Loading...
1e. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Todd Gerhardt APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Wing who wanted to comment on the ' letter from Peter Olin under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Chmiel: We have a public announcement at this time and I'll entertain any ' additional public announcements that may be within the audience. If someone wishes to do that. The proclamation for April 18th thru the 24th as Minnesota Volunteer Recognition Week. Just alone within our community we have a lot of volunteers, and I mean a lot of volunteers and this is always the time that we show this recognition to those people and say thank you for what you're doing and providing their valuable time into the needs of the city. I'm not going to go through the proclamation per se but I do want you to know that we are adopting that and proclaiming April 18th thru the 24th as the Minnesota Volunteer Recognition Week. If there's anyone here that would like to address that at this time, I'd entertain that. If not, is there anyone else that has a 11 public announcement? Resolution 193 -21: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded proclaiming the week of April 18 -24, 1993 as Minnesota Volunteer Recognition ' Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to ' approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution 193 -22: Approve Plans and Specifications for Trunk Highway 101 ' North Leg Railroad Crossing; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 88- 22B -1. d. City Code Amendment Allowing Animal Control Personnel to Euthanize Animals, Final Reading. h. City Council Minutes dated February 22, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes dated March 3, 1993 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated March 11, 1993 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Mim 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 B. APPROVE AGREEMENT PROVIDING UTILITY AND STREET SERVICES TO PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (DEER RIDGE) IN THE CITY OF SHOREW00D, PROJECT 92 -18. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I would like to see done with item 2(b), and this is where we're making an approval agreement providing utility and street services to the proposed subdivision called Deer Ridge in the city of Shorewood. It's project 92 -18. I would like to move the adoption of this but with a condition as well. And that condition being that we, the City, get something out of this. What we're looking for is at least one residence within the Hennepin County /Shorewood properties and that, by doing and requesting that we at least have a minimum of one lot, will give us the opportunity to be able to acquire the CBDG funds through Hennepin County. And although we're still I working at that legislatively with the Federal government in adoption of that and through HUD as well, we're just trying to get a back -up for those additional funds and that amounts anywhere from $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. I Councilman Wing: So you're approving the recommendation but changing that approval of this annexation occur? Mayor Chmiel: An approval of a friendly annexation. De- annexation agreement for one of the particular lots. Councilman Wing: I'll so second that. Don Ashworth: May I make a clarification, if I may? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: I liked how the Mayor phrased that in terms of at least one. When we make that presentation I will attempt to convince the Shorewood Council that it should be 2 or potentially 3 homes and the reason is that that will become a separate precinct and so for voting purposes, their hypothetically one vote or if it's a single person home, where two votes will be known. The secrecacy of the ballot is. The other part would be, I'm assuming that this means that it's dependent on Shorewood agreeing to the friendly annexation. Shorewood is probably not going to be the one who stops this from going through. Municipal Annexation Board will assuredly give us a problem because it is not a contiguous border. A lot of the things that they look at. Hennepin County will have a lot of concerns on it. Emergency response. 911. You have a situation where a South Shore police officer would be going to the residence. He has no jurisdiction in Chanhassen. So you've got some issues that you've got to work through and so I like the way you've worded this. 1 Councilman Senn: Don, a clarification. I guess what I had in my notes was language contingent upon. Are we saying the same thing? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah basically. Councilman Senn: Okay, so I mean basically your motion. Mayor Chmiel: As an additional condition. IF Councilman Senn: That we approve this contingent upon. 2 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Don Ashworth: We have acted to cooperate over the years and I'd say that goes back 20 years. Before my time. Councilman Mason: With what's just come up here, I wonder if we can't reword this somehow because I certainly would, I'm not, don't get me wrong. I'm not doubting a thing you're saying here but I'd certainly, if those things were said, I would have, at this point, personally, I'd have a little trouble putting a contingency on this. What I would like to do however would be to pass some sort of resolution hoping that the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood can work something out here. Because as has been stated, we, with those Block Grant funds do support some activities that are going on in Shorewood and I would hope that they would understand that if they chose not to help us out in this, if we don't get the money, they certainly don't get any of those funds. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's a good point because we do contribute about $4,000.00 to that from these CDBG funds. Councilman Mason: Right, and so with that, I mean I have, knowing with what Jeff has just said here, I guess I have a little trouble putting a contingency on it but I don't have any trouble passing some sort of resolution hoping that they'll work something out with us. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But is Shorewood the obstacle? Or is it going to be the other two major obstacles that you said? Don Ashworth: I think it will be the Annexation Board personally, but I can't guarantee you that Shorewood will respond. I'm hoping that the Mayor will join me. We've had the opportunity over the last 3 -4 years of attending the South Shore Center on a Saturday morning and having breakfast with the Councilmembers from Shorewood. I think we've got a good working relationship with them and I would hope that we can draw on that to convince them as to the need for this approval. But again, I don't think that they're going to be the major stumbling block. I think the Annexation Board will be. Councilman Senn: Don, I wasn't here in December so it's a little hard to I guess speak about that but I would really like to see the motion stand as the way it is. But at the same time say to Mr. Williams that if for some reason this doesn't proceed, that doesn't really necessarily close it off and (b), I think we could have an open ear to talk with you. I mean the intent here is not to damage you I don't think. And it's not to cause you unnecessary expense or anything else. But at the same time, as one goes through these negotiations... have to kind of have some basis to work from. So I'd really like to see your motion stand and again just keep an open ear to Mr. Williams if this thing runs into obstacles. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. Roger Knutson: Just a comment. We may have trouble with the Municipal Board but I'm fairly optimistic that we wouldn't in the sense that we're providing something here to that lot. Providing sewer and water. It isn't just like for no reason at all we have to say we want to pick up the lot in the city of Shorewood. There's some reasonable reasons we can put forward to them and if Shorewood goes along. If Shorewood said no, and we had to fight it, is a 5 111 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 contested hearing, then yeah, I'd have a heck of a problem. But with their concurrence, I think we have a much better than even chance of getting it approved by the Board. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I like that. Councilman Wing: I think 911 can be switched over to that house specific can't it, or does the border cut it off? Do you know Don? 1 Don Ashworth: I really don't know. I would hope that, well I would think that in the case of paramedic service, that you would leave that with Hennepin County and the same way with South Shore. The only issue is really one of jurisdiction 1 on calls. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the only thing that could be involved in this too is that Metropolitan Council is looking to have one specific area as a call area that's going to contain all 7 counties into one station. And that then could be delegated from one to the other. In other words, they know where it's at by that particular address. They would take care of that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is your motion contingent upon the City of Shorewood approving the annexation or the annexation being approved by all parties? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think that that is to have a friendly annexation/ deannexation agreement with them. Councilwoman Dockendorf: With the City as opposed to the annexation being approved by all parties? Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that how it's put then? Councilman Wing: Well the annexation would have to occur, Shorewood would have to approve it but it has to go through the process. So it'd be all parties involved. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, sure. It is. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, all parties. Mayor Chmiel: But it's still. Roger Knutson: So you're aware of the timing, so no one. The simplest annexation you know, it can't be done in 48 hours. It probably, assuming 1 Chanhassen says yes tonight and Shorewood says yes tonight. It's got to go, the paperwork has got to be put together and it's got to go to the Municipal Board and it will take them 30 to 60 days to approve it. So just so you know, it will take some time even if there's agreement with everyone. Ilj 6 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Don Ashworth: That's why I was hoping that by making it as a contingency, I would just as soon that it probably wouldn't be, but then Jeff would know when it went to the Shorewood City Council, that it was going up or going down. I mean if there were later problems with the Annexation Board. With paramedic or whatever, in my mind the issue would then be dead. I mean we would be providing 11 sewer and water and he could proceed under that basis. We simply will have failed in getting that lot into Chanhassen but we will not have forced him into waiting 60 days for Annexation Board, 90 days for somebody else. 90 days for somebody else. I mean his project could be put on hold for a year if this is contingency to approval by all of these other agencies. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well I still would probably, in fact I was still going to stay with the same motion as I did have. Don Ashworth: But I thought in my clarification. Mayor Chmiel: But with that as you had indicated previously, right. Don Ashworth: Right, so this is subject only to approval by Shorewood. So I mean if it's not approved by some other agency that has jurisdiction, then we have simply failed in our attempt and he knows that he can have the sewer and water and is under all these other conditions. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what my question was. Councilman Mason: Would that take a friendly amendment then to get it back on Council immediately after Shorewood agrees or disagrees or is it just assumed that it happens regardless? Mayor Chmiel: Probably a friendly amendment would be in order. If you'd so desire to do that. Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll go along with, I would vote in the affirmative , for this knowing that Mr. Williams knows that if for some reason Shorewood disproves of this, it comes immediately back to us and we work out any remaining problems so we can continue. So I guess my friendly amendment is, if the City of Shorewood denies annexation, this is put on the agenda at the earliest possible date so as not to delay Mr. Williams anymore. Mayor Chmiel: But yet would the City of Shorewood just automatically say forget it and we'd still, one way or the other, I mean there's no leverage there whatsoever. Councilman Mason: Well, that's true. I guess what I'm hearing from the City Manager is that he thinks our relationship is good enough... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that. , Councilman Mason: ...I guess is my concern. Mayor Chmiel: As a motionee, I would accept that friendly amendment with that. Councilman Mason: That it would come back on the agenda? ;1 11 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Would the second accept that? I Councilman Wing: I'm starting to feel the City Manager could probably handle this and if it didn't go our way, he'd immediately put a stop to it and put it on the Council docket for formal action. II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: This might be the easier way to go. I mean if you feel you II can accomplish this based on our comments tonight, and then if in fact it doesn't go and there's a need to put a stop to this, that would be easy to do. I Mayor Chmiel: Well I think if we can meet with the Shorewood City Council, when is their next meeting? Do you have any idea? Don Ashworth: No. Surely they have one before the 22nd because they're on a II similar schedule. In all likelihood it would be the 8th. I just subtracted 14 days. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. Okay. Is that accepted by the second? Councilman Wing: As long as this thing rolls along, sure. II Jeff Williams: Could I just interrupt? I do have the Minutes from December 14th that weren't attached but the only thing I can say is, I'm not sure when we went through City Council December 14th, I thought the process works according I to December 14th. It seems to me like we're basically, I'm doing it over exactly what was approved December 14th. Everything that we're doing, how I proceed on this whole thing is with the agreement that it didn't matter if it II was. I mean I can see your point why we want that lot in Chanhassen. I'd be in total agreement with it but if I knew it was going to be this type of procedure, I don't see what the December 14th meeting was really about except we're basically back where I was December 14th. According to this letter it said II that, or the Minutes. That the City Manager would go before the City Council, Shorewood City Council with an appeal to acquire just one lot for the five to qualify for this CDBG funds and the motion was all voted in favor and the motion 1 carried and it was not contingent upon this. I'm not sure that the process here it was approved and now it's not approved. I'm not sure, can you explain that procedure? It's the first time I've developed a piece of land but I thought II that's what I've been, I've done everything exactly according to plan. Now I have Sathre - Berquist, I've spent about $8,000.00 since the December 14th to this point and as of Thursday I'm submitting all my materials to City of Shorewood for final plat because both, since December 14th I have received preliminary II plat approval through both Councils and now basically you're telling me I can't proceed with my final plat. I feel like there's been a real injustice and I would like, I think some explanation or some reason how they can do this. If I this is how it works, I'll just sit down and go through the process but when the City Council approved it December 14th, and I was told and also my, and excuse me he's not here to verify it but my engineer was also told that it meant that it was not contingent and we could go ahead with the development. I mean I just can't understand it at all and if you could answer that. I mean I don't have any, I mean if you could answer, I mean is this normal? You go to two City r 8 III City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councils for the same thing. That's what I'm asking I guess? Is this normal procedure? Roger Knutson: As I'm sitting here I don't recall the December 14th meeting or whether I was even there to be honest with you. Jeff Williams: Okay, well I do have the Minutes if you'd like to see them. 1 Roger Knutson: If you could just show them to me a second. Jeff Williams: Sure. Roger Knutson: My impression is they approved the concept that they're finalizing tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Was it a concept previously and not the final decision as is tonight? Don Ashworth: Well I don't see that it's unusual. I mean we've presented let's say concept here as how a particular program would look and what not and the , Council will say yes or no. If they say yes, then we'll have the specific document drawn up that parallels that concept. And at that point in time, the concept did not include the contingency on it. The agreement parallels the concepts that have been presented on December 14th but I don't know of any time where the specific document itself, once it was drafted, has not been re- presented to a City Council for final approval. Roger Knutson: If I could just comment. It would have to be. No one has the right to, other than you, to enter into this kind of agreements and you've never seen this agreement before tonight. Obviously we couldn't just have the Mayor and the Clerk sign it and be done with it. It had to come back to you for final approval. For real approval if you will. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think that your motion can stand because a ' friendly amendment is clearly made that we intended to assist this gentleman and see that it gets pursued and if there becomes hang -ups, it will be I think found in his favor. But on the other hand, we need the negotiation power to get off dead center here. I'd like to call the question. Jeff Williams: Can I just say one more thing? ' Mayor Chmiel: One more. Jeff Williams: Okay. I did talk to the City Planner from Shorewood before this ' meeting and he was also told verbally and he thinks he has it in writing, too that he understood that because they wouldn't proceed on their agenda until we had something in writing and they do supposedly have something in writing saying ' that everything was agreed upon and that annexation was not required. So that's all I know and they were told the same thing as I was told. Mayor Chmiel: You may have something in writing but it hasn't passed by Council. That's where the little hang -up comes but I think from what we've discussed here, and the points that have been brought forward, I think those 9 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 issues will get addressed. So I think that with that I'd like to call the question on this. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agreement to provide utility and street services to the proposed subdivision (Deer Ridge) in the City of Shorewood, Project 92 -18, with the condition that staff be instructed to approach the Shorewood City Council and request their consideration of a friendly deannexation /annexation process for at least one lot in Hennepin ' County. If Shorewood does not approve this annexation, that the matter be brought back to the Chanhassen City Council for immediately consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. E. APPROVAL OF 1993 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS. Councilman Senn: I asked item (e) to be pulled because I guess I'd like to ask staff what, it references background checks and this, that and the other thing. What is entailed in that process and what is the criteria that they're supposed ' to meet to come through this process for approval? Don Ashworth: It goes back to Carver County Sheriff's Department who then actually runs it through FBI as well. It includes all of the corporate owners that are shown on the application and if there are any criminal violations, they are noted. They do not pick up speeding tickets, etc. Help me Roger in terms of what other type of felonies or whatnot would trigger a review by the City Council. Roger Knutson: Well you do periodic reviews. Annual reviews to make sure that the normal liquor law violations. Any felonies. Anything. Drug arrests. What ' have you. Anything that goes on the establishment. Do criminal histories on that. And then Scott also looks to see if there's been any complaints against the establishments that haven't been resolved. And if an issue appears, then it's brought to your attention. Mayor Chmiel: Or under age drinking and so on. Roger Knutson: And you had one, was it last year Mr. Mayor, where you brought someone in. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Roger Knutson: Because there had been under age drinking problem. 3 of them? ' Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Roger Knutson: You brought them all in here and you had a chat about how serious you took that issue and got it resolved and gave them their license. Councilman Senn: Okay but, as I understand it, those complaints haven't stopped ' at least on one of the operators. In fact it was my understanding that those complaints were aired again as little as a week ago. Roger Knutson: I haven't heard them. 10 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Don Ashworth: Scott's investigations found no complaints. Councilman Senn: No complaints from other businesses around any of these operators or anything? Don Ashworth: They would have to have had put it on file with us. We don't go out and knock on the door of businesses and say, do you have a complaint against your neighbor. If they have registered some form of complaint, Scott would have notified me of that. Councilman Senn: I thought last week some of the abutting property owners were in complaining again of Filly's at the HRA meeting asking that it be bought again because of the happenings that are going on there. I believe I'm quoting... Mayor Chmiel: Those are past happenings that they were discussing. Of some time ago but it wasn't anything which was most recent. Councilman Senn: Okay. Then I guess, okay so none of that was recent. Don Ashworth: There's another issue there and that is that those issues were really relayed back through another property. In other words, the hotel people had not registered that concern. There had been one from the previous year in which the Council was made aware of the issues associated with that. But the allegation of, and I think that the way Clayton said was, well you've got to do something about this HRA because we continue to take and have them throw beer bottles through windows, and we have no record of any beer bottles through windows. The owners have never submitted that claim. Councilman Senn: Then I'm assuming I won't see that referenced in any more staff reports either then. Don Ashworth: Huh? Councilman Senn: I assume I won't see that referenced in any more staff reports then either. I mean I've seen it referred to now in several staff reports regarding the purchase of Filly's. That that's a constant problem there and I'm 1 hearing two different things. Mayor Chmiel: I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with that. Councilman Senn: Well Don I'm coming from nowhere other than you're saying let's approve a liquor license here and you're saying let's approve a liquor license for an establishment that I've heard absolutely nothing but complaints about referencing back to the purchase discussions over HRA. Mayor Chmiel: But there are no commitments by the local enforcement agencies indicating that those situations really did occur. Councilman Senn: So there's none documented. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And that's what you have to have is documentation. I think you'd have a lot of problem trying not to issue that particular license if you don't 11 -11 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 have the documentation. Councilman Wing: Those comments were stated as this having happened a year ago and that they don't like it there because they had an occasion a year ago where someone threw a beer bottle through a window. That was a year ago and that may be documented. It could have happened. I'm sure it was reported but it's irrelevant to this report. So far in the future, and that was stated as a past occurence. Not as a current problem. At the HRA meeting. Councilman Senn: Second issue is, in relationship to the passage of liquor licenses. I'm familiar with several other cities or town boards that have denied liquor licenses continually on the basis of the providers being significantly behind in back taxes. Is that a criteria that has gone into looking at approval of these liquor licenses or not? Mayor Chmiel: Not to my knowledge. Councilman Senn: And should we be awarding liquor licenses to establishments that are significantly behind in taxes? Don Ashworth: I would ask the City Attorney to respond to that but in advance of doing that, I'm sure that Councilman Senn is referring to again the bowling center who just, I think they're coming out of Chapter 11 or whatever. They are current on this year's taxes and I believe on 1992. They still have outstanding 1990 and 1991 which were both included as a part of the bankruptcy filings. Your position. Councilman Senn: The property tax data I had done Don was that they were 3 years behind. I don't know, maybe that's been changed here in the last couple weeks or so by payment or so but you know to me that's fairly significant. Roger Knutson: To the best of my knowledge, and I'm not sure of this because I wasn't prepared for this issue. I don't think there's anything in our City Code, and I'll check, that says non - payment of real estate taxes means you don't get your license. I have drafted and I work in several cities that have such provisions. This city does not, to the best of my knowledge. As far as the effect of the bankruptcy, it is possible that would be effected by what the bankruptcy court has done. I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer but I can find out the answer to that for you. Whether they're in Chapter 11? 13? Don Ashworth: The project's laying on my desk but it, the settlement agreement is before the Court and it will be finally heard within the next 15 to 20 days. It does include the arrear property taxes for I believe it's, I'm not sure if it's '90, '91, or '89, '90, and '91. Roger Knutson: Irregardless of the effect of the bankruptcy, you don't have that... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's nothing within our ordinance per se. I don't think we can enforce it from that standpoint. That might be a good point to look at. Councilman Senn: Pull that one Mark. Just hold that for one meeting and get an answer on it. Determine where we want to go on it. If nothing else, we can 12 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 approve it at least. Maybe you want to make that change to our ordinance in the future. Councilman Mason: Well but that might be in the future. I mean we need to vote on this so. Councilman Wing: Well we can withhold that one. Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to, at least from my standpoint, hear a little bit more about that in terms of our options. Councilman Mason: Well that's fine. I mean if it's not in ordinance now, we can't deny them this year. I mean it might be next year but we can't this year. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I would agree with that. That position. Don Ashworth: I would ask that if you would like to see the City Attorney's office draft a new section to the ordinance that would make that, I think Councilmember Mason is absolutely correct. That since it's not in a current ordinance, I find it difficult in putting it back to the current owner. The other point as noted by Karen Engelhardt is any application which is not received by the department by March 30th, for every day of delinquency there is a good chance that they will not have their license back by the 1st of May. Which means they'd be out of business then, let's assume we took action on April 12th. There's a good chance that they would be not able to serve for the first 10 days in May. It requires them 30 days to process the application at the State level. Maybe we could speed it up. Councilman Senn: Okay, but when it goes to the State, the State does withhold approval based on taxes being in arrears but not property taxes? Isn't that correct? Roger Knutson: Not property taxes, no. Councilman Senn: No. I didn't say property taxes. I said taxes. Roger Knutson: Sales taxes? Councilman Senn: Yes. Roger Knutson: I don't know that they have a... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would imagine that there would be something there but what that is, I don't have the foggiest idea. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So can we move approval on this with the item of discussion at a future meeting? Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be in the proper sequence to go right now. To have that motion. Councilman Wing: Did you make that motion? 13 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Wing: And I'll second that again contingent on us reviewing that ordinance with possibly inclusion of that as other, as mentioned other cities have that We may want to include that. I think that should be put forth. Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Roger Knutson: Just an editorial comment. I work in some cities where it's amazing how taxes get paid on December 30th. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll call the motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf coved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the 1993 Liquor License Applications with the condition directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance regarding delinquent property taxes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. F. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, RIGHT- OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR EXPANDED HIGHWAY 5. (PREVIOUS BURDICK PROPERTY). Councilman Senn: The acquisition, I guess I haven't seen this before so I was just more curious than anything else. What it involves. Not in a lot of detail attached. Don Ashworth: We carried out the purchase of the Burdick property on Market Boulevard. That's where the pond is and it was needed for the pond. In the meantime MnDot started the construction on Highway 5 and as it turned out, we ended up as the owner by the time they had concluded that process. They then had to deal with us in actually acquiring that property. We felt that by the condemnation court making an award to Mr. Burdick, that established reasonable value for that property. We have debated this for the better part of a year, year and a half with MnDot and I think we're about as far as we're going to get them and we finally, the attorneys in talking with myself felt there is no sense further pursuing this. We've got them to what we think is going to be the best offer closest to the amount that we had paid for that property from Mr. Burdick. Councilman Senn: Okay, and that's the $115,000.00? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Senn: And how many square feet of property are involved? Roger Knutson: It's 30 feet wide. How long is it? Don Ashworth: It's partially along Market but primarily along Highway 5 so, I mean it's not just 30 feet wide. I'd have to grab the file. If you'd like to move on, I hope I can find the file. Karen finds files for me. Councilman Senn: Well my question Don is I guess coming back to how many square feet are involved? I mean how does this compare to in effect what we did pay for the property and what value are we getting for it now through the 14 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 condemnation? I mean those are pretty basic questions but none of the information is here so I'm not Roger Knutson: The per square foot cost is somewhat less than we paid for the whole piece but we're not selling the whole piece. We're selling a strip and then when you consider in the cost, it would seem fair. I did not, the condemnation lawyer in the office handled this. I don't have the numbers on the top of my head but we can run upstairs. I can't. I don't know where they are. Don Ashworth: Again, I could look for that in the file. Mayor Chmiel: Is this really pertinent to your questions that you're asking? Councilman Senn: Yeah, it is. I mean I have a little bit of a hard time just approving this without understanding the background or the numbers behind it. Don Ashworth: I mean this has gone on... Councilman Senn: But again you can vote without me so you don't need me. I'd like to see that before I would. Don Ashworth: If we table this for one meeting, like I said, it's gone on for 4 years. One more meeting probably. Mayor Chmiel: We might have it here now. We might be able to resolve it rather quickly. Don Ashworth: I'd say 1,500 feet by 25 feet. It could be if you want to pass the map. See if somebody else can. Councilman Senn: It's how much again? I'm sorry. Don Ashworth: Approximately 1,500 by 25. Then there also is a construction easement in there which generally is less value. Roger Knutson: So it's about 37,000 square feet. Say 40,000 square feet. Something less than an acre. Don Ashworth: I recall the acquisition from Mr. Burdick was $2.80 and I know this came in at less. I can't remember for sure Mark but I think it was like 20 to 30 cents but fighting this further, attorney fees in my own mind were eating us up. No offense to Roger's office. Roger Knutson: You know at something less than an acre and we're getting $115,000.00 for it. So something less than $3.00 an acre. Councilman Senn: Just less than. Don Ashworth: But that's not correct because I know it's under the $2.80 that was paid to Mr. Burdick but not enough so to be, to further warrant. The next step on this process is to go into court and I just could not see that. It just does not warrant a court process when you're that close. 15 City Council ffeeting - Councilman Senn: Don, I'm not suggesting that. It's just when I get an action put in front of me which is agreeing to acquire, I guess I'd just like to see that kind of basic information that tells me. Geez, here's what we paid for it. Here's what we're getting out of the condemnation for it. You know, at least some reasonable comparison of cost. Don Ashworth: And I apologize because I guess in my own mind, having this been going on for such a long period of time, I just felt maybe we were kind of at the end and I should have included those earlier documents. I apologize. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one of the things I'd like to have done Mark, if you do have those kind of specific questions, and we know we're not going to get them, get a hold of Don and talk to him prior to the meeting so we can get that resolved at that particular time. Councilman Wing: Or get it pulled off the agenda. I don't want to get here and staff putting this much effort into it and then tie up the meeting. We're going to change the consent agenda later tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Well hopefully. Consents work very well if you ask your questions prior to, and they're not a highly controversial kind of item. What's your pleasure? Councilman Wing: Well I've been in on this one so I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Settlement Agreement of right -of -way acquisition for expanded Highway 5, (previous Burdick property) as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. G. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS. Councilman Senn: I realize you like consent to be consent but on three occasions now, including in writing I've asked for specific breakdowns on expenditures. We're still not getting it. Mayor Chmiel: Which ones are you concerned with? Councilman Senn: Well I'm not going to, I've probably got 25 items listed here. I'm not going to waste the time to go through them tonight. I'm not going to vote for this. I would like staff to please start putting an explanation behind the expenses as has been requested and not have all these blanks. And real basic things like when somebody travels where they're going and what they're going for rather than blank. Councilman Wing: Pull it out and be specific will you Mark so I know where you're going. It would be a better idea of what you want on this. If you've got one in particular that we can look at. Councilman Senn: Well, I mean Dick I've been very specific you know with these on several times now and especially in writing. Going down, I'm just going down some of these items. 51035. Outhouse Graphics. Printing and Publishing, 16 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 $4,400.00 for newsletters. Is that the City newsletter? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. There are several travel and training items on here relating to, here's one for the Mayor. It just says travel and training. It doesn't say to what. For what. Anything else here. Here's one for Don Ashworth, travel and training. I thought we agreed that we were going to start having a location and a purpose. Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Councilman Mason: I think we were all at the same meeting and I don't recall that there was an agreement that that would be done. What I understood was, is if anyone had any questions at all about any of this, to be sure to check with Jean, right? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yeah, that was the discussion. Councilman Mason: And if so desired, those folders could be pulled and checked as opposed to anyone in the city having to take the time to type every little thing out that's going on here. Mayor Chmiel: Or you could even review the expense sheet that indicates where it's been. Where we've gone. Mine was for, and I can think of it right off hand, mine was for mileage to St. Paul, two different times at the Metropolitan Council. Over to Chaska City Council. School District over at Chaska. Councilman Senn: Don, I guess that's fine. My understanding is different than Mr. Mason's. I left that meeting, I thought assured by Don that they were going to be included. He was going to talk to Jean. If I wanted to, I could follow up and talk to Jean about my specific requirements. I told Don that wasn't necessary because as long as there was a general explanation of what it was and where it was, I'd be happy. And I thought we had an agreement on that. Don Ashworth: I still have some problem. For example again I'll go to the Mayor's or my own but, I mean in both instances I would call them miscellaneous. In other words there's been 10 meetings of under $10.00 each or $15.00. I mean would that help if it said 6 meetings. Councilman Senn: Miscellaneous mileage. Put miscellaneous mileage. I mean that's different than an airplane ticket to New York. I mean you know, the explanation you're giving here which is zero tells you nothing in terms of what you're approving. Don Ashworth: I think that Jean has been trying to include additional information under each one and I think each time we're maybe learning a little bit more as to what it is the Council is looking for under those. So again, under the travel and training I will ask for if they can put in, if there's 6 miscellaneous, than it's 6 miscellaneous, or 6 under $15.00 or whatever the case may be. 17 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Yeah. What I specifically requested before was travel, training, subscriptions, dues. Things like that that we list what they are so we know. Don Ashworth: I'm sorry. I was kind of looking for a list and I hadn't heard it. Councilman Wing: You know Mark's, I'm supposed to raise my hand. Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Councilman Wing: I can sort of sense where Mark's coming from except being from the Fire Department, I've seen Jean hammer us so bad so fast. I mean if there's a hawkeye in this city, that's where it's at and you don't rent a car for $12.00 if you could have gotten it for $11.00. She won't pay it so you've got your budget money and she watches those budgets and their numbers extremely close. So when we get to this point, this is something that's been scrutinized already by someone that's a lot more qualified to scrutinize it and knows the numbers better than we are and I don't know if she has to then transpose all that scrutinization so we can look at it arbitrarily and pick out one or two items that may or may not work. And I guess to go with Mr. Mason. I think if you've got a problem, a phone call to Jean is going to get your more information than you want to hear. Mayor Chmiel: And she'll be there. Councilman Wing: And she'll be there. There's no question about it. They run an extremely tight ship. Councilman Senn: If that's the way we want to handle them, then that will be understood. Councilman Wing: Well I favor more information although there's more information on here now, and be specific on what you want...50 pages here because then I'm not going to go through it. Councilman Senn: Again, I wrote a two page letter explaining that. I guess I'm not going to, you know go pull it out of the file and read it again I guess. I thought that would have been sufficient to explain what I wanted...one question. Why are we paying the engineer on Minnewashta Parkway more money? Councilman Wing: Which number is it? Councilman Senn: 050985. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as you bring up the issue. What was resolved since the last Council meeting with the Parkway. Councilman Wing: Fixed it. Mayor Chmiel: We took care of it. Put additional rock. Graded it with a pitch in the center so it has a slope and a drain off. It's still not the best but it's the best we can possibly get as of right now. 18 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Well you know listening to the past comments of Council, I mean so far this project has turned into about the biggest disaster the City has ever experienced. Both costwise and citizen wise, yet every, just about every month there's another payment here to the guy who caused the disaster. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we've gotten a new insight on that. If we can't get it completed by September, we're not going to move into October. Councilman Senn: You mean we keep paying him until September Don? I mean just a question. I get real confused because I come to these meetings and here these very specific comments yet I don't see any follow thru. Councilman Wing: Good. Well I'll help you pick that one out then. That was which number again? 050? Mayor Chmiel: What page were you on? Councilman Senn: That is on page 3. 050985. Don Ashworth: Charles should respond but this city entered into a contract with the engineer. That contract is on a percent of work completed by contractor. I'm confident, well Charles why don't you go ahead. Charles Folch: As Don was eluding to, we do have a contract that we've entered into basically with the consultant engineer which is based on a percentage of the project cost and therefore as the project construction progresses, basically the percent of completions typically mirror the percentage of payment that is made. Partial payments that are made to the consultant. Actually we went with Bill Engelhardt almost 9 months into the project back. Starting back from the feasibility phase before we actually, before they actually submitted any payment invoices from the city so from that standpoint certainly we aren't paying ahead on anything and this is a typical contract as with any other consultant engineer on a project in this city. Councilman Senn: You know I guess I'd like to see this item pulled and I'd also like some review by the City Attorney as to whether this company is in company is in conformance with their contract or not. Or is in potential violation of it. I'm going back to again a lot of what I've heard. Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question before you go that far. So we don't spend some more money over money that you're concerned about. Do you have any idea Charles as to where we are with that contractor in the agreement? Charles Folch: The actual percentage numbers right now, without going back and checking a file, I couldn't tell you off hand but I guess maybe somebody needs to inform as to what's been failed to be done or why we wouldn't want to proceed with paying them for some services that they provided. Councilman Wing: Well I think Mark spelled it out. It's been a disaster. The grade wasn't done right. There wasn't enough material put on. The neighbors have ruin their cars. Their clothes. Their driveways. It's the worst disaster the City's ever faced as far as it's citizens is concerned and it's been really embarrassing to me and I think Bill's got egg on his face. I don't think the 19 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 present project got started too late. I don't think it was done in good faith. I didn't believe it was going to be successful and none of the neighbors did. Every letter that came out from Bill or you promised things that never occurred on time tables that never happened and then we get to this spring and engineering goes out and says, well it's flat. Well it should have done this. It should have been graded. It should have had this on it. So finally after Council puts the pressure on, somebody goes out and fixes it. Well maybe it should have been done that way last fall. And if Bill was the engineer, he should have been responsible. And the buck has to stop someplace and I guess I'm with Mark. Maybe the buck's got to stop with Bill and we ought to pull this item and look at the whole project. Although this payment may be from past work. Maybe we're got to look at where we're going from now on because this hasn't gone right and it hasn't been good. Councilman Senn: ...quit getting calls and dry cleaning bills. Mayor Chmiel: I know. I've been out there several times myself. And I didn't charge the city for the wash jobs either. But that's probably true. Alright, can we have an approval of this payroll check register as well as the accounts payable and to review item 050985 by our engineering department to determine what has really transpired on that particular project. And at this time I don't want to give it to the City Attorney to spend some additional dollars at this time. Councilman Wing: I'd like to suggest that that item go to a work session, not a Council agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Mason: I move approval of item 2(g) on the Consent Agenda. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I might pose a question. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Charles Folch: Is there, I mean what should we, what's your recommendation staff do with future bills that come through for this project? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's a very good question. Don Ashworth: I think you have it on a work session so let's talk about it at that point in time. Councilman Wing: My intent would be to pay the bills. I want to look at the process and what's occurred. If there was a problem, it would come out of that discussion at that work session. Mayor Chmiel: We're going to have that work session on the 27th. That's what I had down. Did we change that? Councilman Mason: The 7th of April is the work session. Councilman Wing: And goals was on 27th. 20 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You're right. 5:30 is the work session. Don Ashworth: I had the 7th. 1 didn't have the 27th. Mayor Chmiel: 8:00 a.m. In the courtyard. Councilman Senn: 27th was a goals session was it not and then the work session was the 7th of April. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Wing: I'd like to second the motion. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Accounts Payable dated March 22, 1993. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried. Councilman Wing: Now does the meeting begin? Mayor Chmiel: No. I've got to do a little apology here because I didn't know that Susan Hurm was going to be here to speak on the Minnesota Volunteer Recognition Week and I extend my apologies and I'd like to have you come forward at this time to do that. Susan Hurm: As he did mention, I'm the adult representative for the Youth Commission and we were bringing the proclamation for Volunteer Week to the Council to read as a proclamation. My youth person is here with me and I'd like to introduce her. She is a junior at Chaska High School and she is kind of new to the Commission also as I am. I am filling the position and will need to be re- appointed by the Council again. And Natalie's going to tell, Natalie Rosini is going to tell you what the Youth Commission has been doing the year that they have been in existence and then I will assist her. So Natalie. Natalie Rosini: Okay like Susan said, I'd like to tell you a little bit about what the Youth Commission has been doing. This past January we sent in an application to be recognized as a leadership plan and this is to Darrel Busier at Mankato University. Eight school districts and four other sites for labs were selected and Chaska, or District 112 was one of them. And basically it's to learn how youth and adults work as partners on policy making bodies. And we send information about what we do and then we get information about other districts have been doing. It's just trying to pull it all together and give other districts ideas. We also have two youth on our commission that are on the Action for Children Youth Advisory Council which Governor Arnie Carlson has started last spring. It's a take off from the Adult Advisory Council and I am one of them and Chris Cerwanka who's a senior at Chaska High School is the other representative. And there's 26 youth from across the state that are on this Council. 