The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Discussion of Proposed Moratorium on Hwy 5 1 CITY OF -- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Administrator MEMORANDUM Endorsed ✓ b' • Mod ;ca TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager D t� ' � l /'- 17- -J Dete Submitted to Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning 1 Dete Sins :tt.�d to Council DATE: November 17, 1993 '13 • ' SUBJ: Discussion of Proposed Moratorium on Highway 5 At the last Council meeting, the subject of a potential moratorium on Hwy. 5 development was raised for the third time in the past two years. As in the past, the primary concern seemed to focus on the need for the City to "get out in front of development" by having the Hwy. 5 Plan in place. The last time this was considered it proceeded far enough along that area property 1 owners were notified and a moratorium ordinance prepared for consideration. This issue is obviously not a new one to staff and one that we take quite seriously. We were ' frustrated several years ago when it took almost six months to get the Hwy. 5 program funded and initiated. After the project was initiated, the Hwy. 5 Task Force put in many hours of meetings to develop the plan and deliver it to the Planning Commission by September. They met ' their goal. Since that time, we have repeatedly scheduled the Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. It was scheduled for at least three meetings that went past midnight before the hearings on new development applications were completed. It simply was not possible 1 to give adequate consideration to the Plan at 1:00 a.m. The problem with reviewing the Plan is not a lack of desire but clearly a lack of time. I am also 1 concerned with the apparent feeling that things are out of control on Hwy. 5 because we are being asked to review development proposals before the Plan is formally adopted. When this question was raised by you in the past, we were able to affirm that indeed virtually all the ' development that was anticipated in the corridor was in conformance with the draft plan. We also indicated that the City was able to leverage extensive control over these projects due to required rezoning, use of PUD, TIF and need to extend utilities to serve these areas. Fortunately, these factors remain in place. However, the development pressures are accelerating. I can honestly state that staff and the Planning Commission share the Council's frustration but there is only so much you can cram into 50 hour weeks and five hour Commission meetings. You probably have two options. The first is the moratorium you asked staff to bring back up 1 for consideration. An ordinance has been drafted by the City Attorney and is attached to this • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth November 17, 1993 1 Page 2 memo. It exempts the required actions on the new elementary school but would otherwise prevent proposals along the corridor from being reviewed while the moratorium is in force. However, it would not stop development submittal from outside the corridor and the Planning Commission is likely to stay busy. ' As an alternative I would suggest you consider ordering the Planning Commission to clear its agendas to allow for consideration and hold a public hearing. We are proposing that the 1 December 15 meeting be held to review and discuss the Plan and that the January 19 meeting be devoted to the required public Hearing. You could order the Commission to deliver the Plan to the Council by your February 14 meeting. We have already taken the liberty of proposing this 1 to the Planning Commission, but I believe that I do not have the authority to close out agendas as needed, without your support. We have also scheduled a field trip for the Planning Commission for Saturday, December, 4. The Council is invited to join us. Should Y ou decide that a moratorium is the last effective way in which to proceed, the Council could implement the ordinance that has been drafted by the City Attorney. We have not had an opportunity to publish the ordinance change or to re -notify the impacted property owners. The City Attorney has indicated that you could proceed with the moratorium in any case. However, you should also consider having the Planning Commission hold a hearing and then have the Council formally adopt the ordinance to minimize the potential for legal issues arising. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C KEY•/OKAG J � 1 : I � �/ sJ) , � 1I � 't!q ; [Z I t o -`uJ. � } ]I{ ^ I swo _ L., ti PARK � � �. / � _ 1 i b .i t , !_ 9J - I - •• ,�• -- LAK( cUCr : 70, - ,. 1 „ I'S, :_r torus 1�. 1 Iwo i • A�Qf , J 1 / //�- V (/ (/ -jy..� _ rood o 1 t ( T �!- i 1m r I �-- ~ -_ rl l - {i'` ��jy�i �'i J><I�it 4 1 111111 . ' 5 t'� ,.00_ �� 1 �1 ,y n i lT 4. ti�l! t . .i; 11 },�� j ` C' Yr -H-pro. [ t; � I ; . 1 i� I.. r 1 c M . :,: >�oo „. - I , ' ( - ' c;- (1 ° , a �� ^Q \ :� ' : � ' ([l ' L r'W il�(��}, 1 , " 1� ; " 7 1 7 : 7 • 1 - ( r MEA f » P ` 1 1�)) LAKE ' t MO ( �6 ( , " _ `� .I LAKE ANN NE PARK " .' a �∎ ,..;•i I.LA k. N ^� � C \ ` t 1 ,, L _ I t _._ (� '� 1 �' f'IM .��T� y Two '2 J - i I t • . ! aAPE r`;� c� .i_ I,I • . � `'% '� 8 y '°� / rsoe -- = . - _ ,\ 1 I , ANN • N, • ' ,1' � �°' 4f I'd I f s d 1:1,..,.'. / '5" ,roo - -__ 4 I - . PARK ^ I } - -AtA Z � ' l 1 Ilk 7.00 c: l s. .., , /1 j� I +; g :.�'Ir �' nee . --- — -- N�4«v°. - - -� n t-___-=4„. 1—� - va9t3 I 1:74 � O - n 7900 ?rTf4_' " fviny _ ' _� -L—.J uI 6 IC Ili ' _ 00 1 - ' . - 11111 r , , 1 _ __ t ure.er_ ' C - - t soon_..- '" i Ir - -_ - ` r / .00 C _ w • "` S \ ^" � `• • 1 • • •i ,-1. -�" - I _ 'E _ - ni -i.� 1 - S .o w/.v P m v __ -.� L i _ ; .. 2, ,I '' t arE • ^ � , �a ►�? �� 11ttt �,,,"!!!"' . ' eroo t _ Loo. _._ - \ :a vE s v ,,n A I�eaa l i a / ` i , a ° ( Q /. I r [_.,(1,/...,. �,' °� � aa .l� . oY, ' . 1.1u ;1 * RKE . z atoo \ r / \ ,• \: 0 • NARSN 4 pi / I " CAKE eaoo \ i� i IMre oJ r y � 1 g ,.. . / _ CAKE SUSAN I ' • 1 :% • > f .aa ,.-,'� : f A \.off ,,1 „�\,. { / • - \ � a/C M ASH LAKE , 1 . « I } _ i - ., -� 11�. 1.J.- " K ` ,' � I1 ' \ ��, ry ca 1 : ) � TO 21 -. .. 7 ^ ^ ..� x. \ I I . 9 • •,r._1 R � 1 . - - OSL ' I eron • .0 °. •\ , v /, , L 1 1 1 T >' q l Y ; - 8900 999 4 � .. - -= - crTh CITY OF 9 __. , —. -- . - � - - - °" - — _ ' iv �a 4 J Ogire PI CHANHASSEN ° °, w EASE MAP I r ry GAKE x l I ( " • . ,1, alter / El AREA PROPOSED FOR MORATORIUM J - Iiio r " I .1 — fi -- - - f • r!- >r v 1 / 1 .1...1 . ,. % roo � . .. ._ ^i I 11 , L:} S 4500 o4 r +r -- l r m — — — W— NM — NM o tIIIIII 4 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Th, ma• 1 Campbell (612) } >'_ -5C }:ho ma N Knut' n T )1 Scott Fax (612) 452-5550 5 0 Thomas in G Fuchs 1 Lame: R. Walston Elliott tt B. Knetsch Eli_ahcth A Lun_er Andrea N1cDoaa'e11 Poehler November 11, 1993 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Highway 5 Corridor Moritorium Ordinance Dear Don: Enclosed please find the ordinance the City Council requested temporarily prohibiting approval of certain development in the Highway 5 corridor. 1 - truly yours, C PBELL, , i TSON, SCOTT 1 FUC P.A. B . ='� N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure cc: Paul Krauss 1 1 RECEIVED 1 NOV 15 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN y� CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 1 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms whenever used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR means all land abutting State Highway No. 5 in the City of Chanhassen. PLAT means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable Chanhassen city ordinances adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.358 and Chapter 505. Section 2. Intent. The City has retained a planning consultant and has commissioned a task force to perform a planning study of the Highway 5 corridor. It is the intent of this Ordinance to allow the City of Chanhassen time to complete planning studies and adopt appropriate land use controls, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. 3. Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion Tempor v r g letion of p the above referenced study and adoption of appropriate official controls, no plat shall be processed or approved and no appli- 1 cations for such approval will be accepted in the Highway 5 corridor. This Ordinance shall not apply to the following: (1) Plats which have been preliminarily approved by the City j Council prior to this adoption of this Ordinance; (2) Platting by city, county, school districts, and the federal government for construction of facilities to be owned by them to carry out governmental functions; Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder or May 1, 1994, whichever occurs first. 1 10053 11/10/93 11 1 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. i ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993). 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 10053 1 11/10/93 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mens and women's open type of softball leagues. They also bring a lot of employees into this city. I don't know what the statistics are but we employ a large number of folks in the city and hopefully they're out making use of the trail system and who are in fact out making use of the trail system during their work time hours. When you think of an employee, whether they're a 1, a 2, a 10 or a lifetime employee at a certain company, you try to create an environment, a work environment such as Chanhassen has, where they can feel comfortable coming to work. They have some feeling of open space. They have some feeling that if they want to partake in recreation after the workday, they have that available to them so the city has maintained that commercial /industrial segment of our - city. It does bear a large part of the responsibility for creating those open and recreational spaces. That's been some of the philosophy to date. And again the number of case studies, as I've indicated, are numerous. You can cut this thing a 1,000 different ways and come up with always somewhat different figures. But certainly facts and figures and numbers which are... Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Councilman Wing: I move approval. , Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution $93 -13: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the resolution approving the 1993 Park and Trail Dedication fees as . follows: Residential single family or duplex units at $600.00 per unit. Multi - family and apartment units at $525.00 per unit. Commercial/ industrial property at $3,000.00 per acre and the trail dedication fee being one -third of the cost of dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1 Cou-)c =1rnr Mason: Two things about the workshop. The direction I'd like to see us take, and one of them's already been touched on, is task Highway 5. I think SOME people have claimed that Council has not taken leadership on this task force and 1 think I would be inclined to agree at this point and I think we need to fake a strong look at that. Along with that, Don Ashworth mentioned at the last HRA some sort of 2002. Some sort of vision for the city. I think we as local government, city government have a decision or have to think about whether we wa.lt to be caretakers of Chanhassen or whether we want to be leaders of Chanhassen. Now I prefer to be a leader and I think if we do, I would like to . see the Council doing some sort of visioning on what do we foresee happening in the year 2002. What do we want the city of Chanhassen to be like? Not just next year, but in 5 years and 10 years. So I guess those are the two things I'd like to have us take a real strong look at. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was hopeful that the letter that was written back to Jim Andrews would have been in our administrative section with the letter indicating that but I'm sure, I think I showed that to everybody. Councilman Senn: I guess, you know ,onl concern I get is I thought-- 3.tiis one work session we set up was really relati to the moratorium issue on Highway 5. I think we've set this thing up to go be o lanning_Co.mmission which has a finite period which we're running which I believe is 2 hours. I think to take 37 City Council Meeting - Fe Lary 22, 1993 those 2 issues on, probably each one of them is deserving many more than 2 hours. Councilman Mason: And that's fine Mark. I just, I agree with what you're saying. I think the two issues are hand in hand. And I'm fine with having Highway 5 be the major thurst but I want us to keep close to the front this idea of what the future's going to bring. Because that's a real good point. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's why we're discussing that Why we brought it up in the first place is we all are trying to get that vision in place because I think it was you Mark that articulated in the Council race that unless we define a vision within the next couple years it will just happen and we won't have... Councilman Wing: We've already decided if we don't do it in within the next 6 months, it's going to happen. Councilman Senn: Don, we never got back to this last meeting and maybe now's the approp time but I'd still really like to see us set up a regular work session schedule. ' Mayor Chmiel: Something was to be set up by staff. Councilman Senn: We were going to set it up I thought at the end of last ' meeting and we never came back to it. I'd like to really see, since everybody's here tor.ioht, if we could pick some kind of a common time to go ahead and start doing this on a monthly basis. ' Councilwcc,ar Dockendorf: And I think Wednesday the 3rd was just an abberation. We just p_ced that because it worked well for us but on an ongoing basis, that's not c' r to work for me. Councilman Senn: Well that was a quick pick because we wanted to try to not to stacE staff up. Or we wanted to stack staff up I should say, on a given night. Mayo Chmiel: We could either make that something either prior to each Council meeting. St?rt at 5:30 and have discussions on different things. I'd like to thumbs dog: on that one. Or we can establish an additional Monday of each month. Councilman Mason: Well that does, the trouble with that is it does bring staff in another night. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't necessarily have to bring staff in though. ' Councilman Mason: Well, there will be at least 1 or 2 staff people at every one of those. Councilman Senn: But let me make a point on that. We could set it for Monday night and we could move one of the temporary task force or commissions to meet that same night which does the stacking we're talking about. The temporary ' things are going to go away. I hope this doesn't go away. I hope this is a permanent meeting. We can move things in and out around it because now we've -1 38 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 set that Monday night as a meeting time and stuff, and then we could move something else around it again. I agree with what staff has brought up at past meetings. We want to stack it as much as possible so you're not running back here every night of the week. Councilman Wing: Well let's back up. I think we've decided, at least a 11 majority that we want a scheduled Council work session. At least monthly. No less than monthly. Let's just pick a time. Let's concentrate on that, whenever it is. Mayor Chmiel: You know, Colleen says thumbs down but I think to try to justifiably do this, if somehow we could do it prior to a Council meeting. Really because then it eliminates that need of staff being here another night. God only knows they're here probably about 3 or 4 times during the week. Rather than making it 5, I thought we could at least try something in that particular vein. And maybe starting it at 5:00. Have a 2 1/2 hour work session prior to the Council meeting. Councilman Senn: That's a long attention span for a night. , Mayor Chmiel: It makes a long night, I agree. Councilman Senn: I'd really rather see a separate Monday. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my concern with that is that we'd end up talking abc,:t that night's agenda as opposed to talking about. Councilman Senn: Well Dick had suggested I think last time we talked about ' this. I thought you were kind of even suggesting it almost as an additional thing that we maybe meet a half hour early or something and review agendas. Councilman Wing: I'd like an opportunity because I can't get a hold of staff during the day. To be here at 7:00 and go right down the agenda with specific concerns, answers, questions, clarifications from the attorney. Things I'm going to bring up that I may not even have to mention at the meeting then, and woul -' resolve the problem. So if we met at 7:00 prior to each one to review, quick review of the agenda, like Golden Valley does. Their meetings are over righ+ now because they resolve it. The questions are asked up front. Councilman Senn: That's the regular Council meeting? Councilman Wing: Regular Council meeting. Councilman Senn: I like that idea too in addition to what we're talking about as a regular work night basically. Paul Krauss: Minnetonka always, well Minnetonka had regular meetings, work sessions on an off night. It's a good format to throw things out really. They also got together a half hour ahead of time in a different room and ate a sandwich and schmoozed a little bit, which was great because you get to meet and it's not, the TV cameras aren't on and all that. But I think we run a problem 39 City Council Meeting - Feb, sr 22, 1993 Y 9 Y when we start thinking that we're going to be talking about what's on the agenda that night, because as soon as we have more than 2 of you in a room and we talk about what's on the agenda, we've probably violated the State law. Mayor Chmiel: All we'd have to do is have the newspaper come in_and make them 1 apprised of that. Councilman Senn: Everybody expects it to be a public meeting. It just takes us out of this and let's us ask some specific agenda questions. I would have loved to do that on several items tonight. Elliott Knetsch: Yeah, if you have it regularly scheduled as a meeting and it's open to the public, you don't have an open meeting violation. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I feel real awkward sometimes kind of stating opinions and getting questions that I'd kind of like to hear for example what the City ' Attorney says before time. I don't mind any of that being public but again, it'd be nice to have an opportunity to do it without. ' Councilwoman, Docl-endorf: Yeah, the formalities. Councilr:,- Wing: I thick we'll run smoother with that so that's one side of it and I would, a: a matter of fact I'll so move that we meet at 7:00 for a quick preview and a quid question and answer period. And if this fails, it can be repealed r a;'. . ' Councilme:' Se-n: 1'12 second that. Councilran flacon: I didn't think that was under Council Presentations. Councilman Senn: work eeseions. Councilman Wi:072: Although I might say Mr. Mayor, if you would allow me, because 11 I was late and I did try desperately hard to get here, if you would allow me to add to a Council Presentation. That's what I wanted to bring up tonight so I would have tc EEF you permission to present this. In which case then a motion would stand. Councilwc.r;.n Dcckendcrf: While we're on it, how about those late fees? What do ' you think? Mayor Chmiel: I think it's legitimate to allow that to go. We can try that at 7:00. The only problem is, whoever's going to be sitting on the Board of ' Adjustments and Appeals won't be there. If there's something going at that same time. ' Councilman Senn: Move that up a half hour. Councilman Wing: That's right. That ends at 7:00. ' Councilman Senn: Of course we could just make it a half hour long and they'd go the len_h they should. 1 40 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to have the City Council meet at 7 :00 prior to each regular City Council meeting to review the agenda and ask questions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: That will be at 7:00 on March 8th. - Councilman Wing: And subsequent meetings. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, review of agenda. 1 Councilman Wing: Before you go, I'm very concerned about staff burnout and their evenings away from home. They're stretched now so whatever we're going to do, it really has to take staff carefully into consideration I think. Councilman Senn: I agree Dick. I think we should go with the Monday night and I think again we should take some of the temporary things, the task force types of things and move them to that night so we cluster them. I agree with the concep' totally. It's just that, I think we should set that as a regularly scheduled thing that we're going to look at with some permantency and we can plan on our schedules and as task forces go and come, or whatever they can plug in around the more permanent times. To accommodate staff so they do that. Coumcilrnan Wing: The only reason I'm going to shake in my boots...Monday night, is that for the next year I have a strong commitment over at the Fire Department. Councilman Senn: On every Monday night or what? Councilman Wing: Well, every Monday night but on off Monday nights in particular so I fight to get Mondays off. Mayo Chmiel: ...save every Monday night that we have, which is our second and fourth. Cour ::loran Senn: So I'm trying to get his scheduling problem. Councilman Wing: Okay, the last motion was 7 :00 on Council meeting nights. 1 Scheduled Council meeting nights. Councilman Senn: Just regular meeting nights. Not work session nights. 1 Councilman Wing: Now we're looking at an actual work session to deal with heavy issues such as the Abra and Highway 5 Task Force, etc, etc. 1 Councilman Mason: Well so how about, yeah. How about doing it before a Planning, Commission. Either first or third Wednesday. 1 Councilman Senn: That's tough for me. See Mondays are easier for me. Mayor Chmiel' That would be March 3rd. 1 41 1 City Council Meeting - Februdry 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: That's bad for you too? Councilman Mason: Mondays are. Plus the nice thing about doing it before a 11 Planning Commission or before an HRA or whatever, is we have to be done by a certain time. That will I think keep us on task. 11 Councilman Wing: HRA nights might be a good night. That's a Thursday night once a month. Mayor Chmiel: That'd be the lath. Councilman Wing: How much time do you think we need Mark? Based on what you've felt so far. I mean these things get pretty light. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I mean, the work sessions, I'd like to really see them scheduled in a way they don't come up against something because, you know deal like it's an extra Council night. If there's that many issues coming at us that fast, we can put 1 or 2 on the agenda and if one of them takes 2 hours. I don't mind giving it. I mean I'd much rather be in that situation than being sitting up at this table with the limited information you have otherwise. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's poll or let's find out what day may be good. Dick - has suggeEted. Councilman Serr.: Well Mondays are bad for Dick and I hear Mike saying Mondays are bad for hirr. Mayor Chrr,_e': Hcu ab_ Wednesdays, which is Planning Commission night or a Thursday? is a Thursday evening on the 11th. ' Councilman 1,L17: Cc:.ld HRA be shoved ahead a half hour if we ran into a time constra_r;t ? Mayor Nc. I'd suggest that we'd have a hard time getting a forum. Councilma How about if we do Wednesday but don't necessarily just leave ' it ac e' hi', he Planning Commission. I mean if we need room availability, we can a7 room or go upstairs or something. I mean I hate to confine us to t`,a,t kind cf a time period and then have no way out of it. Paul Krauss: In fct, do you really want to hold the meeting here or do you want to hold it upstairs where it's a little more... Councilman Senn: I'd rather have it outside of the Council chambers. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. No, I'd say keep it upstairs in a courtyard room. ' Councilman Senn: And then if there's somebody needs to run down for the Planning Commission or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Weil I have it written down here for 5 :30. Councilman Senn: That's the 3rd. 42 1 City Council Meeting - bruary 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Now do we want to continue with that each month? 1 Councilman Senn: Do you want to do 5 :30 or would you rather wait and come later after you can get home and eat or whatever? I mean again, there's generally not a reason for us to be at Planning Commission is there? Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily unless you have an interest with what's going on. Councilman Wing: Staff has a requirement to be there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5:30 I guess I could. It'd be sometimes tough for me but I'll just deal with that. Mayor Chmiel: Now, are you going to be satisfied with once a month or do you want to have it twice a month? Councilman Mason: I would like to start with one. If we need more we can add it but I don't want. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Because everything comes in right after Council so those would be the discussionary kinds of times when you're going to have it. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what week of the month? Maycr Chmiel: Okay, that would be, we would do that one then at 5:30 on the 3rd and the o that would follow that would be April 7th. Councilman Maser,: I'll be out of town. 1 Councilman Wing: Well none of us are going to make them all. Councilman: Mason: Well that's true. , Councilman Wing: I'd also be content if we'd by motion require a monthly work session to be specified at a specific time. The last meeting of the month for , the ne month. We would have to specify when we're going to meet. Then we'd knot,. th- MG;cr C`:miel: My suggestion, before we go to that recommendation. Let's try - , these and see what happens and then after that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea. 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah. And I think staff understands that what we'd really like to see at those work sessions is any major items that are coming down at us. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Paul Krauss: But you don't necessarily want to see, let me clarify that. You know I've heard a lot of comments that there's concerns that if we've been working on a subdivision and the Planning Commission's been tossing something around, if it's Goodyear or whatever, that it's been in the hopper for 6 to 8 43 City Council Meeting - Fe .ary 22, 1993 11 months. You want to have everything that you get be previewed or just major issues? ' Mayor Chmiel: I think possibly major issues more so than just. Councilman Senn: Projects. I don't think, I mean if there's a major project ' coming in that you guys think we ought to know about ahead of time... Councilman Mason: And I think this gets back to that vision kind of thing too. I mean my personal feeling is, I mean the nitty gritty day to day stuff isn't, that's not our purview for that. My personal feeling is more looking at the big picture kind of thing. ' Mayor Chmiel: When you're establishing a precedent and making sure that's going to be the best for what... Councilman Wing: You know what I'd like Mike, if we in fact can do that over ' the next few months and get these ordinances where we feel we want the and this task force completed, we may, some of these meetings we might meet every other month. ' Counci'_mar Mac I would hope that would be the goal. ' Mayor Chrr_c.': ohy. We'll go with that for right now. Councii_wcman Do_ler.dorf: And the agenda for the 3rd is? 11 Mayo- Chmiel: The agenda for the 3rd would be the work session. Councilmen Senr: It'd be Highway 5. Maya Chr:I_l It'd be Highway 5, yep. Councilman Se And then we're going to do this, okay so then in effect it's going t:c beconc- the first Wednesday then of the month? Ma }'r Chmiel Planning Commission. ' Councilma7 Senn: I guess that's my question. Is that always the same as P1ar T;irc Com Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what we're shooting for right now. Without establishing a precedent. Councilman Wing: And on the 3rd it's Highway 5 but also Abra. We tabled Abra tonight so Abra should be item number 1. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That should be number 1. Councilwoman Dockendorf: My concern for saying that is I can see us sitting in a room and you know we just start talking and we don't have any real agenda. ' " 1 City Council Meeting - ' ruary 22, 1993 1 Councilman Senn: The work sessions I'm used to going to is yeah, like Abra's an issue but the real issue is Highway 5 and our vision for that and it gets back into issues of what do we want to have happen on Highway 5 and do we want a moratorium and can we have a moratorium and what are the legal issues involved with that? Then I think last but not least, when you get done with all that, you come back to an issue of Abra. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we look at. 1 Councilman Wing: But it has to be dealt with. Mayor Chmiel: With that Abra portion and with Goodyear, I think there's only one other lot in that particular stretch that would be of any concern so. Councilman Wing: But I want to know about that now. 1 Councilman Senn: I understand Dick. Boy I'll tell you, there's a lot of people that are concerned about it. Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah, no question. Councilman Wing: I think I'll save this comment on the task force. Mike, I 1 wanted to tag along on your comment. My feelings are that we put aside this moratorium, which I've never had more hostile phone calls. Minnewashta Parkway was hostile but these people said, wake up Council. Come on. And the newspaper editorial I liked. Both Trippler's Trips and that one from that neighbor over there. Mavcr Chmiel: Don. The one I commented on. CoJncilm87Wing: Yeah. I didn't take that personally. He's saying. , Mayor Chmiel I did. Councilmar;Wing: Mr feelings, let me just back up real quickly because I'll ' cover this more in detail at the meeting. But when Highway 5 came up and this ccr;idor stud came up, I felt we should spend what was estimated then, between $25,000.00 to $50,000.00. Bring a professional group in. Engineers. Planners. The whole thing and sweep this thing through and get it done right now. And we said, well we can do it in -house and we can do this and one of the, the woman sitting next to me said, oh we have to be patient and government moves slow and I said yeah. It moves slow alright unless you make some decisions and want to be leaders and get moving, and I didn't appreciate our position at all. So we chose to do it in- house. Now we're saying, we really kind of need some professional help and we need some technicians and this thing's too big and Paul I thinly has said, it will pull us down. I think Paul has got to be funded. I think he's got to bring in a landscape architect if he needs it. Engineers if he needs it. He's got to bring in specialists wherever he needs it right now to get the job done. That's number one. Funding. Number two is I think that we should instruct staff to pull back and put a moratorium on staff for Lundgren Brcs and whatever else is coming through this city right now, we can assign one pare -time person, Kate or Sharmin to deal with planning but staff goes 90% to this project until it's completed and they have a moratorium on their projects -) 45 1 II II City Council Meeting - Februo.ry 22, 1993 II and their outside work and their evenings. Whatever happens until this is completed. If we're going to do it in- house, then let's turn them loose and get it done but we can't be running the city and developing and expanding and I growing and expect them to come in and function reasonably on this. And they're getting killed on it and it's not right. Mayor Chmiel: I think that you're making some good points. I Councilman Senn: Save it for the work session. II Councilman. wing: I will. Okay, but I was just telling you where I'm coming from. I Mayor Chmiel: But the problems are trying to allocate those additional dollars for those kinds of things within and I think where we initially started it I think was the right intent. And it still is moving and it wasn't going slow as II some people may think, but it does take time to pull all those things together. The only P-obleh being with that is that that...too big. Too many people on it. Councilman Wi-g: Oh, I'm not convinced of that. II Councilma-: se-,r: veeh, and I understand. I've heard, I mean there's been a bunch :f people calling on that too. II Countilma - , W:l':: 1 '�st want you to know where I'm coming from and I'll be a littl- n:'.' ,_zed .. II Cc:nc:' -- '.s Here's Ercther great one for a work session. Our net item on the e ,, -,_ . II ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SCHOOL /RECREATION ACQUISITION, HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CITY MANAGER. I Mayor hric'_: Okay. we'll move on to the, hopefully the last item on the age. Fri 'AEI, C_ it ill, and probably will be there for a few more days in hi: h y.,.'ll see this next week. I hope you're feeling better Don. II Cou ^ -ilwc Dookend:. f: I'm sure he's watching II Councilman Senn: He's certainly a sick man if he is. Mayor Chmir2: Ecool /recreation property acquisition, Highway 5. But I'm I hopeful that meet of you have had an opportunity to look at this, just as a background. I think we've been looking at this particular site for the last 4 or 5 year::. We originally had looked at that site for a high school, and becauEe of all the existing problems that are there, would not accommodate the I total amount of acres that was needed for it. We then came to the conclusion that that site would be used either for a junior high or a grade school. Grade school is the thing that's going to come in. One of the discussions that we've I had, and we've had meetings with the School Board on several occasions. Between the Cit•' c` i,:toris, Chaska and Chanhassen and East Union, and have had a lot of discussions back and forth but the need's basically for within the community II 46 II City Council Meeting - F__(uary 8, 1993 II Y�^ /i0 r II - PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT FOR PARCELS W LOCATED WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR. N Public Present: II Name Address _ John Prins 5120 Edina Ind Blvd. II Neil Hartman 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, IL Dean Brown Family of Christ Lutheran Church Robert Barth 3500 IDS Center, Minneapolis II Gary Dosdall Family of Christ Lutheran Church Jim Larkin Larkin, Hoffman & Daly Al Beisner Maple Grove II Vernelle Clayton Chanhassen Marlene & Theresa Bentz Excelsior Larry & Betty Van De Veire Chaska II Lee Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Henry Wrase 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. Rick Wrase 405 Cimarron Circle David Albright 7814 131st St. West, Apple Valley II Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Ray & Lisa Notermann 1450 Arboretum Blvd. II Ted Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd. Doug Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd. Gene Borg 6897 Chaparrel Lane I Katie Kaaz 155 Choctaw Circle Kent Carlson Suite 700, 900 2nd Ave So, Minneapolis Betty O'Shaughnessy 1000 Hesse Farm Road I Paul Knapper 601 Green Avenue SE, Watertown Cam Johnson 7127 Orchid Lane Walt Roberts 880 Lake Drive Mike Meyer 3474 Lakeshore Drive, Chaska 11 Paul & Carol Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street, Chaska Don ? 7220 Great Plains Blvd. Ellen Dubbe 440 West 79th Street II Lawrence & Florence Raser 8210 Galpin Blvd. Jay Kronick 78 West 78th Street J. Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue II Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Charles & Susan Markert 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Peter Olin Minnesota Landscape Arboretum II Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin or Paul, rather than going through a lot of discertation II and having everyone get up at this time, I think I'd like to just take the position, at least from my standpoint that I feel the moratorium should not be considered at this time. And I'd like to just sort of get a feeling from Council as to their position and if it comes to a point where we can discuss this, we would like to indicate maybe our concerns at this particular time. So II with that, why don't I start with you Richard. .1 1 7 1 City Council Meeting - Fe .tary 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: I didn't bring this up. The question maybe which is being discussed tonight is the moratorium and how it came about. I think the discussions going back a year and a half ago with former Council was concern about us being in the cabooze instead of the locomotive and being more I developers in the cart than there was horses to pull the cart from the city side. And we have for a year and a half been concerned about, or the two years I've been on the Council, concerned about piecemeal development on Highway 5 and careless developments. Strip development getting out of hand and I think several of us on the Council have taken the position we would like the west end of Chanhassen to look a little better than the east end has as we drive into town. So I did not bring up the moratorium issue. I think it was worth looking at and I think we've had our packet and staff has covered the issues pretty thoroughly. I think we could if we felt the need, and it's my suspicision here that we're not feeling the need right now. Mainly because we have the Highway 5 task force going. The landscape study going. Just a lot of issues that are going to address the very issues we're concerned about on the moratorium and if I honestly felt we needed the breathing room, I wouldn't hesitate to push hard for a moratorium to stop the development. So I favor, I'm going to go along with Council discussion of the past and decisions of the past not to have the moratorium. I don't feel the need for it at this time and I also at this point don't want to take the pressure over the issue because I don't think it's enough ' of an issue to involve this many people at this point. But by denying the moratorium tonight, if that's what we choose to do, the other option as a member of this Council is going to be very slow and very decisive, cautious development ' on Highway 5 and I'm going to be very critical of anything coming in until we get the task force complete and the landscape ordinance up to where we want it. Some architectural standards developed I would suspect, at least for myself, and hopefully the entire Council is going to be very slow moving in development proposals. So in lieu of the moratorium, we can forget that word but maybe kind of a slightly dragging Council for a while on any development issues that come before us until we resolve the issues of what we think is best for the city and it's future 20 years from now and it's appearance and so on and so forth. I guess that covers my position Don. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Just one other thing too. There's several parcels in and adjacent to TH 5 which could be governed by a PUD, planned unit development which gives the city a little latitude to see as to what they would really like to have within those respective areas. But that's another item that we have looked at as well, at least I have and I feel sort of comfortable with that. Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you just stole my thunder of what I was going to say as far as the PUD. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable without passing on the moratorium. I think my concerns were that coming onto the ' Council new, I didn't get a sense of the vision that we had for what Chanhassen was going to look like. Granted, we do have a comprehensive plan which gives us lots of guidelines. There are still lots of loose ends that we need to work out as to what we want the City to look like and to develop into and we were feeling I lots of pressures from developers so. I think Councilman Wing's point is well taken that don't expect us to hippety hop through all the developmental issues that may come our way because we're still not sure. We haven't finished the planning for what we, on the Highway 5 task force nor on the architectural 1 8 1 City Council Meeting - - ebruary 8, 1993 1 standards, etc. so I guess my opinion at this time is that we'll pass on the 1 moratorium. Councilman Mason: It's beginning to sound a little bit like a litany here. If we didn't have the PUD in place, I quite honestly would be lobbying hard and strong for the moratorium. However, we do and I think with the higher level of competence that our planning staff has exhibited in working with developers and using the PUD, I'm comfortable with the way things are right now and certainly my inclination would be to vote against a moratorium. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark. 1 Councilman Senn: I agree a lot with I guess what Richard and Colleen are saying. I still have a problem that slow and methodical doesn't mean anything other than slow and methodical. Ultimately what has been happening on the east end for example could continue happening on the east end. All you're talking about is you can slow it down. I guess I have the same concerns as stated basically last time, which have a lot to do with the types of spot development that had been occurring on TH 5. The suggestion I've seen from staff in relation to the moratorium and passing and put in effect exempting PUD zoned property as I understand it. I think that's the correct understanding. I think at least goes a long way towards giving us that control. I mean right now we have no right per se to require anyone to go PUD. 5o going back to Mike's comments and stuff, I mean basically what I've seen proposed by staff kind of takes the extra step and then requires the PUD which allows you a lot more control in relationship to what's going to happen so that in effect becomes a non - issue discussion wise. So again I've got a couple questions. Paul, I mean is now the time to ask them? Manor Chmiel: Yes. CoJnci lman Senn: Okay. Paul, in relationship to the PUD, if a moratorium would 1 pats and the exemption would be in there in relationship to the PUD. Does that give the Council simply an opportunity to have a more direct role in relationship to guiding the type of spot development or does it simply mean that the same thing will occur but now it will be called PUD versus what it was called before? Paul Krauss: ...for latitude in influencing the design of the development. I don't think it gives you any more latitude necessarily in determining what the appropriate use is. That die has already been cast by the land use plan, unless 11 that's changed. The PUD's do allow a certain percentage of the total area of the PUD to be in some other use. I think it's up to 25% but Councilman Senn, I know one of your concerns is the potentially inappropriate location of auto oriented uses and I don't think straight zoning or otherwise you're going to get a handle on that until the land use plan is changed. Councilman Senn: And that's something we're addressing again through the Highway 5 corridor study. Well, I guess it sounds like everybody else has decided but I guess I again renew by objections to it and I don't think I would be for setting it aside. I think the east end is just simply getting innundated with the types of uses we're talking about and I really hate to see it go any further. 9 1 1 II City Council Meeting - Febr y 8, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: I just wanted to, it's not related to Councilman Senn, and I meant to say this earlier. That's my feeling now and I suspect that most of the people that are here tonight would like to see this moratorium dropped. However, I don't want to say that my mind is made up without giving people their shot at it. I mean certainly if the vast majority were in favor of it, I think II we'd have to revisit what we've said here. I just wanted to make that clear I guess. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Richard. II Councilman Wing: On this land use issue Paul. I'm not aware that the Highway 5 task force, I see them as being west oriented. Are they in fact going to take . 1 the time or deal with the land use in the east end of town, or at this point in history with the comprehensive plan in place, are we in fact going to talk about changing the use of that land down there? Or is this kind of a, I guess my 1 concern here, I see that as sort of already cast. It's kind of a done deal if you will. That land use is already established. Could we even change it at this point? II Paul Krauss: The potential exists but you're right, a lot of it is fairly, if not cast in stone, at least the direction's been set. One of the charges for the Highway 5 task force is to reassess the validity of the land use plan II knowing what we know today and refine it. For example to pull one property out, there's been some questions on the ultimate use of the Ward parcel. It's a real critical parcel to what happens in town. It's zoned industrial with it guided commercial and that bears some looking at. It's a little more problematic to I take for example 1 out of 3 parcels left in the Abra /Goodyear site and do something else with it. Theoretically you could but it's probably not going to ill happen. DataSery as well is a very large piece of ground. There, thus far the 1 only discussion on DataServ, and it's been at staff and consultant level, is what sort of additional flexibility can we get to get some more innovative land uses out there, but probably still consistent with the office /industrial designation. I Councilman Wing: I want to be real fair with the people that are here regarding the moratorium in regards to Mr. Senn's comments. If the development pressure II and the corporate pressures continue on our back the way they have been with their demands and expectations and criticism that we don't do this and they can't do this. our only option is a moratorium where it's just a clear cut, go II away and leave us alone and let us get organized. Let this visionary process go it's course so I'm vacillating back and forth. Tonight I'm not comfortable with this. I don't think there's a need until we get a little more organized on I where that task force is going to be. But if the problems continue, and if your issues continue to manifest, the moratorium I think is going to be well justified and I think it's a real potential for the future. I don't see us singling anybody in the audience out. It's simply a Council that sort of I elected for the long term vision having to get in the drivers seat here and everybody in the audience that has a piece of property has a different idea for it, and that's just not going to work as we head west. We've got to get a 11 little organized and encompass everybody and try and find some common ground II 10 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 here someplace and right now we don't have it. We're being driven by forces we can't control and I don't think it's right to the City long term. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can just sort of turn this around a little bit from where we are going to go. I recognize a lot of faces out here who would be in opposition to the moratorium. Maybe I'd like to turn it around and find out for those who would be in support of the moratorium. Is there anyone here that would like to approach us and tell us that they support the moratorium? Peter. And I'd like to put a limitation on this probably for about 10 minutes because I don't to go to 3:00 this morning. Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum and I'm on the Highway 5 task force. I guess I would think that we might need that moratorium and we need it now. The reason is is that there's a lot of decisions to be made and the Highway 5 task force is, in my opinion, going a little too fast right now. These decisions that we're asked to talk about and make decisions upon the directions, with very little background and only cursory review at these meetings. Again, it's very complex issues dealing with the roadway location and the land use around it. The issues of wetlands and how these go through and environmental impact assessments which we were told we could only do two corridors and not look at the connections between those two if part of one was better than the other. And my feeling was that we're going to have to have a little extra time and the fact is we do need some breathing room to make those kinds of decisions. The problem is that when we make those decisions, we're setting the direction of planning for Chanhassen for the future. Probably for the next 25 years because we're going to locate roughly where these roads are going to go. That's going to effect the development that goes along the sides of those roads. It's going to effect the Highway 5 and how that looks and how it's developed and so it's a major impact on all the land use along there. Such decisions really have to have very careful consideration and my feeling is that the Highway 5 task force is going to have to slow down a little bit in order to make good judgments on those. That you can't in fact race through, zip through a lot of decisions. We've already zipped through a couple and eliminated a piece of corridor which on second thought, and I seconded that motion, probably should have been left in for study just because it'; an alternative and we only had two choices. So I think with that, that we in essence do need that breathing space that a moratorium would allow. I mean its a lot of development pressures there right now. Many parcels are looking at some sort of development and I think we have to have that in order to make a good decision. Again, I gave my opinion. Now if there's any questions? Mayer Chmiel: Guess not. Thank you. Charles Markert: Mr. Mayor, I'm Charles Markert. I live at 7461 Hazeltine. We're at the intersection of Highway 5 and 41. 300 yards north of Highway 5. And I know you've been discussing it and you've been trying to do an excellent job with it and I think though that the moratorium, as the good man before me has just said, that that's the proper thing to do at this time. It's going to effect a tremendous amount of people now and in the future. I've lived here for 10 years on the same property, and I love it. I think if I have to change my lifestyle and other people have to change their's, that we should really consider where roads are going to go? What the land use will finally benefit everyone and not just several people. I found out that there was a road just 11 i City Council Meeting - Febr' - y 8, 1993 II south of me right along my property and there was a couple of selections and it 11 was decided that that would be the closest one towards my property and I think making decisions like that should be mr.ie discussion. I think we are going too fast. I think you are going too fast. Take your time and think about it. It's going to effect so many people. It's really important. It's never been done II before in this city in this area so with that kind of a plan, we should take our time and then we'll come back and I'm sure by that time we'll have something pretty much resolved. Thank you. That's all. 1 Katie Kaaz: My name is Katie Kaaz and I live on Choctaw Circle. I didn't come here prepared to make a statement but I'm concerned about the growth in 1 Chanhassen and the direction that it's taking. My only plea is that you do slow down and take your time. We moved here from Westport, Connecticut. A wonderful community where planning and zoning did not look ahead far enough. They didn't take their time. And things happened to our wonderful little community that 1 they will never be able to undo as far as roads, traffic, you name it. It's just a nightmare. You can't go back and I hope that everybody here is here to urge you to slow down and make the right decisions. II Brian Batzli: Hi, I'm Brian Batzli. I live at 161 Fox Hollow Drive and I'm Chair of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. I also didn't really come here I tonight to make a statement. I'd like to hear comments from people who are against the moratorium. But I did want to say publically to the Council that it's becoming increasingly frustrating as a member of the Chanhassen Planning Commission to see the piecemeal types of proposals coming in which do not follow 1 any kind of coherent plan. I think it would be better in fact to wait for the Highway 5 task force to get done with their vision. To look at the rooms that they've created and to come up with some sort of architectural standards and II other types of overlays which can be placed across this district so that we can be proud of it when it's developed. After putting in the time and effort on the comprehensive plan, I don't want to see that effort be smeerched, belittled, have it go down the drain to have the types of developments which we've seen II come in to date and not have the proper standards to put against those properties and developments. Thank you. 1 Susan Markert: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. I'm Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. I'm also on the Highway 5 task force and I too am in total agreement with Peter and Charles Markert for planning it the right way. I 1 feel that we're under a lot of pressure to plunk instead of plan. Excuse my phrase but 1 mean it seems like it's getting to that because we're trying to cover a lot of information that we're not really that familiar with in this short period of time. I mean there are some citizens, which I'm one of, on the 1 committee and we're not totally familiar with everything that's going on around everything in the plan. So in order to be responsible in the decision making process I would hope that we would consider doing it the right way and doing it 1 a little more slowly because this is our only chance. Like everybody says, once it's done it's done and I know I've said this before. Once you take out trees or you move things, it's over. So that's all I have to say. 1 Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin and I don't know much about the moratorium. I don't know if, I have very little background on it. I guess I'd be somewhat interested if there were going to be a moratorium, how II long it was going to be. Who proposed the moratorium. I guess I don't even 1 12 - 1 City Council Meetino - February 8, 1993 know that. But all I'm, and I don't know if I'm prepared to talk about whether I'm in favor of a moratorium or not, but I am very much in favor of a thorough planning process