to do the arch face or something like that in stone rather than , brick. I mean that's one of the things we're still studying. But rather than come in and show a whole lot of stone in here, and then 2 months down the road or something like that say well, I guess we decided that we really didn't want to use that much. So the specific ' detailing of how it's used is still under study but in general we want to use it down at the pedestrian level where you can get that variation in the material is much more apparent. But right now all of these things have little stone, horizontal endings in them. , Farmakes: So if I was looking at the verticals coming up on the wainscoated area down below there, I'm looking at those little vertical directions. The little small square ones then ' would be the limestone, is that correct? Tim McCoy: These vertticals? ' Farmakes: No, on the lower area. The wainscoated area down below there. Tun McCoy: All of the horizontals are, if I may bring this up closer and it might be a little bit easier for you to read. Right now we have all of the horizontals for the project... Mancino: Oh I see. Now this is limestone? This band is limestone right here. Tim McCoy: The little tanish colored bands are limestone. This is limestone. ' Farmakes: And then this is brick. The vertical brick. I Tim McCoy: Right, excuse me. I thought you were referring to the vertical. Farmakes: And the limestone that you're talking about here, when you're talking about arches, would be. vh Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Tim McCoy: Will most likely be brick but one of the things that we've done one sketch of is, gee what would it look like if we faced the arch in limestone or whatever. But this is what we're proposing at the present time. 1 Scott: Is the facade for Byerly's, it kind of looks like it's drawn where it kind of goes back maybe a brick and then out in back. Is that kind of the effect that's going to happen? Tim McCoy: Right. Scott: Is it a cornice then that's kind of coming forward out of the top? ' Tim McCoy: Right. That's what we're proposing to do. Is to corble the brick at the top so you get a little bit of a cornice line or a crown that goes around. Scott: So it'd be kind of a crown not only P Y Y on the to of the B erl 's...the main entrance but then also moving out horizontally for the Byerly's. Mancino: But not through here. Farmakes: I noticed you have more extensive detailing on the center than you do on the support units that come out from the side there. So how do you, you don't see any limestone going up to the capping areas or you see those as detailing on these areas in here? Tim McCoy: Just in some detail at various places that aught relate to this module stone ' below. Farmakes: What is the ... made out of. Mancino: The planter box. 1 Tim McCoy: The planter will probably be a brick face and if we can't use a limestone top, we'll use something like a cap stone top, which is essentially almost like a concrete product but it's a nicer product. I mean we want to get something that's, it's... impossible out there for the ... but you can consider it to be brick. Scott: Will there be any sort of seating area design or just strickly planter border? ' Tim McCoy: Something that would be low. 16 inches high I think is what we've shown it as, or something close to that anyway, which is a 16 to 24 for seating height out there. One of the things I should mention also that shows up at least on the new site plans that you had 1 �, 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 there is that we went through a whole range of different front elevation options with Byerly's in terms of full arcade, no arcade, arch, no arch, full arch type of designs and this I think , everybody would agree represents somewhat of a departure for the store in terms of what people typically associated with it. We've lined up this feature with the center line of the driveway coming off of the existing—and so forth. We're always limited in terms of the ' amount of glass we get to work with in a lot of large retail users because they use the wall space for merchandising, so where possible we try to make some type of featured element out of some of the things... ' Mancino: Now on the restaurant facing 78th, there's no windows there. It's just on the east side. , Tim McCoy: Yes, there are windows on the east side. Around the comer. This is actually Wines and Spirits all the way along here. We do have an elevation... which I think is, if I'm ' not mistaken John, this will be your first local restaurant with windows in it. John Meyers: Correct. , Tim McCoy: Correct, so. Mancino: Signage wise there is no, is there anything in the ordinance that allows for ... open 24 hours? , Farmakes: Well, first of all I think that's a different package than the one I've got here on my drawing. So I'm not sure how, we'll be discussing signage at a later date correct? , Mancino: Okay. ' Tim McCoy: I should go back right here but when I started speaking about the additional drawing sketches that reflect what we've got in these boards that we're showing the cross sections and so forth, is that what we've finally arrived at in terms of kind of canopy covered , pedestrian way was a situation where we had the covered drive thru grocery pick up and then we just, this is actually where the drive thru goes into the grocery pick up right over here. But also on this side of the entry we've got an area that's about 18 feet deep by 50 feet wide ' that we're proposing be used as the transit stop in there. Put some benches in and so forth. Just.a covered waiting area. One of the reasons why we didn't use the full arcade all the way out to the sidewalk line, or curb line, excuse me, is the fact that because of the drive thru, the ' entry of the Byerly's store was already so far recessed from the curb line that we didn't want to accentuate that even more. We would try to minimize that so that's why we essentially cut that, the covered areas to face. ' io ' d 11 1 1 L� I1 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Mancino: We're going to have buses coming up here? Tim McCoy: No. I should show you in the site plan. What you're seeing here would be arches just at the face here. The face of this comes across and then this little flatter portion is just over the driveway but here's the other covered area that I had indicated in here. And in times of really severe traffic or whatever, the day before Thanksgiving or whatever, they found it desirable to have something that might be a little bit ' of a pull off in stacking lane in there. That's about...3 cars in there—but what's proposed is that the transit bus can pull off the driveway that runs to the south, along the south of the center here and that people can sit on benches in there. Harberts: And the benches are covered. Tim McCoy: Right. Harberts: The waiting area's covered. Tim McCoy: This area is about 18 feet deep and 50 feet long. Harberts: And you see the transit bus ... dropping employees off right here or waiting area right over there... Mancino: That concerns me. I mean... Krauss: We're talking about circulator buses here. Like we rode around in this morning. Tim McCoy: Yeah, we're not talking about MTC or anything. But one of the things that we've done also, after consulting. Harberts: We didn't tell you about park and ride on here. Tim McCoy: We did have head in parking right in front of the center section of the retail space that shows up here, which is desirable for running in and out of the video store or whatever it may be but probably not the best thing when you've got a lot of traffic going in there. So what we had done is combined the parking spaces that were located off the loading zone here and taking ... little drive thru at the west side of the building. And we're still proposing to have some type of pull off lane up there where somebody can, whether or not we've got when people stop and... Mancino: Diane, do you have any concern? I mean I do, and I said it afterwards at the last 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 meeting. I mean we have all this parking in the front and I'm going to walk from m car u S P S S S Y P to the front door and not only am I going to have people driving up there to get the drop off of their groceries but now we're going to small buses coming in through there. ' Harberts: Yeah, I guess that's always part of the question. I guess what I look at, from a ' public transit perspective, is that it's going to be signed. It's going to be designated in the sense that we've got where the bus will be laying over so people, when it's on a circulator or somewhat of a schedule, people will start watching for it. Because you know people are going to be exiting and entering out that same door where the bus is sitting. And so are they i going to be in the line of traffic, or cross traffic? Farmakes: Well they do have the option of walking along the arcade. Harberts: But if they're parked over here, I mean I can see people coming from this way and ' pulling in here and then there. You know people that are coming from this way, maybe ... that I would be concerned with from a safety perspective. Mancino: