The URL can be used to link to this page

2g Minutes 'i CHANHASSEN•CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 12, 1993 ' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. EOUNCIL ° MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, ;r Councilwoman Oockendorf and Councilman Wing STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Scott Harr, Dave Hempel, Paul II Krauss,Sharmin A1-Jaff, Kate Aanenson and Jo Ann Olsen APPROVAL OF ACENOA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman '; Senn wanted to discuss no wake zones; Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss audio equipment; and Councilman Mason wanted to talk briefly about what's allowed to be built on large lots, over 2 1/2 acres. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. =_ PU C ANNOUNCEMEI4TS: Mayor Chmiel: I have two public announcements this evening. One -is regarding our fire fighters. At this time I would like to recognize members of our Chanhassen Fire Department that risked their lives rescuing two individuals from ' the dangerous waters of the Minnesota River and I'd dike to ask our Public Safety Director, Scott Harr to introduce the members of our Fire Department that put their lives on the line to save others. We as a Council really appreciate , our Fire Department members, They do an ; excellent job and they always extend the greatest efforts that they possibly can So with that, Scott, Scott Harr: " Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and City Cott,cil, and before 1 II begin T'd like to ask 'Councilman Wing to step down and take a' seat next to the Fire Chief with the fire Department where he serves as. Assistant Fire Chief. IF Thank you As you may have seen on the news or read in the ` papers, the li p Chanhassen Fire Department was heavily involved in a water rescue on the Minnesota River on June 22nd of this year As you May recall, two teenagers were swept off of their bicycles into the river after attempting to ride through the water. The call that involved Chanhassen Fire was originally called for the Carver County Dive Team which has a number of Chanhassen fire fighters as members. Other fire fighers from our department responded to assist. At this point I'd like to ask Hann to show a brief video of the rescue. (At this point a' video .of the rescue was shown to the audience in the Council Chambers while Scott Harr described what was happening.) ' Scott Harr: At this point one of the victims has already been rescued from the water. The other's been tied to the tree to avoid being swept downstream II further and at this point, about 2 1/2 hours has elapsed with no one ibeing able to determine the best manner to get this person to shore and at this point Chanhassen Fire arrives on the scene with our rescue boats to make an attempt with the boats. And to give ,.you a.. perspective, what you're looking down is the bicycle path with water up to one's waist at least on it. And you can see the 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 force of the water with the difficulty the rescuers are having just standing up in it. What she's explaining to the news media is, this is a member of the Sheriff's Mounted Posse and she was there when one of the police officers attempted to walk out to affect the rescue and fell down through a sink hole that had developed and that officer, the police officer was stuck underneath the asphalt. He just disappeared and she had reached underneath to pull him out of the water. Now you're looking right down the bicycle path. Now you can see one ' of the fire fighters attempting to walk across into the rapids and just can't make it. Now it's a short distance they need to get him across the pathway but they've been trying for 2 1/2 hours and with the current just can't make it. At ' this point the Chanhassen rescue boats and crew gets there. Chief Wing is operating the boat at this point. Now what they've decided to do is put the smaller boat down...the rescue team worked by ropes from the larger boat tied off to trees. I will add that the fire fighter in the boat is Mike Kerber who's unable to be here tonight because he's dispatching for the Sheriff's Office, the night shift. As soon as they get him untied here. Now to get an idea of how dangerous this water is, take a look at our fire fighters trying to get back ' across the water, which they just can't do. They had to in turn be rescued from the water themselves with a boat. That's Dale Gregory who I assure you is no 10 pound weakling trying to get across that current. Mayor Chmiel: With that I'd like to give a round of applause. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, if I could recognize each fire fighter individually with us tonight. Are Dale Gregory, Jim Tiche, Richard Wing, Don Gray, Greg Hayes, Brian Smith, John Murphy, Mark Littfin, Scott Anding and our Fire Chief Jim McMahon. As you cen see, this was an extremely technical rescue and one that ' was truly life threatening. Because this was actually a Chaska community call the media really centered on that department but as you can see, Chanhassen Fire Rescue was responsible to a great degree for the successful rescue. This incident shows the professionalism and preparedness of our Fire Department that I'm extremely proud of. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that I know you have to get back over to the ' Fire Department to do your training. Appreciate your coming here. You can take off any time you'd like. Thanks. All except you Richard. I have one more announcement. Is Mark Kaviska here? Mark are you here? If not, I was going to ' make a presentation. I'd just like to make this of record. That the City Council appreciates (Dave's) serving on our Park and Rec Commission the past several years and he's moved to another community so we wanted to provide him with this Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Chanhassen. Be it hereby ordained that the Chanhassen City Council has officially acted to recognize Dave Koubsky for the dedication and public service offered to the citizens of our community as a Park and Recreation Commissioner. Further, that the City Council ' has hereby placed into the official Minutes this recognition as a lasting expression and the gratitude of the City for the services provided. And signed, sealed and we will deliver this to him. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Roger Knutson: We made one correction on the Findings. 1 ; ' 2 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes, you're right. Okay. As Roger provided us earlier, the 1 Findings of Fact and Decision regarding the Schmids Acre Recreational Beachiot. There is one addition to that that was left off what he provided us and that was the bottom line of boats on land, one. That should be added to the Findings of Fact and Decisions. Roger Knutson: My notes were just inaccurate. When I got your Minutes and I found that error just today. Mayor Chmiel: So with that I'd like to get approval for item (b), (g) and item (h). Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: b. Findings of Fact, Schmids Acres Recreational Beachiot, as amended. g. Approval of Accounts. h. City Council Minutes dated June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 16, 1993 All voted in favor and the motion carried. E. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, LAKE ANN PARK IRRIGATION PROJECT. Mayor Chmiel: 'I think Don took off for some things that I have some concerns about. That is where this is a change order for Lake Ann irrigation project whereby they're going to be requesting another $5,000.00 plus dollars to offset some additional costs for the, as they call it, their company, Innovative Irrigation. It was $5,373.00. Indicated that they did not have room within'the shelter portion that we have and it seems to me that I think we can probably still make some changes in there. What I'd like to do is table this so a resolvement can come from it. Rather than putting on another box out in the middle of the ballfield. Another green contained metal cabinet. And if there's nothing that can be done other than what they've indicated, I've tried to get some answers and I've discussed it with Don. I think what we'd like to do is to see if we can find another way of doing it. If there isn't, then we'll resolve it back to where we're at. So with that I'd like to make a recommendation that we table item (e) for the irrigation project. Councilman Senn: Don, I'd also like to see just some, I mean I understand it's a change order and $5,000.00 sounds like a little bit of money but I mean that's over 10% of the total budget's a change order. That concerns me. But I'll move tabling. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on Change Order No. 1 for the Lake Ann irrigation project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 3 i II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 F. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL 11 ASSISTANCE IN PROGRAM REVIEW AND ANLYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES. Councilman Senn: I had several questions. First of all, are there any city II costs to this? Don Ashworth: Other than staff attending meetings, no. II Councilman Senn: Okay. A little background or rationale as to how we're kind of associated with this consortium per se. I mean most of them are small communities bordering Lake Minnetonka. We're neither. I'm just curious how II that all ties together. Don Ashworth: The only explanation I can give is we have done a lot of things I with those cities over the years in terms of mutual aid. Shorewood, sharing of parks. Sewer, water systems. We provide animal control for most of the cities. If they're looking at best way to provide services and we're one of the service providers, it seems logical that we would be a part of that process. I Councilman Senn: But what in effect are those? You mean basically through the funds we give to South Shore Senior Citizens or what? I mean what I'm trying to II get at is how do we get into that service area per se of Lake Minnetonka? Don Ashworth: Again we provide animal control services to all of those cities. I We have sewer and water, joint services with Shorewood across their entire border. We do fire fighting. We recently had a fire fighter actually hurt on a call there. We were asked to join and it seemed like a reasonable thing to do and that's why I presented it to you. II Councilman Senn: Well I was kind of amused by your closing comment. I have a real hard time kind of seeing us entering this kind of a process with the Met Council right now. I mean right now the game over there seems to be, are they justified or aren't they justified and which politician are they serving, depending on who wants to get rid of the Met Council and who wants to keep it I and I just see it as a highly politicized body at this point. Don Ashworth: There is that potential. Information is power information can be abused. State Auditor's office highly abused information when it took after I Excelsior here 2 years ago. There is a potential. In reviewing our services and how we provide those, that it may, we may get caught up in a political game. II I hope not. I hope that it is truly a look at how to best provide services for this group of cities. Mayor Chmiel: That's really what my understanding is of that as well Mark. I II think the relationships of working with each of the other cities in trying to achieve some of the problems that they have and just like us providing water services and extension sometimes of sewer services into this. Into other I cities. That the availability is not there. In some ways it benefits us and other ways it doesn't and some ways I would hope to see that if we have to provide those services, that we probably acquire those additional properties I within the city. And that's why I'm leaning towards that segment of some concern regarding water and sewer services. Are we going to take it away from the city and residents ourselves by expanding or letting other cities tap into 1 4 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 our areas that are just adjacent to their's. So that's...issue. Councilman Senn: Isn't that something we evaluate ourselves first? Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point we do, right. But this also becomes involved where upon Council would look at that and view that and come up with conclusions as well. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: As I understand it, it's just a 3 year study to look into the possibility. We're not recommending any collaboration or anything at this point. Mayor Chmiel: No. That's correct. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm just curious. I don't want to throw this comment back in your face Don but you say we're tired of being kicked around. I didn't understand what that meant. Don Ashworth: I think we provide a very good service level for our community and I think we've provide it in a very cost effective manner. But it seems as though the Governor's office has continued to take and say, cities are bad guys and others and quite truthfully I'm tired of being kicked around. I'd just as soon stand up. Show people what it is we do and why we do it and to prove that we are a cost efficient government. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval of item 2(f). Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for Metrpolitan Council to provide technical assistance in program review and analysis to Lake Minnetonka area cities. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the lotion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, FRANK BEDDOR. Public Present: Name Address Sherry Novacyzk 6371 Pleasant View Cove ' John Fess 6280 Ridge Road Tami Falkowsky 850 Western Drive Jeff B 850 Western Drive Gary McCauley 420 Pleasant View Road Curtis Anderson 500 Plesaant View Road 5 ' 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 II Name Address II Jonathan Smith 7600 France Ave So, Minneapolis Birgitte Wyller Bernstsen 1050 Pleasant View Road Michelle Beddor 850 Pleasant View Road I David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road Todd Cocallas 860 Vineland Court Jame Ledin 840 Vineland Court I Steven Jaeger 880 Vineland Court David & Linda Lyndahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive Don & Darlene Miller 395 Pleasant View Road II Dan & Sharon Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive Renelle R. Ulrich 6581 Nez Perce Drive David & Paula Donna 881 Vineland Court II Frederic Bruno 6560 Fox Path Steve Beddor 1010 Pleasant View Gail Dorn 1010 Pleasant View Jim & Mary Stasson 6400 Peaceful Lane I Mike & Mary Meuwissen 6580 Troendle Circle Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road Darlene J. Lyndsey 7951 Powers Blvd. II Daryl Fortier Golden Valley David Sellergren St. Paul Julius C. Smith Chaska Bill & Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path I W.P. & B.J. Gullickson 830 Pleasant View Road Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road Larry Tivy 370 Pleasant View ll Jeff & Norma May 745 Pleasant View II John & Jan Nicolay 608 Pleasant View Road Peg Scheletzche 680 Pleasant View I Karen Robideau 540 Pleasant View David Kelly 6580 Nez Perce Drive Jerry & Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road I A.W. Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Kenneth Lincap 6735 Nez Perce Drive Kimberly Murphy 6870 Nez Perce Drive II John Schevenius 570 Pleasant View Road Conrad & Michelle Eggan 6500 Peaceful Lane Greg & Barbara Hedlund 748 Lake Point II Marlow Peterson 1180 Pleasant View Road Lynda Johnson 1140 Pleasant View Road Hank 855 Pleasant View John M. Cunningham 6665 Horseshoe Curve II Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Sharon Graef 855 Pleasant View Road Jim Meyer 6225 Ridge Road II Steve McKinnon 941 Lake Lucy Road Jeff Schoenwetter J.M.S. Development Ron & Karen Green 1021 Lake Lucy Road Teresa & Dan Schrempp 1041 Lake Lucy Road II Bryce, Shelly, Luke & Katie Fier 1040 Lake Lucy Road II 6 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 II Name Address II Todd & Gayle Lantto 981 Lake Lucy Road Jim & Sue Duchene 961 Lake Lucy Road II Mary Jo Olson 1020 Lake Lucy Road Terry Bauk 960 Lake Lucy Road Len Kluver 1080 Lake Lucy Road II Jenny Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road Jan Hansen 1081 Lake Lucy Road Darryl & Liz Ann Wills 1060 Lake Lucy Road II Rodd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road Ron Green 1021 Lake Lucy Road Mayor Chmiel: Paul, prior to Mr. Beddor conveying his presentation, I would II like you to provide the Council some of the background that we have done with this particular project. So just sort of a refresher and I think you've probably all read it but I think there may be something you may have to add to I it. • Paul Krauss: Sure Mr. Mayor. The original roadway concept was developed in II 1989 with the Vineland Forest plat. At that time the city contemplated running the internal street in Vineland Forest between Lake Lucy and Pleasant View Road. Mr. Beddor, and several others, raised concerns with potential traffic issues on Pleasant View and it was agreed that the city should study options that minimize II the potential for problems and minimize the concerns before they ever had a chance to occur. Staff developed 4 alternative road alignments. Ultimately the City Council 'selected what was referred to as Alternative *3 which has really I served as the guiding document for all the city decisions since 1989. That does show a connection, generalized a connection between Pleasant View and Nez Perce via the Peaceful Lane intersection. The plat, the Vineland Forest plat was II approved based upon the plan for the connection. Every home buyer in Vineland Forest is put on notice through notice in the chain of title that the road's to be extended and there was a temporary cul -de -sac constructed with a barricade that had a sign on it that said this road is to be extended. The Lake Lucy Road II loop that's recently being billed as a solution by some was studied in the 1989 document, which I included in your packet. It doesn't show up on the alternatives but we did go through an analysis of all the potential connections II into the Vineland Forest, Troendle, Owens area and it was dismissed at that time. Largely because it really didn't resolve the access issues. Because it would have impacted lots on Lake Lucy Road and because there was some grade questions. Grade's not impossible. It could be done but it was pointed out as II a problem. I should point out that where that Lake Lucy Road loop is now being proposed is an outlot that was acquired by the city a number of years ago potentially for right -of -way. Homes have since been built on Lake Lucy Road on II those two adjoining lots. Since we didn't anticipate this road, or this outlot coming back as a road, those two homes were built with less than the required front yard setbacks on what's in essence their side yards, which would face this II outlot. One is 25 feet from the right -of -way. The other's 27 feet and I haven't been inside the homes but it looks like the orientation is that, because the garages are away from the outlot, that some of the living space is actually focused on the area that is in the outlot. So again that was studied. City II code does require a 20 foot setback if a street's to be put through there. There would be a variance situation that would result. There would probably be II 7 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 some fair sized impacts to those homes as well. In 1990 Mr. Beddor brought forward plans to develop the Troendle Addition. Lake Lucy Road residents were very concerned and were very vocal at that time about having all the growing ' levels of traffic into the Vineland Forest, Troendle Addition coming down Lake Lucy Road, Nez Perce in front of their homes. They came to the Council meeting and asked that no approvals be granted for the plat until the road connection was made. Mr. Beddor's representatives indicated strong support for the connection as illustrated in Minutes and materials that were submitted by them. However, they indicated that the connection was ultimately out of their hands at that point since the last piece of the puzzle is the Owens parcel and that was ' in a bankruptcy proceeding at that time. They indicated that they were negotiating on that parcel and would be cooperative with the city. The Council considered limiting the number of lots that could be built on the Troendle Addition. I don't know if all of you recall but you actually approved it ' preliminarily with I think only 6 lots being allowed, if memory serves. Ultimately we sat down with Mr. Beddor's representatives and negotiated an arrangement whereby they were allowed to proceed with the entire plat based on ' the road connection ultimately being made incrementally, which was always it's design, and that they would pay $10,000.00 towards the ultimate cost of that road which was computed to be what would have been assessed to those lots had ' they had a road project existed. A development contract was...and I understand that the money was, or a letter of credit was deposited for it. Similarly with the Vineland Forest plat, the Troendle Addition homeowners were also put on notice that the road is to be extended. The city then approved a grading plan ' which allowed Mr. Beddor to regrade and landscape the ponding area on the Owens parcel. This was approved based upon the determination that finish grading would still allow the connection to be made and that reasonable development of the site with single family homes would remain possible. There has since been related a smaller scale actions including, that were related to the road connection including a small lot division in Vineland Forest. And again, we have exhibits that were prepared by Mr. Fortier on behalf of Mr. Beddor illustrating how that connection would be made. The Owens parcel cleared bankruptcy and was sold in two pieces. Mr. Beddor acquired the north half while another developer has purchased the south. The owner of the south half ' currently has a plat pending that's based upon the approval of the connection to Pleasant View Road. It was scheduled for last week's Planning Commission meeting but in light of the fact that you were discussing roadway issues and we couldn't really act on the plat without the roadway being determined, we pulled it from the agenda to await your decision. At the same time we received that plat, Mr. Beddor's representatives announced opposition to the street connection and implied that they would be building a home that would sit in the propose ' alignment. We've since had exhibits that show where that home would be. When this came up before the Troendle Addition, staff was asked to bring this item back to the Council within 18 months or when anything significant occurred on it. We did bring it back to the Council in May. We did bring it to you asking that you consider official mapping or some other mechanism to at least reserve the right -of -way through there so that the road connection could ultimately be ' made. The Council at that point elected to order the condemnation of the right -of -way and that was the last official action that was taken on this proposal. There's a tremendous amount of information of one sort or another that circulated on this issue. Staff continues to believe that the connection makes sense from a traffic safety, for vision of emergency and maintenance services, traffic equity and good planning practices standpoint. We'd be happy ' 8 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 to expand on each of those if desired but we've prepared numerous staff reports that go into them in detail. With that I would close, except I'd like to add a comment on some of the calls that we've been getting. There seems to be an implication that the City was studying or is thinking about studying the widening of Nez Perce south of Lake Lucy Road or Pleasant View Road itself, or additional connections into the Fox Chase subdivision. None of those are in fact the case. None of those have been talked about in the 4 years I've been involved with this issue. With that Mr. Mayor, that's the background on it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Don, do you. Don Ashworth: If I could Mr. Mayor. The City Council can be reasonably assured II that you will have 50 or more residents from Lake Lucy Road expounding upon the dangers that exist on that roadway and the terrible impact that will be created II if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is reconnected to Lake Lucy Road. City Council can also reasonably expect 50 or more residents from Pleasant View expounding upon the dangers of that roadway and the terrible impact that will occur if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is allowed to connect to Pleasant View. Property owners along Lake Lucy Road will be asking the Council not to reconsider the decision that was made by the previous Council and Mr. Beddor 4 years ago. Property owners on Pleasant View will be asking that the Council act to reconsider that decision. I believe it is reasonable to state that property owners on both Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Road can contend that they made decisions to purchase or sell relying upon their reading of the Minutes where II Mr. Beddor received his approval, relied upon the signs that were posted showing the new connection, and relied upon the covenants which were placed on each of the lots which showed that connection would be made to Pleasant View. I don't think that the current Council should get caught in the dilemma as to the effects of 15 or 20 lots on either of the two streets. The sole question to be answered is, did Mr. Beddor portray how the traffic from his new subdivision could best gain access to and from their properties and had the City Council agree with Mr. Beddor's presentation. Unfortunately we cannot go back and eliminate the 15 to 20 lots. Accordingly, the only issue we can reasonably review is whether or not that decision had been made and whether or not Mr. Beddor had made those commitments as a condition of his plat approval. If there's a liability issue, it currently rests with Mr. Beddor. Staff cannot recommend that liability now be shifted to the city. Reconsideration cannot be recommended. