The URL can be used to link to this page

1o Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION / 0 • REGULAR MEETING MAY 5, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad,.•Matt Ledvina, Joe Scot, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE 13 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND TO SUBDIVIDE 13 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ROYAL OAKS, BRETT DAVIDSON. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Let me ask a question. Did you have more Jo Ann? 1 Olsen: No, that was it. ' Batzli: Let me ask one question before I have the applicant respond, if he'd like to. This language in here about the trail bed meandering at the discretion of the applicant, etc, etc, etc. But the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction. Does that mean that we're going to get a chance to look at it when they bring in the grading plan? Olsen: Right. 1 Batzli: So we're not leaving it totally up to their discretion. You guys will have a chance to look at it at that point? Olsen: Right. It can't be on a slope like this. He can move within that 20 feet. Batzli: Would you like to give us the presentation? Would you like to ' comment on any of the conditions? - ' Brett Davidson: I'd just like to comment...A couple of them are just maybe typos that, first off my name is Brett Davidson. I'm the owner of the piece. I also live in Lot 1, Block 1 and the developer. Just a couple of things as we go through. And some of them are typos I would assume but just to make sure that it's right. On the front page, I think the typo says there's 23 acres instead of 13. Obviously it's, I wish it was 23 but it's only 13. And then page 2, where it talks about the ' preliminary plat. There again, it's a minor point but the largest lot is actually Lot 10, Block 1 which is a little over 37,000 square feet so that's another. 1 Ledvina: Where is that? Which condition? Brett Davidson: Lot 10, Block 1. It's the big one on the back side in that corner. That's actually the biggest lot. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 2 Ledvina: Which condition are you referring to though? Brett Davidson: It's on page 2 in the preliminary plat. Ledvina: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. ' Brett Davidson: Second paragraph at the bottom of the last sentence. Let's see, and then on page 5 where it talks about the utilities. Just about halfway through there it's a typo again I'm sure. Because it says it correctly later in the report but the 12 inch trunk sewer line actually goes between Lots 11 and 12, rather than 10 and 11. Block 1. There's a storm sewer line that runs between 10 and 11 and a sanitary between 11 and ' 12. And then on page 10 on the recommendations, at the top of the page where it talks about the easements. I think we left out an easement that I'm sure you're going to want. Why not huh ?...and that is we've got, it talks about a 20 foot easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. That's the sanitary sewer and 10 and 11 of Block 1, that's the trunk. I mean that's the storm sewer. And then Lots 1 and 2 is also storm sewer but there's already sewer across the back of Lot 10 and 11. We don't mention an easement for that in here. I assume you want a 15 foot easement across that? Or do I get paid for that? 1 Batzli: Is that the dotted line on our preliminary utility? Brett Davidson: Yes it is. That was brought in from the Lake Ann Interceptor to get through the wetland. I think you mentioned it somewhere else in there. I think it just didn't get in there. Hempel: I believe it's staff's intent that with the proposed pond there that the entire area behind Lots 10 and 11 will be a drainage utility easement so it will be covered with that. So I think it's specific on an easement width there. ' Batzli: Help me out. Is that in one of our conditions right now. Which one is the pond in? Or isn't there one? 1 Olsen: Under condition 12. Batzli: Well that's the drainage and utility easements along all sides, ' front and rear lot lines. In addition drainage and utilities and it shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas. Okay so that. ' Hempel: That covers it in there. Batzli: When do we have to get specific about which areas are actually going to have an easement over them? Hempel: When the final grading plan is prepared showing the proposed pond in back of those lots. Batzli: But when is that recorded then because isn't this plan recorded? 1 Hempel: This is a preliminary plat. On the final plat we'll denote all the proposed...our recommendation with easements on it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 5, 1993 - Page 3 Ledvina: That newly constructed sanitary, that's the 12 inch line? Hempel: That's correct. 1 Ledvina: Okay. Scott: So that's covered in the pond easement then? Hempel: That is correct. Scott: Okay. Hempel: Thank you for pointing that out. ' Brett Davidson: No, I just want to make sure it's right. And then another one that I'm not sure of and I didn't get a chance to check, and that's on 19 on the same one we were talking about with the landscaping. In this section we require a tree per lot from the primary specimen list for 14 lots and earlier you said half the lots, which would be 12. Mancino: So it's on 12 lots. Olsen: It should be 12. ' Brett Davidson: It should be 12? Okay. That's what, okay. My only other concern, I talked to Dave a little bit about this, and that is my consulting engineer is not real sure exactly what the city would like to see as far as a draintile behind the curbs because he hasn't dealt with this specific kind of thing before so we would just like leeway to work with Dave and Dave, we've talked about it already, to decide exactly what's needed and then if the City decides hey, we need one the whole length along the whole thing and it's got to be designed like this, we're more than willing to do that obviously but we would like the wording in here to allow us the option of working with Dave to decide what's exactly needed and then when he decides for sure after we, and it may even be, take a little bit more look at to see if it's needed the whole way or not' Farmakes: Are you referring to a particular condition or do you want? Brett Davidson: Ah, is it 4? Yes sir, it's 4 then. It's the street construction shall include a draintile system behind the curbs. It's likil the second sentence. We know what you'd like to see and we want to satisfy that as best we can. We just want to have the option or the ability to work with Dave on it or the City's engineers and decide exact]." what's necessary. Batzli: Okay. Anything else? 1 Brett Davidson: No sir, that's it except if I could answer any questions. I know that just listening to some of the talk. I know one of the concerti was the utility plan was the sewer. The sewer utility plan that you see Il there was actually supplied by Bonestroo so all the specs and all there are by Bonestroo. I know the other concern, at least from the staff report is the street. That's a little bit of a two edged sword here. Weil 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 4 actually, obviously prefer in some ways to rather have a cul -de -sac because those lots are more desireable than a street. On the other hand, because this subdivision is so different than the Rottlund subdivision in that it will have specific covenants. The homes will be a different style homes. It's a different type subdivision than the Rottlund subdivision, we feel it's important if at all possible, to have access off Galpin Road to make it a separate subdivision rather than have to go through the Windmill Run subdivision to get to it. I guess the only other thing that ' I would request and that is if the City decides to take another look at it, if the Rottlund development doesn't go through, we would also like in that time to be able to assist in that look and give some input about, if ' it is, if it does have to be changed, if the Rottlund development doesn't come in, we'd like to assist in that change. I mean whether we bring in a road from the center through one of their cul -de -sacs or whether we bring it on the end, we'd just like to be able to, if it does change, to assist in that change. That's it, unless you have some questions. Batzli: Okay. We'll probably get to them in a minute. ' Brett Davidson: Very good. Batzli: It's a public hearing. Since there's no one else in the audience here, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 1 favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Jo Ann, why don't you run through one more time the impact of why ' Rottlund isn't going ahead and how that impacts this. Olsen: Well the reason they're not going through is just the final closing, they weren't able to come to agreement on, I don't know. They're ' going through negotiations again. As far as how that impacts this subdivision, and maybe Dave will be the best to address this but one of the major impacts is the storm water ponding that's required. And I'll ' let you go into some more detail on that. And then also, as far as how the two will tie in together with the roads, local roads. Batzli: So how can we approve this if the Rottlund one doesn't go 1 through? Olsen: It can still act on it's own. They can still provide the ponding t on their own site. It could become permanent. Batzli: But the engineer's report is that either one is taking care of t itself in a real good manner. How do we take care of this one by itself if we don't even have Rottlund? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. If the Rottlund piece ' does not go in conjunction with this one, essentially this development will have to do on site temporary ponding until the adjacent parcels do develop at some future date and at that time would extend a trunk storm ' sewer up to pick up that drainage and then the need for a temporary pond would distinguish. One of the concerns staff had originally with these Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 5 two developments so close together was the street access. They're approximately 340 feet apart, center line to center line. The County, along County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, I'll just point out that is undell County jurisdiction. You made the same remark that it was relatively close and would prefer to see only one access. However, as the small parcels like this come in to develop, it's rather difficult to lump them all together to foresee the future. How the future street systems will react to one another out there. On top of that we'll also have the potential of a common intersection with the parcels across the street to I the west. I believe the Stockdale property and the Song property. There's been some talk of development on the Song property through Lundgren Bros development. We have not really seen any kind of concept plan or layout for street access points onto Galpin Boulevard. Therefore I again we're trying to predict where likely intersections would be best suited. We haven't explored the possibilities of which intersection woul be preferenced I guess at this point but we felt by either providing the stub street on Lot 4, Block 2 to the south to connect to Rottlund, if Rottlund one didn't proceed that way we could limit access out onto the County Road for a future developer what I'll call the Rottlund piece at II this time. But at this point I guess we've already given preliminary pla to the Rottlund development. We're unable to undo that unless another - individual comes in with a similar plat, a replat or a one year expiratio date on that plat expires. Batzli: I wasn't here for the Rottlund development coming through. Did we have on any of these maps, because I couldn't find it, what the internal workings of the Rottlund development look like? Harberts: It's dated February 17th. ' Olsen: As you can see Rottlund has those two cul -de -sacs and so it's easy to punch the road through. Batzli: Punch the road through where? Olsen: To the north. 1 Hempel: On the most westerly cul -de -sac or it could be the whole subdivision could be realigned or laid out to be compatible with the Davidsons. Olsen: With the objective being one of those intersections to Galpin closing. So you'd have one. 1 Batzli: Okay. Well, let's go around here and see what. Ledvina: ...long cul -de -sac? Well I suppose if you had that long 1 connecting street down. Olsen: You'd have a loop on the side. ' Batzli: Okay. Nancy, do you want to lead us off here? Do you have comments, questions, concerns? 