That's what I mean too. Farmakes: I know but you also have, you can go this way as well. You don't, yeah I see I .,what you're saying about not having sidewalks but. Mancino: Because you cut, I mean I cut right through the parking lot to get to the front door. I don't go up and. Harberts: Well and with a bus too, you know we're talking what maybe, we're probably , talking maybe a 2 minute, 3 minute layover depending if they're, you know if they're someone in a wheelchair, then you're talking like 5 or 6 minutes to board them and strap them in. , Farmakes: But in the course of the day, how many buses would show up there? Harberts: Well, if it's on a circulator schedule, it could be twice an hour. If it's demand ' response, then it's based on the demand of the public. (There was a to change at this point in the meeting.) ( ere a tape g p g ) Harberts: I'll take the plans back and sit down with my people. ' Charlie James: We had a second place, excuse me for jumping up here but, on your site , 12 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 plan. We had a second place right here where we thought that this is kind of the entrance to the shops and I guess... Harberts: That's where I was looking at too the other night. Charlie James: ...buses out here and aren't these big MTC things but they're more like a little Metro Mobility, little short thing. Harberts: Wash your mouth out. Charlie James: Is that a bad thing? Well I don't know. Harberts: They're like a... Charlie James: In any event what I'm saying is, we provided, when staff asked us to take parking out of here, then someone had the idea well geez, maybe we should have a place out of the traffic lane here where. Harberts: But is it covered? Charlie James: It's a drop off place but it's not a covered place to have them to wait. I mean if they wanted, if the weather was inclement, they could wait under here. Harberts: And I think at this point the best thing to do, the condition that's outlined in the staff report is just to sit down and work with us and we can sit down and chat with these folks and then also bring in public safety. So I think that the condition that's in there is, there's opportunities that are workable. Farmakes: As to the relative location to the grocery pick -up to the entrance. I know Byerly's in Edina for instance has it on the side of the building which is away from it but both our grocery stores, well one in Eden Prairie and the other one here in Shorewood that both have similar type of pick -ups next to the entry point of the store. I don't really see any danger problems there from a. Mancino: Well I brought it up because I go to the grocery store on Highway 7 that has it like this and I always feel when I'm going to pick up my groceries, that I have to be careful of everybody going into the front door. Harberts: And it might be just as simple as just signing on the pavement in terms of a walkway. I:* 13 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 r Mancino: And it's usually at peak hours. I mean it's not at 11:00 in the morning. It's not 2:00 in the afternoon but at 5:00 in the afternoon you get a long load of people in their cars waiting for pick -up. Harberts: And from our perspective, .the circulator would be there more during the non -peak , times. So like I say, the way it's written in the staff report, and the opportunities, it's just a matter of sitting down and flushing out the details. Farmakes: Well out of the lane of traffic there, the distance scale wise, how many cars would that be? If they're backed up. If they were backed up. , Tim McCoy: It's about 130 feet. But we've got about 60 feet in here because' I did scale that. Well I've got a scale here. Why don't I try that. John Meyers: Just so you know, you should mention that's double lanes through there also. It's two wide. , Farmakes: So you're talking about 20 cars? Tim McCoy: Yeah, we're actually only about 85 feet in from the curb there which is about 4 ' cars and I go to St. Louis Park also. As a matter of fact I will be stopping there today before I go home. , Farmakes: The St. Louis Park location of Byerly's? Tim McCoy: Right. On Highway 7. ' Mancino: Well Highway 7 is a Lund's. I Charlie James: Mr. Chairman, motion to strike that. Harberts: Hey, I o to the B erl 's in Golden Valley. I'm so Y g Y Y Y n'Y . John Meyers: ...and we have some of them on the side and quite frankly they'll work either i way. The way it is here minimizes, we looked at all three sides. We looked at vying ... a lot of time and Charlie knows. We drove him crazy with it but we looked at trying to do it here. We also looked at leaving some of the shops off. Pushing them down and putting one in ' here. Quite frankly this creates, or allows for the least amount of cross movement between cars, people and other cars. If you put it on this side, you're going to have cars stacked on ' the wrong side of the road to turn in. This side, at least we're stacked on the right hand side 14 i i ri Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 on the one or two days a year that it actually needs, they stack up. The majority of the time, even on a' Saturday, you're not going to have the stack up. If you think of Edina or if you think even of Ridgedale. The Ridgedale Byerly's. Even though the drive thru is on the right hand side, to pick up the parcel end of it, where the kids stand when they load, will be right at the end. So you really don't pick up substantially more stacking room by siding around to the side of the building. That's effectively what we figured out. And if you put it on this side of the building, they still have to cross through this traffic again. So quite frankly this allows people to stay on the right hand side. Right hand lane. They pull in on the right and they come out and they stay to the right. And so there's as minimal cross traffic as you can get. So that was one of the reasons that ended up there. Farmakes: Does that cover your concerns now? Mancino: Yeah, that covers my concerns. And as long as they're going to work with Diane. Scott: We'll see the signs again and we'll see the, also the plans... Farmakes: I would like to talk a little bit about the outlot, or the commercial building that's away from the rest of the development. Can you tell me at this time is there, what were the restrictions then be on the lease for that building, since there isn't a current tenant. I know the plans. you go over the zoning restrictions to that particular building? 1 Generous: ...commercial, I believe a retail or office. Farmakes: We've had some cloudy interpretations of what retail and office has been in the 1 past and I'm wondering if we have some idea of what's going in there as far as signage requirements. I know that we're not discussing that here and we'll do that at a later date but what are we looking at there? Are we looking at an Arby's or are we looking at a bank ' building? Are we looking a pair of eye glasses sticking out of the building? What are we looking at there? I L Charlie James: If I could speak to that a little bit. I guess one of the reasons again, that this building ended up detached, was it's hard to say all this stuff without it just sounding... self serving or something but I mean we have really tried to put our best foot forward here and I ... with John and particularly his, the CEO of Byerly's, this building for them represents another step up for them and we had months of discussions on getting them to go with anything that they, they're a very conservative company. So one of the things that we were trying to address here is the idea of the 2000 thing and the pedestrian thing and that's why this in essence, we had no idea that this was a conditional use when we went into this and that, everything that we're doing here and have in front of you today is a permitted use on a 15 I] Farmakes: My question wasn't in regards to it's location. My question was in regards to what it's use was. Some of that you've answered. Maybe the staff can answer a question in regards to, whatever goes in there, are they looking at separate pylon signs because it's a separate building now or? L Charlie James: No. Krauss: No, we wouldn't even add that as part of the conditions. It's on a single lot ...is ' entitled to one pylon and that we would evaluate. In terms of uses though. Mancino: Can it be... Krauss: The building's not designed for that I mean the building you're approving doesn't ' 16 fl Plannin g g Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 r zoned lot and we're not asking for any variances. In the middle of this process we found some, staff found some ordinance somewhere, buried back in that said you can't have more than two structures on a lot And what we were trying to do, by putting this building down here. We could easily attach it up here but we think that what we're trying to do is respond to that part of the discussions about the pedestrian element and bringing something down , towards the street and that was a trade -off. You know and that unfortunately got us into a conditional use. But it was trying to, we've got a sidewalk going up here now and there's a sidewalk running along here