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Beddor. If you'd like to go through your presentation as to what you have. Frank Beddor: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I didn't realize I was such a bad guy. I would like to have, if I could, I'd like to have Daryl assist me. I don't have overheads but I would like to show a couple of plats, or boards. I appreciate the opportunity to come here before I would like, before I start to clear the air on a few items. In one of the memorandums that went out by the city it sounded as though I was questioning the integrity of the Minutes that were kept at the last meeting. The last meeting of the 24th I was unable to attend and I had Daryl Fortier and Jules Smith attend. Well, sometime after that I read the Minutes of the meeting and when I read these Minutes I was very upset and I called Jules and I said Jules, what were you doing at that meeting? I didn't see one word in there where you made a presentation about our solution. Jules 9 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 said well, I certainly made the presentation. Maybe they ran out of tape. Maybe they were changing tape, so I said fine. Then I called Daryl and I said Daryl, I just read the Minutes and I said, I know that Jeff, the developer of Owens' is a nice young guy but why were you up making presentations on his behalf? He said well that was an error. They probably should have put, they just accidentally put my name down instead of his. I said okay, I can understand that. I said but how come you didn't make any presentations on the solution? He said, well I don't know. I made the presentation and what I put in this little mailing was, is that it was a coincidence that both representatives that I had here, there was no mention in the Minutes about what ' the solution was. And I apologize to the, either staff or Council if they felt in my mailing I sent out I was trying to question the integrity. I think I used the word coincidence. Incidentally, we have had some meetings with different ' homeowners and I was very surprised at one of the meetings when one of the Vineland people said to me, you know I can't sign this petition you have and the reason I can't sign this petition is we signed a covenants. In our title there's a covenants that says, give me a second. That we're not allowed to sign this type of petition and I said, well I can't really believe that. I said I have a developers agreement after that period. That's not on my developers agreement, I don't think. So I had Jules check it out and I kind of blew up a copy of the 1989, December 18th of the developers agreement with Vineland Forest and to read just part of it. It says, each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland Forest agrees not to object to such a possible future roadway extension. So I said, now that might not have anything to do with me or at Troendle's but then we talked to the developer and he sent us a letter and he said that provision was put in the covenants and the restrictions at the insistence of the City of Chanhassen. Now wasn't involved in that. At the time this came up we did not ' own either Troendle's property and we didn't own Art Owens property. But if this was such a, if 4 years ago here this was such a cut and dry deal, I wonder why that wasn't put in our developers agreement. The other thing that, before I ' start, that I'd like to check on is, people are wondering why we're concerned • about Pleasant View Road being widened. Well, one of the reasons I'm concerned about it, I'll get into in just a second but at a meeting on August 8th, 1990 when we were applying for a plat, Jules called me and said well, I'm all set ' with the plat. However, there's one last thing you have to do. Really two. You have to donate or dedicate some land along, a strip along Pleasant View Road. I said what do we need that for, and let me read what the memo I got from ' Jules said. This is, he's quoting the staff. The reason that the staff stated, one reason amongst others. You are dedicating this property to the city so that they will own this property in the event that they wish to widened the road in ' the future. And if it were not dedicated at this time, and they decided to widened the road in the future, they'd have to condemn the property and reimburse you for the value. Well of course my antenna went up when anybody talks about widening the road. One other thing that did happen during that ' time, so we dedicated the land. Now I didn't agree with that but I accepted it. You know a lot of times you accept something, that sounds like an agreement but I accpeted it because we didn't have any other choice. Another item we had to ' accept was, and I probably take a little exception at this. That we pay $10,000.00 for improving Nez Perce Road or making the extension. Well first, we didn't pay $10,000.00. We issued the city a letter of credit to be drawn upon when and if there is a new intersection. I was told that this $30,000.00 was needed not to extend Nez Perce Drive, but where Pleasant View or where Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View join, there's two great big wide swinging turns and they 11 10 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 wanted to bring that back into a T. So to make that T was going to cost $30,000.00 so they couldn't assess Vineland anymore because they had already settled with the city. So they were assessing Troendle's and I put up the letter of credit because I didn't want it as an assessment. I had to have clear title to the lots, and then they were going to assess whoever bought Art Owens property and what they're going to do to the other $10,000.00, I don't know. But you know it kind of sounds as though Frank Beddor knew all about this road. He willingly put in money. He had to get his permit and he was going to contribute towards the extension of Nez Perce Drive. And that's not really true. I was under the impression that this was for a T in the road. I do have one thing to say to the, that I would like to address for a second to the Lake Lucy residents. All of us that live on Nez Perce Road and Pleasant View sympathize with your problems of increased traffic and speed and safety and maybe a partial answer there would be stop signs and lowering the speed. But you know it was 8 or 9 years ago that we were at this same kind of a meeting and Pleasant View was going to be widened at that time and we defeated that and if that road had gone through at Pleasant View at that time, I don't think anybody from Lake Lucy would be living on that road and I brought a plat just to show what that is. What was proposed way back 8 or 9 years ago, when Near Mountain was going in, was coming from TH 101, right straight across to Pleasant View Road. Down behind Pat Cunningham's and right out where Lake Lucy is. My contention has been to the Lake Lucy people is, that if we let this extension go through, it's going to create more traffic and now it's going to be more traffic that's going to come on Nez Perce Drive, Pleasant View Road and also just the extra spillage that's going to come on Lake Lucy. So when the question comes up about we're 1 never going to extend. We never think we're going to widened Pleasant View Road. We've gone through that. The residents that have been here, we've gone through that before. I thought this was an impossible situation then and this was already in my mind. At that time, if I remember right, was okayed by the city and the Metropolitan and it was because all the homeowners came out, and even the developer was against it, of Near Mountain, that we defeated that purpose. You know, tonight the statement was made that this is a Frank Beddor issue and I don't think it's a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel I'm standing up here alone tonight. We have the petition signed by 202 homeowners on Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive and Vineland and I don't think that it's just Frank Beddor. I believe that I'm representing a lot of other homeowners who feel the same way I do. And I would like to briefly tell you how I envision what happened since 1989. Daryl, can you put. In 1989 the developer came with this plan, which was two cul -de -sacs to develop that property. And the city evidentally objected to this and you have to remember at this time we did not own any of the other property. They wanted a cul -de -sac that comes up to the property and then a short one off Pleasant View Road. And then city staff came up with what we, the 4 plans you're talking about and what they recommended was plan 4. And we violently opposed plan 4. Plan 4 connected a straight shot through Pleasant View and we were all here at that meeting and what we recommended was 3, which ended up being 3A. And that was as shown up here on the plat, a cul -de -sac. Now we're talking that we agreed to it and we said fine. That I agreed to it. We accepted it. That this was the road and everybody from that point on was going to abide by this road. Well, if that were true, you notice there's a big cul -de -sac going up in here. That cul -de -sac is not in there. What we were concerned obviously was, and we always have been, is the increased traffic. We voted for plan 3, not because we thought it was the best plan but it was certainly better than plan 4. So we said, the people 11 11 1 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 who were here, and it was our understanding that this was going to be looked at because nobody owned Troendle's property. Nobody owned Art Owens property. So to say tonight that 4 years ago or in 1989 this was a cut and dry deal, I don't ' feel that's accurate. Now I was enthusiastically for 3. I sent out a petition for 3. I got a lot of people here to vote for 3 because that was a lesser of two evils. Then in March of '91 we purchased the Troendle property. And we did it a little differently again than the city recommended. You know Pleasant View Road has a character and it always has had the character of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 acre lots and we've tried to keep it in that area. So we did not put the 7 or 8 lots up that showed in the cul -de -sac on the plat as presumably was okay then. We ' showed, we made one big lot on Pleasant View Road of 2 acres. And then we took the Troendle house and made that into a lot off Nez Perce Drive and one other one along side of it. And when we later purchased the Art Owens property, it ' was a mess. The pond was a mess. In going back through the history, this originally, that I found out, was caused by the city when they put the sewer in in 1970. They cut off the drain. They didn't discover that until they put a water tower in in 1980 and then the city went out and corrected that problem with Art Owens but by the time he was supposed to correct his part, the city did their part and he was supposed to correct his part. He was in a bankruptcy so we wanted to go in and clean that area out. What we did, we ended up in our ' plat with 3 lots on the south part and 11 lots in the back. And out of those 11 we exchanged 3 of them with the developer of Vineland for the 3 that were running in tandem from Nez Perce to Pleasant View. So then the remaining 8 lots ' we sold to a developer. Not, a homeowner, Michael Holmes. And then we platted that and when we went for the plat, it was recommended we only have 6. The plat was okayed. Not like it was in 1989. Not with the big cul-de-sac. de -sac. Not with 7 or 8 more lots up 'in the south but there was 3 on one end, on the north end and ' there was 11 on the back, 8 of which we ended up with and sold. Art Owens had his property platted way back in 1989 and he showed in this front property, which the city approved 5 lots on Pleasant View. We did a lot of research and we looked, we talked with Art Owens and unfortunately Art Owens was caught up in, a bad bankruptcy proceeding with the government, which in my opinion was the result of Art Owens standing up for his religious beliefs and the government kind of took him to task. That may be a different item. But we purchased the 3 acres of Art Owens and then when we looked at putting in 5 lots, we found that the cost to bring those lots. To dig down, get rid of all that muck, it's kind of in a wetland area. To bring it up to the right height would cost about ' $70,000.00 per lot. So then we explored the possibility of two lots and we did get a permit for grading and we kept in mind that there was a possibility of someday that this could come through. Well, it took 2 years of negotiating with ' Art Owens to get this cleared going through the bankruptcy court. During this period of time I was informed by my legal counsel that Lot 5, Lot 5 is the whole 3 acre lot. That Lot 5 was one lot and we would not have to go to the city to plat that if we wanted to just get a building permit to build one house, and we ' looked at it. We thought well, that really makes more sense for just having one house there. We never thought seriously that the, which I certainly was wrong, that the city would ever think of condemning private property for an interplat ' use and have to use taxpayers funds when it doesn't serve the whole community. However, we did grade the property. We got a permit for that. Then things took a little brighter look. At least in my mind. See but ever since 1989 I said ' there's got to be a better way to develop all this property rather than bringing excess traffic back through Pleasant View and Nez Perce because any connection's going to increase it. So we came up with a plan which would be to take, go up 12 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 f the driveway and go right back out Lake Lucy Road. And this would give 13 lots and I said well, we're in the right direction. I think if we can think long enough we can come up with a solution. However, after looking at that, there was 3 pitfalls of this so we never brought this to the City. One was that the grade was too steep. That we were told going up Lake Lucy. Second, it did not help the Lake Lucy people because it did not get rid of the traffic that comes onto the Troendle. But the third one was that you would have to tear out a lot of trees to go up the driveway to Art Owens. So then we took a good look at those trees and where the proposed development is now, still that development we had, the same thing still holds true. If you look, going up this driveway, the yellow is where the driveway presumably is and the white is the outside of that driveway. This is going up the driveway. The next one is looking from the driveway going back down. And the third one that we researched is, we went back and counted all those trees and measured all those trees then we found that there was between 20 to 33 trees going up that driveway and some of those trees are 60 to 80 years old and to 100 years old. That was one of the reasons why we never came back to the Council with this plat going straight thru. We thought, at one point I thought that was an answer because out of 13 lots, Pleasant View would take half of them. Lake Lucy would take half of them and we'd eliminate the connection. So we did not, we were looking at purchasing Art Owens southern property but we felt his asking price was too high because what we wanted to do was to leave his driveway alone. Come up to his house and make two big lots and possibly maybe develop 7 lots in the back, exiting on Lake Lucy. This didn't seem to be feasible from the standpoint of a cost standpoint so we did not purchase the property. Then a nice young guy named Jeff bought the property. He came to you with a plat and we met with Jeff. We met with him in our office and we had a visit-with him and he told us that he was not really concerned about the road. He didn't want to get involved in the road issue. So I said, well do you have any other suggestions? So we looked at this, this is the board we call the problem. The way the road's going through. He said well rather than coming up that driveway, he said maybe I'd like to come across your property and turn in and come off Nez Perce Drive. Leave the road where it is but come up through this area and not come up on the other side. So that was a good idea. It saved all the trees but it didn't answer the one question about additional traffic. So Jeff left and Jeff no more left and I thought, my lord. Daryl, there's something we ought to check out. We're always talking about Lake Lucy for 4 years and that, that it's too steep and what is it? 8. or 9% that's too steep. I said why don't you go over there and check that grade for me. And he did and the next day he came back. The next day and said to me, that the grade going up Lake Lucy is only 5.3.. The grade going up Nez Perce Drive going in the way we're proposing it is 5.5% and the grade going up the way that the city is agreeing to, or the developer wants it going up Owens is 10.5.. So now I'm delighted. I said now we've got a real win -win- win -win situation. We could win for the city because they don't have to condemn the property. The homeowners of Nez Perce Drive and the homeowners of Pleasant View won't have any additional traffic. We have a win situation for the developer. He gets 14 lots instead of 13. And in my opinion, we had a win situation for the Lake Lucy people because anybody that lives in Art Owens or Troendles is going to come down Lake Lucy and then take a left go right up into the area. So we thought that this solution was great. And I said Daryl, I said Jules, we just thought of this a short time, a week before this meeting so when people say they have explored these possibilities, saw Lake Lucy before, I have never seen any plans for that myself. So maybe, I'm sure somebody has but I suddenly thought we had an 13 1 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 original thought. I was all excited about having this solution so I said, go over to the Council and tell them we've got a win - win - win -win situation. So they did, and I couldn't be there and the conclusion, they came back. Nobody 11 even wanted to listen to the solution, or they'd listen to it but instead, my property's condemned. Now, I'm not dishearten because we have another solution. After that I happen to run into Art Owens and Art said you know there's one thing Frankie I don't like about your proposal and that is that it comes too ' close to my house. So I said okay, that's a good concern. So I went back and I said to Daryl, I said what if Marilyn and I sacrifice one of these lots. Lot 9. The way the city would word that would be to dedicate that. What if we dedicate ' that. Kind of like, it's kind of like Clinton you know. You're not going to pay more taxes. You're going to have a little sacrifice here. So he went back and came across Lot 9 and came back out this way. The developer still gets 13 ' lots. 12 plus the house and I said, we're not going to have to take any trees down on either end so I thought that was the best deal. Now, the reason I'm here tonight is, and I appreciate your time and your efforts to let me speak tonight. First, I don't feel that this is a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel ' that I ever signed a contract or said yes, I absolutely agree that this is going to go through. And it probably is a little disheartening to me to think that you would sign a contract with someone like Vineland and put it in that he will ' not fight back. And a year afterwards I buy the property, why wasn't that put in my contract. We've been trying to keep, we've been trying to stay, not this one Daryl. Let's see, I'll leave that one on. So what I'm asking tonight of ' the Council is for you to, yeah. Is for you just to rethink or to give another chance and go back and take a look. It was 4 years ago that decision was made. Now isn't there anybody here that made a decision 4 years ago and later, if nothing was happened, they made another decision and found the better decision for it. So I'm officially asking tonight that the, and I'm requesting, respectfully requesting, that the city of Chanhassen do the following. Order a preparation of an update of a feasibility study which would add Lake Lucy option ' to it because before we had two options. 3 and 4 and now we have a third one. And you know in that you could include the total cost. Including the land acquisition. The new ownership interest. The difference between what would happen if in Peaceful Lane or if you went up south of Lake Lucy. What the impact on tree removal would be. The impact on the slopes. The storm sewer issue. But even more important than that, and before that's done, I think it would be wise if the city on their own would prepare an environmental assessment ' worksheet. This would analyze the traffic. That's the traffic on Lake Lucy and the traffic on Pleasant View. You know since 4 years ago there's a lot of new people that moved in. There's some Council people here that weren't there 4 ' years ago. They could look at the safety of the traffic issue and the air pollution, the tree removal and the wetland impact. Darlene, can I have those. This is what I'm requesting. Would you bring me up those. Mayor, pass those out to each of the members there. Mr. Mayor, I've given you all the original copies of the petition and I've given everybody else here a type written copy, alphabetized, there are 202 residents in this area who are all taxpayers. Who are all voters and they are homeowners who feel the same way we do and I do not ' feel that this is a Frank Beddor issue, and I do not feel that I stand alone. I feel that I have the support and I'm just 1 of 200 that are standing here tonight and I would hope that the Council would listen to the overwhelming, the voice of the overwhelming majority. Thank you very much. 14 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I just didn't want this to take up much more time with all the applause. I'd like to ask Council for any of this reconsideration and I'd like to start with Mark. Mark, do you have any comments or questions that you may have regarding this? 1 Councilman Senn: I don't know, I wasn't here I guess 4 years ago when all this came up one way or the other. The thing that strikes me the most about it is that from everything I've now received and read I know 50 some letters and 50 some phone calls I think. There was a lot of information to be had. The thing that strikes me the most out of it is, is that there's really an apparent safety problem on take Lucy Road. You go look at Lake Lucy Road and it's kind of hard to disagree with that premise or that assumption. A lot of traffic moves through there and it moves through there at a pretty good clip. At the same time I look at it and I say, well the solution for Lake Lucy Road isn't to move the problem. Or split the problem. Or to redefine the problem. And then I get back to looking at the overall issue of should the extension go through or shouldn't it. I'm not prepared tonight to say whether the extension should go through or shouldn't go through. I don't think I have anywhere near enough information to make that judgement tonight. I hoped to spend some time with Charles this week before the meeting but he's on vacation so that kind of made that impossible. From a traffic standpoint it seems to me that, there are traffic controls and there are ways to control traffic. There's ways to reduce speeds and there's ways to reduce traffic through a given area. The ultimate solution here may be the extension. But either way if you look at the amount of traffic going through that area, I think ultimately not only the extension is the issue but also what safety controls or what traffic controls are you going to put into place to assure that you don't grade or further exasperate a bad safety condition. And I'm not sure I'm always on the same side as staff is that way because I'm not as opposed to cul -de -sacs as they are and I'm not as opposed to what I'm going to call traffic safety measures or traffic barriers as I think staff is. I would really like to look further into the issue and really make sure that we solve a traffic safety problem and not create another one. That's what I guess I look at the real issue as being. You know not whether a street i= extended or not. In looking at that, I don't know if all the alternatives again have been looked at or not. I mean I've had a quick couple of weeks to read a lot of memorandums and letters but again I wouldn't say that's anywhere near adequate to make a decision. So from that standpoint I guess I'd like a little more time to look at it and to see some of the alternatives. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: Is this a lottery? ' Mayor Chmiel: I decided I'd move it around a little. Councilman Wing: Well I was on record back when all this occurred as supporting what we did, having been on the Council at that time. But I also was very protective of Pleasant View Road and it's future and it's aesthetics and it's a horse trail. I think calling it a poorly designed horse and cart trail but I'd like to keep it that way because that's one of my major thoroughfares for jogging and running and biking, especially in the fall months. So I'm certainly not anti Pleasant View but this thing's all, some of the comments tonight, you know where was I? I attended all of the Planning Commission 15 ' 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 II meetings. I attended all the Council meetings. I haven't missed any. Looked at all the alternatives and the facts as I remember them, the issues that occurred as I remember them, to the best of my ability, don't coincide with the II comments that were made tonight and the petition with 250 names is wonderful if the facts that went into that petition are accurate. And I won't attest to that, whether it's right or wrong but I do know that, you know I've got this pile of letters, like we all have and here's half from this side. Here's half I from this side. And they're all 100% diametrically opposed which means there's two real hard core positions here. So now it's up to us. We're elected to make some decisions based on facts and dealing with some issues and one half at some I point's going to be mad and one half is going to be happy. I voted with the unanimous Planning Commission and I voted with the unanimous Council at that time to go ahead with the option we selected, and we looked at options 1, 2, 3, I 4, 5. I mean all of them. We looked at north, south, east, west, up, down. Going straight thru and to call this a collector road is inappropriate. I think this is a neighborhood connecting road. It's got a lot of turns and curves in it. It's not going straight thru to anyplace. It comes off Nez Perce and makes II a hard turn. Goes up, makes a hard turn. Winds around. Makes a hard turn. That's not a collector street. And the issue of Pleasant View Road at that time and tonight to me remains almost a separate issue. The impact of this, II regardless of what we do. Whether we make this a U and it goes onto Lake Lucy. the impact is massive. So whether we go up to Pleasant View. No one can tell me what the impact's going to be because we looked at the traffic counts and the traffic studies back then and we looked at how many cars were going to be moving II north, south and the predicted road movements. And the issue came up, it's going to be coming from the east and the west, not the north and the south. This isn't a major dollector going from one point to another that's going to be I the major road. So if I was asked right now to review this, based on all the work, we went through and the Planning Commission went through before, I think we're asking ourselves what's new. What are we reviewing? We've already gone II over all this. On the other hand, if the majority of Council wants a little . more time, I can also accept sending it back to the Planning Commission and have this proposed new idea. And this isn't a proposed new idea to me. It's just old news that we're being asked to review again. If a review is appropriate, I I have no problem with that. We've looked at Lake Lucy as being a dangerous situation. Quote you know. There's been no accidents there. We've looked at Pleasant View. Mr. Harr's reviewed the accident history there in depth. II "Dangerous road ". I won't deny that. We've said that on many other roads. What are we going to do about it? But what's the Planning Commission going to do? Come back with the same recommendation? Or are they going to come up with I a new recommendation based on...information so I don't know if we're wasting time or not. But if this is a very heated issue, I think the residents on this side deserve to be heard, maybe in a little more established manner and this group allowed once again to present their case. And if there's anything new in II 1993, so be it. I guess I would stay with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen. II Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was wondering which way you'd go. Well there are just volumes here and I've tried to catch up on the history and I can plead II innocence to being here when the decisions were made but, I've weeded through the volumes and there are some, I've tried to gather all the salient points but there are a lot of exterraneous issues here which I think really fuddle it up. II 16 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 The way I see it there are two related but really separate issues. You definitely have a safety problem. That's come through with everyone I've talked to. Every letter I've read. And then we have the road extension. I guess I'm not, a lot, a lot of time and effort has been put into this extension by staff. By the Council. By all the residents and by Mr. Beddor. Like Richard, I'm not sure what's going to be accomplished by looking into it more. I guess I'm, you know I've been out there several, 7 -8 times in the last week. Driving the speed limit and walking it, and you know I'm not a planner but it just makes sense to continue that road. Just as much as it makes sense that people will not be using that to cut through. If you come up, if you're going north on Nez Perce, it's very unnatural to turn and continue to go on Nez Perce. You're going to shoot out Lake Lucy, unfortunately because we do need some, we have some safety concerns there and we do need some traffic control, which I would recommend that we look into as opposed to relooking at this extension issue. So I guess I'm not ready to look at, to send it back down and look at it again. I think the Council has moved on it. I think we do need to look at the safety issues. I think it's worth looking at and making it where Lake Lucy and Nez Perce connect, maybe doing a 3 way stop there. Just as much as where Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View connect to make that a definite T to tighten that up, which I understand is the plan. The only thing that I think people are still uncertain about that it hasn't been addressed yet tonight is the cost, because I think there was some misinformation sent out about who's going to be paying for this extension. Paul, if you could expound on that. Paul Krauss: We received some information that preported to give data on the cost of the roadway. The only information that we have is in the feasibility study that was.done for the City Council. That does not take into account right -of -way costs, which is obviously significant. But the cost as I recall was $127,000.00. I might also add that, as we're on the subject of the feasibility study, that the feasibility study that was prepared by an engineer working for you shows a grade of 5 1 /2% on the Nez Perce connection, not 10: which was illustrated earlier. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, you can go out there and look at it. Paul Krauss: But the cost of right -of -way is a significant issue and with the action to go to condemnation, that will tell you what the cost of the property is. I don't have any additional information. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, but the crux of the issue I think for most of the people here is, will they be assessed and the answer is no. Is that correct? Paul Krauss: Well again, you never, I think you received the feasibility study 11 but you didn't approve it or whatever you need to do. You didn't order the project so we can only conjecture as to what may or may not be assessed. I mean clearly the Troendle Addition has already paid a share and as Frank mentioned, it was anticipated. You know Frank's share was theoretically for the connection from the end of Owens' parcel down Peaceful Lane. The reason for that being is we always assumed we would get the piece across Owens parcel for free. The same way as we got it across Vineland and the same way we got it across Troendle. So in terms of who might be assessed, I mean it was always clear that there was an 17 ' il City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 I assumption that when the Owens parcel developed, that that would bear it's fair share of cost. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just one more comment. Sorry, about the trucks and speed issues. I live in a neighborhood that is still being developed and I find I that most of the safety issues and the speeding vehicles are construction. And I can only say hopefully that will go away soon. That's just been my personal experience with who drives too fast. II Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. I've sat on that road many, well I shouldn't say many times. I've sat on there a couple different times with a radar gun observing speeds and writing down license plates. I've heard this through the I grapevine that has come back to me and said, if that's all he's got to do it's a shame but that's part of my responsibility to do. Because I get the complaints. I'm the guy that gets them on the phone and by letters and I do want you to know I that yeah, there has been some of those vehicles on that road that has exceeded the speed limit. But with writing down the license numbers and checking those license numbers, I've found that almost 98% of those are from that area. And I just wanted to make sure that I made that particular. II Audience: Question. II Mayor Chmiel: No question. I'm not entertaining any questions at this particular time. I'm still talking with the Council and I'm just making a statement that I have made. I've done this in other neighborhoods as well where II I've received complaints and I've done that. Over and over. And I know where it's at and it's normally within that same specific area. Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, just before we get off that. Having served II for 10 years on the Public Safety Commission and having done a minimum of 3 of those traffic studies, I would just concur that your statement is 100% accurate. Ire one case the State Highway Patrol on Highway 7 stated if the local residents I would simply slow down and stop tailgating, you'll resolve your problem on Highway 7. In every case that we studied, the 10 years I was on the Public Safety Commission, not once did we find the problem to be with the outside II traffic. It was local residents in all cases. Documented. Documented cases. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I stand corrected. That's been my observation in my neighborhood but, if that is what you're saying, the case, I then I remember sitting at that podium last year and getting publically berated by Mr. Mayor about our neighbors driving too fast in our neighborhood and I guess you're right. II Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's unfortunate. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. II Councilman Mason: A little history I guess. I've been driving on Pleasant View, well I've been married for 14 years and she was essentially born and II 18 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 raised off of, on Yosemite off of Lake Lucy Road on the other side of Powers f Boulevard. So I'm very familiar with Pleasant View. I live on Woodhill Drive, about 4 houses down from Nez Perce. And I've been there for 7 years. When I moved into Carver Beach there were 2 homes on Woodhill Drive. There are now 9 homes. Lake Lucy Road did not exist. The connection was not there. None of those homes were there. Vineland was somebody's dream. Troendle wasn't there. The only connection was Pleasant View. I was appalled when I came back from a 2 week vacation to see that the 5 acres down my hill had essentially been plowed over and going to get developed. Woodhill Drive went from about oh, seriously maybe 4 cars a day to I don't know, maybe 15 -20 cars a day. To me it was a lot. It still is. I wish there were just 4 cars there. There aren't. And I can't do anything about that. Richard, Don and myself were on Council when all this came by. I was initially opposed to a connection going through there. I thought you know geez, that's awfully close to me. I just, personally I don't want it. I'm seeing my neighborhood get developed. It doesn't make any sense to me. As I've said before, I have to weigh what I think is in the best interest of the city. Now I appreciate the work that Mr. Beddor has put into this and 202 signatures is quite a few. Make no mistake. It certainly is a majority of people on Pleasant View. I take a little issue with the newer residents on Vineland complaining about the traffic simply because they've been there 6 months or a year, whatever and clearly development is part of the problem here. There's precious little we can do about that. After talking with neighbors and after receiving the volumes and volumes of letters, and I have talked with people on Nez Perce that are both in favor and not in favor of that extension. So some people in that area I think are a little up in the air about it. I have trouble reconsidering this. I think we've spent an awful lot of time on it. I know there are unhappy people. I'm sure that the people on Pleasant View think they have continuously taken it on the chin, and I know from driving on that road for 14 -15 years now, it is busier than it was. I question that people that live say in Near Mountain, if they're coming into Chanhassen, are they going to go the quarter mile on Pleasant View and get on TH 101 or are they going to wind around on Pleasant View, come through on Nez Perce and then zip by my house. That isn't how I'd do it and some people probably don't think I'm the norm but I think I'm a little closer than that. We'll see. I think we decided a number of years ago to go through with this and yes, there are times to reconsider. Certainly I've changed my mind on things that happened 4 years ago. While as I understand that there are many people that claim, and I disagree with them that this does not serve their best interest. I think in the long run it does serve the best interest of the city and there are times I think it's unfortunate but my job is to do what I think is best for the city and I think not reconsidering at this point is in the best interest. I would, having said all of that, I'd like to get a real quick opinion from staff about what they think of an updated feasibility study. Paul Krauss: I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure that we have anything more we can give to this issue. You know we've looked at it intensively and maybe we're even too close to it but my staff, the engineering staff has worked on this extensively for 4 years. We had an outside consultant give us a feasiblity study for the connection which says it is feasible. I mean from a technical standpoint it's a relatively easy one to make, and there are cost considerations and others. The issue of the Lake Lucy Road loop is one that can easily be studied. It is in the report that Dave and I did 4 years ago. But we didn't study it in that much depth because it didn't really seem to serve the purpose 19 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 at the time. If you did want to go with another study, I'm not exactly. I mean I would be real specific as to what your expectations are for information above and beyond what you have. And I would also ask that you seek to bring in someone from the outside who maybe could take a fresh run at it. I don't honestly believe it's going to add too much to the argument but if you wanted to do that, that's probably the way to approach it. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. I guess it doesn't take too much reconsideration for some of these things. As was mentioned previously, and I'm not going to reiterate much of the things that have already been said. But when we looked at ' this back at the time that it was proposed, I too thought that the solution that we proposed at that particular time was the best solution for everyone within the city. You always have to take that in and look at that real strong. We're ' not infallible at all, believe me. We're just like you are in making decisions. You know even in your own home but what we think sometimes is right, basically comes up as right. Mr. Beddor gave me a call and asked me to listen to what his proposal was and at that time I said sure. I'll be more than happy to sit down ' with you and talk to you. But I said too that I felt that if he were to make that particular proposal, that all the people within that adjacent area would be in favor of what that proposal might be. And if there was some of that that was not, then my position would be standing as it is right now. I'd like to take the time to study these things, but believe me we've gone back through and we've read and read all the letters and I do appreciate all those letters of concern. All except one or two that I had received. I don't think the Council, nor ' myself as an individual, should at any time take some of the "complete ignorant attitudes" concerning the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. I don't get paid enough money to take those kinds of comments from people. I took ' this job because I thought I could do a job for the city the best I knew how, and it irritated me quite a little bit to see that. I think we try to do the best job we know how, and we work hard at it. So I'm ready to call a question in regards to this of whether or not we should consider additional study or not to reconsider. And I would ask for a motion in regard to this at this specific time. ' Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion saying that no further consideration is needed on this subject. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: I'd just like to make a quick comment to clarify where we are here. I'm going to support the motion, but in doing so I want to make it real clear to everybody in the room tonight that those of us sitting up here are not isolated government. We're you. We're neighbors. We're friends. We're ' acquaintances. We're taxpayers. We're residents of this city. We listened. We've heard what everybody's said. We've tried to obtain the facts and then deal with the specific issue. And that is our responsibility and we were elected by you to be visionary and look to the long term best interest of the city. And I feel very comfortable on my part in supporting Mr. Mason's motion that we have in fact lived up to those expectations. ' 20 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mark. 11 Councilman Senn: I guess I don't see the urgency. I don't see the rush. It ' seems to me in a democracy like this, we have 200 people here that are against something. We have 30 who live on Nez Perce. Again, I can't say I like necessarily Mr. Beddor's solutions that I've seen presented. I can't say that 11 I necessarily like staff's either. I think there are alternatives and that's just from sitting down and playing on a piece of paper. I just don't see again the rush and why after 4 years we can't take another look and just make sure that it's the right way to go before we leap. , Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: I guess my comment to that would be, while as I understand , that Councilman Senn and Councilman Dockendorf are "relative new of what's going on here. I don't see what I'm doing tonight as taking a leap in any way whatsoever. To say that I haven't thought about this. To say that I haven't spent an awful lot of time talking with people. Looking for solutions myself, I think is not doing this Council justice. We've been working on this concern for a number of years. Intensively for the last 2 or 3 months. Taking action tonight is, in my opinion, by no means a leap. Mayor Chmiel: With that I'll, any other discussion? I don't disagree with you 11 about a democracy but democracy has been looked at a long time and I'm not going to expand on what Michael has said. So if there are no other discussions from Council, I'll call a question. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council not reconsider the extension of Nez Perce Drive. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. , (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) AWARD OF BIDS: JOHNSON /TURNER /DOLEJSI TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 92 -5. Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm kind of sitting in for Charles here this evening. He's on vacation. On Thursday, July 8th, 1993 bids were received and opened for the Johnson /Turner /Dolejsi trunk improvement project, Project No. 92 -5. Total of 5 bids were received and the low bid being received was from Northdale Construction in the amount of $746,576.90. The engineer's estimate for the project is $810,000.00. The low bid received is approximately $160,000.00 below the project estimate. Northdale Construction Company has performed satisfactorily previous work in the city. Is therefore recommended that the City Council award the Johnson /Turner / Dolejsi Trunk Improvement Project No. 92 -5 to Northdale Construction Company in the contract amount of $746,576.90. If there's any questions regarding the bids and so forth, Mr. Phil Gravel of Bonestroo and Associates is here this evening to answer those. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dave, I think I have a real simple question. Where is this? 21 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Dave Hempel: I'm sorry, this is located basically north of Trunk Highway 5, approximately a quarter mile along Galpin Boulevard. Just south of the Prince property. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Gotcha. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? ' Councilman Senn: Now what portion of this is assessment? Dave Hempel: That's correct. ' Councilman Senn: All assessment? Mayor Chmiel: All of it, yeah. All of it's assessed back to the adjacent properties. My only question that I had too with this is, we've had dealings with this construction company before within the city and they've performed ' satisfactorily. Dave Hempel: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay. If no other questions. Councilman Mason: I'd move approval. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ' Councilman Senn: Sure. Resolution $93 -63: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council award the Johnson /Turner/Dolejsi Trunk Improvement Project No. 92 -5 ' to Northdale Construction Company in the contract amount of $746,576.90. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I had somebody come up from the Vineland Addition rather upset because they, and perhaps what I said about the Vineland Addition was not said how I meant. I had no intention of inpuning anyone's integrity on Vineland and I did comment to the person that I would make that statement as soon as possible. So I just wanted to clear that up. NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR MINNEWASHTA MANOR HOMEOWNERS RECREATIONAL ' BEACHLOT. Kate Aanenson: This beachlot went before the Planning Commission twice. The ' first time it went through it was unclear as to who was representing the association whether or not there was a cohesive effort or understanding of what the association wanted. In addition, the Planning Commission looked at maybe considering vacating the street because it's really a paper street and the beachiot's under water. In reviewing that and with the advice of the City Attorney, we really ended up kind of complicating the matter and what we're really trying to do is establish the level of use. The beachlot's basically ' been under water for a number of years. It was maybe the year it was platted it wasn't, which was back in 1947. It's always been under water. They've always ' 22 City Council Meeting July 12, 1993 used it in that way so really we're going to ignore that fact and the Planning 11 Commission felt like that, trying to vacate the street and recreate something there really wasn't necessary at this point. What we're really trying to do is establish the level of use back in 1981. One of the main concerns was from the property owner to the north, Mr. Pfeffer who had an L shape in front of his dock and he was concerned about looking out and having that, that channel was dredged as part of the Minnewashta. The channel was dredged and not all the way to the beachlot. And so in order for the members of the association to get enough depth, they put the additional L on. They've agreed to remove that L portion. I think that meets with Mr. Pfeffer's concerns and so the Planning Commission recommended the one dock, 40 feet in length and concurred with the 5 boats at the dock. That's all I had on that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is anyone here from the homeowners association? From Minnewashta Manor. Art Kimber: My name's Art Kimber. Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Could you please come up to the microphone so we can get that recorded. If you stand there it won't pick it up. Art Kimber: Art Kimber. I'm a member of the association. I'm not an officer. And I filed the petition that Kate just mentioned. I've been there 27 years and I'm familiar with what went on in '81. We've paid taxes on that lot from 1947 until 1983, and the taxes went from $1,500.00 to $7,400.00. I protested. They took it up at the County and we were notified that inasmuch as the lot was under water, so was the roadway, that it, I don't know if they said navigable water but they confiscated it. And we felt that's the only access we have. We've been using the road since 1982 when Bill Monk and Tom was there. And they made an agreement at that time, there was a proposal for vacating the roadway and they gave us the right to use the roadway in effect as a beachlot. Or access and we were allowed to place a dock out to where our lot was next to it. And that's the reason we're trying to get the same consideration now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Art Kimber: There's 32 families that use that access. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Council. Why don't I start on this end this time. Councilman Wing: I have no problem with that. I'd just like to know if Mr. Kimber or Mr. Pfeffer could specifically tell us in black and white what occurred there in '81. Exactly in '81, what's your preceived use of that? And I know it's a long way back. The specific question of was there a dock? Were there boats? Art Kimber: A dock has been there. Not this dock but a dock...in 1989. But 1 there was a dock there in '81. Councilman Wing: How many boats would you say were there? ' Art Kimber: We had 10 boats... 1 23 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Councilman Wing: The only other question I would have is, I was over there and you don't have a very nice beachlot. Boy that is really a mess. Art Kimber: You can thank Mr. Pfeffer for that. Councilman Wing: Well, I'm just saying overall that entire channel is so infested with milfoil, it's really treacherous. It's unfortunate. I should have rephrased that. I was referring to the milfoil situation. Art Kimber: ...had that cut several times and Mr. Pfeffer... Councilman Wing: Mr. Pfeffer, my only question to you is, having been over there I think there were 2 or 3 boats there yesterday. 3? Are you, it appears to me in the Minutes that you were comfortable and could live with 5. Herb Pfeffer: That's what the recommendation calls for and I'm agreeable. ' Councilman Wing: Okay, that's fine. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the removal of the L. Councilman Wing: Pardon? Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the removal of the L. Councilman Wing: Well, the motion at the Planning Commission was that the L stay. Kate Aanenson: No. It was removed. Remove the L. Councilman Senn: It says go to a 40 foot dock. ' Councilman Wing: Oh okay. ' Kate Aanenson: I was just going to add one other thing and that was that the Planning Commission did recommend too, at the end of the season that instead of storing the boats on site, that they be removed off site. ' Councilman Wing: Right. Okay. Kate Aanenson: That would help clean it up a little. Councilman Wing: I don't have any problem with that. Councilman Senn: I'm trying to understand something there. I mean I read through this and it talked about boats being stored on land. It talked about boats being stored there over the winter but then at the same time I turn around and read this thing's under water. I mean I don't. ' Kate Aanenson: ...of the beachlot. The street is a dead end. Art Kimber: The road's under water. ' 24 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Councilman Senn: But the beachlot's under water? Art Kimber: 90 some feet of it's under water. 60 feet of road and 30... ' Kate Aanenson: What they're using for the beachlot is the end of the city's right -of -way which is Sandpiper Lane which is an unimproved street. So it actually functions as a. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's actually their's, not. Kate Aanenson: Well it's the city's property. They're using it and we said they've always used it and the Planning Commission concurred that it makes sense for them to continue to use it. The street will never go anywhere because as it gets to this point right here, it's all under water...It was platted in 1947. It's never been above water. It's never been built. It never will be built. Councilman Senn: Okay. So it's kind of like a land swap so to speak. ' Art Kimber: ...it was dry. I moved out here in '65 and it was pretty dry up in there. , Councilman Senn: Are we doing a land swap? Kate Aanenson: No. They've used the city's right -of -way and we feel comfortable , allowing them to continue. We have a sewer easement down there and we may need to get down there. Storm water. We did look at vacating it but it became very complicated as "to who would get the right -of -way if it was vacated. Would we then be taking away the rights of the association and we really felt like what we're trying to do with this process is just establish a level of use and if sometime in the future they want to look at vacating, that we take that through a different process. Councilman Senn: So the update to the update is the one to follow? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Because it went to the Planning Commission twice. Look on the last page. Councilman Mason: When did the Planning Commission decide to take the L out because. Kate Aanenson: June 16th. Last page. 1 Councilman Mason: But on these notes it says, I don't... Kate Aanenson: Take the L out? Councilman Mason: Well, Scott moved, Mancino seconded be permitted one dock 40 feet in length with a 10 foot L section, 5 boats at the dock, no vehicle access and no boats stored on land. Audience: Yeah, that's my recollection. 1 r 25 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Kate Aanenson: I thought it was removed. That's what I took notes for while they were talking. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we have a discrepancy between what the Planning Commission said and. Kate Aanenson: Was it your understanding that the L was to be removed? Art Kimber: We agreed to remove the L. Kate Aanenson: That's what my understanding was that they agreed to it and that's what Mr. Pfeffer wanted. That was my understanding. I don't think the Minutes reflect it accurately. Art Kimber made a statement from the audience. Councilman Mason: And you're okay with the L going? Art Kimber: We agreed... ' Councilman Mason: Well I should say you agreed to it. Okay. Okay, because I couldn't, as I was going back and forth here, okay. Alright. Councilman Wing: I would just move Planning Commission recommendation as stated with concurrence of these gentlemen that it's been agreed to. Do I have to read these off? ' Mayor Chmiel: No. Not if you indicate what the Planning Commission update is and if you'd just only add on June 16, 1993. Councilman Wing: 16th, 1993 and the understanding is that the L will be removed. 5 boats. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the Minnewashta Manor Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot be approved with one dock, 40 feet in length, 5 boats on the dock and no vehicle access. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried unanimously. RECONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE AND NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, LUNDGREN BROTHERS. Kate Aanenson: This is reconsideration of the Boley plat. Back in February the City Council gave preliminary plat approval. One of the conditions of approval at that time was the property located in the city of Victoria get approval. The Planning Commission and the City Council has looked at this. Let me give you a fax that came to me this afternoon from the City Planner of Victoria raising ' some concerns with the staff report. The condition we had in here, number 12 that all the subdivision have approval and we have met with Victoria. The city staff has met with their city staff in looking at how these issues can be 26 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 resolved...all these lots, we're talking about a few specific lots that fall f into the jurisdiction. If you look at the plat, it's in Chanhassen right here. The lots that we're talking about specifically, where they would fall, this is the city line. As you recall, this is also in the shoreland district of a natural environmental lake so the minimum lot size kicks up to 20,000 so you have a little bit different standard there. So besides having to be larger lots, the rears would fall into the jurisdiction of Victoria. They had a concern and felt like they didn't want to approve it and the letter that came from Bill Thibault, the consultant, states that there was misrepresentation as to what the action of the City of Victoria was. They did approve it based on the fact that we agreed to a swap. So they didn't approve it as Lundgren Bros had proposed, which really was what was on the table. So what he's arguing in his letter to the city is saying that they did approve it. They did modify the fact that we agreed to swap properties and we're not sure that it makes sense. ' What they're looking at is trading some buildable lots. What they would like to see happen is, if this does in fact become city property, moving this line here and they would take these lots here. The city's position at this point is that this right here, this narrow strip may not be buildable and they're saying it's 2.3 acres and we've asked them to see how they could service the area. These lots obviously are buildable and we stated before that we...possibly to come in from this area and the fact that there's treed areas up in here and there's a large hill and we'd want to go in there and take all the trees out. Maybe topographically it does make sense. In meeting with them we also asked them to look at how they see the overall service area of this. As you know this area is developing now with Minnewashta Parkway, we'll be seeing a subdivision to the north of this of Kings Road. There is homes off of Kings Road in Victoria. They have to go 'through the city of Chanhassen to get access and we've asked them to look at how they see serving this whole area. When will sewer be provided. So they did do that and one other issue is that they recommended that a stub street be provided possibly in this area. We concurred that maybe somewhere in this section that a stub street is provided. We do concur with • that and that would make some of those lots larger. But we feel like this subdivision. Mayor Chmiel: Kate, when you say make it larger, you're talking. Kate Aanenson: Square footage. If they eliminate one lot, these lots. I've showed it on a compliance table. You would need 20,000. All of these lots would meet the frontage requirements. The setback. The 30 foot. The side yard requirements. The problem that you have is they don't meet, you don't have the rear yard. Or the minimum lot size. So what they've proposed doing is they put together a declaration of yard easements. I put this in here. There's a draft. Roger's made some comments and maybe he may want to speak to that. It's not the best situation but here's a couple scenarios. One, we approved this subdivision and what we recommended in here is that we approve the subdivision and give it preliminary approval and we wait until final platting this section of the subdivision until we can maybe come to an agreement between the City of Victoria and Chanhassen. Where would be appropriate lines? Who's going to serve what? Maybe we come to kind of an agreement where there's some property swapped. Or we leave it sit the way it is and we say, well we feel that we can give a variance then, accept a yard easement. The problem with that is, if it never 1 becomes part of one jurisdiction, you want to put something in your back yard, what happens then? Victoria could say well, we did meet with the Metropolitan i 27 1 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 II look at that. In driving around. It seems as though the setbacks of the driveways from the street are probably, are those the same identical Paul of 30 feet? II Paul Krauss: If I remember right, on Lake Lucy Road, didn't we go down to 25 on some of those? Or 20. II Rick Sathre: No, no. We're at 25. Paul Krauss: So this would be the full 30. II Mayor Chmiel: Well when you drive through there, the homes and size of homes on those lots appears to be, to me, as crowding. They're awfully close to each I other. And maybe because I'm use to the lot I'm on it just seems like they're really a larger home on a smaller lot and it's putting them all together. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in the Willow Ridge subdivision we actually squeezed II down some of the lots and that was one of the big concerns at the time. Effectively each one of these lots far exceeds city standards. II Kate Aanenson: They all have 20,000 square feet. Paul Krauss: But perceptually when you drive past here, they're all going to 1 look like half acre or better lots, and it's quite a bit different than Willow Ridge in that regard. Willow Ridge is squeezed kind of tight. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah'it is. It's really tight I think. II Councilman Senn: Yeah, this is almost double that isn't it? I Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I was concerned about creating another kind as U such and even though this is going to meet all those standards, I think that's better because I had some real concerns with that. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor if I could. One of the things we were discussing, and I possibly Roger can help us on that is that technically these lots have a variance for lot area. Technically they don't. We think the... I (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mayor Chmiel: ...I think what Kate said that the Council felt they just didn't I want to give in to the City of Chanhassen is basically what they said. And that they didn't want to give away any of those property rights. Now if they develop that other piece of property, technically what they have within the city of Victoria right now, if they were to have the MUSA line for them to extend, which 1 is probably what, in the year 2005 or 10? Kate Aanenson: I put it in the staff report. I believe it was 2005. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and right now if they were to proceed with that particular proposal, how many lots would they get out of what is there with the 5 acre ' 30 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 i lots? Five? 1 Kate Aanenson: Out of this one they're looking at, yeah 5 or 6. That's what they're looking at. 1 Paul Krauss: Well no. You're talking about the land in Victoria to the west of the site? Mayor Chmiel: In Victoria, yeah. Right. Paul Krauss: Their Planner actually prepared a plan that conceptually illustrated what they could do with utilities. Kate Aanenson: It's in your report here. ' Paul Krauss: The premise is that with utilities, they don't have utilities and they don't have the means to get utilities here. Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the point. • Paul Krauss: We've always assumed, and I've met with him once or twice. Kate's met with him many times and the City Manager's met with him. That it's probably more practical for them to petition us to provide the utilities to them in that area. Certainly seems much more cost effective, but then again what size lots they're going to allow at that point in time, I think they have a larger lot size. Kate Aanenson: 2 1/2 acre, 1 Paul Krauss: But we are making provisions with the stub road and we do have the ability to run some utilities in there. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess some of the thoughts I have goes back to Minnewashta Parkway and the dealings with the City of Victoria. They didn't have any dollars to make a contribution to it so we took that over and did put that out to Highway 5. It's just a short segment of it and there again, I know whoever drew up the lot lines was a problem. Whoever drew up the road, that's another problem. But in itself I guess that I see that we have made contributions to the city of Victoria with what they're proposing to do and yet when we go back and talk to them, we don't have any reciprocation whatsoever. And it just sort of bothers me a little bit and I'd like to probably say maybe we should sit down with those people. Eye to eye contact and come up with some conclusions. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we've sat down, City Manager to City Manager, Planner ' to Planner but this may be an instance where you've been fairly effective at kind of Mayor to Mayor meeting and we'd be happy to attend. I think we were, you know and I can only talk about the several meetings I was at. We were willing to entertain lots of things but the idea of bringing back to you the idea of exchanging back yards for 4 or 5 lots with $200,000.00 or $300,000.00 houses was just ludicrous. And that's the only idea they continue to broach. And he keeps coming back to that. The issue is not going to go away. In fact it's going to, in the future it will be exaccerbated when we look at the 31 1 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 property to the south that Lundgren also controls because there is no way to serve it from Victoria. Now again, we're willing to consider lots of things but they need to come to the table with a little bit more of an open mind I think. Mayor Chmiel: With an open platter. Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I read through this and this all, you know we have this wonderful development. It's all ready to go except for all these land issues and all these loose ends and I guess why not do it right. Let the developer assume the responsibiity for this and come up with some solutions and work with ' the cities but why develop it until it's squared away. Why pass it onto another Council or another staff some other time. The loose ends here are very impressive to me and if I can quote our esteem legal staff. It ain't very pretty. Paul Krauss: No and I guess I would use some similar language. It is and it's pretty unusual but we've already asked the developer to try to work it out through Victoria. Victoria's been unwilling and the position that Victoria took that we should completely shift our plat a whole city street. Just eliminate that and leave it as an outlot so that Victoria may or may not do something with it in the future which basically makes Lundgren's land over there almost worthless, which doesn't deal at all with the access and utility issues that we've been trying to resolve. Really didn't seem to move anything forward and you know, this is a little bit of an unusual proposal. It frankly does put ' Victoria a little bit behind the 8 ball. I don't know if you want to call it calling their bluff but this is a practical solution. The only one that we could think of that seemed to resolve it. At least in the short term. I think ' long term everybody's going to realize well, it's not a big deal and we'll move the city line. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don. ' Don Ashworth: I think Paul and Kate have brought it out but Victoria would be willing to deannex that strip along the back side. The area that Kate's showing right now, if the City, if Chanhassen would be willing to give up new lots on ' the right hand side. If you'd point those out Kate. And we didn't think that that was really a fair swap. To swap backyards for entire lots just didn't make that much sense. But your point was, let's clean it up. Let's do it right. If you do want it cleaned up, they will agree to that swap. I just don't think it's a fair one. Mayor Chmiel: I don't either. Councilman Wing: I'm not suggesting that's a solution either. Because I want to know who's going to service it. If we're going to. Mayor Chmiel: ...really can. Councilman Wing: Well then maybe we'd better be a little more flexible. At the other end here. 32 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: I think you have to assume that ultimately it probably will 1 end up right. Maybe that's a bad assumption but I mean I just view this as a negotiation. The negotiation is, as long as we don't take an action, Victoria's going to think they have something to negotiate. Which is unreasonable. I mean from what I'm seen. So why not eliminate that issue. Allow the developer to go ahead and I think then you can in effect form a new light on the negotiation. As long as we keep holding it up, it's kind of like well let's keep asking for the unreasonable. Don Ashworth: Another factor in here is that I firmly believe that the best way this area can be served with sewer and water is from Chanhassen. I mean looping the water system through here so that it would connect to our other systems on either side. For Victoria to consider extending sewer and water, and it's a massive wetland area. A massive piece of property owned by the University. It just isn't financially feasible. So at some point I really think that they'll be back here saying, would you guys consider extending sewer and water to this property so that it can develop? And at that point in time we say, yes. We'll consider that but you've got to deannex that piece in the back. • Councilwoman Dockendorf: I see that as a natural course of events too so. Councilman Wing: That item number 15, Kate if we approve this, the city's landscaping plan. Off on the, if you looked at it from Minnewashta Parkway there's a stand of trees that may or may not be left. They exist on the right property line. Then obvious vegetation on the Boley area. I come to you on the sight line from Minnewashta across Lake St. Joe. Directly into that hill and the homes, kind of like that Eden Prairie subdivision down here. Was that addressed? Any ideas, and I'm not asking that it be forested or blocked or the view but was there any, don't tell me the word. I've got to come up with the word here. Minimizing. Modifying. Mitigating. Was anything done to mitigate that sight impact? , Kate Aanenson: If you recall, I don't have the overhead right in front of me but we looked at that hill. We talked about to get the drainage from, to protect the wetland and we wanted proper drainage going back to the street to get into the NURP pond. So we did have to cut some of that hill. But the vegetation that is on the lots that may be platted with the second phase we left out because that's where a significant stand of trees were and we felt that it makes sense to service that coming from the other direction. To save the trees. But some of the hill, the rise of the hill will be taken down. Councilman Wing: Was there any landscaping added then to the west side of , Lake St. Joe on those large... Kate Aanenson: Actually there's a home placement plan. They fit in pretty well into the vegetation. Councilman Wing: Okay, so it's been looked at. 1 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Paul Krauss: That was a concern Richard that I remember you raised when we 1 looked at when the plat came through. 33 1 1 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 I Councilman Wing: This is just preliminary at this point so I've got a chance to look at that? Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Wing: Okay. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor. Was there a second? I Councilman Wing: Second, if there wasn't. Mayor Chmiel: Any additional discussions that were done on this particular parcel? II Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Preliminary Plat 193 -1 for subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots I subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with the following conditions being changed as indicated in bold type: 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barriers at the end of the southerly and westerly street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE ". Notice of the expansion shall be placed in the chain -of -title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. B. This condition' has been met and reflected in Condition 17. II 12. Deleted. 17. The lots which are partially in the city of Victoria shall be platted last • in order for the two cities to work out an annexation - detachment agreement. If no agreement can be made between the cities, The Declaration of Rear Yard Easements, drafted by the applicant's attorney and approved by the ' City Attorney, shall be recorded with the subdivision, and homeowners by apprised of the city limits and restrictions to its use. I All voted in favor of the amended conditions and the motion carried unanimously. TROTTERS RIDGE, LOCATED WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, TANDEM ' PROPERTIES: A. REZONE 31.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. II B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. ' C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND MITIGATE WETLANDS. Jo Ann Olsen: This one was just recently approved by the Planning Commission. It is a rezoning to a PUO. It's also wetland alteration permit. They're II proposing to create 49 single family lots. The site is just now in the MUSA line. Sewer and water is being brought to it so it can be subdivided and can be ' 34 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 rezoned. It's a pretty straight forward subdivision. Some of the issues that were brought up at the last minute at the Planning Commission was the fact that we were requesting that the right -of -way be 60 feet unless the applicant can show reason for it to be reduced to 50 foot right -of -way. This is at the request of the engineering department. At the last moment the applicant did bring in plans that has showed the increased right -of -way to 60 feet. We have not had time to really review that to see the effects to the lots and the lot areas and setbacks and if that really does impact the trees. While the Planning Commission meeting was going on, the engineering department and the applicant did have the opportunity to meet outside the Council Chambers and they came to the agreement that they would provide the 60 foot right -of -way but if there were trees within the boulevard that weren't within where the street was actually going to be located, that they could preserve those trees. That was one of the reasons we were going for the 50 foot right -of -way was to preserve some more of the trees. So with that compromise, that's how we proposed it to the Planning Commission. There was discussion whether or not it should be tabled to have the Planning Commission see the revised plans. But the effect really of increasing that right -of -way to 60 feet wasn't greatly changing the number of lots. The location. The layout or anything so we felt comfortable with it being passed on To the City Council. One of the other issues was the tree removal. As you recall, the Planning Commission is pretty adamant about seeing exactly what trees are on the site. Which are the substantial trees. Which one are being proposed to be removed and which ones are proposed to be preserved. At that time we had not had the tally for each lot to show you which trees were on each lot. What the size was. What the type. So since approval of the Planning Commission, we have put that together and that is now in your report. So yob have details on each lot, which trees will be removed and which trees must be preserved. Other than that, again it's pretty straight forward. It's meeting all the other requirements. There's one lot that still has to provide a 90 foot right -of -way. Or street frontage I mean. And there's hardly, there's no problem with doing that because there's plenty of room on either side of it. The wetland alteration are pretty straight forward. They're only proposing to fill areas of wetlands that were pretty degraded. Cows are pasturing in them and such and they are preserving the nicer wetlands. They are proposing the landscaping that we required and meeting all the other conditions of the Planning Commission recommendations. So we are recommending approval with the conditions that we've added in the staff report from the Planning Commission and we are also, I just wanted to point out that condition number 2 has been met. They have provided the tree information in that so. In your report condition number 2 should be removed. And with that, we're recommending approval with the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Now we're staying with the 50 foot right -of -way? 1 Jo Ann Olsen: No, it's a 60 foot right -of -way. Mayor Chmiel: 60. Okay. That's what I had here because that was one of the questions. Now what was the city getting out of this whole complete package? What benefits are we going to derive from this and protection of the trees are one of the concerns that we have, as staff well knows. Front yard setbacks are at 25 feet, which is the norm. 1 35 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Jo Ann Olsen: 30 feet is the norm. ' Mayor Chmiel: Or 30 feet and here it's back to 25? Jo Ann Olsen: It's allowing it where necessary. Where they can show that they will be preserving some of the natural features by having the reduced setback, they will be permitted to have it. It's not just a straight out 25 foot setback for all the lots. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For each of the typically required 50,000 square feet. Footprints would not create any given problems whatsoever? Jo Ann Olsen: Well they have to show that the building footprint will meet all ' the wetland setbacks. The buffer strips. The other setbacks and they have shown that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: No comments Mr. Mayor. It's sort of a standard subdivision ' with 27, got to have silt fences in and the fire hydrant caps got to be on and it means to me is a lot of cars and a lot of traffic and nothing I'm going to do about it Mayor Chmiel: One of the other questions that I have that I passed by regarding no soil boring information on the site. Have you received anything at all on it as of yet? Jo Ann Olsen: Boy, if I did I gave it right to Steve Kirchman and I don't know if the soil boring information. Mayor Chmiel: This was on page 6. It says staff received no soil boring information on this site. It appears that soil conditions may contain high moisture content and therefore a drain tile system should be included in the ' street construction. And I guess that's the part I wanted to bring up was with that street construction. We ran into that with Kerber Boulevard where we should have had a much better base underneath to alleviate all that water coming ' up between those seams, or probably putting all that together in one piece. And I know eventually the city's going to start paying for it. How are we going to be sure that we don't create the same kind of a problem there. Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor, I can address that. All our new subdivisions now, because we've had such a problem with high moisture content in the roadway bases as well as sump pump discharge from households. We're implementing a new policy that the city streets will require drain tiles 3 feet deep, a foot behind the curb to eliminate subsurface drainage problems as well as give an opportunity for homeowners to have a place to discharge the sump pumps in lieu of somebody ' else's backyard or illegally in the sanitary sewer system. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good. That sounds great. That's what I'm real concerned with. Okay, I guess I don't have any other. ' Councilman Mason: I'm going to put you on the spot for a minute. What's the difference between a 50 foot right -of -way and a 60 foot right -of -way? Why does 36 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 the city care about that 10 feet? 1 Mayor Chmiel: 10 feet. Councilman Senn: And he's a school teacher. Dave Hempel: Councilmember Mason, the city ordinance for subdivisions is 60 feet right -of -way. It used to be a few years back 50 foot right -of -way. In some instances with the PUD development we have made concessions down to a 50 foot right -of -way. Where instances there was efforts to save trees or limit greens but the big determining factor was utility installation and grading the site was the tool, or whatever that did have the impact on the trees. It wasn't the right -of -way. At one time we thought that all trees should be cleared from the right -of -way from a liability standpoint as well as maintenance. We've gone back and reconsidered that somewhat too. In areas where we can save large trees, we will do everything in our power. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was confused on the trails. Where they're going. Who's paying for them. What the easements are. It sounds like we've got two going in. One going through the division and one on CR 117. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. There's one going to be along CR 117 and then there's also going to be. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the developers are going getting credit for that or they're paying for it? Jo Ann Olsen: They're getting credit for the trail. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And then the other one going thru it? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. One's going above the wetland and one's going kind of below. The ponding. Above the ponding and below the ponding. Depending on the soils. What was brought up was where that actual connection from the street down to that trail should be. That we might want to look at condensing the two into one. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And nothing's been decided yet? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's just preliminary. Well. Councilman Senn: Being the natural person I am, I'd like to compliment the staff on significantly increasing the amount of BO in Chanhassen. On the lighter side. Councilman Mason: Very light. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? 37 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Councilman Wing: If we haven't heard any comments and we've had discussions, why don't we make a motion to approve it. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm looking for. Councilman Senn: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Staff recommend City Council adopt the following motion. Who's going to do this? ' Councilman Senn: Say that again? Councilman Wing: Yeah, what? ' Councilman Senn: You lost us? What'd you do now? Mayor Chmiel: If you look on page 14. Recommendation is there with the elimination of item 2. There are 37 totally. Did you say you moved approval? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Yeah. I was just looking for that fire cap one. That one's got. I'll second. Mayor Chmiel: Oky. Moved and seconded. Any other discussions? ' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the rezoning 32.5 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit I Development, approval of the preliminary plat (193 -2 PUD) to subdivide 32.5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval of a wetland alteration permit (193 -2 WAP) as shown on the plans dated June 29, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include landscaping between the westerly lots and the industrial land to the west where vegetation does not ' already exist, and two front yard overstory trees shall be required for each lot where two trees do not exist. ' 2. Deleted. 3. All tree designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow fence 1 1/2 times the diameter of the drip line prior to any alteration of the ' site. Any understory vegetation within the snow fence shall also be preserved. 