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 6 Mancino: I have kind of a... ark designation in this area because it's a P g deficient area? When and how does the Park and Recreation Commission, ' when are they going to choose a place in this area? Because it is park deficient and we have the Song property coming up. ' Olsen: Right. That's what they're looking for the parkland on that piece of property. Exactly how they determine. When it's a smaller acreage like this, the 12 acres, 13 acres, they really won't get much parkland as far as the dedication so they wait until a larger piece comes in that they can get like a 10 acres that would serve as a neighborhood park. Mancino: They don't ever put two together even though they're by separate ' owners? Olsen: Oh sure, they can do that. Farmakes: There is land that's adjacent to that property not too far away to the northwest that's a lot more applicable towards park. A lot heavier ' woods. Mancino: ...but we should be hearing about that soon? ' Olsen: The Song property? Mancino: Yeah, as far as what will be park designation... t Olsen: Yeah, if they move ahead with that, you should be seeing something I'd say probably late summer or fall. Mancino: In the northeast corner where the retention pond will be, you talked about losing trees. What kind of trees are they? ' Olsen: We're going to go out and look at those. They're big. They look like they're decent trees. I don't know, do you know what type of trees you have on there? Brett Davidson: Yes. We were just out there as a matter of fact yesterday with the DNR... They're about probably 4 or 5 inch birch trees. It's a stand of birch trees. And they actually, that border between Lot 9 ' and 10 in Block 1 and we are fairly certain by talking with our consulting engineer, that depending on the ponding size that we're going to need, that we can move the pond south if we have to move it south and save the ' stand of trees. Obviously it's to our advantage to save them too because it makes the lots more desireable. Or we could bring the, instead of having a shape that's tending to be more of a kidney shape or something that will save the stand of trees...4 inch, 6 inch birch tree. ' Batzli: Do you have any concern, you've done a very nice job of taping these two together. Do you have any concern about how these are going together and if Rottlund ends up not going ahead? Mancino: Would you have, would you have designed this differently if Rottlund wasn't in there already? Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 7 Brett Davidson: Probably the only difference I would have done, if I would have had my choice would have been lots on the east side have a cul -de -sac there. But you've got to have access off Galpin... Obviously, you have to put a street through to the property south so that's really not an option. Just one other thing and I'm sure that...Dave had mentioned it but while it's not ideal, Galpin is classified as a collectol and we do meet the city ordinance for distances between two streets. Although it's not ideal, it falls within city ordinance by about 40 or 50 feet. Batzli: But would it be more valuable if Y ou hooked up through one of th cul -de -sacs on the Rottlund property so this was kind of, this didn't have direct access? Would it then be more valuable to you? , Brett Davidson: Actually, if we had our druthers and we had to get rid of an access what we'd rather do, if we had to would be to stop the access off Galpin and leave the other access into the Rottlund property rather than go through their cul -de -sacs. And the whole reason for that is if the Rottlund piece of property was similar homes and the similar type neighborhood, we'd probably on our own would say, okay we won't have access to Galpin. But because they're two so dissimilar neighborhoods, you basically, if you don't have the access off Galpin, what you have to do is come in the Windmill Run neighborhood to get to the Royal Estates I neighborhood. Which in and of itself after the project is complete, although not ideal...I mean I'm sure you know maybe this is just my opinion but typically people want their own neighborhoods to be their own neighborhoods and to be somewhat separated. Whether it be whatever class, of homes it is. And it's tough to do that if you enter through the Windmill Run neighborhood. So that's why we did the access off Galpin. And in fact we have plans right now to do an entrance monument...Windmill Meadows to the north. There's a Lundgren property on the Galpin Boulevar entrance and also...monuments on the south...simply for that very same reason again. To keep them separate from the south. 1 Batzli: How do you view this neighborhood as being different from Rottlund? Just price? Brett Davidson: Part of it's price. Part of it is we have pretty extensive covenants and we'll have similar mailboxes. The mailboxes will all be the same. Not allowing or having an architectural committee approve any fences that go up and satellite dishes that might go up. The Rottlund - subdivision does not have those same or similar architectural... requirements. Garbage cans can't be exposed to the street. The typical things that you would like to see in a neighborhood but they are typical things that may or may not be required in a, for instance a Rottlund property. I Batzli: What kind of price range are you thinking of develping in here? Brett Davidson: ...covenant is a 2,300 square foot home. So the home and lot price is going to run anywhere from $230,000.00 to $300,000.00 and maybe on up for the larger walkout lots. Rottlund's piece of property are developing in the $160,000.00 to $220,000.00 range. So theoretically it's... II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 8 II Mancino: It will be similar to what you have there right now? 1 Brett Davidson: Yes. Maybe even a little larger than mine. Batzli: Thanks Nancy. Jeff. II Farmakes: The shape of these two pieces of property are dictating how it's developed. They're narrow rectangles. You run a road through the middle of it and put houses on either side of the road. If we look at I both pieces of property and we put them together, what worries me about these types of development and I realize you have little leeway with this piece of property. Are we, when we develop up and down Galpin, are we I going to have accesses to Galpin every 2 houses? And in the long term when we think of these properties, do we have a long term idea of what we're looking for as far as the roads in that particular part of town? I I know that Highway 5 is working on the road to the south of that property but is there, it worries me a bit that we're looking at these types of hook -ups but we're not sure that development's happening below and I'm wondering long term if we shouldn't be giving that more thought or do we allow the developers to dictate that on the basis of how much property they own. I Olsen: Well that plays a major part in that. We do look at what the surrounding topography is and where roads could go. We do look at what's coming in for development and so like with this one, Dave has looked to I the west to see where the road will continue. Farmakes: The piece of property to the east is like under one owner isn't it? II Olsen: Right. Mike Gorra's. II Farmakes: Large piece so I guess that would be beneficial or at least you can work with that. It must be difficult with these little small pieces of property. II Olsen: And we looked at that. That's why we want to go to the south. Going to the east doesn't work with the wetlands and the slope. I Farmakes: It doesn't worry me I guess, the pricing is close enough and adjacent although it's really not our concern but in looking at square footage of the lots, they're very similar. I'm not excited by row I housing. That's my own personal taste but I don't see how else you're going to develop this small piece of property. It's pretty much dictating that it's a row development. It also I guess worries me that we rely so much on the shape of the property that's owned for our connecting street 1 plans. I really don't have a better idea of how to approach that but when we look at Rottlund say pulling out and so on, that are we sure that that road curving to the south is the right thing to do? I have no answer to L that. The recommendations and the other things that we talked about, if staff is fine with those, I have no further comments on this. I Brett Davidson: Can I say one more thing here? Planning Commission Meeting IF May 5, 1993 - Page 9 1 Batzli: Sure. Brett Davidson: And that is, the way I understand it at the present time' if the Rottlund property was not developed, it appears at this point that the Lundgren piece of property, which is the Song piece of property, may be even delayed for some time now so the sewer and trunk improvements may' or may not even be approved. And if that happens, obviously the subdivision is on hold. So this one is almost inherently tied to the Rottlund piece of property simply because the trunk improvements probably' require that. Farmakes: And that's the point I'm trying to make with this thing. Ofte we get a development that's farther out and it's placed out in the middle and then everything else revolves around that development, whether it's good or bad. Just happens to be the amount of property that's held at the time and the developer and what they happen to be doing I think. Timberwood and some other ones that are dictating how all the other development occurs. It's kind of hap hazard to me but... Batzli: Is public improvement #92 -5, is that just for this development oll is that on a larger scale? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that is a larger scale. It was really started by the Lundgren /Song parcel. I'm sorry, Johnson /Dolejsi parcel way to the west closer to Trunk Highway 41. That was the impetus to start this, the whole feasibility study for bringing trunk sewer and water into the area: ' Along with Lundgren came Rottlund and since then Mr. Davidson. The city is prepared at this stage to scale down that project or do it in phases in order to serve this subdivision and Rottlund's subdivision if necessary. Batzli: Well, because the applicant is saying, if these don't happen, I II don't happen. Is he somehow suddenly assessed a much larger chunk if we phase it in and only bring it to his property? Hempel: No. The assessments have been already calculated on a unit basis and the only thing is, the city would not be recouping our costs back as fast if we're not able to assess the larger area. Batzli: Well, if you do it on a unit basis and the others one don't go ahead, your units change do they not? ' Hempel: No, they do not. The units stay the same but the ability to collect. Batzli: Well sure because there's no units there. So are you calculating it then on a gross acreage kind of thing to figure your units? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Okay. I'm sorry, did you have anything else? ' Farmakes: No further comments. Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 10 Scott: Dave I've just got a question. Earlier I was looking at the slope from this is Lot 10 in Block 1 and off the top of my head, you're going to ' have to refresh my memory but I notice there's certain maximum slope that we're looking at and it looks pretty steep to me. How does that compare with what we're trying to do? i Hempel: I believe on the review that I did, the slopes were no steeper than 3 to 1 and that would be a maximum for maintenance and mowing and so ' forth. Scott: Okay. And then, so if we're looking at developing this parcel by itself with a cul -de -sac at the end, do we therefore not get crossed with our recent cul -de -sac length? Olsen: It'd be a temporary cul -de -sac. It wouldn't be a permanent ' cul -de -sac. Scott: Okay, yeah. Because eventually this property's going to get developed at some time in the future. Other than that I don't have any other questions. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Matt. Ledvina: Staying on the issue of the cul -de -sac, temporary cul -de -sac. It looks like for Block 1, Lot 12 that temporary, you know if you apportioned ' the cul -de -sac to each side of the street there, it looks like it would chew into that guy's front yard quite a bit. Is there a plan to locate it further into Lot 2, Block 11? I'm sorry, Lot 11, Block 2. You see what I mean? You're looking at the housepad there. It's a smaller building area as opposed to Lot 11 across the street to the west. Can we control that at all in terms of where that temporary cul -de -sac goes? Hempel: Sure. We can adjust it so it's not a burden on that front yard. Again it's a temporary type cul -de -sac. With a 42 foot radius, it's a 60 foot right -of -way so you add 30 feet. It'd be another 12 feet outside the right -of -way would be the edges of the turnaround. ' Ledvina: Okay. That's quite a bit. I mean you're. Hempel: Your 30 foot setback? Ledvina: Yeah. The outside lines of the street are the setback lines ' right? Or I'm sorry, the right -of -way. Hempel: That's correct. ' Ledvina: And then for the temporary cul -de -sac you'd need, did you say an extra 12 feet? ' Hempel: That's correct. 