and it was trying to not have everything back from the street but try to have something that's architecturally integrated with the same materials and the same designs that will draw that project closer to the street And we have two parties that we're dealing with on this right now and one of them is a retailer that would take the entire space ' and the other one is essentially a service type office user who would take the entire space. As it happens, both of their space requirements are 6,500 to 7,000 square feet So what we were intending to show you here is this is how we had envisioned this coming in and if there's any change to this, we'll come back to you and we'll say, you know if it's going to have 3 doors or whatever but we felt that the intent here was to show you that we were meeting the ordinance in parking and the setbacks and open space and green area and the ' whole thing and if this is the best that we can say at this time, what this building's going to look like. Again with the stone being brought in and the arches and this sort of thing. But again, the reason for that was that it's sort of impractical. I think as one of the commission members here pointed out, it's sort of a ... people that go grocery shopping. They're not, you don't leave your house and say I'm going to walk up to the supermarket and get $200.00 worth of groceries. I mean people take their cars and so you know we all are automobile ' oriented. Most of us I'm sure came here by automobile this morning but you know I guess we're trying to give you something here you know. We were trying to pull something down ' and bring an element closer to the sidewalk into the street Farmakes: My question wasn't in regards to it's location. My question was in regards to what it's use was. Some of that you've answered. Maybe the staff can answer a question in regards to, whatever goes in there, are they looking at separate pylon signs because it's a separate building now or? L Charlie James: No. Krauss: No, we wouldn't even add that as part of the conditions. It's on a single lot ...is ' entitled to one pylon and that we would evaluate. In terms of uses though. Mancino: Can it be... Krauss: The building's not designed for that I mean the building you're approving doesn't ' 16 fl a i fl t 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 accommodate that. Mancino: What if somebody wanted to change it in 20 years and add on a little drive thm. Krauss: It would have to come back through you, as a site plan approval for an intensification of use. Charlie James: We're not drawing drive thru lanes. We're not showing gasoline. So if there's a departure from that, it lands us right back here. Harberts: I have a comment. A question. I like the idea about trying to help us focus in on that 2002 vision. Making it more pedestrian oriented. Is there the opportunity to take it maybe, the way I see it just a little bit further. You know we talk about the sidewalk going up that alley way or whatever. Well, whatever it is. Hey, you called it Metro Mobility ' buses. I can get that too. But starting at West 78th Street, there on the comer and going up. Charlie James: I'm going to put my finger here kind of like a mouse on a microsoft window. Roll it where you want it to go. Harberts: Come to the intersection there. The entrance. Other way. Other way. There you go. Stop. Now go up just a little bit. Okay, now go towards the building. Yes. And connect that sidewalk. Can we put more sidewalk in there? Charlie James: Sure, we could. The element there is in then you're losing permeable, is that the word? Harberts: Impervious. Charlie James: Impervious. You're losing green space. Harberts: Unless we put green space someplace else. Farmakes: Or unless you just run it down to the sidewalk instead of along the side. Just run it down. Charlie James: Down here you mean? Harberts: Right. Just somehow access that sidewalk. 17 E Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Charlie James: Yeah, we could do that. I Harberts: I guess again, I like what you're doing with trying to help us encompass our 2002 vision and I think if we can just put that sidewalk in, it's an element to help. Charlie James: Be happy to do that, sure. Harberts: So I appreciate your willingness. Conrad: Is there a sidewalk entirely on 78th? Charlie James: It runs right along here. Conrad: All the way? , Charlie James: Here and here. Down here. We went out and tied in here Ladd so it comes ' all the way through the project here. And we are anticipating in the future whatever's going to happen here.. Believe me. I'm not... Conrad: I know ... senior stuff down there Charlie. Charlie James: Well, actually the reason that was on there is I was told by some people in the city that by the time I ever got this built, I would be living there. They'd said I'd be ... out in my walker. Harberts: This is on public TV. Charlie James: So anyway, in response to your question Mr. Conrad. We've shown the sidewalk extending down here so that in the future. Conrad: Yeah, I really like that Put this back up. I don't know if we're moving into architecture. I've got a whole bunch of questions of staff on architecture. Harberts: Can I ask one more related parking question then? , Conrad: Oh go ahead. Harberts: On the handicap parking stalls, I'm reading they're 13 feet. What happened to 16 feet? 18 � I Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Krauss: Well whatever it is, they've got to conform to the Uniform Building Code. I don't know what the right dimension is. Harberts: Well I guess from my perspective we certainly see 16 feet because if someone has to transfer out of their car into a wheelchair. Can we just ask that you look at that? Look at 16 feet width parking stall for handicap. Otherwise you put 13 feet in and it gets totally disfunctional. Krauss: We can sure look at that. I honestly don't know what the appropriate dimension is. Harberts: I recall 16 feet so ... no it was just my sidewalk and the disabled parking spaces. Conrad: Yeah, put that back up would you and I'll try to integrate this and be real quick. The other profile of the main building is real pleasing. But then when you look, and this when you look at it in relation, it looks great but it's kind of what we didn't want on 78th Street. So I'm trying to just challenge you know everything that's come up to us that's had a flat roof, we said go back. Now we have some nice building materials here but I guess I'm real curious. We've turned down banks and we've turned down a lot of things that really had a flat roof just like that so Paul, I'm curious. In your interpretation of, well we don't really have architectural standards as such but how are you feeling comfortable with that design? Krauss: Well I think it was Commissioner Farmakes who continually pointed out that we do not have, I mean Frank Lloyd Wright, the prairie design. There is no Chanhassen design... desire not to see that. That there's a lot of architectural diversity. Now what you're talking about specifically, with the pitched roof is a factor. And we have made developers put those on rather uniformally on small buildings. Conrad: And tell me why. Because it's an easy way to make it look better? Is that. Krauss: Well it does make a building, well. This is subjective but I think there's a consensus that it makes a building look classier but more importantly we have built, such as in the St. Hubert's Church, such as the Dinner Theatre which is a plywood building but has mansard. There are a number of significant buildings in town that have incorporated that as a design entity. I think Bill Morrish pointed out that you look at Chanhassen from a distance. You see the steep... pitched roof of the St. Hubert's Church sticking up above the oak trees and it's the kind of thing that we push quite strongly. At the same time, we've acknowledged that you cannot do a pitched roof system on a big box building. Market Square does not have a pitched roof. Target does not have a pitched roof. Scott: Market Square does... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 11 Krauss: No, Market Square does not either. Market Square has a few design elements that mimic a pitched roof. Farmakes: That's correct ...isn't the real asset here, often for some reason we go to a pitched roof when we're discussing these things. When we get a proposal of a square building. And really the issue I think the people are talking about, when they glob onto that, they're talking about issues of detailing. So many of the franchise buildings. that we often see in retail,. and in franchise type of operations, are devoid of it. They have little or no detailing. It increases the cost per square foot of putting up a building. It sometimes increases the maintenance issues and they avoid it like the plague. And consequently we get cookie cutter type architecture and we seem to be reacting to that by saying, well put a pitched roof on. Mancino: And it might be equipment on top. Farmakes: Well hiding equipment, sure. And a lot of the, I think the terms that we lock into ' and when we talk about compatibility of architecture and so on, I get a little uncomfortable when we use words like that because they're subjective to the person who's interpretting them. What's compatible. Does that mean the same mass? Does that mean like it? Same color. There is a tendency here I think even to, at one time every building in Chanhassen was going to be gray. I Conrad: And western. Farmakes: When you get locked into trying to put down in words what we're trying to say or think in our minds, we have a tendency to lock into sort of a tunnel vision that everything comes out the same. I understand what you're saying here and interpretation of the out building. It does not have the same architectural detailing that you're seeing in the larger structure. Conrad: And it's real clear that the main buildin g is q uite nice. It's like an immediate read. You don't even need to play around with that. That is ... really proud of that. But the out building, boy we turned down a lot of stuff that looked like that. Farmakes: The ... although you can go to Florence and see pitched roofs, some of the angular detailing that they're using that conteracts some of that. And certainly the materials that they're using where they, you don't have one building that's all brown. I mean you've got some natural differences of the material where you have a like color and a dark color and so on. We've seen other retail areas out on the corner of 394 and 494. The Oxbow development. The one in Edinborough. You're seeing some detailings. These are not buildings necessarily that have pitched roofs. In the case of Oxboro, or Edinborough, they ' 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 actually did a little pitched roof coming. The building's flat but they have a little pitched roof coming out from the side of the building. And these are things that create shadowing different times of the day to give the building depth and. Conrad: So what do you think about the out building here Jeff? Farmakes: I don't think that it's in line with the quality of some of the direction of the other building. What they're trying to achieve there. I think it could be. Perhaps if they broke up the tangent line across on the roof but again, they don't know who's going even in the building. So that's why I was asking if this building, if we approve this, are we approving this out building as well and not knowing what's going in there. They're going to come back for the signage package but if we're looking at, you know your comments are valid. It's a square, from the site but it seems to me that incorporating some of these other elements that they have perhaps in the entrance or so on. That they could, some of the corbeling that came out. They could conform that building with some minor alterations. ' Scott: Are there some southern, do you have a southern and a western elevation of that small building? r Mancino: Can the builder respond to this? To Jeff's point of view. Farmakes: Well actually it's Ladd's questions. Charlie James: I guess I'd dust say that I can't bring you a finished building on that because we've got two parties that are vying for that right now. So what I was trying to say to you, is look at this is my pledge to you. We're going to, this is what it's going to, we're trying to show you that we're concerned. We're trying to get it down to the sidewalk. We're going to try to incorporate the materials. We had a requirement from this one user where they had two separate, they needed two separate entrances and they needed a certain amount of program space, of offices and this sort of thing. So we drew that up but, and so the intent isn't to say gee, this is absolutely, positively it. It's to say, whatever we do here is going to happen to signs, to everything down to the level of the street is going to have the same materials. The same design elements. The same references to the other part of town and I'd be happy to come back to you and, if you have immediate comments right now, and say well we like this or we don't like this or could you work on this or whatever, but I mean when we get this thing nailed down, this is the part of the thing that's a conditional use. I guess is there some, this is the problem that you get into when, I think you're so used to looking at PUD's and we're probably the first project that you've looked at in a long time and a lot of times in PUD's the city demands all these things and says we want this. We want this. Because we're going to give you something here. Here we're coming in and we're saying, zn 21 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 we meet all the codes. We don't need any variances and the only conditional use that we're asking is one that came out of a result of us trying to please you with a detached building. But if you have concerns, like this isn't all in one plane for instance. This pulls out just like these pull out. It doesn't read that way but these are coming out just like. - Let me take you along here. On this building, this is in a plane and then this pops out. Goes across here. Goes back in. Goes here. Turns the corner. Comes out. This is all pulled away from the building in different planes. This is recessed. Goes along. Comes back out this way.. Reads along this plane. This element steps out. Goes across. Steps back. Goes across. Goes back straight. Goes over here. Comes out. Over. Out. Across. Back. And we've got that same thing happening here and on the comers. Farmakes: I think that the issue that we're talking about was the tangent line on the roof. Conrad: Yeah...Charlie, that's a little. ' Charlie James: You'd like to see more of this? Conrad. Probably, • Pr 1 , y eah. I think that would do it. John Meyers: ...out the entrances. Conrad: Probably ' would do it yeah. Yeah. I think it's... Scott: A pitched roof is going to look silly. I think by raising them up. Kurd of following along that line, it will tie the two structures together and I think you have a valid... Conrad: I really hate.to play architect and I always have and I don't like Planning Commissions to do that but on the other hand, we've gotten used to doing some of that as we monitor what goes in on 78th Street. The main building just looks terrific you know. As I said before, it's a quick read. The shadows, from a distance you've done all the right stuff. It's just neat. But then there's the contrast, then all of a sudden I look at the building that you're putting up to make it more of what we want but it's real plain in comparison. And compared to the other stuff that we've tried to do in downtown, it's not there and it's really dealing with the roof line and I really don't need to put on what we've been trying to do. I'd just like to build a little bit more character in and some elevation changes in that roof line and then I think you've got it. But my problem is, if I don't make those comments, I don't know that it's coming back. Now you know I don't know that I get to see this again and that's my problem Charlie. Charlie James: Well, here's what I would propose. We will, architects... you will respond to 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 all of this. We will make these n ' e trances like this. We'll pull these elements up and it won't just be a western face, store front either. Okay. But also, if there's anything that isn't the same, I'll come back and see you again. It's kind of hard, it's a concept thing. I mean you do concept things in PUD's but I'm trying to say to you, if I get these people in here and if we pull this up, this is how it's going to look in the site plan and coverage ratio and everything. We'll put the sidewalks in there and then I don't have to come back. But if we change anything or if they say, no. We're only going to have one door or anything, then staff is going to kick me back... Conrad: Well, and I want to reinforce you. I really like what you're doing and it's really nice. Nice quality buildings and pretty and it's different than what we've been doing and I like some of that. But again, I appreciate how sensitive you are trying to be to where we're going Charlie in downtown Chanhassen. I appreciate that. Charlie James: Well thank you very much and I want you to know that this hasn't been - something that we've thrown together in 2 weeks or whatever. I can tell you that for instance M on the issue of circulation here in Byerly's. When did we start that? June. I mean just that issue. I've got a stack of reject drawings at least an inch thick, just on the issue of which side of the building and how do we do that. And then we had to go back to them and say, to John's boss and say, we'd like to. do some things a little bit different here and so we have been working on this, I first started working with Byerly's in January of last year. So this hasn't been something that we've just kind of, you know thrown a bunch of stuff against a wall. We've put a lot of thought and we're trying to put our best foot forward and sincerely build something that we think is going to look for 50 years in this community. But as Tim says, one of the things that he's always said to me, he says I'd love to buildings that would be great ruins 2000 years from now. You know. And so we're... Scott: Do we have any other questions from the Planning Commission? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions in regards to the ordinance. We're talkie about this P q g g as a straight ap and I'm not sure that it is. This is in a downtown area correct? In the business district? Do we not have an ordinance that discusses the issue ... vague, discusses the issue about compatibility issues? And issues of architecture. Krauss: Well it's been a long time, and I think Charlie's right, since you've viewed a straight subdivision. It's probably the Abra/Goodyear was the last one. There is an architectural review. And it's fairly vague as to exactly what goals you set for ... You are being asked to do a CUP for that building. Now, as we pointed out, the CUP is not for any use, which is typically the case. Uses are fully consistent and permitted. The CUP is the fact that you have two buildings on one lot, which wouldn't have been an issue had it been a PUD but 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 1 F time didn't permit that. But it is a CUP and you know there's several, you do have some leverage. I think Charlie's indicated a willingness to respond to those issues. You know you can ask for that architecture to come back in front of you. If there's some acceptance particularly that the space where the building is, the space. The location is okay but you want to work out a condition on that particular aspect of the architecture. You feel comfortable with the Byerly's and the adjacent building and that can go forward. Farmakes: You pulled the building down which made it a conditional use to create a common areas to the left of the development. The retail development, is that correct? Alright. And that would not be built on at a future date, correct? Krauss: Right. They're... Farmakes: So if that was at the city's request, I think we all kind of have that in our minds so what happened there. The other issue of looking at this is, in the future, or in the immediate future I believe that this will be going to, not only the City Council for review but also the HRA. So we're not quite sure, usually when we talk about PUD's we know that the city is investing, and we're not sure on that at this point because the applicant has not—the same as we would any other type of development. Not granted there's different forms of ' investment and different interpretations but I believe that the downtown, as I said, there is an ordinance because there's some latitude and I think Paul's reaffirmed that for us to make these comments. I fully encourage everybody to do that. And there is also the issue I believe, in the earlier statement that you're talking about variances in regards to the signage. So it's not like this is a straight application, and so it should be clarified. Scott: Diane, do you have another question. Harberts: I just noted in the staff report with regard to the discussion I had at the previous meeting with oh, semi trucks. Are we guessing that the semi's will either come off of TH 5 on Powers onto West 78th and perhaps off of TH 5 onto Market? Is the turning radius on Market onto West 78th adequate for large semi's? Audience: It is now. I Harberts: Okay. That's what I figured. Kerber, I don't have any problem with Kerber. I guess overall, I know that some of the issues that you brought up Jeff. They certainly will probably be discussed and I guess we're here as Planning Commissioners with responsibility to look at this from codes and so on and then also we're here with our hats on as residents. I guess overall I'm going to support the project. I think it's going to be a welcome addition to I 24 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Chanhassen in terms of the way this community is growing. I think what, it makes me all warm and cozy I guess to some extent you know with our last meeting with the willingness of the developer. With the players involved with Byerly's. There certainly are issues for discussion and I guess I hope that whatever level that those issues should be raised to, and ' discussed at, that they look at, you know as we talked earlier, about the vision of what we're trying to establish for our community. And I just offer those comments to my colleagues here but I certainly like the project and what's really a welcoming feeling is the responsiveness by the owner /developer to really work with the community. That carries a lot in my feelings here. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Mancino: I just have maybe one more comment and question about parking lot lighting. Will we be seeing that? And my comment is, is that I would like to see the lighting in the parking lot no higher than the roof line of the main building. And you're going to ask me which roof line. I guess I would say the lower roof line. What I don't want to see is coming south on, as I'm coming south on Kerber and I see some lighting higher than the buildings so it becomes a beacon in the night of this lighting. I'd like to see a little, not like what we have in front of Target. Generous: You could make that a condition of your recommendation—the illumination off site which is a half foot candle. There might be some building code. Mancino: Well I want to make sure that it meets public safety, etc. but. Harberts: Has public safety, did they comment on this? I don't have my packet. Generous: They said no comment at this time. They're most concerned about their access and... Harberts: That's what my, yeah. Generous: As far as the circulation, they didn't have a problem. Farmakes: We're showing a flag pole out in the building. Where are those? Those don't come under signage. I think those come under what? We're seeing flag poles... Well there's one drawing that has flag poles on it. Krauss: If there is, the position we've taken in the past, and this is somewhat clarified hopefully in the new ordinance ... is that if there's a sign up there that says Byerly's...or a flag 25 I t.1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 up that says Byerly's, we would consider that to be a sign. If it's an American flag ... Now this doesn't relate to this discussion here but we know that a Perkins is potentially looking at the site across the street. And Perkins has a number of issues with their 50 foot flag and most recently I think they turned one down in Minneapolis. I think they were taken to Court and the city won. That that is an over representation. That's not necessary to represent the ' nation and that itself was a sign. But -that's not an issue here. Farmakes: So we're talking a flag pole? It's not a line of flag poles? Krauss: Well I guess I'd defer back to... Farmakes: We're discussing on the drawing here they're showing flag poles. Is that? John Meyers: If you go by every store that we've got, if you go by all the stores we've got and all of them have ... American flag. Farmakes: So it's a singular? There's no several flag poles? John Meyers: No. One flat pole. If you go back to our Edina store that's right out on the corner. Ridgedale's ... I believe but all the stores have them and it's not something we started �+ in the last 5 years ... If you go back to Golden Valley where a 9 inch flag pole has been there forever. It's something that we've always done. Farmakes: Okay. We'll be looking at the monument sign then at a later date, is that correct? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: We're not commenting. I'm real comfortable with signage as I see it. Jeff, I think you brought that up. Should we talk about it. Farmakes: No. No. I said they have a drawing here of, that they did for the monument but that we can discuss at a later date when we discuss the signage at that point. Conrad: My last comment, and this is one for staff and it's, it makes it tough for me to vote on this conditional use permit. I wish it was just, I wish it wasn't. Because it gets into TIF and it's something that I don't even want to play with. It's not my job. But I'm curious. In the CUP there are two points. It talks about will not create, and this is something that the HRA has to deal with but two points. Will not create excessive requirements on public facilities. And I'm not sure where that one really goes. And another one, will not depreciate 26 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 surrounding property values. I really do believe that two grocery stores can't survive in Chanhassen based on all the stuff, you know over 10 years I've been around and we couldn't get anybody in and now we have 2. So my perception is that Festival will go out of business. My perception is that that will decrease the property value over there. Staff, speak to me about that. Krauss: Well, I think you're reading... something that we've been drafting up for the last 4 or 5 months with a couple of CUP's and there is some standard language to that effect. I guess we need an interpretation from the City Attorney but honestly that language was supposed to deal with things like a contractor's yard going up next door to somebody's house. You know it wasn't any idea of guaranteeing a monopoly or some sort of business sphere of influence. That's not the interpretation of that. We could ask for a