4. Each of the lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management plan shall be kept in the building ' permit file and a copy will also be given to the homeowner. ' 38 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 5. Unless a lot already has two overstory trees in the front yard, additional overstory trees, from the city's approved list, shall be planted in each lot so that there are two overstory trees in each front yard. If this has not been accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit for a lot, before a building permit is issued, arrangements must be made to have the trees planted within one grading season after the building permit is issued. The city should require security to guarantee compliance. 6. The wetland boundaries including buffer areas will have a monument designating it as protected wetland at each lot line. 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with ' the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 8. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Carver County Public Works, MWCC, Minnesota Health Department, and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. 10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and.disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket or wod within two weeks of completing site grading unless City's Best Management Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 11. Utility drainage easements outside the street right -of -way should be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas on the final plat. 12. The street right -of -way should be increased to 60 feet in width, and the applicant should work with city staff to preserve trees within this right -of -way as a result of the increase to 60 feet. 13. Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the city ' authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Sewer and Water Improvement Project 91 -17B. 14. All driveways shall access the interior streets. No driveway access will be allowed onto Galpin Boulevard. Driveway access to Lot 33, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 of the preliminary plat shall be from the street on the west side of the lot. The two existing driveways shall be realigned perpendicular to the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a right turn lane on southbound Galpin Boulevard into the site in conjunction with the overall site improvements. ' 39 , City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 16. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service to existing home sites. In addition, they will notify the property owners of the city ordinance requiring connection to municipal sanitary sewer. ' 17. The applicant shall provide a storm sewer outlet for the wetland in Block 2. 18. The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through Lot 2, Block 1. 19. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a ten year ' storm event and ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with city ordinance for the city engineer to review and approve. 20. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 to divert drainage further away from the house. 21. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be extended along Lots ' 11 -14, Block 2 along the street boulevard. • 22. Drain tile will be required behind the curbs in those areas where sump pump discharge will not be directed into the storm pond or wetland area. The applicant will submit information regarding hook -up of sump pump for city staff approval at the time of building permit issuance. ' 23. The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and Trotters Circle" are unacceptable. The city currently has a "Trotters Circle ". To avoid duplication, new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval. 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP, NW Bell, cable boxes, street lamps, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance, Section 9 -1. 25. 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 road shall be in place before construction on new dwellings start, which are greater than 150' from County Road 117. 26. Fire hydrants are now shown on the utility plan. Hydrant spacing is not to exceed 300' beginning at County Road 117. 27. Fire hysdrant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs. 28. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house ' pad on the grading plan before final plat approval. 29. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This condition must be met before any building permits are issued. 1 40 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 30. The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space. This dedication to include a survey of the property and field staking of property corners and lot intersection points. Transfer of fee title of this property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time of platting. The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit, or $300.00 per home, for this dedication. The balance of the park fees being collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force upon building permit application. At present this fee would be one -half of $600.00, or $300.00. 31. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted for said easement. 32. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as ' described herein and as depicted on Attachment A. Any easements for trail purposes which are necessitated by this alignment shall be conveyed to the city. The applicant shall receive full trail dedication fee credit for this condition. The entirety of this trail shall be constructed above the 933 elevation mark. 33. Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement with the ' developer to provide financial guarantees for replacement of any trees removed within the right -of -way which were not approved for removal. 34. A 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve natural features. 35. All lots shall meet the 90' frontage requirements. 36. Staff shall review the location of the trail connections. 37. Only the trees listed in Attachment #1 will be permitted to be removed. All other trees shall be preserved and protected with snow fence located at 1 1/2 times the drip line. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1 Mayer Chmiel: Mark. Council Presentation regarding no wake zones, I would assume on lakes. Councilman Sean: Well, I don't care Don. Councilman Mason: I think that's what some people feel about Council right now. That we're in a no wake zone. Councilman Wing: A no wake zone for all the city lakes or one specific one? ' Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure yet. 41 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 ' Councilman Senn: What I would like to see is I would like to see us implement a procedure that when the lakes are as high as they are right now, drastically eroding the shorelines, that we simply do two things. One is post public accesses as no wake on these lakes, which signs can be taken down when the lakes ' return to a lower level. And also some fairly significant and hopefully continuing publicity in the newspaper to also get the surrounding homeowners that the same is the rule. And also to get the Sheriff's Department to post and ' enforce such. And I talked to Scott about that during the week and I think he's already talked to the Sheriff's Department and I think everybody from, at lesat from that end is all for it but I thought it'd make sense to bring it up here ' and take some form of I think formal action on it to initiate a policy that we do that. I don't know how often we'll see this but I think right now our shorelines are being really butchered. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't disagree with that. I think Lake Minnetonka has just gone through the same process of doing that as well. At least I read that in the paper here last week. And I think it makes good sense for us at ' high water levels to make sure that the erosions of the shorelines are not taking place. And oftentimes you'll probably get people from not within our community on that lake and really buzzing. In fact I was out on a lake just the other day and saw some boats just close to shore and I saw it sloshing it up onto shore and some even with...right close to it, which is not too good. Councilman Senn: I think you have to realize that we have a new high water mark ' in every lake. I mean I don't think they even come close to the old boundaries. Mayor Chmiel: That's an old song that came out many years ago is how high is ' the water momma. 10 foot high and rising. Councilman Senn: No, to the crest of the hill... Councilman Wing: What are you asking for here? Be specific. Councilman Senn: Well my understanding, here's what I did. I called and talked ' to Charles about it and he asked me to call the DNR. So I called the DNR and the DNR basically came back and said, we don't have anything to do with that. That's local jurisdiction. The Sheriff should post it. The Sheriff should enforce it. Because I told him this was Carver County, was Chanhassen, etc. ' Councilman Wing: Enforce what though? What are you talking about? Councilman Senn: Enforce no wakes. Councilman Wing: Where? ' Councilman Senn: On the lakes. Councilman Wing: The entire lake? Councilman Senn: Yes. Okay, and that's not going to be real popular with the water skiers but I don't know how you start drawing lines between where you can and where you can't, who can, who can't and I'm hoping that the lake levels will go down to a reasonable level within a reasonable period of time but I don't ' 42 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 i know what the solutions are unless we plan on going in and somehow protecting every bit of shoreline that we've got. Councilman Wing: Do you know what the LMCD has done over on Minnetonka? They're trying, and this was in the paper. I can't believe it's not going to be a battle. I may be worse than we had tonight. I'm just curious if you know what they've done or what's going on. Councilman Senn: My understanding is they've picked areas and what the LMCD generally does is they pick the tighter areas on the lake. Well, if you look at tighters areas on Minnetonka, those are the widths of some of our lakes. And that gets to be a little bit of the issue here and I guess Minnetonka is Minnetonka. Chanhassen has it's...I'd like to see us protect our resources. Mayor Chmiel: We can't take any action on this today. We'd have to put it on the agenda. Councilman Senn: Well my understanding from the DNR is that there is no action necessary. My understanding is that the Sheriff has the power to simply post the accesses and enforce that regulation. Okay and the Sheriff, from my understanding from talking to Scott, who I wish was still here, is the Sheriff is now willing to do that. I just thought it made a lot of sense to, I mean if we're going to do it, to have. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm looking at it from a legality aspect and maybe Roger 11 can clarify that. Roger Knutson: If we're going to establish a no wake ordinance. Are you talking about one lake or? Councilman Sena: No. I'm talking about. Roger Knutson: All lakes? Councilman Senn: Well some of our lakes don't allow motor boats so there it's a 11 non -issue but I'm just saying on the lakes that do allow. Roger Knutson: If you're going to do it though, there's a process set up for adopting surface water useage ordinances which this would be. It takes an ordinance and it takes DNR approval. Councilman Senn: Well again now, ONR dealt with this more from a standpoint of hey, you've got an emergency out there. They are not required to approve it, from what they told me. Roger Knutson: I'd be concerned. It's fine to have it up there as an advisory. But if you're going to prosecute someone. Mayor Chmiel: You can't. You can't stop them from doing that. ' Roger Knutson: Unless there's something I don't know about. I mean we have a no wake ordinance right now. Part of one lake or a whole lake an we've done this in the past and there's a specific process. Again, I will call DNR and 43 11 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 II maybe they know something I don't but we've gone through this quite a few times. Councilman Senn: I'll give you the name and number of the guy I talked to because again, I asked him very specifically what do we need to do and he said, II have the Sheriff put up the sign and have the Sheriff enforce it. That was his answer. II Roger Knutson: Just like Go Slow signs or Children at Play. I mean they can be used as helpful advisories but if it comes down to, now it's time to issue the citation and go to court. II Mayor Chmiel: You have nothing basically to go back on and that I guess was my question. 1 Councilman Wing: Minnewashta certainly is having the problem you're describing. We were out diving on Lotus on Saturday and I concur. Our problem is primarily been these strong winds and the waves. They've just wiped us out. The boats I I haven't even noticed because of the wave action has been so bad. I'm not denying your problem or minimizing it at all. Councilman Senn: Like Lotus has no wave, I mean wind action unless you end up II with a hell of a strong straight north or south wind. I mean there's not enough width to it to make a differnce but the boats just kill it. I think the same can be said on Riley. I Councilman Mason: So are you looking to put some signs up then? II Councilman Wing: I think we ought to look into no wake here. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Which signs? Please don't or you will be I prosecuted. Councilman Mason: Well we can't apparently do the prosecution one but I think advisory signs are certainly warranted. Without passing, having a public II hearing and passing ordinances. Councilman Senn: Yeah, by the time we do all that, it's going to be past. I II mean I'd like to see us do that so we have the emergency power in the future to do it but if that's all we can do for now, then I think we should get the signs up and ask the water patrol to, if they can't enforce it to encourage it. How would that be. And to also do the publicity to get the homeowners involved. I Mayor Chmiel: Those costs are basically incurred by us because the Sheriff doesn't have any signs to put up per se. II Councilman Wing: Forget the Sheriff's Department and Water Patrol. That won't happen. Not a chance. II Councilman Senn: I don't know. I may be speaking out of turn but I think Charles already ordered the signs. I Mayor Chmiel: Oh, well that's good. I don't have any objections to that. Just so that it is an advisory requesting them to not rev their boats up to high II 44 II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 speeds to cause waves. i Councilman Senn: Don, you may want to check that tomorrow because I don't know what he's got worked out. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, in reading the Minutes from the last couple of meetings and hearing comments from people who have been on the Council for quite a while that we've always had a problem with our audio equipment. Have we ever looked into replacing it and what those costs would be? I mean Hann does a wonderful job trying to, and we talk over each other and people yell from the audience and you know, but I think it would be helped if we had some decent equipment...Anyway, have we ever looked into it and what the expense would be? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I think so. Don, you can address that. Don Ashworth: Right. We're actually in the process of changing it over right now. But one of the problems has been involved. See that's a new camera there. It hasn't been activated yet...But anyway, that camera there has the ability to pull down so that boards like tonight can actually be placed in here. We're II changing out this camera so she can move that around and catch the front. We're putting the other type of mic's in because even, these aren't working as well as they really should. So hopefully by the end of the year. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: End of the year. And with that weather tower going in I mean. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions on that? Councilman Senn: Before we jump off wakes too far. Could we ask Roger to. prepare something like that? Councilwoman Dockendorf: You mean in addition to the signs going up? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean prepare something in the ordinance that would allow Council some form of emergency powers in the future to do that. Roger Knutson: It's on my list. Councilman Senn: Okay. I just want everybody to agree. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Very quickly. I had a call from a gentleman that lives not too far from Homestead Avenue. 2 1/2 acre lots. He's real concerned about the size of structures that can be put at the back of those 2 1/2 acre lots as the city grows. Who should I direct him to? Who can he talk to about that issue? Paul Krauss: I guess send him to us. We've been working. Mayor Chmiel: Paul's going to be out of town for 2 to 3 weeks. Send them to us. 45 , 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 Paul Krauss: In fact we're raising the issue of 2 1/2 acre lots right now. We've been working with Roger. If you remember a couple of years ago we passed an ordinance decreasing the size of rural lots. Allowing them to be made ' smaller as long as you provide on site sewer. What we've done on one part of the ordinance...and that was that we limited, we excluded subdivisions that were approved prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance which excluded somebody's right in Timberwood to come in with 15,000 acre lots. That language got omitted so technically some of your neighbors could as us to do that right now. So that's a problem that we didn't foresee. Wasn't supposed to be in there. We need to correct that. The other issue with 2 1/2 acre lots we're dealing with too is, right now as it reads, the City Engineer and yourselves do not have the right to reject unsewered provisions inside the MUSA line of a large acre lots. That causes a real problem for you when...and you have little ' bits and pieces you can't assess because they've been able to build one on site. We're going to roll it, there's a real issue with...building size, we can just roll it into the package. ' Councilman Mason: Give me a name will you? I know you're going to be out of town. Paul Krauss: I guess Sharmin's going to contact me on that... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that the issue or is this guy talking about in back ' of him? Roger Knutson: Accessory buildings? ' Councilman Mason: Oh, he's just talking about real big sheds putting. Paul Krauss: Agricultural buildings? ' Councilman Mason: Yeah. Sheds a third of the size of the lot or whatever. He's not, he's a very pleasant gentleman. Just raised a concern. Wanted to know who to talk to about it and I said I'd follow up on it. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: ' Councilman Wing: Paul, before you head off for Incaville. On the letter in the Administrative Packet from Eden Prairie to us saying, do we want to protect the trees in the Bluff Creek and you kind of came back and said, well we're working on doing this. Why didn't you simply write them back and say, yes. Absolutely. Do you have any suggestions along with what we're doing? Paul Krauss: I guess I could have. My first inclination was, yeah we've already done it. We're doing a better job than you are. Councilman Senn: Don, I had a couple other questions on Administrative packet stuff if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Senn: One is on the memo to Paul Krauss dated June 29th, which I don't know. These aren't numbered...but is everybody else here comfortable with 46 / J City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 approving construction of a metal building when we don't allow anybody else to II do it? I mean if I'm understanding the proposal here, we're going to build a 120 x 40 foot metal building. I'm just asking. I mean it seems to me that's kind of a double standard. II Mayor Chmiel: I was wondering where we got the money from. Paul Krauss: That's a Lake Ann Park additional shelter. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, these things sneak in every once in a while. I was wondering where do the dollars come from for this. Any idea? II Don Ashworth: I didn't see the memo, to be honest. Paul Krauss: All I can tell you is what I know about it. The City Engineer II approached me about the Park Department was...for their equipment storage. What's the most appropriate place to put it? Well, we put them in touch with Barton- Aschman's working with us on the roadway issues. I'm a little bit II about where it's located but then the existing building's already there and there's quite a bit of expense in moving it so ultimately we said, it doesn't really trip a site plan review. As far as I'm concerned, as long as II it's screened. Councilman Senn: Well but when the existing building wears out, you replace it. I mean I don't know if you can extend that use by building another one. I don't II know. Maybe I'm being too sensitive but it just seems to me we're always very sensitive about that and all of a sudden turn around and geez we're saying, oh just do it. II Paul Krauss: It's not exactly in a terribly concealed location. It is where the boulevard's coming in. II Councilman Senn: Well I can bring you to a lot of private concealed locations too and we still tell them. I Councilman Wing: Yeah, let's think twice about that. I think that ought to get pulled. Paul Krauss: You did allow, I mean Carver County did erect a metal pole barn in II the Regional Park...and that's all their budget would allow them. Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'd like to see some more instruction on that. II Councilman Wing: Hold on, where are we? Because that one didn't trip me for some reason. II Councilman Senn: It's back towards the end Dick. I don't know, if you want to count pages in. It's 6 back of the 6th page in. II Councilman Wing: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any idea what the cost of that thing is? II 47 II II City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 11 Paul Krauss: I'm sorry Mayor, I don't have any information. Don Ashworth: I would like to review that with Charles. Councilman Wing: Yeah, let's not. Let's not. Councilman Senn: I mean the Highway 5 task force. Your proximity to that. I mean all the things we're starting to require. Councilman Wing: This is going to have to be brick. Pitched roof. Councilman Senn: No, I didn't say let Wing design it. Don't get me wrong. Councilman Wing: I agree. I don't know why I didn't see this. Good point. I think that's a mistake. Don Ashworth: Well it may or may not be. I guess I don't have enough ' information to tell you. Councilman Senn: I don't either. That's why I'm just asking that we get it I I guess. Mayor Chmiel: I don't want to see anything proceeding on that until we get some clarification as to what it is. Don Ashworth: I agree. ' Councilman Senn: The other item I wanted to ask about was on the second to the last page. Can you tell me what that all means? The letter from the Superintendent. Mayor Chmiel: From the School #112? Councilman Senn: Talking about us participating and proceeding a second phase ' or this, that or the other thing. I mean it seems like there's a lot of things we're proceeding on but no definition as to what they are. At least in, you're probably more knowledgeable on it than I. Mayor Chmiel: The proposed new school is going to come in the fall, as it says of '95. And they want enough lead time to get everything pulled together so they can have it in their hands by no later than July of '93. Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they've given us a deadline here of July 12th to be back to them on something that has to do with something and I don't even ' understand what it is. I guess is my question. Don Ashworth: Right. We have the joint Planning Commission, HRA, City Council established a work session to look at the downtown issues and the school and we set the 19th. Next Monday at 5:30. We informed these people that the Council would be looking at some of these alternatives on the 19th and what this letter is back saying is, fine. Take time to go through what it is you want to do but we've got some time tables here ourself. If you're going to be part of the planning process, we've got to move this thing along. Now to pick July 12th. 48 1 City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: Well Don, I guess I'm still lost. I mean I understood we had a Council work session coming up and we're dealing with the downtown issue. Now II you're saying it includes the school issue and what I'm trying to say is, I haven't seen anything with the school issue since we took the action to convey the land. Now this seems like we have a lot more involvement in it beyond that and a lot more going on here. I don't know a thing about it. I'd feel very uncomfortable walking into even a work session at this point. Don Ashworth: And I apologize. I should have had the memo out today. I just finished proofing it tonight. It will be delivered to you tomorrow along with the packet for next Monday night. And it will go through the issues that you're II talking about. Mayor Chmiel: It's all going to be addressed in that letter. Councilman Senn: And these are future Council actions then you mean that are going to be required or what? Don Ashworth: Right. We would anticipate that after this joint session, after the Council gives us some direction, that we would then put it back onto a future City Council agenda and you would act on whatever general guidance you end up giving us next Monday night. Mayor Chmiel: In other words, amen. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim ' 49 1 a_ A CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - "? REGULAR. MEETING il JULY 7, 1993 .:, ' vice Chairman- Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. -- - 1 M PRESNT: Diane Harberts', Matt Ledvina, Nancy Manci and Ladd Conrad .. _ - .. MEMBER A ' Br .an - Batz.li, Joe S cott and Jeff Farmakes A.; 'STAFP.. PRESENT Paul Krauss; - Planriin9 Director; 3o Ann=0i.son, Senior - . ' • 1 ..._ Planner: ;,and Kate Aanen Planner 1 ',ft M :` F QR AI Xt. 'F Y 'R !" IT FOR XPAN N t�' THE 'GQ t• DR Y U � T z ia11. 4 • N A � 'y` D. av1141 w ' * � S _ ` L N — A! a N �,� ►, 0 � _ 0. .:.6 � x. \ ® �, 1 T ,b oTl - T f ' ; - 12 - J ® a . ' ■ a ' ■ �� `` ' e i " J- A_iii, -,0 e` presented =' the - :s taff report:: o':n',A: �`{ s item 4 V lce,F• :CCh e.:r`�a:n . ". Co `r -ad ca`l,l ed the 0ubl is hear inn .to' : •order: - . -'4 ` _ , .,, _'. - .., '''-,-•'''-' John - ryzmue F'ir'st: of . all we don't;, I.. :wont= entertair ' t ou 10 tha y p'k '•at .t F Option ..2 That' not an ,option.. ' `' .'C.o'nr=ad '�ohn , w:ould - you- =.foome .up - --to the- r -iic ro.pho =n and -then the - peopl - e: - -at - `: ho. ie- can see ,You - '.. - '1 • know 'It:''s - a , b=ig .audiViCe audience to iight , John`P'ryzmu.s :; Yes` ,Option 2 is not : .someth=ing that I' wou1,d enter`t`ain -., : ".• _ ,and so' 1tdon't -want any " -•i;nter*i.m use permit'. "h'at :won wo ,'-t .rn Gong. back',to Al' .`Option ..i `.,.- Their request f'`or denial or'- reeomme'ndati.on that youf ° woul:d , IenY =; ` this" , :First X'd like,: t :' 0 nn .ai;n. 0 y 'A .exp git. the iiff ren eoe :between: 5 . the, holding: tank 't-hat I- 410 an`d : ` septic :tan-k t`ha: t n they l; k ,should {`'be - ' 'there,: .And' =that• it'-woul.dr_ „benefit•'rmy ,01)stome'rs and tt :y and:” `ho`ever -,•`if ° _1 have`�a .d°iffere�nt First of,.a'l�l, ;the ci,ty a put iii' their -ho.i l ng.