12 feet. Conrad: 6 %. ' Ledvina: 6 %, okay. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 11 Hempel: That's 12%, I'm sorry. 42 foot radius. Ledvina: I mean you could, if you apportion that equally on the east and, west, you could be what, 15 feet from the guy's house with that. Hempel: 18 feet from the front door. 1 Ledvina: Okay. That seems we should look out for that. Batzli: ...that's much too far away. We should make it twice as close. II Ledvina: It looked like a strange alignment there and the possibilities I are Hempel: It's possible to do an offset temporary cul - de - sac and utilize more of the backyard. Ledvina: More like in a dog leg or something. Okay. And then. Batzli: And how do you do that with, under what circumstances does that II occur? That we end up putting in a cul -de -sac there? Temporary or permanent or whatever. Only if the Rottlund doesn't go through? Olsen: I think we would always, it's like Timberwood. Timberwood has a temporary cul -de -sac at the end of, you know for when Hans Hagen came through and now that's never going to happen. This one it would probably" stay temporary until that side is developed. Batzli: So it's going to go in? Olsen: It's going to go in eventually. Batzli: For sure? 1 Olsen: A road connection will go through. That's a good question though. If. like in the Timberwood case where now we know it will not go through,, do we go back? I don't know. Hempel: Put a permanent one in. Olsen: We kind of hate to. Batzli: Well if it's 18 feet from the guy's door, you can go back in there and put in a permanent one. Olsen: Well not there, no. 1 Batzli: You either have to put in an undersized permanent one or do something about it now. ' Hempel: I guess it's our intent that that road will extend in the future similar to what we've done in numerous other subdivisions. At some point that road is extended. The land to the south is compatible for roadway II 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 12 extension. It's just a matter of time before somebody comes i � fo e o y in and develop it. And that's kind of been a starting point for their plat. ' Mancino: How come, Jo Ann, how come Timberwood doesn't go all the way through if it was. ' Olsen: To the south? The Timberwood residents objected to it. There's an easement that goes to the east. That has not been proposed. Again, I doubt that that would ever get approved. Mancino: So could these, if this is...get resident here. 1 Olsen: They could fight it. Mancino: They can fight it and say, we don't want it. 1 Olsen: That happens all the time. Farmakes: It happens every time. Batzli: Every single time. Every one that I know. ' Hempel: We've tried to minimize or at least make the residents, future resid aware of that by putting in the chain of title that this road will be extended in the future. As well as that we've posted a sign on the barricade saying this road will be extended in the future and I believe that's what we're proposing here. Olsen: Right. They can still object to it. We did that with Timberwood. And once the residents are there and when the public hearings come for the extension to that cul -de -sac, they can object to it. Mancino: But if we have a cul -de -sac ordinance that says they can be no longer than this. ' Olsen: What we can do, I mean we always are arguing against that. Obviously it's the final vote. Farmakes: What do you do then when you have a long, narrow rectangular piece of property? You're either going to have double the size of lot and run the road along the edge of the property or run it through the middle of the property. And it's got to come out somewhere else. ' Olsen: Yeah, right. Farmakes: So whether it's temporary or otherwise. I think you did have a road drawn into the plans to the south. Olsen: For Rottlund. 1 Farmakes: For Stone Creek wasn't it? ' Hempel: Yes. i Planning Commission Meeting Plan g 9 May 5, 1993 - Page 13 11 Farmakes: Stone Creek, wasn't that to the south? Olsen: To the south? 1 Farmakes: Yeah, connected up and it made sense. Much more sense than driving to the south to get back to TH 5. And like we said, the neighborhood just didn't want it and they had enough people here to say they didn't want it. Ledvina: On number, condition number 9. We're saying the applicant shall' provide at a minimum a right turn lane along Galpin and other road improvements as required by Carver County. Now can we do that? Can we say that Carver County, it seems like we're overstepping ourselves there.' Olsen: It's their road. Ledvina: If it's Carver County road, we can require Carver County to force them to put in a right turn lane? Hempel: Carver County is the one responsible for granting access to the II parcel. They'll put in conditions of that access and what's typically happened, I believe the report also mentioned about a right turn lane int the site. Ledvina: Do you think it's appropriate that we impose this condition on a developer at this time? , Hempel: Yes, I believe it's appropriate. Ledvina: I understand you want to identify what your intents are and whall your concerns are but I'm just, it seems a little strange in terms of the wording and the jurisdiction. But that's fine. Number 14. We have a similar condition as number 6 and I'm wondering, is there any difference there, or can we take one of those out? Hempel: That is a duplication. Number 14 is a duplication. Ledvina: Okay, so we can take 14 out. I think that's all I had. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Ladd. ' Conrad: I have no questions. It's a reasonable subdivision. Batzli: Okay. Did we, we already talked a little bit about the pond in II the northeast corner. Is there anything in the conditions to vacate that once we develop the areas around it? Is that something that will not be needed once we go ahead with that other development? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, that pond in the northeast corner of the development will most likely be a permanent type pond because it is adjacent to a wetland area already. The only temporary pond that we foresee on the site would be in the northwest corner if the Rottlund development did not proceed ahead. , 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 14 Olsen: Southwest. ' Batzli: Southwest. Hempel: I'm sorry, southwest. Batzli: On Lot 1, Block 2. Hempel: That's correct. Right now the applicant is proposing a storm I/ sewer line to connect in with the storm sewer line that was proposed by Rottlund subdivision as well. Olsen: Connect them to their pond. Batzli: So what would, would the homeowner have to come in and petition the city to vacate that? If in fact it was taken care of by developments 11 elsewhere? Hempel: The City could exercise that motion. I/ Olsen: Initiate it. It'd have to go through the vacation process. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: My comments just kind of lie around that whole street issue. You know is there an opportunity, and I had a chance to talk to Dave earlier in the week. I guess it was yesterday. My how time flies. I'm not here. You know I think there seems to be an opportunity to see if some kind of plan for a street series. I mean you know the land's going 1 to be developed. You know we have these little bits and pieces. Can the City establish some kind of guide plan so things do hook up? I guess I'd be more inclined to, my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this subdivision is not going to happen unless the Rottlund happens because of the sewer, the utilities. Is that correct? Hempel: No. The City said, we're prepared to downscaled the project. Harberts: In order to do it. 1 Hempel: In order to do it. Just to serve this one development because we foresee the other developers on the doorstep. It's just a matter of time. Harberts: Well and I concur with that and what's preventing the city to ' do the same sorts in terms of a street? You know an overall street plan. If you know that the plans are going to happen, can the city, you know the plan's fine and I can understand there's difference in houses but I still don't see what's wrong with having like that loop in there versus having the two accesses onto the county road. It seems like, is there an opportunity, you know it's going to be built. The developments are going ' to occur. Is it in the best interest of the way city services are provided that we look at that? You know should this be approved subject to. you know to see what happens with the Rottlund and Lundgren. To look at a more comprehensive street plan. That's basically where I stand on it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 5, 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: Is that it? 1 Harberts: I think we have opportunities here to maybe put a little bit o, guidance out there and that's all I'm looking for. Batzli: See we've done that before Jo Ann, especially right around, where'd we do it? Pleasant View. South of Pleasant View we kind of did 11 proposed, this is kind of how we think it's going to come in. This is where we'd want the streets to happen and we did it in part because Pleasant View homeowners repeatedly came in and said, you're putting too II many accesses on the road. What's to stop us from doing something like that here? Other than time and effort. Olsen: Right. Nothing. Batzli: Is it something that we should be doing? Olsen: Well we do do it, the times that we do make those studies other than when it's specifically brought up by the residents is when it's more of a collector, like Lake Lucy and we do an official map and things like I that and take that process. We have done it before also west of Lake Minnewashta in the area kind of by where Dave Headla lives. In that area. There's nothing, I don't know. It's more coming to Dave's lap actually II for him to do. Harberts: You don't have anything to do, do you? Hempel: Well, we did look at that area up in Pleasant View and we did come up with like 4 different alternatives. I guess up there though we were limited with much smaller developable areas. Okay. Out here we're I .lust beginning a new frontier if you will. Batzli: We've got a clean blackboard. , Hempel: Right. I mean what it takes is larger tracts to come together and piece, come in as one large development and it's really tough to I dictate at this time how that property's going to develop I guess. The developer may want larger lots. Larger homes and so forth. Harberts: But isn't that part of our responsibility though? I mean we're a planning commission. We should put some of that guidance out so in the • sense we can deliver the city services efficiently, cost effectively. You know and I'm not here to make a burden on the developer. It looks like all good plan but you know I think is the ball in our court? Are we missing out on an opportunity here? You know we kind of have a reprieve now in the Rottlund piece here. Maybe it's going to dictate a little bit becaus the year isn't going to expire but like you said, we've got this wide ope frontier. Is this our opportunity to, you know at least put some kind of guidance, you know some kind of guideline out there? You know maybe we don't make it the ordinance but by putting this plan out here, the City's" going to be able to have a desire in terms of how these streets, things are going to occur. And if the developer can show for some reason why it won't work or something better's going to work, isn't that what's good for the city rather than piecemeal here and you know, oh we're going to have 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 16 road here because it's such a small piece. We're waiting for the big one. I don't know. I'm just a little, this just kind of sticks with me a little bit with this. Olsen: And actually with the Rottlund, it hasn't gotten final plat approval. If we really want to do it, if you felt strongly about it, and Dave has suggested it, to me is to make the recommendation that the access do go to the south on Lot 4, correct? And we still have the ability that when Rottlund does come back through, that if we now see that there should be a different access, we can still make that recommendation. Harberts: I'd hate to see some residents stand up here. I wasn't ' involved with the Timberwood but was that good for the city to not put it through because we had an opportunity for some very astute people to basically organize themselves. Is that what's good for the city? Is that the vision we want? Is that the way that development occurs? I mean ' isn't it really on our shoulders or we have the ability to develop that guide plan and that's all it is is a guide plan. Olsen: Well we essentially are doing that. I mean we're