26 were chosen out of 80 applicants so it's been a really rewarding thing to be on. Our role is to create a vision for Minnesota's children and families. That's a rod roll. Some of the things we've been doing is reviewing legislation and policy. Right now we're working on a media summit and March ' 31st and April 2nd, I'm not sure what channel it will be on but there's a children's summit that we were just interviewed with the Adult Advisory Council and President Clinton is going to be on there the third day talking about other 21 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 programs throughout the nation and stuff and the Action for Children Youth Advisory Council was chosen for one of those so that should be pretty exciting. We've also worked with the Community Education Advisory Council in Chaska and they came to us because they wanted a youth member on their board and asked us to take care of selecting a youth for that so we've been working with them. And another thing that the Youth Commission is doing right now is we might participate in the Minnesota Youth Summit which is brand new this year. It's of, by and for the youth and it's a one day deal in April and just discussing topics of, current topics I guess is what we'll be discussing there. Then the Youth Volunteer Service Directory, that's another project that we've worked to create. We put this together. I can't say I because I came in after they put this together but basically what they did is went around to the communities and asked them to put their input in and give ideas of, or went to businesses and asked you know, do you need, do you have room for some volunteers. And so then they came back to us and we put it all together and that's the Youth Service Directory. So if you want, if a student wants to volunteer for something or get community service hours or whatever, they can just go to the book and look it up and choose what they'd like to do. And so that's, we've been distributing that book throughout the community and that's how Susan I think found out about this and came to call the Youth Commission because we were looking for someone to fill the position for the Chanhassen representative. Right now we are currently working with the League of Women Voters to set up Growing Up Female. That's their program which will take place next Monday night. So if any of you would like to come. We were asked, the Youth Commission was asked to come and talk and answer questions just on growing up female. That's their topic. And also, the last thing is that we've been working with Tanya Bishman who is the Carver representative I think with the steering committee for the Community Learning Center. Have you heard about that? It's a proposal that the District was offered a grant and we are competing with 22 other sites around the country for this planning grant. It's to set up, it's not a new school but it's kind of confusing but it's a community learning center. That's what it's going to be called. And then also we are thinking about participating in the National Service Learning Conference but we haven't really decided. That's just too revitalizing education or renewing communities. So that takes place in April also. But basically the Youth Commission, we serve as a link between the community and youth so we're here to help other programs and facilitate other things. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Natalie. Appreciate that. Susan Hurm: One more thing before we give up the mic. This year we will be updating this Youth Directory. We'll be doing this every year and if you look through here, there isn't a whole lot from Chanhassen for the youth in Chanhassen to do. So we will be going around again as they did last year looking for volunteer opportunities for our kids in this community and so we would certainly like to have your help in locating those kinds of things for the kids to do. Mayor Chmiel: Great. Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to see a younger individual within this community take an active role in what you're doing and we certainly appreciate it. Susan Hurm: She did a nice job. 22 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, an excellent job. Councilman Wing: What's happening to this book? I mean there's really, just paging through it, there's some tremendous information here. I didn't know half these things existed. How is this being disseminated? Where is it going? How many copies are out? It deserves some publicity. Susan Hurm: Well we have them in the high school. We've got them in the middle school and I'm taking them over to St. Hubert's. We're just trying to get them to the youth as best we can. And I know that it's not well know. That this is available. Councilman Wing: We have the Chanhassen Villager is our local paper. Maybe they should get a copy of this just to see what's available. Susan Hurm: It wouldn't hurt, yeah. We would like to get a lot more PR and each one of the youth members, representatives and the adult representatives are going to the City Councils so they'll be going to Victoria and they'll go to Carver and so hopefully we'll get more information out to everyone. But they've worked real hard and they've accomplished a lot in a year. And they are a good voice that needs to be heard. And there is now a youth member on the School Board so they've made some inroads and they do have really strong leadership skills which we are trying to develop. So we hope that someday maybe they'll be on your Council. Mayor Chmiel: The leaders of tomorrow. Natalie Rosini: You were asking about when, what was your last question about if that was being distributed or with the paper? Councilman Wing: Well just the distribution of this I think is important because there's a lot of information. I've got a, I just happened to pick one out here. My daughter is doing some work, graduate work right now and there's a couple things in here that just fit right in. I'm going to show this to her and she's going to be excited to call these numbers. Natalie Rosini: Because there's our President, or our Chairperson, excuse me, is going to, I think he just wrote up an article to send in to the paper but that was kind of a slow process because we've been working with other things. There's many things. Councilman Wing: Well Chanhassen Villager is our local paper and they're right here in town and sometimes we can, under pressure bend their arm a little bit to get support for things. Natalie Rosini: That'd be great. Mayor Chmiel: And I think we have him sitting here. Susan Hurm: Well we appreciate anything you can do for us because they are a good body. 23 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Mark, may I just ask that hopefully you will get through this without too much problem and hopefully if there's anything that we've discussed previously, at the last meeting, I would appreciate that as well. And I'd like to give you a shorter period of time this time than you did the last time. Hopefully you can wind up within 5 or 10 minutes at the most. Mark Halla: I'll do my best. I don't think there will be any problem with that. Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don. Just a point. Do we have an item under Visitor Presentation too that's scheduled? Mayor Chmiel: No, that's item number 3. Kate Aanenson: That's a visitor presentation item. Mayor Chmiel: Oh 3, okay. Yes. We'll get to that. It is. Mark Halla: Thank you for allowing me to speak here tonight. I've basically written a speech and I'll just read it through and that was in the interest of trying to save as much time as possible. I know my pursuit of this issue has angered some of you but I appreciate you allowing a political process to continue nonetheless. I wish to point out that you, the City Council, have the opportunity to make a decision that will effect the city forever. You're unfortunately in a position that pits you either against city or against local business. You also jeopardize your own political goals if you make an unpopular decision. I don't envy your position. I hope you consider your decision from all sides before you finalize it. This issue to me has become one of principle rather than simply economics. I've always agreed with the goals of reforesting our city but I also believe you must not do this at the expense of local business. The Tree Preservation Board by name is preservation. Not reforestation. However, reforestation is obviously a major goal of all of us. It's also the goal of the federal government. There are federal monies available that by law must be spent through local business. Not in competition with or against local business. Your decision on this matter should take into account the actions by the federal government. To decide to compete with local retailers in any fashion by selling anything at any price may have legal ramifications. You are to use our dollars to improve our public land, not our private. If you want more trees, require more when subdividing. Plant them on boulevards. Improve landscaping on city property but don't sell them. The use of our taxes to compete with local retailers or to sell anything for private use is conflict of interest. It is wrong, unfair, probably illegal, contrary to the standard government practices and should not be done. When we proposed to the Tree Board that we may be willing to offer a discount to Chanhassen residents, and that was all three of the local garden centers. If they match that discount they said, the City does not intend to spend any money on this project. That is not up for discussion. This has been labeled a top priority but there are no funds available to promote it? Every single day, 365 days a year, I spend money to operate my business. I pay taxes, insurances, utilities, payroll, the list goes on. I realize that I must sell my product at a higher price than I pay for it in order to survive. I risk my livelihood every day. If I don't make money, I and 20 to 30 other people lose their jobs. As any entrepreneur in business 24 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 for himself or herself would agree, the competition from other retailers is expected. They have similar cost and overhead and therefore similar pricing. Competition from a city that does not have these other associated costs is unexpected, unjust and immoral. The end does not justify the means. The Tree Preservation Board would be better off seeking local retailers support rather than alienating them. It was expressed at our meeting last Monday night that the Arbor Day celebration itself was an important aspect of this program. It was mentioned that the local retailers could donate trees or possibly even move one with a tree spade for the city celebration. That would help bring a crowd and also get us some exposure but they would still sell their trees. Halla Nursery has in the past donated goods or services to the city and may do so in the future but the incentive to do so would be greatly reduced if this program continues. The lack of support in this instance is overwhelming. I'm disgusted that the city in which I operate would even consider selling anything for any reason to private citizens for their own private use. This program does just that and should not continue. The city has 3 garden centers that local residents can go to for landscaping, trees, shurbs, related products. The competition between these garden centers will naturally keep pricing fair. You may believe the prices for these products are too high but that isn't your concern. Each one of us in this business is competitive not only with each other but with the general Twin City marketplace for similar goods. We would not be in this business if we didn't strongly support your end goal of reforestation and beautification of our environment. That's the unquestionable truth. I think we all agree on that. Please help us achieve this goal through education, city programs that stress the value of trees, recycling, legislation to require more trees, etc, but not through selling to the public. As you already know, the 3 local garden centers have written support of more than 40 local businesses. I believe that was mailed to each of you. In addition I have here some more signatures bringing the total support against this program upwards of 50 local businesses. All of these are either owners or managers. I also have some information on the federal tree planting program. It outlines the method of promoting reforestation as well as the fact that it can only be used through small business and on public land only. I wish to point out that I'm representing the viewpoint of not only myself but over 50 other business people. We've used the political process as it was meant to be used and we have no animosity towards any member of the city or the Council itself, and hope you feel the same. I know that your decision will be based on what you believe is best for our communit and I don't fault you for that. I admire you for it. This will be a late night and I know you're all doing the best you can. I thank you for hearing me out and I have some paperwork that I think might help in your decision. Who would you like me to pass it out to? Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Why don't you just bring those and give those up here to the Council. Whatever you have. Councilman Senn: Don I have a question if I could. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: Last meeting when this came up I asked that these guys go back and meet with the Tree Board. It sounds like that's occurred but it sounds, if I'm interpretting the comments correctly, that it kind of went nowhere or did nothing? 25 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: No. My understanding is that the other two nurseries or the other two people who were in business within the city, maybe Todd can answer that particular question. Todd Hoffman: To answer your question Councilman Senn. I did carry out the City Council's directive. Called a special meeting of the Tree Preservation Board with the retailers. Mr. Halla, Mr. Jay Kronick and Mr. Jim Wilson. As a result of that meeting the board, boardmember Schroers moved and Eiler seconded that they made a motion to sponsor as a part of the Arbor Day celebration, specifically on that day, that Saturday morning, a tree sale offering 50 inch and one half, balled and burlapped sugar maple trees in observance of the city's emblem at considerably reduced prices. That would be on a first come, first serve basis as part of the event. Single tree per person. In addition to that, that local vendors are invited to participate in the process or the event as they choose and we suggested that we could distribute sales flyers or information to the residents and participants of that celebration from each of the individual businesses. So the tree sale as occurred last year was dismantled. It was not suggested that that would continue. Upon calling Mr. Halla, Jay Kronick and Jim Wilson the morning after the Tree Board meeting to inform them of this position, Mr. Kronick and Mr. Wilson responded favorably to the process, and at least neutrally if not favorably to the outcome. However Mr. Halla continued to express his displeasure with the issue. Councilman Senn: And when does this recommendation from the Tree Board come to the Council for consideration, or doesn't it? Todd Hoffman: It was my understanding that the City Council asked that the Tree Board resolve the issue and this is their resolve. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think that was the direction we had given at that time. Councilman Senn: Well I think that we asked that they meet and see if they could resolve the issue. From what I'm hearing it wasn't resolved. Councilman Mason: Well no, two of the people involved in the nursery business at least gave tacit approval to this time around because it was a little too late to stop it. An I correct in assuming that Todd? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Mason: Now I had a chat with Jay Kronick after that and I suggested to him maybe after the first of the year we sit down and see how we can, for years previous get all this worked out. And he was amenable. So I believe that 2 of the 3 were, like Todd said, at least in tacit agreement. Mark Halla: Let me point out. Councilman Wing: Let's just keep going here. Mayor Chmiel: We're just having it right here at Council yet. I also had discussions with Jay and basically what you said is what he said to me as well. And I think the intent as we indicated a long time ago was the fact, not trying 26 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 to_take business away from existing nurseries or businesses. The intent behind it was to promote the planting of trees which was the main intent and what we indicated at that time to be selling the trees for cost, was just that fact of putting trees in. To get them planted and hopefully helping the environment as well in cleaning it. But I know that the position that we had taken at that time and clarification that I had made at that particular meeting was that we know that they weren't going to be making money on this but hopefully we were looking at it from the Council standpoint to promote an exposure to those businesses, or whoever that successful bidder was last year. And that was where we were really coming from with this whole situation. I don't think this Council nor myself would take a position to try to run in competition with any other businesses in this community. If anything we do, we support those businesses and do that rather strongly. Mark Halla: That's exactly why I got the petition together. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That's right. And many of those people who had even signed that petition had called me and said, can you tell me really what I really signed. They still had some concerns. Mark Halla: I wouldn't now that. Mayor Chmiel: But nonetheless, I just wanted to make that clarification. Richard do you. Councilman Wing: I just might clarify what we did that night because I was there and I agreed with the business and the retail group that were there. They had some valid points and I think we listened intently and we listened hard and I think that's the reason was called in the first place. What we did was stop a month long process with a tree sale that went over weeks and weeks and weeks and tried to sell as many trees as we could and unknown number and I think last year we sold 60. What we decided to do was just have an Arbor Day and some way to, you've got to get people in the door somehow to this Arbor Day celebration. So we decided to pick one tree a year. This year it just happened to be a maple because it's our signature. Limit it to 50 trees total and use those trees to bring people in on an educational process. I guess our goal here was urban reforestation. This is a long term decade after decade type goal. It's not, the retailers came in and were talking about today and me and I and what's best for me today and how it's going to effect me today and I started to shut it out because there was no talk about the city and it's future. It's growth and how they might help and present a better program. So as an attempt to compromise in this environmental issue, we simply cut it down to one day, no more than one day. 50 trees, which is fewer than...local community in it's entirety with brochures, with trucks, set up stands if they want to and give away discount coupons. Pass out brochures. Whatever they want to but I see this as bolstering the local business community. Not hurting it. I was, frankly Mark when you come up here and start talking about being against local business, I think I'm being supportive of local business. When you start talking to a guy like me that's heart and soul on this Council, and talk about political goals and political decisions, you're out of line. That really, if I'm turning red, I'm glad I'm tan because I'm not a politician and I'm working for the city and I'm trying to be visionary long term and business is our local community and I don't agree with your position or your statement at all. And I think if you've 27 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 chosen to get on this band wagon, Halla Nursery could have become famous in this thing. So I just can't agree with what we're going. Now the one question I do have is the legality. This seems to be a real common thing in a lot of cities. In our community and certainly out East is where we got this started our idea. Is this illegal for us to have a few trees on a Saturday morning and pick them up at wholesale and sell them to the community? Roger Knutson: I don't think so. Councilman Wing: I don't think so either. Roger Knutson: The DNR's been selling trees for, forever might be too long but for a long time. Councilman Wing: So I don't agree that it's illegal. I think you're wrong. Vernelle Clayton: I just have a suggestion. It's not original with me. It was Brad's idea a long time ago and I didn't follow up on it. It seems to me that we have a good thing going here. That the city's trees could be sort of like a lost leader and Market Square, we manage the shopping center. That's I understand where the give away is going to be taking place. We would certainly be happy to invite the nursery folks to come and have a few of their wares to display as well. Come and get the free trees as a sort of incentive to come out and then see their pretty things and buy them I think could be a win -win all the way around and you're welcome to come and I'd be happy to invite the others. Mayor Chmiel: Could you please state your name just for the record. Vernelle Clayton: Oh, for the record I'm Vernelle Clayton. Mark Halla: I'd appreciate that opportunity and we'll probably take you up on that. I've always stressed that I firmly believe in this end goal. For 50 some years we've been in business doing this same thing. We've been out here for nearly 30. And Richard I apologize if I've offended you in any way because I certainly did not mean that, but I can state the facts for what they are and there's 50 signatures on that petition stating they believe the program as it stands is incorrect. Don in reference to whether they signed it and then read it afterwards, I can't say that. I can only say that you or I would probably read something before we signed it and each of them seemed to have read it before they signed it. As you can see, a lot of them are faxed in. They're all hand written in their own writing so I believe strongly in the issue and I pursued it and if I've angered any of you, I apologize for that. That wasn't my intent. It simply was to say I disagree with the process here. To do the best that I could to change it and if I can't change it, then it's like voting for President. I'm going to get behind the new person or the new program and try to support it. I think it's wrong. There's no question about it. It is wrong. You have no business in being in the free market enterprise system. It's not right. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to bring up one last point because I did have an opportunity to talk with Mark. I guess I felt happy about the process in that the City Council listened to the concerns of the retailers. Asked that the item be submitted back over to the Tree Board, which is represented by S 28 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 citizens. Each of the retailers were given an opportunity to speak and give their thoughts. The Tree Board listened and then they voted. I guess that's what I think government's all about. It's a democracy. It's an opportunity for people to express their views. You present those to a neutral group and a decision is made. That Tree Board did not have the latest information which is now this survey of businesses. I think where the Council finds themself pressed between a rock is that at our last meeting, at the meeting at which time we sent it back to the Tree Board and asked them to reconsider, we knew that we were running short of time if you were going to have a program for 1993. To now again come back with additional new information, I think that would surely kill the program for '93. I suggested to Mark that although he did not get all of the things he was looking at through the Tree Board, I thought that they had made major concessions towards the retailers. And I encouraged him to continue to work through that group and hopefully earlier than we did this year to potentially make it better for '94, '95. I mean I do not know why, whatever the program is this year has to be exactly what we do in '94. This is not the same as 1992 and again I would think '94 would even...further. Mayor Chmiel: Yes and I just might add a little bit to that. I also talked to a couple members on the Tree Board and they'd be willing to sit down and re- review what could happen for 1994. I think as they had put it, it's sort of 'a put and take kind of situation. To hopefully get this thing resolved within that particular commission. So if we can do that, I think maybe everybody's going to be happy in the long run. Mark. Councilman Senn: From all the stuff I've seen I guess going back and forth on this, I think given the fact that it's already been published, etc, I think what they've gone back and worked out appears to be a good quick solution for '93. But beyond that I guess I'd like to reiterate the comments I made last time and that is, while I'm not necessarily in full agreement with anyone in specifically saying, I do think that we should seriously examine our role in this and I think our role is really education and promoting the planting of trees and stuff and not selling them and I think we ought to really take a hard look at that as it relates to future years. Mayor Chmiel: And that is what the discussion will wind up being with the Tree Board. Come up with a conclusion as we've discussed, right? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. REQUEST FOR SMALLER AVERAGE LOT SIZES IN THE PUD ZONE TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. DOLEJSI PROPERTY NORTH OF LAKE RILEY AND BANDIMERE PARK, TERRY FORBORD, LUNDGREN BROS. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. And a point of clarification. We are not here specifically this evening to be site specific about a particular piece of property. It was probably my error. I may have misinformed staff of that but I am here this evening to talk about for your consideration a review of the zoning ordinance related to lot size and also the PUD ordinance as recently adopted and it's inflexibility for creativity in the 29 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 development of neighborhood communities. I have with me this evening John Uban. We're going to be very brief with a presentation to you regarding this. It was 2 years ago Saturday that I appeared before the Planning Commission at their request when they were discussing the PUD ordinance. In fact it was a member of Dahlgren, Shadlow and Uban that participated in that presentation at the Planning Commission with me and interestingly enough, a different PUD ordinance was adopted. But we will be very brief in this. We just ask for your consideration on this matter. At this time I'm just going to let John give you an overview. John Uban: Thank you Terry. John Uban, I'm a planning consultant and both in the private sector and the public sector and we've been helping Lundgren Bros on many different projects really in the western suburbs. And what we'd like to have the city consider is a review of the PUD ordinance and so we can have more flexibility in developing Lundgren type neighborhoods in the community. What we're finding is that you have a PUD but it doesn't quite give the flexibility that we think is needed. We have developed some neighborhoods that have a certain level of housing but we'd like more diversity. We're looking for more diversity. There's more pressure because of environmental concerns and so forth to have a lotting pattern that is more efficient and more cost effective. So we're really would like to give that cost effective housing product to the city and we want to look at it in different ways. We need to look at trying to get to some lot sizes, about 9,500 square feet in a way that we can still provide all those amenities in the Lundgren Bros style. Buffering busy highways. Adding other special amenities within the neighborhood. Doing a really good job of mitigating environmental effects on the property. There are a variety of things that really speak to having a quality neighborhood developed on every parcel. Now every parcel in the city is not necessarily subject for smaller lot sizes. We think this should be carefully considered but should be looked at very specifically on PUD's that come through and have performance ratings that would really promote good housing. What we see is people, typical housing or a client or a new resident, income $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 looking at a house in the range of $100,000.00 to $150,000.00. Coming into the community. How can they afford the best house possible and this is what we're trying to give them. If we're kind of locked into a larger lot size, larger lot width, there's a singular cost associated with that and so they'll always try to maximize the best house possible on the lot. If we can bring in smaller lots that are still excellent lots in the community but smaller with amenities with them, then we can offer something to them where they can put in a higher quality house. Maybe a larger house than they normally would be able to afford. So it's that whole package to build quality in the neighborhood that should be looked at. Not have a singular goal of just larger lots or a certain size lot but to allow flexibility so there is a method of getting quality neighborhoods and a quality house. We think people really want to have an efficient product that speaks well toward that neighborhood. Sort of the thing that we want to leave you with, and is this idea that this kind of housing project will develop the best neighborhoods, the best tax base, and the best diversity and flexibility that the city can really look at to provide all those housing opportunities that you should have in the city. We're finding that this sort of move up from different styles of houses within a community is an important part of becoming a member of a city so that there's lot of different levels of opportunity and we want to offer that in our types of development. So we would like to have you consider 30 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 this. Have staff look at it. We'd like to participate and hopefully bring this before you for some consideration. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, as many of you well know and I think some of you are participating, there are two legislative items this session regarding these types of issues. One is the Community Stabilization Act offered by Representative Orfield. And another one is offered by Senator Mondale. I'm not here to judge the merit of every one of those and I'm not, I certainly have my own personal opinions of both of those and I don't necessarily believe that they're in the best interest of the community. However I do know, after meeting with both those people out of curiousity to find out what their motives are. Some of the things that they do say have some merit. It's the methodology of how they go about it that probably disturbs most people. But in my presentation to the Planning Commission 2 years ago, one of the things that I discovered to my surprise was the Planning Commission told me that they, number one, had never allowed a PUD in the city. And number two, they certainly had never allowed lot sizes smaller in the range certainly below 15,000 square feet. I was very surprised. At that time I put up an exhibit of the Near Mountain Planned Unit Development which is developed by Lundgren Bros and is now almost complete. There are 144 lots in Near Mountain that are under 12,500 square feet. They range from as low as 8,500 square feet to 12,500 with lot widths as low as 65 feet. And interestingly enough, Chanhassen and this project were selected in a national award. I'm not here just to toot Lundgren Bros' because this is a community award and it was on this project and it was in the front page and a foldout section of Builder Magazine in 1984. So it was almost 9 years ago that the City of Chanhassen had the vision to provide a diversity in both housing product and price range. And it's only been in recent memory through the revision and amendment of the Planning Unit Development and Zoning Ordinances that larger lots became what they are today. What we're telling you is that in order for us to provide more affordable housing, lot sizes have to get smaller. What we're also telling you that on certain sites that may be next to highways, that may be flat as a pancake without a tree on it. In order to take a site like that and mitigate the impact of the highway, to plant a lot of trees, to create hills where there are no hills, to put in ponds where there are no ponds, that costs a lot of money and the only way one can do that is by increasing the density. The net result is a finer neighborhood community. The density and on these 144 lots, is 2.2 dwelling units per acre at Near Mountain. It's already there. It's been there for almost 10 years. There's a brand new neighborhood community right adjacent to the Chanhassen boundary in Eden Prairie. Right off of Dell Road just south of Highway 5 called Windfield North that we are developing with the Pemtom Corporation. The density in there is 2.7 dwelling units per acre. All that we're asking for you to do is we merely request that the City Council direct the staff and the Planning Commission to open public hearings. To review the existing zoning ordinances related to lot size and the PUD ordinance. Right now you might as well not have a residential PUD ordinance. It has virtually no flexibility whatsoever and it's impossible to achieve really what I understood the ultimate goal of it to be. So we're just asking you at this time, being that we will be coming to the city in the near future with two more requests for Planned Unit Developments, that we ask you to consider reopening those public hearings so we can give you a more elaborate presentation with more facts and more details hopefully to persuade the city to allow a greater diversity of housing product within the community. Thank you. 31 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Terry. Any discussions? Richard. Councilman Wing: I would, Terry you've been here my two years and you're aware that we just completed this process. The Planning Commission physically gave up on lot size and sent them to the Council. And we debated this for at least the 2 years Mike and myself have been here and we just now, we held up a PUD ordinance for a year and a half on lot size and we finally decided to stay with 15,000, although some of us wanted to go higher. Councilman Mason: Some of us wanted to go lower. Councilman Wing: Some of us wanted to go lower, and we compromised where we are. I think we went down to 10 or 9,500. Mayor Chmiel: No, 12. Kate Aanenson: The lots can go down to 11,000 but they have to average 15,000. Councilman Wing: 15, right. And so we just got done with that after 2 years of arguing. My proposal was the same thing I just said. If we're going to really talk about affordable housing. I mean if we really are concerned about affordable housing, our PUD isn't going to do that and a 15,000 foot subdivision doesn't do it. And Lakeville has projects that are 50 x 150 foot lots. 7,500 square foot lots and maybe there's some need for that. But I went to the extreme, I said I want a 22,000 square foot lot size average and in a PUD you can go down to a 7,000 if you want to. There's some flexibility. But density became the word and nobody could define density and nobody could come up with a density formula so we kind of stayed where we were. So to open this up again is denying that we just completed the process. I mean literally within the last 2 months, 3 months we just completed the process. And 1 hear what you're saying. It's not flexible enough. Councilman Mason: What's moderate priced housing for Lundgren Bros? No seriously. Terry Forbord: Well I think the other, the scope of this, we all need to understand that the engine that drives the machine, and I've testified at the Met Council until I'm blue in the face on this and they will never admit it. When you have a restricted urban service area the price of land goes up. It's a supply and demand. Right now land in Chanhassen for residential purposes, depending on the school district you're in. If you include Minnetonka and Chaska school district, prices of land are going to be anywhere from approximately $18,000.00, $19,000.00 at the very low end to $35,000.00 to $45,000.00 per acre on the high end. And that would be in the areas in the Minnetonka School District. So it's almost virtually impossible to provide any sense of what most people would call affordable housing when they're on 15,000 square foot lots. Councilman Mason: But Terry, you're not answering the question. I mean what do you folks consider. I mean we do have some very, I think important issues and it's going to come up on the next, for number 5. For what we do with Block Grant money in providing moderate to low income housing and I guess what I want 32 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 to know is Lundgren Bros serious about providing moderate cost housing for people with moderate incomes? Terry Forbord: Okay, we can provide as moderate a price of housing as what the raw land price and the lot size will dictate. For example, and I can only use living example and you don't have to believe me. You can go there yourself. Eden Prairie. Windfield North. Homes there, the base price starts at about $135,000.00 and then it goes up from there. Councilman Mason: But that's not moderate priced housing though. Terry Forbord: It depends on who you're talking to. Councilman Mason: Terry, for people with moderate or low incomes, $135,000.00 is on the high end. Now I think we really need to talk serious in definitions here. I'm not saying I'm in disagreement with smaller PUD's or anything like that but I'm hearing some awfully alturistic stuff right now. Terry Forbord: And I'm not here suggesting that we're providing low income housing. Not at all because that's impossible to do in Chanhassen. It will never happen unless it's subsidized. Impossible. Councilman Mason: That very well may be. Terry Forbord: But moderately priced housing certainly is in the range that I'm telling you. Councilman Wing: But I don't want to be market driven either. Maybe we don't want to provide 7,500 square foot lots and Orono is what? Maybe we want to be in Orono. What do you say to the Orono Council? Do you try to get them down from 2 acres to an acre and a half? Terry Forbord: Orono doesn't have sewer and water so it's a different issue. Or the majority of it doesn't. And all I'm asking this evening is for consideration. I realize you just went through a lot of this and I came here and volunteered my time, certainly more often than once, and tried to share with you purely from a planning standpoint and from a housing standpoint, of the problems associated with the proposed amendment to the PUD ordinance. And it wouldn't work and it doesn't work. Now all I'm suggesting is maybe it should be reviewed and maybe you can take a proactive stance rather than a non- proactive stance and say, you know. Do we want to be a community where $200,000.00 is the minimum price range, base price range or do we want to try to get into that $140,000.00 - $135,000.00 range and work up from there? And by allowing smaller lots, it allows you to do that. And you've already done it and it's already been very successful. Now if you were to look back of me and say that wasn't successful, it's a slum and it's in this city and the reason it's a slum is because they were small lots, then I'll walk away. Councilman Wing: No but some of the comments on record stating that we don't particularly like the area, or like the density and the appearance of those small lots and we have had consistently problems with small lots. The project was wonderful. It won an award. I don't like it. I drive down TH 101 and I go, geez could we cram any more houses in there. So I don't like the small lots 33 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Terry and I've got to be upfront and honest about that. I prefer much less density and it may rule my kids out buying a house in Chan or I might have to move out someday. Councilman Mason: Personally I'd like to hear what's said because I know, and I think Paul Krauss has talked about this too. The difference between urban sprawl, or suburban sprawl and density and there's a trade -off I think as our city is growing by leaps and bounds that we really need to take a look at. Councilman Wing: I don't think we resolved it with what we did. It was an effort to compromise and I think affordable housing is the key word and I agree with Terry. The only way you get that down is land cost by today's standards and that means smaller lots but not if it gives up density. That's where I get hung up here. Mayor Chmiel: And it's that moderately, even reaching moderately priced. What is a moderate priced house? Councilman Mason: And maybe that's something we need to grapple with too. Councilman Senn: When you did go through the past review in the PUD ordinance, was any thought given to a lower density but on a rationing type of basis? Like for every x lots you develop you're allowed 1 lot of 7,5000 square feet or you know that type of thing. I have seen that used effectively in some other cities where in effect it deals with the problem Dick that you mentioned which is letting the density get carried away but at the same time it does provide for and allow for types of situations which Terry's talking about. It controls the total numbers in relationship to some overall size or plan so to speak. Mayor Chmiel: Some of the problem with that being too, of course is what that footprint's going to be on that existing proposed lot of whatever it's going to be. I think we're running into some difficulties with that with people wishing and wanting to put decks on their homes. Kate Aanenson: If I could just add to that. What we did is we came up with the standard home pad size is because what happened is we approved those and then we constantly were innundated with variances on that so we came up with the standard home size. Allowing for deck, front yard, rear yard and then we said the minimum and then an average square foot. Mayor Chmiel: And I too like Richard, have been an advocate of having larger lot sizes only because of this being a young community. A young community needs kids off the streets rather than in the streets and in their yards. If you have it too small, there's not that availability for those kids to do what they want to do and play. Whether it be football or softball or whatever. But I just, I've taken that position of saying that 15,000, I too had that in mind at the time and wanted to see that brought into the city because of those concerns. I too look at some of those, the areas in Near Mountain. I think those houses are very close to each other as well. I'm not exceptionally excited about it but I would take still, yet the position of saying that if were to bring these down to what you're looking for, I guess I'm still where I'm at with the 15,000 and having that adjusted for the PUD. 34 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Terry Forbord: Your Honor, the interesting thing, I was going to prepare this exhibit for the benefit of the Council and I didn't get it don but I can, I think I can graphically represent it to you verbally. What the current ordinance prefers me to do would be to take a piece of property. I have right now a piece of property in Chanhassen that's about 77 acres. There's no trees. There's no hills. There's no wetlands. What it encourages me to do is to grid it out. It encourages me not to do any landscaping. It encourages me not to do any ponding. It encourages me not to do any buffering. It tells me to put in the straightest streets as I can because they're the cheapest. Make all the lots 90 feet wide and make them 15,000 square feet and meet the letter of the ordinance and make it a vanilla subdivision. Just like all the other uncreative subdivisions in the United States that have been done. That's what the ordinance is telling me that Chanhassen wants. Now I know each one of you enough and I've worked with you enough that you're going to say geez, that isn't really what we want for Chanhassen. And what I'm saying to you is that you put in the pressure on the developer to give you nothing more than what I've described to you. The PUD ordinance, in using your words during the public hearing, it should be a carrot and stick. And if we're willing to take unusual situations and bring something in creative. Remember you throw out the ordinance book with the PUD and everything's up to you. You have the authority to approve it or deny it. And so we bring in something to you and we say we're going to take a cow's ear and make it into a silk purse. Let's work together. Let's try to do that and it gives the city the ability to do that where right now when you say that you can be as small as 11,000 square feet but they all must average 15,000 square feet and they all must be 90 foot wide at the setback, you've just thrown away any creativity that one can do. Mayor Chmiel: I guess this really has come into the fact that this has been a request that has been brought forward and I think it's going into a debate more than it is a request. And I think that I feel that whatever, do you have any specific concerns Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think we're all grappling with the same issue which is...diverse community and yet we want a lot of open space and they're working against each other. I'm not sure what the solution is and I tend to sit on the side of larger lots but how do you accomplish that. Either you've got single family homes in the $200,000.00 range and apartments and there's no inbetween. Or you've got suburban sprawl so I guess all I want to say is I don't know. I think we're all struggling with the same issue. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we're going to take a position on this this evening. Maybe we should discuss this too at our workshop. Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's a good time to talk about it. Mayor Chmiel: And see that if we can come up with some conclusions on it either yes or no. Or at least see what it is and what it looks like. Mark, did you have anything more? Okay. Thank you. 35 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A 40,823 SQ. FT. PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS, 1950 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE, WAYNE POPPE. Public Present: Name Address Wayne Poppe 1950 Crestview Circle Julie Thorndycraft 1940 Whitetail Ridge Court Daniel Delaleese 1940 Whitetail Ridge Court Mayor Chmiel: My understanding the two lots would consistent of 19,535 square feet and 21,888 square feet. Kate Aanenson: That's pretty much the staff report. I'll just add that one issue that we did look at was, we need additional right -of -way on Galpin so the part of the condition of this will be requesting that the additional 17 feet of right -of -way be granted. The other issue is the Crestview Drive itself. Normally we only allowed 4 homes off that. The engineering departmenting in looking at it felt that under the circumstances, that 5 homes would be okay and that improvement of the street is not necessary at this point. There is sewer available. Sewer and water available for both lots. The existing home will meet the setback requirements except that it already is in non - compliance to the front setback off of Crestview Drive. By splitting it in no way changes that setback requirement. So with the condition of the additional right -of -way, staff would recommend approval. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We were just having a short discussion here regarding some of the things we were talking about. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd just like to clarify one thing which Mike did answer for me but I wanted to put on the record. I thought a couple of months ago we had said no more metes and bounds descriptions would be. And this was in the hopper before that decision was made and that's why we've got a metes and bounds description? Mayor Chmiel: Kate? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. I raised that same issue. Because it was my understanding that we weren't allowing those either. We can allow for a simple lot split when it's straight forward. Clean as far as the legal description when it goes from metes and bounds to another metes and bounds. I'm assuming Jo Ann worked with Roger on the interpretation of that and it just goes to City Council. Roger Knutson: I discuss lots of planning requests every day and this one doesn't stand out in my mind but I assume what they're doing. There's a procedure under your ordinance, not for city staff to approve a metes and bounds subdivision. There are two procedures. First, in a limited way the city can approve, city staff can approve administratively certain simple subdivisions of property. There are only 2 or 3 of them that you allow and city staff can do that without ever bringing it here. It's right in the Code. What was being 36 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 proposed for change, and the ordinance you rejected, would have opened that up from 2 or 3 to a lot. Kate Aanenson: I can reference the section of the Code. It's under Chapter, Subdivision Chapter 18. What it allows is dividing a simple metes and bounds. What it exempts them from is the platting process. They're still coming before you for the subdivision. What they're exempting though is what we were looking at too is the expense of going through the whole platting and all that so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you can still have metes and bounds because it's straight. Kate Aanenson: One lot split. Right, straight forward. Simple. Without going through the platting... Roger Knutson: That is right in the Code today. But that's what city staff can do and if that's what were happening here you wouldn't see this. But there's also a provision in the city code that allows you to waive the procedural requirements of platting...then approve as a metes and bounds subdivision. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So should part of this be to waive that? Councilman Senn: Kate, just point of clarification though. I thought when we took that action we were directing staff to change that so that there was no administrative ability to do metes and bounds. Everything was now going to be platted. Roger Knutson: No, as I understand. Excuse me, maybe I misunderstood but an ordinance memo was brought to you to amend what we currently have to open it up. To allow. Councilman Senn: Right, which we denied. Roger Knutson: Which you denied. Councilman Senn: And I thought then we directed, maybe I'll go pull up the Minutes but I thought we directed staff at that point to simply get rid of metes and bounds splits. Period. I may be wrong but again, that's my memory. Roger Knutson: I don't recall that but I think there's some simple things you could see. Councilman Senn: I remember staff arguing that but I remember the Council going the other way on it is my memory. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have the same recollection. Councilman Senn: Well maybe we should follow up on it. Roger Knutson: Sometimes a neighbor is selling 10 feet to a neighbor. Not creating any new lots. Councilman Senn: That was brought up and discussed. I remember. 