clarification of that. The CUP itself does not relate to the fact that there's a supermarket there. Doesn't relate to it in the least. The only thing that the CUP is talking about is that there's two physical buildings of whatever use on one property and the fact that you have two buildings doesn't do anything good, bad or indifferent to Festival or anybody else. Conrad: I think commission members, I don't think my comments should relate to what we're voting on today actually. I'm just real interested in TIF money and, we've put TIF money into Market Square.. And we have. It's been rerouted to stay in Chanhassen. It's not going to other places basically so we've earmarked it and so it is an investment in Market Square, right? Krauss: Well if I could touch on that. Again TIF financing is the tip of the iceberg about... The City of Chanhassen has not invested a penny into Market Square or anything else. What we've done is we've taken the taxes that Market Square would have paid and through TIF re- invested that back in there to make it more attractive for development. Farmakes: That's another way of saying the same thing Paul. Conrad: Yeah, it's like. Farmakes: It's money you would have gotten but they get to keep it. Or excuse me, it's makes the ... coming back. Krauss: The only thing the city would have gotten if you assume that development would have occurred irregardless. Farmakes: In the first place. Egg and chicken. 27 D E Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Krauss: Right. And the presumption is with TIF, is that Market Square wouldn't have happened. I mean you had this ... This_is a philosophical issue that the HRA is into more and more. Just what level of assistance is actually validated to make things happen. And of course the presumption is that in the interest of moving these funds back in, that the city is in a much better position to get a much higher tax base in the long run, which benefits ' everybody. So that's the simplistic version of TIF. It's also a fact that, and this gets into probably more detail than you want to, but that Festival, the lease on the Festival store was guaranteed by their parent corporation for 20 years. Whether it's empty or not. I think everybody's hoping that we don't lose Festival. There's no intention to lose Festival and I think the best of all possible worlds is if Festival decides to expand. Conrad: Well, they're not going to survive. You know Paul, that's really naive. You know ■ they will not survive. =Krauss: Ladd, I honestly don't agree with that. But whether I do or not is indifferent to the fact that you've got a site plan request for today. Conrad: Ah, absolutely. Krauss: The CUP that you're quoting, validly quoting, doesn't refer to the use. It just refers to the fact that there's two buildings. Conrad: Say that one more time. Krauss: It has nothing to do with the use. This is not a CUP for a church in a residential district or a contractor's yard or gas station or fast food. This is solely a PUD because you have two physical building footprints sitting on the same lot. That's the only aspect of this that makes it a CUP. Conrad: Right. I understand that. Farmakes: I think we touched on this at the last meeting. About being drawn into issues of competition and risk when the city winds up making, or not TIF. Trying to originate some destination for people to come to downtown. Particularly at the beginning. I mean to create a reason for people to drive here. And the question whether or not it's something we should be discussing here, in the issue of planning where it seems to me that this is somewhat more of an HRA issue. Not to defer the responsibility but it seems to me that that's something that we, that's not our charge. Conrad: It's not our charge unless, unless point 11. If you agree with the CUP, you have to 28 1 !1 t fl 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 know exactly what point number 11 really means and based on what Paul just said, he probably is saying that we don't need to concern ourselves with point number 11 on the CUP. Farmakes: I'm not sure that this development needs to be a conditional. Conrad: Oh, it doesn't. No, he's only doing it to, because that's how, that's what we want. So you know, developer and Charlie, I'm not even, they're doing what we want in all these cases. Farmakes: But the issue of property values I think is not necessarily the same as the value of your business. The value of the building and the land that it's on. Conrad: You know but really, if you can't fill buildings. Farmakes: But then they're guaranteeing competition and loss. There's no risk in being in- business. And again, it seems to me that it would be a bad thing for the city to get drawn into that argument. That we are in fact business partners. That's, although it sounds good it's not factual. Scott: Are there any other comments before I ask for a motion? Farmakes: I thought this was an open discussion, or we won't be making statements afterwards as individuals then correct? For the record. Harberts: That's the way I understood it. Farmakes: Fine with me. Then I have a few more comments. A couple brief comments on the architecture. I guess I feel a little uncomfortable, in particular with a development that's usually considerably higher cost per square foot than what we're used to seeing on retail. Making comments when we don't have the detail, and by the applicant's own admission, those are yet to be worked out. I would like to see some of the details cbme back here again but I don't think that I would at this point tonight I feel uncomfortable about voting on this. And approving it based on some conditions that I've heard here. But what I would like to see, I'd like the applicant to consider, rather than the smooth facing buildings that are a majority of Byerly's, to cross over between the old and new in Chanhassen. Consider a rough faced limestone. John Meyers: The brick that's used—is a rough coarse brick... Farmakes: The reason I bring that up ... is somewhat of an identity crisis. It thinks of itself as 29 I Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 a small town that's been here for 100 years, which in fact it has but there's unfortunately not much left of the old town. So you have that mindset but you don't have the physical representation that typically you'd have of an old village downtown. It seems to me that you have an opportunity to do something different from your standard buildings which are very conservative and flat glass coverage to mix this type of, I call it wainscoating or semi covering and get the contrast between the color of dark brown and the limestone. I know the city has an existing structural limestone entrance for the Dinner Theatre and so on and it would be nice for the city to work that color in. Chaska now has several buildings, and Shakopee also, with Chaska limestone. And Kasota stone also is different colorations. But to work that in. I think it's perceived as a sign of quality and of heritage here. And I don't know how much limestone they use in Florence but I know that it's... contrast -here. I would like to see you use more of it in the detailing that you're using rather than just adding a little color. I don't know what that does to your cost per square foot but I'd also like for you to consider at the top of the building, on your capping and your corbeling to work some of that in. Or at least look into it. It also would, I think break up the brownness of the building overall and the flatness. It also, I think may be an argument to some of the proponents of pitched roofs and so on. Some of the PUD applications that we went ahead with. I think some of the comments that were made by the people at the last meeting and issues of hey, they've got to build the same building we had. Or that we did. So they're talking about physical representations of what they did when in fact those representations or things that they did were actually trying to solve a problem, or visual problem. I'm not sure we have to duplicate the same solutions to the problem. Although that problem exists there. There are different ways to approach that and this is one of them And again I come back to the issue of detailing. It's not something that we see a lot of because of the cost of it. Although when you look at percentage of the building, when you get into aesthetics, it's hard to justify cost and I know we get this with retail buildings all the time. Particularly franchise buildings. We ask for detailing. We ask for these things because it represents character. There's not a lot of character that you're going to get with some of these, use the Goodyear building as an example. You get Option A, B, C and D and the black asphalt roof and -a plain sided back. And they come up and they say hay, we don't want to put any more money into that because we're not going to make any money off of it. Then the community sits back and says, well we don't want a whole city of that And this would really, this building would really change that I think. It's a nice building. I'd like to see the details that you have in those insets up above where you have little cross sections to the