not officially mapping it but as they do come in, we are looking where they go and as with the Song property and stuff. There's enough features to those sites that there's only certain areas that the road can go and yes, that's what we do. But all we can do is put the road to the end of that one development that's come through. I mean we can't, again we'd make the recommendation that it's only temporary. That it has to be pushed through when the next development comes through. Harberts: But that's what happened with Timberwood and where is that. ' Olsen: Exactly. Even if it's officially mapped, they still could have made that case. They swayed the Council. That's. ' Harberts: Well and that's what I'm saying. If we put out a guide plan here and this is the vision here and this is the way it looks like. isn't it kind of hard to not be consistent with that unless there's some real ' good reason rather than we like it without a drive thru street? I don't know. It's just you know, I think you said it well that every time, if there's a cul -de -sac that should be extended, they're going to say no. People like their cul -de -sacs and we're going to be the ones sitting here saying, well it's good for the city. We should put it through. People are saying no. Well. I mean do we have an opportunity? If there's an opportunity. I think it's in the best interest of the city to do so. 1 That's it. Brett Davidson: Can I say just one more thing? ' Batzli: Sure. Brett Davidson: Just so we get it clear. I'm a little unsure how this compares to the Timberwood problem. I know they're a problem but I don't see the same problem here. Now I'm not going to agree or disagree with what you're saying. I don't see the same problem here. Do you see it as a problem here? The same that Timberwood had? Is it in fact the road i Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 17 1 already looks into a pre - planned road and that's not an issue. Is that correct? Harberts: Well, I don't think the issue really today is the cul -de -sac. My issue is actually having some kind of overall plan in terms of, a guidR Plan in terms of how the street system should be looking to you know what's best for the city. Brett Davidson: Okay. I agree with that too but you have to understand little bit from our point of view now and that is, we in a sense do have that and that's city and county ordinances. So when we design it, we go by the city and county ordinances which are, this preliminary plat does meet that. Harberts: Well they meet the minimum standards. The ordinance and the codes are the minimum. You shall, you know this is the minimum standards "' and so from the city's perspective, yes that's the minimum standard but i it the best opportunity here. Because when you look at the cost of city services, things like that, is that good for the community and that's all I'm asking. You know and the last thing I want to do is put a burden on the developers but bottom line here, it's the city that's going to be ponying up on the services and the cost. And with the budgets shrinking and things like that. is Brett Davidson: Services and cost to the develop this is not the minimum. I'm responsible for all the roads built. Harberts: Well yeah but when the sewer goes out there and the sewer costs start going up and the city hears about this. Brett Davidson: The sewer runs through there whether development's there or not. Batzli: Yeah, but we're like this. We were speaking more globally. You're parcel raised an issue that caused us to say, we're missing an opportunity. We should be looking at a lot of different parcels and seeing how we're going to connect them up and what triggered this was the, fact that if we put in a temporary cul -de -sac down between Blocks 1 and 2 at Lots 11 and 12 respectively or 12 and 11, will they someday, your people that move into your development say we don't want that to go through and so we're trying to come up with a way that we can develop a more comprehensive way to link up all of thes lots. So we were using your parcel as an example but we were speaking very globally, so. My comments I've kind of snuck them in between people here and there. I only had one left. Two left. Sumps. Have we ever, we've talked about this and I've brought it up at our long range goal kind of meetings at the start of the year every year to do sumps but this is the first one I've ever seen wher� we've required it. Hempel: I believe the Rottlund piece we did also. 1 Batzli: Well sure but I wasn't there. So I'm sorry. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 18 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, we did receive a soil report from out there. Most of the borings did indicate very, very wet soil conditions and we, ' unfortunately learned by experience here that most of Chanhassen lately, or in the past is the same type of soil situation and we've been trying to catch up with these sump pump discharges into the streets. And discussion with the City Engineer, we feel that it should be standard construction practice now with the street construction, to provide this drain tile. It's not only going to provide drainage for the individual homes but it's also going to improve our street system. It's going to provide drainage away from our streets. Batzli: So we get rid of the discharge into the sanitary sewer which ' people do because their yard's too soggy. What you're going to do is you're going to run drain tile behind the curb and then hook it up to the storm sewer every whatever? ' Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: And who's responsible for the maintenance of that? ' Hempel: The City would be. Batzli: Where does the city responsibility end? Hempel: We would not necessarily allow a direct connection to that drain tile system. The homeowners would bring their sump pump hoses out to a ' certain point and then build what's called a gravel pit there where the water discharges and seeps through the rock into our drain tile system. So there'.- really the maintenance of their system would be the homeowners maintenance. The City's would be ours. Batzli: They're going to be on the city right -of -way. Why do they have to maintain it? Hempel: Well, similar to a driveway. They snowplow their driveways in the boulevard. They pave it. Batzli: So when the sump, when the gravel gets clogged and starts spilling out into the street, you're going to write a letter to the homeowner and say fix your gravel drainage thing down to our drain tile? Hempel: Potentially yes. 1 Harberts: Who signs the letter? Batzli: Well I'm curious because when we've spoken about this in the past, what we've talked about is I thought, underground pipe to the drain tile which then drained into the storm sewer system. So it was all underground. The homeowner never worried about it and now we've got a plastic hose or something, maybe running on top of the ground. Maybe ' below. To a clugey little rock gabeon catch basin thing into your drain tile. Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 5, 1993 - Page 19 , Hempel: Well, it's something that we're probably going to have to take al closer look at and issue permits for construction. We do right now for any kind of construction in the city right -of -way and spell out responsibilities or do these inspections so we don't have the maintenance!' problems in the future. Batzli: Now don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favor of this but I want it , to succeed. And I think we need to decide these things in advance to make sure that, you know it sounds like the developer wants to work with you and probably for the very reason that he doesn't want plastic pipes running up out of the side of the house, across the lawn and discharging II near the street into these little piles of gravel. And then we start arguing over who's responsible for what. So I'm 100% in favor of working' here but I think we need to do this probably on even more developments. To get rid of a lot of the discharge into the sanitary sewer, etc. that we end up. The landscaping clause Jo Ann. Last sentence on number 19. I III that we changed it from 14 lots to 12. Then we're only requiring it on a minimum of 12 lots because there's existing trees. Is that what we're doing? Why we're doing this? Olsen: Well, we know we could require it on all. It's kind of a new ' thing that we're stating that you have to use the primary list. Batzli: This is just, so there's going to be trees required but you can II use some of the secondary lists? Olsen: Right. It's fine with me if you go with 100% with the primary list. I mean you have a pretty good variety there and choices. I guess I'm just kind of slowly going into this with the new list that we've got. Since we don't have any policy, we don't have any landscaping ' ordinance yet that states that you have to use certain species. Batzli: And see I guess I read it that, I read it completely incorrectly" You read that as you were required to put trees on the other lots but it doesn't have to come from the primary. Brett Davidson: One tree per lot but half of them have to be from the primary list. Batzli: Okay. Well if I'm the only person that read that wrong, then never mind. I think Jo Ann, what I would like to see on this, and Jeff has brought this up in the past, is I was at a disadvantage not having been here for the Rottlund discussion but I had no clue how this thing hooked up and Jeff has brought it up in the past. It would be very helpful to at least have a sketch on this kind of page to see how this stuff hooks up to see what's around it. Ledvina: Have we developed standard plates for that yet? For this type II of construction. The drain tile being on the sewer and the hook -ups and all that. Hempel: No, we haven't. Batzli: It sounds like we're gonna on this one. ' Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 20 Hempel: Yeah. The boulevard areas are so clogged with other utilities. You've got telephone, gas, electric, cable TV and so we're going to sit down and specify zones for each one of these utility companies to be in so we don't have them criss crossing and tearing up our drain tile accidentally if we don't know about it. Batzli: I don't have any other comments. Any comments or motions from anyone? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Request #93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93 -8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993...subject to the following conditions, and I'll try to get this right. The conditions are listed in the staff report with the following exceptions and changes. Condition number 2 shall be, the second sentence shall be revised to read, Furthermore, that this easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included on the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. Condition number 12, I wanted to add something to that to hopefully clarify that a little bit. Condition 12 to read, the applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear lot lines. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch line along the back of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. And then the rest as it reads. Eliminate condition number 14. Condition 19, the last sentence of that condition to read, the required 1 tree per lot shall contain trees from the primary specimen list for at least 12 lots. I think I caught them all. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: I second that. Batzli: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Request #93 -2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93 -8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). Furthermore, that this easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 23 d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer' Spec. e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwelling ' starts which is greater than 150' from County Road 117. f. If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See preliminary utility plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minute! of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21, 1993 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Batzli: Let's hear a report from Diane and Ladd about what happened at the HRA, Planning Commission, Park and Rec. d Conrad: You were there Brian and you made a very eloquent speech at the very end. Well I had to speak for you. Batzli: Well thank you because they were so. Harberts: He should share his speech. Batzli: For the record, they were so long winded that I gave up and left. I apologize. el Conrad: Well I was accused of being long winded when I spoke for you. Batzli: Once you got going? Okay, well I'm glad you spoke for me. Harberts: At the HRA meeting, and Nancy was there as well for a period of time. Basically they presented several alternatives that they were looking at for their, I don't know if it's the entertainment center or civic center or whatever it's called. Basically they presented the alternatives and called a question. Do you want a recreation facility as part of this civic center? h' Conrad: And Brian, you were the only one that didn't. Well no, I thought I spoke for you. y Batzli: I'm sorry, I was the only one that didn't what? Conrad: Didn't want the recreation part. Harberts: Public. Public recreation. II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 24 II Conrad: I said, I think I spoke and said that you would rather see it privately owned and operated. II Batzli: Yeah. Oh yeah. II Mancino: You had brought up a YM and YWCA kind of thing. Harberts: But I think the consensus of the group was, they'd like to see a facility, a civic center facility in Chanhassen. There was a little II question about should it be a stand alone. Should it be there? Also, I think the consensus was that yes, we want it but let's start all over and let's get the input from the people. And then also that if you're going II to do it, do it right. They have what, $6.2 million available to do the project. They felt that if they were going to do it right, they would have to find $1 or $2 million somewhere else. The Mayor does not feel comfortable with going out for a bond referendum. So on one hand I think . I the majority of the people in the Parks and the Planning Commission, to the City Council to some extent, made the comments that yes. But if you're going to do it, do it right. Yet you have the Mayor that says, II we're only going to do it with the money we have available so. Batzli: Well my point, just to put it on some record somewhere, is that I we can't do it right with the money we have, in my opinion. For the grandiose scheme they've got to build a health club. And I don't think we need a health club at that site. What we need are community rooms and if you want to pool, build a pool but you don't need all this other stuff. And it costs much less to build community rooms which is what we need. The school district has come to us and said, we'll build a pool at the elementary site if that's what the community needs. Well, what are we I trying to cram all this stuff into one little backend? Well, we're doing it because we think it's an eyesore. Well, I think there's other ways to take care of the eyesore than to build a mecca of swimming pools and this stuff. With public money. II Farmakes: Anyone who has been following that project, it keeps on coming back to that same spot and you ask, you keep on saying, why, why, why. I And I'm sorry I didn't get to the meeting. My transportation fell out. I had car trouble. I Harberts: You should have taken the bus. You would have been there. Farmakes: I could have took the bus. Yeah, I should have. 1 Scott: Dial -a -ride. Farmakes: But it has always been that way. When you ask why it is, you I get a philosophical difference that's never answered. The difference between, and you said it, a civic center. It started out when I heard it and I thought it was a good idea was a phased down entertainment complex with an adult facility, and no more than that. And it depends on what II meeting you go to, sometimes it's in the same meeting, the words are interchanged between civic center, entertainment complex and it just strikes me, and we were talking about that. If I was on a loan committee II for a bank and an applicant came forward and started flip flopping back II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 25 1 and forth and gave me as much marketing information as you've seen here on this project, you probably would break for lunch early and I don't think , the phone would be ringing too soon to your applicant, so. Mancino: Absolutely no other community input. Harberts: Well and the point was brought up and it was kind of shot down" which was a little surprising to me was, well why doesn't the city and the school sit down and see what they can do to build facilities so they enhance each other rather than maybe compete with each other. And the discussion was that, help me out here someone, they didn't think it was necessary. Batzli: I don't know if they said that. I think I was there but I don't" know that there was an answer to that. Some raised it. Harberts: Well Mike Mason raised it and it's really hard to really , summarize what the response was except that the school district, you know there's another message that the school district is waiting for the city to decide what they're going to do and then they'll build it. Farmakes: But doesn't the school district come into play as a minor, for minor's recreation. I'm not saying as an adjective but as a noun. You'v got for children and what they're providing and then you've got adult recreation and if you look in the private sector, they're marketed separately. Although they may take place in the same area, you don't seell the kids swimming in the pool when there's adult lap swimming. You don't see adult basketball going on while there's kids recreation in the gym and you don't see racquetball for adults taking place when kids are using it., And we're not looking at that. We go back to the civic center. Going back several years in the referendums that were defeated. I see it as a group development where we all get our basketball and go whether we happen to be 5 years old or 55 years old and we all show up to play. And that really isn't how recreation is marketed. Harberts: Well and I think your comment is appropriate because I didn't really get a strong sense of what the vision is for this facility. Batzli: Well I got a vision from Ladd and they all just kind of said, well that's nice. We'll modify it. , Harberts: Oh the focus? Batzli: Yeah. 1 Harberts: Exactly. I thought that was a real important aspect and it was like, oh yeah. Okay. Batzli: Yeah, we'll do that later. This is concept here. We'll focus later. , Conrad: We'll tuck that in over here at some point. Batzli: Has everyone seen the, I'm sure we don't have a drawing here. , 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 26 Scott: The packets? ' Batzli: Yeah, did everybody look at the packet? Farmakes: I've got a packet right here. Batzli: If you look, and this is of course won't make, if you look at this little blue area back here is Version 8. There's a little meeting room area and Ladd's question was. Conrad: I really wanted to see, I asked them where there was a community center. A focal point where the community could gather in the wintertime ' and not be tucked away in a room. Basically the answer was, well it's, they really didn't have one. Batzli: It's back here in this tucked away room. ' Harberts: It was in the blue, the green /yellow room. I Conrad: Well, we had a certain color that we could do that and there was another section that it could have been a 10 x 40 foot. ' Batzli: A hallway. Conrad: Yeah, and so I guess the bottom, it's a real interesting meeting and I thought it was real valid and it's real easy to be critical of ' what's going on. There's a lot of needs trying to mesh here and usually when you try to meet a lot of needs, you miss most of them. And you get, and you put some cost perameters in there but you know what's really ' interesting and the Park and Rec is real enthusiastic. I think Brian you were the only no vote on the whole evening. I cast that for you. ' Batzli: Did you? Thank you. Conrad: And I was vacillating. I don't know because I don't see what I like up front but the rest I think, everybody else was positive so it will ' probably be carried forth but the other thing about everybody else being positive though is that. Harberts: We didn't want any of it though. Conrad: But we don't like anything we see. 1 Harberts: Start all over. Conrad: So let's try it again. ' Farmakes: Would you expect to see Braemar in the middle of Southdale? I don't think so. ' Harberts: Hey, we've got Camp Snoopy in the Mali of America. Farmakes: Yeah it's still, I don't, you know I agree with what you're saying 100% but I don't understand why we won't admit that this is money 1 Planning Commission Meeting II May 5, 1993 - Page 27 _, looking for a purpose and it keeps on coming back to the same location as!! it has for the past 10 years. Mancino: And are there different purposes? Could it be senior housing? II Could it be more in the education... Farmakes: Well let's back up and look at the two restaurants that the HRI wanted to put in there. We have the largest restaurant capacity in Minnesota that isn't being used in the Dinner Theatre. Why would we put 2 more restaurants in the same location? They don't do any lunch traffic all all there. Batzli: That's out of the plan now for that very reason. II Farmakes: I understand that but it was in the plan for a couple of years so I think Ladd's right. It's easy to be critical when they're II brainstorming and trying to come up with a finite number of how much is this going to cost. And they're trying to mesh these different needs but still, isn't there a philosophical difference that if you try to brainstorm restaurants, meeting rooms, or so on, you define what that nee is. How much square feet you need. And it almost looks like we have a complex and then we'll figure that out later. Conrad: Every sector is defining their own little need. The business II community is saying one thing. The recreation group, which is pretty strong and they have some valid needs, they're saying something else. I think the city has a need to try to focus some development there. It could end up bad or it could end up something that's not as good as it II could potentially be. So again, there's a lot of players and trying to mesh and I just came away from that meeting saying, hey. Let the II Bloomberg Companies develop it if we don't have a real focus and if we don't do it right and it was real clear. I didn't see anything that I thought was just great that I could say wow. It's worthwhile for me to pay some tax money to get this done. I just didn't see it, and I'd be open to doing that. If I saw, that's why I gave a vacillating comment. I I saw a product that I just thought was terrific, I would say oh yeah. I didn't see that. II Harberts: We were hoping maybe something better would come back. Conrad: But I think that evening, Diane you voted yes. II Harberts: Well yes. Conrad: I'll put you on the spot. Because you got your trans. II Harberts: Well, with what's being proposed here it just, people would II start realizing, and I'm on my soapbox now. How well transit can play into this role, you know and just the discussion on the child care. I mean it's a hot area if you can match those things and isn't that what a community service is all about? Filling those type of needs. And so, yell I voted for something like this because I can see this becoming a community focal point. How, I don't know. II 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 28 Farmakes: If you could drive a car because you're certainly, if I had a child that was 7 or 8, I wouldn't want them riding their bikes through all these parking lots. And I again question that location for that use. Conrad: For what? Farmakes: For kids. Scott: Basically what you have here is that you have. Harberts: You have $6.2 million that's waiting to find a home. Scott: Well, you have the Park and Rec Department that would love to have something like that to schedule. You have the Chaska Athletic Association that you know needs, they need ballfields. And maybe gymnasiums. Okay. And then you have a landowner who's also a partner in a hotel that is looking to enhance their property and I don't have a problem with somebody trying to get the job done but if Mr. Bloomberg is interested in developing meeting rooms, he should walk across the street and go to Kevin McShane and go hey Kevin. I want some money to buid some meeting rooms. Well I don't see the community going, City Council, Planning Commission, we want a community center. We want a community center. Spend ' that money. We'll pay for it. You know. We'll borrow a couple million bucks. That's not what's happening. ' Farmakes: And it's not a community center. Scott: No. It's not. Farmakes: It's in no way, shape or form a community center. Scott: No way. And the only problem is then you have people on city ' staff, I mean it's an eyesore. I think it's an eyesore but do you have to spend 6 1/2 million bucks to do as, I think it was Mr. Green, wanted to have something that worked, "worked architecturally ". But now I'm not an architect and that was probably significant to someone who understands ' what he said but I went, now wait a minute you know. So this makes me really, really nervous. Farmakes: Did Senn make any comments at all? Scott: Mark? ' Farmakes: Yeah. Scott: I would have expected him to because it's similar to what I said. Farmakes: Because his comment about if they build a Target they will come. And if they come, this property will develop on it's own but it seems that the city wants to play the cards on how that property develops. And that seems to be as much of a reason as an eyesore per se. Scott: It's Menards. 