37 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Roger Knutson: And that's in the City Code and allowed. Councilman Wing: The City Manager's recommendation was that we send this to the moon. The metes and bounds. Councilman Senn: Because his recommendation was different though. Councilman Wing: And I think we nuked it. Roger Knutson: You nuked the new ordinance. Councilman Wing: Why would we not simply have this surveyed? Why stay with the metes and bounds? Why not just approve this but do it on a survey so it's? Councilman Mason: There is a survey. Councilman Wing: But a metes and bounds description. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, this is done right here by a registered surveyor. Councilman Wing: But it's this 3 page thing that goes from generation to generation versus one paragraph with a few numbers. Right? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Don Ashworth: What I would suggest, I agree with the Attorney's interpretation in that you denied the ordinance that would have loosen it up. If you would like staff to bring back what currently is allowed for you to examine whether or not we want to continue to allow let's say staff to do a what we call a simple subdivision. We can do that. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Basically, I mean you guys work with this. You know you want the simplest way to define lots. I don't feel the need to move on that. Don Ashworth: I think that this one is well enough along that I would feel very uncomfortable denying the applicant because I'm sure that they did visit with staff. This type of description I still think is pretty unweildy and I guess I would like to meet with our staff in terms of how do we stop this in the future. Councilman Wing: I thought we decided that. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I thought we decided that and I guess I don't think we cut off the ability of the staff to do simple subdivisions. I thought we just said they had to be platted. I mean they could still do the small ones, and I thought that was discussed. If there was a 2 or 3 or something they could still do it. Roger Knutson: City staff can't approve plats. There's no possibility of that. Councilman Senn: Okay, so they would have to come back in here then? 38 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Roger Knutson: Absolutely. There's no such thing as a minor plat. A plat has to go to the Planning Commission. It's got to come here. Staff can't approve plats. Councilman Senn: Is that by our ordinance? Roger Knutson: It's by ordinance and State law. Councilman Senn: By State law outside or superceding our's? Don Ashworth: But there is a minor subdivision. Roger Knutson: Yes. There's a difference between a subdivision and a plat. Councilman Mason: And this is a minor subdivision. Don Ashworth: So for example, a person wanted to sell the east 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Western Hills, you could do that without having to come back before the City Council. Roger Knutson: If you were adjoining it to your neighbor. Don Ashworth: Right. And he met then all the ordinances. They can't create non - conforming uses and all those things. And I don't have a problem with those. It's the longer descriptions. Councilman Senn: But doesn't that Don create a lot of longer descriptions? I mean that 10 feet can start meandering all over the place depending on the line. Don Ashworth: It has to parallel the line. So I mean just in my example, the east 10 feet of Lot 1. It can't be starting at the corner of Lot 1 and meandering over to the tree and then back again. It's got to be 10 feet of Lot 1. Councilman Wing: I still agree with Mark that we want to avoid these and I'll move approval of this one but I want a clarification on what we decided and where we ought to go because I think we want to avoid these. I think that was the Council's overall decision that night. To avoid metes and bounds as much as possible. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Wayne Poppe: Right here. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you wish to add to the discussion that we've had already? Councilman Senn: You made a motion didn't you? I'll second it just to. Mayor Chmiel: For discussion. But we have to close the public hearing before we take a vote. Councilman Wing: Sorry, I was out of order. 39 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Wayne Poppe: Well then, for the record my name is Wayne Poppe. I live at 1950 Crestview Circle. We've got a little bit less than an acre lot there and my wife and I would like to split it and build a new home there at some point in time. It's as simple as that and metes and bounds and surveys all aside, I hope you got the paperwork you need. Mayor Chmiel: Very well put. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Now if you'd like to make your motion, I'd be more than happy to accept it. Councilman Wing: We got off on discussion before we asked for the public input. I'd move approval of item number 4, subdivision. Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Resolution $93 -22A: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Request #93 -6 Metes and Bounds subdivision as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at time of building permit application. 2. Provide required drainage and utility easements for Parcels A and B. 3. Dedicate 17' of right -of -way along the westerly lot line of Parcel A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: And one clarification on that. Staff will give us a laymen's review of what we did and where we're going. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE ALLOCATION OF YEAR XIX FUNDS FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, FUNDED UNDER TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 AS AMENDED. Public Present: Name Address Esther Steller 6311 Steller Circle Emma St. John 1621 West 63rd Street Sally Hebson Sojourn, 4151 Hwy 7, Excelsior Mayor Chmiel: Paul being not here, who will address this? Sharmin. 40 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Sharmin Al -Jaff: CDBG funds normallyvare used for programs of benefit to low and moderate income households, handicapped individuals, and senior citizens. This year we received $43,792.00. The City Council would have to allocate these monies. South Shore Senior Center has requested some funding. Many of, or a number of our senior citizens still attend the South Shore Senior Center and we have been funding that center. Sojourn Adult Daycare Center is requesting to purchase a van and requested some funding. Dawm Lemme's salary, a portion of it to work with the seniors, coordinating the Senior Center is also funded by the CDBG fund. And the rest of the money is proposed to fund handicapped facilities at Lake Ann and Lake Susan Park. We are recommending that the City Council approve a resolution allocating these funds as outlined in staff's report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I had mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Please state your name and your address. Sally Hebson: I'm Sally Hebson and I live at 4270 Circle Road in Excelsior. My business is the Sojourn Adult Day Program and Sojourn Early Learning Center, which is located at 4151 Highway 7. Has an Excelsior mailing address and I think it's in the Chanhassen city township. I've been told that and then I've also been told that doesn't exist so I'm not exactly sure where we are. But we are in Carver County and in Chanhassen in some way. I'd first like to thank the City of Chanhassen for their very generous donation toward the Sojourn Day Program in the last 2 years of the Community Development Block Grant monies for several items. I did send a letter to each one of the Council members outlining our request for the 20% match on the small bus that we wrote a grant proposal for through the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I think each one of the Council members received that. At least I hope you did. What we're asking for is a donation from the City of Chanhassen for a portion of the 20% matching part which is our local contribution and that's $6,000.00. This small bus will be used for the participants in the Adult Day Program, for the children in the Early Learning Center and also as part of this grant application process, we needed to show coordinated efforts with other community agencies and have this vehicle available for church groups, youth organizations, and whomever wanted to use it in this community and the other communities that we serve. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Sally Hebson: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this time? Yes, please come forward and state your name and address please. Emma St. John: I'm Emma St. John. I live in Chanhassen at 1621 West 63rd Street. I have an Excelsior address. One of those that didn't want to change. Esther Steller is with me here and she also lives in that same area. We want to thank the Chanhassen city for supporting the South Shore Senior Center which has been going now for 10 years. We were in it when it was started and appreciate all the help that they have given us. And we will hope that we will be getting, according to Paul Krauss there was a figure of $4,000.00 something that we would be getting from them this year and we want to thank you for that too. 41 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Emma. Maybe I might just like to impose a question to you in regard to the prior discussions that we had regarding the CDBG funds. Maybe have you accompany us to the City of Shorewood to just say exactly what you said to us right now. Give us a what for reason. Would you like to do that? Emma St. John: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Great. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else? Can I have a motion to close. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for discussion? Mark. Councilman Senn: Just a couple of questions. I guess nothing on the South Shore Senior Center. As far as the van goes and the contribution then is, that's just for the capital purchase of the van? Okay, so basically we don't contribute in effect to the ongoing costs or anything? Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. Councilman Senn: Why is the portion going to Dawn's salary going from $8,000.00 to $17,000.00? Does that reflect that more of her time is going to senior activities? Sharmin Al -Jaff: I believe we funded her for half a year at the beginning. This year it will be a full year and then she was part -time and now she is full time. So all of this was adjusted and the number reflects what she gets paid now. Councilman Senn: Okay, so essentially a half time to a full time? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Alrighty. And then one last question. On the handicap facilities at Lake Ann and Lake Susan. I saw we had $8,000.00 in last year. To that now we're adding $18,000.00 more. Is that an extension of those programs or I mean is our handicapped access bill going to keep going up on this? You know which looks like it's now $26,000.00 and running or? Sharmin Al -Jaff: There will be additional work done at different places in the park. Not all of the work was completed with last year's funds. So additional work will be done this year and that's the amount that would be required to complete that work. Councilman Senn: Todd, could you help me out and just tell me a little about what that is? Todd Gerhardt: I don't know the details of what Todd's work is but we're starting a survey now on the handicapped accessibility throughout the city. ADA requirements and I know Todd has been working each year in trying to upgrade all 42 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 his park facilities to meet ADA requirements. But I can't tell you what specifically he has... Mayor Chmiel: And he has left. Councilman Senn: That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: I'm certainly in favor of the funding proposals that stand. At the last HRA meeting we talked extensively about the need for perhaps not low income but certainly moderate income housing in the city of Chanhassen and I do know that that's part of the, one of the reasons for the CDBG grant. I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of anything here because obviously I think they're very good causes but I do think that if we get this grant again, regardless of whether we get this grant again, I think we need to start taking a look at that and certainly using these grant monies could be a way of going at that. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, Mark asked most of my questions. I have an additional one and that's about the HOME program. I don't know exactly to whom I should addrets this but I understand what it is but why don't we need anymore funds and aren't we being active in that program? Sharmin Al -Jaff: We have $5,000.00 left in that fund from last year. We haven't used up all that money. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that because of programming isn't very active or it's just deficient or? Sharmin Al -Jaff: It's been, there are months were there is a lot of demand and then all of a sudden it slows down. So for some reason they haven't used up all that money. Mayor Chmiel: And then stops sometimes. Okay. Did you have your questions answered? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. Councilman Wing: Well only one place I got stuck here was on the 20% match for Sojourn. Don have we got. Mayor Chmiel: It would be $6,000.00. Councilman Wing: And that's an additional request? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: I sat through the Park and Rec discussions of playground and handicapped and ADA requirements and so on and so forth. I can't debate or argue that but I asked what percent of our community actually uses that 43 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 equipment and while this $18,000.00 was going to support what percentage of the community. It was so infintisimal I just kind of withdrew you know with all due respect. Sojourn happens to be in my neighborhood and accordingly I get in the door and Sojourn is the seniors senior center. I mean when the seniors can no i longer get to the senior center, Sojourn steps in. And I would say the majority of their people are perhaps not ambulatory and they're really providing an incredibly critical service to the elderly elderly if you will. And so because I've seen their operation, some we've been real good to our seniors here in the downtown area and so when they come to me on this grant and say they could use $6,000.00 for a van, it maybe is going to cut down on the use of taxicabs running back and forth and so on and so forth and move some of these people around that need some very, very intense personal care. And if I ever am old, I hope this program's in effect because they're really bailing some people out of some troubles. And as long as I'm ambulatory, it wouldn't matter to me but this group goes beyond. So I would like to consider letting ADA kind of ride another year and follow through Park and Rec's budget and pull that money out of that $18,000.00 and give Sojourn the match. That would be my preference. Divide this money up but we're still going to be able to move ahead on some of the park projects but if we're going to. Councilman Senn: Dick, just a clarification. I thought we were already doing that in this proposal. I thought your increase here from $2,700.00 to $4,000.00 covered all...of the van. Am I misinterpretting that? You're going from $2,700.00 to $4,000.00. I thought you were just citing the $6,000.00 figure as a balance which needs to be picked up from the other communities. Isn't that correct? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. The $6,000.00 will be picked up from other communities. Councilman Wing: Is that correct? Councilman Senn: Yeah, see we're paying $2,000.00 towards the van in the proposal. Sharmin Al -Jaff: We're paying $4,000.00. Councilman Wing: Oh I stand corrected. I misunderstood. I thought that the proposal from Sojourn then said they need an additional 20% match. That's an error. Sally Hebson: The local 20% match is $6,195.00. We serve the whole south shore area of Lake Minnetonka as well as the city of Chanhassen and so we have requested funds from other cities also. And as much as I appreciate your generous offer, we don't want to get more money than we need or we'd really be in big trouble. So I think when I talked with Mr. Krauss, he felt that $4,000.00 from the City of Chanhassen and then monies from other cities that have been promised and have been working with Larry Blackstad on this also. I appreciate that generous offer but I think we would mess things up. Councilman Wing: I stand corrected and I appreciate your... Sally Hebson: And believe me it breaks my heart to turn down money. 44 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think everything's been said. I would entertain a motion. Councilman Wing: I'll move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Additional discussion. Councilman Senn: Just to follow up on Dick's point though. I guess I'm really all for the accessibility to the parks and stuff but I mean, this looks like it's becoming fairly significant dollars and growing. I guess I'd like to see staff at least give us a little better understanding. Since that can't be answered tonight as to what's really required by ADA as it relates to the park. You know are we meeting the minimum requirements? Are we going overboard? I mean what are we doing? Mayor Chmiel: Some of the requirements we haven't met. One specific one I'm aware of is Lake Ann Park. We had a fishing pier put in by the DNR that is not handicapped accessibility. Councilman Senn: Well tell the ONR to come back. Mayor Chmiel: Well we should on that but we didn't ask them. But anyway, what we had to do was get a path from the point of the park...path to it so those people could get out there and get that fishing done. And we did do that. Councilman Senn: I'd just like to see again a full answer or at least explanation to that question earlier if we could. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. That I think we can find. Resolution X93 -23: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution allocating Year XIX funding as follows: 1. South Shore Senior Center - $4,160.00 2. Sojourn Adult Day Care - $4,000.00 3. Chanhassen Senior Coordinator - $17,000.00 4. Handicapped Facility at Lake Ann and Lake Susan Parks - $18,632.00 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just request that item number 6 be switched with item number 7 because I've got some questions on it and I think it'd be fair if we get these people in the audience out of here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I might add too that this is not a public hearing on 6 as so indicated. It was brought to my attention that this is not a requirement for public hearing. So if Council agrees to move to item number 7 first before we get to item number 6, I would be more than happy to make, ask for a motion. 45 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 ` Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to amend the agenda switching II items 6 and 7. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ABRA FACILITY, I LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION. I Public Present: Name Address II Bill Griffith 1500 NFC Tower, Bloomington Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Jim Benson 15036 Cherry Lane, Minnetonka II Don Hagen 1589 Highway 7, Suite 203, Al Beisner 7549 Mariner Point, Maple Grove Tom Kotsonas Chan Estates II Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Chan Estates Sharmin Al -Jaff: The Abra site plan appeared in front of the Planning Commission 3 months ago. They approved it and recommended that before it II appears in front of the City Council, the architectural design of the building be redesigned, and that's what the applicant has done. The materials of the building are decorative integral color concrete block. The west, north and I south elevations have a pitched element to them. The garage on the north elevation facing Highway 5 is recessed behind the pitched element. All services will be conducted entirely inside the building. At the last meeting when you approved the Goodyear facility you recommended that brick be used on the I exterior of the building and we believe that based upon that action, that the Abra facility should have brick exterior as well. We're also recommending that additional landscaping be provided on the Abra site. And those conditions are I reflected in the site plan conditions. With that we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. II Mayor Chmiel: Does the applicant wish to make his proposal once again to us? With revisions if they're there. Okay, go ahead. Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner. I'm the developer, 7549 Mariner Point in Maple II Grove. I feel like I've been here a long time. We are in agreement. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move here? II Al Beisner: Well, I don't know. Only if I can have a small lot or a big lot. If I have to put brick on my house, I don't know but. No, we think we've II revised everything. We are in agreement with the staff recommendation. I have a representative from Abra here. If you have any questions of their business or their operations, what's going on, he'd be more than happy to answer them for you. Otherwise I'm open to questions. This is our number 8 design that we've II been through and we will put brick on it. Councilman Wing: What did you say? II II 46 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 said will. this is will Beisner: I s we it I said thi s our eighth design and we 11 put brick on this. Is that okay? Councilman Mason: Just about a cardiac arrest back here. Councilman Wing: No, I misunderstood where they were going. , Councilman Senn: Did I misunderstand Sharmin though that that was the recommendation? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Al Beisner: That was their recommendation and we are in concurrence with that. Councilman Senn: It will be all brick or what? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yeah. It will be all brick. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone at this time wishing to make any statement to us? And if there's something that we've said before, we have, believe me all the notes and all the statements that have been made so if there's something new, we'd be more than happy to listen to it at this time. Okay, thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: If this is going to go ahead I guess I would ask or like to see a couple of additional conditions put on it. Which are essentially the same ones I think we put on the Goodyear which related to no outside banners or temporary signage. And then the hours I believe was from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. If I remember right. I'm going by memory here but I think those were the two. Councilman Mason: The hours are in here. Councilman Senn: Are they? I don't know. Beyond that, I guess I'm not sure I'm in concurrence with the general issue of standards because I find myself reading through these and having a hard time allowing that this will not be detrimental or endanger the neighborhood. I also find it hard to believe that it will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing neighbors or neighborhood. I guess I could kind of go on and on but I guess I've said my piece enough that we have enough of these uses out on the east end and I have a hard time supporting any more of them. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Michael. Councilman Mason: It's been a very long and involved process and I kind of feel 1 we might have a vote tonight, one way or the other. I think the new design I think looks good. I think with brick it will look even better. I'm glad that staff added landscaping and I know that this is not the lot closest to the neighborhood. My concern is, and I think it does tie in with this, is what kind of buffering do we need. Will there be. Should there be additional buffering when that third site comes in along the south side there. More trees. A berm. A big hill, whatever. Is that being looked into now? Or will it be? Sharmin Al -Jaff: It will be. 47 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Yeah because those will be in probably next month. ' Councilman Mason: And that's why I want people to know that right now I guess. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: There is a buffer right now between Lake Drive and the residential. Mayor Chmiel: But there's not enough. ' Councilman Mason: There is not enough there, I agree with that and I think personally, you know well. We need more of a buffer there but I think, I mean I ' said my piece on that and I guess maybe that's a battle we'll be fighting when the next site is used up. ' Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I remember that is we as a Council had gone out to do a litter pick -up all through that area. All the way up and down that service road and some of those specific areas where this is addressed, there needs additional kind of buffering. For whoever or whatever goes in there. Sharmin. Sharmin Al -Jaff: When we approved the, when you approved the. Mayor Chmiel: What's this we business? Councilman Senn: Well let's give it to her. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: When you approved the emission control station, one of the requirements was that they build a buffer and then they add landscaping between Lake Drive and the residence and that's what they did. It was a condition of approval, correct. Councilman Wing: See that's where we get trapped because by definition they build a buffer. Baloney. That's not buffered. Sitting out in an open field. It's not landscaped. Aye yi yi. Councilman Mason: And you know I don't think, maybe that's a discussion not to be. ' Councilman Wing: Excuse me Michael. Councilman Mason: No, I just want to get this one over and done with to tell you the truth. But I do, I mean it is a conditional use permit. They're meeting the requirements whether we like it or not. I guess I've been saying that all along and I'm hoping that this will work out for everyone, particularly if the city or the applicant for site number 3 or whoever, does some serious looking at ' the buffering and berming for the neighborhood there. But let's move on it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, we've discussed this ad nauseum. Just a couple comments. I was really happy with the hours. They look great. And I apologize for being gone but it looks like it's brick now? And would that include the ' trash enclosure? But it's still a chainlink fence? At the gate. ' 48 r City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 I Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes it is Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm not going to hold it up for that reason but I don't... The trees on Lot 3 will be left for now. Right? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the signage, is it agreed that the signage will be on one monument? ' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. For all three parcels. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, nothing further. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: The last time we looked at this I asked that we have a landscape plan that we could look at and with all due faith and I trust Sharmin, I think she's done her best. Mark said everything I wanted to say about this really isn't in my our best interest and Mike, you've got it down and the comments have all been made. Key words. That rear lot is going to be a big issue and buffering is going to be a new word in this city and I'm hopeful that the new ordinances and our land use review and our zoning review, the comprehensive plan review is going to be at least paralleling that lot and maybe making some headway on this issue on what we're going to allow in there. So as soon as you've made your comments Mr. Mayor. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I guess the only thing that I really would have to say in regard to this. There was a letter to the editor and I think it was sort of self explanatory with the newspaper making a comment. That he did as such and I would like that person to know that this Mayor is concerned what happens to it's residents, but he's also concerned as to how it's going to affect the city if we were to deny a situation as such. Which would mean that there'd be litigation between the city and I don't want to do that nor do I want to cost the residents of this community additional dollars. But I know what their feeling might be. At one time I lived very closely to Highway 100 in Golden Valley. Unbeknownst sometimes I think it's buyers beware when you're purchasing property to see what's going to be developing in and adjacent to your proposed purchase of a new home or to build a home or purchasing an existing home that's there. These things do come up and it's something that we have to act upon and I believe that's what we're going to be doing this evening. Councilman Wing: Could I just be a little supportive on that. I thought the editorial and your comment as quoted was out of context and unfair. But I think it's also fair to state that any member of this Council or anybody in the city has the right to say I want that business there. I think it's going to be a good business. I happen to like it with brick. I think we should put an automotive center there and I think as a Mayor, if that was your feeling, you had a right to make that statement without being faultered and I guess that's another viewpoint. Mayor Chmiel: I think I've really said enough. So with that I would look for a motion to accept the conditional use as well as the site plan review. ' 49 r City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: Does it make any difference which one we do first? Mayor Chmiel: Well we have on the list as the conditional use but it doesn't really matter. It can be either or. ' Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll move approval of Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto service facility in the BH district. ' Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Abra Auto Service Facility on Lot 2, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. No public address systems are permitted. 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site. Garage doors are to be kept closed except to allow vehicles to enter or depart. 3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access ' drives or public rights -of -way. 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored outside overnight on the ' Abra site. 5. No outdoor storage of materials shall be permitted at the Abra site. ' 6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control agency guidelines at the property line. Doors will be kept closed or no more than a 12" opening. 7. Environmental protection shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. B. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90 -17. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: I think you probably have clarified that enough. The second part we have to act upon is the Site Plan Review. Can I have a motion for that? 1 Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of Site Plan Review for an Abra Auto Service Center, 6,494 square feet. With conditions as stated in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 dated November 30th? Councilman Mason: Yeah. 1 1 50 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Would you accept that thing on the banners? Councilman Mason: Oh sure. , Councilman Senn: Banners and temporary signage. Councilman Mason: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, in addition to that items, it'd be 14 and 15. One being banners and the other Mark. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Hours of operation. Councilman Senn: Was that in your conditions already though? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Mason: That's fine. I don't have any trouble with 14 and 15 added. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second to that? ' Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the site plan dated November 30, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. Obtain a sign plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and ' provide the necessary financial securities as required. 4. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by ' Building Code. 5. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval. 6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memorandum dated October 8, 1992. 7. The applicant shall post "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along the south 11 curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals and the curb painted yellow. 8. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 1 51 , 1 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 9. The applicant shall pay $7,580. into the Surface Water Management Program x fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site. This fee will cover Lots 1 and 2 only. 1 10. No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council. ' 11. The applicant shall provide eight additional Black Hills evergreens along the east and four along the south side of Lot 2, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. II 12. Brick shall be used on the exterior of the Abra building. Plans shall be developed to staff approval. The brick shall be designed to incorporate highlighting treatments similar to or better than the current proposal. ' Also, the applicant shall introduce architectural elements such as dormers along the eastern roof line to break the long mass of wall along the east elevation. 13. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use Permit #92 -2. II 14. No outdoor banners or temporary signage will be permitted. 15. Hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.. II All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. II WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROJECT 92 -3: A. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. II B. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS AND /OR QUICK TAKE. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, if I may. The reason that we had shown this under ' public hearing is there was a concern as to whether or not we had in fact notified all of the owners as a part of the original hearing and that's the reason it is shown under public hearing. Those areas of concern have been met as far as contacting owners. So this would include the two items shown as well II as actually the authorization for the project itself. So somewhere in the process I would suggest that you do officially open the public hearing for comments. Probably in advance of that we should have the engineers provide a 1 report on the two items. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles, would you like to do that now? II Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, our project engineer Mr. Jim Dvorak of Strgar - Roscoe - Fausch is here tonight to give a presentation reviewing what the project elements are. II Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. II Jim Dvorak: Thank you Charles. I'll try to be brief...This project has gone through many changes since we started looking at it about a year ago. And what ' 52 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 I've done is I've tried to mount representative plan sheets that kind of show you the entire plan. Just shows the basic elements of the project. So starting with this one, this is the plan sheet that shows the West 78th alignment is right here. West 78th here, Powers at this point and then we are proposing to construct a water quality treatment pond in the, it would be the southwest quadrant of Powers and West 78th to treat the water that comes from this area prior to entering the DNR wetland that's on the Eckankar site. As you can also see, we're showing a trail connection being made along Powers from West 78th and in addition, there is some problems with the existing trail that goes to the, I believe it's Lake Ann Park to the west. We are also proposing to do some maintenance and overlay on that trail all the way to the entrance of the park. That's why that is highlighted here. That's an existing trail that we're just going to upgrade a little bit and do maintenance work on. This is a copy of the landscape plan for the West 78th. Starting at the west side, here again is Powers. At this location we've highlighted the trees and shurbs as proposed. As most of you are aware, we have landscaping. We have lanes. We've added an irrigation system to maintain this in addition to the roadway, utility and signal system improvements. The trees are relatively well spaced to provide a somewhat more open feeling than we have at the other end of town. We've also taken into account that the Target site landscaping, which would be in this area, they've proposed a walk kind of outside of the right -of -way. We've matched basically what we've done there with what the Target folks have proposed. We have street lighting to illuminate the roadway and sidewalks. And we've also proposed some brick paving treatment at the noses of the medians to kind of dress that area up a little and have a low maintenance effect also. Then continuing down here, this would be the main entrance into Target. The building would sit down at this location. There's another entrance being proposed here to the north. And then Kerber, there's another thing I guess I should point out that there's a signal being proposed here and at Powers and West 78th. And again here at the main entrance to the area to the south. One of those tenants being Target, or the building that's under construction. We also have a signal proposed here at Kerber. West of Kerber then, in the existing area, we worked quite a bit with staff trying to coordinate what we need to do, where we need to do it with the widening to create some additional lane width in areas that are perceived as needed. One of these areas is along Kerber on the north side. Where anywhere you see the red curb highlighted is a new curb line where we're widening out to two thru lanes instead of the one thru lane that is out there today, or one wide thru lane. In this area where we're doing the widening, any of the existing landscaping that we're disturbing will be replaced. As the curb gets pushed back in the sidewalk then, we would redo that landscaping there also. And then at the very east end of town, continuing on we have much the same situation where we have widening in this area and this area with that widening going where the existing landscaping is. We will replace that behind the sidewalk and new curb line. In addition we are proposing to do a little bit of work at the median noses to facilitate some left turn movements and some new turns. When we do that we are also proposing the brick paving treatment at the nose so that we get in effect some continuity throughout the roadway. Continuing on then there's a little bit of work at the west end...east end of town and then at the Great Plains intersection we are proposing to lengthen out this median and do a little geometrics working of that intersection in conjunction with the new signal which is proposed there. And then because the median gets quite narrow and is actually too narrow to plant, we would then again continue to...paving scheme throughout these medians as 53 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 The project also has been expanded slightly on Trunk Highway P 3 P 9 Y hway 5 to 9 incorporate an emergency 3M vehicle system so that for...fire, ambulance, police can trip the signal and proceed on through instead of waiting at the red light. Our project estimate at the feasibility stage was approximately *3.1 million. I believe that Charles included my latest letter to him in your Council packet ' that showed the latest total project cost at about $3.3 million. There are a number of things added to the project as it developed. One of the things was the maintenance of the trail to Lake Ann. We had it overlaying of old Monterey ' or Kerber to the south of West 78th and then we added an irrigation system. That is the reason that the project costs have gone up approximately *200,000.00. That's all I have with that. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Council has or anyone in the audience. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we can do is we'll come back to you in regard to questions that we may have. Right now I would like to see if there's anyone who 1 would like to address this at this time this evening. If there's any real concerns or whatever their concerns might be. If you would just please state your name and address one more time. Charlie James: I'm Charlie James with the T.F. James Company. I'd like to make three points tonight. I guess number one, I'd like to, I guess all this is a repetition of what points I've made in the past but number one. I think this project is very welcomed and long overdue but it would be an impossible burden without the TIF district and so in our acquiessence to this project I guess we're really counting on TIF being there when we need it. When the time comes. 1 Second point is that there was some discussions in the past about addressing issues relating to the impact of this project to my property with regard to grades and there hasn't been any further discussion about that and I spent the better part of the morning with my engineers, Jim Hill, trying to review this matter and we do have some issues. There's nothing that's going to get solved here tonight but there are some impacts there and I would hope that there would still be time in this process here to look at some minor design changes that might facilitate the grade transitions on our side of the street. As you all know the street was lowered from what was originally designed to accommodate Target to lower the grades into their driveway and that had the effect of ' raising the grades on our property. Steepening the grades so if there's anything that can be done before this whole thing's set in cement to help alleviate that situation, we'd appreciate that. And the third and last point is, this probably isn't the time or isn't the place but I guess it is the time and the place. I guess I'd like to ask the Council one more time to consider the effects of closing our access point. I believe that this decision in the past was more of a political decision than an engineering decision and what ' we're finding is that in attempting to come up with some sort of format and some sort of scheme so that we can begin to market our property out there, we've had to consider numerous plans for frontage roads to connect our full access point back to the corner and it's a mess and I'm not just posturing. We have got a multitude of problems out there and this frontage road is going to be a necessity out there. Even with the replat so that's very much of a detriment and impact to us and I don't know if there's still time to consider making that ' opening or not. I think that Jim has testified in the past that engineering wise it could be made to work but there were other, as I say, I don't know if that's a proper word but I'll say political consideration. But now that the city's closed on that land and is the owner of the land that they have acquired 54 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 I - from Mr. Burdick, maybe we could revisit that issue. I don't know but and I realize we're not going to solve that tonight but I just wanted to be here tonight and express my concerns. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, Charles do you have any respective answers to Mr. James in regard to item number 3 that he had brought up. Charles Folch: Related to the access issue? Well, as we've been through a number of meetings on this before, I think we've kind of beat that one to a dead horse but staff continues to support the position that there should be no intermediate full access between the proposed signalized intersection immediately east of County Road 17 and County Road 17. I think Strgar's engineers have also spoken to the safety issues and some of the problems that may be involved in opening up a full access there. So we continue to support the position. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. It's our turn... Councilman Senn: To start with I guess, could Don or somebody run through these , numbers in terms of, you know there's an estimated cost of roughly $3.3 million. Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: It was $3.1 and it's now $3.3. Councilman Senn: $3.3. Okay, so there's $3.3 million in total costs and I go back to the breakdown on what is being assessed and what isn't being assessed and the total is $2,324,800.00? It shows that $884,000.00 is being assessed and $1,440,000.00 isn't? Okay. Where is the remaining bucks? Don Ashworth: Tax increment. The rate of the assessment was established at the same level that all of the downtown improvements, or I should say that first two phases of downtown were assessed at. And generally we assessed the cost of road improvements and that was to, I can't recall, 48 foot street or 52, sewer and water. Other items such as sidewalk cost, landscaping, lighting, storm sewer was a 50% rate. And those were felt to be reasonable costs to be paid by tax increment and so again to treat this portion of the project equal with the first half, we assigned the same assessment rate for that portion of the project as was established for this part of the project. So whatever you see as a differential between assessments on this end, it was the same differential on the east end. Councilman Senn: So a million bucks is TIF and that's covering only that portion in effect west of Kerber Boulevard then? Am I interpretting that correctly? Mayor Chmiel: You're saying everything west on 78th Street from Kerber to 1 Powers Boulevard? Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean you tell me everything else down here was ' treated this way and now we're going this way so we're treating it the same way. Is that a correct statement? So a million dollars of TIF is going to cover the area from Powers to Kerber? 55 1 City Council Meeting March 22, 1993 Jim Dvorak: Yeah. The assessments that are proposed only cover that portion of West 78th between Powers and Kerber. Councilman Senn: That's the 884? Jim Dvorak: That is what is proposed to be assessed. ' Councilman Senn: Correct. Jim Dvorak: Okay. The balance of the project, as I understand it is going to ' be funded through TIC' monies. Now I think the reason that you're confused, when you look at the feasibility report versus what's shown in the plan. As I stated before, the project has gone through several iderations and changes. ' Initially when we started the project it was only going to be Powers Boulevard and West 78th between Powers and Kerber. Those are the numbers, that's the $2.3 million that you see in the feasibility update, or in that table. If you notice ' at the bottom of our revised cost estimate, there's a little caveat if you will about the cost of roadway and signal improvements between Kerber and Great Plains of $784,000.00. That is that differential. That is what was added to the project as things evolved and we thought it would be clearer to just kind of separate that out from that segment of the project that was getting assessed. Councilman Senn: That's that $1.58 million? Am I on the right? ' Jim Dvorak: I guess I'm not sure. Councilman Senn: This has cost estimate segment. Jim Dvorak: Okay. That 3.3 is the total project. That's just the segment's broken up. In other words, Powers is $900,000.00. Powers to Kerber is $1.3 million and then that extra million is west of Kerber to Great Plains. Councilman Senn: So $1.58 million is the portion from Kerber to Great Plains then? Jim Dvorak: Correct. Councilman Senn: Not the $700,000.00? Jim Dvorak: Right. The $784,000.00 was that amount in the feasibility report. This is where most of the extra work is taking place. Councilman Senn: Am I correct in assuming, by reading this that the funding sources for this project are $884,000.00 where 25% are coming from direct assessment. $1,441,000.00, I'm using round numbers here, is coming from general obligation bonds. Jim Dvorak: Not to my knowledge. I guess I wasn't aware that there were any general obligation funds in there. I thought it was all tax increment beyond the assessed amount. ' Councilman Senn: Well then I flip the question over to Don. Why does it say on here general obligation amounts on both of, on both of the project summaries? ' 56 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II Don Ashworth: What page? Councilman Senn: Well there are no page numbers so I can't help you. It's the 1 two project summaries. City Project #92 -3 and #92 -3, basically the same thing where the first column says, if you go to the second page of that or the back side of it, it breaks down assessable amount versus general obligation amount and it says assessable amount $884,000.00 and then it says general obligation amount $1,441,000.00. Not it's the first time I've ever seen general obligation money being. 1 Jim Dvorak: If I could answer that Don. We are the ones that prepared that table and we were not aware at the time that it was prepared that this was going to be financed through tax increment. I believe that the Mayor, in my initial presentation corrected me when I had mentioned general obligation. That the funds that were being used for this are indeed tax increment and not general obligation funds. I guess you could consider that a typo, if you will. Councilman Senn: Okay, well that's what I'm just trying to get to understand. So 884 is being assessed and 2 million 440 roughly is coming from TIF. Don Ashworth: Is coming from TIF. Part of the misunderstanding is all of the projects in the downtown have been completed as 429 public improvement projects and technically have been referred to as general obligation funds. The underlying source of funding, other than the special assessments has been TIF. So TIF has come in and paid what would be the general obligation portion but they were still sold as general obligation bonds. Councilman Senn: So TIF doesn't pay them. The taxpayers are responsible for general obligation bonds? Don Ashworth: That's true in literally any type of bond that you would sell. An exception would be... Councilman Senn: And so the TIF portion of this project. Okay, if you look at the assessment roll, the assessment roll only deals with the end of the project from Powers to Kerber. Right? 1 Don Ashworth: The assessment, that's correct. Councilman Senn: The assessment is, okay. So taking that assessment portion 1 out of the other $2.4 million, okay. Part of that's going towards, of course that segment and part of it's going to the rest. Now didn't we already use TIF on the other portion and for the other projects once already? Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Senn: In downtown. So we're going back and doing it again? Don Ashworth: To the extent that you're adding signals. Carrying out widening from Kerber back to Great Plains and what other type. Councilman Senn: Well all the proposed improvements is what we're talking about. Because I mean I'm not hearing any other funding source. Okay, so TIF 57 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 is going to be spent a second time then to basically redo that area where it's already been spent once? Don Ashworth: Yes. ' Councilman Senn: Okay, and so I don't understand the comment that was made earlier as it relates to how we're using TIF on this end because it equals out with TIF on the other end. You lose me there because we've used TIF twice now 1 to put in the same improvements on this end and we're putting them on this end once. How does that equal out? Don Ashworth: What I was trying to say is, the business owners on the east side were assessed at exactly the same rate as we're proposing to assess the property owners on the west side. To the extent that we are going back today and making lanes wider that should have been maybe been made wider to begin with, we are not charging that cost back to that owner on the east nor to that owner on the west. Councilman Senn: So, okay. And so what you're saying is, if you take Powers, let's say if you take Kerber east. Okay. There you're in effect charging, you're not charging people anything? 1 Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And on the area from Kerbers to Powers, you're charging the people what you charged the people on the other end to put in the single lane? ' Don Ashworth: That was still based on the equivalent of a 48 foot street. It did not have a center island. So I mean what we assessed for on the east side we're assessing really the same cost on the west side. ' Councilman Senn: Okay well, I understand, I think I understand the concept of what you're looking for as it relates to let's call it the east side. Because I mean there you've already put road improvements in and you've assessed the people for them. They have not produced traffic which in effect requires you to upgrade those roads. I assume that's correct. Because the road was designed to meet what was there in the first place and that's what is there. Okay, now ' you're designing a much bigger road to follow these improvements down to the west with the Target and stuff but you're not proportionately assessing you know the need and demand. Are you? Mayor Chmiel: No. No. Councilman Mason: I don't think the changes from east of Kerber are due in ' total to Target and I might add nobody that's sitting behind this area right now was present when the initial plan went through for downtown. I think there have been some ongoing problems with downtown ever since the doggone thing was put in and we're looking to change that. I don't know that that part of downtown is being changed because Target's coming in. Councilman Senn: No, I didn't say that Mike. The question I asked was, why are we only assessing the west end though for a single lane road, which is 1 58 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 equivalent to what you said is already installed downtown. In the rest of downtown. Why aren't we assessing the west end for really the full cost of those improvements and then going down and charging the east end only the difference to what they've already been assessed? I mean I don't understand the rationale to carry it all the way back to Powers. Don Ashworth: I asked the Jim, and I'll make the statement first and then he'll come back and say, no Don. You're wrong. But my recollection was is we were assessing the west end for what would be the equivalent of a 48 or 52 foot wide street, which is really for a 4 lane. Jim Dvorak: That's correct Don. I guess I don't remember exactly how wide it is but the assessment is based on some standard width roadway that would serve a commercial /industrial area. The traffic that is going to be using West 78th is not totally generated by the businesses that abut the road but there's also quite a bit of thru movement also. The turn lanes and all the amenities that are into the cost of the project, whether that would be appropriate to assess back to the abutting properties or not, I guess that's more a policy decision. But the rationale behind the assessments was some type of 9 ton collector type roadway, whether it be 36, 48 or whatever we use, I guess I don't recall that at this time. But in checking this assessment that's proposed here, as Don has pointed out, it matches very closely to what was previously assessed to the 11 folks to the east. Councilman Wing: My mind was so clear on this. We've got the west end of town. It's a whole new project. It's a new world. The sun is shining and we're assessing it. It's just simple. It's just a basic simple assessment. I don't have any problem with that. The east end, in our 2 years Mike, and I won't speak for you, it's clearly a screw -up. It's a disaster. It hasn't worked and we're fixing it. Am I wrong in separating these two projects out? To my way it's Kerber to Powers and we're handling that with an assessment. To the east we're going to fix the problem that should have been fixed 10 years ago and it's going to be done with tax increment money. Do I have to go any further on that? Is that too narrow or is that a reasonable way to approach this? Councilman Senn: Dick, that's too narrow. Because if you look at the numbers here, that's not what they say. You can't say that $884,000.00 of assessments is covering almost $2,200,000.00 in costs for the west end. Councilman Mason: No, it's not $2,200,000.00. ' Councilman Senn: Well that's what it says here. Powers Boulevard, West 78th, Powers to Kerber. That tells me there's $2,200,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: No. Don Ashworth: $1,376,000.00. I don't think it's fair to add the $864,000.00 for Powers as though it's a cost of 78th Street. Councilman Senn: Well then let's separate it into three segments but Dick was , just separating into two and what I'm saying is, when you separate into two, that's what it comes back and tells me. Because you're assessing $884,000.00 but that end of the project is cost $2.2 million. 59 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Don Ashworth: Well, and Roger might want to comment here but I think if we were to go about assessing County 17, Powers Boulevard in that section, especially ' with what we're attempting to do, I don't think we'd sustain that assessment. I mean we're assessing that portion that we reasonably can assess which is West 78th Street detachment which means we're assessing $860,000.00 out of $1.3 ' million. Which is approximately, is the same ratio that occurred in the downtown. So if the assessments there were $800,000.00, the cost of the project was $1.3 million. ' Roger Knutson: Take a stab at it. Mayor Chmiel: One more time. Go ahead. Roger Knutson: The basic rule of assessments, which I think you all know is you can't assess more than the amount more than the project causes the market value of that property to increase in value. And what's been done here, as I ' understand it, is we looked at what you call a commercial equivalent. How much street sense does this project really need and how much is created by being part of a bigger road network and that was the number that he came up with. Taking ' those two things into consideration. Councilman Senn: Okay but then the $2.2 million that you're talking about plus interest, in effect, or I guess it's not really $2.2 million. The $2.4 million that you're talking about in effect being the TIF money plus interest becomes then in effect a public subsidy that's going back to the taxpayers because rather than that money going on the tax rolls to control taxes, that money is going to be going to pay this roadway back there. Correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. ' Councilman Wing: Why do we create a TIF district? I thought that's why TIF was created. ' Roger Knutson: You can see in a lot of communities that don't have this kind of TIF money available, I'll tell you what happens because I work in some of those communities. The roads just don't get built. Because you can't assess it. Councilman Senn: Yeah and this is only a fraction of the TIF cost though going into that overall area of the project. Mr. James came up here earlier and said, ' he hopes he can rely very heavily on TIF when he builds his project. Target, the outlots, everything else, they were already getting heavy TIF subsidies. The roadway here is an additional issue relating to the area. You cannot tie it back into any of those TIF deals correct? ' Don Ashworth: Say that again? ' Councilman Senn: The road, this roadway issue that we're dealing with here, which is a $3.3 million has absolutely nothing to do with TIF subsidies that are already being given to Target, the outlot or Mr. James expects or whatever? Those are going to be separate TIF deals other than the road deal? Don Ashworth: No. You calculate the full amount of dollars that a project is eligible to receive. In this caes Target was roughly $1 million. You subtract 60 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 off of that any public improvement costs that are proposed to be carried out, the streets, etc and that's exactly what we did with Rosemount and Target. The remaining amount of what would be up to 3 years of taxes can be used for a land writedown, which was the case with Rosemount. Or in this case, we had additional costs of preserving the trees, insuring that we had the additional landscaping, and all the rest of that stuff as it was associated with Target. So included in that, and I think it was $986,000.00, the first thing subtracted out of there was the amount out of this assessment roll which is proposed to go against Target. Which I agree is a minor amount. $100 and do you know off hand Jim the amount that's proposed to be assessed to Target? Jim Dvorak: About $180,000.00. Don Ashworth: I was going to guess 160. , Councilman Senn: So the $800,000.00 assessment number is truly then basically an adding up of the numbers you expect to have remaining out of that TIF money to go back and pay for the assessments? Don Ashworth: As all of the properties in that area would develop, you would anticipate that they would be able to achieve a writedown in the special assessments against them. I think that Mr. James may be one of the first ones to the microphone saying, you know he participated in a conversation regarding trunk water assessments against his property and he liked this conversation about potentially reducing his costs because of development that could be eligible. The problem was, it really didn't come in the timeframe that he was hoping it would come and he has ended up paying those principal and interest payments himself. Not been able to fully take advantage of that program. I'm sure he would hope to be able to fully take advantage of it as it deals with this $864,000.00 assessment, not all of which would go against him. But a 11 portion, $300. Councilman Senn: So if I'm understanding you, I think I just got what you said. The $884,000.00, or whatever it is, is a total of what you would expect to get in off of that TIF formula for the abutting properties. Don Ashworth: If they can bring development to the table and we enter into a development contract whereby then the HRA would take over that $884,000.00 because of the new development that they're bringing into the community. Councilman Senn: If they don't they have to pay it themselves? , Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Senn: So we're telling them they'd better get in here with a project and ask for more TIF dollars so we can pay them back for the public improvements with our TIF dollars? Don Ashworth: Well, if they don't bring a project to the table, they eat the costs. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Mark? 1 61 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: That's it for questions. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: No. I've been privy to all this stuff for the last couple II years. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I haven't been privy to all of this for the last couple of years and I kind of feel like I'm coming in on the bottom of the 9th. ' These pictures in here aren't showing me clearly what's happening. You know, probably out of my own ignorance and fault I haven't looked into this enough but I'd like, particularly where the, I'd like to see where the semifores are going. II Mayor Chmiel: You're more concerned with the semifores... Councilwoman Dockendorf: I. understood on the left we've got one at Powers and II at the Target entrance and then the next one is Kerber. Jim Dvorak: This would be Powers at this point. Okay, and then here's the main entrance into the Target site. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you're got 2 lanes there plus a left turn? II Jim Dvorak: Actually there's a left turn, 2 thrus and a right... Councilwoman Dockendorf: While you're on that. Is right now the way CR 17 has been done, it's really bad when you're taking a left turn. You can't see anything. Is that going be graded so the sight lines will be better? Jim Dvorak: Yeah, some of that will be, sight lines will be taken care of... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And again we've got 2 lanes plus a couple left turns or what do we have there? Jim Dvorak: When we're at Kerber, we're into the, on the east side we're into the existing area. One of the problems that we have is...again at Market and another...widening at this point. Here we've added another left turn movement south of Market. Then down at Laredo is another signal proposed. Here again some widening at this point and then continuing on and get to this area. Basically in front of the Medical Arts businesses, there will be a widening... 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I hate this. I realize it's necessary but I just, it reminds me of what I consider the mistake that was made on Highway 5 which is stoplight after stoplight after stoplight and it certainly doesn't give me the feel of a boulevard which is what we're trying to do with that Highway 5 corridor study. But I understand the traffic concerns. Are we doing anything 11 interesting with the semifores to make them unique? Jim Dvorak: Interesting? 11 1 62 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have no idea what I have in mind but are they going to be, I mean they're not going to be posted on the size. They're going to be... Jim Dvorak: They'll be basically a standard signal with a mast arm that's in the corner, comes up. There's a light on top of the mast arm and then it arches , over and supports... Mayor Chmiel: You're looking for a more unique kind of a fixture? ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I'm looking at something that coordinates with our street lights. Charles Folch: I might add that, we are intending to the finish and the coloring for these signal poles and mast arms are, we're intending to have them look and be compatible with the corten steel lighting that will be going out there. So they'll be kind of a brown tint to dark corten color. They won't be like your standard MnDot green base with a yellow pole and aluminum, brushed aluminum mast arm. They'll be all like a dark corten light. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we have to have the standard red, green, yellow? Mayor Chmiel: All we need is a skyhook so they can... 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, there's nothing I can do about it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: Engineers wear pins Colleen that say stop lights are your friends. We'll just time them. But good Councilmembers have a pin that says it's the lights stupid, and they are a problem. Don, I'd like to talk about just this east end. Specifically the east end. I don't want to talk about tax increment or anything else. I want to talk about the east end. We all know that, those that have been on the Council, that there's been an incredible number of complaints and traffic's coming to a standstill and cars can't pass and emergency vehicles, they're having problems and the stop lights were requested by the neighborhoods that exist. What we've had 1, 2, 3 requests for stop lights specifically plus whatever development has brought in. So they're here. But my concern is, is that this is becoming our Lake Street and our future has nothing but growth and development. It's not going anyplace but up sky high and more people are coming in and who knows what surprises Mr. James has for us in his development but maybe it's going to be a Mills Fleet Farm and a Wal Mart both right across from Target. What I'm getting at here is we're going to be drawing into this community more and more and more and are we, this was poorly done. It was done wrong. We know it was done wrong. We know it's been a problem. We know cars can't pass. We know traffic can't flow, etc, etc, etc. We can't run two lanes of traffic. Fire equipment can't pass cars when they pull over the way they're supposed to. And I hate to have staff turn to me and say, will he never be satisfied. But I've got to ask the question because my concern is, is that if I want to be visionary and look to what the city is going to be in 10 years, 15 years, even though it's costing a million dollars to fix what we should have never done in the first place, and to take out stuff that probably should never have been put in in the first place, and widen lanes ' 63 1 11 I City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II that should have been wider in the first place and those engineers don't work in the city anymore, wherever they are. Is this a bandaid just to cut down public opinon? Is this a short term fix with no hope for the future? And is this a ' long term disaster? This one's on my shift now so it starts to bother me a little bit. We can add a little turn lane here and a tiny bit of curb cut here so the aerial truck can actually make the turn, and widen this area so that if the signs are right, the truck can squeeze by the car that pulls over. But when I we start looking at our city develop, is this going to be another impassable road that we're going to have to in 10 years say, this is hopeless. We can't move traffic on West 78th Street. It's got to be a 4 lane road or we simply t need an 18 foot lane. Is this the time to buy the land, widen the thing out, admit that maybe we can't fit some of the landscaping in. Maybe we can't take that...traffic studies 10 -15 years from now and never deal with this again. Or are we going to bandaid it and is this in fact a bandaid and is it on our shift? I Are we going to be looked back on the guys that didn't have the foresight to move traffic down West 78th Street? Don Ashworth: Jim should respond but I would like to go through my recollection. That was the first step we took was to employ Strgar. Take a look at the projections and flow for this road. To design what would be the I ultimate roadway through the community. One in which they felt would comfortably handle the traffic as far as they could reasonably foresee into the future. Then as far as particular improvements we said, yes. We are going to go back and do the whole thing to insure that trucks leaving the station, II turning at Laredo and heading west have the full lane configuration. They've got the ultimate design now. As it dealt with that segment to the east, we said alright. Yes you may come back in some of these sections such as right in front I of the furniture store. And go into their existing parking, eliminate that entire row of parking stalls but is that necessary for today's traffic needs? And so the design in front of you is not going to be one in which we go back and ' we tear everything out. There are small parts of it that we maybe move further back such as right in front of the hotel. That's a problem because we've got the retaining wall. Jim, have I properly paraphrased all of the work efforts? Jim Dvorak: Yeah, I think so Don. I guess I'd just like to add a thing or two here. Roadways have a certain life and as engineers we design for basically a 20 year lifespan. We try and use traffic projections that will take us through ' that 20 years. Hopefully you'll get more than 20 years out of your roads. Maybe you'll get 30. Here you have a road that was recently built. I guess I'm not even sure when it was constructed but in our mind it doesn't make any sense to take and remove those things that you've already had built and have paid for II unless it's absolutely necessary. We think we should get a little use out of that roadway and then when the problem is becoming apparent, then make the full improvements as Don said. You know use what you have. Use what you've paid for I and then plan for in the future and we have, as Don pointed out, have an ultimate plan through the area and all of these things that we're doing are kind of part of the plan. You're right there will probably need to be other things I done in the future but we think you should use what you've already paid for, for as long as possible. Councilman Wing: But Jim my problem is, I have no problem with what you're II saying at all and I agree with that and the 20 year life, but I think I've been on some heated discussions here in the last 2 years where it's been determined, i 64 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 at least the Council at that time, that the project was a poor one to begin with and it simply didn't meet the city needs and it didn't allow for traffic flow. And so even though we've got some minor fixes coming in, and forget the fire department. If a city sweeper is going down the street, I guess I still see traffic held up. If a city truck is parked, cleaning trees or doing whatever they're going to do, or fixing the road, we've got lane closure. I mean West 78th Street is shut down. We don't have traffic flow on West 78th Street. So I admit, we can use what we built and then in 10 or 12 or 15 years still have to condemn the property, rip out the parking lots, at a much greater cost, maybe today is the time you maybe ought to look at the road for it's entirety and just say we made a mistake. Why don't we fix it right once and for all. I mean I'm going to have a hard time going along with this because there's little bandaids. A little corner here and a little width here. We've still got this narrow little road that's our main east /west Lake Street and it's certainly not, if you need it 4 lane to the west, you're probably going to need it 4 lane to the east. Maybe, I'm just suggesting and I'm not, this isn't an ax I'm carrying other than saying maybe now's the time to be looking at doing this project upfront once and for all and meeting the future needs once and for all and building for the future. Not putting a few bandaids on just because we did it wrong a while ago. That's my only comments. I think we're short sighted in what we're doing and I'm not so sure we shouldn't be going all the way east to west. Doing the whole road right now. It's going to be harder to move it. Harder to condemn it. Parking is going to become more accustomed. Walls are going to be built. Businesses are going to be established. Then we're going to come roaring down there with bulldozers to make a road that's mandatory so, those are just my comments and thoughts. , Councilman Senn: Dick are you talking about, I mean the whole length or really where the bottleneck so to speak occurs to the east? Councilman Wing: Kerber east. Councilman Senn: So really the eastern bottleneck. , Councilman Wing: Just the eastern bottleneck. Just the part that was done that hasn't worked. ' Councilman Senn: Which is being redone but you still have the bottleneck down to the east. Councilman Wing: Yeah, they're trying to open up the bottleneck with some of the little turn lanes and some widening here and there so at least if a car stops, another car can get by and it doesn't have to be a firetruck. It could be anybody. If a street sweeper breaks down, can we get by? Well, I think what you're saying is there's enough width occurring that we're going to have a, we're going to be able to pass two trucks now? 1 Jim Dvorak: In quite a few areas we've attempted to give some additional width so that you do have two lanes but you are correct in stating that there are still some areas that only have what is existing today with this plan. Councilman Wing: Alright, so then in fact, then I'll bring up the fire department. So the fire department will still in effect then, if a car pulls 1 65 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 over and stops like it's supposed to, and they do. We're still then going to have a bottleneck for that piece of equipment. A truck, no matter what the stop lights say, a car pulls over and stops by State law, and they do on West 78th Street, whenever an emergency vehicle approaches, and that's our main ' thoroughfare east and westbound, so the fire department has the same problem, at least going eastbound that they're going to bottleneck up then. And have to come to a halt or drive up on curbs to get through cars. We're not fixing the ' problem. We're only bandaiding some specific areas. Jim Dvorak: There are areas that are remaining the same, that's correct. ' Don Ashworth: I don't know if I would totally agree with that, if I may. First of all remember that we're still proceeding with the idea of the firemen being able to activate the button. Basically it's going to turn this signal green for them and stop any further traffic from coming through. Councilman Wing: Don, I don't want to aggravate you here. Let's leave the fire 11 department out of it. Let's just work with x vehicles but wide sized vehicles that might be stalled or trying to pass. Don Ashworth: Through this segment in here, we're bringing the curb back to 11 have sufficient distance to pass a plow, whatever the case may be. As you pull into this segment, you notice this is the turn over toward the Riveria. So this curb...so you still maintain that passing condition down through this segment and one area that's a real problem is right in here. But this is the area right in front of the Dinner Theatre and to take out that entire row of parking, I mean yes. If there's a stalled vehicle there, and a stalled sweeper, you've got a problem. But if you're simply following that sweeper, that small, I mean it's ' not as though you're having to follow it all the way through the downtown. You follow it for 200 feet before it opens back up again. And it's not an issue, I mean at some time yes, we will take and bring this one back out. But I don't know that it warrants the expense at this time and the removal of a lot of landscaping in that process might...and I think there were certain compromises that were being made in terms of the loss of landscaping in comparison to insuring that you have that 2 lane condition. Councilman Wing: That clarifies my question Don, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? I think it would have been simplified more if we could have had the exact widths on the north and south side of those roads as well as extending from east to west to have alleviated some of the concerns ' that we're talking about. That was some of the questions that I had as to what the widths were and I don't think I'm going to pursue that now because some of that's been explained even though I don't know what those widths basically are. ' One of the other questions that I had is regarding the Department of Transportation Carver County. Have they reviewed this and come up with an approval for the areas that are going to involve them? Jim Dvorak: We have received comments from Carver County and have incorporated those comments into the plan. We do not anticipate any further major changes from Carver County. State Aid is basically reviewing the plan because Carver County wants to keep this on their system and receive some type of funding for it. They may have some things to do with content and format of the plan but the 11 66 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 e = basic design I do not believe they will have much to say about. We cannot get their final approval until the city approves the plans and Charles signs the plans and Carver County engineer signs the plans and then we send it back to them for their final approval. They have a draft set that they are reviewing at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Some of the other things that I'had regarding the easements. Some of these, some of the easements are temporary. Some are perpetual. Some are outright acquiesce. On each of these parcels that we have, have we started any negotiations with any of the parcels at this time? Or have none of these been approached yet? Don Ashworth: I guess I would leave that back over to, do you feel comfortable 1 answering that Charles? Mayor Chmiel: And let me just add a little bit more to it. Some of these 1 temporary easements that we're getting. Should they be a permanent easement rather than just that temporary in some of these specific parcels? Roger Knutson: Well the temporaries are to be used for construction purposes. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Roger Knutson: And to this date we get our descriptions from an engineering firm and I see no need for it. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay. Next time what I'd like to see, if and when we go through the process again, I'd like to see who the actual parcel owners are on each of these parcels rather than just showing the perpetual easement of the roadway for such and such. Roger Knutson: ...that information is available and we can share that with you. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. That was the other question I had. Councilman Senn: Don? I'm sorry, I didn't know we were asking questions on B. I had just one there. Is the action then that we're taking, I mean if I understand the action, we are actually authorizing the acquisition of the easements and the quick takes. To me to do that I think we need the list exactly that you asked for of the property owners and the amounts of money that we're offering. Mayor Chmiel: I guess this is all part of the total dollar package. Is that 1 correct Jim? Jim Dvorak: The easements that are required. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Or is that in addition to it? Jim Dvorak: The costs were not reflected in the dollars shown in my letter for 1 easements. So those would be additional. 1 67 1 1 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 . Roger Knutson: But to point out the obvious. That we do is obtain an appraiser I and the appraiser gives us the numbers. We offer the appraised amount. But any approval of a settlement, you know if we come back and someone wants $5.00 or $500,000.00 and whatever we agree to has to come back for your approval. Nothing II is done without your approval. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. II Councilman Senn: In concept I don't understand why we're going out and buying temporary construction easements and why we're not getting them free when we're turning around and suggesting that we're paying all of these people's assessment II costs. Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we could be getting them free on some of them. II Councilman Senn: Well and I guess, but that's what I'm saying. 1 mean when we're authorizing this to proceed, I think we should know what we're authorizing II versus this kind of blank check approach that says go out and negotiate the fields. I think our policy should be that if we're paying their assessments for them, then we should be getting at least the temporary construction easements for nothing. And I think that should even maybe even looked further into II permanent easements depending on what the situation is. I mean we're talking about spending big bucks for these property owners. Our residents probably wish they could achieve the same when their streets go in. II Roger Knutson: In a lot of these cases, like in the case of Mr. James' property, if we're going to pay the assessments, Mr. James, that depends upon what Mr. James builds and when he builds it. You may or may not pay his II assessments. And our experience in the past is most people want to get paid. I've never. II Councilman Senn: Well then let's assess him too. Assess him the full value of the improvements. Let's assess the east end the value of their improvements. If we're going to turn around and pay him for the temporary easements and the I easements. Don Ashworth: The only way that I could see that working, and Roger is correct. I mean we've got to do the project which means we've got to get the easement. I You've got to pay compensation to obtain that. Now in a subsequent action, if the property is developed and they come back and look to an incentive package because they have brought whoever to the plate, you may want to see the II incentive package show that one of the things we'll get back first will be any monies that we spent for easement acquisition. I Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. Councilman Senn: That's a good point but I don't see that included in here at all and I guess I'd like to see it as a matter of policy included. II Don Ashworth: Right but where it would need to be included would be in the HRA's redevelopment plan because it's the HRA's redevelopment plan that spells II out what form of assistance you're going to provide to the individual owners. The other problem may be, and I haven't thought the whole thing through, is II 68 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II you've got an existing owner. Let's say the people that own the property here in front. The Mithune's. Well if we pay Mithune's for the acquisition of that I/ right -of -way, they end up selling it and it's ABC Companies, is it really right that we're going to reduce the incentive offer to ABC Companies simply because they bought the property from Mithune. , Councilman Senn: No. Normally when you sell a piece of property, especially commercial, you have to pay those assessments before it goes forward. If there's any outstanding assessments. I mean that's pretty standard policy on commercial property. Don Ashworth: Okay. 1 Councilman Senn: I mean I'd rather see you go back and at least as getting maybe a motion halfway there, have the HRA adopt that kind of a policy before 11 you come back and have us adopt assessments. Mayor Chmiel: That could be a recommendation from Council to HRA to do that when it comes to their particular part of it. , Councilman Senn: Well Don, I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather see that policy before I agree, or at least as one person sitting up here agree to go spend money to buy these easements. Mayor Chmiel: Well in order to make the improvements you have to go out and purchase those easement rights and spend those dollars accordingly. Councilman Senn: I understand that. Mayor Chmiel: So if we take a position right now and say that we would like HRA to reconsider some of the previous things that they have done before, but to include into this those easement portions into that agreement, I think that would take care of your concerns. Councilman Senn: No it wouldn't because I'd like to see. Mayor Chmiel: Well it would mine. I/ Councilman Senn: I'm just saying from my perspective I'd like to see the policy in place from the HRA in place before we take an action, saying we're going to go buy these easements. Don Ashworth: If I may Mr. Mayor. Let's assume that the Council tonight made a motion saying that you would like to take and see the HRA modify it's redevelopment plan to include a new policy whereby any payments made to property owners for easement acquisitions would be a first reduction out of any subsidy offered to them. Okay. You're talking about modifying the plan itself, so I mean you're talking, the draft work necessary to actually carry that out. The formal notices back over to the School District and the County, back to the HRA. I mean what is a typical process Todd? That's 6, 8, 10 weeks? Todd Gerhardt: The notice part is 30 days...School Board, County Board, and the public hearings through the HRA, Planning Commission back to the Council. 69 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Don Ashworth: You delay this 2 months and this project will not open when Target opens. If this project, including the lights are not opened when they open, I think we're in big trouble. Councilman Senn: So your answer is is we should go spend both amounts of money? Don Ashworth: I see nothing wrong with the Mayor's suggestion that you direct the HRA to make that plan modification under the premise that they in fact will comply with what it is you ask them to do. Councilman Senn: But all these will be in the hopper before you do that which I means you're going to come back with the next argument which is, we can't effect the properties that were already in the hopper. Well I mean that's what we keep coming back to all the time on these deals. Don Ashworth: If this were to be applied back to Target, I might agree with you but we've already taken the additional lands that we need for Target. If somebody walked in the door tomorrow, I just don't see anyway in which you're going to have a owner be paid today and not subject him to what would be this new policy in 60 or 90 days. Councilman Senn: Well you could. I mean the way you could do that is you can give them in effect the purchase price or whatever of the easement or whatever but you can say write back into the assessment agreement that gee, if we don't get credit for that, you get assessed for it because we also have the right to assess them for it. We don't have to forgive the assessment and use public subsidy to pay their assessments. You know Don, I'm no wonderful genius on this stuff. I don't know why it wasn't really thrown out before but I look at this 1 thing and it's just like a bottomless pit of money. Everything I look in here is just the money going out, out, out, out. ' Councilman Mason: First of all, I think once again we're getting mucked down in the mire here and I'm not quite sure why. This stuff about bottomless pit Don, I believe I heard you say not too long ago that 1992 put Chanhassen in the best financial position it's ever been in. Don Ashworth: I was talking about all of your funds, yes. Councilman Mason: All of the funds, so I question the bottomless pit. I do know my property taxes are still continuing to go down. Not very much but my city portion is going down so it seems. Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you said that. Councilman Mason: Oh, hey. I mean I think this banter could go on for quite some time. I'm ready to make a motion to approve this here. Councilman Wing: The plan modification Mike, I think that in due respect to Mark's comments, I agree with some of his comments. I'd like to see this plan modification looked at by staff. Reviewed by staff and a recommendation made to Council before it goes to the HRA because I'm not convinced that I'm in agreement with Mark. But Don, I think Mark's comments are well taken. I think 11 that this plan modification should be reviewed and a recommendation made from 1 70 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 your office prior to going to HRA. I'd like to see it handled that way and I will second. Did you make a motion? I got lost here. Mayor Chmiel: Yes he did. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. West 78th Street's got to get rolling. 1 Mayor Chmiel: You're right and what Don had said, if we don't start on this, I probably shudder more than anybody else here when I think of the amount of dollars that are going to be expedited on this. But I know that we have to have this done by the time Target is in or we're going to have people running after us with whatever those things fasten around the neck and get tight. But I think that we do have to go with that but I'd like to see all the things that were discussed and the conditions as such to come up with and I'll call the question in regard to this. All those in favor of approving the plans and specs for West 78th Street detachment and downtown improvements and authorize for bids 1 regarding the project 92 -3 and West 78th Street Detachment Project resolution authorizing the acquisition of easements and /or quick take. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Resolution 193 -24, 1 approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertising for bids; and Resolution 193 -25, authorizing the acquisition of easements and /or quick takes. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Don Ashworth: For clarification. So that motion was both A and B? 1 Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Wing: Can you put in your notes to get us a Manager's recommendation 1 on Mark's comments. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he has that down. 1 DISCUSSION OF SEASONAL ROAD WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. Public Present: 1 Name Address Nancy Lee Shakopee Patrick Blood Shakopee Chris Boatright Aagard West Gary Lano Chaska Sanitation Tom Moline Woodlake Sanitation Service Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As some of you may be aware 1 of, each spring the City imposes along with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the County Highway Department, seasonal road weight restrictions during the spring thaw period. This typically lasts about 2 months or so and each spring the Carver County Sheriff's Department will cite a number of violators of these road restrictions. Last year some of the violators that were actually caught were companies that provide garbage service to the 1 71 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 community. About a month ago 3 of these haulers representing Aagard West, Chaska Sanitation and Woodlake Sanitary Service, contacted staff and we sat down 1 and had a meeting to discuss some of the issues surrounding this matter and I've included some of the discussions, information from that discussion in the staff , report. From what staff's been able to determine, it appears as some of these I heaulers are able to provide service with equipment that meets the weight restrictions in the spring and whereas others have equipment on their fleet that if loaded in providing a service, they're not able to readily meet the weight restrictions. As I've eluded to in the staff report, we're very concerned about 1 our roads in Chanhassen. We deal with the issue of maintaining our streets with an annual maintenance sealcoating, crack filling, overlay program. From time to time we're also faced with considering major street reconstruction projects 1 which are always a very difficult battle for neighborhoods to go through, not only from an inconvenience during construction standpoint but also potential cost assessment standpoint. So we're looking to at least develop some sort of I solution to this problem. Being that these weight restrictions is an ordinance, staff, as I explained to the haulers here, we could not staffwise could not administratively grant them a permit to run overloaded during this period. That's something that the Council would have to grant. I've provided a couple II alternatives that in this short period that we've kind of devised as potential options to deal with this or investigate further to deal with the solution. A number of the haulers are also here tonight to provide some information on their I concerns with the problem and how we might potentially arrive at a solution. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. I noticed today I had my pick -up from Woodlake and I noticed that they did have a much smaller truck for pick -up on 1 city streets. But I also think that, or I like the fact that we're looking at maybe potentially assigning, I don't know how we'd do this but, and I don't like getting mixed up into somebody else's business but rather than having one truck 1 go through, or 3 or 4 or 5 trucks go through my particular neighborhood, maybe just having 1 vehicle or 1 company and somehow split these things up but I know how protective each of those haulers get with that. I'd like to suggest too I that we involve the Solid Waste Committee that we have on this to at least funnel some of that information through them and then get back to Council with it as well. But I do understand the problems that we have with the roads and I know that the cost of these roads, as you mentioned in here, the investment is II over $60 million in roads and of course those heavier vehicles are the ones who really cause most of the problems within the city. So with that I will open discussion. 1 Councilman Wing: What do other cities do? We've talked about this before. Do a lot of other cities limit or contract or is it kind of a free for all overall? 1 Charles Folch: Well from what we can tell in talking to other communities, there is quite a few that apparently impose the seasonal weight restriction. Some of them, even though they put up signs, they may tend to look the other way II for certain types of vehicles such as, well by State law school buses are exempt but other vehicles such as garbage hauling and such. They may tend to just look the other way and primarily concentrate on construction vehicles and things like II that. Councilman Wing: How about the cities Charles that have gone to a contract system where just one carrier with one truck with 2 or 3, is that real common? II 72 11 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 1 Charles Folch: Well, actually the only, speaking from my own experience, the only community that I am familiar with that has, that I've been involved in that has a citywide contract for garbage hauling is the city of Hastings and they actually, because of the soil types being real sandy, do not have a problem with road restrictions in the springtime but there may be other communities out there that also do a have a citywide program that I'm not aware of. 1 Councilman Wing: I guess I'd be interested in hearing from some of the haulers. (At this point the quality of the recording became very poor and was hard to hear what was being said.) Mayor Chmiel: ...major concerns that we had back when we originally initiated , this was to, not put anybody out of business but I think we have what totally, 11 haulers? Charles Folch: 11 licensed haulers currently. , Mayor Chmiel: It'd be nice if they'd be able to work those things out themselves. That sometimes is not the problem...past business of working for NSP, I know there becomes quite a problem for the haulers... I'd like to, if at all possible...I don't know. I don't have any real solutions to eliminating, and I don't like eliminating businesses per se. But Mark do you have something? 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, I don't, well Don I agree with you 100% and I don't think we need to eliminate business. Our neighborhood fias one truck come in once a week. Gary can speak for himself but I think it's a good deal for our I/ neighborhood and I think he thinks it's a good deal too because he told me up front, it's wonderful to be able to come in and pick up 40 houses in just a couple blocks. That lowers the rates plus raises his margin. Now to me we ought to put the garbage haulers...sensible ones versus the non sensible ones but we ought to keep the senisible ones together with staff...system could be designed out. Districtize or whatever, that kind of a system because at least from what we've done in our neighborhood, that's what we do. Gary probably won't like me to say this but I'd match rates with any one of you. So I think there's benefits for everybody but again I'd rather see something like this designed by the experts in the industry working with staff and seeing if they can come up with...that they could both live with and then come back to us with a recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Well I just see a few of these here on the list, commercial and construction debris. There are three only and they wouldn't have to haul during that period of time so...just automatically take three off there. i Councilman Senn: The big concern becomes the regular... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. And that's I think... 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, this whole discussion goes beyond city roadways...and contrary to what Charles is saying...we don't want that but there's... Mayor Chmiel: Michael, do you have something? 73 11 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II Councilman Mason: I'm just listening. What I'm hearing sounds good so far. I do have a little trouble with 6 different haulers going down Woodhill Drive... II but that's a real tough issue. If there's someway the haulers can coordinate. Of course then you're going to have...one sanitation service for 10 years are going to be yelling and screaming when they have to change so, it's a can of worms but I I I think it's something we need to slowly start dealing with. f Mayor Chmiel: And I think too, if we bring in all these licensed haulers to a Council meeting, maybe we can get a little better handle on it as well. From II their perspective... Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, we do have a couple of haulers out in the audience II tonight if you'd like to take some testimony from them. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we're getting close to our bewitching hour but we'd be more II than happy if you sat here this long with us, we could take on a minute or two to listen to you. Tom Moline: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Council. My name is Tom Moline. I'm II operations manager for Woodlake Sanitation. Just briefly, after our meeting with the city staff, city engineer and so forth, we explained our position which was actually resources. Putting your resources. What resources do you have II where you have them? We took a look at the city's concerns. I felt real good coming away from there because by, I almost started jockeying things around. We are trying to comply totally with the road restrictions, even down as far as 4 and 5 ton under this open system we have here and I was under the impression II that all the haulers were going to try and jockey their resources around. It's also true for us in the private sector here that we have to watch our resources. These trucks aren't cheap and we can't get them right away so it's something II relatively new to the industry and so we're trying but it takes time and it takes capital but currently we're working in different parts of the city, only on 2 days of the week, Monday and Tuesday, with three small trucks and our big I truck we're limiting to the, when it's empty a 7 ton road and then the 9 ton road. We are not going on any 4 or 5 ton roads. Period. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's why I had mentioned your smaller truck made my II pick -up this morning. I noticed that immediately because I had read this prior to, it was good to see. II Tom Moline: Yeah, so we are trying to work with the city and staff here. Any other questions? II Mayor Chmiel: I guess not. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Action on this Charles. You're looking for one of the four options that you've indicated. Charles Folch: Or any other option which you feel merits further investigation. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to get some of that citizen input as well. I Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'm curious Charles. It's great to hear that about Woodlake. Is anyone else, any of the other haulers trying to work with that? II 74 II City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 II Folch: Well I did receive a call today from Gary Lano from Chaska, Y Y 7 and he apologized. He couldn't make it to the meeting tonight but he did state that you know he is, they're trying to do what they can to stay within the limits but ' he's being honest in stating that he's not able to do that in all cases. In looking at he was, I basically sent a copy of the staff report to all the haulers and he just wanted to go on record as saying that the only option that he really opposed was option number 3 I believe which is organizing the city into districts and such which he felt would really hurt his business, being a small company. He didn't feel he'd be able to compete on a big city wide contract basis. Chris Boatright from Aagard West. Councilman Senn: A clarification. City wide contract. Charles Folch: Or districting a city wide contract. A large district type contract. Mr. Chris Boatright of Aagard West, he's kind of been the spearhead man from the beginning on this. Unfortunately he was going to be here tonight. I'm not sure why he's not but he is also in a situation where unfortunately his fleet, his size of fleet, he does not have the ability evidentally to use smaller vehicles or free up smaller equipment and increase manpower for the short period of time to be able to meet the weight restrictions on all streets. So those are basically the three haulers who we've been working with that have raised the issues and concerns and have been cooperatively working with staff. Mayor Chmiel: I've seen some of these little Cushman pick -ups with bins in the back. They would pick -up maybe 2 or 3 homes and then scoot back out to the highway and dump it back in the big truck and come back in. I've seen that in several other communities. I know it's an additional cost but so are the roads. I have concerns with those roads as well. Don Ashworth: BFI picked mine up this morning and they had the smaller truck. 1 Councilman Senn: I would move that we direct staff to pursue option number 3... back to us with a recommendation. Charles Folch: Would you also recommend that that involve the Solid Waste Committee that we have? Councilman Senn: Yes. I assume that's a tie in thru staff, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second that. 1 Councilman Wing: That's one of the recommendations but I think that this, if we start imposing weight restrictions and enforcing them, it's going to put people on guard that they simply can't tear the streets up. Even though it's a necessity and people are contracting for it. Maybe it's going to force some of the truckers to start looking at that realistic in their planning and thinking of purchases for the future. Now obviously...if we were to go out and just enforce it wide open, it'd shut everybody down but I think that we ought to start letting them know how bad off they are and it's not acceptable and something's going to give because of it. I don't think we ought to ignore the enforcement aspect of it. 1 75 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Charles Folch: No. At this point we will continue to enforce the restrictions. ' Only you have the authority to grant permits or waive that otherwise. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well we have a motion on the floor and I'd like to make a il friendly amendment to that to also include citizens within the community come up with some suggestions that they may have, and offer those suggestions as well. If that's acceptable to the...and the second. Councilman Senn: I would assume the Solid Waste... Mayor Chmiel: Right, and have them go through that process. Okay, any other I discussion? Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded directing staff to look into reducing the number of garbage trucks on local streets by establishing city garbage service districts and bidding out annual or biannual contracts by meeting with haulers and the Solid Waste Committee with citizen input. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to probably go to the next item and I'd like to suggest that we table 12 and maybe if Dick's not going to take too long. II Councilman Wing: I'll wait until next meeting. I want Paul to be here. Mayor Chmiel: Good. That'd be Dick's Council Presentation as well. So we'll II go to item number 11. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING AUTO RELATED USES AND POSSIBLE OVERLAY DISTRICT ORDINANCE. Councilman Senn: Can we table that one too? II Mayor Chmiel: We're getting very close to the bewitching hour which is 12:00 and I don't know if this can be done within 15 minutes or not. Kate, do you want to give us. II Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'll be very brief. What we're really looking for is some further direction from the Council. What Paul did here was kind of based on the work session that you had. Tried to point to you in some direction and that was one, looking at the auto related uses. Eliminating them from certain uses from the zone or adopting the PUD overlay district which we had proposed previously. What we've included in this packet is all the zones along the corridor and what II the uses would be that may be objectionable as far as auto related. To have you look at those. Paul points out in his memo that a lot of the vacant property is being absorbed and there isn't a lot of so called hot spots. We do know of one II that was raised tonight and we have heard talk of a car wash going on that site. The other issue is to, we've had requests for them for downtown too. The other issue too is if we eliminate them entirely from the city, where is the ' appropriate location for these type of uses. We all are users of them. If they can't go along the so called highway orientation, where should they belong. Should we create a special district? So I guess what we see as the alternative is going through the districts and maybe outlining for you those lots that we II know are vacant and have potential of something happening and giving you the 11 76 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 options of each of those lots. What could happen. This kind of ties in with what we're doing with the Highway 5 corridor. Mike was at the last meeting where we talked about architectural standards. We've kind of got that draft put together. Beefed up those standards. Next we'll be working on setbacks and as we look at each of those ordinances we'll be passing them through, the task force will be looking at those and then we'll pass them onto Planning Commission. We're not going to wait until they're all one piece. We'd like to get those into the process as soon as possible so we can react to those. So that is ongoing too but if you'd like for direction, then going back, if you want us to pull out some of those vacant lots that may have potential of uses. We talked about Target, that was an indication that a possibility of two fast foods going on there. Identifying all those so you can look at specifically which ones you have concern about and then talk about rezoning. So if you want to give us direction as far as modification of the zones now or looking at the PUD overlay. So I guess what we'd want is further direction from you as to which way you want to go. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Wing: But I think that this, I think this is one of those items 1 belongs on a work session where we can sit down in a round table with staff and throw out this ordinance bit and say, we don't like these items. Let's cross them off and here, where are we going to put these people with a map in front of us. So we don't have to go through this packet trying to put stuff together. Councilman Mason: I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to have a list of those lands before we did anything. Kate Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It might be helpful to show you which lots are vacant. 1 Councilman Mason: ...might get a little better handle on it. Kate Aanenson: What's permitted with each of those vacant sites. Okay. Do you want that for like a work sesson? Councilman Senn: ...wonderful starting point but I'd really like to, I think ' the idea of a work session specifically dealing only with this issue and throwing...got to move this along because next month the next proposal's going to be in. I mean by the time we finish this, they're all going to be built anyway. Councilman Wing: At the last minute ask for specific...zoning, land use, comprehensive plan. This is what we're talking about. Councilman Senn: Yeah, we take these uses and say okay, now what are we going to do with them. ' Kate Aanenson: So you're telling me the one component you want to see first is the vacant lands and what potential uses can go on all those? Councilman Senn: Right. And the existing land...for these type of uses. 1 77 11 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Kate Aanenson: Okay. So existing ones too. ' Councilman Wing: April 7th, I don't want to discuss it at the Council meeting. I don't want to sit here and be bogged down with these issues at a Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anything in addition to that that you'd like to see? There is no need for any action to be taken on this anyway. It's just ' direction that you're looking for and I think we can go with that direction. Okay. ' Bill Griffith: If you'll indulge me for 60 seconds, I'll be terribly brief but I have been sitting here for several hours. Mayor Chmiel: Well, if you gave us all that time we'll give you some time. Bill Griffith: Okay, thank you sir. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Bill Griffith. I'm representing the property owners of the Mason parcel which ' you approved a project his evening. They asked me to essentially enter their objections on the record and the basis for this. If this overlay district is intended to apply to the project area. The remaining parcel 3 let's call it. The main reason is because of the long history on this parcel of development limitations including a 2 1/2 year development moratorium. Two lawsuits. The 6 months process that we just went through and I think a practical limitation is that auto related uses have been allowed pursuant to a great deal of planning and study on this property and now the horse is essentially out of the barn. The area's developed in auto related uses and essentially the reasonable or only compatible use of the parcel is an auto related use. So we will continue to follow the process closely. I realize this isn't a public hearing and continue to object and possibly ultimately challenge application to this parcel. Thank you. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, FIRST READING. ' Mayor Chmiel: So with that I would like to suggest we table item number 12. Do I have a motion on that? t Councilman Wing: Except I've read that and this is, okay I just happen to like it so I'd be happy to approve it. Councilman Senn: Which one are we on? I thought we were still on 11. Mayor Chmiel: 11 we just gave direction. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Okay, but so on 11 are we going to. Kate Aanenson: We're going to follow up. Mayor Chmiel: They're going to follow through with what's necessary to do with what we proposed to her. 1 78 1 City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Can we do that at our April 7th meeting or not? Kate Aanenson: That's my question. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Depending on what time we have and if the time is available, I'd say... Kate Aanenson: Paul and myself are both going to be out of town. Councilman Senn: Our work session is what I'm talking about. I mean we have to set an agenda for that night I'm assuming. Kate Aanenson: Paul and I'll be on vacation. Did you want to have someone else do it ?... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, next item. Can I have a motion to table item number 12? Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the first reading of the amendment to City Code regarding Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, before we go home tonight, I would like to once again state my request that we meet at 7 :00 prior to Council meetings. Round table upstairs specifically on the consent agenda. Review issues, ideas, thoughts. Councilman Senn: Is that a motion? 1 Councilman Wing: I'm making that a motion. Councilman Senn: I'll second that. Councilman Mason: And I will once again say, when I have questions about the consent agenda, which I did and I made two calls to the city and I had my questions answered and that's why I didn't need to pull any items from the agenda. So I don't, coming at 7:00 you know, I'll be honest with you. I'm already putting in a lot of time with this job but I can get my homework done on the phone at City Hall without having to take an hour for a Council meeting for consent agendas or taking staff's time at 7:00 to take care of those issues. I don't see the need personally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second to meet at 7:00. I sort of feel like Mike does, just so you know where I'm coming from. Because I do go through that process of getting my questions answered...and I do get them answered. I either come in or I call. One of the two. I may even do that on Friday when I get the packet and I of course have that luxury of all day to be able to sit and read but we do have a motion on the floor with a second to meet at 7:00. Councilman Senn: Don? One point of discussion. I think the rest of you need to know maybe where I think Dick and I are coming from...and Dick probably has a similar situation to mine. When I can do that, I do that but I'm flying in and out all the time just like Dick's flying in and out all the time. Yeah, I get a 79 i City Council Meeting - March 22, 1993 packet Thursday night. Sometimes I don't even get a chance to even review the packet until Monday before the meeting because I'm not home to get it and I'm not flying until Monday. Well I don't work, excuse me, an 8:00 to 5:00 or a 9:00 to 5:00 job and I'm gone for days at a time and I do everything I can to come back for these meetings but I can't always figure it out on the basis that ' I'm going to get here to get all of that contact time either done on Friday or Monday. Councilman Wing: Well and then things come up. I see it as a work session. We could spend a half hour just on lot size. Councilman Mason: Look, I don't have an 8:00 to 5:00 job either and I took this ' job on knowing that there were some things I had to do outside of the Council meeting. And that's where I stand on that... ' Mayor Chmiel: ...when in my better haydays, I was gone all the time too. Put 8 hours, 10, 12, 13, 16 hours, blah, blah, blah and there is a motion on the floor with a second to start at 7:00. ' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council meet at 7:00 prior to City Council meetings for review of the agenda. Councilman Wing and Councilman Senn voted in favor. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason and ' Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 11 80 11 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 1993 I Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, II Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant I I City Engineer I PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 76.47 ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE HOLDING PONDS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF I LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: II Name Address I Riley F. Kopp Don Patton Argus Development RCI Ron Isaak Argus Development Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering II Phil Jungbluth Argus Development Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court II Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court I Tom Dotzenrod Pete Kurth 8280 West Lake Court 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Randy Koepsell 1110 Dove Court Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive 1 Ron & Ann Kloempken Tom & Pat VanAsh 8311 West Lake Court 8320 West Lake Court Don & Annabelle Diamond 1131 Dove Court II Randy Marquette 1101 Dove Court John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chan Hilis Drive No. Thomas A. Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive II Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No. David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive II Tom Burns Jim Pehringer 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive Robert Smithburg 8651 Chan Hills Drive No. I Dave Durnmer Rod Annis 417 Santa Fe Trail 8625 Chan Hilis Drive No. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 2 11 Batzli: Does anyone on the Planning Commission have any questions they want to ask Jo Ann or Dave before we ask the applicant for their ' presentation? Harberts: I have one. Could someone just explain the rationale with regard to the front yard setback reduced to 25 feet. This is number 1 in the recommendations. Olsen: It's adding flexibility. It's not a requirement. We're allowing them to do that and what that does is, along what's shown as Mallard Court is that it can pull the house up 5 feet closer and a lot of the trees were in the rear of the lot and so that would help. Harberts: Okay, so it's a matter of saving the landscape. ' Olsen: Right. Ledvina: Do we want to restrict that 25 foot setback or allow the 25 foot setback to a certain number of lots? ' Olsen: You can do that. ' Ledvina: As you've written the recommendation here, this applies to the entire subdivision. Is that correct? Olsen: Right. ' Mancino: On page 6 Jo Ann, you talk about the City can require caliper replacement of tree. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with ' staff and the DNR Forester to develop a reforestation plan. That is not put in the recommendations. ' Olsen: Yeah, that was a mistake. Is that page 6 did you say? Mancino: Well, yeah. 1 Olsen: Right, okay. Mancino: So did you mean to leave that out of the. 1 Olsen: No, I think I just forgot to put that one in. Mancino: Because I think that's...is that we will be asking for reforestation of the lost trees. Scott: Excuse me Jo Ann. On this Mallard Court is the longer cul -de -sac that's on Block F? Olsen: Right. Scott: I just took a look, I know we've got a new cul -de -sac length ordinance. I think it's 600 feet. Did someone calculate the length of that cul -de -sac because if it's non - conforming with the new cul -de -sac ' length ordinance, that has to be pulled up. And I just took a look at it. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 3 1 Olsen: I think the 600 foot minimum is. Scott: Or maximum. ' Olsen: Maximum, right. Is if it could be connected with another street or if it should be a thru street. It's not necessarily saying that you have to pull it back to that distance. What the ordinance is saying is that there's a reason, a physical reason why that street cannot be connected to another subdivision, to another phase, then it can be a longer distance. I don't know that we've ever used it to require that cul -de -sac to be, you know that has to be a cul -de -sac to be reduced. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to give us a presentation or tall to us about the conditions? Wayne Tauer: Good evening. My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer ' Engineering. I'm representing the Joe Miller Homes. Argus Development tonight. We have a couple people from Joe Miller Homes here tonight who can also answer questions. I think before we move on I've got some literature that I would like to probably hand out just to expand on a little bit as to what I'll be talking about tonight. Maybe I could ask Jo Ann or somebody to take these. Okay, everybody got one? Jo Ann, maybe i you could rotate that to the left making kind of north up. Maybe we can just get a better feeling making Powers Boulevard go, yeah. Well, back a little bit more. Well I mean rotate it. Doesn't Powers kind of run north /south there? Something like that. Now we're getting close. Okay.' Generally speaking, running through the points on page 11 I guess. The conditions of approval. We have basically no major problems with that. Jo Ann touched on a park problem that we will have to go back to the Park' Board and talk about. I think an assumption was made in a preliminary drawing that possibly shouldn't have been made and I guess maybe that's about all I need to talk about it tonight. Where we were putting a pond on city park. Well, we didn't think it was city park. We were just goinil to be basically nice guys and give more park away is what we were going t do but we are going to give all the park that the PUD and the preliminary concept program did recommend so therefore, everybody's going to be happy' hopefully, after the Park Board meeting. Just talking, a couple of minor exceptions or revisions, possibly typos in the staff report. On page 5, I believe, it talks about average lot size. In the middle of that larger paragraph, about 2/3 of the way down where it says the average lot size i� 13,658. Actually it's much larger than that. It's closer to 17,500. Between 17,000 and 18,000 based on how you figure it out. So we are above the average or the minimum lot size by far. That City requirement is of I course 15,000 square feet. Farmakes: Is that taking into account the setbacks and the land areas an so on? Wayne Tauer: Well that is the lot specific. Farmakes: The average size. Wayne Tauer: The average size of every lot, right. Not including street. or. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 4 Farmakes: Where you can't build? 1 Wayne Tauer: No. I don't know. Now Jo Ann, is that a. Olsen: When I did the calculation, I just did the lot areas themselves. 1 Farmakes: So what you're saying is that there's a 4,000 square foot discrepancy here on the average lot size? 1 Wayne Tauer: Well it depends on how you calculate it I guess. We're talking about the boundaries of the lot here. That's what the boundaries of the lots area. 17,550 square feet. Olsen: We can recalculate that. ' Conrad: Why is there a difference Jo Ann? Olsen: I don't know if we know why there's a difference. 1 Conrad: A lot size is a lot size. Wayne Tauer: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I went back actually through each number ' on one of your handouts here and averaged those up. Actually it came up higher but that's what we have on our preliminary plat is 17,550 so I'm going to stay with that. But no, we are not under 15,000 for average lot size. We are above 15,000 and that's I guess the only thing I wanted to point out. Okay, one of the other things I wanted to talk about a little bit was the landscape plan along Powers Boulevard, County Road 17. There was a recommendation in there that we should abide by the City's primary deciduous tree list. One of the problems we had with that, and we knew of the list when we did it but the thing that we have a problem with is the fact that virtually every tree on that list is not salt tolerate at all. Either they're very sensitive to salt spray or very sensitive to salt in their root structures. Therefore that's why we changed some of the tree types along County Road 17. Anytime you have a major thoroughfare where ' speeds exceed 40 to 50 mph, you're going to have a problem with that, especially a county road where they salt quite heavily. I can see that primary list being a good list for anything that is residential in nature where it's 30 mph or less and not a major amount of salting is done. In ' the handouts that I gave you, maybe just for your own information, I did some research. Actually I've had it in my files for a long time and that's where some of the design work that we do was based on. On those ' particular recommendations by the University of Minnesota. So maybe just for your own information you can walk through those and see the trees that are salt tolerate and salt sensitive. And that's why we're changing it. Now again, we can work with the city staff and work out a reasonable solution to this. Maybe not all primary trees. Maybe some on the secondary list are more appropriate. Also I know one of the problems or one of the things that people who are here tonight are going to look at, 11 as far as the plat goes is the tree removal process and how much we are actually going to remove. We have an exhibit that I think most of the neighbors have seen at the neighborhood meeting Monday night but for the Commission's viewing, we're going to pull it out here. Where would be the best place to put this? Right here? North is being that way of course. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 5 The trees that ou see in green here are the ones that are being saved. Y g g Unfortunately I guess I didn't highlight the ones that are being lost. Th major, there are some being lost right in here obviously where the cul -de sac is and where the house pads are ultimately going to be. This is wher we worked with the staff to move the cul -de -sac to the west basically. We're moving this road over. We're asking for a 5 foot front yard setbac here. That allows you the 5 feet. We're asking for a 5 foot setback here. That allows you to...we've adjusted the grades in here so we get down and match the grades better. So the trees there were in the I backyards are now being able to save. The ones that are actually on the pads are real hard to save obviously. We did pull this cul -de -sac back, therefore most of the trees on the pine knob are being saved. And then a nice band along here being saved and virtually every tree, except for jusli a few right here, are being saved along Lake Susan. So there's a major band here. Major group here and a band here that are being saved. And a group that are between the two groups...are being saved. We worked up till numbers and that's on the handout that we gave you. There's a total of 938 trees...specifically shot from here over. And out of those trees we're leaving 279, which turns out to be 29.74 %. Of those trees, you can see the breakdown. 30 are oaks and 30 are elms and 27 basswoods and so o ll and so forth. Now amongst that group we did not go down to this area and count these trees at all or this group in here. We have no idea I guess basically as far as what count is down there. But as you can see, it's all fairly major group and it's trees that obviously are the parks but we're not taking them out. So if you're talking about an overall average, I mean probably 29% is not a real number based on what trees on the entir project that we're saving. It may drop dramatically. I supposed we could go out and get a count down there. We didn't think it was necessary. In fact we are saving 70% of the trees on the site I think is probably pretty good for a residential development. I guess basically that's about my only concerns that I had about the staff report. Was those minor changes in the square footage and to let you know what we're doing as far as tree removal, or saving trees, as far as that goes. I'll be glad to answer questions. Batzli: Let me ask one about your issue with the primary versus secondar list. In the conditions what staff is asking for is 50% from the primary species list. You want to change that from 50% so that you can choose more than 50% from a different list? Wayne Tauer: No, I don't know if I want to do many from the primary list ' at all because those trees will be dead in a few years. I'm saying that they are not salt tolerate and maybe for a year or two they might survive" or until such time as the... You know they may survive for a while because of the fact that there's only 2 lanes at this point in time. But as soon as 4 lanes go in and the salt tolerance probably comes into effect when the high speed develops. I mean I'm not saying that we're not going to put in nice trees. I just don't, I want to kind of get away from the primary list a little bit so that when we develop, trees that will ultimate survive in this area. ' Batzli: So you're thinking about landscaping along the road there and not internal to the project? That's where you're concerned? ' Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 6 11 Wayne Tauer: We will also put $150.00 worth of landscaping per lot. That's also part of our program. It's hard to show any kind of a ' landscape plan due to the fact that you have no idea where the trees are really going to be. Once you determine where the houses are going to sit, where the driveway's going to be and where these surfaces are going to go, ' it's just a condition of approval we prefer and we would put that $150.00 per lot into each lot yet. That's not a problem. We're not disagreeing with that. ' Batzli: So do you have a problem with putting species from the primary list internal to the development? ' Wayne Tauer: No. Internal's fine. Batzli: Jo Ann, on this condition, were you thinking that all of these species were going to go along the county road there? ' Olsen: No, not necessarily. They have to provide additional landscaping within the subdivision itself. You know with the boulevards plantings and so no. We do not want Russian Olives and trees like that. Wayne talked to me about this and we can look into that and I'm going to research to see whether those trees are salt tolerate or not also. But the 50% can easily still apply within the plat itself. Mancino: Is this $150.00 for landscaping just include plant materials? ' Olsen: It doesn't state what it's really going towards. I mean the $150.00 doesn't buy you whole lot. 1 Scott: It's like one tree. Olsen: That was '87. 1 Ledvina: That's a question that I have. Is it appropriate to adjust that for inflation which has occurred over the last 6 years? I mean that would be about 25% or 30% over that time to get a comparable landscape or tree ' or whatever as was originally intended with the PUD contract. Olsen: Today we require $750.00. It's $500.00 for sod and $250.00 for trees. Scott: Especially since a major issue of this development has to do with trees and reforestation, that appears to be quite appropriate in this instance. Batzli: What's the ramification of adjusting that Paul? Any? Krauss: Well as long as we're allowed to do it within the PUD guidelines, which I think we may be. Olsen: Well, the PUD contract stated it was $150.00 per lot. There was a 5 year grace period for the PUD contract that stated that any new regulations you couldn't apply but that 5 year grace period ended on ' December of 1992. So we can look into that but technically I think you Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 7 can now pull in any other regulations that you wish to do. Or else you could even just recommend that the PUD contract be amended and go that route too. Krauss: I should also pointed out that the way the $750.00 is applied elsewhere in the city is it's, if you already have mature trees on your 1 property that are being saved, you're not obligated to put any more in. So at that point you just have the $500.00 for seed and sod... So you wouldn't be getting more trees in that area... Scott: Yeah, because that looks like at least 50% of the lots don't have any trees on them, or won't have any trees on them. Batzli: I thought it was a regulation that the developer had to either II seed or sod all disturbed areas. Krauss: We put that into the development contract. The developer is obligated to do that with the major grading and such but what happens is oftentimes, it probably won't happen in this case because...but a lot of times lots are sold off to other builders and they're brought in 2, 3, 4 years from now and we typically have that $750.00 provision in there to make sure that each individual home as it states is taken care of. Mancino: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Batzli: Go ahead. , Mancino: 670 of the oak will be removed. Where is that on your drawing? Where is the bulk of the 67% that will be removed? Wayne Tauer: 67% of the trees being removed are oak. Of 30 %. Well, I don't know exactly where every one is. Mancino: Okay, so there is no one major place? ' Wayne Tauer: Well, I suppose generally most of them are right in here an I suppose there's a few over here. We do have a plan that typically points out where every tree is. We have a number. We actually went out and counted a tag on every tree out there has a number and it corresponds to a list. I believe that's in your particular handout. But I guess I I didn't memorize it. I don't know exactly. Ron, you went through that a little bit. Generally, can you tell me where most? Ron Isaak: They're generally scattered all throughout but the more bigge1 trees are up on the hill. Farmakes: I have a question also. What type, on Block 1, Lots 1, 2 and , 8, what type of house do you plan on putting in there? That would be a lot area of 12.6, 12.8 and 12.7. That's your smaller lots. Particular 1 has a fair amount of contour there. Wayne Tauer: Okay, which number? You're in Block 1 you say? Farmakes: Block 1, Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 8. , Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 8 Wayne Tauer: ...not a major amount of contour in there. ' Farmakes: It looks like 1 has a fair amount. More than 10 feet. Wayne Tauer: Well existing, there might be a definite break there due to ' the fact that I think some of the artificial grading has gone on when Lot 3 over here was built. It looks like a very definite slope. We're going to come in and probably flatten that out a little bit but generally the lot will be flat except for... Farmakes: What square footage house do you estimate that you'd be putting on there? ' Wayne Tauer: ...what square footage house will go on the lots on this end building right here. Phil Jungbluth: Well there's architectural controls which we have yet to set. And one deals with developing this...square footage, whether it's a multi -level house, single level house... At this point we can't really ' say what the square footage of any particular house is going to be on any particular lot. ' Farmakes: Is there a structure on Lot 3 at the moment? Is there a structure on Lot 3, the adjacent lot? Wayne Tauer: I guess I'm not sure. Probably. Those lots...are sold out? ' Phil Jungbluth: Oh yeah. ' Farmakes: But is there a home on that lot? I didn't view that particular lot when I went out and looked at the property... That lot is how many square feet? That 3, the adjacent lot next to 1? Do you have any idea? ' Is it scaled off? Wayne Tauer: I suppose we can get a comparison. How big is Lot 1...? ' Olsen: Lot 1, Block 1? Wayne Tauer: Yes. Olsen: 12,600. Wayne Tauer: 12.6? I suppose that might be about 14,000 then. ' Farmakes: Is that homeowner here tonight by any chance? That's you? Resident: Yes. Farmakes: Can you tell me, what is the square footage of your property there on 3? Resident: About 135 feet by... Batzli: I don't think we have a definitive answer. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 9 Farmakes: Depending on how fluid the land is there isn't it? Batzli: If you asked me, I'd have no clue what mine was. , Farmakes: Alright. I'm assuming that we're going to hear...vague as it is. 1 Mancino: His house is 2,000 square feet. Farmakes: I didn't mean your house, I meant your lot. , Batzli: Did you have anything else? Resident: No. Ledvina: I had a question. Regarding the stockpiles of soil that are on ' the site. Will those just be graded in overall? Ron Isaak: My understanding is that's part of our... Ledvina: Okay, so those topsoil stockpiles will be completely removed? guess what I'm concerned about is the possibility that those areas haven't been, if they're going to remain, that they haven't been adequately compacted. So those would be cut out entirely and back to the native ground and then compaction as necessary would be done and if there's fill in that area? Ron Isaak: If it's in a controlled fill area, yes. It will be compacted... I Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. We'll probably have questions after we close, get done with public comment. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the commission, please come forward to the II microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Do you have one for the staff? Robert Smithburg: No I don't. I'm sorry. 1 Batzli: Why don't you give this one to them so that it can go in the record. 1 Robert Smithburg: My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North, which is across from the southwest corner oll the proposed development. I'm here to raise a serious concern about this development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed. The concern I have is to present, or excuse me, to prevent the destructioll of valuable old growth trees. These trees, which are 80 to 150 years old, are an irreplaceable resource. I want the Commission to know that I received a letter on March 2nd from Joseph Miller informing me that they II have made several design changes in order to address this concern. I thank Joseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into consideration with regards to saving old growth trees. However, their changes do not go far enough. From the neighborhood meeting on Monday Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 10 t night, I estimate the elimination of over 50% of the old growth trees and we disagree. Tonight their presentation I think was somewhat deceiving. ' Batzli: Can you please put the map back up on the easel? Thank you. Robert Smithburg: The tree loss, there will not be as they pointed out, there won't be tree loss along Lake Susan because that is not, that site is not developable. We have a major stand of old growth trees right here. I'd say at least 100 to 200 yards wide so you'll have major loss here and ' this whole area of the hill right here where the road comes in off Powers Boulevard is all trees also. I have reviewed the 1987 development agreement. In Attachment A, clause 6(B), which I have in my back page, the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plat by the city. I ask the Commission to exercise it's authority to not approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees has been prevented. I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this ' plan violates Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan, the Tree Preservation Act or any other city ordinances. And please refer to Attachment C9. I believe the Planning Commission has the opportunity and the responsibility ' to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does here tonight. I also believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation to act responsibly. The standards of the 1987 PUD agreement are minimums compared with current standards. I am asking you, the developer, to in ' good faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligations of 1987 and meet the current standards of 1993. Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhassen you are a consciencious and environmentally sound developer who will be 1 encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future. Thank you very much. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes ' please. Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf and I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I have similar feelings to the previous speaker, Bob. That ' stand of trees, I don't know if you've had a chance to go out there and take a look at it but you gain a quick appreciation for the age of those trees and the size of those trees. What the developers pointed out as far ' as putting in, I also am opposed to to a certain degree. We do appreciate the concessions he's made to, at least it's in the right direction but we feel it's quite a distance yet from really what needs to be done to save this old growth of trees. Bob had mentioned that they're about 80 to 150 ' years old. Depending on size and also type of soil they're in, they could be even older than that. One thing that's not shown on here is the number of trees that are being removed and if you take a close look at the circles that are here, if we were to fill those all in with red, on the inside, you'd really get an impact about what's really being removed. There is a lot of trees along the shoreline which is not developable. Both ' take a look at the trees that are in this area and here are some photographs I'd like to pass around to give you an idea in regards to size of these trees. What's really going to be devastated. Farmakes: In your discussions with the developer did you have discussions with regards to specific lots or...? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 11 Don Wisdorf: We had questions on specific lots but our feelings are is II that the entire development needs to have more in appreciation for the trees that are there. For example, the ones that are along Powers Boulevard, that's a very large stand of trees. That is completely being wiped off where the development's going in there. There's about 1,000, o about 950 tags on those trees and our best estimate is that it's more like, of the ones that are going to be removed, are the larger sized trees. We realize that the builder has a right to be able to develop thall property and we welcome development into the neighborhood, since it is zoned for residential development. We appreciate his efforts to be able to try to improve the impact upon the trees but I think it has to go further than a few lots being custom graded and the Mallard Drive being moved. They moved it about 5 feet to the southwest. I would suggest at the minimum that you consider moving that Drive more than 5 feet because if you move it more to the southwest you'll be able to save a significant area of trees within that area. There's about, I counted about 13 lots that were deemed to be custom graded and as you know with custom grading you still have a major amount of devastation but if we could, if they havil more lots that could be custom graded rather than the 13, in fact that gives us almost half of those lots have old growth trees standing on them" I'd strongly urge your consideration of more than just 13 lots. I'd say all of the heavily wooded lots, which is about maybe 40 or 45 lots that are there should really be custom graded. That would be another thing that would be able to at least help this development be more friendly to I the trees. This is an issue not just of the area, neighbors in the area but it's also an issue in regards to Chanhassen. As you know we've got the Tree Board that's just starting to get developed. Our particular II issue we're dealing here tonight is going to be very similar to ones we have in the future and I think it's important that we pay close attention to try and preserve these old trees throughout our city which have really been here longer than the city itself and in some cases longer than what II the State of Minnesota has been established, and I think we need to be very sensitive to that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address II the Commission? Tom Rasmussen: Good evening. My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 II Merganser Court. I'm directly across the street on the west side of Powers Boulevard and if you came into my living room and looked out, you' see the entire development from left to right. So I've got a good view here. I guess what I've got is a couple of other concerns, more in regards to the plan when I reviewed it. I was just wondering if the Engineering Department has had a chance to look at the slopes leading to II the NURP detention ponds. They appear to be fairly steep and what I'm concerned with is that if anybody is there with children or whatever, future down the road, as somebody goes ahead and buys these plans and the kids are playing, they could slide right into those ponds. And if those II ponds don't have a bench, by bench I mean having a slope that's fairly mild so that they can stop before they go sliding in all the way down, that there's the potential for some drownings and some accidents. I just" want to point that out as a concern to your attention. The other thing i access to these ponds. These ponds require maintenance by heavy equipment and there needs to be a route for machinery and stuff to get there and toll Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 12 r do access and I just want to bring up that point too to make sure that they can go ahead and clean these ponds so they're effective. If they fill up with sediment, then they're essentially worthless. My second area ' of concern is dealing with the speed limit along County Road 17. It seems like every day I'm having more and more of a problem turning left out onto CR 17. The posted speed limit there is 50. I have a hard time believing that most of those cars are doing that. I think they're doing 55 or greater and we're essentially coming from a dead stop out into that and sometimes they're just boom, right up on your tail and you're just trying to go up to TH 5, a short distance. I guess what I would like to request ' that the City, on behalf of my neighbors and myself, is to reduce the speed limit. There's about a 9/10 of a mile segment that's 50 mph and reduce that down to 40 mph. And what this would do, it would only add 16 ' seconds to the commute time but what I would like to, I just think for a safety reasons, I guess what concerns me is they're proposing a fairly large park across the street and as the kids on the west migrate across, they essentially could be crossing with cars traveling in excess of 50 -55 r and even 60 mph and I don't think anybody would want their children crossing that street. I guess what I'm requesting is that that be reduced down to 40. For the safety sake. My third area I'd like to briefly just ' talk about is that Monday night the developer mentioned moving some of the trees instead of devastating them and cutting them down. Moving some. I guess what I would like to see is a specific number of trees that they're planning on moving. Where they're planning to move them to and it would be nice to get those nicer trees up along Powers Boulevard. And if you raise the, if the slope comes up from Powers Boulevard and at a distance with the reduced speed on Powers Boulevard, then maybe salt isn't such an r issue anymore. Like he had mentioned, 40 mph seems to be the major point. So thank you for your time. Batzli: Thank you. Dave, would you address some of Mr. Rasmussen's concerns regarding slopes and erosion and the speed limit. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The retention ponds are proposed to be built to NURP standards. That type of design allows for a bench around the pond that has a 10:1 slope, which means the first foot of water will be a gradual, the first 10 feet of the pond it will only be 1 foot deep. r After that I think it goes at about 2 1/2 to 1 slope. So there will be a bench around each one of the NURP ponds. As far as the speed issue along Powers Boulevard. Powers Boulevard is a county road and all speed ' modifications and so forth is under the jurisdiction of MnDot. The City can certainly petition the County to also petition MnDot to perform a speed study on Powers Boulevard to see if the speeds are accurately posted for warrants. My initial thoughts out there, it's 50 mph north of Highway ' 5 along Powers and we have built up conditions north of Highway 5 along Powers also. It would be of some interest to check with the State and see when the last speed study was done along Powers Boulevard there since we have had quite a few residential developments go in the area. On another note, the city and county will, in approximately 5 to 10 years enter into a joint construction project for the widening of Powers Boulevard. It r will be widened to approximately a 52 foot wide urban section. That's with curb and gutter. At that time most definitely the speed limit would be lowered I would assume in the range between 35 and 45 mph. Mr. Rasmussen brought up a valid point as far as children crossing Powers r Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 13 ci Boulevard to reach access to the park and continue on to Chan Hills, sin there will be a trail connection there. It may be wise to consider also pedestrian crossing anyway and again that would have to be approved through the State of Minnesota. Followed up by the Carver County Highway' Department. So those are a couple issues that we can certainly pass on to the County to look into as well as the State. I Batzli: Would you address one other thing and that is erosion control. The conditions related to that. Hempel: Certainly. The applicant /developer will be required to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice Handbook, which will address erosion control II needs, slope stabilization and so forth throughout the development. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pete Kurth: Good evening. My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake' Susan Hills Drive. That is the First Addition of the Joe Miller properties. The first development on Lake Susan. I guess I'd like to share with you some of my experiences that we had with the reforestation ' process on Phase 1, and I'm sure many of these restrictions were in place. What the developer had done was to take trees that were native to the are and transplant those on our lot in a very unnatural setting. For example I had 3 trees in a row placed directly on the property line. And these were scrub trees. They met the reforestation requirements that were placed upon them but they were trees that were also planted in a very II unnatural setting and then during the construction process of our home, they were further damaged to the point that it was necessary for me to remove them once the home was completed. The developer met this obligation to the PUD development but I, as a property owner didn't have II anything. My concern is the trees in that we physically protect those. We mandate silt guards to prevent the erosion into the lake. I think tha we need to take that one step further and protect our trees. We need to identify the grade that these trees are currently at and make sure that they're not damaged during the construction process. My concern there is that Joe Miller is the developer but he's not the person who does the actual construction. And those developers or contractors may or may not share his ecology values. They're concerned about production. If those are damaged during the construction process, which they often are, susceptible to damage during delivery of materials, excavating, placement' of driveways and what have you, they're lost forever. So I think we're protecting the waterlands by mandating silt guards. I think we need some kind of physical barrier on these trees to make sure the trees are not I damaged. And that's my concern. Batzli: Thank you very much. II Olsen: Just real quickly to answer that. We do require the trees that are going to be preserved do have to have snow fencing. It's whatever th crown is, we do half again that size. The diameter around the trees so they cannot get the trucks in there and dump soil or anything on the root system so we do provide that protection. II II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 14 ' • Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jim Domholt: Good evening. My name is Jim Domholt. I'm at 8251 West Lake Court. I'd like to set this up for a moment if I may. I don't border this area but I don't notice any of the neighbors who are here tonight and I did raise some concerns about this at the meeting on Monday. This area right across here, there's been a, as was mentioned, a very large mound of dirt compiled out there during earlier phases of construction, and it has caused a tremendous amount of water problems for the homes that are already built there that border to the west and border ' to the north. And I think it's a concern of those residents that something pretty definite be stated as far as what's going to be done with that mound. If it's going to be brought back to the original grade, that 1 that be stated pretty clearly so that after this row of homes is done and it wasn't brought back to the natural grade, there's nothing can be done at that point in time. And there have been a lot of water control problems on the original phase because of the way the contouring originally had been done. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Dave, are you aware of that problem that they have right there on, is it the northwest corner? Hempel: Yes I am Mr. Chairman. There's some existing stockpile of ' topsoil and excess material that creates some additional drainage going towards the existing homes there to the west. It's my understanding based on the grading plan that that material will be removed and those lots will be graded in the fashion that the front part of the lot will drain out towards the new street and the backyards will continue to drain towards the west along that drainage swale. It appears that the drainage area that contributes to that westerly area right now will be reduced with this ' new development once those existing dirt piles are removed. Batzli: So more of the water will be moved towards the east once that ' pile's removed? Hempel: That's correct. As the homes are built out there, the lots will be graded so the drainage area is reduced. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comment for the Commission? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? ' Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Nancy, why don't we start with you if we can. Mancino: I had a few more questions. In looking at the trail map we have here, it designates D and E on the western side of Lake Susan. Are we going to lose more trees due to the trail going in there? Olsen: Well actually I think that trail's there isn't it? I think we'd just be redoing that trail along the lake there. Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 15 II Hempel: A portion of that trail is in place, that's correct. There's already an existing sanitary sewer line that runs along part of the lake • there also. Olsen: Where we did look at, where they were going to trail would have resulted in some more tree loss, I believe we were working with Todd to I relocate that between two of the lots that didn't have trees and so we were working on that too. Mancino: Okay. So that's like segment F? 1 Olsen: Well no, that was one of the fingers coming up from E. Cutting into a lot of the trees. II Mancino: Where does segment F go? Olsen: Pardon? , Mancino: Where does segment F cross and go into the neighborhood which i the southwestern corner of Lake Susan Hills Drive? Olsen: This is really, it kind of depends on where the park property and the ponds go and also I believe that that segment F was connecting in wall that cul -de -sac and that was there. Now that that cul -de -sac is not there, I believe that they weren't even going to do that section. Mancino: So segment F is eliminated? 1 Olsen: Right. Mancino: Okay. So we won't be going through...forested area with a traiII anyway. Olsen: Oh yeah. That's one of the things we were looking at with the II trail. Mancino: Outlot H, which is a...3.9 acres, what's there? II Olsen: Nothing. Mancino: Do you know is it a passive or natural park? II Olsen: Nothing's there yet. They're going to be putting in like a totloll and simple things like that. Mancino: So there's no way to switch parcels of land? II Olsen: Into? Mancino: To build on H and take those 3.9 acres and. II Olsen: For the trees? Mancino: Yeah, for the trees. Kind of do a land swap. II II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 16 I Olsen: Well, I believe that that park was going to be used for active. So you'd probably be removing some of those trees with the park I development. Mancino: Has anybody looked at that? I Olsen: No, nobody's looked at that. No. I'm sure the developer would have comments on that. But I don't know that you could require it. I Mancino: Do you think that's a possibility at all? Olsen: Well if you're talking like to replace that with Mallard Court? II Mancino: Or the, I'm thinking of the southwestern section where Lot 4 and when you get down to Lots 28 thru 38 and also Block 5, Lots 20 thru 28 where there's a lot of tree loss. Massive tree loss. If you took that I area and put that into park, which already abuts Outlot E and just make that, make the park bigger and save those trees and then the development of single homes could go in Outlot H. 1 Olsen: Well, I don't know how we'd get street connections. You'd have to have another access. Well you might be able to pull the cul -de -sac. 1 Mancino: We could do a cul -de -sac through 11 and 12 or you know, I don't know how but. I Olsen: If it's going back in front of the Park and Rec, I guess they can look at that. I don't know. We've never done something like this. I Krauss: You know we really don't know what the determination was of the Park Board when they picked that in the first place. However, if it's consistent with their other decisions, they have sought flat open ground where they can build facilities and if it wasn't flat and open, they would 1 make it flat and open. It probably wouldn't meet your goals. Mancino: Except that if you go back to the neighborhoods and say what do I you want. Would you rather have flat and open or would you rather have these landmark trees kept. I Olsen: But the neighborhood you'd be going back to would be Lake Susan Hilts. Right, you're not going to Chan Hills. They have their flat and open park. I Mancino: Well I would like to bring it up in front of the Park and Rec Commission. That's all. II Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'm trying hard to like this development but I'm not being very successful with it. It seems to me a couple things I'd like to point out. I It seems that the last few PUD's that we've seen we're getting in the presentation I think kind of stilted way of presenting the information. Leaving pretty much important presentation areas modified. So that the il presentation favors a particular direction of the applicant. I think in Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 17 this case one of the major features is the issue of tree loss. It seems I to me that we have a very weak presentation. We have a big listing here of all the trees and so on, but we don't have very good graphic representation. I think certainly we could have better graphic II representations since this is a key issue here. Particularly along the slope there next to the lake and the two problem areas that some of the citizens discussed here. It would certainly go a long way in interpretting this. It seems to me it's difficult to take information ofil of a page or a listing of how many trees and try to associate it to an area when somebody's verbalizing that they're spread out there and you're looking at the total development. That's pretty loose information and I II feel real uncomfortable with that. I also am asking myself, what are we benefitting here as a PUD from. To me when we're listing these properties as total square footage, one's next to the lake anyway on the entrance II side. Off of Powers. I don't see how they'd be building in those areas anyway with the slope that's there. Perhaps they could do some serious grading but I'm not, and I'm not sure how that fits in with our II restrictions. I can't recall that if they went with the normal development, how well they could tear up that area. But it seems to me that this is an awfully tight use of this property and in a couple of sensitive areas, it just seems to me that that's the reason we were reforming our PUD standards. In an attempt to get more aggressive in IF saving these trees. And this seems like sort of a half solution or that's how it appears to me. I'd like to be more aggressive with it. I'd like to, I think that that direction is there from the City Council and I thin il that we should pursue that harder. The other issues that the citizens brought up I think are being talked about. The NURP ponds and so on and the issue of County 17 speeds. You might want to pursue that further. W really don't govern that here but I agree it's been a while. There's bee a lot of development along CR 17. Although I do live on CR 17 and visibility seems to be the issue of coming out. Your visibility's II restricted. For the person who's driving 50 mph, that then, that's a concern certainly. But I've lived on there for a decade and it's good to have that corridor route to be able to go 50 mph as long as it's not a safety concern. I'm also very concerned about the lots that are listed 1' 2 and 8. Particularly 1. It seems to me just proportionately it doesn't seem to be, compared to the home next to it in the previous development. If they have a 2,000 square foot house on their lot, I'm a little worried" about what's going to be going next door on 1. And I'm also concerned about the issue of the PUD. The average lot size. Didn't we work out where that was going to be 15? I'm concerned about the difference of I opinion here as to what that works out. Olsen: Well, with the new PUD regulations yes. Under this PUD, you just ' had to have the average of 50% with 15,000. Farmakes: This is going back to the '87 issue here? Mancino: But isn't it a 5 year life? ' Olsen: Right. And that's true. You can choose to, because of that 5 yea life, if you wanted to, to bring in the whole new regulations. We talked with the Attorney's office about, because of course staff had the same il concerns. If this would have come in today, that concept plan wouldn't b II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 18 approved as it shows today. We would have know better to save those trees PP Y and to have those protected. But that concept plan was approved. To ' preserve all those trees, you're removing, essentially you're moving Mallard Court. You're losing quite a number of very precious lots to the developer also. So there was a question whether or not we should pull in 1 the PUD regulations and we, with what was, the background on this, we've always used the old ones. Krauss: The legal issue too isn't entirely clear. I mean we have a developer who had legitimate approvals and who has made constant progress on building out the project that was approved 6 years ago. The language that says the thing is voided out after 5 years is a little bit ambiguous and we felt that to the best of our abilities, it's reasonable to try to honor that original approval. We have pushed the developer I think as far as we reasonably could within the context of that and as Jo Ann points out, with 20/20 hindsight, if we could do the whole project over again, not just this phase, it might be done differently knowing what we know now, 6 years later. But the fact is, there's a lot of dies cast and there's a lot of obligations real and tangible and legal and otherwise that are already in place. Farmakes: Getting back to my comments. I think we should be more ' aggressive with that. I think there's a difference between '87 and times change. I'm no lawyer and we certainly have somebody on staff to deal with that but I don't think that this is following in lines with what we had discussed at great length what we were going to use the PUD for. And it seems to me that we've been discussing that for certainly a number, at least a few years now. I don't think that this proposal is where the current city's at. Like I said before, I'd be real remiss to give my 1 approval to it. Batzli: Do you have anything else? Farmakes: No. I think that I've addressed them. I had some questions and again, I would like to table this until we can get some of these ' questions answered. And I also would like to reiterate that we not accept any further presentations that do not address the heart of the issue that we know is going to come up. For an example, I don't think Opus should have been in here making presentations showing parkland that isn't part of the development on their presentation. That was a major issue of that presentation. However, it kind was brushed over that they didn't own that. And the issue here is again, tree removal and a lot of numbers with very little visual impact being shown on the presentation. Batzli: Do you think that's the responsibility of the developer or staff to show us that? Farmakes: Well again, I'd defer. I know that you can use some of your suggestions to direct that or maybe we should address that issue. I mean I really see this as a Truth in Housing type of situation. We should be seeing these things we're making decisions on and it should be relevant information. We shouldn't be getting what I would call a directed 11 statistical review or if we're leaving something out of here hoping we're Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 19 not going to notice it. It's not overt but I think it's leaving information from us that we need to make prudent decisions. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Joe. ' Scott: I'd have to agree with Jeff. I'd like to see a legal opinion on , updating or amending the PUD to current standards. Also with regard to trees, I sat down and colored in with magic marker all the trees that are going to be removed and that was very striking visually so my personal opinion is that this project needs more work and should be tabled. That'll the real extent of my comments. Batzli: Okay, Matt. , Ledvina: Well I had a couple of specific things that I'd like to ask some questions on. One of the conditions discussed is the oversizing of storm. drainage improvements. Has the city staff been able to resolve any of this with the applicant at this point? Hempel: No, we have not. ' Ledvina: If you haven't, what would be the schedule for doing that? Hempel: We would hope to get together, we were just talking about it her" late this afternoon. They're trying to get together with Carver County Highway Department to discuss this project as well as the next developmen on the agenda tonight. So I would hope that we could put something together or meet at least within the next 2 weeks here to discuss right - of -way situation and trail location. Ledvina: Okay. And I was wondering also if it might be appropriate to 1 define which lots we would want, or which lots we would allow a reduction of setback limit to 25 feet. I think we don't want to blanket this across the development. I think that where we feel it's worthwhile, we should specifically identify that. So I think that should be done. Also as it relates to the landscaping I would support updating the provision for landscaping to provide a requirement for $750.00 per lot. I think that just should be done. And I guess overall, this site, there's a lot of grading that's going to have to occur. Just almost every, well a large percentage of the area has up to 10 feet of cut or fill on it and again, , we talked about bringing back the Opus situation and we were concerned about the grading on that property and comparing that to what our PUD standards mean in terms of evacuating sensitive parcels and I think if we can, I'd like to see that amount of grading be reduced. I think the othell issues with the tree loss are also very important. So I would support tabling this item. Batzli: Okay. What do you think Ladd? ' Conrad: Dave, how much grading is there? Is there a lot for this type o area? Hempel: The site is somewhat difficult. It is very rolling terrain. There's wetlands and there's the isolated groups of wooded vegetation so II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 20 II in order to follow the street grades set by the City of Chanhassen, up to a 7% grade, which they're doing. They're falling within that guide. It I comes to the point of balancing the earth work too. So you don't have to import dirt or you don't have to export dirt. I don't know if the applicant has done final numbers on the earth work yet. I think they've I just pulled together some preliminary numbers. Maybe they can address it a little bit more whether or not the earth work actually balances or not. But I'm sure there's probably some fine tuning that can be still done to make street grades and building pads less cut and fill maybe. I Conrad: I'm just a general sense that the lots for this wooded land are too small. It doesn't seem right to me and I think for a perspective. If I the numbers are right, and the developer is telling us maybe 1 out of 3 trees are going to go down, that's probably what happens in a typical development in Chanhassen. In fact that may be even good. On the good I side. Even our better developers that are doing, I'm not saying, I'm not making a comment that this is a good or bad development but the more expensive developments, when they're going in and saving trees it still ends up taking out significant trees. So no matter what, unless you I preserve it as park, it's going to be tough to make a big dent in the number of trees that we take down. Even though I said that, I'm not comfortable with this. It just doesn't seem like it's the right size I properties. There are more, it appears based on the concept plan that we saw 5 years ago, there are more lots on Lake Susan than there were years ago. I counted, well it just looks like they're cramming a little bit II more in there. And I don't know that we're going to make a big dent but I'd like to see what we can do. And again I think the only way to solve that is by making the lots bigger. I'm not comfortable with smaller lots in wooded areas. My feeling is that's how you save trees. How many we I can save? I think that would be up to staff and the developer to tell us. I'd like to see what we can do. I don't have a better design here except the fact that I think the lots should be bigger. Jo Ann, right now maybe II they're a little bit over 20 lots that are under 15,000 square feet? 20 out of 90. Is that a mix that we've followed in the other additions? Is that typical and what were our guidelines when we allowed the PUD? What did we? I Olsen: Well the real guidelines were that you had to have at least, that half, more than half could not be under 15,000. 1 Conrad: More than half. I Olsen: And generally the other phases had I think a higher percentage of the smaller lots than with this one actually. The lots are, even though these are small, the whole PUD had a lot of small lots. I Conrad: Okay. Well, I'll just wrap it up on my comments. Again, for this type of area, I'd like to see larger lots. I think for the trees and for the nature of all the grading and the rolling area, it's just not what I I'm use to approving over the last 10 years here. Batzli: What do you think about the $750.00 issue? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 21 1 Conrad: That has to be done. But there's some negotiating in this too. This is a PUD. The developer's coming in here with a perspective of what he can do and what we kind of led him on when he signed a contract like this so we have to respect his rights in this process. So when I say tha has to be done, I think there's some give and take on the tree issue. If they can be saving some trees, and again it's quality trees that I'm talking about. When I see the pictures here, I'm looking at some 24 inch plus trees. I'd be real disappointed if we're cutting down a big percentage of, 67% of the trees we're taking are of a real quality nature' That bothers me a whole lot. Right now I don't know. I don't know if we're cutting down 10 inch trees or 24 inch trees. That's why I kind of need to know what it is that we're talking about here. And again we're not going to save all of them. I think we just have to make a best effort to save the, to keep the essence of what we've got there. I think Nancy had a good idea. If we could be trading some land with the park. But that's not what the developer wants. Your land with trees, even though 1 you cut a few down, is still worth quite a bit more in the marketplace. So I'm not sure he wants to do that. Batzli: Okay. Diane. 1 Harberts: I just want to flag just one comment. Everything else has been covered. Page 4. Jo Ann, this is the second paragraph. It talks about I how the lot lines have been adjusted with regard to...trail so the lots were not within the park property. So I guess the only thing I wanted to flag is, as I'm reading this that the ponds are not on city property yet.' So it's something that still has to be worked out or has that been addressed? Olsen: I think you're reading it kind of vice versa. What happened originally with the ponds were shown within the outlot that's going to be right here. Technically that's taking away the parkland that was supposed to be dedicated. So now the plans are showing the lot lines to cover, oil they're encompassing the pond and your question was whether or not that was taking away. Harberts: Well the question was, so what you're saying is that the ponds' are now within the single family lots and not on the city lots so it has been accomplished? Olsen: Right. But what we're trying to verify is whether or not by them 1 extending the lot lines, have they taken away parkland. So if the pond really is still on. 1 Harberts: Right. So I guess like I said I'm just flagging it. That's it. 1 Batzli: Would you be in favor of tabling this to look at trees? Is that why you're not commenting on anything else? Harberts: I would agree with that. I guess my primary concern was with 1 the 25 feet setback. The idea of having it apply to the entire subdivision here. I like trees but I guess it's the balance of with development. I have to agree with Ladd that with some of the trees too, 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 22 1 don't have quite a handle on the size that we're looking at. If we can save the more larger ones, I would be in favor of tabling it until we did 1 have a little bit higher comfort level... Batzli: Okay. And how do you feel about raising the requirement on the I amount of landscaping to $750.00? Harberts: I would support that. I Batzli: I have a couple of technical questions Jo Ann. I had a comment on the first condition. Rather than limiting it to a number of lots, my recommendation was to say at the end of that sentence, but only preserve 1 mature stands of trees or to reduce grading. In other words, it would be limited to what we're trying to accomplish here. Preserving the natural features of the land which is what the essence of the PUD was originally I intended. The condition 6. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading. What I would prefer to do is that they would somehow review that in connection with our engineering department as well. In other words, tell them that they should look at it. I guess I'd rather have them look I at it and tell us what they find to see if we think that it's reasonable. On number 11. When they're going to oversize and I know Matt asked and I don't think I understood the answer. Did we decide that they're going to I try and oversize? Or haven't we decided? Hempel: There's really no preliminary design really yet for County Road 17 so it's difficult to say whether or not we can incorporate runoff from I future Powers Boulevard through this development but we'll certainly take a look at it and if we can, we'll negotiate with the developer to do that. I Batzli: Okay. I guess I would like to see a finessing of that condition then regarding compensation. In any event. On number 13. Has Mallard Court already been renamed? 1 Olsen: Not on the plans, no. Batzli: Okay. I would prefer that it reads, Mallard Court shall be I renamed to either Drake Court or some other street name acceptable to city police and fire officials. I believe that's who reviews it, isn't it or does Paul review it and just pass it by them? Okay. On 14. Are we going 1 to want 5 foot concrete sidewalks? Is that right? Olsen: Okay, that can be removed. Well, you're getting Dove and Drake mixed up. Is Dove the one that was removed or Drake? I Batzli: Dove is the one that's still in there next to the park. Where you're putting a 5 foot concrete walk from the main drive through the I development to Dove Court so they can get into the park without walking on the street. Is that what you're intending to do? 1 Olsen: That's still showing up on the plan so. Batzli: Out of curiousity, which side of West Lake Drive would that be 111 going on? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 23 Hempel: The existing sidewalk along the West Lake g l g existing W ake Drive north of Dove Court. There's a small segment sidewalk heading southeasterly along West Lake Drive and deadends south of Dove Court. We'd like to see' that sidewalk extended. I believe it is shown on the plan 5 -10 plan sheet. On this drawing. Previously it was not shown. Batzli: It's shown on plan 5? ' Hempel: The dashed line I believe represents the sidewalk. Batzli: Oh. And it deadends just at Dove Court. That's the one you wan to extend? Hempel: Previously the plans did not show that sidewalk extending up the proposed West Lake Drive to Dove Court. They do now so that condition probably could be deleted. Batzli: Out of idle curiousity, why do you want it on that side of West Lake Drive? Isn't the access to that totiot is going to be through Dove Court? Hempel: That's correct. That would be an on street walkway with there's a trail between the, at the end of Dove Court. Batzli: Right. But then, so you have to cross the street and walk up Dove Court to get to the totiot that you're putting the sidewalk on that I side? Hempel: No, the sidewalk is on the southerly portion. South side of the proposed West Lake Drive. ' Batzli: Okay. Okay. I'm looking at it now. That makes sense. On your condition 18 Jo Ann. Olsen: Right. It should be 18(a), (b). Well go on. Batzli: And (c)? So numbers 19, 20 and 21 would become a, b and c? Olsen: Right. And then everything...before a station plan. Batzli: Okay. (b) I think needs to be changed a little bit to reflect your discussions with the developer regarding the primary species list. It doesn't sound like there's disagreement. Obviously we don't want to require the developer to put in trees that can't handle the overspray fro the County Road there. Those are my comments on the conditions. It sounds like to me that the Commission would like to see this come back with a, in order to get a better handle on what trees are being lost and I if there's a way that something could be done to further minimize that. Whether that be site specific grading. I don't think, do we normally put the requirement for snow fences around the trees in the conditions Jo Ann" I think we have in the past. Olsen: It's always in the development contract and then the conditions. I don't usually point it out as a specific condition in here but it can't Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 24 1 hurt, you know to put it in here but it always is covered in the standard conditions. Batzli: And it sounds like the Commissioners, at least right now, would like to see the monetary amount for landscaping increased. ' Olsen: Per lot. Batzli: Per lot. Which according to my rough calculations is increasing it $600.00 per lot times about 90 lots is $50,000.00 with one stroke of the pen. I guess I would like to give the applicant, if we choose to table this, an opportunity obviously to respond to that and I'd either you or the applicant, if we choose to table it, to provide us some detail. A little bit more on the tree loss. Have you, I assume, maybe I shouldn't assume. Have you gone out there with the Forester, any of those kinds of ' people to look at which trees might be worth saving and whether we're trying to protect the right ones? Olsen: No, I have not. The Forester is just now coming back after an illness so I have not dragged him out onto the site yet. We visited the site but I haven't, but that's something. He's back at work now and we can, I'm sure he'd be glad to do that. ' Conrad: I'd like to see a list of the quality trees that are saved and the quality trees that are not. And I don't know what the word quality means Jo Ann but I'm really not interested in some of the scrubbier kind. That's inmaterial. I don't want that to count. Olsen: They're mostly high quality. ' Scott: I noticed that the trees don't get any bigger than 50 inches. Is that a limitation of the caliper that they use? Olsen: I don't know. Did you have a limitation on the size? ...I'll see how he is about that. He's recovering from a heart attack so I don't want to push him too hard but probably next week we could probably get out there and get those details for you. Batzli: Well okay. I would appreciate having that kind of expert input as to whether we're doing a good job of, obviously if we have several hundred quality trees, we can't save them all without buying the lot. Some of them are going to have to go in order to develop this but I'd like to ' think that we're making a good effort at preserving the natural features of this which includes kind of wetlands. A little bit of rolling and some trees and I don't know that the commissioners have a whole lot of comfort level, at least from their comments so far. So having said that, is there a motion? Is there a motion to table? Conrad: A motion to table Case 87 -3. Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 25 Batzli: Discussion. Have we made it clear enough on the record what we are tabling this for and what we need to see? Is there an uncomfort leve by the Commissioners that their particular concerns haven't been made clear so we address those at the next meeting? Conrad: Well the direction to staff is strictly on trees right now. A II little bit on landscaping cost but is there anything else besides trees? Scott: PUD amendment to bring it up to the standards of the comprehensivil plan that's in place now. Olsen: A legal opinion. Scott: Yep. Conrad: I don't think speed on Powers is an issue that we're dealing wit l right now. Batzli: No, although I'd like to see that addressed by the City. Conrad: And I guess I would like staff's opinion as to, I don't know how it's coming back other than just looking at trees and I suspect we're I going to see the same plan. I guess I'd like staff's opinion as to when it comes back if there's significant tree loss, the quality of trees. If they have any further recommendations. Batzli: Meaning? 1 Conrad: What's going to save it, yeah. What's out within reason. And I' guess I go back to lot size. Batzli: Okay. Yeah, because your concern was that you thought that with an increase in lot size. 1 Conrad: It's going to save more trees. Without just totally changing road systems and what have you, lot size will do it and again lot size, within this property. With the number of trees and the rolling nature, I II think lot size is the only thing that will make a difference but I'm curious what staff's opinion is. Batzli: Okay, is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table Preliminary Plat No. 87 -3 for further review. All voted in favor and thell motion carried. Batzli: This matter is tabled to our next meeting? i Krauss: Well Mr. Chairman, we were going to propose that you cancel the April 7th meeting since there were no other items on it. But if you want" this one to be on that meeting, then you have an item on that meeting. Batzli: Yep, let's do it. I suppose 7o Ann had already scheduled vacation. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 26 II Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real uicki just to see if that gives 4 Y J g us time to come back with what you want. If the reports have to go out I next week, you won't get it. Krauss: That's a fairly short turn around. We also should contact the, I speak to the developer. Why don't we agree that we will re- notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know. II Batzli: Okay. So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in April? Krauss: Which is the 21st. 1 Olsen: It most likely will be. Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don't know what I would get the answers that you 1 want. As far as like the tree inventory. Wayne Tauer: We'd like to comment on that. We would like to have it done II in 2 weeks. You know we're on a, we're in Minnesota. We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring to get it done. So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in this thing, we'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be II back on the April 7th, or whatever the date was to get back and go. Batzli: Okay, what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo I Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we'll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting. Okay, thank you very much everyone for coming in. I PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 I TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES, JASPER DEVELOPMENT. 1 Public Present: Name Address II James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development Greg Holling Jasper Development II Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape Don Patton RCI Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court II Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court I Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive I Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 27 1 Thomas A. Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Name Address I Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No. I David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Greg Holling: I'm Greg Holling, representing the applicant, Jasper I Development. James Jasper and Jay Jasper are also here if there's other questions that come up. As far as this plan, what's been done is there's two units that were dropped out. If you look here, there was a 4 unit building in the center of Powers Boulevard. Close to Powers Boulevard we took one unit out there and spread these apart. And then we also took on unit off from the 4 unit building which was closest to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard. And in doing that then we pulled the drive over approximately 20 feet to give more green space between the units tha� were tight between units 22 and 3 is what's shown on this plan. As Jo Ann mentioned, that reduces our coverage down to actually we figured 42.9% or. approximately 43%. When we first submitted these plans we had somehow 1 gotten our information twisted as far as how much coverage we could actually have and thought we were meeting the Code when we submitted our initial plan. And when Jo Ann notified us after we had submitted them, I well then it ended up being just too tight as far as the timing to get revised plans. Get all these plans revised. I think the report covers pretty much most of the other things fairly well. It is very important i for us to get these number of units to make the project feasible and essentially what's being proposed I think makes a much nicer development than trying to get a larger number of units and having to stack them up. This is a typical, this is a 75 foot berm...from 1 to 3 feet high and as you can see it's planted very heavily. I also have a list of plants that will go on this berm. Would you like to see the list of those plans? Batzli: Sure. II Greg Holling: So if you have this, this is a deciduous tree on the berm right here that rolls into these 3 evergreen trees. And this is somewhat" typical of berms around the project as is this one. Even though they're all a little bit uniquely different, I think it gives you a pretty good picture of what...project. So there will be substantial screening all till way around this project...and we need some sight lines into the project obviously but most of these berms are very close. Sometimes...deciduous trees we'll be able to see under to see the project and other times the sight lines will be pretty much restricted by the berming and the planting. The plants generally on the berm are large, ranging from 3 to feet to as high as 15 feet at maturity. Batzli: What do you think about salt spray? 11 Greg Holling: From roads? II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 28 1 Batzli: Yeah. 1 Greg Holling: Well that's always something that can happen to plants... Batzli: So the Amber Maples and those kind of things are hardy enough to 1 withstand that? Greg Holling: I don't know how close we are to the road. How close are we to the road? This is kind of arbitrary as to where that path is going 1 to be so all we have to work with was putting that path inside the property line and there's a fairly small area inbetween buildings and the path to get it landscaped so. We're taking all this into consideration... II probably works the best. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had an opportunity to look at the I conditions in the staff report? Greg Holling: Yes. II Batzli: And do you have any disagreement with any of those conditions? Greg Holling: I guess as part of the original report, the main objection I we would have would be the losing of the 3 or 4 units and I think...did address that. Staff felt comfortable dropping out 2 units. Otherwise I believe...that was a real problem. I guess the one thing would just be I tabling the project. If that's a consideration, when we had originally been talking with Jo Ann, we were led to believe there would be another Planning Commission meeting in 2 weeks. And from what I understand, there isn't going to be now so we'd certainly appreciate it if it would be 1 possible for you to consider the project. Batzli: Would you prefer a negative recommendation to table? II Greg Holling: I guess it depends. I guess we're really in a sense expecting a negative one on how the plans were originally submitted. As far as if you would consider a recommendation on going down to 25, would 1 that be what you're referring to? Batzli: Well I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel but I'm just 1 saying, if you need us to act on it tonight, would you prefer that we give you a negative recommendation than to table it to study it? 1 Greg Holling: As far as the 27 units, I guess we would probably prefer to be tabled. I guess either one of them we'd prefer to be tabled rather than turned down because we do feel that we have a project we can work with and that the staff supports the project and that we can work that II out. Batzli: Okay, thank you. II Greg Holling: Thank you very much. II Conrad: Before he sits down, can I ask him a question? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 29 1 Batzli: Sure. Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chair. Really our district standard for R -8 is 3511 impervious surface and you really haven't made a compelling argument to change it other than it's not financially feasible but I think in the PUD you should. So I think why don't you take a few seconds here and tell us ' why we should change it from the 35. Even though the contract says 31, I think we could all rationalize a 35 because that is our standard. You're coming in at 45. I think you should be telling us why we should consider' that. Greg Holling: Essentially what we are doing is building a project that w feel is a very high quality type project. The types of units that we'll be building are in the range of 1,200 square feet per floor and we're looking at 2 floors but not 2 stories so we're still looking at a lower type building. The basic units that are being proposed are in the $150,000.00 type range for the sale price and these are units that are toll be lived in. They're not rental type units. They will be, I'm sorry not lived in. Of course they're all going to be lived in but owner occupied.' And I think perhaps history would show that these types of projects, townhome type projects are better maintained when they're owner occupied than a rental unit. So we are looking at building very nice units that are we think fit in quite well with the neighborhood. Each unit will be I individually designed. They'll have different textures on the front of the buildings. Stucco, brick and some cedar. We are...I don't know how much more landscaping. Do you know how much we're exceeding the minimum 1 standards? Mark Jeffries: It would be at least 2 1/2%... Olsen: That's commercial /industrial. Greg Holling: A big reason that we're exceeding the minimum percentage oll coverage is because of the size of the units. Each individual unit that we're building. And so in order to build a nice, larger unit that's very attractive for the type of people that are being marketed, it takes on more coverage. And as was mentioned by Jo Ann, it was allowed to go up t 9.3 units per acre but with a lesser coverage essentially the only way you can do that is by having 2 story above the normal grade in order to get that and try to get your square footage stacked on top of each other. Anil so that's why we're at the percentage that we're at. I would say that's basically the compelling reason that we exceed that percentage. Conrad: Thanks. ' Jay Jasper: Excuse me, I'm Jay Jasper with Jasper Development. Could I just make a clarification of that? Batzli: Sure. Why don't you come up to the microphone. Jay Jasper: When we were looking at this piece of land initially, it has" a very unique shape and we were looking for a piece of land not to do starter family or entry level townhomes, because there are a lot of builders doing that out there and obviously you could stack them in there' 1 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 30 II and do that We've done this project before in other communities and there's a strong demand for professional people and empty nesters. I I think the trade -off between higher coverage is lower number of units and the higher selling price. The overall value of that project. You're not going to see rental units. You're not going to see lots of cars outside. I You're going to see well maintained improved projects and you'll see over a period of about 3 to 5 years that these projects typically improve upon themselves. They'll be adding landscaping. They'll be keeping up the painting. They'll be doing all those sorts of things. I think you'll II find that in the long run the trade -off for coverage or number of units, lesser number of units will be well worth while. I Mancino: Jay, I have a question. You said that they won't be, you won't be able to rent these units? 1 Jay Jasper: We can't prohibit someone from doing that but because of the market price, we've not seen any of them that we've built previously rented out. I suppose if someone's living here 6 months out of the year, they could rent it out to somebody for 6 months out of the year. We're II not targeting investors. We're not keeping any of them as rentals and the past sales history on the other projects we've done has been professional people and empty nesters. II Mancino: Okay, but your covenants do let the owners know that they can rent? II Jay Jasper: They can rent. The rent would be awfully high on a $150,000.00 townhouse. I Scott: Jay, have you developed properties similar to, not the land but built townhomes similar to this in this area that we could take a? II Jay Jasper: Actually with the neighborhood meeting I went through this, we could all maybe get a bus and go out there. We did a small 10 unit version identical to this in Waconia. II Scott: Oh where? Jay Jasper: Where in Waconia? II Scott: Yeah. II Jay Jasper: It's on East 2nd Street. If you come up from Main Street, you go over 1 block and you go as far east, it deadends at this project. And it's a combination of single family and multi - family. We had both these types of units. We have the small and the large and it was a mix of II them. We sold just as many small as large. And it's virtually, they're all sold out. Half are completed. You could see color schemes and all those sorts of things. We're going to be duplicating that identically as I far as exterior, floorplans. There will be more landscaping because Waconia's ordinances doesn't have as much requirements as Chanhassen's does and the market's a little bit different. But we're going to be using those actually as, after the project is approved to help us with pre -sales because most of those people will let us in. We do have a model left Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 31 that's sold, or on contingent that we can use and so that would be a good project to go look at. I don't know if anyone in the audience went to look but that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting that I'd be happy 1 to meet anyone out there to take a look at it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else? 1 Greg Hollings No. Thank you. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there someone in the audience that'll would like to address the Commission? I ask that you come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. 1 Pat VanAsh: Are we allowed to do this as a team? Batzli: Sure, you can tag team. 1 Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh. This is my wife Pat. We reside at 8320 West Lake Court, and if I can show the map here. We're one of the more affected homeowners in that this is our property right here. So you. can see that the back side of our property lines up with 3 townhomes. Well 3 complete townhomes and a fourth one right behind it. One of the proposals that was set forth at the neighborhood meeting was that this wa going to be done in two phases. With the initial phase being done out there towards Powers Boulevard and the second phase to be completed in approximately 2 to 2 1/2 years, and that being the phase that adjoins our" property. We would ask that that proposal be reversed to allow the homeowners, especially along here to see a more gradual change and not such an abrupt change in the landscaping. And that we would be under total construction for 2 1/2 years. With that proposal reversed and this' would be completed right away, which by the way we were told the townhomes would begin at about $110,000.00 and go up to $150,000.00 to $155,000.00. We're assuming that those, all those in the back here that are walkouts. Which are right at the 25 foot setback, so they're very close to our home. But with these to be completed originally at the outset, we feel it would give anybody becoming a potential homeowner, a townhome, a better idea ofill what the flow will be between neighborhoods. So that is one of the thing that we are concerned with. Overall I'm very comfortable with the developer and the builder from what I've seen in Waconia. I do think the did do a nice job over there. We do have some cosmetic ideas that we'd like to suggest by some of the other neighbors. Jay Jasper: Just a clarification on two points he made. The ones in II Waconia were $110,000.00 to $150,000.00. Not a representation that the Chanhassen ones would be $110,000.00 to $150,000.00. And the other ones, the 2 1/2 years represented the other outlot that is available across the' road in Lake Susan Hills and that is a future possible development...two phases but that would be 2 to 2 1/2 years down the road. Just a clarification. Batzli: So you envision constructing this all this summer, if it was passed? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 32 Jay Jasper: We didn't...doing it in two phases because by the time we get roads and grading and all that stuff done, we're going to be, to start ' work our goal would be to have a unit ready for the Parade of Homes. I mean that's pretty optimistic but we're not going to get it all done in a year. So we would probably try to split our construction... Batzli: You'd be splitting it right now with the one that isn't approved yet that you haven't brought in front of us? ' Jay Jasper: No. This, we would just split into two kind of phases of construction. ' Batzli: Oh, okay. Pat VanAsh: Okay, so then...how long expect for this particular development that's before us tonight from beginning to finish? How long ' do you expect it to take? Jay Jasper: Probably one year would be realistic. It could take a little longer and then it could take a little less than that. It depends on how long it takes to put the improvements in and what the...conditions are. But the comment was 2 1/2 years for the parcel across the street. ' Pat VanAsh: Okay. So then what you're saying is that at this point you would expect to have this entire development finished by the end of the construction season this year? Jay Jasper: No. Next year. Because we're not going to be able to barely start construction...until probably July. Pat VanAsh: So basically what you're saying then is if you start this spring and go through until the fall, or whenever, that next spring you'll begin again. Batzli: Well I think what he's saying, if you can try to address me a little bit so that we don't get into an argument back and forth here. I ' think I'll paraphrase what I think he's saying and then I'll give him an opportunity later to clear it up if I'm saying it wrong. By the time they get done grading and putting in the improvements, they're towards the fall of this year. They would expect then to in 1994 to build the units. The ' majority of the units and then be completed by the end of 1994. Tom VanAsh: Excuse me. The original model home that he talked about was to be out towards the front of Powers Boulevard... We're asking that they reverse that and build that back in here instead of this area, and develop between the existing homes. ' Batzli: You want them to build in your area first? Is that your major concern there? ' Tom VanAsh: ...two phases that he was talking about. The first phase was this portion and the second phase would be this portion. We're just asking them to reverse that since the streets and the grading all have to be completed prior to the first units going in. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 33 Pat VanAsh: Basically that will allow us to have the property, their property that adjoins our's, that area would be finished first so that from our point of view we wouldn't have to look into the entire development and see the entire construction process starting in the outlying areas and working towards us. Instead it would be reversed and that would provide somewhat of a buffer between us and the construction zone if it were reversed. If they started on our property line and... Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yeah. As far as landscaping, that was somewhat addressed anill that was another concern that we felt the landscaping between their property and our's on the lot line wasn't heavy enough. That it didn't I provide or because if the 2 story walkout...are right across the back of our house, that we felt the landscaping wasn't heavy enough there to provide a buffer. I also was concerned that the type of landscaping because it isn't, they are 2 story, that the type landscaping that they di in there would provide for some, instead of the smaller evergreens and what not, to provide taller trees that eventually would provide a nice deep umbrella. You know further than 15 feet off the ground. That was I another thing. As far as the number of units. Our initial reaction was the number of units was too high. And they have proposed to lower that but at the same time, you know it may be something for whatever is down here but it doesn't help us out any. We've got a solid wall... Farmakes: Excuse me. Could you place that. We've got too much of a ber here. We can't see that. Pat VanAsh: There's a solid wall of units right across our back yard here and if the number of units is to be lowered, which I personally would likli to see that happen, that one be taken out of here. Originally my suggestion was to take one off of here and one off of here or something. Or somewhere, somehow or in other words they did rearrange a little bit ' but if did that, it may have allowed these units also to be moved in further because they are...back yards, which I thought was awfully close. ...awfully close to the back yard. I mean not only for us but for the people who are going to live in there. ' Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yes. I had another question concerning the exteriors. With' the stucco exterior. The solid, and he addressed the front of the units, which we personally did go and view them. Everything always looks great ' on paper, which your initial sketches did, but when you see them in person, you know like reality check. They were attractive from the front. They were, I felt they were not attractive from the back. The back is solid stucco with no detail. They basically on the four units that are ' connected that I saw, they all had basically the same decks. And then I also had a question concerning the stucco material itself. That it requires higher maintenance. My experience with any stucco that I've ever' seen is that it looks great when it's freshly painted. After it's weathered for a year or two, it ends up looking dingy and dirty if it isn't maintained_. To me it seems to be a high maintenance type thing and I guess I'm also questioning does the stucco and what not fit in , Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 34 aesthetically with the rest of neighborhood. That's another y est the neig h od. T concern. We also have a question concerning the drainage pond. It seems that it was unresolved exactly where that was going to be...and I think that needs to be determined before the plan goes any further. We need to now exactly where that's going to be placed. Whether it's down further in the ' swampland or whether it's going to be done on the... Olsen: It's definitely in the parkland, not on their land but Dave can give you more details on that. Hempel: Staff is recommending that with this development that a temporary sedimentation pond be constructed just to the north of this development ' within the city parkland on a temporary basis until the permanent regional pond is developed further on downstream in the Lake Susan Hills Park, which is further on to the north in an area that is yet to be designated ' exactly. We've got to go out and look at the areas so we're not destroying any wetlands or removing any trees. So our overall comprehensive storm sewer guide has shown a regional pond in that area to ' the north of this development in Lake Susan Hills Park. Timeframe is unknown at this time though. But there will be a small sedimentation pond at the end of the storm sewer that they're extending to the north property line of this development. ' Pat VanAsh: And then a point that was brought up in the previous meeting was that... ' Hempel: All the retention ponds in the city are maintained by city maintenance, public works crews so they do take periodic cleaning and there are easements for access for ponding areas for city crews to provide the maintenance. Batzli: Is there anything else? Pat VanAsh: I think that's it. ' Tom VanAsh: Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. I'll let you comment after everyone's had their say. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Please come up to the microphone. Give us your name and address for the record. Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson, 8298 West Lake Court. I live 3 doors ' down from VanAsh's and I'm the one that took the pictures of the Waconia townhomes. They look nice from the front. I don't like the back and the back side is what we'll be seeing from Powers Boulevard, from Lake Susan ' Hills Drive and from our homes along that West Lake Court. I would like to see something changed for color or material or something in the back sides because then it's not as attractive as they might be from the rear. It's just a solid wall of stucco with a few colors in for deck. If ' something can be done. And then I would also favor that less density. I don't like the 27. I don't like the 25. I would favor 23 or 24. Just for that little more greenspace to get that greenery in there and a buffer ' between existing townhomes and trails and whatever in there. And the pond is also an issue for me. I don't want to have a temporary pond there and Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 35 then find out that there's no way to get that water to a permanent pond I someplace because of the creek going through there and I don't know how you can legally change the course of a creek or how would you get water I downhill and over that creek to another pond without a culvert system or something. That creek is in the way. So getting it to a regional pond is something I'd like to see covered here before any permanent approval is 1 given. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I'm almost afraid to ask Dave but, we've had a couple comments about pond and I know you responded to that. Do we have, can yoll put a map up. Can you explain to us where the temporary pond... sedimentation basin is going to go? Hempel: As a part of this development, or I should point out first. There's an existing storm sewer line that discharges approximately 75 fee north of Lake Susan Hills Drive. It...runoff from the wetlands across th street. That pipe would be extended as a part of this project to outlet to the north end of this development. The developer would be extending a line off of that proposed storm sewer to serve the internal development, the storm runoff from the interior streets and housepads, and that would I be conveyed then through the pipe system down to the north end. And we felt that some sort of treatment needed to be done to try and collect some of the heavy sediments that would be collected throughout the year from the sand on the roads and so forth, instead of just discharging them into ' the grass meadowland. It's much easier for us from a maintenance standpoint to clean out sediment traps than try and collect sediment as it is washed further downstream. On top of that, without sediment traps I there, it could also lead to future erosion problems like...washout condition all the way down to the stream that was spoke of earlier. As far as the regional pond, the permanent regional pond in the area, again I we do not have the specific location of it. I have a feeling that the existing stream area and some particular area may be modified and widened to adapt for the additional ponding. We also want to treat the stream an water coming from the upstream into this regional ponding before discharging into Lake Susan. Again, once our comprehensive storm water plan is developed...will be taken care of but in the interim measures, we felt that a sediment trap would be very useful for collecting sediments I from the street. Batzli: Who owns the property that we're dumping the water on? I Hempel: That is city land, it's the park property. Batzli: And will it affect the neighbors' land? Have you taken a look all the impact? Hempel: It is somewhat treed and wooded up in this area...sediment trap I is a dry pond system. Within a few days after a rain it becomes dry. Batzli: But you're going to be taking whatever the size of this development is and right currently it has over 40% impervious, if I'm not" mistaken. You'll be dumping a lot more water over there. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 36 I Hempel: That's correct. That's another reason for the sediment trap. To also disperse the energy generated in the storm sewer so you don't have I the washout and erosion problems. Batzli: What's the impact of going from 43% to 35% coverage on the amount 11 of water being dumped over there? Hempel: I've not seen the overall drainage calculations yet but it would reduce it somewhat in the rooftop area and in the driveways so it would be I a small percentage of the overall impervious... Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else I like to address the Commission? Before you start talking, can you take that down? Thank you. I Tom Rasmussen: Again, my name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court. The reason why I'm interested in this property is because kitty corner from this lot is another strip of property that's zoned exactly the same way. And I guess what I don't want to see come happening 2 -3 years I from now is someone saying, well gee you allowed them 43% impervious. What are the current standards? Gee, are you going to let me do that? So on and so forth so I guess my main point is, I would like you to be I consistent from setbacks, percent impervious or whatever because otherwise if you allow this development to do it, what's to stop another developer from coming in and saying hey, they did it. I want to do it too. On the I other hand, I did live in a townhouse for 5 years and I agree with what they said concerning the market value. The market value of our homes were about $100,000.00 to $110,000.00. My next door neighbor to us, it was rental. It turned into a HUD. It was a disaster so I came out to I Chanhassen to buy a single family home. So I agree with what they said and they are going after the proper market for that and stay away from the $100,000.00 townhomes. You're asking for trouble. Thank you. I Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, I'm sorry. One more. I Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and 1 just wanted to expand a little bit on the temporary holding pond. There are several trees in the area and I'd like to see a little bit more I information on how many of those trees we lose and the size of the holding pond... I Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That was staff's recommendation for the developer to incorporate the sediment trap pond. We did give him an approximately size of the pond that we would need and it's based on the amount of contributing drainage area. That pond size is I between .3 and .5 acre feet. The sediment pond that we intended, we don't foresee removal of any of the existing trees. The Park Department won't I'm sure let us do that. So it will be an area that's pretty much void of I significant trees. There may be some underbrush of course that would be removed in those areas outside the major tree areas. I Gary Kassen: How long is this temporary pond going to be there? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 37 1 Hempel: I knew he was going to ask that. Batzli: You danced around it very nicely up til now. ' Hempel: Well, part of it would dictate on the development pressure around the areas as it becomes developed as it slowly but surely is. That would' be a priority area to look at. Part of our surface water task force, or course we've prioritized some areas in town to construct storm water improvements. We are limited, very limited in funding. I don't know I where this area plays in the order of storm water improvements however. As this area develops, the developer will be providing the city a cash contribution to put towards this regional ponding area. So this develope and the developer across the street and upstream will also, if they canno provide on site a necessary retention pond from both the quality and quantity standpoint, will be required to pay a cash contribution into the surface water utility fund to help pay for the downstream ponding. ' Batzli: But that money that they donate is not earmarked for this particular problem. It goes to the overall surface water quality fund. Hempel: That is correct. Batzli: So the time is indeterminate. 1 Gary Kassen: Alright. I guess the second issue I wanted to talk about a little bit more is the appearance. I guess I do like the front of the townhomes. I think they look very nice. What I'd personally like to see' is maybe some of the cedar or maybe even some of the brick be added to the back side because that's the side most of us will see driving by on Count Road 17 and driving on Lake Susan Hills Drive and also from the homes... Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I promised you a moment of rebuttal. Did you have I something in response to some of these comments? Jay Jasper: More clarifications than anything. To address the concerns, one of the evils of having people look at a project to see what units are ' going to look like. The project in Waconia is very new. The landscaping in the backyards hasn't been developed yet. Some of it isn't in and so t take a look at 5 or 10 units and say gee, that looks stacks. Well yeah, we don't have any landscaping in there. It's in a totally different setting than this is and so I don't think that's really a fair analysis of that project. When you look at single family back, the backs of single family houses, we don't talk about brick and extra cedar and those sorts of things. I don't see why this project's any different than that. If anything, we've got a consistent, well maintained, uniform, color II coordinated backyard as opposed to 10 or 15 different colors in various states of repair and if anything, that's going to be an improvement. The other thing is stucco is very maintenance free and it isn't painted. It's just more a point of clarification. 1 Batzli: Let me ask you two questions though, because I think they may be fair criticisms and you can maybe convince me otherwise. But you have a self contained development here so that the entire, and it looks nice fro 1 I Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 38 I the internal side but the people driving along Lake Susan Hills and the county road there, they're looking at the backs of every unit. They don't I see a single front of a unit. Jay Jasper: If that were single family, you wouldn't either. You I wouldn't put fronts along Powers Boulevard because I'm sure you can't put driveways there. You wouldn't put fronts on Lake Susan Hills Boulevard because that's I gather a collector street. I don't think there's driveways allowed on there. So what you would see with single family t would be all different backyards. Batzli: But you don't see the mass. II Jay Jasper: But these are broken up into small groups. I mean we could do 2 story manor homes, vinyl siding, crank the density. Don't worry I about the impervious surface. Batzli: I don't think you could crank the density anymore but, okay. But so you're reply is really that you're no different than single family. 1 We're not worried about it. We're going to sell these babies. Jay Jasper: No, it's no different than single family and you've got a I controlled maintained backyard and back of the units. Color schemes all coordinate. Not house x, house y, house z where it's pink, orange and blue. You've got something that all blends. I think we're going to be I very attractive. Plus we've got a lot of landscaping. Batzli: Thanks. Okay. I Pete Kurth: My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive. This addition doesn't come as a surprise and I'm not opposed to townhouses being put there. I guess I would like to go on record as being I opposed to the density and I've got a question as far as, we've talked about runoff water. That's a real wet area out there. I know that we have got a drainage problem in our back yard. Of about 4 or 5 properties there on Lake Susan Hills and on West Lake Court there's also a water I problem there. I notice that they did some cordingly out there in this area that's going to be developed. Is there something subterrean there as far as a higher than average water table or an underground stream or, is I there something in that area? I mean it's between two lakes and there's a lot of water problems that we seem to be addressing per addition. We talked about it in the other addition earlier and now we're talking about I it again. Is there something there that is affecting the entire area? Hempel: Mr. Chairman. Chanhassen in general has very wet conditions sporatically all over. There's a lot of draintile systems. This I particular site did have some soil borings taken on it. There was 3 borings that did show a very high water table and whether they're seasonal or not, I think that's part of the reason why the low area to the north up I there is why they're fining 5 to 8 feet of material. Also to build walkout type houses but also to build the house pad up above the water table enough so they avoid any kind of future water problems. Yes, that t is a low lying area. There's a natural drainageway. The ag fields used to drain that way forever. There is a drainage system on the west side of Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 39 Powers Boulevard that conveys drainage via a culvert underneath Powers through the site which they'll be addressing with the site grading. Further to the north is the major I believe Bluff Creek tributary. Or excuse me, it's a tributary stream anyway that goes into Lake Susan so it is, the surrounding neighborhoods all drain to this way so it just was that characteristic will give you the wet soil conditions. Pete Kurth: My concern would be that we address maybe the worst case scenario for drainage. Maybe put in some kind of drain tile or mandate some type of drain tile to handle let's say the worst case scenario. I know we had a lot of problems in our back yard after it was landscaped and everything else. Bringing it to the attention of the developer was kind I of like well, too bad. Batzli: One of the conditions in the staff report currently, and you're at a disadvantage is that these things need to be addressed and run by out' engineering department. I don't know that we can do anything else right now because we don't have the data. We have to do that but that type of information will need to be given to them and they'll take a look at that Pete Kurth: Okay. Again, my concern was I guess is that, are we looking at this as an individual project or are we looking at it globally for the' whole area? It seems to be, and again I was a resident out there for 3 years, the whole area has got a drainage problem and so the water table is very high and maybe we need to take a look at something other than just surface drainage for the area. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. Do you have something new that hasn't been discussed? Jim Domholt: I do. Batzli: Okay. ' Jim Domholt: Jim Domholt, 8251 West Lake Court. Just a comment. The comment was made that the reduction as far as the units, part of it was going to be at this end and shift everything. It was just a comment that ...look at in the placement of this road in terms of where it empties right onto the...so it doesn't empty right on a curve and might become a I hazardous entrance out there onto Lake Susan Hills. It sounds like it's going to move closer towards the crown of the curve. I don't know, I'm not an expert on road designs but I'm concerned of moving that outlet right on the curve. Batzli: Okay, thank you. And that would be looked at as well. These plans are so new, I'm not sure that our engineering department has had a III to look at that. But that would be one of the factors looked at. Does anyone else have any comments for the Planning Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 40 Batzli: Ladd, you've had a long history of looking at development of this particular PUD. ' Conrad: I can't remember any of it. Batzli: What do you think about the late breaking developments and what ' do you think about the overall density and the water problems here, in no particular order. ' Conrad: In no particular order. Jo Ann, the 31% density. Why was that there? Olsen: I don't know. I went back through the whole file and we've got different percentages for all the other outlots. They're unusual. Conrad: Impervious surface. 1 Olsen: There's 29% and some, to be honest where the 9.3% came from, I can't answer that. That's one of the few things I went to look at. ' Conrad: The higher density on this parcel, was that based on a comprehensive plan that began and the developer incorporated it into their overall PUD? Or was that based on the developer coming in here many years ago and saying here's our PUD and we want some higher density areas? Olsen: You mean the 9.? ' Conrad: Yeah, when we put in the three outlots. We knew they were going to be higher. Olsen: Well we knew that these were going to be medium density and we had another one higher density but yes, because it was part of the PUD, they were also looking at it having higher than the normal density within that R -8 district. Conrad: But was it our initiative? Was it our lead or was it the developers? Olsen: I'm sure it wasn't our lead. Don Patton: Jo Ann, can I address that? ...me to give the background? Olsen: Sure. ' Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I worked, I remember Ladd was on the Planning Commission when we brought this thing through in 1987. The plan ' was done incorporating a comprehensive plan with, the comprehensive plan usually uses some common sense. You don't want single family up against a road if you can help it. You want higher density. That was R -8 in this case, which is the case really of both sides of the road. The single family, again you've looked at the comprehensive plan. It's really a very abstract guideline. The plan that we took on that, there were several things. As a part of the plan we could have had lake lots. We could have taken the lots down to the lake. There wouldn't have been Lakeshore. Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 41 There wouldn't have been a city path along there. We chose to go with thII PUD to accommodate the city. When I went through the numbers, again I realize tonight we're looking at two projects. This was 300 acres that III was planned in conjunction with city park and the people that were here all the time. As a part of that we gave over 50 acres of the 300 to the city for parkland, which is certainly a lot more generous than is normally II requested. We thought that we had worked out issues to give the city pathways along the park, to get densities. As a part of this particular project we, at the time of that, one of the, you've got to build what's going to sell. At that time manor homes were very popular. We were II looking at stacking. If you look at the other outlots, as we've called them on the PUD, they're 2 and 3 story units that were planned with a lot higher densities. Lot lower coverages. The thing that's happening today and if you'll look at your market, the society is aging. People are goin� back, rather than two story units, multi -story units they want one level living. I think we've got to live with the time. I think the proposal that's been made tonight with 25 is reasonable with the market and the II intent of the PUD that we worked out with the city and the staff back in '87 and I think it's reasonable that you approve it. Conrad: So Don, was it your lead on the high density or was it the City' lead on the high density? Don Patton: The City's. I Conrad: Basically we've always been trying to find, and when I say high density, it may mean medium density or high density. It's just greater II density than single family. We're always looking for a place to put it. This area seemed to be a likely place to put it and we were, I really don't have a problem with higher density as getting, it's closer to the city. Downtown area and I think we were probably leading the way in term of finding some places to put medium and high density housing. But always thinking it was to satisfy needs for affordable housing. Affordable is a real key word. Always under pressure from Met Council to do that. And I' think we all feel in Chanhassen to some degree that it's good to have affordable housing for the mix of people that we want in our city. This, I'm looking at, I see some contradictions of the 31% obviously versus whall they came in at with what our standard is. And 1 also know that we don't want to set a precedent unless we're willing to set that precedent. Whatever we do here will be done on the other outlots. There's no doubt II about it and I think what Mr. Patton is saying is they're responding to market conditions here. It's probably not achieving what we originally thought would be achieved on this parcel. So anyway, who cares? Well, I guess we've got to, I have some reactions to it. 1 like the design of thl units. I think the stucco is just fine but I do have a problem with the density and I do have a problem with the impervious surface ratio. I'm looking, I would really like the developer to persuade me, they didn't come in and really do a very good job tonight in persuading me. Not at II all. If I wanted to go beyond a standard that was in a development contract, which was 31, which everybody knows you've got to come in and 11 tell me why, and 1 didn't hear that. We kind of said we're going to upgrade the units. It wasn't a compelling case so until I hear that reall compelling case, other than profit, I really have to, I can slip a II II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 42 II development contract but I can't really at this time slip our zoning standard that we have. I don't have any comments on the drainage. 1 Batzii: So what would you like? 11 Conrad: Well I guess, I look at this and it just looks like there is no open space. It looks like we've got a lot of pavement and that bothers me. That's not what we're trying to do. And again, I'm guessing and I'm not looking at numbers and sometimes little sketches are deceiving but I it's just, again I think the density is, it seems like a contradiction. I wanted higher density but I guess I want higher density with open space or where we're not really cramming people on top of, you know I'm looking for II areas that people can go and be and I don't see that in this. So again, I think the developer to me didn't make that case tonight and maybe they'd like the opportunity to make a better case for it but I guess the only thing I see right now is to reduce the density. I Farmakes: In 1987 was there an issue made with the, the claim is that higher density is what was being asked for that was adjacent to single II family homes. Conrad: And we were thinking stacking. We were thinking of putting, we I were thinking affordable housing. We're thinking put more units up but we're thinking, make sure there's some green space around. Now I can't. Farmakes: ...affordable housing at $150,000.00 a unit. II Conrad: Well it's not. $150,000.00 a unit. 1 Farmakes: That's what the developer just said. Conrad: Right. II Farmakes: But in 1987 that wasn't part of the presentation, is what you're saying? I Conrad: I don't know what the presentation was. All I can tell you is that back in that time we were concerned with where can we put some higher density housing and how can we make housing more affordable. 1 Batzli: So you don't like the fact that there's a totlot going in down the street at Dove Court here, that doesn't count for open space? You want open space on this site, not as part of the overall PUD concept? You I know what I'm saying? We're looking at this under a microscope as opposed to the larger overall PUD which is what this gentleman suggested that we're not really doing here. We're focusing in on the tree rather than II the forest here. Conrad: And it's a real valid, yeah. Absolutely. We've got to look at II it in context of the overall thing but then if we are doing that, then we hold to the 31% impervious surface that we had in the development contract. II II Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 43 II Mancino: Well also across the street from it's going to be high density so it will even be more dense plus you have industrial on the north side II of the high density. So we've got park, medium, single family and a lot of high density there too. Batzli: See I guess I've long possibly been the strongest advocate of open space in the most nebulous use of the term on this commission for th last several years and yet I didn't get that feeling looking at this that that's what I wanted more of. It doesn't help me to put 3 units on there ' with 3 stories and having a little bit of grass around there. You're going to end up looking at a parking lot or something. Conrad: Back 5 years ago we negotiated a development agreement and the developer has the right to go up to 9 units per acre here but also has to stay in at that 31% impervious surface. Batzli: But do you want to see, you know assuming there's a market for all 3 story townhome deal, if there is such a thing or 2 stories and you cram them close together and get some grass growing around the edges. Is that" what you'd rather see? Conrad: Brian I don't know but I do know that when you want to change the agreement, I think a key. All of a sudden, when you do want to change II what the agreement is, I think you should make a compelling case and all of a sudden we're focused right on this parcel. So again, if we want to change it from a 31% impervious surface ratio, then I think the developer have to persuade me that this is a much better plan and that we're gettin something for going up to a 45 %. So in other words, I think I don't have to look at the rest of the parcel right now because that was already negotiated and they have their rights to do a high density. Batzli: So you would kind of make this equivalent to Lundgren Bros coming in and saying we don't want condos up on the Summit area. We're going to put in single family and make a compelling case to change the developmentll agreement, because they're changing it on this particular lot. Conrad: And I think in Lundgren's case they did and we listened and we 1 changed it. But here it, I didn't hear a good case. Batzli: Would you like to address the Commission? 1 Don Patton: Well if I could just, Don Patton again. If I could just ask. I think the homeowners, ask them. Would they rather have a 3 story unit I with 31% coverage in their back yard or what's being proposed like this, which is one story. Which, most of these I think they could probably see over because of the change in elevation. II Pat VanAsh: I'll respond to that. When we were talking about this earlier and we said, if I understood you correctly. To start with, that you were proposing to lower the number of units or that you were agreeing" with the fact that the number of units should be lowered. Conrad: Because, to open up the space. To get the impervious surface II ratio that we agreed on. II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 44 ' Pat VanAsh: However, lowering the number of units, I guess somewhere along the line you lost me. When you were talking about lowering the ' number of units yet you're increasing the density. Conrad: You increase density by going up. You increase density by either making houses smaller or putting them on top of each other. So this land, absolutely when this was thought, when you say this is zoned for up to 9 units an acre, that means they go up because only 31% of the land could be covered by impervious surface. So the intent 5 years ago was to go up. That was the agreement. You know there's a mix. When you put in a PUD there's just a mix. As Mr. Patton said, they gave up some rights to put some things on the lake and the city gave them rights to go into smaller lot sizes so it's a whole combination of stuff. But now they're asking us to change that. And then it gets kind of. Pat VanAsh: So what was good 5 years ago, good today? That's the ' question...as far as Brian saying that he felt that they should...become more aggressive as far as saving those trees and more aggressive on whatever pushing the law or whatever it takes to do that. Okay, that same point to me would hold true in this case. Just because it was good 5 years ago...5 years ago we decided this. It's too much work to change it or whatever, and just streamroll ahead with it regardless of whether it's good for us or who it's good for. That doesn't make sense. ' Conrad: I don't know that we've changed our impervious ratio. In Chanhassen we kind of like open spaces and we sort of strive for that so that's a standard that we have set for the entire city. So that one kind of is something that I don't like to give up a great deal. Yeah, there's a negative out there and you're obviously approaching it. Instead of having 27 families as neighbors, you could end up with 45 families as neighbors, you're right. Pat VanAsh: Right, and that's what I'm saying. Conrad: And you don't want that. Pat VanAsh: Exactly. No. Conrad: And I'm not willing to set a precedent to change a zone. I guess that's the other thing. There's a potential to set a precedent here, especially within the PUD. It would be hard to tell the next developer no. ' Pat VanAsh: And there's also another point to make here as far as if you go higher you know and less land coverage or whatever the term was that you use the 31%, whatever that was and start going up. Okay, that's going I to reduce the price of each individual unit or whatever. That is not in keeping with the property values in that surrounding neighborhood. In our neighborhood. Batzli: Okay. Your point is well taken. You need to keep in mind also, and think about this, in case we table it, that your comments earlier were directed towards forcing them to do what you're now saying you don't want. That's something you've got to keep in mind too. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 45 Pat VanAsh: No, I understand. I understand what you're saying. However my comment was, that we would like to see less density. I did not say that I wanted to see it go up. Batzli: But by reducing units you're going to end up increasing density, reducing impervious. , Pat VanAsh: However that part of the point was not being discussed in my previous comments. As far as the units going up. You understand what I'11 saying? Batzli: Yeah, I know. Farmakes: Is there a height limitation in medium density? Batzli: I don't know. I'm sure there is. ' Mancino: Do you know what it is? Batzli: We've closed the public hearing. These were all Ladd's comments" Ladd, are you done with your comments? Conrad: I'm done. ' Batzli: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I'll give it a shot. Self contained is a very good word for II this development. You know I guess as long as the developer feels he knows his market, he's going to bear the risk in terms of if he's going til sell this. My former residence, I came from a zero lot line. I didn't care for it and I'll never live in there again. In a zero lot line. I guess my comments are going to be directed towards, in looking at the landscape, it looks like there's trees on each one of the front yards. I� that correct? Olsen: With the individual ones? , Harberts: Yeah. That's how I'm interpretting that. Olsen: Yeah. 1 Harberts: We've got signage going in. We've got evidentally some lighting will go in. It's quite a bit of stuff for this area. I guess I� question, you know trees are nice in the front yard but are we getting to much? I have a concern with some of the site. Sitings you know with the 2 way traffic. If you're putting trees all over. You've got your light poles. You're going to put your signage. Are we getting too much in something like this? Olsen: Within the park and drive area...? ' Harberts: Yeah, for the internal traffic control. I have a little concern. Evidentally Safety must have looked at it. This one driveway. Let's see over by unit number 25. I'm trying to envision how a car will II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 46 back out trying to maneuver itself if at the same time we've got a car coming in. Making sure again the sighting so I guess I'm really concerned with the amount of landscaping, our signage, our lighting. All of that ' that's going to be put into this contained area. My other concerns again with the internal traffic flow. If you look at units number 7 and number 18, from the fire safety and I guess I'm looking at it from the transit perspective...goes down the wrong way, how does it turn around? I'm guessing they're going to have to back it up around. ' Olsen: They designed that so the trucks don't even have to go down it. They can back around in there but also that's why they have the loop street now...so all are within 150 feet where the truck can be 150 feet away and still service that. Harberts: Okay, so there's not the concern about the... I guess it's just really directed towards everything that's going to go into this area with landscaping, signage, lights, of that nature. This is getting, are we going to start affecting some of the siting for the internal traffic. Some of the safety things. Trees are nice but maybe a bed of flowers is ' just as good considering how tight this is. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. With regard to item number 15. They talked about the revised site plan shall include one visitor parking space per 6 units. Boy I'd like to know where you're going to put that 1 parking spot per 6 units. Olsen: Their revised plan has shown 4. Harberts: Is it on there? Olsen: Yeah. Harberts: Oh okay. Okay, I missed that one. Sorry. Olsen: Well you obviously haven't seen it since we just got it this ' afternoon. Harberts: Well I can tell you that the coloring of the, I guess the open ' space provided me a little bit more comfort level. You know I came to Chanhassen and I live just off of Frontier and I have 3/4 of an acre and as far as I'm concerned it's not enough space for me. But I guess it helped me with the comfort level but if this is zoned for medium density, that's what it says and I guess I like the plan from that perspective. But again, my issues are really run along the internal circulation and safety with everything that has to go in there from the city perspective. r Batzli: Okay. Matt. ' Ledvina: I'm going to be brief here. I agree with Ladd's assessment and I would support this proposal if we reduce the impervious surface to 35%. We could move it along if we changed condition number 2 on the recommendations to read that. And the other thing, as far as the conditions are concerned would be number 3. I think that is really not the developer's issue as it relates to our interaction with Carver County and I would suggest that we handle that on a separate basis. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 47 II Batzli: Has anything been done about that? Olsen: Well we're hopefully going to meet with them next week. The I reason we added that as a condition was just so as this goes through the process we could see if the Council and Planning Commission is in support of petitioning that. We're going to meet with Carver County again II hopefully next week. They're going to discuss whether or not even just the trail can be located in the right -of -way. How much right -of -way is necessary and if the unnecessary right -of -way can be vacated. So II nothing's been done at this time. The City has the ability to petition such a request. Batzli: What does it do to their impervious coverage if they either II vacate some of it or remove the trail? Olsen: Oh it helps. II Batzli: How big of a percentage? Are we talking 1 %? 5 %? Olsen: Well you'd have to measure it by the length. I think I asked you to look at that didn't I? You were going to work that out. The trail ha already been removed from the impervious coverage percentage. It began at 49% so we're not including that. II Batzli: Okay, so they're not going to gain anything? Olsen: As far as the trail, no. But if they vacate right -of -way, then that land that's vacated becomes, they have the potential of up to 15 fee time, whatever it is. The distance on Powers Boulevard. Batzli: Is there a likelihood that that's going to happen? 1 Olsen: I don't know. You know nobody's ever very anxious to give up II right-of-way that they might use. Batzli: Okay. Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina: That's it. I Batzli: Joe. 1 Scott: I think the points are well taken and I would concur with the other commissioners. One thing, just to comment for city staff is that, don't particularly like to see the negotiation situation where it's, a developer says this many units and the city staff says no, this is what we're looking at and then they come in here. I mean you're in a situation where you say hey, this is the deal. If you want the deal, this is the II number. And if you can't get the number, it's no deal. Okay. And I'm seeing this over here, over here. I mean but anyway, no more comments. Olsen: So you're saying 35% max or 31% max? , Scott: What I'm saying your recommendation which was not 40 but 35. II Actually it was stated at 32 in the original PUD but 35 I think is, 1 II II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 48 II think 35 will work. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. 1 Farmakes: First question I have is, this is part of the 5 year agreement like on the previous development? II Olsen: Yes. Farmakes: The major question I would have again is, it would seem to me 1 that we certainly should be consistent on how we treat that. If we get a legal opinion whether or not we're dealing with 1987, which I am very uncomfortable with, versus 1993 which we're all here and now. I do not I understand why we would enter a development agreement of that length. If we look at the city, 5O% of our population has increased in that amount of time. Certainly the world is a different place in half a decade and our standards have changed. We've held elections. Several elections since 1 then. I'm sure half of our commissions have changed since then. We have a difficult time remembering the history of these projects and what the motivation at the time was. And certainly from the aspect of real estate, 1 I think the applicant himself said that what sold then isn't what sells now. Times change and so do governments and so do applicants. I would certainly recommend that we get that sorted out as a first block and until we do that I would recommend tabling this. It seems to me that we would II not want to soften our position on that until we know what that is. By selectively approving a part of the PUP on '87's terms versus '93's and vice versa on another part of that development. I am going to continue on 1 the basis that we're going on '87 on my comments, just to give you my opinion. The level of density that I'm looking at here, whether it's fitting or not, seems to me to be more high than medium. At least from an I appearance of an overhead... I would certainly expect at least if we go ahead with this to follow Ladd's comments in regards to the impervious surface. I also am uncomfortable looking at these plans with a couple of units scribbled off on my plans that I'm looking at and so on. It's 1 difficult to assess that. I'm also very concerned about what the thinking was on the part of the property units, I believe they're listed as 4, 3, 2 and 1. Possibly 5 that are adjacent to the single family homes. It seems 1 to me that very little thought there in softening the connection there was given to the adjacent property owners and they have legitimate concerns there. It seems to me that if you're looking at softening that type of I thing, the detail on the back of these homes, flower boxes, shutters, awnings, da, da, da, anything would at least conform to help these homes in the rear which there's a lot of in these type of developments. Would help them conform better to the front of the home. And I don't think it's 1 our place here to start specifying what that is but I think that if you can soften those issues where it looks like the front of your building is well developed, well thought out, and you get to the back of it. Well, II that's supposed to be where nobody's supposed to see it or that's next to the trash dumpster and not a penny goes into that. Certainly the consideration against the properties that face the single family homes and I believe actually following all the way around, the properties that 1 would face to the rear along the walkway of Powers Boulevard, certainly would be a visual impact of the development. And coming back again to the philosophical question here. I was not sitting here in 1987 and when I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 49 look at PUD's and I ask myself, what are we gaining here. And it seems t� me that I'm having a hard time buying the argument, although it may very well be true, in 1987 that we wanted more higher density homes. That hasn't been my experience sitting here. I can't recall ever sitting here l and hearing the Commission saying, we really want more density. Give it to us. It's always been the opposite. And in looking back at that, I'm asking myself what are we gaining here from a PUD? We aren't saving any I trees. We're not, we're perhaps offering an alternative form of housing which is being brought forth. The older population, although the average age is going up into the 40's I believe which is certainly not immobile I yet. At least that I know of. And the other issue of course is addressing the price of the home. Now we're looking at the price of $150,000.00 for these houses so I don't see us serving, that's above the medium price home I believe in Chanhassen. So I don't see that we're serving any range there. So I'm asking myself over and over again, what are we getting here and although it may be frustrating for the applicant that in 1987 he heard something else, the world changes. I'm looking at II this in 1993 and I think that's the way that I should be looking at it. Batzli: If it comes back, what do you want to see? What do you want to II see addressed? Farmakes: The issues that I listed. I believe I categorized which ones that if this does go ahead, which ones we'd be looking at. I think there should be less density. Less impervious surface but in the end result I' have to say that I have a real problem seeing the need for this as a PUD. As part of that PUD and that commitment and I go back again, is this a commitment that the city has still made because I think if it hasn't, we II should take a long hard look at this in 1993. Conrad: Excuse me Jeff, but just remember when this is part of a big , project. Farmakes: No, I understand that. , Conrad: And we negotiated other stuff that the city got, including parkland and things like that. ' Farmakes: I understand that but it had a finite commitment as I understand it. I'm awaiting a legal opinion on that. Certainly in real estate you do have finite contracts and the issue of performance, we have 11 a lawyer here and I'm not going to get into that with my standpoint but the question is, how open ended is that commitment? 