to finish off that end of the city. I think I've lived out here about 20 years or so and I think in the past I've seen some things done rather quickly that I don't think was in the best interest of the city long range and I hate to have, I think again, because of the pressure from developers and things like this and I guess I hate to see that happen. Continue to happen. So whether it takes a moratorium or whatever it takes, I would like to see that planning be very thorough. One thing I'm a little bit concerned about, I just hate to see an extension of semifores right, you know marching straight west out on Highway 5. I've sat in on the task force committee. I'm not a member of it but I happened to sit in on one of them, and then from what I can tell, it looks like this is just going to be a continuation of, there aren't going to be any overpasses or underpasses for TH 5 planned out that way. And I guess, and I come from downtown Minneapolis and we've had other people telling us the same thing. Visitors and things, that it just isn't a very good corridor of running into one stop light after another and kind of a hodge podge of development there. So again, I guess that's my main concern that we plan it well. Or do a better job of planning than we have in the past. So whatever it takes to do that Steve Buan: My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. I haven't lived in Chanhassen very long but I potentially could live with Highway 5 a lot longer than some people in this room. I'm just really concerned that, like everybody says, go slow. I don't know much about the moratorium because I haven't been here very long but I drive Highway 5 everyday through Eden Prairie and I see businesses closing, things like that and I don't want to see that here. I don't know much about the task force but I think this has probably been done, development of corridors like this elsewhere. You really got to look and see where things failed and where things worked and not just what you perceive is right because where things worked other people have gone through it and where things haven't worked, they've gone through it so I just would like that looked at. Henry Wrase: Henry Wrase, 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. I am one of the property owners within the Gateway development. I didn't attend Planning Commission meetings but I had a film that I watched. I was kind of disturbed as the Planning Commission couldn't come up with any solid decisions. So at the last meeting I attended and I had the same feeling off of the Council that I had at the Planning Commission that nobody had a solid feeling as to what was happening out at Gateway. So I feel there should be a moratorium so the people can really sit down with the developers and make something come out right. Thank you. ' Jay Kronick: My name is Jay Kronick. I don't even live in Chanhassen. I live west of town in Laketown Township and I drive back and forth everyday and appreciate very much the splendor that we have on the western side of town and applaud everyone's efforts to make sure that that's the way it is as we proceed with development there. I own a piece of property on the east side of town. I own Lotus Lawn and Garden and came before the Council about 5 years ago to take a vacant piece of land and turn that into an independent, sole owner business. I'm here tonight and there's a lot of homeowners, residents of the city who are here. I feel like a little fish in a big sea when I hear talk of all these developers with hundreds of acres and stuff and dozens of acres. I'm just here 13 II City Council Meeting - Febru_ y 8, 1993 U to represent another viewpoint. Whatever you do I think it's important that we take the right steps to assure that this is a quality city. I'm not sure a moratorium is the way to go. I saw a copy of the proposed ordinance. I think II there are some protections in there. I guess from the standpoint of someone ; like myself, I'm a little concerned about what type of growth I might foresee in my own business here in the next year or two as your planning goes forth and I what limits the moratorium would impose upon me, in terms of changing, growing on the site that I have. I hope those and concerns of others like myself would be addressed in the planning process as well. I'm neither for nor opposed to the moratorium. II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to clarify, for any additions or improvement to land, the moratorium would not effect. II Mayor Chmiel: No. Not what are existing. Anyone else? Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates and I'm 11 sort of a recepient past planning, or lack of past planning that's occurred along the east corridor and I expressed the same feelings that I think anything that's done without some really good planning or some good thought into it is I very destructive to the neighborhood that I live in. It effects us directly and I really would appreciate this Council taking it's time. I'm strongly in favor of the moratorium. As I said, any further development like what's already gone I in on that end. Look at Rapid Oil. It's a great looking site up on the top of the hill. We have some other things that I think are very detrimental to the looks of Chanhassen and those things came in because of hodge podge type of development. Thank you very much. II Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Seeing none. Resident: Mr. yor, m sens is hat t the ppl this is the opportunity to the people...that Ma are in y favor of the morat ori um My question is, was your question such that, if anybody wants to talk about it on either side or are we still limited to people that are basically in favor of the moratorium? I Mayor Chmiel: Well I was just going to bring it back to Council and then I was going to bring it back out again because I thought probably the way I was II looking at it, that were probably less against the moratorium. As I had seen . but I think what I'd like to do is just have a little more discussion with Council before I move back to the opposite side or to find those who are in 1 favor or maybe against the moratorium. I think we're going to have to address both sides of that issue. Unfortunately that's the way it's going to go. But I thought it was maybe going to be just a little bit different. Richard. I Councilman Wing: I clearly would like to hear some of the opposition statements on record because we have the proponents on record tonight and my position kind of favors them. This is the 1990's, not the 1950's and it's the decade of II rethinking and redesigning and it's going to impose some impositions on some people that are still thinking 1950's, but I don't want Chan to go that direction. So I guess my last comment would be after we've heard some other I comments from the opposition, I would clearly like to move this to a Monday night work session, specifically on this issue to look at vision, get a II consensus. More of a consensus. Have much more input from staff and the 1 14 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Attorney. I think we need a Monday, to plan a Monday night work session that's open to the public specifically to discuss this issue so that everybody's IF welcome to come in and hear where we're going with this. Obviously another a public hearing will probably be necessary because we probably do much tonight. That's my opinion. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we're all struggling up here with the issue, can we achieve what we want to without the moratorium and we just don't know. And as much as I hate to table things and say we need to think about it more, 11 this is a big enough issue where I agree with Richard that we probably need an entire night dedicated to it. I/ Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The thing that keeps me thinking immediately is that how many parcels and how much land, and maybe Paul you have it off the top of your head. That would not fall under the PUD. I don't want to put you in a position maybe. I'll let you answer the way you feel. Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, in terms of acreage, I don't know but I was sitting here doodling and did up an exhibit that I think shows that. If you want to throw that on. I was just trying to highlight out the areas that are already PUD or have PUD commitments to go. Basically you start out here. You've got the University of Minnesota Arboretum. Nothing's happening there. Nothing will. You've got the study area that's not even in the MUSA line which was done by...so we have 5 years to think about what happens there. We've got the Opus proposal for a PUD where they were told not to come back until the results of the Highway 5 Task Force were in. We have a residential development that I think you have a letter here tonight from Pemtom that bought the 85 acres from Betty O'Shaughnessy. That's a residential project that the developer has agreed would come in as a PUD. You then have that 137 acre, that Ryan and some several others are involved with. They've also begun PUD design preparations. Now these little black x's are the properties where it's unclear. For example you have the site that is on later tonight for the Goodyear /Abra. There's the OataServ. The Press' vacant lot and the Ward, but a lot of those cases it will either be some sort of an HRA or an economic development district which gives us leverage, similar to what we used with Target... There's a lot of things to come up with. But these x's where we're really not sure. Now on a lot of those properties we haven't heard that anything's pending but that could change tomorrow. Councilman Mason: Well I want some action on this tonight, personally. I think my personal feeling with the two years that I've been involved with the city is that the PUD has worked very well, and I'm happy with going PUD. Now if Council ' can take a look at those specific spots that are not PUD yet, I'd certainly be, I think that's worth taking a look at but at this point, you know depending on the rest of the conversation this evening on this, I question what good another work session is going to do on this. I don't know that we're going to find out any more information than we have now. And I guess Paul, I'd like to ask you a question. As city planner, are you comforable that we can do a thorough and well thought out job without the moratorium? I mean not putting you on the spot 1/ or anything. Paul Krauss: I'd have to honestly say I think we've done a credible job to date. You know what we've got is a moving target. Four years ago this was not 15 11 1 I City Council Meeting - Febt ry 8, 1993 II a concern of the City's and I think that my staff has done a large part of unleashing the monster here and now it's a matter of fulfilling the expectation. And we're excited to be able to work with that. I think each time a project comes in it's been getting better and we use whatever leverage we have at hand c II to make that happen. It's not a perfect process. I think Rapid Oil shows you that it's not a perfect process. On the other hand Rapid Oil got rid of a junk i yard and we were able to rebuild a city street and landscape it where there had I been junk autos and dumptrucks. So it all works in the same direction, it's just a matter of how far you can go. You said you didn't want to put me on the spot, and I guess I'd punt a little bit here and ask the City Attorney something. About 6 - months ago we did look at the possibility of prior zoning II to PUD of the corridor for that reason with an intent statement and at the time the City Attorney raised some questions I suppose with the ability to uphold something like that. If you're asking me if every property in the corridor will I come in PUD without a moratorium in place, I don't think that that's the case. I think most of them will. I think we can leverage most of them but there's going to be some that won't. II Councilman Wing: ...discuss the moratorium issue. I think we can do it at our leisure and we can hold a workshop. Pending that I'd like to move that we discontinue this moratorium. Move on with business. 11 Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor to discontinue the moratorium. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Mason: It's not discontinuing the moratorium. Councilman Wing: Well this is proposed. It's hard to deny it. If the work II denial is better, I'll deny this issue. The moratorium issue at this point and get on with business. II Councilman Senn: Do you suggest then we set up a work session at the same time? • Councilman Wing: No, I think we've got, we really should discuss this. If you II choose to have a work session, I think this should be a key issue we discuss. Or if we run into problems in the future over the next month or two, I think the moratorium should be held in the forefront and not as a threat. Just as an absolute need for the Council to help the City get it's feet on the ground but II I think we can do that and get on with business tonight and let this process go it's path for the next 2 -3 months. And if necessary, I'm willing to support a moratorium but I don't think it's necessary to discuss it tonight or impose a 1 moratorium tonight. So I'd move denial of this. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. II Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I would like the opportunity to hear 10 II minutes, 15 minutes of comments. Councilman Wing: Please. II 1 1.61 II City Council Meeting - ' °bruary 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I think we can hold that in aveyance until we ask the opposition now who are not in favor of the moratorium to come forward and if you I/ can just break it down into just a few words. I think I'd like to have that done. Councilman Mason: If I could just make one quick comment. Incidentally, I 1 agreed with virtually everything that was said by the people that are supporting the moratorium. The reason I'm inclined to not go along with it tonight is I strongly believe the City has enough things in place right now to cover that ground. I don't think there's a person sitting up here, I don't think there's a person working for the city that isn't doing what they thing is best for the long range plan of the city and not just the person that owns the 20 acre lot, which is sometimes not comfortable for that one person but I think we've got all of that stuff in place. So I'll be quiet now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me add just a little bit to that. 2 1/2 years ago S when we looked at the potential of developers coming in, I sat down with some of those developers at that time and said that what we, as a city want, we're at least in a position right now to say what we want. Once we don't carry through with that, they just automatically go and build what they'd like. I sat down with one developer and indicated our concerns. That developer said yes, we can accommodate those proposals as to what you envision the city of Chanhassen is going to be. Highway 5 is an important corridor. We want it to be a warm, receptive, aesthetic kind of thing coming into our community. And if we can have those kind of things, and I feel comfortable enough with, as Michael mentioned, with the PUD's. I think we have a sufficient amount of control to make what we want to see happen within this community. I think we've done a fairly decent job with the Planning Commissions and their recommendations to us. And I think we have followed some of that direction. Sometimes we didn't. Sometimes we'd take our own direction but I do like what is happening. I do like our downtown. I do like the concerns that we have for Highway 5. We're going to continue in that vein, so I'll get off my soapbox and open the floor for those who are ready to speak. Please come forward. State your name and your address and who you're representing. Attorney's only get about 3 seconds. Jim Larkin: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council members. I am here for a specific purpose tonight and in view of the discussion that's already taken place, I will keep my remarks brief. I represent the owner of the property which is the subject of item 4 on the agenda, Mr. Mason and he. No relation, that's right. He testifies to that also. Not that he would be embarrassed by it but he just says there is no relation. And Mr. Mason has owned that property for some 25 years. It has been given it's present zoning I think about 10 years ago and there has already been considerable discussion and litigation over Mr. Mason's property in that area. So assuming that the Council's not of a mood to enact a moratorium tonight, I will not address that issue. I will say that we have submitted to the City and to the Council our position on behalf of Mr. Mason. I simply ask that that be incorporated as part of the record. We are concerned about fairness. Mr. Mason has been a taxpayer in this city for I think 20 to 25 years and I would hope to address you for another 30 seconds on item 4. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 17 City Council Meeting - Fe' ary 8, 1993 Dean Brown: My name is Dean Brown and I represent Family of Christ Lutheran Church. We're located south of Highway 5 between Dakota and the old Highway 101. I just want a clarification. We already have an existing building but got notice that there was a moratorium on building. Is that, if we wanted to add something, are we going to have to do it again or what? What's the deal on that? Roger Knutson: The moratorium as drafted would not apply to expansion of 1 existing buildings. Dean Brown: Okay. Well I would like to put a plug in for what the Mayor said 1 in that we approached this Council in building and the Planning Director about 3 to 5 years ago and it took us approximately 2 years to get our plan approved. And for those of you who are interested, I mean we had to spend 525,000.00 of trees. Could only build on 70% of our lot. And that was all within existing rules and regulations so I think as long as the Council just enforces exactly what they have in place and take a long hard look and make sure that those things are there, I see no reason why you need to have a moratorium. Thank you. Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner, 7549 Mariner Point in Maple Grove. I'm probably the reason why everybody is here tonight. Unfortunately. I just wanted to throw my comments out on the moratorium. I develop like others in many cities and this is no piece of cake. You have very strict rules, regulations, ordinances as long as they're enforced and as long as we know about them coming into the situation, we don't care. It's when we find out later things that aren't right, we care. I think Mr. Mayor you stated it when you talked to developers 20 years ago. And as long as we know what the ground rules are, we can pretty much abide by them and work with them. And I think what you have had 1 that's gone on in Chanhassen is as good. Your landscape ordinance is, we even improved on it in the development that we submitted, and I think it's fine. I think Chanhassen will continue on. You've been able to attract very good, large developers out here now that I think you'll be proud and happy to be dealing with. And you have plenty of rules, regulations and restrictions in place now that govern and I think will make Chanhassen a good place to be for the next 25, 30 years. Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ' Larry VanDeVeire: Hello Mr. Mayor. Larry VanDeVeire. Council. I'm from Chaska. I'd just like to make a comment. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of any type of moratorium. I guess my main concern is tonight I heard the word go slow all too much for me. I guess this is an entire new Council that I'm 1 looking at. I've watched the Comp Plan be changed. Go to a Highway 5 corridor study, and now a task force put in place, and now possibly a moratorium. And I'm not so sure slow is the right words to use. I would be in favor of doing ' everything right but I think there's something to be said with getting something done before the Council turns over and before there's another group of people to start looking at the same old problems all over again. Councilman Wing: Can we give that a round of applause? Larry VanDeVeire: You know I want a good job done but something has to be done in a timely fashion also. Thank you. 1 18 1 City Council Meeting February 8, 1993 11 Don McCarville: Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm Don McCarville. I have the Country Clean Laundromat in town, and when I heard about the moratorium I was quite concerned because I also have a piece of property down on the highway. And it was because of the City's actions a number of years ago that I purchased the property because the City had, or representatives had indicated that they were going to take my building down and I looked for a piece of_ property. Found one. Purchased it only to find out that since I didn't go into the development, I was not going to be taken out and so my building was left. So now I do have the piece of property that I bought. I've owned it for a number of years. The taxes have gone up on that property to the point of about $8,000.00 a year on just a single lot, along with the payments so I'm paying about $1,000.00 a month to hold a piece of property that I can't use. And you know, I've been trying to sell it all these 6 years. There's nobody so far come forward to buy the property and so now a moratorium just makes it that much longer that I have to continue to try and pay taxes on this property and so it really does put a hardship on a few of us to hold off any hopes of selling that property. Thank you. , David Albright: Members of the Council, my name is David Albright and I am a resident of Apple Valley, Minnesota and I am one of those people that is going to be speaking against the moratorium. Not so much that I claim to be the world's greatest expert on it. I've always thought you learned a lot more by listening, and I've learned a few things here tonight. But I'm speaking on behalf of some landowners who have the old Mary Walter farm property. And the Point that I would like to make is one, I do think that there are significant obstacles or significant opportunities, depending on your perspective, for the Council to impact on development anywhere. But there are a couple of rules in the relationship between a government and it's people and in governmantal regulation that I think need to be brought to everybody's attention whether they be pro or con on the moratorium issue. The first is, the government, and these folks here, the Council need to have some input in order to exercise or to protect the city and the residents of the city but they should not, and are ordinarily not allowed, except in the most extreme circumstances, to say you can't do anything with your property. I mean that is the one thing that you can do is something. You have a great deal of impact in saying, what activity can be done? Whether it can be used for this purpose or that purpose or what it's ultimately built. Where it's built. How it's built. But the most extreme sanction that a government can take, and is not justified in every situation. In fact it's not justified in many situations, is to say that you can't do anything with it and I just want the Council to be aware of that and I guess I think that you probably are sensitive to that, from what I've heard today. The other thing I just wanted to talk about briefly, if I could, is there is always going to be individual disagreements as to where a road goes or where a factory goes and there's a syndrome known as, not in my backyard and I've been a recepient of that since I now have a brand new section of County Road 38 going basically through my backyard in Apple Valley. So I can understand where some of the residents, who spoke originally, are coming from. But it seems to me that there's certain givens in this thing and one is that the people who own the property adjacent to or abutting or near where Highway 5 is going to be going, are not going to be particularly enthusiastic about doing anything other than a nature preserve or a bunch of trees so that people can see things. On the other hand, neither should the people who are homeowners be unnecessarily trashed. I don't know anything about Rapid Oil but I can sense that everybody in this --' 19 1 1 City Council Meeting - Feb' ry 8, 1993 room wishes it wasn't there. And so I guess the thing I was trying to point out is that there are balancing things that need to be taken, but by saying that we won't even consider entering this delicate balancing process for the next year, which really means two, because by the time the moratorium is over and by the time you get through the process as it begins post moratorium, you're really talking tying up people's property for 2 years in which they can do nothing. It's not like they can't do what they want with it. It's not like they can't do something that is slightly less desireable to them than what they want to do. It's really that they can't do anything. And again, I just want to make it a point that there are an incredible number of things, levers, as the staff has indicated. Rules, regulations that allow the city to impact on it and I would urge you not to go to the most extreme measure that is possible for you to do, which is impose a moratorium. I thank you very much for listening to me. Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. We've done a number of ' developments in this community. Almost all of them were done under the PU0 ordinance, where applicable and where we met what, 5 acre minimum or 4 acre minimum. One is Market Square. We're just completing the planning of the Oaks up above us here with 210 units. On the average I'd say those projects have taken at least a year to get through the process, and in addition to that it's a very painful process to go through from a developer's point of view. It's very - painful for the staff. I think most of the developers that are represented ' here, and certainly the ones I've seen on the list, recognize that the PUD process is a way of doing it. There's some benefits to us. But the process is tough. I mean I cringe every time I get together with your staff on a PUD because I know it's a control issue. I also developed, or was indirectly the developer of the Rapid Oil site, which I originally proposed as a PUD and was turned down by the staff. Not the staff, but the Council at the time we came before it. So that was originally also a PUD and I think everything that we've done along the Highway 5 corridor has been that because it made sense. Not because it's TIF. Not because of a lot of things. Just because it made sense in the use of the land, because I think a lot of us are concerned about that. ' So I think for those of you that are new on the Council, and for those of you in the past, I think you can be comfortable that your staff, I think that was the real question I heard a lot of you say, can persuade people like myself to try to carry out a good development. The PUD process is there. It's available for us to use and it has worked in the past. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I would recommend that we ' close the public hearing. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion that has been on the floor. Councilman Wing: Out of order. Mayor Chmiel: That is out of order. I would request a restatement of that as you indicated previously. 