1 Planning Commission Meeting I May 5, 1993 - Page 29 II Harberts: And I think Dick Wing said it well though. That he didn't fee that it was the community's, you know a public service to have to build this type of facility. II Batzli: Okay but with...why did everybody vote yes then? What was the thing that everybody said yes? II Conrad: Free money. Harberts: Well, you've got $6.2 million burning a hole here. II Conrad: But let me follow up on Diane's point, and it's really valid and you've got to stand back. The validity is to build a core city center. II Batzli: That's what I'd like to see. Conrad: You only have a few opportunities to do this. This may be the II only one. And if you say hey, we don't got it right and then you may never have it so you'll end up becoming like another city that doesn't really have a focal point. 1 Harberts: Downtown focus. Batzli: But my suggestion, and I totally agree with that, and I think II that's completely valid. You need the focal point but then build a community center. Buy the land next to it and when a health club wants to come in, you give them the land to buy. Here you go. But we've already got our community center and this is what we're focusing on and you know. Conrad: I don't disagree with you. II Batzli: And I don't get it. So that's the point that I don't get. It seems to me that the Park and Rec wants to have this thing to schedule an so by God, they're going to build it. Scott: They want control. Batzli: And that's fine, if the community really needs it. I don't know" I mean my kids are really, I'm in the Minnetonka School District. We gravitate towards Minnetonka programs, and I'll just be candid with that." So I don't know what the need is in the Chaska School District for kids and scheduling and that type of stuff. Farmakes: But did the Parks support that location or just the facility? II Conrad: The location and the facilities. Farmakes: Really? Really? II Conrad: I think the only one that I heard, Senn was the only one that didn't want it there. II Harberts: There was a free standing one at Lake Ann or something. II II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 30 Conrad: Yeah. ' Harberts: You know I don't know though, did the Park people really support the location or the fact that here's an opportunity and here's a good site. ' Scott: You could get one fast. Farmakes: See I'm surprised because the Park Board has been so pro for ' our young people and pushing that type of recreation and I'm surprised that they picked that location which is not what you would think of as a developer being a location to bring kids into. 1 Harberts: But the question was, what was the alternatives. Farmakes: Civic center. 1 Harberts: Well I know but it made it sound like there wasn't a lot of opportunities. 1 Farmakes: The new school. Harberts: Well, and you know the question that was brought up, and this ' is what I don't understand is, why aren't they sitting down with the School District together. You know get a community survey. Sit down with the school district and then start programming what's good for the kids. ' You know what the needs are and then enhance each other. I mean I totally thought that they're on two different tracks and not talking to each other or they're not talking well. 1 Farmakes: I think there's some State regulation involved in there too that the State guideline won't give you credit if you're a city and what you would best, that you have to meet their required recreation minimums. ' And the fact that you have ballfields a block away are not valid or relevant so I'm not sure how that plays into when you build them on the property you're going on. 1 Harberts: Yeah, but if you've only got 56.2 million and that's all the money you want to spend, you'd think you'd sit down and see the creatives approaches. I mean I deal with State and Federal regulations every day. 1 There's creative approaches. Farmakes: We just voted to approve 542 million bond though so that I coincides with that acreage that's being purchased there. You know again, it seems that what happens when they build this facility and you have all these varying needs. It actually goes up and they see that it wasn't. 1 Harberts: Big enough or. Farmakes: But what happens when the Orthodontists are in for the hotel ' convention and decide they want that meeting room and the Quantas are looking for a place for their breakfast meeting. You know is it to be sold, is it being sold to everyone as some sort of panacea and it's not. These are very small, compared to what they were talking about, very small Planning Commission Meeting II May 5, 1993 - Page 31 II t oo a es. And to really target f t g Y et it towards a much more modest 9 application and if they go ahead and get it sold by saying it's a convention center or saying it's a civic center and people in their mind' eye see it as Chaska, they're going to be disappointed. Scott: I keep thinking of initially when we had that meeting where this I thing kind of, at least surprised the heck out of me. That Park and Rec meeting that we had. And I saw this line and on one side it was public money and the other side it was private money and they were public money 1 being spent on meeting rooms connected to the hotel. I really get the feeling that something's been cut. A deal has been made. People have said things to one another already and perhaps that's why this thing keeps going right back to the same spot. I Farmakes: Well any time that you have, and Chanhassen does not have a wealth of developers yet saying...over and over again but I've never foun that or I've never seen that there's anything that's happening behind the screen. Scott: Well what I'm saying is there's an understanding. 1 Farmakes: ...major investment in town and you will obviously get government interaction. You get that in Minneapolis. You get that in several areas and sometimes it's good. When you look at the Target Cente� downtown, and sometimes it's not so good when you look at Minneapolis getting sued. Getting their hands burned with getting into development , with the French... Mancino: The Bloomberg Companies, did they develop Market Square? Harberts: Yes. 1 Farmakes: I believe were they not a partner. I Harberts: They were involved. Farmakes: But I think Johnson, Lotus was the developer of record. 1 Harberts: It's amazing what a little bus shelter can do. Farmakes: But these are developers that have served our community well 1 but 1 agree with you that when you do get a private and public concern going on here, the question has to be, just like these PUD's. What are wil getting out of it and it seems to me that the information, the hard information that's following this development is not the type of hard information that you would get if you were an investor or you were a banker putting money into this. II Scott: Well and one thing they're not doing is when you think about who's the customer. Who is the customer? I don't see a lot of "customer input' either. Harberts: No, it seems that the priority here is to fix the eyesore and • II II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 32 here's $6.2 million and if the community can perhaps benefit it from some degree. 1 Farmakes: The demographic studies that were done by both the civic center commission that was put together, is no longer an act. The demographics ' that were done by the Park Board, there were a lot of holes in those demographics. They were unscientific. They were mailed out. I believe they sent out 1,000 in the last version for what they were looking for. They came back, I know they made the statement that half of Chanhassen ' approves trails. Well the fact is, is that I think they sent out 1,000 and half of those responded and half again of that thought that it was okay. Now the statement half of Chanhassen approves trails doesn't ' support that database. It's half of the respondents and that's less than 5% of the voting public of Chanhassen. So you have to question some of the facts and figures that are coming forward. When you see a referendum like this center that gets voted down 2 to 1, and then arbitrarily in a meeting, and I brought this up at the city planning meeting when we were doing the work goals. There was somebody on city staff that said it only lost by a few votes. That was the trail vote. It was 2 to 1 against the ' civic center and then without any background information, it was just gut feeling they said, well that was voted down because of Filly's. Filly's there. Well, there's no information to support that. No hard information. Batzli: Yeah, but that was the issue in the vote. Scott: But then they were also looking at the... Farmakes: I was here at the time. I didn't vote for it because I thought it was a lousy location. Filly's had nothing to do with it. Batzli: Well the debate in the newspaper and other places always seem to turn to Filly's. ' Farmakes: But I wouldn't spend 36 million based on my gut feeling on that. I Batzli: But from a planning perspective moment here, we have an eyesore. It's downtown. We have a need, I think for a community type center. Is that a good way to, is that a good location to build meeting rooms for Boy ' Scouts and things like that? You know have a central focus meeting place for the city. What do you think about that just as a planning committee? Forget about what all the rest of the residents think for a minute. From a planning perspective, what do you think? ' Farmakes: If you're asking me, I think it's a good idea and I said it at the meeting. I think an entertainment complex here would round out nicely. I'd like to see more retail, better retail there. But it's difficult in small town retailing to get anything that's going to work. ' Batzli: They announced at the last meeting that it's going to be =convenience retail. Not specialty. So it's going to be drive up, 5 minutes, buy a jug of milk and leave. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 5, 1993 - Page 33 .�rmakes F^ ' Yeah again, I made the statement when Target came in here. I would have liked to have seen a broader shopping capability here than Brooks and Target but retailing, or upper end retailing we don't, it doesn't seem like we have the amount of generated dollars. There's too much competition 15 minutes away but still in all I hope that the city doesn't wind up being nothing but Subways, Targets and that brings us bac to the other point that this made is that is some of this TIF money going to be spent on civic uses. It just seems so far that in downtown development that there's been not a lot spent, that I've been seeing coming up on civic uses. I haven't seen a lot coming up on supporting retail and we've sort of done that now but I do think that it's a good idea. I do think though that it should be geared, as I said all along, to adults because I think that that location is well set for that. It's I accessible by car. Our downtown is not pedestrian friendly and I don't think it will ever be. Batzli: Paul wouldn't agree with you if he was here. So I have to just I raise that. Farmakes: He can put as many bridges as he wants and the kids may come I here, but I'll be darn if I want my kid to walk through 600 cars in the parking lot to get to a place. I don't want him to and I feel very uncomfortable about that. I'd let my teenager come downtown but I sure would think twice about sending my kid down here...and there really isn't I a place to hang out, young teenagers that hang out down at the Chan Bowl, and they're a problem down there. And there isn't a place downtown. If • you're not spending money, you really don't belong down here. I think that if they tried to combine those two markets with this application, it's going to not work very well. Batzli: Does everybody else agree that it is a good location to fix an II eyesore, spend public money, get a community center kind of thing? Harberts: Well I have to agree with Jeff in terms of the adult target market. Because I think with the school you certainly have that opportunity to focus that more along the kids, teenagers, whatever becaus of the activities, facility that they'd have. I would certainly support something that was more oriented towards the adults. Mancino: But is a civic center the same thing as a health center? Batzli: Well 1 don't think so but. Harberts: And you know I like Ladd's comment though about making it ' something that it can be focused though as a focus point for the community. Farmakes: But families do not recreate together and you will see that at' Northwest, Flagship, Swim and Fitness. They're all, some of them are all targeted to different, Swim and Fitness to a younger age group. Northwes to family orientation and Flagship to sort of a country club tennis operation. But none of them recreate together. They just don't. They're not set up that way. The times aren't divided that way and I don't know why we come forward and we sort of say that we're going to be playing Planning Commission Meeting May 5. 