20 years from now do they come forward and haven't developed a chunk of land and are we still I going to be developing by '87 standards? I'm not suggesting that we be unreasonable here but it seems to me that that requires a legal opinion here before we start doing that. And how this affects the other development. Mancino: Mr. Chair I have nothing new to add. Batzli: Okay. Tom Reese: Mr. Chairman? II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 50 1 Batzli: Yes sir. I Tom Reese: I appreciate the house and I'd just like to make a comment. My name is Tom Reese and I'm with Lake Susan Hills Partnership. I've been at this since 1972 and I've seen a lot of different faces. I recognize I Ladd. I appreciate all your volunteer work. Believe me. I think I can add something of credibility that might help some of you with your thinking at the moment and that is very basically, this could have been a single, total single family development. That's what the mode was in the I 70's. I could go back and give you history, which I won't for time but at one time U.S. Homes had a contract on all this for single family homes. And part of developing, Al Kiingelhutz, and I can go back but for the sake I of conclusion, the PUD was put together with the city in concert and they insisted on high density. I underscore insisted high density. You probably remember some of that. So this land was planned accordingly so I the City of Chanhassen would have high density. They were emphatic about it. There was no two ways about it so this planned unit development has been progressing for a good number of years. Revised again in 1987 and as each addition to the Planned Unit Development continues you see what I happens. We're tonight talking about a unit that has a density requirement far greater, as you know than what's being proposed tonight. Now once the single family's put together and you're trying to bring I together something that would form continuity as best you can. You've tamed about what could be zoned. If someone were to bring a project here that would be 36 unit density with the proper space and stacking and so on, you would approve it correct? Given it met all the rest of the II requirements. Is that a correct observation? Batzli: We're not going to say yes for fear that we might see it next 1 week. Tom Reese: ...with threatening discussion, it's hopefully enlighting some II of the folks that are asking for what happened in the past. Is that understood? Batzli: Yeah. I Tom Reese: Okay. I don't think that that has in continuity with what the neighborhood as it was developed. When it was developed and while we're I trying to put it together so I'd like to consider some of the history. I'd be happy to talk in detail at another time if anybody would wish. But it's difficult to work in a partly cloudy scenario and I think that's what II some of what we're hearing tonight is bringing up all those partly cloudy's when it was really emphatically demanded by the city. The concessions given to the city to go along with it to make the PUD as it is today. I hope, I've tried to enlighten a bit about it and then you. II Batzli: Okay, thank you. II Farmakes: Could I make a quick comment to that? Batzli: No. II II Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: Real quick? Two seconds. I think that the issue that I was II talking about was with several points that weren't relevant to what you just talked about. Although I agree with what you said. I think that thil points that I was making went beyond that. If you want me to clarify it further I will, otherwise I'll withdraw it. Batzli: No. I think we need to move on here. I have several comments II but I'll agree with what Ladd said and that was, they're changing what's in the contract currently. We can argue whether we should look at that contract or not. I personally believe that we need to take a look at wha was done in the overall scheme of things and not focus so intently perhap on one density. But the fact of the matter is, they are changing the density here. I don't believe they've made a compelling case to change that and the fact that they're changing it means, that's why we've focuse� in on this particular piece of property. So what I would like to see done is bring this back and give the applicant a second whack at it to tell us why they should increase the impervious from what was agreed originally. And they may be lowering the density down, whatever, but the impervious i really I think what kind of bothers me. Going from the 32 or whatever it was agreed, up to I don't know where, somewhere in the 40's. 35's our II current standard. We've not really heard a compelling reason other than profit motive and this is what's going to sell. Well, you know, we're concerned here about setting precedence in other parts of this PUD or II perhaps in other parts of the city and we're trying to do what the residents want around us want. We're trying to get a good development. We're trying to do something that will sell because it doesn't help us to build two units and then it just stops right there. But the problem is that we're faced with a couple of different issues and one of those thing is in fact setting a precedent that we're, the next guy comes in, we can't stop him or her from doing the same thing. So what I would like to see iI potentially a motion to table this. I know that we just spent an hour an a half and it seems like we're putting off the decision but I think we need a couple of things. One is, for Jeff I think we need a definitive answer from the attorney regarding whether we can just start from scratch 11 and use '93 standards. I think probably a majority of the people on the commission maybe don't feel like they need to impose the brand new standards but they would at least like to hear a more compelling case as I to why this development makes sense and it's not in compliance with the agreement from '87. So is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission table Case No. 87 -3 PUD II until a later date. Mancino: I second. 1 Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the II Preliminary Plat #87 -3 PUD for Prairie Creek Townhomes, Jasper Development for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II II II II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 52 II PUBLIC HEARING: NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID'S ACRES RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. 1 Public Present: II Name Address Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street Dale Keehl 3841 West 62nd Street I Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. II Gary Carlson: Good evening. My name is Gary Carlson. I live at 3831 West 62nd Street. I live in the original homestead on the Schmid's Acres Tracts. It was built in 1895 and I've lived there for the last 23 -24 II years. I want to wish you all a Happy St. Patrick's Day, although I don't know if he'll forgive you for not celebrating with only an hour left in the day. I appreciate the work that you do for the city. You do a good I job. I just wish there was a way that those that just want to go for quick swim could have an earlier meeting and let the large problems of the city be worked out in the later hours. The Schmid's Acre beachlot was II established in 1914. We simply wish to comply and obtain a non - conforming use permit for Schmid's Acre recreational beachlot. We describe the nature of the use in our application, so if you would look at that, I'll go through the application quickly. The number of homes is approximately II 25. The length of our shoreline is 50 feet wide and we're 50 foot wide from the shoreline all the way to Minnewashta Parkway. That's the new improved parkway that you're adding. That you're improving. Our useage, I which you want us to define to you, is one dock and the length at times is, or whenever it was made in '81 but we do have extra sections and the legal limit for Minnewashta, we've never used the full length. We're only I asking for the one dock unless the lake goes low, and then we may put out the full whatever. I think it's 100 feet on Lake Minnewashta but we typically only put out about 50 feet. But we may put out more feet. We've had one dock since 1914. It's a pre - existing use. It's a grandfathered I use. We just simply want to let you know what that use was and we want to, we understand the City's interest in restricting the use of the lake. We want to, that is also our interest is to continue. II Batzli: Can you comment on two or three particular things. Gary Carlson: Yeah, run down quickly. II Batzli: On our survey we have very little use made in 1981, which is the year that we have been attempting to limit your use to that level of use 1 in 1981. You asked for several things which go over and above that use and maybe if you can just comment on these 2 or 3 things. One is you'd like to add a canoe rack. You want to increase the number of boats which II are docked and you want to put a couple of the boats on land. Were those things done in 1981 that you had boats on land and a couple on the dock? Gary Carlson: Like I say, it's a lake access that's been there since 1914 II and some years it's used more than others. Some people that have the use II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 53 of it have never even set foot on it. Some people that have the use of are down there every weekend. But it's a very limited use and there is no, hardly any physical evidence that it is a lake access because it is, the creek is entirely enclosed within that 50 feet. Batzli: But in the past has there been 2 boats on land, 2 on the dock? Gary Carlson: Okay, let me run again down these. One dock. So that's only one dock. We're not saying. Batzli: We're going to give you the dock. I don't want to talk about thl dock. Gary Carlson: Okay. Number of boats, 1 or 2. The reason for that is noll to continue. We never have continually moored boats there. We're not asking to moor any in the lake as other accesses do. Other accesses you look at their access, all you'll see is 12 boats moored out from nobody's home. Aanenson: Maybe I can make a clarification. The ordinance only addresses if you're going to put them overnight. If you're going to launch them at" the boat launch and store them during the day, run to the house and get lunch, that's fine. We don't care about that. The ordinance only addresses if you're going to leave them there overnight. ' Gary Carlson: Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask you is the boat launch, canoe rack of exceptional size or parking lot. Those would all II require us to come to you and ask for a building permit. If we were to build a parking lot or build... Aanenson: No. You have existing. You can drive onto that right now. Gary Carlson: No, existing is, the reason we're asking for 1 or 2 docks is okay, if we want to leave the boat there overnight and usually. Batzli: The ones on the dock you want to leave there overnight? Gary Carlson: Well we have in the past at the dock but it's not a full II summer's dockage. You know what I mean? Batzli: Right, but there has been use during the summer of you leaving II boats there overnight? Gary Carlson: Yeah. We have left boats there overnight. And it's only, 11 if you and your brother are going to fish today and Sunday. Batzli: I leave my boat there overnight and then I pull it out. Gary Carlson: You leave the boat overnight and then we pull it out. 1 Batzli: And how many have been on land during the summer in the past? Gary Carlson: Because it's a non, it's next to undeveloped land and the one owner to the right, you don't have any security there. We haven't in 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 54 the past and we don't want to in the future. We just, if the occasion runs that we're going to go waterskiing Saturday and Sunday, and somebody in the association elects to leave their boat there, we don't want to be out a permit or we don't want to have a citation. Batzli: So you're looking at boats that are fishing boats and /or boats that you can pull a skier with? Gary Carlson: Small ski boats, yeah. Batzli: And in the past have you launched from that property or is this something that you would want to build? ' Gary Carlson: No. The reason I have a canoe rack is because traditionally we've chained it to a tree and as the lots on either side of us develop into a home, they might say a little stand that you can lock your canoe down. And that again is just if the kids are on summer break or they're going to canoe for the full two weeks or one week. But if anyone leaves their canoe there for a month it will be gone you know. ' Batzli: So there have been canoes left there chained to trees? ' Gary Carlson: Chained to trees, yeah. Batzli: But how about launching your fishing boats or your small ski boats. Gary Carlson: Okay, that's the next point. It also states in the history report there was no swimming beach but you know. Aanenson: The ordinance doesn't address that. That's really a moot point because we don't regulate that. We're not going to stop anybody from ' swimming there. Gary Carlson: It's a hard sand beach so we swim there and that's the only reason we go down there is to swim there and so it does have, has always had a swimming beach. The boat launch, if you've looked at the access, it's a straight little gravel road and it will have a new approach off Minnewashta Parkway. They'll be improving that approach. And the little gravel driveway goes straight into the lake and it's not an improved launch and we don't want it to be a launch where 12 boats launch there every Saturday or night. The only reason we use the launch is if the public thing is full. You know they only allow 40 some boats over there. And like I say, it's a very small access and there's only 25 or so people that have the right to use it. I have yet to see more than 3 people, 3 different families there at one time in all the 23 years I've been there so it's very limited useage boat area. The only thing is if I'm going to have waterskiing and I didn't get up by 9:00 and get over to the public to launch and there's no place on Minnewashta to launch, the public I can't leave my, so then I back in. I put my boat in. We have a little gravel driveway that goes straight into the lake. It's not an improved. We're not going to put in a cement boat ramp. ' Batzli: We probably wish you would but okay. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 55 Mancino: How long has it been there? How long has the boat g g launch been there? Gary Carlson: The road has always been there since I've been there. Mancino: Okay, but according to this inventory, there isn't one. There II wasn't one in 1981, 1986 or 1991. Gary Carlson: It depends on the lake level. It depends on what the ice heave is that year and unless I go down there with my skidster loader and remove that ice heave, then you can't make a smooth launch. So only a person with a 4 wheel drive would launch there. Batzii: Okay. Do you understand the position we're in here. What we're 1 looking for actual documentation of increased use over what our survey said was there in 1981. And we have your best recollection but we don't II have anything we can kind of sink our teeth into. Gary Carlson: Well I can bring, a lot of the people that use it in the 7O's and 80's have retired and moved off of the lots. We have new families in there and they haven't launched there yet. So we have always launched a boat there but we're not going to be a launch for 25 homeowners and then they're calling their aunts and uncles and friends and relatives If I can get into the fact that it can only be used and we would like thaill use to continue, it can only be used by the heirs and assigns of Schmid's Acre Tract. And by the way, can only be used for the private use of the 1 heirs so that means I can't invite the public. In fact the City of Chanhassen owns one of the Schmid's Acre tracts and so does the City of Shorewood owns one. Batzli: Do you have covenants amongst the tracts? Gary Carlson: The thing is on this particular parcel. We're coming in all a courtesy to the city to get this permit. It's grandfathered number onell Number two, it lies entirely within a private person's property. It's as if Kathryn owned a lake lot and she gave us permission from now on for th other people who live across the street from her to use and come onto her property. This is privately owned by a private party, not me. So it's not like the normal lake access where the people hold it in common. Batzli: I believe it. Gary Carlson: We have the right to come on to Kenneth Durr's property, the 50 feet wide strip to ingress and egress the lake and that was set up 11 by Schmid and his heirs in 1914 when he platted. So that his relatives that owned off lake could use that and we now live on his properties and we don't want to expand it beyond the 25 families who now use it. 1 Batzli: Okay. We may have questions for you when we, thank you for coming. It's an interesting one. 1 Gary Carlson: We want to leave it with it's current nature and there's no improvements we can put on it without going through a permitting process 1 of the city so it's basically so that you can have that defined and not 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 56 let it get expanded. We don't want to expand it. What we're asking for is just the minimum. I mean you've got to be able to put one dock there occasionally and you have to be able to go swimming there and you like to, if we need to launch a boat, the road goes right into the lake. Batzli: Okay, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Yes please. Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street. I just purchased the house cast fall from a Mr. Gelsich who I've worked with for the past 24 years. As far as I don't, I've never used the access. It was one of the reasons that I bought the house was because I have two young boys and we like to fish and stuff and I thought it would be a nice way to get to the lake and not necessarily use it as a boat launch. I don't need that or to leave a boat on the lake. I just like a place I can get to the lake. Like I said, I've known the Gelsich's for 20 some years ' and how they used it with their boys and as far as leaving boats there and that, it was just an overnight thing and that, I was on the access a couple times with them and I would just like to see it kept so I could use it with my boys. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? ' Scott moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Okay Jeff, why don't you start. ' Farmakes: I've been consistent on this thing and I want to remain consistent. Batzli: I know. I really shouldn't have started with you should I. Farmakes: I think the ordinance is pretty clear and I'm really not going to go on. The applicant knows apparently from discussing it here what the ' ordinance, the intent of the ordinance is to do and what we're arguing about here perhaps is not access but expanding the use. If the city took a survey there, was down there and one of the boats happened to be missing ' from the dock, I could take that as a plausible event, and I don't think that that's being inconsistent. The City's tact with that survey was not totally inclusive and I think that there's some reasonable leeway there. The difference of what you're asking seems to me to be pretty slight and I would be fine with the extra boat versus the survey. The issue of storage, I don't think that we've gotten super critical with the issue of storage off of the dock itself. The issue of access though, I'm not sure if I, that would seem to me to be an expansion of use. If you were to improve that and utilize that for a true boat launching and that would seem to me to be inconsistent with what we can do. That's it. Batzli: But you would agree that they should have a boat launch? Farmakes: No. That would be an expansion of use. And that would be inconsistent with what we've been doing. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 57 i Batzli: Let me ask one question. On the issue of launching. You can still launch your boat over at the public launch. You just can't park over there. Or do they actually cut it off after 45 people have launched' Gary Carlson: I think after so many boats and trailers have gone through the gate. Otherwise they can't...or you have to wait for a boat and trailer to leave the park. I supposed, I don't know if at the gate you explained to the person at the gate that you just wanted to launch and take the boat somewhere else. I'm not sure on that either. I guess II I didn't cover the parking either. We don't all go down and park our cars. If it's the 4th of July and he has all his relatives, all 14 of them. In other words, if there's a little family picnic there and you park your cars...and they park all the way to the driveway out, there will, be 10 cars there but we're not asking to have any cars parking. We're not asking to expand on the parking. So if there's 10 cars down there...but we're not asking for a 10 car parking lot either. ' Batzli: Did you have something? Dale Keehl: I do think you can launch over there and drive out. I used II to know the guy that took care of it over there and I do think that is possible. II Aanenson: I think that's what a lot of the other associations do too. They can't dock overnight. Batzli: Right. Joe. II Scott: I don't know. This is a personal comment and not necessarily mad as a Planning Commissioner but this is my first shot at a lake situation. I don't know. Has there been any problems with how these people have been using the dock? I mean it seems like we're trying to go back into the I history and nobody really has a good beat on it and the one day survey's not an indication of use I guess. Has there been any reason to, or any indication that these people have not been utilizing this piece of land for whatever it's supposed to be utilized, I mean has there ever been any II problem with these people? Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. II Scott: Well, and I don't expect you to know full knowledge. As far as I'm concerned, I think we should just, they don't have a tremendous amount of space to work with. It doesn't seem like there's heavy use. I think II we should grant them their non - conforming use. That's the end of my discussion. Batzli: So do you feel comfortable with what they've asked for in view of what we think they've had in the past? Scott: We don't really know what they've had in the past and I don't II think you can determine it from a one shot aerial photograph or somebody wandering down there so I'd take them on their word and let it go with it. 1 1 i Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 58 Batzli: Okay. That's a fair assessment. I think Matt may present the opposing viewpoint here though. Go ahead. ' Scott: Which is fine. ' Ledvina: You know I feel that we do have to evaluate the survey and take what we can from that survey. I agree with Jeff's position. A boat can be out on the lake. We've gone over that many times. I don't need to do that here. So I would be in favor of allowing one boat to be docked 11 overnight at the dock. The other conditions are fine but I would draw the line at the boat launch because I think there's other issues that are associated with a boat launch that relate to environmental effects and control and things like that. So I would not support approving the boat launch. Batzli: Parking's okay? Boats on land are okay? Ledvina: That's all fine. Everything else is fine as far as I'm concerned. And again the major issue that we've been dealing with is ' boats docked and I would see that 1 would be a reasonable situation for this beachlot. Farmakes: Well it's 1 or 2. ' Batzli: Well we've got to come up with a number eventually. 11 Ledvina: I would support 1. Farmakes: There's a 50% difference. Batzli: Or 100% if it's 1. Okay Ladd. ' Conrad: I don't believe the boat launch is acceptable. I think the other requests are okay. Boats docked can be, well it's not docked. Boats on land. I think we're asking how many can be on land, right? 1 Aanenson: Yeah. Some of those associations, I think it was like Pleasant Grove, they had actually boats for fishing that they left on land and they just brought the motors down. So it's question of should we qualify that. They're always there. That's kind of what they do here. They tie them up or chain them up to a tree. Conrad: So again, I think I'm okay with everything other than the boat launch. Batzli: Do you want 1 or 2 boats? Conrad: 1. Batzli: Both cases? On land and on dock? Conrad: I think we're only, I was responding to a recommendation that, I didn't think we were making a recommendation on the dock. Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 59 II Aanenson: Well you have to decide if you feel it's consistent. They're saying that they had one dock. We're saying, whoever did the survey in '81 saw one dock. The 45 feet again, that can fluctuate with the level o the lake. What the ordinance says is 50 feet maximum or to get a depth o 4 feet. So really if you feel like that's consistent that they had a dock, and he says they had a dock, if you feel that's. 1 Conrad: The dock's fine. Boat on land. One boat on land. Boats on dock overnight, no. Swimming beach is okay. I find a conflict between the on 1981 inventory where we showing off street parking of 5 to 6 and on our inventory in '81, '86 and '91 showing no, no, no. I don't understand that. But on the other hand, I'm not hearing any neighbors complaining sil I guess I could accept the off street parking. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: Just no to the boat launch. Everything else I agree with. I'll like 2 boats so I know where he's coming from. Batzli: Okay. , Mancino: Well after hearing you wise people, I'm for the dock. 10 off II street parking. No boat launch. 1 canoe rack. 1 boat on land. 1 boat docked. Is there anything else? I think that's it. Batzli: Okay. I think what you're hearing so far is that we don't have 11 problem with your use other than the launch and what you need to do is, what we're going to about to do, I get the feeling, is we're going to make a recommendation. If you can present evidence to the City Council that II your property was used as a launch back in 1981, you will probably convince them to also include the launch but you haven't given us enough evidence to feel comfortable giving that to you here tonight. If you can find pictures. If you can have people come in. Whatever. What we've been trying to do is put the burden on the applicant. If it's above what we thought was there, you have the burden to prove to us that it was used in that way. We're not trying to take it away, something that you've bee. doing but you need to give us something so that we can hang our hat on it and say yeah, go ahead and continue to use it that way. So between now and when this goes to City Council, if you have a picture of somebody launching their boat, whatever you know. II Harberts: Can it just be a written letter? Batzli: Well we've gotten those from people as well. We've gotten II affidavits from people saying. Aanenson: Pictures, yeah. 1 Batzli: Pictures, whatever. But we didn't get really much of anything and I think there was just a level of discomfort that by making it a launch, you've increased the intensity. Whereas a couple boats on there, fishing boats, things, that's not a real intense use. And that's what this whole thing is intended to do is to keep these small beachlots from 11 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 60 becoming real intense and irritating the people around them and over crowding the lake. Okay? Gary Carlson: I think we should accept your recommendation... ' Batzli: Okay. Gary Carlson: Because two things will happen. First of all, when you say launch, a boat and trailer...If someone sees that it's a, the only people who will launch will be my neighbor...but if you say launch and I tell everyone there's going to be a launch. ' Batzli: Well we're going to say no launch in a minute so don't worry about that Gary Carlson: If you say no launch, fine. Batzli: Okay. Do we have a motion? ' Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit application by Schmid's Acre according to or consistent with the request and specifically with ' these exceptions. The number of boats docked to 1. Number of boats on land being 1 and an exception to the request for a boat launch. No boat launch. 11 Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Schmid's Acres with the continued use of one dock, 1 boat parked at the dock, 1 boat parked on land, off street parking for 10, 1 canoe rack, and ' no boat launch permitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: When does this go to the Council? Aanenson: It should be on April 12th. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT 7900 MONTEREY DRIVE. WEST ONE EXPANSION, DOUG HANSON. WEST ONE PROPERTIES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I live in Minnetonka. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 61 11 Batzli: I'm sorry. Before you start in, I have one more question of Jo Ann. Are you done with the rest of your staff report? II Olsen: I was just going to finish to say that there used to be 5 users i this building. As Chaska has expanded, they've pushed them out. He, Doug Hanson who will be explaining that he is proposing with this expansion that he will locate his own construction business there also and I believ a plumber. So I think we need to have it clear exactly who would be using that site. i Farmakes: Can I ask for some additional site plan, I guess this isn't site plan review but some concept on how this is in relationship to the Burdick property that still remains behind Target and that road going in. I believe we might have a few drawings in the back of there of Target, bu we don't see that on any of this. The relationship of this building to the area behind Target and the drive in, the service road that goes back II behind there. Olsen: Right here is...Market Square... This is Pica Drive and this is 11 where you get into Target... Farmakes: But there still are some lots I believe behind Target. There's 2 lots. 1 Olsen: ...where the trees are? Farmakes: Okay, down there by your stomach. 1 Batzli: But is this contingent upon, I mean looking at Don's comments II here. Is this all contingent upon, rezoning this PUD can be made contingent upon the HRA selling this hunk of land? Olsen: Well they have, they own it and they have total control now. 1 Batzli: Yeah but I don't want to rezone this PUD. Olsen: If the HRA. II Batzli: Well it says here, isn't this hunk, is this a proposed expansion? Is that going on land that's owned by the HRA right now? 1 Olsen: Correct. Right. Batzli: So can we make this contingent, because I don't see in any of th1 conditions that this is contingent upon them getting all the property under common ownership. II Olsen: Sure you can. Batzli: If they don't do that, then there's no point in us rezoning thesil individual little parcels PUD. Olsen: Exactly. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 62 Batzli: Okay. Please, go ahead. 1 Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I was one of the builders, the partner of Tom Klingelhutz back in '78. We had about 5 previous people as tenants in there. It was office /warehouse. DayCo Concrete was in there. Vernco Maintenance. Frontier Meats. There was an auto body shop in there and there's another one but I can't think of what it was. But eventually Chaska Machine has taken over the whole operation and they're in a position to expand. They would like to stay there if they could. We would, I have a company, Hanson Hometech. We do residential remodeling. I work with my two sons. Steinkraus Plumbing would be another tenant and we would share a small area in the very end of this building. About 2,000 square feet. We would share the office and the secretary /receptionist. That type of thing. Otherwise it's mainly for Chaska Machine. And the future expansion area would be for them also as they grow. There's 5,400 ' square feet in the proposed expansion... The highway is here and the railroad tracks is here... Batzli: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Harberts: I have a comment. Chaska Business Machines as well as the Target area, if you recall when Target came before the Commission there was a transit element involved and it's simply because of the amount of traffic and trips that would probably be generated in the Target area. Chaska Business Machines is one of the businesses that are being targeted for reverse commute opportunities. Basically bringing people from the inner city out to a possible location such as Chaska Business for employment. And because of the location, and what could potentially happen with these other areas, my comment is that I would like to have Southwest Metro involved in the, if this thing goes forward, to add that transit element in here because I see a potential high demand for public bus service to bring potential workers out to this area. Especially with Target...and what I'm seeing right now is basically maybe just adding like a bus shelter or a bus stop or something in that turn around area. That circle, that cul -de -sac little thing. So I'd like to encourage that Southwest Metro become involved with this conceptual site plan design to insure that it's transit friendly and that it continues to fill that reverse commute strategy. Olsen: By transit friendly you mean that a bus can get in there or a van? Harberts: More a van but just basically putting maybe a bench or a bus shelter or something. Simply, you know with Chaska Business Machines is expanding. They're going to expand their work force. They've already been identified as a company out in Chanhassen to promote reverse commute. 5o I just think that they're a top candidate to really focus in on making sure that this facility is transit friendly. That would be basically the same concept that you see presented to you when you looked at the Target site plan. Batzli: Any other comments right now? Okay. Did you have anything else? Doug Hanson: I'm here to answer any questions. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 63 1 Batzli: Okay. We'll probably ask them in a minute. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mancino: I have one question. Batzli: Go ahead. 1 Mancino: My big question is, is that the comprehensive plan that was don in 1992 designated this property as commercial even when Chaska Machine and Tool were there at the time. I'd just like to hear the rationale behind that. Why did they not, when Chaska Machine and Tool were in there at the time in 1992, designate it as industrial? Or light manufacturing. 1 Batzli: Because we're trying to get all the manufacturing out of the city and we assumed that once they were ready to leave or we'd buy them out, i would be commercial property. It's downtown. Farmakes: But the ensuing developments that occurred basically boxed in that property from any reasonable access or for potential client, retail client to see it. It just isn't going to happen. You're going to have t know it's back there because you're not going to see it from anywhere else. 1 Mancino: So commercial, is that only retail or could that be office? Farmakes: Well it possibly could be office. 1 Mancino: It could be an office. So it could still be commercial and not be retail but be. 1 Farmakes: That's correct. Batzli: And that's the big issue. 1 Farmakes: Except most of our office buildings are retail. We've heard arguments about that before too. That's what they wind up being. Harberts: But isn't the office industry also telling us that it's going to be another 10 years before that market comes back around? 1 Farmakes: That's how things progressed in development of the city. Eventually come the lawyers... Mancino: The industrial is an anomaly there. The way it looks right now and to keep adding onto it and make it even bigger, it just doesn't fit. That's all I have. 1 Batzli: Jeff. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 64 Farmakes: It would depend on how they would revision that building. I ' have I think real sympathy that that particular piece of property would not work as a retail and I'm not sure that the foreseeable future if it's feasible to consider it as a business area. It is sort of a little hold ' over pocket from a failed development many years ago of, I remember seeing, I will build on this site your company sign, I don't know a decade at least. I never saw one of the properties being sold. I'm not sure that this is going to be something that's going to be easy for the City to deal with as to what they're going to do with this This may be a reasonable alternative. It isn't very low impact area. It's going to be basically surrounded by other buildings and the only way you're going to be able to see it is for a very brief time as you drive over the bridge. Certainly one of the possibilities is giving it a facelift and eliminating any of the types of objectionable industrial use that'd be incompatible such as on site storage of machinery or materials that would be objectionable. Expanding that type of useage I think would be the wrong way to go. But I think from a conceptual point of how we're looking at this, I wouldn't turn it down flat and say that's not a reasonable alternative to use this property. I'd leave that up to the applicant as to how they would soften that connection of an industrial use with what is on the plan that designates it as a commercial area. In other words, the more you could make it look like a business building, office building, the better off a case could be made that that was being done as a solution. That's my comment. i Batzli: So right now you'd be willing to look at it as a PUD or wouldn't you be willing to vote on the concept and rezoning? Farmakes: As I understood it, what we're looking at here today is just the concept itself...correct? ' Batzli: Right. Farmakes: We're not voting to make this a PUD today? Conceptually yeah. ' Harberts: What message are we sending to the HRA though? Batzli: Yeah. Farmakes: Well we really don't. 11 Batzli: If we vote on it conceptually that we like it, then they're going to get the impression that we'll approve it or something soften down the road. ' Harberts: Or we cave in on something. Farmakes: That's difficult to do here because we're really looking at a very preliminary concept. What we're looking at here. We're not looking at any detailing or what they're planning on doing with the building other than expanding the connection use. Batzli: But it sounds like, I've heard one person say this isn't appropriate. You say maybe, if it's done right. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 65 Farmakes: Correct. II Batzli: Okay. II Doug Hanson: Could I say something? Batzli: Sure. II Doug Hanson: I plan to follow the building that's there. It's a 20,000 square feet building there and I just, all you're seeing is another 30 II foot and a turn and another 60 foot. And so there's really not much different on the front so I would follow the same site, the same architecture that's there right now. Farmakes: In long term use for downtown and if you're looking at where iII the long term in the market developed for business /office type market, which is not, I don't believe here yet or we haven't seen that II demonstrated by our developers. We do have a fairly limited amount of space downtown where that would go so that's another thing for consideration in reviewing this. I'm just saying that it's how far down 11 the line you wish to look for this type of useage. This is a possible solution for the existing building and I don't think that I've got enough information to go one way or the other. Scott: If from a manufacturing standpoint, could you tell us, and I especially me, what happens in that building? What do you do in there? When you manufacture. Manufacturing... 1 Doug Hanson: Okay, it's Chaska Machine and Tool and punch presses and they make parts for machines. They're shipped all over. I Scott: Custom fabrication. Doug Hanson: Yeah. Just small, mainly small parts. 1 Scott: So you guys basically take, your raw materials are metal? Doug Hanson: Yep. II Scott: Metal castings? Doug Hanson: No metal, sheet metal. II Scott: Pretty much sheet metal? II Doug Hanson: Stamped parts and machine parts and things like that. Scott: Okay. So as far as any sort of, and then the scrap, basically a II scrap hauler takes it away and recycles it or something? Doug Hanson: Yeah, it's recycled. Right. II Scott: Okay. And then as far as, is there any sort of hazardous material that we could probably get some fumes? I II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 66 Doug Hanson: No. Scott: You know when I was down there, it was hard for me to tell but my ' opinion is conceptually I don't have a problem with this at all. Granted there's some architectural features on some adjacent buildings that need to be considered but I figure, it seems like this property is probably not 11 that useful for something else and if these guys happen to grow out of it or, I mean office warehouse is pretty useful space. But then you've got an industrial, a couple of things in the TIF district that have some of that empty space anyway. So I mean you're right, the market isn't there. But conceptually I don't have a problem with it and from a standpoint, they've got a business running here. They're looking at expanding. It looks like a logical alternative, so that's my opinion on it. r Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I share the same sentiments as Joe here. I think this seems to be a reasonable extension of the existing use. I guess in looking at some of the conditions in the staff report here, we have on number 3 the expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the 11 existing building. And we looked at, recently we looked at, was it...and we changed that building to, or we suggested the developer change the building to include some pitched roof elements and I think you could ' easily do the same thing for the expansion and make it work. Because much of the building is, you know has a flat roof and then you can have an entrance or something like that that has a pitched element to improve the architecture or increase the standard or whatever. So I think we could ' change that to say matching and enhance the architectural design. But I guess other than that, I agree. It's kind of a weird little corner and if it can be expanded to an increased use by...use, I think it should be ' done. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. ' Conrad: I saw an interesting figure tonight. An acre of commercial land sells for 8130,000.00 in Chanhassen. An acre of industrial land is a little bit over 840,000.00. And so what's the implication of value. As you talk industrial, there's a gap between that and what commercial property is valued at. How does this impact our decision? Olsen: Well in the value of it, and all of that kind of gets back to the HRA. It's their final decision whether or not to sell it, and that's where we got involved in this because of the HRA wanting to know, is this an option. What were the options and so the Manager's comment is right. Which one goes first. If they choose to not sell it and feel that they could sell it commercial and receive more money, that's their decision I think. As far as us, I don't know that we're involved in that. Conrad: Okay. From a planning perspective, I have no problems with that at all. Batzli: That's it? Conrad: That's all there is. 1 Planning Commission Meeting II March 17, 1993 - Page 67 Batzli: Okay. Diane. II Harberts: I have no problem with it. Again, I just want to recommend II there be some transit planning, and that's for the future. Batzli: Okay, is that it? ...Ladd's remark that from a planning perspective I have no problem with this at all. I'm more on Jeff's II wavelength. It probably could be done if it's done right and I guess I'd give it a shot at a conceptual stage and let the HRA determine whether it's a smart move to sell it for a third of the price that they could II maybe get doing something else. Given it's location. Maybe they can't. I would add one condition that any approvals that we're doing tonight is contingent on the applicant's purchase of the land, which it's shown on. II The plans we're looking at. The additional lands. Olsen: So you would not like to see this proceed until he's actually finished that deal? The conceptual plans. 1 Batzli: Well, I find it difficult to move too far down the road if the HRA isn't willing to do it. II Olsen: Right, I agree. Doug Hanson: I've given them a purchase agreement and they're just I holding it until it goes through here. Batzli: Right. But I'm just saying that if the HRA at their next II meeting, after we approve this says they're not going to sell you the land, then one of our conditions was that they sell you the land. Doug Hanson: Yeah, I agree. I can't do anything otherwise. 1 Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? II Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Concept Plan Request to Rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD with the following conditions as outlined in the II staff report subject to the following modifications and additions. Condition number 3 should read, the expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building. The II addition of condition 7 which would read, prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question. And condition 8, that transit planning be incorporated into the development. Batzli: Is there a second? ' Harberts: Second. i Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of the concept plan request to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 68 1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following approvals: ' a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements. 11 b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from commercial to industrial. c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion. d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with the proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing use, light manufacturing. A higher intensity industrial use will not be permitted at this site. 3. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted. 5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed 1 70 %. 7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question from the HRA. 8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONES. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Kvichang 6681 Horseshoe Curve (The following people signed the public hearing sheet but had left by this ' point in the meeting.) Randy & Rayma Smith 429 Pleasant View Greg & Barb Hedlund 748 Lake Point Donald & Beverly Hanson 8516 Great Plains Blvd. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 17, 1993 - Page 69 Batzli: Do we want to tackle the dock setback? 11 Aanenson: I've had a lot of phone calls on this. Everybody on all the lakes in the city. Batzli: And we have one person. And we made him stay here until midnight. Aanenson: I took at least 50 phone calls on this. If I notice it again, we have to notify everybody on the lakes again and go through that whole II process, what happens? I'd really prefer. Batzli: Commissioners, are you up for one more? I hate to do this. ' Scott: Just as long as it isn't a filibuster. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli II called the public hearing to order. Farmakes: How does this conform to the DNR criteria for lot extensions II beyond the high water mark? Aanenson: Well in this instance, as far as the 100 foot. Farmakes: But the angle of the property lines as they extend into the lake. How does that? Aanenson: There's no jurisdiction there. Farmakes: The DNR has no jurisdiction there? ' Aanenson: Below the ordinary high water mark? As far as the dock going out the 100 foot, that's in compliance with this. The jurisdiction going 100 feet. Above the ordinary high water mark is our jurisdiction. I guess I'm not really clear what you're. Farmakes: If the angle of the property continues, in other words, that property line, does it continue beyond out into the water. Aanenson: 100 feet. That's all they care about. They don't care how well measure it. That's really based on the complaints that we've had of people that have descending lots, pie shaped lots. The people that have cots that are increasing in size, pinching off the neighbors. It's really just to make a good neighbor policy for the city. That's where that camel' from. It's driven by us. The DNR really doesn't care how we. Farmakes: This isn't conflicting with their's? ' Aanenson: No. No. What we're trying to do is make a good neighbor policy is really what it's about. And we really want to get this in plac before we get into the summer months and boating. Before people put their docks out. Another reason why we wanted to get it forward on the agenda. By the time it gets through Council and we can have it adopted, people putting their docks out this spring will be able to comply with this. ' ' Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 70 Farmakes: Is this going to be enforced on a complaint basis? Aanenson: Yeah. We've never, to my knowledge, the City hasn't gone out, ' although I volunteered, to go out and boat each lake. To make sure they're all in compliance. To go out and actually take a transit and go out and try to survey these, it's pretty difficult but we do try to do them on a complaint basis. I had 2 or 3 of them last summer where I went out and checked. And again, we just try to work with the neighbors to be a good neighbor kind of a policy. 1 Batzli: Explain to me on the one where you extended the lot line then on the little inlet there. Why the person gets, no to the left. Yeah. Why that person gets such a narrow line and the other guy has such a big line. ' Aanenson: Well if you do that at a right angle like this, the... The same with this one here. Actually this lot goes all the way around... Batzli: Okay but, if you draw the line straight from the house to the north, you get that small pie shape. Shouldn't the actual line then be, so there's an area of overlap on that particular case. Aanenson: Yeah. What it does is split the difference between the overlap. ' Batzli: Yeah but it doesn't look like you split it at all in that case. Aanenson: I didn't show... Batzli: What I'm saying is that particular lot, if this is the result, that particular lot is getting the raw deal compared to the guy to the 1 north. Aanenson: Yeah. Batzli: Well, it looks to me like those, if this is what happens, then I don't like it. If the dock setback is a little bit less of an angle, then I agree with what you're doing. 1 Aanenson: See this... ' Batzli: I know. I'm just saying, this doesn't go far enough if that's the result. Because if the guy to the north can put his boat closer than he should to the person to the south from just a fairness aspect. We haven't gone far enough then. ' Aanenson: Yeah, there are a few instances. I tried to find some that have real anomolies on the lake. There are a few instances that are even ' more severe than that. Where people have very narrow frontages and they're in a...or something like that. Batzli: Okay. Jeff Kvichang: You still can't block access. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 71 Aanenson: No, you still can't block access. ' Batzli: You can make it very uncomfortable. Aanenson: And enjoying the other person's right when they're using their' beach property and swimming and you're cutting back and forth to get to your dock. ' Batzli: My father's situation, which has absolutely nothing to do with this because he's in Tonka Bay. In years when the water is up they put a sailboat with a big keel so that you have to kind of wind your way betweell his dock and the sailboat. And so you just pray for water that year. Anyway, this is a public hearing. Would you like to comment on this? Jeff Kvichang: Just pass it. It makes sense to me. ' Batzli: He stayed the whole time to say pass it. It makes sense to me. This is a dedicated Chanhassen resident. Can we have your name for the record. Jeff Kvichang: Jeff Kvichang, 6681 Horseshoe Curve. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? (Ladd Conrad had left the meeting at this point and was not present for 1 the voting on the remaining items.) Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Diane, any comments? Harberts: No. Batzli: Okay, let's do it. Our one public comment, let's pass it. And' how many negative phone calls did you receive? Aanenson: No, I just had a lot of questions and interpretting it and the" wanted a crack at it because they want to make sure that they're in compliance in the summer. Batzli: Okay, do I have a motion? ' Scott: I move that we close. Batzli: How about a motion that we recommend approval of the dock setbac zoning ordinance amendment in accordance with the staff report dated March 8, 1993. 1 Scott: I'll move. Mancino: I'll second. ' Batzli: Any discussion? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 72 Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 20 -1, 6 -1 and 6 -22 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning dock setbacks as presented by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 3, 1993 as submitted. Scott moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 a.m.. 1 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director 1 Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1