20 City Council Meeting 'ebruary 8, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: Roger, what's the word? Because this was a public hearing. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Deny. Councilman Wing: Is deny? What's the word I need on this? 1 Mayor Chmiel: What's the proper word? - Roger Knutson: If you want to follow Roberts Rules. Councilman Wing: I want to drop the issue. 1 Roger Knutson: The motion should be to approve first reading of the moratorium ordinance and then second that and then vote against it. Motions are supposed to be in the positive. Councilman Wing: With his statement on the record, I would so move first reading. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Wing: Then I would denial of the first reading. Mayor Chmiel: All those in favor say aye. Councilman Senn: Of which one? Mayor Chmiel: Of the first. ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Now? Councilman Mason: Can we get some discussion? Councilman Senn: I'd like a little discussion, yeah. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I was going to open discussion after the motion. Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. You know I think something that this 1 leads to is that everybody that is working with all of this, obviously developers want to make a buck. I mean that's their right. I'm not here to comment one way or the other on that. But I think that we all need to understand, and everybody is that we feel we need to do what's best for the city of Chanhassen. And there are pressures from developers and there are pressures from individual citizens to sometimes not look at the overall picture and my concern here is that I think, just like Councilman Wing, I think you said it very well about us not being in the 50's anymore. I hope everyone that deals with these issues needs to understand. We're not just looking at a 20 acre parcel or a 50 acre parcel, or a 4 acre parcel, but we are in fact looking at the whole picture. 21 1 .1 II City Council Meeting - FebrL.„,y 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: And I would like to, in regards to Mr. Senn. I think part of his concern is that, do we have the rules to apply evenly right now and do we have these levers and I don't have the confidence in our levers. That's why we II discussed this in the first place. Councilman Senn: Yeah, you know I agree with what Mike said in relationship to I really being concerned about Chanhassen. It's all rhetoric about that the control is in place though as far as I can see. I asked Paul the questions and that's the answer I get back. Put it in the real world type of situation and let's say we pick a point in time and draw a magic line. Let's say we do it to II be fair and say okay, well if for example on the east side of Goodyear and Abra is there or whatever and it's that far along, well fine. Let's say you approve that, okay. Then let's say we say at that point, okay now we're going to stop . I it. We're not going to have any more of that. Well, when you turn around and ask our planners is that doesn't make any difference. We can go as slow as we want but somebody can come in tomorrow and propose an auto mall right next door to it, and that bothers me. I've heard a number of residents come up here tonight and say they'd like to see a moratorium. I've heard one resident opposed to it. I've heard from a lot of people on the east side, which is where I live versus most of the rest of the Council and there are a lot of people on I the east side upset over a continuation of the type of development in that area that's poliferated itself. I'm still strongly in favor of seeing the moratorium as staff has suggested. Exempting the currently approved or whatever plats. II Allowing the expansion and remodel and even open basically to look at some type of consideration on PUD's but I think that consideration even should be limited in relationship to some overall acreage size. So if we're talking about large master planned PUD's, I don't think I have quite the same problem with those as 1 I do every little parcel all of a sudden becoming a PUD. Again, that's just for whatever it's worth, the way I feel. • II Councilman Wing: Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement with Mr. Senn. I'm just hoping that our expediting landscape ordinance, expediting the sign ordinance, and expediting the task force, is going to in fact accomplish some of what you'd like. If not, I'm going to be the first to admit it... Councilman Senn: Well but Dick, if you were in the other side of the position, what would you rush to do right now? And go back and ask yourself the question, II how quickly can all these things we're talking about, landscaping, Highway 5 and everything be accomplished? Paul's memorandum on the other issues and that, I mean we're not looking at that happening tomorrow. 1 Councilman Wing: That's right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think that's on the top of our list. I mean that's our responsibility. I have a problem when we start delegating type of visionary things that the Council's responsible for. When we start delegating that to a task force or to other subcommittees when really that's our job and I II think it's our priority to make sure that we develop these standards. Mayor Chmiel: Well there too, by getting the additional input gives us better insight with that and that's why we formed that particular task force. ' 2 2 i City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 Councilman Wing: I think this needs to be in a workshop and I think it needs to be addressed aggressively and more intellectually with a lot more time on this Council's part but until then I'm going to stand by my motion to deny the Interim Ordinance for development of the Highway 5 corridor. With all due respect to Mr. Senn's concerns. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. 1 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in 1 favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate your input and , we'll take about a 5 minute recess. GOODYEAR TIRE, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5. NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST. AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION: A. REPLAT OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE - RELATED USE IN THE BH. BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING. Public Present: Nate Address 1 JLR Larkin Larkin, Hoffman Al Br Maple Grove Ne_ Hartma 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, IL vernelie Clayton Chanhassen James Benson Abra Hart Mason 1589 Highway 7, Hopkins Thorax Thompson 1011 Butte Court J. Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Approximately a month ago you reviewed the subdivision, site plar and conditional use permit request for the development of a Goodyear auto service facility. Tabled action on the proposal as architectural and site design issues surfaced. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of a moratorium along Highway 5. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by providing additional landscaping along the south portion of Lot 1, and change the exterior finish from block concrete to brick. the applicant has not submitted the requested changes. However, staff changed the conditions of approval for the site plan review to reflect your recommendations from last month in conditions 10, 11 and 12. The additional landscaping is reflected as well as changing the exterior materials to brick is also reflected. There were some additional concerns such as noise level. We changed the conditions of the conditional use permit as you had requested and with that we are recommending 23 11 1 3 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 # MEMORANDUM : 7 ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director , # DATE: February 2, 1993 SUBJ: Proposed Moratorium Ordinance for the Highway 5 Corridor # . BACKGROUND At the January 11, 1993, meeting, the Council directed staff and the City Attorney to report back regarding the potential of instituting a moratorium on development within the Hwy. 5 corridor. The Council members proposed that this be considered due to concerns raised when reviewing two development proposals that were on the agenda that evening and being aware of the large ' volume of development requests that are likely to be occurring in the area in the near future. Staff advised the City Council that it was possible to institute a moratorium and established some guidelines for the Council's consideration. We indicated that the moratorium should be limited ' in duration and be linked to a specific project or analysis. We indicated a belief that these guidelines would be adhered to since the Hwy. 5 corridor study is already underway and a definitive date, 8 to 12 months hence, could be reasonably established. Thirdly, we noted that ' it would be prudent to consider including some provisions that would allow continued use of property as well as potentially allowing some development to occur or be processed with limitations. After receiving direction from the Council, staff and the City Attorney collaborated on drafting g tY the moratorium ordinance which is attached. Staff developed a map to attempt to define the ' corridor based upon our understanding of the area and the Council's goals. This map is also attached for your review. Lastly, we developed a list of property owners potentially impacted by the moratorium and sent out a mailing to notify them of this hearing. Copies of the mailing list and notice are also provided. PROPOSED ORDINANCE The intent section of the proposed ordinance states that the moratorium is specifically to allow the city time to complete an in -depth study of appropriate land use controls in the Highway 5 1 Nwor PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Don Ashworth 1 February 2, 1993 Page 2 1 corridor. Development activities which are covered by the ordinance include preliminary and final platting, issuing of building permits, approving variances, conditional use permits, interim 1 use permits, rezoning, or site plan approvals. The ordinance further establishes three conditions wherein the moratorium would not apply. These include properties for which preliminary plats I have been approved, to property rezoned to Planned Unit Development, or property which is currently zoned PUD. It is also possible to bring in new developments under the PUD ordinance. The last set of allowed actions include building permits and site plans for remodeling or I expanding existing structures or accessory buildings. Staff believes these provisions are reasonable in terms of protecting the integrity of the corridor, while balancing this with the ability of property owners to make effective use of their land. 1 STAFF COMMENT Staff is unsure as to what to recommend to the City Council. We believe that the moratorium 1 ordinance that you have requested is legally defensible and could provide the community with breathing room to get the Highway 5 corridor controls in place. On the other hand, we believe I by -in -large this community has done and excellent job in regulating development to date and has worked diligently to ensure that the community's growing expectations in the Highway 5 corridor are met. We certainly don't believe that this has been a perfect process as illustrated by the issues surrounding the Goodyear /Abra proposal. However, the Target plan is certainly indicative of what can be achieved. The proposed moratorium has generated a significant response on behalf of the property owners. Many of these people believe that they are working to plan their , properties in good faith and that this ordinance represents a significant and unwarranted intrusion. There can be no doubt that moratoriums can cost landowners significant sums of money. Land must be held for what is effectively another year with the resulting carrying costs. Additionally, I the moratorium would prevent them from working with the city to get anything approved until it expires. This does not mean that you should not consider imposing the moratorium for this reason alone, only that your consideration should seek to balance the pros and cons of this 1 proposal. Staff is seeking your direction on this matter. Should you wish to approve the moratorium, you 1 should act on the draft ordinance making revisions to the language as well as the official corridor map as necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed ordinance. 1 2. Corridor map. 3. List of property owners and notice. I '4 1 1 02/01/93 13:42 $612 152 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 4- CHAN. CITY HALL 2003/004 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms whenever used in this ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: ' Development means approving a preliminary or final plat; issuing a building permit; approving a variance, conditional use permit, interim use permit, rezoning, or site plan. ' Highway 5 Corridor means ' Section 2 Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Chanhassen time to complete an in -depth study on appropriate land use controls in the Highway 5 corridor, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. A task force and consulting planning firm are currently carrying out this in -depth study. section 3. Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the above referred to study and adoption of appropriate official ' controls, no development shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This ordinance shall not apply to development of the following property: ' (1) Property for which plats have been preliminarily approved by the City Council unless that approval is void pursuant 1 to Section 18 -41 of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) Building permits and site plans for remodeling or expanding existing structures or accessory buildings. (3) Property rezoned to Planned Unit Development after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication and shall remain in 1 effect until the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder or January 1, 1994, whichever occurs first. ' 2869 r02/01/93 02/01/93 13:42 '$612 4g2 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL 41004. 004 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of , 1993, 1 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. 1 ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor h Chanhassen Villager 1 (Published in the er on , 1993). h g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2869 2 r02/O1/93 1 _ .., .. L.-1''‘ j qql. 11 11 ! I ,_„.f... rte .. .,u. - LAN( LOGY F � ' . 1l •: . ••\ ,' LO /Ot - - -. • : . ..J - t S \AT- I I . I 1Sf� j TIM • „PP � ,v S I r I 0 I 'I}Ji1� �1 Ma ( (� ( yE pqr la b., __ , �S C/ • . U I � _ — (Alit t N I fM' M,G' 4'')F-.7,'-;.. � '1 L t RF \ = t � ' °' ' .. N / _ - • - 11� 1 _ _ - • p i "l 111 _ -N!i� i�.r. —qus aaoo -- I Imo+•• I 6.4 /I 1 1 'e ' 1E ? . y -. faf , _ - �Mir "2 w I _ l AN ., PIRA' .1.1.t.,„, : 1 4 ' . y1� .1 ' r , \ � ■ • q .Afi �I� I � 1 I ` 1 IMO _ . . 1' ,i F. r . -1.00 C 1 ■J ... li.! �. L•a P .I_4� II lI III r I lly '� IMP aMO • f•. ry�r � r a) r {M�• Y I • :.!� fr00 10 1 / MP i ce . \ �� `, ti � 5 a �l > j.- .� ` .ri j � _ a � \•. - A. , - ' '' f �0t ' !r x' .01. PARK Woo 1 G=7 '_ �`r ' ' >�' �— . FF o . d— l F a 1 , ` � ... ............ 0 U�'aR � '� i i ,, �.._ 2,( 4f [ LMS �•l 1� .M MM .. � ' i ; . . . wl 'IN- 1 _ L ''.' i {i' �Ii'il' iL y.acF z N°° ' - W j ,,- L4fF _ _ Y; �' �'. • i! -^ v ;� \� we N es* LAIYF MPP _L_________ IL,...A 4 . _ "- -- %'"! 4.-if--.!...fl rM fry I �� Je a I r I I ~ am, \ I N -. f I , - _ 1 '___. - 1 Iru, , - � � i, _ _ _ O O .MOO • i X 8 g 41 .. •. 4,•,j \ ; I --y la k • CITY OF _:_ - = 4 `� . • CHANHASSEN I • .( ► °i BASE • ...ea• r wuo M,aP ,, i ; ; ..uwrl : ./ N /LEY AREA PROPOSED FOR MORATORIUM �_ � '1 .i � \/ e r I I1 , I i ph i / _1...1 1 -12.'-i 4E' I .a0 5 a / I , at ) MN 'I / OM 111111 — MN OM — — — — — MI OM r r — — MN — M CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEETING NOTICE 1 On February 8, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider imposing a moratorium on development for parcels located ! within the Highway 5 corridor. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow for the completion of ongoing work on the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The study is being used to review and refine allowed land uses in the corridor, designate sensitive environmental features requiring protection, ! designate alignments and design standards for two parkways running parallel to Hwy. 5, work with MnDOT to refine plans for the upgrading of Hwy. 5 out to Hwy. 41 and develop new ordinances and design guidelines for the corridor to ensure that development meets the community's expectations. The study is already in progress and it is estimated that it will take the balance of 1993 to complete the planning effort. The City Council asked that the moratorium be considered in light of the rapid pace at which development is being proposed in the corridor. ! Your property has tentatively been identified as being located within the corridor. You are invited to attend the meeting and/or call Paul Krauss or Kate Aanenson in the Planning Department for additional information. P ( : a �i N Ov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ! 1 Lotus Lawn and Garden Center Lyman Lumber /ABC Redmond Products I 78 West 78th Street 18900 West 78th Street 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 The Press Versatil Data Sery 18780 West 78th Street 18400 West 77th Street 19011 Lake Drive East • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Waytek Inc. Dexter Magnetic Material Chanhassen Holding Company 7660 Quattro 7600 Quattro Drive 14201 Excelsior Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 ' McDonalds Corporation (22 -146) Systems Control, Inc. Mortenson Development Co. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue N. 700 Meadow Lane No. P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Minneapolis, MN 55422 I Chicago, IL 60666 Family of Christ Lutheran Church I 275 Lake Drive Blue Circle Investment Co. Chanhassen NH Partnership P. O. Box 388 6125 Blue Circle Drive 1100 International Centre Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 900 Second Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 5315 3rd Avenue So. New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Minneapolis, MN 55419 I Chanhassen Inn Roberts Automatic Products Lutheran Church of Living Christ 531 West 79th Street 880 Lake Drive Box 340 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Metro Lakes West Mini - Storage Wayzata General Investment c/o Mark Senn c/o E. Jerome Carlson Roman R. Roos Suite 100 8280 Galpin Blvd. 10341 Heidi Lane ▪ 1001 Wayzata Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 ▪ Minnetonka, MN 55343 I McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Shamrock Property Partners M. J. Ward c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. 1 McGlynn Drive 8190 Great Plains Blvd. 200 South 6th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 213 I Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Target Stores, Inc. Richard Brose et al B. C. Burdick Attn: Mr. Dick Brooks c/o T. F. James Company ' 426 Lake Street 33 South 6th Street P. O. Box 24137 Excelsior, MN 55331 Box 1392 Minneapolis, MN 55424 I Minneapolis, MN 55440 _ 1 Eckankar Leander & P. Kerber Michael Gorra P. O. Box 27300 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 1680 Arboretum Blvd. New Hope, MN 55427 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Peter Olin 1 David Luse MN Landscape Arboretum E.Jerome Carlson/Beddor Enterprise 15195 Martin Drive 3675 Arboretum Blvd. 1000 Park Road III Eden Prairie, MN 55344 P. O. Box 39 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen American Legion — - , c/o George Beniek Henry & Edna Wrase Paul & Carol Paulson 412 West 76th Street 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. 3160 82nd Street West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 1 Regents of Univ. Minnesota - - -- Chaska Gateway Partners c/o University Attorney Dale & Marcia Wanninger 111 3610 Hwy. 101 S. 100 Church Street 8170 Galpin Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Chanhassen, MN 55317 111 Betty O'Shaughnessy (J -B 99 Partnership) Chan Land Partners Thomas & Marian Schmitz I 1000 Hesse Farm Road 200 Hwy. 13 W. 8190 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Burnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hi -Way 5 Partnership Audubon 92 I c/o Dennis Dirlam c/o Lars Akerberg Raymond R. Notermann 15421 Creekside Court P. O. Box 158 1450 Arboretum Blvd. 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 John Hennessy/D. Rengers Ren ers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J P Links, Inc. I 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. 7750 Galpin Blvd. 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Larry & E. VanDeVeire Conway Lars MN Horticulture 1 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E. 4952 Emerson Ave. So. Rm 1 Horticulture Building Chaska, MN 55318 Minneapolis, MN 55409 University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108 Charles & S. Markert Jeffrey & L. Oberman Thomas & S. Eischens 1 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. 7460 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 Thomas & J. Kordonowy Jay C. Dolejsi Mills Properties, Inc. 3301 Tanadoona Drive 6961 Chaps ral Lane 512 Laurel Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. O. Box 505 Brainerd, MN 56401 , John P. Savaryn Estate I Robert & L. Bergan Mid - American Baptist Social c/o Paul Savaryn 3241 Tanadoona Drive Services Corp. 1049 Oak Terrance Excelsior, MN 55331 2600 Arboretum Blvd. North Mankato, MN 56003 I Excelsior, MN 55331 Michael Sorenson Lotus Realty • Valvoline Instant Oil Change 1 7606 Erie Avenue 545 West 78th Street Suite 1200 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 301 Main Street East Lexington, KY 40507 I Gary Brown Gary Kirt Amoco American Oil 1831 Koehnen Circle 3915 Hwy. 7 Attn: Tax Department 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Minneapolis, MN 55416 P. O. Box 3428 Oakbrook, IL 60522 1 Apple Valley Red -E -Mix Waterfront Assoc. Donald McCarville 6801 150th Street West 440 Union Place c/o State Bank of Chanhassen I Apple Valley, MN 55124 Excelsior, MN 55331 600 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Ralph Molnau/Ron Dubbe Neal and D. Wunderlich Lawrence & F. Raser P. O. Box 151 7011 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd. Waconia, MN 55387 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Roger & G. Schmidt Dean Feltmann 1 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8241 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1 PROPOSED BUILDING MORATORIUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 8, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City I Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a building moratorium on Trunk Highway 5 from Dell Road (Eden Prairie) to Victoria city limits until the completion of the Highway 5 Corridor Study. 1 A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. 1 All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. 1 Paul Krauss, Planning Director Phone: 937 -1900 1 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 21, 1993) 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496 -1707 February 3, 1993 1 1 1 Don Chmiel, Mayor 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 • 1 Dear Don, Regrettably I can't attend the meeting on February 8, 1993, concerning 1 the imposition of a moratorium on development for parcels located within the Highway 5 corridor, in order to allow the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study to be completed. According to the notice I received, this Study will not be ' completed until the end of 1993 or later. 1 own 85 acres on the SW corner of Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Blvd. and am a partner in the Highway 5 Partnership, 1 which owns the 137 acres on the SE corner of Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Blvd. This proposed moratorium is definitely not acceptable to me. Such a 1 move would make it impossible to sell or develop the properties I'm involved in. Currently there are signed purchase agreements for the 85 ' acres and for part of the 137 acres; the status of those agreements would be in doubt if you and the City Council support this moratorium. As a land owner, I find it impossible to make business decisions, when both the 1 "How" and the "When" is controlled by an outside power. • 1 1 1 RECEIVED FEB 0 41993 CITY OF CHANNScit 1 1 BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496 -1707 I 1 If you insist on this course, the least I must do is withdraw my petition for the extension of utilities to my 85 acres. Isn't it amazing that in one 1 week I would receive a letter from Don Ashworth indicating that I would be responsible for a cash deposit or a letter of credit for $2,700, to cover the costs of a feasibility study for Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project to be completed in 1993; and another letter informing me that the development of this land would not be possible until 1994? For a land owner, this is most frustrating. Please consider the rights and needs of the landowners when you vote on this issue. 1 Sincer , 1 ' oar 4.r ." 7.'Sh :ughnessy CC: ' o wo • , P. = { se, City ouncil Members 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing 1 State of Minnesota) 1 )SS. County of Carver ) 1 Stan Rolfsrud, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Villager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: I (A) This newspaper has complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 97T I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said PROPOSED BUILDING Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of MORATORIUM the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lowe case alphabet from A to Z, both CITY OF CHANHASSEN inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and . : of type used in the composition I and publication of the Notice: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN abcdef hi klmno rstu that the Chanhassen City Council will g J Pq / hold a public hearing on Monday. Febru- ary 8. 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council I Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hear- By: anager tan • olfsrud, eneral ana ing is to consider a building moratorium g on Trunk Highway 5 from Dell Road I (Eden Prairie) to Victoria city limits Subscribed and sworn before me on until the completion of the Highway 5 Corridor Study. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public re- this #4/ day of ilCrLU.ic y, 1993 I view at City Hall during regular business • hours. All interested persons are in- " ----i - /� ' ' vited to attend this public hearing and (mot AZLIL—A1._J 1 express their opinions with respect to Y Notar Public this proposal. Paul Krauss. Planning Director Phone: 937 -1900 I (Published in the Chanhassen Vil- lager on Thursday, January 21. 1993; No. 978) I RATE INFORMATION L owest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $7.13 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $7.13 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter $6.49 per column inch 1 1 1 1