- . , tank . ` - Now ' , you,.,explain. -0- them' :what 'would be a •;better- reason to h`a i:i:ng` . � ? r Olsen: Well ",I- don't know th .. at the city made 'y9u = ut 'i.n th`e holdibg tap.ks.,' ' What -- happened , that When you; "first` -- wont' through - th:is 'pr 00e-e, .you 'did: tank - des,ignat two sites protected F for septic sites.. w hich. were. nest - royal` by 'they.. alterations to the site. , ' John PrY._u€�: N z,: they we 'e - n ot destroyed unt l after thy` c ity sa d. 1 had` ng 'tank. Once You put- the ho.iding_ k .in-, the as• o : - w n 4 : � to' have the holding to... , . ,- - " Olsen: Well then: our facts are different but. 'E. _- ; John Pry.zmus;: T'he reality , . «because- they do not k now, • the= holding tank is, something, that . yo'u fill up and when it. ?°s full you 'pump 'i't . =My bathrooms do I , not work- if i't's° full, `so I. cant ' be .open for business if my bathroom don't_ . w.ork . - $o the truc � k •came arid.. .- A septic system that they say could have ' . ` ° =been used,_ .before they changed' this to a tank., - could possibly now be a . hazard because the. ground water .. s. i SO' high. They wouldn't even be - • -1 1' Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 2 11 functional for an expansion so what I have now would never be a problem for the city of Chanhassen or for any of my customers or for anyone else. So that is just something that the city staff was using to do something. The I applicant has expanded this site without prior approval. I did put in now a building, two 8 x 10 storage sheds. They weren't an expansion to my building. They were just storage sheds. You can buy them at Menards. I They look like just to see them sitting there so I wanted them to look kind of like the building that I have. So that is the intent. Everytime I get in here before Conrad and whoever else is sitting here, because the City's request I come here. Usually either in a letter or summons or whatever, and usually it's been because on my original plan, which I've shown these people time and time again, everything was approved and I did do it all at the same time. ...I've owned that property since 1990, 1980 and I've been 1 working on it since 1980. I've been planting trees. doing things. I finally opened for business in 1987 and I've been building on it and making it better every year. The only people that have a hassle with this, not my I customers. They all love it. People of Chanhassen love it. The only people that have a problem with it is city staff. They are continually hassling me and making it impossible for to run a smooth business. First I of all because I've never been able to have a building to put my equipment in. Put my fertilizer in. My seed in. I always have to be moving it around. It's always getting wet or it's always a mess and that's because the city has decided that they don't want me to ever have a... I thought I we had everything done last time...Now I guess we don't have it done again. So like I say...I've already spent half a million dollars making this place nice and they're going to say that they're going to take these, next year I tell me I'm out of here because I...I won't do it. You should, from my point of view, look at it as, what is good for the city. Is this going to look good? Is it screened right? Is it bermed right? First of all, I don't have to expand my parking. The building I want to add is not for I video machines. It's for video lessons for golf. You set up TV screens in private booths to tell you, you take movies of a person hitting golf balls and then you watch it. It's not going to be a video operation. I have 4 I of these machines. I looked at some of...but I think from a planning standpoint, is it good for the city? Or is it bad? Is it something that the children can use? That families can come and use. Is it going to be I detrimental to us as citizens of this community? Obviously no. Planning standpoint, they think it's detrimental because they recommend denial of everything I've ever asked for. That place has been detrimental to the city and the people of Chanhassen according to Chanhassen staff from the I day I proposed it and that's all I have to say. You make your decision on what you think is good for the city, not on what they dream up every time. I Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about the holding tank. Olsen: A holding tank is as he described it. It has to get pumped out. I It's only allowed as an alternative if you cannot have septic sites. So again, we obviously disagree on how it happened but the two sites were designated and that's what supposed to be used on the site. Then going back through the records it appears that those sites were damaged. Could I not be used and his only alternative was to do the holding tanks. I don't believe the city required him to. Actually I remember there was a lot of discussion whether or not he could even do anything and the holding tanks I were the alternative that they allowed. 1 Planning Commission Meeting '' July 7, 1993 - Page 3 Conrad: Yeah I was here unfortunately, and that's my recollection too. In IF terms of the use of this property. Yeah, the holding tanks were not the preferred use as I recall. But now that that property may change uses, I does it make sense to have, for us to change it at this point in time, or force him to change it? Olsen: Right. That was an issue from the Building Official and as long as III we have the proof that it is being properly pumped and property disposed of, I think that we are comfortable with keeping it the way it is. With the holding tanks. 1 Conrad: Good. It's a public hearing. Any other comments from neighbors or residents? Jo Ann, I was looking for a mailing list. Did this go I out? Did we mail to the residents? Olsen: Yes we did. Yeah. We always have one, Partridge, or Art Partridge has always the one person that would show up but he might have moved. 1 Conrad: Build a berm and Art will be here. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Another question before we open it up. Diane, what do you think? , You've got to catch up. This has a lot of history. K Marberts: Yeah, it certainly does. Well I guess from, you know I've I driven by Swings and I think the owner made a positive comment and I support that. I think it is a nice facility. It seems to be used quite a bit by people. It's certainly in the past 3 years that I've been out and I about in the area I've certainly noticed some improvements. I have no problem with the expansion. I welcome development. I welcome business. I have a problem when there's a process that's been established. When the I process is not followed. That's the only way that basically can in a sense insure that, basically what's best for the community. It's your process in which to manage the development, different things like that. That's why codes are established. I guess I've worked with staff myself outside of, I just on a professional basis and I guess I'll differ with you on it. I have very positive feedback in terms of that staff always looks out for what's best for in the community. I guess I'm not, I'm familiar with the I 1995 study area. I know it's a priority for Chanhassen. So I would like to hear from others on the Commission with regard to an interim permit versus what I understand would be a non - conforming permit as the option. The only thing that really bothers me is simply that it seems that the I process has been set up. The owner went through the process earlier. Early 90's and I'm just having a little difficulty understanding really why the process wasn't followed for the continued expansion. The way I I understand it is that when there's a building permit, it usually has a termination time on it. It's usually good for a year or something like that. And then they come back and renew it if you haven't completed, and I I don't know if that's the issue here or just a misunderstanding in terms of here's the overall plan and I'm just going to work on it for a period of time. But we have a process in place, I think communication needs to continue so that's what I'm just uncomfortable with. That there's really a I II .I Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 4 1 good faith effort, and I'm not sensing that in terms of the communication to keep the city up to date. Or if there's just a misunderstanding or what. Overall I certainly support the expansion but given the fact that I it's the 1995 study area, and really what is best for the community and that's really I think, you hit it right on the nose. What is best for the community? When you have a study area, you don't know what that is yet. II And the interim permit certainly gives us the opportunity to have more flexibility but from a dollar perspective I can understand where the owner would certainly prefer to have that non - conforming permit. I don't know if the city's in a position to want to issue that. Conrad: Well that's a good question. The applicant is not asking for that. I Olsen: Yeah, it wouldn't be a non - conforming use. His only option is an interim use permit. You don't have to set a date on that. It can be II considered a conditional use permit, similar to a conditional use permit but the interim use permit allows you to put that deadline.• You don't necessarily have to tie it into anything. It no longer is a conditional I use permit. That's been switched so if you look under this district, miniature golf, driving ranges are now only permitted as an interim use permit. You have to, as far as what the process is. When this was tabled at the last time it was because he had so many outstanding issues. He did ' complete those issues and that's where we contacted him again and said, Mr. Pryzmus you now need to continue now to bring that into compliance but your other expansion you have to get the interim use permit. And then I during that conversation back and forth to go through that process, we discovered more expansion had taken place and so again that's where we said you have to get the interim use permit to get permission for what you've done. There's not a non, I mean he doesn't, there's not a non - conforming I use permit that we can give him. Harberts: So that's not an option then? I Olsen: That's not an option. I Ledvina: So essentially an interim use permit is his only option? Olsen: His only option, right. I mean now that it's going through the process. I Mancino: And it could be when we have done the 1995 study area, that a golf range does fit in in the 1995 study area. That it then can be a I regular, what does it then become? Olsen: It's still an interim use permit. Mancino: It's still an interim use permit? Olsen: Yeah. I Mancino: But it could go on past the date of when we have rezoning or, okay. Planning Commission Meeting ,' July 7, 1993 - Page 5 Olsen: Yeah. You don't necessarily have to assign a date. A termination. 1 It allows you that option. But that's really his only option now. For any expansion, or else he can have denial of any of the expansion beyond what I was originally approved with his conditional use permit and he can just be maintained at that, the old conditional use permit. But then you have the question, do you have to make him revert back to what was originally approved. 1 Harberts: Does the city feel that they have the understanding of what type of expansion will happen? 1 Olsen: In the study area? Harberts: Ah no. With regards to all the different things that are going I on there. Olsen: Well this is what I've asked him to do his ultimate plan so I think I what you're seeing now is what he wants to do. With the batting cages. He's always wanted to have those but it was never approved with the original approval. II Harberts: And what I understand is that staff can support the septic tank, holding tank as long as there's documentation? Olsen: Yeah. We just want proof that it's being disposed of correctly and II we are not opposed to the use. We've recommended approval in the past so. Harberts: You feel that there's, you know in terms of the process, that I you both have an understanding in terms of what needs to occur in terms of communication? Olsen: Yes. I would think so. Harberts: Basically that's the jist of my comments. 1 Conrad: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well then, just so I understand this perfectly. We can, the I interim use permit can be indefinite then? Olsen: Yeah. There's nothing that says that you have to tie. 1 Krauss: I'm looking through the language here. I'm not certain of that. I think that...I mean that's the difference between. II Olsen: Do you have to? Well you could say the year 2020. Mancino: It's got to be between two things. I Olsen: So you could say 2050. If it has to have a deadline. Ledvina: Well what types of ultimate development pressures are going to II happen here and what do you see when you look...in terms of the timing of the next few years? That's in the 1995 study area. I II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 6 II Krauss: There's a couple of things going on. We do not know when this land is going to come into the MUSA system. We haven't made a request for I it and the owners haven't asked for it yet. I'm not sure if we'd want to go through it right away. Also the construction of Highway 5, the upgrading of Highway 5 and Highway 5 access boulevards. Is also scheduled for 1995- 96...in that kind of a window. In fact we met with MnDot for II lunch today and that's...What I can tell you Matt, instead of gazing into a crystal ball, I can tell you what the Highway 5 Task Force has already essentially approved in it's recommendation on that property. It shows a 1 variety of medium and low density housing. Olsen: Okay, well the definition. It says a temporary use of property I until a particular date, particular event or zoning regulation is no longer permitted. So when I was saying that you don't necessarily have to tie it to the street or the rezoning or MUSA. If you want to, him to permit it, you can do a date way out there. When we got these interim use permits in I here it was because we were thinking, if we're not sure if it will still fit in and it's tough to tie. We had to discuss what kind of event do we tie it to because the frontage road possibly will cut into the northern I portion of this and maybe that will make him have to stop his business by itself but if it doesn't, we're not convinced that it's still not a suitable site. You know suitable use. II Ledvina: Then just speaking of that time then. What is it, is it the Highway 5 upgrade? Or development? I mean how do we administratively deal with the interim use? I Krauss: There's a couple of potentials here. I mean if it's tied to the construction of the Highway 5 access boulevards. It seems that any I alternative that's being considered. Olsen: They kind of go through there. 1 Krauss: And that would have to be compensated for at that time but if it doesn't, one way or the other it becomes...You also could tie the extension to the zoning of the property. It's possible that this land could be 1 brought into the MUSA line and rezoned for development... Ledvina: How about something like a re- evaluation of the interim use I permit at that time? I mean in terms of if we have to identify a trigger, maybe we can do it like, not necessarily that it ends but that it's re- evaluated. I Mancino: And it may end or it may continue. Ledvina: Based on the re- evaluation at that time. I don't know. I Olsen: They can always request for an extension. I mean say that you say 1996. He could also request and that's, but you know if you're considering I the approval, we do have to bring it back to you. Well we should bring it back to you anyway with the conditions and then we could probably get Roger to come up with some good legal way to allow you that flexibility. Because nobody really knows. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II July 7, 1993 - Page 7 II John you Pryzmus: Could I address ou one more time? You know here you are Y deciding when it can possibly be turned into a shopping center and a low income apartment complex. When you've got 18 acres of trees and grass that I you guys keep fighting for. You just hired somebody to harrass developers so you can't cut too many trees down. I planted 500 trees there. You should be fighting for me to keep this forever. For 20 years. As long as II I want to keep it. For 30 or 40 years. You should be fighting for this to be in the community rather than fighting me to get it out. I mean what did I ever do wrong out there? People love it. I can't believe you people. I sit here last time and you're harrassing people, don't cut any trees down. II I've planted all these and you sit here trying to figure out how you can possibly get me out in which year. 1 just don't understand it. You should be planning on going around me and making sure you keep me there so you've II got a beautiful corner. No, you'd rather take the taxpayers dollars and spend a million dollars on downtown and then tear it all back up and just make a mess of everything with our money. I'm spending my own money and II you're trying to figure out how to ruin me. I just can't understand you people. Conrad: No John, what we're trying to do is add some planning sense to II what's happening. Now John, you've been here long enough to know that the city is expanding. You know the city's expanding your way. We're trying to figure out how it happens. We're trying to figure out. No John, you II haven't followed any of the things we've ever asked you to do. Very seldom. John Pryzmus: You decide and then let me know. II Conrad: Okay, thanks for attending John. Ledvina: Well I guess, so essentially you're recommending that the matter II be tabled while the conditions of an interim use permit. Olsen: Right. If you feel that we should allow the expansion and get it I under an interim use permit, that would be best because then we can really look at the setbacks and make sure he's meeting the DNR and the Watershed 1 District and yeah. Ledvina: Well I don't know but I think that route seems to be a fair way of handling this situation. Considering what the future needs of that area I are going to be, I think it's reasonable to let him use his property to maximize his business while he can. But then again, we're responsible for guiding that activity as it moves that way so. I Mancino: I agree. We'll have you come back with some conditions. I am in favor of approval of the interim use permit with the expansion of the site allowing a sign, the 10 video games, the additional building and the I addition to the building. Parking spaces, I think that's all fine. I have no problem with the expansion but as Matthew said, I would like to see maybe Roger come up with whether we can evaluate it at some point in the II time when it's either in the MUSA line or the northern access boulevard. If we can stop right then and evaluate whether it still fits in with what's going on there. I would also like staff to work with John on putting a due i date for all this expansion. To just say, to ask him how long he thinks it 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 8 11 will take him to get the batting cages up. To get all this done and I'd like that to be one of the conditions. That there actually is a due date. I The other condition I would like to see is an annual review or inspection of the site so that we are sure and he knows that we're going to be checking, making sure it is kept to the conditions that we have on it. And I think it'd be great if there was a written report after each inspection II so that we have it in our files of what we inspected and exactly what was happening. Whether it's visual pictures, written, etc. Conrad: Thanks Nancy. I agree. Are batting cages part of this? That's the only thing I'm not sure of. What's the logic? You know there was logic for allowing the driving range there. Agricultural area. Something ' close to I don't know, grass and driving range. Agricultural. And now we're talking about batting cages. And I think we've resisted in the past. What is his proposal? How many and do we know? 1 Olsen: Well, no. Yeah, that's why we just really don't know all the details. All it is is fencing. 1 Conrad: Is it a wire cage? Olsen: It's a wire cage. Conrad: So top. It's not just sides, there's a top to it? Mancino: There's mesh. It shows...mesh and I was going to ask to see 1 whether that was year round mesh or is it something he takes down in the winter? Olsen: You mean on the top mesh? Mancino: Yeah. II Conrad: Usually it's soft so it stops the ball from bouncing. And where is that Jo Ann? I Olsen: The new building which you were talking about the video. Ledvina: North is to the right, right? II Olsen: This is Galpin. TH 5 is down there. And then you've got the creek too approximately where the road is going through? I Krauss: Right about, well it's the alternative right now. Actually a little further south. Kind of right through the batting cages. One of the concerns, and I really don't know to what extent we can legitimately 1 consider. Having something for Roger to answer. One of the concerns I have is the idea of encouraging additional investment in something that the public is going to have to pay to take down in a few years. II Conrad: Yeah. Is there any logic to where he's putting that building? Krauss: Well there's logic on his plan for where he's putting it. And the I access boulevards are working towards being approved but it's still not an 1 Planning Commission Meeting II July 7, 1993 - Page 9 approved concept. II Mancino: And that's, you know MnDot may not have the money until 96- 97 -98. I Krauss: Well it's not on the plan to be built until '96 anyway but we just got reassurances from MnDot today that they are still looking to work with II us on it and they're looking to build it before they upgrade Highway 5. Harberts: Just a follow -up question. I had read in the Minutes from days gone by here. They talked about the hours of business. Is it still sunrise to sunset? Does it make a difference? I've seen different. Olsen: Right. It's supposed to still be sunrise to sunset but I'm hearing I now that he is doing evening hours with the lighting. Harberts: What I would like to see, even with tabling it, is basically an II inventory or a plan or whatever in terms of exactly what's going on out there. You know I don't think if he's going to expand it, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some type of site plan. You know the material. Different things like that. It's nothing less than what we II require of everybody else that comes through. Olsen: This is as much as we've ever gotten. II Harberts: Well I'm talking about materials. Things like this. Just to have an understanding because you know just being relatively new to the II commission, I don't know. You know I have an idea what a batting cage looks like but I don't know what someone else's interpretation is. I would recommend that we get some type of overall understanding. You know what the hours are. If he's going to put a sign, where the sign's going to be. II All of that and like I said, I don't see that any different than what we require of any other developer that walks in this door. Krauss: Is there some kind of consensus on night hours? II Olsen: Yeah, it was tied before. Krauss: We've received complaints from the ballfield lights at Lake Ann, 111 from people living in this neighborhood. Harberts: Well you know, and I have no problem with the owner in a sense II presenting the information to us and basically as we ask everybody else that stands here, just tell us. What you want to do and why or whatever. II You know if we got some complaints on files, make him aware of it. Maybe he's not aware of it. Maybe he needs again, the city has certain standards. That's all we ask for from anyone. If it's lights or whatever. I remember when Southwest Metro built the park and ride lot, you know I halfway through the city requested we change our lights. You know that was a cost that we ate and it's simply because this is what the city codes are and the purpose of the codes isn't to hassle anyone. It's simply to, in a II sense enhance the community for the people. I think that's the only bottom line. That's the only reason why I'm sitting here. You know I'm not here to hassle anybody. So that's why I don't think we can, we should ask anything less or anything more. So I would recommend that, if this is II II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 10 II going to be tabled, is that it comes back with, to give us an understanding of what's going on there. Like I said, I read sunset to sunrise. I didn't I see anything in here that said that it was actually approved. Maybe there's some loose ends that can be tied up, both between the city, the owner, whatever but I think it will just improve that communication. II Conrad: Do we have many complaints? Any? Olsen: Not of this... II Conrad: Yeah, I think most every resident is pretty happy with Swings. ' Harberts: Yeah, it's a nice place. Conrad: Yeah. I don't think it's too bad John walked out of here because I think it's a good facility. He just doesn't like to follow any rules. I And it's just unfortunate because we're probably going to give him what he wants. But he walked out. I still am stuck on the batting 'cage. It really seems like a different use and I guess as long as staff is feeling I comfortable, that it's not really over intensifying. You know traffic. Hundred kids. Whatever. Batting cage is going to, it probably is not going to do anything but I guess I want to make sure that, we've turned it down in the past because it wasn't in snyc with a driving range. And you I know the logic is real tough to follow. I'm going back. Driving range. Grass. Agriculture. That's the logic. But when you put in batting cage, that's a real commercial use. And it's a little bit different. II Mancino: But I like that better than video games. At least it's outside. You're batting. You're outside. The video games is completely an indoor ' recreation. Conrad: But it relates to golf. II Mancino: Not the video games. Are they video, golf video games? Olsen: Well he's got those now and now he's talking about the video golf. I Conrad: So it's beyond golf. I Olsen: It's up there now and that's gotten approval already. Harberts: Is he going to require lighting with his batting cage if he's going to operate it after sunset? II Mancino: That's all the stuff we need to know. I Harberts: Yeah, exactly and like I said, I don't think we're asking anything more of him than any other developer. Olsen: It's just whether or not we get it. I mean we've been very clear II on what is required and all the information and we've never received it. Harberts: Well I think in order to understand the, if expansion is in a II sense appropriate for this site, appropriate for the community, this is the Planning Commission Meeting f July 7, 1993 - Page 11 information that we need to know. Ultimately I would think that the Council's going to want to know the same thing. Olsen: Right. I request it. We don't receive it. ' Conrad: It really goes back to, how do you want to leverage this situation to make him come into compliance with some of the things. He's never in compliance, and that's a generalization. On some things he's not in compliance and you know, then we've got to figure out how to get him there and if we're comfortable going over some ordinance, we're basically giving him more than what the ordinance gives. Olsen: We process an application that is incomplete too. 1 Ledvina: Are you ready for a motion? Conrad: Wait, any other questions? Comments? Anything? Yeah. ' Ledvina: Okay, I would move that the Swings Interim Use Permit be tabled until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit. Also, taking into account the comments that Diane had made. And also, Paul touched on it briefly. If staff feels it's worthwhile to get an opinion from the attorney regarding the situation of continuing this or even expanding this activity when we might have to tale it at a later date by whatever public authority we have for right -of -way, we should know about that and we should have an opinion on that as well. , Conrad: Is there a second? • Mancino: Second. i Conrad: Thanks Nancy. Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Interium Use Permit for Swings until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit. All I voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 1 NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR BOYERS STERLING ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Public Present: Name Address , Scott Remmke 3221 Dartmouth Drive Paula Roettger 3220 Dartmouth Drive Stephen C. Martin 3211 Dartmouth Drive Lori Weber 3220 Dartmouth Drive Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Arvid Oas 3230 Dartmouth Drive , II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 12 Name Address I Joe & Eileen Boyer 3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven Robert & Joleen Roy 3110 Dartmouth Drive Thomas Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive Don & Cheri Sueker 3111 Dartmouth Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman 11 Conrad called the public hearing to order. Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy. I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive. I am not I the applicant. Ted Bigos was the applicant. There's a couple issues right away that I would address. I do not live on the lake. I think it is inappropriate for that outlot to be utilized as a boat launch. I'm not sure what the beachiot application is. I've noticed there were other I notices about this situation from Kathryn. I was not made aware of this until just recently, and if I was I would have had the neighbors get together to discuss this a little bit and at least we could come to some I sort of consensus anyway. But I think the, for a boat launch it's inappropriate and I think if there can be anything done, and I don't know if the city can do this or not, but to stop any vehicular traffic on that outlot. The problem I see is there's a storm sewer that runs at the end of I the outlot and I don't know if the city would want anything there that. I know the Heights.have put in posts to stop ingress and egress by cars, and I'm not too sure that the Association shouldn't do the same thing on that I particular outlot. Just from the standpoint of even in the wintertime people running across the property and then the lakeshore homeowners property also just to get onto lake access. And dragging ice houses out. I Going back to the 1981, I find it very difficult to find that a snapshot of 1981 was the number of boats was then became the basis of decision. We had documentation and letters from the former owners that there was at one point 5 boats down there. Okay, now this goes back to people that lived I there and who had moved before this issue ever became an issue. That we had wrote and tracked them down in Florida and so forth to find out how many boats at one time were down at that outlot. So driving by in 1981 to I take a snapshot and determine how many boats should or should not be there, I find very difficult and I guess that's what we're trying to resolve tonight. The original intent I believe of the City, going back to the I original platting of the property was to allow an outlot which would allow people to have access to the lake. Whether that's an established marina or not. I know there's excessive marinas around Lake Minnewashta that are not exactly picturesque. But with 10 outlots, the availability of at least 4 I boats on a current dock would allow two small boats and two, let's say 19 foot boats into that area. I don't think that is excessive. I'm not sure what the definition however of a beachiot is. I'm not too sure people want I to swim where a storm sewer drain is in that particular area but I think the utilization of the property and the original intent of the builder was to allow, as the land had been developed in 1981 or 19 whenever the land was developed, had it developed all at once he would have had a marina ' there. Now you have 10 lots, I believe it's 10. 9 lots that are off the lake but should have some access to boat useages. II Conrad: Thanks Rob. Any other comments? Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 7, 1993 - Page 13 Joe Boyer: I'm Joe Boyer. I'm the original developer of that area and the intent in 1966 -67, when we developed that property, was to have lake access for the 10 inside lots. And at that time I think we had that in our covenants. We had at one time 3 boats of my own. One of the people I built for, Al Schnurr had 2 boats there and that was in the 1960's. But we never envisioned, ever, that people from the adjoining area could shut down ' our lake access, or that anybody else could change the covenants to shut out the inside subdivision owners. I still don't understand how you can cut people out of their lake access when it's, it was accepted in the original plan. In the original covenants. Conrad: The point tonight, that's a fairly, we could discuss that item. Is to bring out how can you? The reason there are controls is because there were abuses and that's why the controls went in, especially in '81. That's when the ordinance went it that basically froze the use and that's where we're here tonight to do. Not really to debate the wisdom of that I use. Or that ordinance but trying to assess the 1981 status so that we can tell the owners what to expect. The only other thing that any beachlot owners or recreation beachlot owners should know. The current restrictions are fairly significant. And they're for a reason. It's a pretty good reason but that's, again we're not debating that tonight. Not debating what you did in the 60's. We're trying to figure out what a fair level of use was in '81 and to set that and therefore we kind of, and we've done this to 16, well we've done it to every unconforming beachlot in the city and we're almostywrapping it up right now. Joe Boyer: Well that lakeshore access was kind of utilized and brutalized II I'm afraid by some adjacent property owners you know. And when we originally put that access in Archie Carter, the engineer for the City of Chanhassen, and Bill Schoell, who is my engineer, for my subdivision. Schoell and Madsen. Agreed that since we had so much water drainage over the area, and sewer drainage from all of the properties in the adjacent area, it was best to drain the water out on the surface of the ground. When the lake was up, a below ground culvert would be full of water anyway, as it is now. It's useless. The only drainage they have is surface drainage. So somewhere along the line the City of Chanhassen was either coerced or sold a bill of goods on how on a below ground drainage that is almost lakeshore anyway you know. And the original plan was all drainage was surface drainage on a blacktop surface. It was a 3 inch rock lake access area. A base for the lake access where people could launch their own boats and then would have a common dock where they could each have a small boat. Minnewashta was never really, as we thought, intended to have 240 horse 18 foot ski boats in it you know. Minnewashta really is about a 5 or 10 horse motor lake. You should think about that. But anyway, I just think that the people who bought into my subdivision have fully expected to have lake access as the covenants provided. Like a 16 foot motor boat or whatever. At least a fishing boat. I don't think the adjacent property owners should have the right of cutting them out of that. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other comments. Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I've been before you many times on this issue and I come again. This time it's very personal to II me because I'm one of the adjacent property owners. I'm just west of this 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 14 II beachlot, which has been in contention really since '78 when Mike Holloway put in this dock. It's probably the largest dock in the area. I am not I trying to deny access to the lake. I am trying to deny boats out this lot which is about 40 feet. It was in '86 when my complaint was filed. There was a survey done and it was 40 feet, as I understand at the water line. That's not sufficient. I, as a property owner on the lake bought the best II house I could afford with one criteria that it be on the lake. I have 120 feet. I am restricted to 3 boats. Maximum on that property. I pay high taxes. Why should 10 people who are off the lake be able to have more boats on 40 feet of property and this large dock does encroach in the dock setback zone. Now I think there's adequate documentation in the files that there were two boats grandfathered in, in spite of the fact that this was ' not a legal dock or boat. There were two boats in '81 and one dock and that was grandfathered in. However, when Jim Hoffer moved out of the area, the useage dropped to one boat which is now Tim Bigos, who is the applicant for this. Under the grandfathering law, if useage drops for a significant I number of years, in fact I think it's only one year, then you lose the right. It's use it or lose it. So I really think at a maximum there should be one boat and I also request this L section be removed from the I dock setback zone. And I have written a letter and outlined my position. I would like to get rid of the whole thing. The city really has eliminated the boat launching, has eliminated the swimming by installation of that II storm sewer, which I objected to also because it's direct drainage of all the fertilizer and salt and everything directly into the lake. That was not my doing. I.objected to it and I had the City people out to see what was happening to the lake in that area because of that storm sewer. Now it II is not accessible as a boat launch or a swimming beach. Like Joe said, who wants to swim when the storm sewer's dumping into the lake. At any rate, I request that you deny this permit. I think it's illegal. In fact the ' other residents in Sterling Estates were advised of this permit request... joint decision to have a boat or a dock down there from this association. So I request that it be denied and at a very minimum one dock, no L, one boat. Thank you. I Conrad: Other comments? Other people? Before you get back, anybody else? We'll give other folks a chance to talk first. Lori Weber: I'm Lori Weber. I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive and that is the home directly across from this outlot that we're talking about this I evening. As Mary Jo mentioned, there's only been one boat docked down there since Hoffer's moved out of the area. We replaced Hoffer's. We also bought a home that was the most we could financially afford and unfortunately it didn't allow us to buy a boat immediately. We are now in II a position to buy a boat and with there being one boat docked down there already, that leaves no room for us if we were going to drop this down to one. So unfortunately I'm against it being dropped down to one for that I reason, because we certainly would like to enjoy that dock and boat and have access there. Be able to utilize it living directly across the street from it. Thank you. II Conrad: Other comments. Anything else? Rob Roy: I would like to also support her position. Back when this was II going on, I was not able to afford a boat. The property wasn't totally 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 7, 1993 - Page 15 developed. Mr. Bigos has decided to have a boat down there and he's had his boat down there. I think it's for the outlot owners to decide the rotation of the boats and that's why we're requesting 4. This property has II not been abused at all. It's very evident that there's only one boat down there right now in the middle of the summer. We have not abused the situation one bit. And that's why the request is for, I don't think II there's been since the Boyer's and the Schnurr's and I believe that was it. Had the 5 boats down there. That there's been any more than 5 boats and recently is 2 and 1 boat. So I think our request for 4 boats, whether the 4 boats show up there or not, allows the people on the 10 outlots to have access and boat dockage. Conrad: We reviewed a lot of, we've reviewed a lot of the, and it's not a whole lot of fun. But I just want to let you know the process. Most beachlot folks have come in. Again, we're going to arbitrary as can be. You know this is like a mini court of law here you know and what we're trying to do is get somebody to show us a use in 1981. Now whether it's good or bad or whatever, we're trying to say hey. What happened in '81 because that's what we're trying to determine. In front of us we've got a lawyer, the City Attorney who said there's a particular use. We have a staff inventory that set it at a particular number. We're kind of hoping that somebody would say, show us a use of '81. And that's not easy. Nobody goes around taking those pictures but just to let you know, a lot of folks have come in with that and supported their position. And again it being a little mini court here, we try to be as liberal as, we're fairly liberal but again we need information to make the decision. It's really not a case of, do we think you should have this because you're nice or you live across II there. That doesn't enter our minds. It's in this case what we're trying to do is say hey, what happened in '81 and we go from there. So I just wanted to let you know that boy, that makes our decision arbitrary here when we don't see anything that's kind of, and it puts you in a tough situation but that's what we're trying to do. Tom Merz: Well I didn't come here. 1 Conrad: You've got to tell us your name first. Tom Merz: My name's Tom Merz. I've known these people my whole life and Joe sold me the lot that I bought and it's been a wonderful place to live. And I do object to the boat access. I don't think that's in keeping with the, or not the boat access. The ability to drive cars down and launch boats. I think that Joe, so that you understand, if you know I fought this thing for 30 years when I first got on that Park Board Commission and my II whole emphasis has been to try to preserve the quality of Lake Minnewashta. And we did that by closing down all the accesses around the lake and allowing only access to come through the park. We did that for a specific reason. That the lake becomes used and abused by too many boats. There's , just riparian which means there could be 60 non - lakeshore owner boats using that lake and beyond that it would become abused. We've now got a total of maybe we're double that. We've got 120 so each time these Planning Commissions and these outlots come up, I'm up here fighting to maintain this '82 baseline so that we maintain the quality of the lake. Because what happens when they take 1982 Sterling Estates and go from 2 to 4, then they take Minnewashta and they take each one of these things and we not , 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 18 that they'd like to delete that part of the request. So I don't know if that's essentially a modification of the application in front of us but I think that the access could be deleted. Let's see. That's about it Conrad: Thanks Matt. Diane. Harberts: My understanding as we, on number 9. The non - conforming beachlot survey. My understanding is what we look for too though is kind II of the responsibility or accountability from the association. I'm a little concerned. Some of the letters that we've received that talked about some of the garbage, tires, debris, things of that left there. Isn't it Kate, I my understanding that you know these associations in a sense we ask that they take accountability for the area. Am I incorrect or am I correct on that? Aanenson: Well we've asked that in a good neighbor sense but technically the City Attorney's opinion is what we're trying to do is establish the level of use. If there's a complaint, we can certainly handle that in a II different forum. Or we've attached that in some of the conditions where we've asked them, under miscellaneous to post where they have boat launches, a milfoil sign and I think under the process that we've gone I through as far as being amicable, they've all agreed to do such things as keep it clean or post it that this is the association property. Members only. Those sort of things. I think if you want to do that under miscellaneous, I think the parties may be willing to do that. Harberts: Yeah, it's more of a comment. I guess I'm just raising that concern for that I guess with regard to the primary issue at hand, with ' the beachlot permit, I would concur with the Commission members. Basically leaving it at the 1981 baseline and simply because we don't want to make decisions on an arbitrary basis. For instance tonight with the extension, I would support bringing it in compliance with the ordinance. I didn't II hear anything tonight that would convince me that it's necessary and that's all we ask is that, you know if there's some particular reason or whatever, bring the information to us so we can really look at it in an informed I basis and based on the information that I have here, and I agree that the letter from the Attorney is really an important piece to making my decision. That we stay with the 1981 baseline. I would also recommend ' some kind of restriction on the motor vehicle access. The area doesn't seem very conducive to a lot of access by vehicles. And I would just encourage the Association maybe to take some steps. I don't know, a fence or whatever. Gate to control it. II Conrad: So you're in favor of the access Diane? J Harberts: Yes, with some restrictions of use. It was there in '81. And I haven't heard a whole lot for or against it in the sense of really swaying me to go against that. So I would just encourage some restriction or 11 control or whatever by the Association if it's a problem. But based on the information today that I've received, I don't have any problem with it. Conrad: Kate, what's your opinion about the motor vehicle access on this II property? 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 7, 1993 - Page 19 Aanenson: It seems to me that they've stated that they'd be willing to put a post there, if that seems to be a problem. Maybe they could put a post II up. If they're willing to do that. I don't want to speak for them. Put a post up that says, Sterling Estates Beachiot and put it in the middle such that a car can't get down there. Or people can't run their ice houses. Mancino: But the applicant isn't here. 1 Aanenson: Except that these people are also of the Association. Mr. Boyer's. They have spoken to the applicant about representing the Association. So I mean if they're willing to do that, why not put it down as a condition and make both parties happy. We have done that or requested II that on other associations. That they do post it for security reasons. We just did that on Schmid's Acres. That they post that because that's another one where it's. Conrad: So when we say a post, are we closing that down? What are we doing? Harberts: Putting a sign up or what? ' Aanenson: Well, putting a post in the center restricting cars from getting down there. Restricting people from, it seemed to me the concern was, II people bringing their ice houses out. Or fishing houses out onto the ice. That would restrict that. That was a concern and if they're willing to do that, why not put it in as a condition. Conrad: Okay. Are you done? Harberts: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. I have nothing has taken me away from the information that I've got. I think it shouldn't be a boat launch. I think the docks have to be taken out of the dock setback zone. I think two boats is probably more than fair, and it's substantiated to a degree based on some of the information we have. And if we want to restrict the motor vehicle access, that's fine. It doesn't look like it's, well. I think if the applicants want to do that, I think that's appropriate. I'd like to see it. I don't have anything else. Any motion? II Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the issuance of a non - conforming recreational beachlot permit to the Boyer Sterling Estates with the following conditions as we've discussed. Just briefly going over these. No motor vehicle access. As far as no off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock. 50 foot dock with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the setback ordinance. No canoe racks. No boats on land. Two boats at the dock. No boats moored. A swimming beach. No swimming raft and I think that pretty much covers it. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 1 1 II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 20 .' Conrad: Any discussion? I Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit to Boyer's Sterling Estates with the following conditions: No motor vehicle access. I No off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock 50 50 feet in length with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the dock setback ordinance. No canoe racks. No boats on land. Two boats at I the dock. No boats moored. A swimming beach. No swimming raft. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item going over the proposed ordinance. I Mancino: Does it include labor? Harberts: It should exclude labor. 1 Mancino: Yeah, thank you. Labor, grading, maintenance. Any of that stuff? I Aanenson: Yeah, this is just planting materials. Ledvina: So previously those things were included and now they're excluded I so? Aanenson: No, it wasn't defined. In the bold, under minimum landscape I value, that definition is completely new. We never explained what value meant. So I guess if somebody said that includes the site prep. I Krauss: Well actually it was pretty nebulous. It did include, if you wanted to put. Aanenson: The project value. I Krauss: If you wanted to put nice pavers in, you could have included anything. 1 Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. I Krauss: It's strictly landscaping now which gives us a lot more... Aanenson: Or even site prep. It could have included that. That's what I was saying. So now we're excluding that out. We want to use, if planting 1 materials, trees, shrubbery, that sort of thing. Krauss: It's also a lot easier for us to administer because we say give us 1 a contract and show us that you did it. II Planning Commission Meeting II July 7, 1993 - Page 21 Mancino: Well and the other part is that $20,000.00 for a million to $2 million building isn't very much. If you included all that other. I Aanenson: Right. Krauss: Well except it isn't except that most construction goes up pretty I radically from there and if you figure a million dollars, I mean that's, a house is normally $200,000.00 plus these days so if you want to take 1/5 of it so you're spending, according to a house, you're spending $4,000.00 or I $5,000.00 in landscaping for a house which is probably pretty reasonable. Aanenson: Again, what we found is that the percentages held through. What ' we need to do is clarify what we're going to include as far as the landscape material or the value. So that's been clarified. Kate Aanenson continued with her staff report. II Mancino: I have a question about that I'd like to see year round screened. I Aanenson: Well what we need to do is develop a definition. I didn't put it in here Nancy but that's a good comment. We'll develop that definition of screened as what it means in this definition and year round. II Mancino: Right,'because all through here I felt that. Krauss: It probably would be appropriate in the definition but it would I also be appropriate just to list it that way every time it appears in the text. I Mancino: Great. Harberts: Comment on (b) when you talk about the, at the city's discretion I the value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping requirements. Are you comfortable with using the city discretion or does it need to be something more defined so that the city isn't perceived as I harrassing someone or something? Krauss: Well, we're comfortable with it. I think more appropriately is the developer going to be comfortable. 1 Aanenson: Well I guess my concern would be, what if someone decides to save some trees that we don't consider of high value or junk and tries to I give us, well geez these have been here for 20 years. Harberts: Well that's what I'm saying. When you say at the City's 1 discretion. Does that really give you enough meat? Krauss: Jo Ann's pointing out, we did define substantial tree. What that means in the new tree protection ordinance. ...assigned a dollar value and I offsetting something. And where is it located on the site. It's really a subjective matter that's going to change on every plan. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 22 .' Harberts: Do we need to use maybe as the baseline, and maybe you touched I on it Paul, is the fact that we have some standards here in terms of dollar values and then if we've got the, you know like the size of the tree, it somehow offsets and if they don't make that amount. II Krauss: Well we can ask Jeff if there's any kind of a way to assign a dollar value. But you know, it really, I'm not sure you're going to be able to...scientific measure. When I look at something like Target. I I mean Target came to us and said well...trees on the site, therefore you owe us a credit and we shouldn't have to have to landscape as much. Well, first of all they didn't save the trees. We bought them but and then you're not going to want to trade off the fact that they have a 350 car I parking lot and that you have to do something sensitive to it. So I think you want to leave yourself some outs. ' Harberts: Well and I can understand that. My only concern was, you know when you leave things being subjective, it's us against them type of thing. Who's right and then we sit here as the arbitrators in a sense. 5o that's I why I was just trying to come up with something a little bit more... Aanenson: No, I think there's some things we can look at. My other concern would be, even though there is a substantial tree preservation in I one area, but we still have a large parking lot and we still feel like we need some buffer and they said, gee we've already met it with saving all this. But we still may want additional basis, so I think you're right. I I think maybe we can build in some qualifiers there. Harberts: Yeah, and I'm just looking how do a I make a decision here. ' Aanenson: Okay. We'll look at that. Mancino: Well we're writing a whole new conservation easement. I Aanenson: Right, and that's why this really needs to dovetail with that ordinance. Mancino: Which may help give some guidelines. Harberts: That's what I'm looking for is basically the guidelines. I Aanenson: Correct. That will have to be brought into this one. Okay then turning to page 3. Again, the buffering issue. Then on Section 20 -1181. I Vehicular areas. Mancino: Oh, I have lots to say. ' Aanenson: Okay. You know the goals of breaking up the hard surface and then we added the and provide for a reforestation with overstory trees from the species list. I did attach a species list. That hasn't been adopted. I That's what they're looking at as far as the tree preservation ordinance but I just put that in there so you could have an idea of what sort of things we're looking at. But again, the intent is not to put shrubbery in I there but to create a different, a micro environment where we have over story and shading of the parking lot. A canopy. Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 7, 1993 - Page 23 Mancino: I think it's 9 reat. I just would like to add some things for us to think about in there for guidelines for developers and one is, a list of suitable trees for these small landscaped areas in the parking lots. It's II different from the list that follows that are for small areas in a parking lot and can take the heat of the parking lot surface, which I think we can do. And I'd also like to talk a little bit about irrigation in those areas. Should we. Aanenson: We did on Target require irrigation and that's a good point. Maybe that's something we want to go to on a commercial. Krauss: Minnetonka always mandated it. I think Eden Prairie requires it. We never have. Now you have developers that put it in and then you have people like Gene Borg who we made put a lot of landscaping in. This is a number of years ago, who then went through 5 or 6 years of drought and was working overtime just to get the stuff to live and lost a lot of stuff. Mancino: And this year we wouldn't need it at all. Krauss: It may well be an appropriate thing to do and I don't think we'd be out of line with other communities. There is a significant expense of course attached to it. Mancino: We're also helping in the long run instead of having to replace 1 these trees and the shrubbery every year. Aanenson: I think that also ties into one of the conditions that we put in I here is that, which is some new language, is that we want to have continued maintenance of the site and that may be one way to achieve it is requiring irrigation. And a lot of the bigger developers like Target, that's pretty much mandatory. It's the small ones and maybe there's a breaking point. I don't know. Mancino: Yeah, that's a good question. Aanenson: Maybe that's something we can look at too. Compare with other I cities. If there's a size parcel that they look at but I know like Target just does it automatically. Krauss: We can do a check of ordinances again but I haven't looked at it for 4 -6 years but I don't know... Harberts: What's considered expanses of hard surface? What's the number? You know, what's considered an expanse? I mean is it like a parking lot? Aanenson: It's defined further in here in the ordinance. Where it talks about 6,000 square feet. Anything over 6,000 and then we start giving percentages. So I think that's really more of an intent statement. What the goal is to have over story trees to break up that and then if you look under the top of page 4, that kind of gets into the specifics as far as how I much, based on the square footage. I can go through those really quick and then if you feel like we need to add something there to clarify that, you can go back and do that because maybe that makes sense. I don't know. Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 24 Harberts: Well you know, just in my thought process here is, you know the industrial area where we have the parking, things like that, they seem to sometimes be at a premium for space. Is it really necessary to put the trees there? I guess I'm not a real strong proponent. Aanenson: Maybe industrial versus commercial area too? Harberts: Yeah. I don't know. I'll certainly defer to some of my other colleagues here but is it always a good idea or necessary to try and get that effect in an industrial area? In a parking lot? Krauss: Well the screening we certainly want. Harberts: Yeah. Oh the screening. Aanenson: You're talking about the interior? Harberts: Interior yeah. Krauss: 1 don't think it's necessarily a bad example of how to do things but industrial area isn't necessarily hidden someplace down in the park. It's also on Highway 5 and it's Redmond Products, it's DataServ. It's sites that have a tremendous amount of visibility. Now the Highway 5 corridor plan is going to give some additional drive as to what you're going to do on properties in those areas but we really weren't going to change the landscaping standards much Kate, were we? I mean that's pretty much. Aanenson: Well I did make one or two small changes that aren't on your copy and I'd like to review with you. Krauss: You know I think when you have a Rosemount that has 1,100 people working there, that's an awful lot of parking stalls. And it's not an invisible site. It's sitting astride what's going to be a State, well... I'd be relunctant to kind of waive it. On the other hand, I understand why you know, especially in public transit and stuff, if we can get people closer to the door. Aanenson: But we have looked at other issues. We kind of use that word micro climate but you know they do need a place for snow removal. If they build any larger areas where they can put some of this stuff and just all the heat loss and what that's doing. Harberts: I guess there's always the opportunity to request a waiver with reasons why. Aanenson: Sure. Harberts: And I think the comment that was said earlier that there's numerous communities that do this. But I know it's expensive to maintain and looking from the perspective of the employer or business owner. Krauss: And the common, the complaint I've heard for 16 years is, snow plow drivers will hit them. You can't put the curbs there because snow Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 31 Krauss: Yeah Minneapolis, that's true. Minneapolis has broke up sidewalks but Minneapolis also has overhead utilities. Your cable and your electric and telephone run down alleys and you don't, I think you have gas lines. I don't know. There's got to be some way of working this out. It seems unfortunate to think that first of all we need a 60 foot right -of -way and then we need a 10 foot utility easement so there's going to be 80 foot of space where you can't put a tree. Olsen: Right. So you know, and I have been working with them on this other project and we're finding that there is a mutual middle ground where it does work. But I don't have the facts on how. If that was something you were interested in, then we would pursue it. Conrad: You've been working with who? Olsen: The engineering department and the street maintenance department. They're involved. 1 brought them into this process, that other landscaping, the boulevard project because we really need it and it really had gone quite a ways before they were even brought in and then we drove it with them and they were like well, you know we're out there measuring it and we find out that again the wing on the snowplow would have been cutting them all down. Because we had it. They had the, the consultant had the trees between the sidewalk and the street. So now we have it on the other side so it should work. But there is the concerns with the utilities. Harberts: So the trees are on the inside of the sidewalk? Olsen: Outside now. Krauss: No inside, you're right. Olsen: Yeah, right. Toward the house. Conrad: Our culture is dictated by snowplows. Olsen: But it should work. And they can, where they're located they can swing out. They can make adjustments too. Mancino: What happened then on Lake Susan Hills subdivision? Didn't the Council pass 2 trees? Olsen: The Addition, the 9th Addition. Yes. Krauss: As a PUD, they added it as a condition. Mancino: And so what happens there about the $750.00, did that go up to $1,000.00? Olsen: That was only $750.00. It was still at $750.00. It was at $150.00 and we switched it up to the $750.00. Ledvina: Oh okay. Mancino: So the developer was still able to do the 2 trees for $750.00? Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 32 Krauss: Well but it doesn't mean it costs that. Mancino: Yeah, I brought my wholesale price list of trees and. Krauss: See that $750.00 is $500.00 of which is seed and sod. And to sod a home, you're talking about $900.00, $1,000.00, $1,200.00. Olsen: But $250.00 is just for the tree. Well anyway, that was one alternative we were looking at that might take the place of the other one. And then the other one was just the reforestation plan. There might be a project. Picture if Lake Susan Hills 9th had none of the nice trees. It was all cornfields. Well we've had that with the other additions where maybe they would have provided an outlot for just a stand of trees instead of having boom, boom, boom, boom. They might, so again. Again, these are all flexible things that we can do. That we can add as some of the options that they have. Using the goal of the Tree Board, what they really intend or what they want. Maybe I'm not speaking correctly for you but maybe some of the reforestation wasn't just per lot but also if we could bring back some of the stands of trees. So in the future that's for all public use. Mancino: I'd love to see each development have a complete whole reforestation plan and within that reforestation there may be some boulevard plantings. There may be, there needs to be some guidelines about the reforestation things but I think it'd be wonderful for every development. Even those that are wooded. I mean they're obviously going to have to take down like on the Song property, they're probably going to have to take down trees to put in the house pads and to put in the streets and there's going to be areas where there aren't any trees so how do we keep reforesting that? Conrad: When you talk about boulevard plantings, you're really not talking about every street. You're just talking about the impact in certain streets. Olsen: Well it would be every street in the subdivision. Local streets. Conrad: See I like boulevard plantings but that's not, my impression is not every street. I like an impact with, I think you can make a terrific impact on any new development or like any facility. Entryways. The sense of presence. The sense of getting into it. A boulevard. One boulevard that has a lot of trees just sets the tone for that development so I guess I've always, and when we were talking about this before. I like the boulevard planting concept. It may be a little bit more complex. The bottom line is, you require two trees per house. Isn't that simple? We don't have to screw around with rules. We just change the number from 1 to 2 and it's done. I think I said that before, that's so simple to reforest the city is just increase, with just one little number. Whereas you get into boulevard plantings, then we get into difficulties. Maybe some arbitrary things and costs and I don't know so. But I do like the thought of boulevard plantings. When it's concentrated. When it makes an impact. 1 guess I'm not interested in figuring out how we make every street a boulevard and I don't know if that's, you know. I don't know why not. It just seems. Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 35 Olsen: Well it's essentially what you're doing with the 1 tree per lot too. Conrad: What you're telling me on 1 tree per lot is maxing out that front yard so how are we going to change it? If 1 tree per lot maxes it out, how are we going to make it any different? Olsen: Well the boulevard plantings allows you to get more towards the street. Conrad: So we're back to the covering the street. That's the difference? Instead of it being a tree in the middle of the yard, it's really covering the street. Olsen: Yeah. And then also we could work on maybe it's, you know adjacent to the lot lines or like on each lot line. You know it's not boom, boom, boom, boom. Krauss: One of the things that concerns me throughout the whole thing, and I in the past have been a supporter of the multiple tree approach but it seems like we're tailoring an ordinance for the lowest common denominator and that's something we just don't normally do. It's like you don't write an ordinance to catch 100% of the criminals because it makes everybody else's life miserable. 95 %'s a good rate. Relative to tree preservation, we don't find too often many sites and we do have them in the city, but eveybody points to Lake Susan Hills. But there aren't too many cornfield lots in the city. As we move south of Highway 5 we'll come into a few of them but we're doing, I mean and Nancy everything around your neighborhood has significant trees and now we work to save those trees. And you can even look on the old farmsteads, you'll find hillsides that they didn't touch or creek areas or whatever. Mancino: So the important part is going to be preserving? Krauss: Yeah. So I'm not certain, you know I think we may be laboring overly intensively to solve a problem that's not really there most of the time. If you add into the mix the fact that most people want to landscape. , Most people will do this all of their own free will. It will take them a while maybe but they'll do it. Ledvina: They'll do what's right. I put 2 trees in my yard. Not because I had to but because that worked well. I thought it did anyway so. And 3 trees doesn't work. I would have been upset if somebody would have told me that I had to put that third tree somewhere. Mancino: As I drove around I looked over on the city thinking about it, and most front yards, and I didn't really look to see the size of the front yards. I just saw a lot of average front yards and it was mostly north of TH 5. A lot of east of where I live. Had 2 trees in their front yard. I mean somebody put them there. I'd say almost 95% of the houses had 2 trees in the front yard. Krauss: I know that this original discussion, Jo Ann was there too, came specifically out of people's frustration with the Lake Susan Hills and a II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 36 II couple of other projects that tended to be large, mass graded projects II offering entry level houses. Mancino: And you can see that all the way almost to Galpin, almost to Lake Lucy Road. If you look down you can see that Lake Susan Hills and you II can't see a tree at all. Krauss: But there's a lot of, there's some photographic retrospectives on I Levittown. I mean look at what Levittown looked like in 1947 and every house was exactly the same and it was all perfectly flat and not a single thing standing that was green. You come there today and every house looks I different and it looks forested. I mean it's just the natural evolution of what people do to their property. Ledvina: They've got to do something and one of those something's is plant II a tree. Everybody does something. Olsen: And I tried to figure out if there's a way to say, if your lot was I this small, you could do 1 tree. This big you could do the 2 or 3 and, I don't know. Maybe there's a way we can combine all. I Harberts: I kind of like that overall plan in terms of development but I still like to see the homeowner have their own control or choice in terms of what they do with their individual property. That's just my personal feeling. II Mancino: I agree. I still would be very interested in a development that_..where a developer had some sort of plan for reforesting. II Harberts: With clumps of trees or whatever. Mancino: Development allowed me to do what I needed to on my parcel but II had some maybe common areas which you see so much of now. The backyards that are common together. And if the developer had gone to that degree. I Krauss: And the way the tree preservation ordinance is set up, the new one, it kind of gives us the leverage to say, I mean you've got to break a few eggs to put a subdivision in. You're going to lose some trees anyway. I As soon as they do that, we then have the leverage to say, well where are you going to replace them and how are you going to do that? How are you going to address this issue? And I think we get to your comprehensive tree preservation plan or reforestation plan. II Harberts: Yeah, and if it's designated as a corridor or whatever, then they know there's going to be a lot more requirements up front. But again, I I still think the individual properties really should lie with the homeowner. I Krauss: Well we'll continue to do it. I mean but it's been very difficult for us to administer. Olsen: The individual lots. II 11 in Commission Meeting P II lanning g July 7, 1993 - Page 37 i Krauss: I can't tell you how much time Sharmin spends on these things and going out to visit them and giving extensions and giving back checks and getting yelled at for not giving back checks and getting caught in the II middle because the developer made the buyer escrow $750.00 and didn't tell them about it until closing, even though the builder knew about it for 4 II months. I mean it's just endless. Harberts: Well exactly and I think that conversation too about the $1,000.00 and stuff like that. I mean showing up at a closing and coming II up with, cough up another $750.00 or $1,000.00. Break the deal. Olsen: The two alternatives that we showed in here, we could solely put on II the developer and those are conditions that they have to meet and before they would get, they all have a letter of credit. In fact we've kind of been doing that lately anyway like with the 9th Addition and with Royal Oaks. They've all gone through their development contract and letter of II credit has money that covers the whole landscaping plan that they proposed. We will not let go of that until all that landscaping's in that they, and that was the 1 tree per lot. II Ledvina: Until every last tree is in? Krauss: Well what we do is we allow them to draw down their letter of II credit as things,are installed. Olsen: And they usually do that once the utilities come in. II Krauss: But we'd much prefer to have the developer over a barrel than... Harberts: Isn't ultimately though the costs are still born by the II homeowners? Krauss: There's no question they're passed along but the developer has 1 tremendous effiencies in buying wholesale and getting crews to do things when they want to and staging things. And the developer is budgeting, if you're talking about budgeting $40,000.00 or $35,000.00 a lot or whatever I it is for improvements, and land carrying costs and everything else, I'm not going to say it's not a burden but it's easy to roll in the cost of that. It's a lot easier than you showing up at Northwest Title and being II hit with it. Ledvina: ...when I saw that in print, have the developer bear the cost and ' • not the homeowner. I mean that's going to be a pass thru cost. I know you're right in what you're saying but we shouldn't be naive to think that that, oh the developer's just going to suck that up. Krauss: It really isn't a matter of the cost going away Matt, it's a ' matter of equity and how it's applied. You know then it becomes a cost that's rolled up in the price of a house and it gets sucked into the II mortgage and nobody. Harberts: Which is easier than out of pocket. Conrad: Okay, so what's our direction to Jo Ann? II II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 38 1 Harberts: Well I think the comments she made ealier about maybe combining I 1 and 2. I think we talked about the overall comprehensive plan. In a sense establishing those corridors and the developers know right away. I think we've talked about really just one tree per lot. Leave it up to the individual landowners to go further. Or homeowners to go further with 1 landscaping or tree planting or whatever. Those are the things that I'm hearing. II Olsen: And what we are suggesting is that we would take it back to the Tree Board and let them. ' Conrad: And they're not going to like what we just did, right? Olsen: No, I think that they will. 1 Conrad: I thought they wanted, I thought Richard was here because he wanted 3 trees. ' Olsen: No, he was actually looking at 2 trees and I think that these other alternatives are still meeting what it was we're going for. Krauss: Richard wants to achieve goals. I mean the bigger goal with II reforestation of the city and I'm not sure he'll dicker on the details of how you get there. I Conrad: Okay. Just talk to me one more time. The overall plan. It's like we're focusing in on the subdivision but I'm back out of that. I'm looking for the overall city plans so we have these treescapes. ' Olsen: Yeah, we haven't gotten to that yet. Conrad: But that's what I really care about. I honestly don't, I'm not II sure of our impact here. I know we have to have something that goes. Not just subdivision oriented. It's the whole street and roads. I Krauss: If you look at the way we've been doing business in the last few years, it's already happening. I mean look at Minnewashta Parkway. There is, I don't think the landscaping is in yet but that does have a I significant landscaping component. We're doing it on Kerber. The designs for the north and south access boulevards include extensive landscaping and trails and I mean it's becoming just the way we. Conrad: Why are you doing that? 1 guess what's forcing you to do that Paul? I Krauss: The fact that we thought it was a good idea and it fit the goals that we were trying to obtain. We're able to wrap them into construction projects where the landscaping. ' Olsen: Yeah, there's nothing requiring that. There's nothing that we're going to that says this is what we should be doing but. II Conrad: So then why are we, if you're getting that done anyway, why do we need what we're looking at right now? Planning Commission Meeting II July 7, 1993 - Page 39 II Olsen: This is just dealing with the subdivisions again. Harberts: Well I think at the same time though it's putting the 1 developer's on notice though in terms of what expectations are because when they come into the door, they want to know what their out of pocket costs is up first. And then come to us with a plan that shows that. 1 Olsen: I mean this is one way that we do have control. Harberts: And if a subdivision, as I understand it, is going to go into a II primary corridor that's been established, they know this up front. When they put their site plan together, what's expected so when we see it here, II it's going to be a total package deal. That's the way I'm interpretting this. Conrad: So the Tree Board does not, who's on the Tree Board? II Olsen: Nancy. Tim. Dick Wing. And then it's. Conrad: So you guys don't, what Paul's telling me is you guys don't care II about the overall, what's going on overall in the city. Mancino: Well yeah we do. II Krauss: I think - they care about the overall goal and not necessarily incrementally exactly how you achieve it as long as we achieve it. II Olsen: The only problem with what you're doing tonight, you know by sending it back to the Tree Board and bringing in these two new II alternatives is that it's going to take a while. You won't have something in there immediately to all of a sudden require the additional, 2 trees or whatever. That's the only down side but the fact is we've really been doing this lately anyway. I don't see a. II Ledvina: Do we have a lot of PUD's coming up? Olsen: Yeah, we do have some. Yeah we do. II Mancino: Do we have any just standard subdivisions coming up? II Krauss: Yep, you have some of those too. Conrad: Okay. II Mancino: How long would it take, a month to go through the Tree Board? Olsen: Well we can talk about this, we can get this one, we've got a II meeting next week. I would say about a month. Then it comes back to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. II Conrad: So it's not this summer. Krauss: Well honestly, with our schedules and with the load we've been I carrying and with Jo Ann leaving in September and with my being in Peru a II II Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 40 1 lot of this summer, we can't commit to too much of anything. II Conrad: Jo Ann, you'll just have to stick around. Okay. II DISCUSSION OF TH 101 REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES. Conrad: Paul, you've got something under new business, Trunk Highway 101 I realignment. Krauss: I do but do you want to go through that briefly or do you want to save it? 1 Conrad: I'd prefer to save it. I Krauss: I could tell you that after having met with MnDot this afternoon, it's probably not going to be going very fast. Just briefly, you know that Fred Hoisington was hired by the City to do the TH 101 study 4 years, 5 years ago. Because we've been tinkering with the interchange design at 212 and TH 101, in part because we've been trying to fit in a park and ride facility and part because we're trying to work with property owners. In part because we want better access to Lake Susan Hills and then MnDot's I refining designs. What's happened is the interchange is skewed a little bit. And what it did is it reraised the issue of exactly where should the final link between Highway 5 and 212 be. And what it tends to say is maybe ' we ought to look at alignments a little further west than the originally proposed alignment. Plus since then the ISTEA bill has passed and we think we can do a better job of highway design than may have been done in the past. So we had one meeting with the neighborhood residents. We're,going II to have to have more to refine the design. I've hired Fred Hoisington to kind of shepherd the thing through because he's got all the experience from the first time around and we figure this is right up his alley. One of the I things we met with MnDot today about though is, we were always anticipating that. Well, the City's basically been rebuilding a State Highway piece by piece, which we shouldn't have to do but because of that goofy designation I of TH 101, we have been doing it. Initially we thought that we'd use TIF dollars to finish it. But we've just heard that the TIF cornucopia is not what it was supposed to be. I don't know if you've heard this news yet officially but we had estimated that the TIF districts would generated $11 II million in excess revenue. That's after we paid for all the things that we've already got committed. So you have a wish list $11 million long. Mancino: Total. Krauss: Total. Which included things like community center and senior I housing and everything. I mean all the stuff that we're doing. That doesn't include the currently funded projects. Anyway, because of all the devaluation of commercial /industrial property, there's been a 20% knockdown in the valuation of commercial /industrial property. You say 20 %, maybe II that doesn't sound like enough but multiply that out over the 6 or 7 years remaining in the district. All of a sudden your $11 million is now $4 million. And one of the things we were meeting at lunch today with MnDot about is saying well guys, you've developed a cooperative program to work with us on finishing Highway 5 and the frontage road. The access 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1993 - Page 41 1 boulevard. It makes sense that you'd also want to work with us on finishing off this state highway that we keep building for you and while they basically said, and we understand their position. They're very nice about it. They basically said we'd love to be in a position to help you but (a), we're broke. (b), because the legislature made it a temporary highway in 1935, they can't. So what we're going to do is kick it over into another arena. It's an issue that always should have really needed to II be decided. Who's going to take responsibility for Highway 101 from the Minnetonka line down to the Minnesota River? Who's going to ultimately possess it and how do we get it fixed? And there are some, the probability is it's going to be a county road of some sort. And the probability is we may get some state dollars through some different funding sources than we thought about but we have to have these set of meetings which means that the neighborhood meetings that we've been having on the road alingments are II probably going to have to be delayed a little bit until we get this straighten out because we don't want to spend a whole lot of city dollars II doing environmental assessments unless we know we have the Fed's behind us. Bottom line fact of the matter is, if we don't do anything with Highway 101, and the State does 212, all that traffic running between 212 and TH 5 is going to run on old TH 101, which doesn't do anybody any good. That's enough said on that. We'll keep you posted. There are some land use issues too by the way. I mean when we were finding the plans, it does have some implications on a detailed basis on how the land use plan lays out in I there. But we can present that to you. I can have Fred come to another one of your meetings. Conrad: Good. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chairman Conrad noted the Minutes of the . Planning Commission meeting dated June 16, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Conrad: Report from the Director. Anybody want Paul to talk? Anybody? I II sure like your reports Paul. I tell you that solves so much concern. It's good communication. Anything else? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1