right of the Wine and Spirits. If you would work in some of that detailing when you come into those tiles on your out building as well as with the pieces that come up. It would take away some of the slab appearance of it and I think again, the issue of slab is another one that keeps on coming back here and I think that it's a reaction by the commission and I think some of the citizens in the city because they see this slab thing over and over again. And since you're in the business I think you can see the difference between an Oxboro and some of these, I'd say different retail applications. What Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 you have here and standard retail building that we often get. And I think you've designed a pretty distinctive building and I don't know if my comments are constructive but, and I don't know how much that will cost you in additional funds but I'm glad that you preservered with coming up with an innovative use for that particular piece of property. I think it will be a nice addition to the city. Mancino: Jeff, when you said you wanted to see more details, what does that mean? Does that mean you want it to come back? Farmakes: Well the applicant said that he'd be willing to bring the building back, or the out building back again to show. I don't know how we work that in to the conditional use or if the applicant wants that. Mancino: But are you asking also for not just the commercial building but for the main building also with some of the suggestions that you made? Farmakes: I think we've made these points. I don't know if that's something that the HRA and City Council can't hash out. I think what I'm talking about is basically how the material's finished and where exactly it's applied and I'm just critiquing. I don't think, you know unless the city starts investing in this building or so on that there's a question where you draw the line on that. You know either if they built what's proposed here, it's certainly a step up from what we've been seeing. I'm just talking about integration into other things that are going on in Chanhassen. The contrast between the kind of clean linear look that they have on all their buildings. Sometimes when you get an ... mix going on with some of the older materials and the newer facings, it comes out with a pleasant ...I'll leave it at that. Maybe we should clarify from Paul what's coming back and what isn't. Or what the applicant is bringing back to us. I don't think that the intention is to hold up this from going to the. Scott: No, and I've noted a couple of conditions. One involving transit and one involving signage. And another one, architectural detailing. Harberts: I've got 5 conditions. Scott: Well if you have some conditions, perhaps you'd like to make a motion. Harberts: I will...if we're ready, let me take a crack at it. I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit #93 -1 to permit the grouping of buildings on one lot, one building lot and approval of a site plan #93 -7 dated 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 1. November 18, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Item number 16. That the word bus be struck and inserted with the word transit so it would read, locate a transit stop area. Condition to be added would be 21. The addition of sidewalk connection between the out building down to that sidewalk and staff would work with the applicant to work out the best location for it. Condition number 22. That with regard to the out building, that the detailing of that out building, is the word match the main building and that that detailing information would also come back to the Planning Commission. Item number 23. That staff work with the applicant with regard to the comments made by Nancy with the lights in terms of the height. Condition number 24. That the signage package return to the commission for approval. And condition number 25. That the Public Safety provide written correspondence to the City Council specifically addressing the traffic impact with the new curb cuts that are proposed for Kerber Boulevard, especially in the 4:00 to 9:30 p.m. times, Monday thru Thursday because of the amount of parking and traffic generated by the park across the street. They should specifically outline what they see, if there's an issue. What the impact is so that the Council is aware of the impact because of the curb cut. Scott: Diane, did you want to mention the 16 foot handicap parking space? Harberts: Thank you. 26 is that the staff revisit with the applicant reviewing the opportunity for a 16 foot disabled handicap parking spaces to provide more functional use by patrons that require that type of special need. Is there a 27? Scott: Just a point about, did you make sure the notes are very copious because we have no idea whether, since you're undersupervised on setting up the video and the audio and these ' comments may not be on the public record but if you could take very copious notes on that to make sure that at least we know precisely what the conditions can be. Is there a second to the motion? Mancino: I second but I have a friendly amendment. On 1(b), last line. And this has to do with the landscaping between, on the north side between the development. The last line. I would like to read, the use of more planting materials may be warranted to achieve better long screen planning for the development. I would like to delete the words, but smaller. Scott: You'll accept that amendment? Harberts: Yeah, I guess. Scott: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we accept the matter before us with conditions as stated and a friendly amendment. Is there a second to the motion? Mancino: Yes. 32 Vro Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approves the Site Plan #93.7 dated December 7, 1993 and the Conditional Use Permit #93.1 to permit the grouping of buildings on one building lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a revised landscape plan for City approval. The plan shall include the following: a. The applicant shall provide interior landscape islands in the parldng lot areas. In particular, landscape islands measuring approximately 2915 feet by 49 38 feet (two parking stalls wide by two deep) shall be provided for every other aisle of face - to- face parking (minimum of three interior planting islands). These islands shall contain a minimum of three overstory trees and they shall be alternated with the tree groupings to be provided at the perimeter of the site. A aeration/nrigation system consisting of perforated PVC pipe or other flexible tubing in a looped system with at least two risers extending above the planting surface shall be designed and installed as part of these planting islands (see attached Figure 11 -3). b. The Hackberry trees proposed for the northern perimeter of the site shall be replaced with oak trees (either White Oak, scientific name Quercus alba, or Bur Oak, scientific name Quercus macrocarpa) in order to continue the tree planting theme begun in the Oak Ponds townhouse development located north of this development. In order to more effectively screen the development from residences to the north, the trees should be placed closer to the top of the slope, as opposed to near the bottom of the slope where they have virtually no effect on screening. Spacing of conifers should be ten (10) feet to allow them to grow together in a more solid mass at a younger age. As at other areas of the site, these trees should be placed strategically in groupings to increase their effectiveness as a buffer and to lend a more natural feel to the planting. The use of more but swaller planting materials may be warranted to achieve better long -term screening for the development. c. Perimeter and parking lot boulevard medians shall be provided with low level shrubs and other plant materials to help soften the appearance of the parking area. Evergreen shrubs are great for winter and also add to summer landscape, but use of more flowering shrubs in combination with the evergreen shrubs would be appropriate. The plan should consider the use of more shrubs and perennials (such as daylilies) in important areas of the site. These plants could be used as accents at site entries or pedestrian areas. 