1993 - Page 34 baseball with our kids when we're not going to be. We're not going to be Playing pick games at basketball with 14 year old kids. It doesn't work ' that way. Scott: And also too with City Center Park, I mean that, the whole concept behind that is almost like it's kind of an outdoor congregating place which probably will be the hangout instead of Brooks or Filly's now. But Yeah, I agree that there's got to be some indoor community space. And if it's going to be indoor community space that's publically funded, I think ' that's one thing. I think that's something, I mean there's no question that that's what we need. Anybody too involved at all in some of the continuing education things or any indoor type activities, whether it's ' Karate or who knows, we just don't have enough space. When we start getting involved, I start getting uncomfortable when we start talking about running a business that has fairly substantial operating costs. Running meeting rooms that maybe they can be rented to community groups. I don't know. But when you start looking at an investment in, like a million dollars for a pool. That's expensive, etc, etc. ' Batzli: Jo Ann, I mean right now for meetings throughout town, I keep on hearing these things that the Boy Scouts or whoever, are they meeting in City Hall? In the Schools? At the Fire Department kind of thing? ' Olsen: Wherever. Batzli: Who schedules that? The City does? The City just provides. 1 Olsen: Weil if it's in one of the city's facilities we schedule it. But like they want to be able to use this during the weekends and now that ' they're not allowing access, nobody else is here to really watch what happens so. So yeah, if it's in the fire station or Old City Hall, we do a lot there. Farmakes: Did anyone bring up during the meeting, at the meeting the financial health of the holding company for the eastern section of this development? Batzli: Igo. Scott: Well I know their reorganization plan was approved by the J Bankruptcy Judge. So they have a plan. Batzli: The group that owns the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre, they ' apparently filed for reorganization. Scott: Oh I thought you were talking about Filly's. 1 , I'm talking about the. ' Scott: IBC. Farmakes' Yeah. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II May 5, 1993 - Page 35 11 Scott: International Broadcasting Corporation that owns the Dinner Theatre. Yeah, owns the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre. II Farmakes: They've been in 13 for a while haven't they? Scott: Yeah, Bankers Trust because they sold, like Dorothy Hamill bought" the Ice Capades and the Harlem Globetrotters were bought by some guy from Honeywell or something like that. But the Dinner, from what I understand and I do not, this is just what I've been reading in the funny papers bull the Dinner Theatre itself is financially healthy. Batzli: Yeah. That's my understanding. ' Scott: But I don't know if it's true or not. That's just what I've read. Batzli: So what direction, what are they going to do now? You two ' stalwarts that stayed til the bitter end. Conrad: I left. I Batzli: Oh you left after you made your speech? Conrad: Yeah, I just left. They told me to shut up and I left. 1 Batzli: So you said Batzli doesn't like it. I hate it but go ahead with it and then you left? I Conrad: No, I stayed around long enough to hear everybody's opinion. Farmakes: Who's the major push on that? 1 Harberts: I'm guessing it's the HRA. Conrad: Well, the HRA and Park and Rec. I think Park and Rec has wanted, some athletic facilities for a long time so I'm sure that's a driving force. I don't know. Jo Ann, do you have any feeling there? I Olsen: ...even for staff we're confused. Batzli: See I'm not against this at all really. I mean I would love to I see this thing go but I don't think we can build it and get what we want for the amount of money we've got. And that's what troubles me and so what I've tried to do is suggest a way or, you know buy the land. Sit on ' it. Just build some meeting rooms. Do something where you can do it correctly. Make sure it's open. Make sure there's a focus. Make sure there's a meeting room. Make sure you can get north and south in the I building and none of these things, we keep seeing plans that don't do it and reasons for why they can't do it, or perceived reasons. Well, parking's a problem or something. And I just sit here and I look at it and say, well until you do it right I don't even want to say yes because 11 agree that we need it. I think it would be great. I would love to see plan number 8 or 10. II II '` Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 36 II Mancino: So why don't we write this stuff together as a commission and give them our report in what we feel? I Batzli: I don't even know if we can. II Mancino: Matthew's on the HRA. He can deliver it for us. Ledvina: I'm not on the HRA. I'm the liason, right. I Mancino: ...you can deliver our thoughts. Why wouldn't they want our thoughts? I Farmakes: I talked to some of the people on the HRA. They weren't, it didn't seem like they were really gung ho on this thing. It seemed like they were... 1 Ledvina: No, they aren't. They've gone through a lot of different variations of this thing and they started out with $12 million as to what they thought was a good plan and they've scaled it back, scaled it back I and compromised and it's, you're right Brian. They've shaved it so much that they don't know what. What it can do and it's just. I Batzli: See I've never even seen how many people this could support. This type of a building. So how many residents can use it at once? Farmakes: But they were stooping to use that space as temporary space for I the library when the library study says that that's exactly what they should not do with library space. So I think that was like 8,000 square feet or something like that or just to get that much out of it, I mean I that's hard they were looking a tenant to make sense out of that thing and it, I wonder how many other uses are just, we'll throw them in there and get the square footage and we've got a tenant. And whether or not it I makes sense to put it there or not. Harberts: And I think though the discussion though on that Wednesday before something, the number of people went up to the Shoreview Community 1 Center. Scott: Yeah, I was up there. 1 Harberts: In our bus of course. And people are drooling in terms of what Shoreview has and they drool somewhat in terms of what Chaska has but you I know in Shoreview, 500,000 used it in one year. This facility, you know I brought up the issue of parking. This facility, I don't see how 500,000 people are going to go through it. I mean are they, why are they trying to put the Shoreview up there? II Batzli: Well see the kids can't get there and so you're going to have to drop them off. So but who's going to use it. I mean that's the thing I I keep bringing up. Farmakes: And I believe if time goes on a little farther now, that II there's a lot of creative book accounting that's going on in the Chaska center. Their marketing plans aren't quite jelling. II Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 5, 1993 - Page 37 il Scott: And at Shoreview, by the way. Farmakes: Aren't quite jelling with what the original projections were and it's always, with Chaska it's always free land. Somebody always come up with free land. As long as there's several million dollars of community money coming after it. I Harberts: But at the same time, why are they putting the Shoreview's and the Chaska's up there? In terms of it's like, here's the goal. It seems" like they put those two community centers as the goal here and I don't think that's right for this area. Mancino: That's the only vision that they have. II Harberts: Well exactly. If somebody asks, well what's the other options and they were speechless. 1 Batzli: Okay, what is the outcome of the meeting that they had on Monday? What are they going to do now? I Harberts: I really don't know. . Conrad: I would bet, and I left but I would be they're really confused. II Harberts: They are. Conrad: Because the bottom line was we didn't see anything we liked. So ' there was a go but we needed a first class, or better facility and. Harberts: But the thing that came out was, you have to get the community' input simply because they're all over the place here. Ledvina: Maybe that's the next step. II Farmakes: I had an opportunity to talk to the Chairman of the HRA and I asked him if he had seen any marketing information on this stuff at all. ' They hadn't seen anything. And these are people that are going to sign off on $6 million bucks and it would seem to me again that we're relying it seems to me on a lot of gut opinions here as to what's going to work and what isn't. 1 Conrad: I think it's appropriate that we come up with a statement. Ledvina: Sure, I can do that. II Conrad: A position. Ledvina: I'd be willing to draft a letter and we can take a look at it a the next, well not the next time because I'm going to have to look at the Minutes of this meeting. But the following time... II Batzli: I don't think you'll see a consensus from what we said. Ledvina: Well I'll give it a shot. I think there are some elements here, II II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 38 II Mancino: I think we've asked some really good, tough questions about where they're going. I Harberts: But I'm sensing a consensus here. One, some kind of community focus. In a sense along the adult line. And third, whatever is done you do it right but make sure you're hitting a mark. II Scott: Like for example, I haven't had anybody come to me, and I haven't asked this question which is probably why but what is the problem? What is the problem we are trying to solve with this? Mancino: The eyesore. ' Scott: Okay. What is the problem? Well, I don't know. What is the problem. Meeting space is short. I Farmakes: Back up. There's a finite amount of time to spend the money. 1996? I Conrad: Another problem is the property can be developed by the current owner. I Farmakes: See that's where the Menards scare tactic. Scott: See that's another thing that makes me really uncomfortable. I Farmakes: Why would you put a lumber yard in the middle of a retail center? II Scott: Just because. Conrad: I don't find that. That's not a threat to me right now. 1 Scott: ...but anyway, what's the, no, it's like what's the problem and is it supported by fact? Well we need 4 racquetball courts. The hell we do. Who says? I Batzli: I know. I play racquetball. I Scott: Well so do I. Farmakes: I play racquetball too. I Scott: I play at the fire station for free. But anyway, like what's the problem and then let me see some statistics that there is a problem and then, once you understand what the problem is, and it's kind of like, I okay. So we need meeting rooms and 2 gyms. Okay, what does that cost? And then, yeah. If we get silly and have another $8 million and we need a swimming pool, hell let's get a hockey rink. Let's you know but I don't I think anybody really sat down. I think you're right. They see 1996. We've got $28 million bucks. We've got to spend it. And then it goes from there. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 5, 1993 - Page 39 Farmakes: Although, let me throw this out. If this was an adult facilit and there were cost sharing aspects to it where the civic use would be at one time and commercial time would be at another, is that not an II intelligent, prudent way to spend their tax money? If it works out. If we get something for it. Versus, and looking at the total picture how it valuates. How it improves the value of their property. How it improves the ability of their business to not put that on there long term debt loa� of financing a pool or financing meeting rooms or racquetball courts or exercise rooms for their hotel or whatever it is. And who runs that facility? Who operates it? Is that commercially operated and the city contracts that out? Scott: Because maybe that's part of the problem. , Farmakes: Or does the city wind up staffing it and paying for retirement and benefits and so on. How does any of that information play out and I ' haven't seen any of that. Scott: No. And maybe the problem is that the folks who own the hotel, they have a problem because they, although their occupancy rate is about as good as you can ever get in a hotel, that we have a problem. We need the meeting rooms. Well I don't have a problem saying, hey listen. We'll pony up this much or we will sign a 10 year lease for x thousands of dollars a year or month or whatever to have this kind of access to that facility. I don't have a problem with that. Farmakes: Yeah, and I don't think we should be micro - managing it anyway but I mean if you look at the concept, there might be an opportunity ther for that type of application that might work both for persons willing to invest money downtown and for the city. If it's done rith that in mind and not sold as a civic center. Because I agree with you. If they start II seeing Shoreview's in their mind or Chaska, that's not going to be what it's going to turn out there. Harberts: And that's what's out there right now. That's all anybody can see. Scott: But those are both like, those are both 50% more expensive. Harberts: Well I know. Exactly but like I said, that's what's being hell' up right now. Scott: Yep. And one of the things that I, since I'm such a jerk. I asked the business manager of Shoreview, and he was really nice and I'm not going to go into that but I just said, are you guys making any money? He said, well last year we made $25,000.00. I said, wow. Well what's your debt service like? He looked at me and I said, well you guys, they J1 had $6 million that they had kind of squirreled away. And then they had bond referendum for I think $2 1/2 - $3 million and I said, what's your debt service and he went, what? I said when you guys borrowed this money and you have to pay it back, I said my guess is that that's like thousand and thousands of dollars a month. You know maybe $150,000.00 a year. An that might be HP12C with me. He kind of looked at me and I just said, okay. Well I get the answer to my question. So I get really concerned. II II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 40 II I mean I run a business you know and I don't have free money. So I don't know, but like what's the problem. Let's solve the problem and then maybe II leave some space to anticipate future problems and maybe a pool, I don't know. Batzli: A pool would be nice down the road. Make that the addition. If ' you need gyms, if you need meeting rooms, let's do it right. Let's have a focal point. Let's buy the land so that we can do it and we put up a building. We hide as much of the eyesore as we can and when we can afford 1 it, we put up the health spa. Farmakes: I wonder if the phasing issue of this, it seems like there's resistance to a phase in approach to that and I don't know if that's I because of the requirements and the spending of the money. I don't know, that doesn't really help the business application at all... II Batzli: Well gyms, weight rooms, meeting rooms, those can all be used by the businesses if they want to. You just don't have a pool. And because the pool is one of the biggest. II Scott: That's a very expensive component. Plus from an upkeep standpoint. I Mancino: Well in the comprehensive plan, that was the number one thing, the survey that everybody wants in Chanhassen... 1 Batzli: What a pool? Mancino: Open swimming at a pool... II Farmakes: But does the city wind up staffing it? Providing the service? Mancino: I don't know. What I'm saying that's what the residents want. 1 Batzli: But the first thing they say at the meeting is that the school district, Chaska School District come and says, should we build a pool at I the elementary site. Well if they're going to build it in a couple years, what are we building one for? Scott: That's right. Plus with our land participation. I Harberts: Yeah, but is that going to be more family oriented versus adult oriented? I Mancino: ...well exactly and I didn't see the survey. I don't know if they have focus groups. I don't know how they conduct their research. I II mean part of...have a market research conducted, who does it. Is it the party with a vested interest? I mean. Farmakes: It's clarified as an unscientific. I Harberts: It almost seems appropriate to turn this thing, rather than into a civic group, into like a business center. You know you've got your II retail, your hotel and then putting the meeting rooms that are shared by II Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 41 civic and business. And I would even. Mancino: Then why don't they pay for it? 1 Harberts: Well and I would even be as, you know I'm really, I guess I'm real pro the private sector involved. You can give them the carrot, you know the land or whatever and have them come and build it or even just operate it. I think you're going to be further ahead. Scott: You could have the city lease the meeting facilities so they can II turn around and take care of the groups. Conrad: But we should have a vision. We should have a vision. Joe, you've been saying what problem and I buy that. Scott: Well I think I know what the problems are. Conrad: But on the other hand, from a planning standpoint, do we have a vision for downtown for a community type of place? Is there anything in our minds that say in 20 years it should look like this and we missed the' opportunity in 1993? And I think that's part of maybe the statement that I'd like us to come up with. I think solving problems, I really agree with almost every, there's nothing I don't agree with... Scott: Well a year round meeting place because the city center park will be like the 6 month meeting maybe. Conrad: Yeah. I'm looking for, as I said at the meeting, I'm looking for a place for a school choir can sing in the wintertime. Scott: Or teenagers can hang out for free and not get in trouble. Conrad: Absolutely, and really literally my mind keeps saying, you've goll two buildings. They're both privately owned here. And then you dome thell common space between the two. You atrium it and all of a sudden you've got a common space so the city is putting the atrium over two buildings • that have a private function. That's what's going on in my mind. But that's not what we have here. But I think we should be able to have some of those visions if we can to share. Scott: Well there's always opportunity in a chaotic situation and I thin what we see is a lot of people who haven't really figured out where they're going and far be•it from us to fill the void but I mean that woul be nice for us to say, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Something logical and concis and maybe this would be a good opportunity for us to, as a relatively new group just to plan. Ledvina: I'd be happy to give it a shot. Farmakes: I hope that we consider how civic uses do play into what we're" investing in here because otherwise we're going to wind up with a mall from one end to the other and that's it.- And then we shouldn't be calling ourselves a city. We should be calling ourselves a mall. I hope that well wind up balancing some of this TIF expenditures that we're doing. That 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 42 we're building something that's going to last. Something that's going to be around here more than 10 years, like some of our retail buildings. At ' least that's what I would like to see. Batzli: Okay. So you'll draft something for us? Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. Batzli: Okay. Good. Anything else? Wait a minute. One more thing. ' Mancino: Diane's about comprehensive street plan in that area, that new area that's going to be developed from Galpin. North of Galpin. Is there something that we can see Jo Ann that we can see what's existing and what's planned for that whole area and... Batzli: She can do it. Olsen: I can do it. I'll make sure that Don and Todd and all those guys get copies of these Minutes too to go along with to see what they come up ' with. Would you like to see if I could get Don to come to one of the meetings. Upcoming meetings. Not the 24th but, I mean not the 19th but maybe the first meeting in June. Again, just to have a one on one with ' them or, would that be beneficial or no? Scott: Don is a big proponent. Olsen: Right...behind it. And he's also the one that's in the middle of all. I don't know. I mean has he done that already? Didn't we already kind of do that at the start? ' Ledvina: Yeah, I think that was mid to last year. ' Olsen: Last year. Maybe it's time to do that again. Harberts: You know and it might be nice because Matt, you're drafting that letter. A staff report or update or administrative report next week ' as to what they see as the next step. Or what they see summarized out of the meeting because I didn't have a very clear direction at all. ' Olsen: Even internally we weren't sure... Farmakes: And I talked to them about that too. That if it's not done right, if this thing isn't done right, it's going to smack of public money ' invested into private concern in downtown and it's going to look one sided. And if it's not done right. If it's done right, I think it won't be, it could be a benefit to the city. But if we sell it, I hope they think about how they're going to sell that to the public. Scott: Well they've got to go out and find out what the problem is that ' the public perceives it and then just say, okay. Well here's what you told us. We listened. Here's the solution. Olsen: Maybe they have that stuff, they just haven't presented it... 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 43 ' so. There's Scott: I didn't get one in the mail s probably a good reason P for that though. Farmakes: I asked 3 people on the HRA, none of them had seen any concrete, hard. Batzli: What does our agenda look like at the next meeting? Do we have II anything? Olsen: I think we just have Halla... 'There were a number of conversations going on at the same time at this point.) 1 Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ID 1 PUBLIC SuspwAsic)limmAFE G MAY 13. 1993 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dave Johnson, Bill Bernhjehn, Don Chmiel, Dave Dununer, Eldon Berkland COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Brian Beniek, Craig Blechta 1 STAFF PRESENT; Stott Harr, Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Director Sgt, Dave Erbel, CCSO I At 6:30 PM, Chanhassen Firefighters Bob Moore and Bob Halverson provided a demonstration of the fire department's aerial tower truck. Co-chairman Dave Johnson opened the business meeting at 7:15 PM. Mayor Don Chmiel motioned, Conunissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the 4/15/93 1 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. 1 cjitiMASSENMEDErmaME Director Harr advised the Commission that the Fire Department will be opening bids on Monday, May 17, 1993, for fire truck repair. Director Harr informed the Commission of a structure fire at 470 W. 78th Street that occurred on May 9, 1993, and the significant positive impact of fire sprinklers in the building, BUILDING DEPARTMENT I Scott Harr advised that the Building Department is very busy. Yvonna Adamson was hired as a part-time/temporaq receptionist to help out with the overload of work. The support staff is keeping track of how many calls they deal with in order to help determine whether 1 more help is necessary. 1 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPART1VIENT Dave Johnson reported on the status of the Highway 5 Commission, including that a grant for the "park & ride" along Hwy 5 is up for review/approval on May 21, 1993. Director Harr reported that semaphore standards for W. 78th Street and Hwy 5 have been approved by the Council, and that _ intersection controls are being reviewed in order to establish criteria for the request for bids. - • Director Harr advised that the new Public Safety Vehicle (Jeep) has arrived and is currently having equipment installed. Scott thanked Bob for his work on designing the graphics. 1 The Emergency Management Plan was presented to the Commission. Discussion was had on the future of the Animal Control contract. Public Safety Officer Bob Zydowsky reported on the status of the CSO Program. Director Harr advised the Commission that the contracting cities are in agreement to continue with the program. 1 Discussion was had on the future plans for the program. Director Harr advised on the June emergency hazardous material drill, coordinated by Fire Marshal Mark Littfin; that will take place at the McGlynn's plant in Chanhassen. Discussion was had on the need to ' re- evaluate shooting boundaries in the City of Chanhassen. 13111 Bernhjelm motioned, Eldon Berkland seconded, to hold a hearing in July, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Don Chmiel seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 PM. 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1