33 L E Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 1. d. Alternate ground cover such as sumac shall be used along the steep grade to the north. The steepness of the grade precludes the mowing of this sodded area. NO introduction of more colorful planting materials in the form of flowering shrubs and perennials. f. A landscape box with shrubs shall be provided to the north of the trash enclosure located adjacent to the detached commercial building to screen this enclosure from view. g. All landscaping areas shall have the proper soil preparation to ensure the viability of the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper soil preparation. h. Consideration should be given to placing plant materials together to create a bolder, more interesting landscape, without excessive alternation. Plantings shall be massed, creating a more diverse and dynamic landscape. Within massings, similar species should be used to ensure the greatest effect from the individual specimens. Consideration shall be given to maintaining views to the building when placing tree groupings in the perimeter areas. e. Ornamental trees should be interspersed within the landscaping boxes located in front of the building to provide architectural highlighting and to enhance the facade of the structure. Adding ornamental trees (crabapple, hawthorns or japanese tree lilacs) in planting areas near the building would add interest and color to the expanse of wall, especially at the front of the building. Care should be exercised in selecting plants that do not set fruit (which can be very messy in the case of some crabapples) for areas close to pedestrian ways. Areas near the building would benefit from the i. The plan does not recognize the street tree plantings at West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard where the City has installed, or has planned, for trees at 50 feet on center (West 78th Street) and 35 feet on center (Kerber Boulevard). The City's plans for West 78th Street show a permanent landscape easement (eight foot typical) at several locations along West 78th Street. The landscape plan for the project should start with the pattern of street tree plantings at the streets, allowing these trees to provide continuity between this site and other developments. Trees for this project can then be placed in groupings within the setbacks or berm areas of the site. j. The more formal placement of trees along the entry drives works to continue the feeling established by the City's tree plantings at the street. Tighter spacing of trees along the entry drives is desirable. Shrubs along the entry drives would reinforce 34 1 I; Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 I views of the building and obscure bumpers and hoods of cars. k. Entries could be marked at the streets with more colorful plantings, creating a break in the rhythm of street tree plantings and providing emphasis for site entry points. I. Care should be exercised in spacing shrubs to ensure that complete cover of the planting bed is achieved at maturity. m. At the perimeter of the parking areas, the large expanses of sod from the back of the curb to the property line should be planted with trees and shrubs in significant groupings. This should also occur between the westerly entry drive and the east side of the detached commercial building and at the area west of the retail building. Conifers in these areas would be useful for the winter landscape. I n. Financial guarantees shall be provided to insure installation and maintenance of landscaping. o. All planting areas must have an irrigation system installed. p. Benches and picnic tables shall be provided in the landscaped area west of the retail center. 2. The screen wall located at the eastern rear of the building shall be extended to the beginning of the radius of the curb. 3. A sidewalk shall be provided from West 78th Street to the retail center along the western t entry drive, east of the commercial/office building, into the development. 4. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for applying and obtaining the necessary permits for the City's Building department for the installation of the site improvements. 6. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for berming and landscaping over the City's drainage and utility easement along the west side of Kerber Boulevard. The applicant will also be responsible for adjusting the existing sanitary manholes to the new grades. I ' 35 J Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 7. The applicant shall remove the fourteen parking stalls in front of the retail site directly west of the supermarket. In order to make up for lost parking stalls as a result of changes to the site plan, compact parking spaces may be used. 8. The applicant will be responsible for furnishing and installing the appropriate traffic I control signs and pavement markings throughout the site. 9. The turning radii at the driveway access points along Kerber Boulevard should be expanded to 20 feet. The turning radius for the service drive located in the northwest corner of the site should be expanded to accommodate large semi - trailer accommodations with a wheelbase of 50 feet. 10. The applicant's engineer shall supply City staff with detailed storm drainage calculations for the entire site. Storm sewers shall be designed to handle a 10 ear ' storm event. Additional catch basins may be needed after review of the storm water calculations. 11. The retail building site located in the southwest comer of the site plan should be lowered by a minimum of five feet. 12. The applicant shall provide the City with a $10,000.00 financial security to guarantee installation of the curb cuts and boulevard restoration. The security may be included with the security requirements for the site landscaping. 13. An erosion control plan shall be developed and incorporated into the site plan and resubmitted for City staff review and approval. Staff recommends implementing the ' City's Best Management Practice Handbook for the plan design as well as site restorations. The northerly back slope behind the building should be restored with an erosion control blanket. Plans should also employ erosion control measures around proposed catch basins with hay bales or silt fence or other approved measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14. The final site grades shall be compatible with the final grade o f the Oak Pond development directly north of this development. 15. The entry drive from West 78th Street in front of Byerly's shall be revised to a boulevard type separating the major traffic aisle from the parking area. (Note: The developer has already agreed to this and revised the plans, however, since they are different from the ones initially submitted and provided to the Commission, I thought that I should add this as a condition.) 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 16. The applicant shall work with SW Metro Transit to locate a bus transit stop area on -site. 17. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods or materials after construction is completed. 18. There shall be no trash pick -up between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. 19. No overnight parking of refrigeration unit trucks and/or trailers. 20. No use of trash compaction equipment between 10:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. M 21. A sidewalk is to be Provided from West 78th Street to the detached buildine. The apProDriate location of this sidewalk is to be worked out with staff. 22. The applicant shall be reguired to match detailine work for the detached commercial buildine with that of the main building. Prior to development of the outbuildine, the applicant shall come back to the Plannine Commission for architectural review of the buildines desien. 23. Applicant shall work with staff on the site liehtine. Parking lot liehtine may be no higher than the main building. 24. The signage package for the development shall come back to the Planning Commission for approval. 25. The Public Safety Director is to provide specific comments to the City Council on the curb cuts and truck traffic on Kerber Boulevard. Particular mention should be made of the truck impacts on park use between the hours of 4:00 and 9:00 P.M. 26. The applicant is request to revisit the handicapped parking with staff. Specifically, the applicant is to look into the opportunity of providing sixteen (16) foot handicapped parking stalls. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained and the motion carried. Conrad: Just for your note, I abstained. I didn't vote. Scott: And this is just a comment to the developer. We've had some background on the 37 1 -L A a Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 I work that ou've done with Super Valu and Wal-Mart an forth. I you're y pe al art d so o think y re the type of developer that we like to see in Chanhassen. You've been incredibly patient with all of the city staff and various commissions that you have to work with and I know personally you've been through a lot in this project. I'm personally quite pleased to see it go forward so thank you for your patience. I'm personally excited about seeing this. The impacts that it may have on the existing uses, that's .competition but thank you for your preserverance. ' Charlie James: Thanks all of you for coming in today. I just wanted to say one thing Ladd. I don't know if you, and I have to get this out just because you had to get it out. Did you know that on my property that I'm paying taxes into a tax increment district and my money is going to projects like Market Square. That money that I'm paying in taxes is going to other projects in town and when Brad built Brooks, Kennys went out of business. And he built a pizza place there and he put in a Brooks. Then he went across the street and put in a second pizza place and put in a supermarket... and the pizza guy and Brooks said, what are you doing Brad. You're using TIF money to build another, pizza place for competition... Harberts moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38 17 1 1